O. L. T.

iTrader: (17)

Maybe this sheriff can move over to another county and fire a certain female cop that thinks she can taze inocent people for daring to talk back to her.

Good job on this sheriff, I like him already.

gengar

It's never so simple. Not only does abandoning high-speed pursuits encourage criminals to flee - already putting the public at risk - but lax enforcement of law also encourages crime in the first place, further putting the public at risk. There's always a balancing act here, implicitly.

mmarshall

Gengar has a good point. Doing away with high-speed chases may cause more harm than the chases themselves. Sometimes you simply have to choose the lesser of two evils.....as ALL thirteen of the officers agreed.

mmarshall

Fire her? If he messes with her, he may find his own a** on the ground. Tasers mean buisness.

Indio

iTrader: (1)

Never said it was simple, but in this case the cops knew who they were chasing so they could arrest him later, similar case happened here recently to people I knew, suspect had been identified but they chased him anyway, he t-boned an suv killing two innocent people, if it happens to someone you know I bet your viewpoint will change.

doug_999

And who says they (the dolts running) wouldn't have done the same thing IF they were or were not being chased?

As pointed out, your argument doesn't work in the long run. Set a policy of not chasing criminals and its like setting a policy of negotiating with terrorists, it just doesn't work.

vraa

iTrader: (2)

I just want to point out that there must be a reason for lax enforcement.

We are a nation of people, not a nation of laws. A nanny-state is something NO ONE wants or needs.

Besides, zero tolerance is stupid. There are situations where there is no right answer.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

vollandt

I understood the policy as “only chase when justified, as in violent crime involved.” So it’s worth risking civilians lives by chasing a murder suspect. The thought being that if you don’t catch him now, he may do more murders. Sounds reasonable to me.

But to risk lives only to catch a car thief? In case he steals more cars?

Faraaz23

Well, I know common sense suggests that 13 cops did it, so they must've been right. However, you also have to look at the law enforcement culture. Not providing backup to a fellow officer when asked is a huge violation of trust in a subculture where it is all but essential to be able to trust your colleagues to be there for you when you need them. The consequences of refusing to provide backup can be worse (by worse, I'm not talking about "official" disciplinary actions) than the 1 day suspensions some of them recieved. Perhaps the bulk of the blame should lay on the Sergeant that was supervising.

Plus, hot pursuit is one thing. But considering the amount of wrecks in this one chase, I would almost have to assume some of them were driving rather wreckless.

CK6Speed

iTrader: (1)

You may be right that if it actually happened to somene I know I may change my viewpoint, but I've always viewed it as the guy who was running from the cops and T-Boned the innocent driver to be the one at fault and then should also be charged with vehicular manslaughter.

Indio

iTrader: (1)

We can argue this both ways as there is no one answer that applies to all situations, so you have to use judgement along with the right to pursue and not get caught in an adrenaline rush, you can add all the additional charges you want but it won't bring back the innocent dead.

CK6Speed

iTrader: (1)

This is true. It wont bring back the dead. That is why I always side with law enforcement as long as they are within the law. I never side with the criminal because I always believe if the criminal didn't run, the police would never have to chace, and the accident would never happen. It will only get worst since ciminals are driving more aggressively in high speed pursuits because they know and hope the Police will stop the pursuit. Fleeing from the police in many cases today pays off.

In the case of this topic I don't agree with this Dukes of Hazard high speed chace and as soon as the cops found themselves starting to loose control of their own cars they should have called it of. But I don't agree with abandoning high speed car chaces in general. Where the line for that judement call is I don't know. The only way I see the problem being reduced is if you make feeing from the police a really heavy penalty if caught. I mean a long jail sentance that most people will think is over kill. You need to make the criminal think twice about running when if caught, his jail time for fleeing would be worst than what he is running for in the first place.

gengar

I agree with this as I have previously stated in this thread that since the suspect was identified, there was less reason to pursue. I was responding to your suggestion, which I quoted, that crime in general does not warrant pursuit.