The high speed chase

[Ed62]

I know this is a controversial subject, and there probably isn't an easy answer.

Within the last week or so, the police were chasing a car-jacker. Two police cars collided, and one officer was killed, while the other wound up in the hospital. The car-jacker got away.

Two or three days ago, police saw a car come to a complete stop at an intersection that did not have a stop sign. They decided to follow the driver. According to police, the car was swerving all over the road, and when he came to an intersection with a stop sign, he ran it. A high-speed chase was now in effect. The driver crashed, hitting two cars, two telephone poles, and became airborn. The car landed on top of cars in a used car lot. The driver died the next morning in the hospital. Tests showed that he had more than three times the limit of alcohol in his system.

When I first saw this, I thought it was stupid to initiate a high-speed chase with a drunk. This would put others in even more danger than if he were allowed to drive at a lower rate of speed. Surely a car driven at high speed will do more damage than one driven slower. But then I thought that if it became policy not to chase drunks, it might be cause for a drunk driver to try to get away, knowing that he wouldn't be pursued. What are your thoughts on this? I don't think there's an easy answer.

Ed

[LCHIEN]

its a tough subject, here in Houston we have this debate frequently. Recently a stolen car being chased collided with a passenger vehicle killing a innocent mother.

the pros and cons:
do you let them get away, knowing that if they drive fast they can get away?
Do you arrest all wrong doers, esp. those who flee, they have something add'l to hide?
Is the toll on the innocent (uninvolved bystanders) and police worth the capture of the guilty?


I'm all for capturing and incarcerating every criminal, except when it injures or kills someone I know. How about that?

[HarmsWay]

This debate is happening in most police departments right now and there is no easy answer. You cannot have a policy that says you won't chase because criminals will always flee. About all you can do is train all officers on how to make the call of when to chase and when to let them go. I'd also increase the penalty for fleeing.

Bob

[ragswl4]

Let's see.

Don't chase them and they hit a school bus full of kids at a high rate of speed. Headlines: Police Avoid Confrontation with drunk driver and kids die.

Chase them. Headlines: Police Chase Drunk Driver who hits minivan and kills mother of three.

Police can't win no matter what they do. Arrest law breakers and we are safer. Don't arrest them and we have anarchy, sooner or later.

Sorry, can't have it both ways no matter how much it is discussed.

[germdoc]

Perfect solution would be to fire a dart at the car with a tiny GPS probe attached. Then police could track car and nab them when they stop.

[Hellrazor]

Perfect solution would be to fire a dart at the car with a tiny GPS probe attached. Then police could track car and nab them when they stop.

In a perfect world you could call the AirForce and have them airstrike the car

[HarmsWay]

Perfect solution would be to fire a dart at the car with a tiny GPS probe attached. Then police could track car and nab them when they stop.

I like that. What did they use in one of the Fast and Furious movies? It was a dart that messes with the car electronics.

Bob

[ragswl4]

Perfect solution would be to fire a dart at the car with a tiny GPS probe attached. Then police could track car and nab them when they stop.

Is there any risk that the driver will kill someone before he/she stops? I like the airstrike solution better.

I did see one device that could be put in autos where the police could cause the engine to quit with the press of a button. Didn't go anywhere because the consumer had to pay for it and would only be in new cars.

[JeffW]

This is something that we discuss and debate ll the time. Our policies are fairly strict, but you have to allow some discretion in the matter for the officers. many departments now put the decision on the supervisors, but they are usually not around to witness it. Many times I have heard a Sergeant call off a chase yet then have something tragic happen.

You always hope that the officers can use sound thinking and that he does not get caught up in the emotions. I can tell you in most cases, the more experienced the officer the better the outcome. I have never critized an officer for letting one get away. Personally, I have used up all my luck in chases, so I try not to get involved anymore.

Tough call anyway you look at it. These days I am more inclined to use caution and not assume some risks. Violent offenders are another ball of wax. They can run, but just get caught tired.

[Black wallnut]

Much better IMHO to allow for officier discretion in such matters as to when to stop pursuit. Departments that have "no chase" policies are not always saving lives, and may be increasing crime.

[LinuxRandal]

Perfect solution would be to fire a dart at the car with a tiny GPS probe attached. Then police could track car and nab them when they stop.

Then the lawyers get involved, as you must be able to positively identify the driver, NOT just the vehicle. (not even getting into twins).

The police departments around the country have been trying/testing EMP (electromagnetic pulse) stop sticks. These kill the cars computer/electronics, however they are still arguing the liability of such (loose power, loose power steering/brakes, etc).

I have a friend (former police officer) who is no longer a officer after being hit by a vehicle that was running. He laid out the stop stick, which the car swerved to avoid and hit him and knocked him over 20 feet in the air, over a fence and down into a used car lot onto a vehicle. He wasn't expected to make it, but beat the odds, although now he varies between the mentallity of a 15 year old, and a 22 year old.

On the other side of the coin (I know a lot of law enforcement and have some relations in the field), a local city has a no chase policy. A robber was chased off after being spotted around a jewlrey store. He ran out of the jurisdiction and the chase was off. A few miles away, Highway patrol spotted his vehicle, in front of another jewlrey store. A vehicle, foot and finally shootout occured in a very busy new commercial development (lot's of people around), initiated by the suspect taking pot shots at police. He lost, but put lots of others at risk. By what was found, he fully intended on leaving no witnesses.

Which way is right? There isn't one.

[cgallery]

My default would be pursuit but to give discretion to the officers directly involved to stop at any point.

[gerti]

Drunk driving is not punished hard enough here, and is tolerated by too many. That is a bad thing, and it is costing many lives. I wish they would do things like in Germany (random rod blocks with mandatory sobriety tests during 'drinking' holidays etc).

High-speed chases is another matter though. I could envision a number of strategies that would still lead to capture and be a lot less dangerous to all involved.

[LinuxRandal]

Drunk driving is not punished hard enough here, and is tolerated by too many. That is a bad thing, and it is costing many lives. I wish they would do things like in Germany (random rod blocks with mandatory sobriety tests during 'drinking' holidays etc).

High-speed chases is another matter though. I could envision a number of strategies that would still lead to capture and be a lot less dangerous to all involved.

There were a couple of interesting lawsuits locally, that I never heard what happened (I think they were both settled with NDA's).

One involved a high speed chase that went off road in Grandview. The officer followed, and hit a girl (teenager I believe), who came outside to hear what was all the noise.

The other, is/was against multiple parties, NFL, Chiefs, City of kansas City and I believe the state of Missouri. It involved a paralized person, who was hit after a football game let out, and how the cops just direct traffic out of there, do not check for DUI's and have a zone of not checking for DUI's within an area around the stadium after the game. How getting massively drunk (pregame parties) are promoted locally.

[Ed62]

Drunk driving is not punished hard enough here, and is tolerated by too many. That is a bad thing, and it is costing many lives. I wish they would do things like in Germany (random rod blocks with mandatory sobriety tests during 'drinking' holidays etc).

I'd go along with that.

I could envision a number of strategies that would still lead to capture and be a lot less dangerous to all involved.

I'd like to hear about some of those strategies.

Ed