Two Die in High Speed Chase

So I guess we should just go after "robbers", not little 150 dollar thefts?

 

We should probably save the high speed chases for violent criminals. Seems the risk is just too high considering the reward of catching someone for petty crimes.

 

I don't get it. The po-po's see people running from a gas station so they take it upon themselves to make a chase out of it instead of simply getting the car details and making sure no one was dead or injured at the gas station. Poor judgement if you ask me.

 

I think it is really sad that we (and by we I really mean most of you) shift the blame from the fleeing criminals to the cops. Accidents like this would not happen if people would pull over once the cops are after them. Now they will suffer much more than they would have for stealing some smokes, and they will have to live with the deaths of two people on their souls. I hate it when the criminals are veiwed in a better light than the cops.

 

Wasn't the cops fault. They should pursue any action that is a crime. In hindsight it looks bad, but I think the blame lies in the thieves who stole the cigarettes. The police were just doing their jobs.

 

the problem of death and injuries from high-speed police chases isn't something I've really looked into, but it does seem a legitimate problem that should be addressed. I respect that the police officers were doing their job, and I don't blame them at all, but it does seem that there should be greater measures taken to minimize the risk such chases create. I guess as the guy said it's a judgement call the police officers have to make, but it's still too bad. Maybe we can come up with new technological applications to make apprehension safer for everyone.

 

Guys, you are missing one key thing here. The lives of innocent people were put in jeopardy over some fuggin cigarettes!!! Who cares if some thugs get away with some smokes?!! I don't. I'd rather the citizens were safe than put in danger over some Camels.

I agree that these idiots(the theives) should have given up when they knew that they were busted, but it doesn't always happen that way. The police obviously saw what the perpetrators looked like and saw their car. They could have tracked them down by other means.

Now, if these were murderers on the run, that would be another story, but a simple theft is no reason to put your life or mine in danger.

 

Hmmm...

Two people<Packs of cigarettes?

 

The cops didn't know that they weren't murderers though. Should they have just let the suspects get away while going in to make sure they didn't kill the clerk. Then you could have a pack of dangerous murderers on the loose. I have no problem with cops chasing criminals, whatever their crimes might be.

 

I don't think people are saying that the criminals don't have blame in this, I think people are saying that the cops share some of the blame. The police have a nasty habit of taking no accountabilty when they should.

 

<b>"The cops didn't know that they weren't murderers though. Should they have just let the suspects get away while going in to make sure they didn't kill the clerk. Then you could have a pack of dangerous murderers on the loose. I have no problem with cops chasing criminals, whatever their crimes might be.</b>

<b>RR</b>: Well then what made the cops suspicious? They must have had some reason to be seeking these crooks. It seems like most high-speed chases are pretty unnecessary. We have too much technology to be relying on the combustion engine so much.

 

I think that even many police departments in some capacity have as much as admited that there are too many police chases. I don't think that anyone so much 'blames' the officers as suggests that the thought processes need to be changed.

The idea is that they are so immersed in the whole 'Butch Cassidy' type of police thinking that they don't stop to rely on the newer, more cerebrial aspects of their abilities. Things like helecopters, electronic motor zapping gadgets, and others are all there to help reduce the need for these things.

If this was a 1 in a million fluke, I think most people would be able to live with it. The problem is that regularly, what starts off as a misdemeanor results in a loss of innocent human life. If, for instance, some tactic that police used to approach people they'd pulled over resulted in suspects freaking out and killing people in 1 of 100 cases, they'd change the way they approached motorists. This, despite emotional pleas to the contrary, is no different.

You shouldn't worry about blaming the officers, somuch, as you should look at this as more evidence that police departments need to look at changing their ways.

BTW Police, as much as I hate/am scared of 90%+ of the cops I've met, they have the single crappiest job in the world. I'm sure if I had the job I'd end up an even bigger @ss/psychopath. And, while I think that police should be more accountable, I also feel that they should be treated much more leaniently when it comes to questions of degree (not corruption stuff).

In otherwords, I really feel that 'assault' by a cop who uses too much force is way different than 'assault' by some guy who has no business using force in the first place. I think that quite a bit of the problem is that these guys see themselves as being held to a somewhat arbitrary, unrealistic standard by the people they are protecting, and as such adopt a 'siege mentality'.

 

You guys are capping on the cops too much in this instance. They didn't run into anyone. Just doing their job. Who's to say that the crooks wouldn't have ran into those people or someone else anyway?

 

So this is the fault of the police, not the robbers?

 

Ok, lets put it this way. Say the cops saw a couple of guys running away and pulled out a bunch of TOW's and started fireing at them indescriminately and killed the bad guys as well as 20 or thirty others.

Clearly, the fault for running away lies with the bad guys, but the cops didn't do what was in the best intrest of the public, excluding the emotional satisfaction of getting the bad guys. Same here.

 

Ahhh....if we're going to get hypothetical here, let's just say that the guys running away were toting suitcase nukes. What's in the best interest of the public now? See, it all depends on the situation, doesn't it?
And if your a police officer the details of the situation are usually sketchy at best and at times, you have little time to discern the complete story before you must act.

 

First off, it would be really, really stupid to fire a gun at someone toting a nuke (Radiation contamination, anyone?). Second, the police have to deal with a wide variety of situations but when someone is fleeing a ****ing convenience store, they usually don't have a nuke. Use a better counter-hypothesis.

 

1. Actually it wouldn't be stupid to fire a gun at someone toting a nuke....think about it. Even if you managed to release a portion of the plutonium, that's still going to be a hell of a lot less contamination than if the bomb was detonated.

2. Of course someone running from a convience store doesn't carry a nuke any more than the cops carry TOW's. That was in response to a previous post...one apparently you failed to see or understand.

3. Maybe you should completely read the post and comprehend it, before you decide to critique my "counter-hypothesis"

 

If you don't understand my point by this point, here it is: The danger of the chase should be weighed against the potential gains. A majority of police organisations agree that the current 'balance' as it is practiced by officers needs to be rethought.

The danger of the police chace should only be incurred in cases where the bad guy poses an immediate danger to the public equal to or greater than that of the police chase on average. Of course there will be times when the result doesn't match up with the averages.

I appreciate that many will dissagree with what constitutes 'excessive danger', but I stand by the fact that most involved, knowledgable observers agree that currently, there are too many chase situations.