Idiocy with the Police

[Calanen]

Dude... can't you see the logic in making someone drive a 2 ton weapon even faster is a really bad idea? the police officers are not directly responsible but they are AS responsible. Their job is to save lives. Not to contribute to a death toll

The cops dont *make* these guys do anything. They choose to break the law. Them. The cops aren't behind the wheel. If you are told to pullover, then you do. If you choose to drive like an idiot and getaway, and you die, no1 to blame but yourself. And its ridiculous to say that criminals have some form of constitutional right to a safe exit from a crimescene, at their discretion.....

The cops need to pursue criminals and offenders, as it stated in the old Crimes Act (probly still does but I will need to check) 'wherever they may go.'

 

[CptStern]

So would it be worth it if you were a suspect in a home invasion/sexual assault and I chased you?

not likely as I only have a 10 % chance of being a criminal:

"research found that almost 90 per cent of chases began after a routine traffic offence."

Stern, a normal person doesn't just run from the cops for committing a traffic offense. There have been lots of cases where a criminal causes a traffic offense

"research found that almost 90 per cent of chases began after a routine traffic offence."

Who is to say that more people will not be killed if these guys are let go instead of stopped?

"research found that almost 90 per cent of chases began after a routine traffic offence."

 

[gh0st]

"research found that almost 90 per cent of chases began after a routine traffic offence."

So what is it you propose to fix the problem? Not arresting people for breaking the law? People are going to get ticketed for breaking the law, if they run, then they will be chased and put into jail. We have the freedom of choice, if they blow it, they pay for it.

 

[bliink]

Many in the public arena on the left, said that the Police executed these criminals, inflicting a sentence of death on them. In addition, there have been calls to stop police 'sentencing people to death' for stealing a car.

I would hardly call the opposition party "the left"... they're about the same as the elected government.

 

[GhostFox]

not likely as I only have a 10 % chance of being a criminal:

"research found that almost 90 per cent of chases began after a routine traffic offence."

Stern, I think the point you are missing is that that is not usually the only offense. They are saying that 90% started after the guy ran a red light or whatever. It does not mean that he isn't running because he has a body in his trunk. All it means is that he was not being actively pursued by the police before the chase.

I think it is more then fair to say that most of the people that run have a reason to run. Whether it is drugs/alcohol, evidence of other crimes, etc. these are not usually people whose only offense is speeding. They are usually running because they know they will go to jail if they are caught.

 

[Calanen]

I would hardly call the opposition party "the left"... they're about the same as the elected government.

Please post where the Liberal party has said stuff about these people were being executed or criticised the police chasing these guys?

 

[bliink]

Please post where the Liberal party has said stuff about these people were being executed or criticised the police chasing these guys?

Well, why would they? They're the government... Of course the opposition is going to be against the incident because thats their job.. its not like we really have "left" and "right" here in Aus like the US does anyway.
And just because the "left" is saying it doesnt mean the reason its said is because they're "left"

Difference between causation and association you know..

 

[Calanen]

Stern - we have explained how people who have done other things come to the attention of the police, are then involved in a chase.

90% of police chases commencing after a routine traffice offence does NOT mean that 90% of police chase offenders that had come to the attentiong of the police because they were violating the traffic code, had committed only a routine traffice offence. It is intellectually dishonest to try and say one is the other. It is not.

So - if your research shows - that 90% of all of those involved in police chases:

1) Had committed no other crime except a routine traffice violation;

2) Were not committing any other crimes, at or before, the traffic violation;

3) were not wanted on outstanding warrants;

Then you may have a point.

But I am sure, thats not what the research found.

So my point stands. How many people would these people be likely to kill rob or injure if they are let go by the police?

And dont just post 90% of them only committed a traffice offence. Because thats wrong. 90% of them CAME TO THE ATTENTION OF THE POLICE ON THE ROAD BECAUSE THEY COMMITTED A TRAFFIC OFFENCE - not that they had committed, no other crime.

 

[CptStern]

yes but your evidence doesnt point the other way either ..maybe I have a hot new car and I want to see if I can get away, maybe I'm a minority and I'm afraid what might happen cuz I have roach in the ashtray or a gun in the trunk, ...hey maybe I just want to be on Cops

the fact is that you dont know either way

 

[Calanen]

I'm confused now, lets walk through this....

Posted by Bliink:

I would hardly call the opposition party "the left"... they're about the same as the elected government.

Ok. In New South Wales, the opposition party is the Liberal Party. They are not the left, this is correct. But the Liberal Party has, to my knowledge, only criticised the government, the Labor Party for tip-towing around these guys and stuffing up the investigation. Not for being involved in the chase.

So you say, the opposition party is hardly the left....yes, agreed. But they were not ever part of the growing chorus of do-gooder lefties saying the outrageous things about the police.

Originally Posted by Calanen

Please post where the Liberal party has said stuff about these people were being executed or criticised the police chasing these guys?

This is me asking, backup what you say about the opposition party, the Liberal Party, being part of the chorus of loopy lefties saying things about carchases being bad,

Then you say:

Well, why would they? They're the government... Of course the opposition is going to be against the incident because thats their job.. its not like we really have "left" and "right" here in Aus like the US does anyway.

I'm not following. The Liberal Party is not in government, it is in opposition in New South Wales which I thought was your point, ie, don't say that the left has been saying these things when it was the Liberal Party who was as well. Then you say, the above, which has just left me confused. Of course they will be critical you say, because they are the opposition which is their job. Yes - but what were the criticisms? Not criticism of giving chase, but of going softly softly on 4 days of riots, and letting the sole living offender get away from the cops for 'operational reasons.' He's still on the run btw, after being on television participating in the riots.

And just because the "left" is saying it doesnt mean the reason its said is because they're "left"

Difference between causation and association you know..

I dont know why they say a lot of things. Do they say it because they are left? Or do they say it because they did not spank their inner moppet enough in group therapy sessions? I do not know. All I know, is that the left says this sort of stuff, a lot. And it was the Left who was saying it, not the Liberal Party - unless you post here otherwise. And I will condemn them as well, or whoever said it. Ill tell them at the next Liberal Party conference when I see them that I think there points are stupid.

Make no mistake we do have Left and Right in Australia, and in some ways, more so than the USA. The Labor Party in Australia is more a 'Union Party', than the Democractic Party is.

 

[Hapless]

yes but your evidence doesnt point the other way either ..maybe I have a hot new car and I want to see if I can get away, maybe I'm a minority and I'm afraid what might happen cuz I have roach in the ashtray or a gun in the trunk, ...hey maybe I just want to be on Cops

the fact is that you dont know either way

I haven't done any studies, but I have actually been in numeorus pursuits. Roughly 90% of the pursuits I have been involved in started with a traffic offense. Roughly 99% of the people involved in those pursuits had done something other than commit a minor traffic violation. People don't run for no reason. The "minority," thing is a bullshit cop-out (no pun intended.) Anybody who has been in the system or had a lot of contact with the police knows that a roach in the ashtray will more than likely get you a notice to appear in court. In my state, under 2.5 grams is a class C misdemeanor. That's just one step above a minor traffic offense. And Cops doesn't film in my state because of our twisted and very strict eavesdropping laws. Also, if you have a gun in the trunk, THAT'S WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE!! It is legal to carry a gun in your vehicle so long as the ammo is kept separate from the gun, and the gun is encased. Furthermore, I can't search your trunk unless you give me permission or I have some other probable cause. More than likely it won't be found on a so-called "routine traffic stop." Any two-bit hoodlum knows that, and will likely loudly state that they know it.

You read your studies, I actually have experience.

 

[bliink]

Make no mistake we do have Left and Right in Australia, and in some ways, more so than the USA. The Labor Party in Australia is more a 'Union Party', than the Democractic Party is.

Heh.. maybe when keating was PM, but Labor hardly has anything to do with its socialist roots these days, the democratic party is about to fold too anyway.

But of course the liberal party doesn't say anything; its their government that would be at fault.
(unless they tried to blame state govt. but they'd just turn around and blame the federal govt. again for lack of funding or any number of other reasons)

EDIT: and when I said "opposition", I was referring to Federal govt. not state, sorry

 

[Kebean PFC]

My dads friend is a (currently undercover) California Highway Patrolman, and boy, Stern, you should listen to him. You just keep post that 90% BS and are trying to get it to talk for you. It doesn't. What you need to do is read between the lines. You are a good debater becuase you only state part of the facts.

The police need to chase down vehicle running from them. If you do, then you are really stupid. BTW in California you can store a weapon in the car (anywhere in the car) if it is unloaded, and in a locked case.

Even when my mom was in labour in the car with my brother, my dad pulled over for the cop. Once he saw what was happening, he let us go, but whew, it was a close one. If we would have kept going, i say we should have been stopped by the police. You let one go, then they all ask, why not me? And that leads to the racial stuff which i don't want to get into.

 

[Calanen]

yes but your evidence doesnt point the other way either ..maybe I have a hot new car and I want to see if I can get away, maybe I'm a minority and I'm afraid what might happen cuz I have roach in the ashtray or a gun in the trunk, ...hey maybe I just want to be on Cops

the fact is that you dont know either way

I would like to help us bother to know 'either way'.

Heres a report on Police Pursuits in Australia you may wish to consider:

http://www.cmc.qld.gov.au/library/CMCWEBSITE/PolicePursuits.pdf

As it is in PDF form, I cant really cut and paste from it. But, I can draw you to some highlights:

One good one is that over 76% of driver being pursued who were tested (not everyone is tested for whatever reason, probably the report goes into why but I have only flipped through it - bad record keeping on behalf of the police also seems to take place) has alcohol in their blood, and 64% of those exceeded the legal limit.

At page 10, you see that the initial reason for coming to the attention of the police, 37% is for a traffic offence. Lots of other reasons, like no number plate, or having a stolen vehicle (21%)... Far cry from 90% tho....the figure that Mr Stern likes to post, over, and over again.

For MCP data, of those who were injured in the chase, when there were injuries, 9% were innocent third parties, and 14% were police. I suspect, but I am not sure that the report goes into this detail, that the majority of third parties injured were injured by the offender and not the police. But there would not doubt be cases where the third party was hit by the police as well.

77 per cent of those injured were either the driver or the passenger of the pursued vehicle. But cry me a river for them.

The report is a good read - it is critical of the pursuit policy application in some instances. And also, it gives some faily in depth statistics on police pursuit.

But what it shows, clearly, Mr Stern, is NOT that, as you initially sought to imply, that 90% of the people involved in police pursuits were only traffic offenders. Its more around the 34% mark, ie, but that is as a result of the charge rate - they may have been involved in other crimes, but could not be charged as easily as they could for the police pursuit crimes (drive dangerously, speeding, driving occassioning death) then they could be.

On the flipside, is they quote from a study saying that the majority of those who run from the police were scared of the consequences of minor offenses, and were not more dangerous criminals. In addition, they say they would drive sensibly if the police stopped chasing them. But who knows? Its just an opinion given by them. Certainly, the majority of people come to the attention of the police to initiate the chase, because of a traffic offence ie they flout the traffic laws? Why would they suddenly begin to respect them if the police let them go?

My view is - that the police must chase the criminal, wherever he may go. Because once they know, they will not be chased, OR that if they drive like idiots, that the police will discontinue, its all over. I am all for making police chases more effective, and to be able to stop a car in a better way, that risks as little amount of lives or property damage as possible. But make no mistake, criminals must be pursued and they must be stopped.

 

[CptStern]

One good one is that over 76% of driver being pursued who were tested (not everyone is tested for whatever reason, probably the report goes into why but I have only flipped through it - bad record keeping on behalf of the police also seems to take place) has alcohol in their blood, and 64% of those exceeded the legal limit.

seems to me that chasing a drunk is just asking for trouble

On the flipside, is they quote from a study saying that the majority of those who run from the police were scared of the consequences of minor offenses, and were not more dangerous criminals.

...and back to my point

 

[KoreBolteR]

but shall we keep those drunk maniacs driving? maybe they could kill dozens more innocents?

 

[Calanen]

On the flipside, is they quote from a study saying that the majority of those who run from the police were scared of the consequences of minor offenses,

Right - to be balanced I quoted from one of the studies they took into account. This is an American study. The report itself which cited it had its own figures about what those who were being chased were involved with.

You sure like the selective edit Stern. This is just one study, and not what this report concluded. But I included it, to be balanced. And then want to you say, thats all Calanen had to say case closed. Lets try and be a little balanced ok? Like quoting what I actually had to say about what the report actually said:

At page 10, you see that the initial reason for coming to the attention of the police, 37% is for a traffic offence. Lots of other reasons, like no number plate, or having a stolen vehicle (21%)... Far cry from 90% tho....the figure that Mr Stern likes to post, over, and over again.

 

[Razor]

seems to me that chasing a drunk is just asking for trouble



...and back to my point

Ok Stern, give you the benefit of the doubt.

You're a policeman, you are in a high powered car, have a police helicopter 5 minutes away if need be, and backup 5 minutes away from other cars as well. You've just seen 4 huge guys in a bmw speed through a red light, almost knocking over a nice young lady with a push chair. In your world, you would wave at them cheerily, whilst the mother looks at you with a mortified look on her face to say "aren't you going to chase after them?" "oh no ma'am, chasing after bad guys who have just commited a minor traffic violation might stand a very small chance of one of the bad guys getting hurt, goodbye" and you drive off. What a way to earn your police paycheck.

Or, what if you're car is stolen, and every policeman waves him through as he speeds past doing 90 in a 30mph residential zone, later to find that your car had been used in a murder, burned out and rolled into a ditch. Would you smile politely and say "wow, those police that waved the murderer through definately did a great job of not chasing him, i feel happy and contented that the murderer or any possible passerbys were not injured during the chase".


I think you need to start getting your facts straight and talk to a highway patrolman or a policeman and ask them instead of sprouting off selected statistics in here.

 

[Hapless]

Ok Stern, give you the benefit of the doubt.

You're a policeman, you are in a high powered car, have a police helicopter 5 minutes away if need be, and backup 5 minutes away from other cars as well. You've just seen 4 huge guys in a bmw speed through a red light, almost knocking over a nice young lady with a push chair. In your world, you would wave at them cheerily, whilst the mother looks at you with a mortified look on her face to say "aren't you going to chase after them?" "oh no ma'am, chasing after bad guys who have just commited a minor traffic violation might stand a very small chance of one of the bad guys getting hurt, goodbye" and you drive off. What a way to earn your police paycheck.

Or, what if you're car is stolen, and every policeman waves him through as he speeds past doing 90 in a 30mph residential zone, later to find that your car had been used in a murder, burned out and rolled into a ditch. Would you smile politely and say "wow, those police that waved the murderer through definately did a great job of not chasing him, i feel happy and contented that the murderer or any possible passerbys were not injured during the chase".


I think you need to start getting your facts straight and talk to a highway patrolman or a policeman and ask them instead of sprouting off selected statistics in here.

You are assuming Stern would ever be a police officer. To him, that would be as bad as being a Bush supporter. :E

 

[Calanen]

You are assuming Stern would ever be a police officer. To him, that would be as bad as being a Bush supporter.

He might want to be a police officer in the Workers Paradise of North Korea - were the workers and the people are treated with justice and fairness, which is hidden from the rest of the world by the lies of the Bush administration and other rightest media like Fox.

But certainly you are right, not in the evil American Empire.

 

[CptStern]

He might want to be a police officer in the Workers Paradise of North Korea - were the workers and the people are treated with justice and fairness, which is hidden from the rest of the world by the lies of the Bush administration and other rightest media like Fox.

But certainly you are right, not in the evil American Empire.

:upstare: there you go with the over-simplistic generalizations again

I dont support US foreign policy so i MUST be a hippie, commie, pinko, anarchist anti-american malcontent ...oh Calanen, it' almost as if I've known you for years you know me so well :dozey:

 

[Razor]

He might want to be a police officer in the Workers Paradise of North Korea - were the workers and the people are treated with justice and fairness, which is hidden from the rest of the world by the lies of the Bush administration and other rightest media like Fox.

But certainly you are right, not in the evil American Empire.

Keep it sensible.

 

[A True Canadian]

I was flipping through TV yesterday and I came to REAL TV (A show centered around police chases and disaster situations). One of the clips started out with four police cars chasing this one van around downtown (forgot which American city). They had recieved a tip that the car may have been stolen. They were runnning red lights and going well above the speed limit (fortunately it was about 9 at night, so there wasn't much traffic). The officers finally corner him on the sidewalk of a deadend street, get out and collectively point their weapons at the accused driver in the car (as is police procedure). All of them yelling and bellowing at him to step out of the car and get on the ground.

The accused man doesn't budge.

Officers approach the car and one of them attempts to smash the windshield to get in (they deduced the accused man didn't have any firearms on him).

The glass doesn't shatter. The accused man doesn't even move an inch.

Finally one of the officers is able to bust the glass with his nightstick. Two officers try to pull the man out of the car, but he is still strapped in by his seatbelt. Officers get him free, throw the accused man on the pavement and put him in handcuffs.

It turns out that in the end, the guy driving the van was the owner of the vehicle the whole time. The cops weren't sure why the guy tried to escape them. I think the man was in fear. One police car to pull you over and you think it may be for car trouble or a simle law violation. But in this case there were four cars blistering behind him with sirens on. This would scare the crap out of anyone. You can even tell that they guy was paralyzed with fear once he got caught in the deadend, because he didn't even flinch the whole time the cops were trying to get him out of the van.

I can see where people like Stern are coming from. This whole chase may have been avoided if the situation hadn't been magnifyed by having not one, not two, or three, but four patrol cars zooming after this guy (who was the owner anyway ).

 

[Razor]

I was flipping through TV yesterday and I came to REAL TV (A show centered around police chases and disaster situations). One of the clips started out with four police cars chasing this one van around downtown (forgot which American city). They had recieved a tip that the car may have been stolen. They were runnning red lights and going well above the speed limit (fortunately it was about 9 at night, so there wasn't much traffic). The officers finally corner him on the sidewalk of a deadend street, get out and collectively point their weapons at the accused driver in the car (as is police procedure). All of them yelling and bellowing at him to step out of the car and get on the ground.

The accused man doesn't budge.

Officers approach the car and one of them attempts to smash the windshield to get in (they deduced the accused man didn't have any firearms on him).

The glass doesn't shatter. The accused man doesn't even move an inch.

Finally one of the officers is able to bust the glass with his nightstick. Two officers try to pull the man out of the car, but he is still strapped in by his seatbelt. Officers get him free, throw the accused man on the pavement and put him in handcuffs.

It turns out that in the end, the guy driving the van was the owner of the vehicle the whole time. The cops weren't sure why the guy tried to escape them. I think the man was in fear. One police car to pull you over and you think it may be for car trouble or a simle law violation. But in this case there were four cars blistering behind him with sirens on. This would scare the crap out of anyone. You can even tell that they guy was paralyzed with fear once he got caught in the deadend, because he didn't even flinch the whole time the cops were trying to get him out of the van.

I can see where people like Stern are coming from. This whole chase may have been avoided if the situation hadn't been magnifyed by having not one, not two, or three, but four patrol cars zooming after this guy (who was the owner anyway ).

It is his own fault for not stopping.

 

[A True Canadian]

It is his own fault for not stopping.

Of course it is. But isn't four police cars a little excessive? The more cars you have driving over the speedlimit, the greater the chance of an accident.

 

[GhostFox]

It is his own fault for not stopping.

If he had shot the police officer because he was scared, would that have been justified as well?

A crime is a crime. He is welcome to bring up the fact that he ran because he was scared at his sentencing and ask for leaniency.

However I do agree that chases can be done on a case by case basis. As long as the person is not running at high speeds or in a dangerous manner, I think the police can just follow them until they stop or it is safe to stop them.

If the person is running in a dangerous manner, it is the responsibillity of the police to stop the vehicle as soon as possible, using any means necesscary. As soon as you speed away from the police you are a criminal weilding a 2-ton weapon, and the police should stop you anyway they can while limiting the danger to others.

 

[bliink]

If the person is running in a dangerous manner, it is the responsibillity of the police to stop the vehicle as soon as possible, using any means necesscary. As soon as you speed away from the police you are a criminal weilding a 2-ton weapon, and the police should stop you anyway they can while limiting the danger to others.

Police do discontinue chases that get too dangerous though, I've seen them stopped when a speeding maniac enters a residential area when the schools are emptying etc

 

[GhostFox]

Police do discontinue chases that get too dangerous though, I've seen them stopped when a speeding maniac enters a residential area when the schools are emptying etc

Exactly. I am saying that that seems to be the more reasonable way to go, as opposed to a blanket no chase law.

 

[RakuraiTenjin]

This is kind of similar in some aspects to that recent case in California.

Police tried to pull over a driver over a violation, took off. Finally stopped, cops got out and said get out of the car, etc. The driver blew into reverse slamming into the cop car, trying to run them over, they fired shots and it killed the driver. Necessary action. Was a 13 year old but that had no way to be told by the cops.

Needless to say, bleeding hearts were furious over the police self defense.



Edit: Oh I just remembered an incident a couple months ago in this town too.

Some idiot from my school got pulled over by the Circle K for a broken tail light. He had drugs in his car and stuff, but the cop had no idea and was just writing a fix-it notice. The idiot pulled out a gun and shot the cop in the shoulder as he came back, but the cop didn't go down and he shot the idiot 3 times.
Everyone sensible was saying "Obviously his own fault, hope the officer is okay." but his gangbanger buddies were constantly going on about "He was just hit in the shoulder damn he should've just warning shot him non fatally or ran away not enough to kill him"

Some people need to be hit in the face with a shovel.

 

[Edcrab]

Oh, and I'm violent for advocating the death penalty for crass stupidity? You shovel-weilding madman!

How so many people can even dream of blaming law enforcement for some of these situations- granted, they need to moderate their techniques (I happen to agree with GhostFox, for example) but the bottom line is that these tragedies are the result of law-breakers will no regard for human safety. The criminal element is to blame- and possibly those wannabe "liberals" with all the political sense of a sedated hamster.

As much as I can understand a point of view- say the man who was terrified, or needed to use the facilities, or was just deaf to the sirens (and coincidently sped up)- it doesn't mean I condone their failure to comply with the authorities. Accidents will happen, and encouraging police to ignore offences isn't the right way to go.

 

[bliink]

Exactly. I am saying that that seems to be the more reasonable way to go, as opposed to a blanket no chase law.

The true argument is where the line should be drawn, and if its possible to have a danger yardstick.

 

[Calanen]

There are lots of ways to stop cars. Spike strips work really well. I have seen also gadgets wear a harpoon is fired into the car to make it stop, and reel it in almost. Ive heard that this can be dangerous tho if the other car does something wacky and sends it into a spin tho.

Eventually all cars will be factory fitted with remote kill switchs that can be flipped by pursuing police so u just grind to a halt. Remember I said this in 20-30 years from now. Small amount of additional cost to a manufacturer, very small and a big assist for the government.

Of course, criminals will re-wire around this, or try to if possible.

But whatever is done - I much prefer that something is, than, go for it guys. If you ever feel like surrendering when you are done, we are here for ya!.

And sometimes a chase has to be discontinued. No way round that. And sometimes people get away. But I would prefer that most of the time we at least try to get them

Stern:

I dont support US foreign policy so i MUST be a hippie, commie, pinko, anarchist anti-american malcontent ...oh Calanen, it' almost as if I've known you for years you know me so well

My comments were tongue in cheek to be sure for entertainment value. But I think you take on a lot more of the left agenda, and have shown you do, than are being just the nuetral critic of US foreign policy, or rather Republican US foreign policy. And what do you mean we don't know each other, you still on for the 75 years of Freedom Through Stalinism Celebration BBQ next month? I think its your turn to bring the Tofu fryer........(with oils made from wholly natural canola plants that were uprooted in their sleep when they weren't looking so they felt no pain....)

Speaking of which and the USA not supporting communists, *sometimes* it happens, have a look at this, in Iran - they seem to have backed the communist students movement against the current Religious dudes:

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/EF21Ak03.html

Maybe you'll be a convert to US foreign policy now Stern?

Razor:

Keep it sensible.

Thats a big ask of me - but I'll try. I'm known in most circles as being a bit of a character.

 

[falconwind]

Thank god that's only in Australia... America stays safe another day

 

[jondy]

The true argument is where the line should be drawn, and if its possible to have a danger yardstick.

Yup.

My comments were tongue in cheek to be sure for entertainment value. But I think you take on a lot more of the left agenda, and have shown you do, than are being just the nuetral critic of US foreign policy, or rather Republican US foreign policy. And what do you mean we don't know each other, you still on for the 75 years of Freedom Through Stalinism Celebration BBQ next month? I think its your turn to bring the Tofu fryer........(with oils made from wholly natural canola plants that were uprooted in their sleep when they weren't looking so they felt no pain....)

Seriously, Calalen, you just........aren't funny :E

 

[Razor]

Exactly. I am saying that that seems to be the more reasonable way to go, as opposed to a blanket no chase law.

I completely agree .

In my opinion, the people whining about police brutality when they're just trying to defend themselves are almost as bad as the criminals.

 

[Calanen]

Seriously, Calalen, you just........aren't funny

Says you - don't come to my shows then.

 

[K e r b e r o s]

you're still not addressing that most of the chases began with a traffic offense ...a traffic offense IMHO isnt grounds for putting people's lives at risk

Then maybe the asshole whose speeding from the cops should slow down, give-up, and think about his crimes.

 

[Sprafa]

I say we install automated "failsafe" switches in all cars. If you commit a crime, they get triggered...

 

[K e r b e r o s]

I like that.

 

[Calanen]

you're still not addressing that most of the chases began with a traffic offense ...a traffic offense IMHO isnt grounds for putting people's lives at risk

I did address this repeatedly, with facts, figures and reports.....