Personally, I think the only reason a cruiser should chase anyone is to give the air unit time to get there. Then the cruiser should back off and let units in front of the chase set up roadblocks.Tim-in-TX said:**Sorry for the soapbox rant. I just have a problem with weak policies regarding pursuit. If you don't know why someone is running, then I can see backing off a little. But this guy was an ARMED ROBBER who SHOT AT AN OFFICER. There is little-to-no excuse for backing off a pursuit such as that. There I go ranting again! Sorry guys.
Agreed. (Excuse my foray into Texas, ya'll)RenMan51 said:Personally, I think the only reason a cruiser should chase anyone is to give the air unit time to get there. Then the cruiser should back off and let units in front of the chase set up roadblocks.
Welcome Jay. Funny you should mention the helicopter armament. I'm waiting for someone to deploy spikes via chopper. Bombs away!Jay said:Agreed. (Excuse my foray into Texas, ya'll)
Hi Freq-girl; what are the stats on that?FreqGirl said:The statistics in the after action reports around the country are starting to prove that the suspects do NOT slow down after the police disengage their cars and let the helicopters follow them.
As Jay points out ... most drivers don't see the lights and sirens until the emergency vehicle is right on top of them. By that time, the pursuee has already blown by. One vehicle passing through an area at high speed is bad. Adding one or two more - no matter how skilled the drivers - is worse.What it does open you to is liability if the car goes on and hits someone. Then the question is why did you NOT have a car there to warn the coming traffic, with all of it's lights and sirens, that this guy was a hazard that you knew about.
I appreciate your eagerness. Give the cop on the street the ability to actually DO something. I have to respond with that answer that everyone hates ... "it depends on the situation." You take risks and sometimes you loose. Going back to the school zone example - the spin-out from the PIT could have just as easily resulted in a vehicle hitting some one as some thing.So what is better..a shortly delayed warning or no warning at all?
No warning at all, because a "shortly delayed warning" is pointless. It'd be like putting the horns and whistles on the trailing end of a train instead of the head end. What good is alerting people to a danger that's already past?FreqGirl said:So what is better..a shortly delayed warning or no warning at all?
I dispute your claim that all pursuees continue regardless of whether or not they are being followed on the ground. I have seen exactly the opposite in the city in which I live now. It obtained a police helicopter and changed its policies years ago, after a member trying to lay out a spike belt was struck and killed (quite gruesomely - there was more than one "yellow blanket" required) by a fleeing criminal. The police helicopter takes primary on every pursuit now, and invariably, the pursuits end with much less damage and, to date, zero loss of life (with the exception of one pursuee who died when he lost control of his vehicle). In fact, most offenders stop and give up when they realize the aircraft is in position. Granted, this is far from a "pursuit capital of the world" locale, and chases are infrequent, but the fact remains that reducing the number of cars speeding through streets and highways has drastically cut down on deaths, injuries, and property damage.FreqGirl said:You obviously know that they still run in the absence of police cars with the helicopter following, based on your post.
My opinion is that a person driving at grossly excessive speeds with no concern for other users of the road and/or the laws that govern the roads, is one of the most violent offenders out there.FreqGirl said:You obviously cannot shoot at a not actively violent offender.
First of all, I want to point out that I'm aware of how much these pursuit shows like World's Wildest Police Videos dumb down, over-exaggerate, and mis-interpret video and other recordings they show. They outright lie in many cases, such as claiming that the offender "tried to jump out of the car" in a particularly famous video where a car bouncing thru a ditch partially ejects the driver when the door pops open due to damage. I make this point because the earlier point, in my earlier post, about the school zone, was only ever mentioned by the narrator on the pursuit show. There's no way for the viewer to know if the officer in pursuit was actually thinking about the school zone, or saw what he thought was a good opportunity and took it, or just got frustrated and rammed the pursuee.FreqGirl said:It was better than racing through the school zone, however. Better an accident than a child fatality though, so maybe not a poor decision at all.
This seems incongruous with the rest of your argument. You advocate stopping the pursuit here, lest a child be injured; yet in the rest of your post, you call for ground pursuit to be maintained, to provide some kind of warning after the danger has already gone past.FreqGirl said:Swallow a child fatality on national television and that officer would have been crucified for not ending it earlier.
I'm thinking James Bond all of a sudden. And while it might seem a little too "sci-fi"-y for me to say so, if not a Vulcan cannon, we're getting close to the technology (IMO) where an aircraft might be able to disable a vehicle in other ways.. perhaps a focused EM pulse, some kind of sticky goo, etc. I saw a marking weapon being showcased on a sci-tech show recently that uses some kind of modified shotgun to 'tag' a car with a tracking device contained in an adhesive mix. Mark a car with that and everybody pulls back and waits for the ping on the computer screen to stop moving, and then surround and conquer.rfmobile said:Funny you should mention the helicopter armament. I'm waiting for someone to deploy spikes via chopper. Bombs away!