Skip to main content

quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
aaahhh yes.. that's always the solution.. longer sentences.. bigger fines.. more effective ways to destroy somebody's life...

I have hard time with the way so many around here have allowed themselves to be programmed.


If there is any "life destroying" going on, the criminal is the one doing it. No one forces them to break the law. That is a choice they make for themselves.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I have a hard time with unrealistic leniency shown to common thugs and criminals, who endanger, rob, assault and kill law abiding citizens. For example, the thug and career criminal in Oakland, CA who killed four police officers while out of prison on parole.


This isn't Oakland Ca. Most of these under paid, under trained Barney Fife's wouldn't last a week out there.

The Law, Cops, fines, imprisonment isn't the answer to everything that isn't right.. the US has the highest percentage of incarcerated people in the world.. 1 out of every 100 Americans is locked down.. obviously something isn't working and I wonder how much money could be saved by completely re-evaluating and overhauling the system.

This staunch, lock em up and throw away the key mentality is a bigger problem than the so called criminals in many cases.. IMNSHO
The case shimara12 posted was not a pursuit. The officer was responding to a call, not chasing somebody, and was cut off in traffic, losing control of his vehicle. It happened on November 23, 2007.


Two Sisters Killed
Friday, Jessica Uhl, 18, and her 13-year-old sister Kelli were driving along interstate 64 in Shiloh when an Illinois state trooper crossed the median and plowed into their car.

Police are searching for another car that might have cut off the trooper that triggered the fatal wreck.

According to authorities, Illinois State Trooper Matt Mitchell, 29, was responding to an emergency call on eastbound I-64 with lights and siren.

According to a witness statement, another car cut off the trooper causing him to cross from the eastbound lanes into the westbound lanes and slam into a white Mazda with two people in it, both died at the scene.

Trooper Matt Mitchell has been upgraded to good condition, but he still faces several minor surgeries over the next few days.

Visitation for the Uhl sisters is today. A funeral mass will be held tomorrow.

The car that allegedly cut off the trooper did not stop.

Police are asking any witnesses to call with information.
quote:
Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
aaahhh yes.. that's always the solution.. longer sentences.. bigger fines.. more effective ways to destroy somebody's life...

I have hard time with the way so many around here have allowed themselves to be programmed.


If there is any "life destroying" going on, the criminal is the one doing it. No one forces them to break the law. That is a choice they make for themselves.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I have a hard time with unrealistic leniency shown to common thugs and criminals, who endanger, rob, assault and kill law abiding citizens. For example, the thug and career criminal in Oakland, CA who killed four police officers while out of prison on parole.


This isn't Oakland Ca. Most of these under paid, under trained Barney Fife's wouldn't last a week out there.

The Law, Cops, fines, imprisonment isn't the answer to everything that isn't right.. the US has the highest percentage of incarcerated people in the world.. 1 out of every 100 Americans is locked down.. obviously something isn't working and I wonder how much money could be saved by completely re-evaluating and overhauling the system.

This staunch, lock em up and throw away the key mentality is a bigger problem than the so called criminals in many cases.. IMNSHO


Everybody's entitled to an opinion...even if it's wrong.

I deal with criminals everyday. We're not going to save a single thin dime by coddling them. The US has a vastly lower crime rate than most of the world to go along with that 1 in 100 locked up statistic. Obviously, something's working.

As for the "Barney Fife" insult...is that the best you can do? Oh, well Big Grin
quote:
Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:

This isn't Oakland Ca. Most of these under paid, under trained Barney Fife's wouldn't last a week out there.

The Law, Cops, fines, imprisonment isn't the answer to everything that isn't right.. the US has the highest percentage of incarcerated people in the world.. 1 out of every 100 Americans is locked down.. obviously something isn't working and I wonder how much money could be saved by completely re-evaluating and overhauling the system.

This staunch, lock em up and throw away the key mentality is a bigger problem than the so called criminals in many cases.. IMNSHO


Your posts aren't even worth my response. However, what the h**l. It's clear you hold a grudge against law enforcement.
quote:
Originally posted by uandurine:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
Thanks for pointing out what I missed -- SANE PEOPLE DON'T RUN -- People that have committed NO CRIME DON'T RUN -- People that have something to hide are the ones that run and even though that particular case was horrible -- the officer couldn't have known that -- they are not mind readers...





Dixie,

Yes, people who have something to hide run. Question is, if the police are chasing them because they are drunk or have been shoplifting or may have some pot on them, is it worth the officers life and yours or mine to even initiate the chase? Yes, there may be a child rapist, murderer, etc etc, in the car, but we have all said that police cannot assume ANYTHING (the best or the worst of the situation), all they can go on is what they know at the time and, if they suspect someone of drunk driving and the suspect runs, is it worth your life or mine on the very very off chance that the driver may have committed some other crime?

Kirk

It sounds like you are in favor of drunk driving.


Wow, I like your math -- 2+2=5?

Where do you get that I am in favor of DWI from I am against SOME police chases.

But I guess you ASSume that I am for shoplifting or pot possession (I guess I may be in favor of pot, but anyway.)

Get a clue....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by imya_huckleberry:
Officers do not "initiate a chase", period. An officer attempts to stop a subject for whatever the violation is! The subject being stopped "initiates" a "pursuit" by failing to "obey the law". Now, using your logic, officers should'nt pull anyone over for fear of a pursuit.


No, get your cart behind your horse. It is not a chase (aka pursuit) unless the police actually begin chasing them. If they don't 'chase' them, then there is no 'chase.' So, if you think about it, the police 'initiate' the chase. The suspect has already decided to 'run' (I guess you could say they initiate the attempt to flee), it is the police officer that makes the decision whether or not to persue (aka chase).

You and I do agree on the fact that fleeing to evade arrest should be a felony. But I stand by my opinion. You should have their tag in most cases and they can be charged with fleeing at a later time.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by imya_huckleberry:

The fix is not tying the hands of the Police, but making it more beneficial for a subject to pull over and face the misdemeanor crime as to facing a possible Felony.


And lets not worry about 'tying the hands of the Police' with regulations. As a matter of fact, lets do away with all the regs that 'tie' their hands, that way they can search your car for no reason, pull you over for no reason, and, when they feel you deserve it, they should have the freedom to rough you up a little as well.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
aaahhh yes.. that's always the solution.. longer sentences.. bigger fines.. more effective ways to destroy somebody's life...

I have hard time with the way so many around here have allowed themselves to be programmed.


If there is any "life destroying" going on, the criminal is the one doing it. No one forces them to break the law. That is a choice they make for themselves.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I have a hard time with unrealistic leniency shown to common thugs and criminals, who endanger, rob, assault and kill law abiding citizens. For example, the thug and career criminal in Oakland, CA who killed four police officers while out of prison on parole.


Sassy,

I am suportive of LE, but have to disagree on this issue. Yes, it is the criminals fault if someone is killed in a chase, even if it is by the LEO in an accident (if he is following procedure). However, LEO do not (under normal circumstances) fire at a criminal in a crowd, even if he is a murderer, because the risk to the public would be to great. Same thing applies in pursuits. There has to be a balence between the overall public safety vs what the original 'known' crime was when initiating a chase.

I, personally, disagree with the idea that there are 'Dale Jr's' out running the road. Most LEOs I know follow the procedures that are given them. The problem I have is with the policy, not the folks carrying out the policy.

And dont worry about Cold Hard Truth, his problem is with all government entities, not just LEO. Some folks just hate the world....

Kirk
I'm having a hard time understanding the logic of LEOs turning their lights on behind a drunk driver and once he flees just shuting the lights off and letting the drunk driver continue on his journey of slowing back down to 45mph in the on-coming lane!! Does this make any sense?

The mention of just getting the persons tag number and getting them later...hmm...that's right, people don't borrow cars anymore. Or for that matter, run the tag and it comes back NOT stolen but the LEOs go to the owner's house to arrest him and he doesn't even know his car is gone because it's 3AM and he was asleep. GEEZ!

Those situations seemed to have worked out well, huh?

Better yet, when LEOs receive "Hold-up Alarm" calls maybe they need to be told not to respond because when they get there they might cause the bad guy to take a hostage that he wouldn't have taken if the LEOs didn't show up. WHAT!!!???

The faults here lie in two places. One, with the criminal that flees. Two, with our lawmakers for not settling this a long time ago and making running a felony.

"The Cold Hard Truth" guy must not know that "Officer Presence" is the second best prevention tool against lawbreaking...the first of course, is the written law itself. It's not about throwing everyone in jail but there are theives among us that won't steal just because it's against the law...and that's the only reason.
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by uandurine:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
Thanks for pointing out what I missed -- SANE PEOPLE DON'T RUN -- People that have committed NO CRIME DON'T RUN -- People that have something to hide are the ones that run and even though that particular case was horrible -- the officer couldn't have known that -- they are not mind readers...





Dixie,

Yes, people who have something to hide run. Question is, if the police are chasing them because they are drunk or have been shoplifting or may have some pot on them, is it worth the officers life and yours or mine to even initiate the chase? Yes, there may be a child rapist, murderer, etc etc, in the car, but we have all said that police cannot assume ANYTHING (the best or the worst of the situation), all they can go on is what they know at the time and, if they suspect someone of drunk driving and the suspect runs, is it worth your life or mine on the very very off chance that the driver may have committed some other crime?

Kirk

It sounds like you are in favor of drunk driving.


Wow, I like your math -- 2+2=5?

Where do you get that I am in favor of DWI from I am against SOME police chases.

But I guess you ASSume that I am for shoplifting or pot possession (I guess I may be in favor of pot, but anyway.)

Get a clue....

Kirk

Get a life.
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:

And lets not worry about 'tying the hands of the Police' with regulations. As a matter of fact, lets do away with all the regs that 'tie' their hands, that way they can search your car for no reason, pull you over for no reason, and, when they feel you deserve it, they should have the freedom to rough you up a little as well.

Kirk


I support and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I will not violate any persons rights. But you want to hinder the apprehension of a criminal by saying the Officers can't pursue. Don't construe my prior post as doing away with the Bill of Rights. Regulations are doled out by Police Administrators to try and fix problem areas. And we already have regulations on Vehicle Pursuits. A No Chase Policy is not the answer.

So, who's fault is it that the suspect ran?
The tag is unreliable: 1)it could be stolen, 2) not registered to the offender, 3) unless you have super vision, sometimes you can't see the tag#

Get your cart right! So, should we even attempt to pull someone over?
quote:
Originally posted by imya_huckleberry:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:

And lets not worry about 'tying the hands of the Police' with regulations. As a matter of fact, lets do away with all the regs that 'tie' their hands, that way they can search your car for no reason, pull you over for no reason, and, when they feel you deserve it, they should have the freedom to rough you up a little as well.

Kirk


I support and defend the Constitution and Bill of Rights. I will not violate any persons rights. But you want to hinder the apprehension of a criminal by saying the Officers can't pursue. Don't construe my prior post as doing away with the Bill of Rights. Regulations are doled out by Police Administrators to try and fix problem areas. And we already have regulations on Vehicle Pursuits. A No Chase Policy is not the answer.

So, who's fault is it that the suspect ran?
The tag is unreliable: 1)it could be stolen, 2) not registered to the offender, 3) unless you have super vision, sometimes you can't see the tag#

Get your cart right! So, should we even attempt to pull someone over?


Yes, you should pull folks over. You should even chase in certain situations. Why do you take it to the extreme of all or nothing? I am not saying that chases should be outlawed by no means. I am saying that it should be used much like an officers weapon (after all, the vehicle can easily become a weapon), with temperence and caution. Not all interactions with suspects require the use of deadly force, even if the suspect is committing a criminal act. Do you shoot at a suspect that is running away from you after a purse snatching just because you can't keep up? No. Do you have to chase every suspect at high rates of speed just because they run? No. When you chase that suspect, your vehicle has the potential of becoming a deadly weapon (and the potential for his to become a deadly weapon is greating increased.) For that reason, chasing a suspect should be approached similiar to drawing your handgun.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by uandurine:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by uandurine:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
Thanks for pointing out what I missed -- SANE PEOPLE DON'T RUN -- People that have committed NO CRIME DON'T RUN -- People that have something to hide are the ones that run and even though that particular case was horrible -- the officer couldn't have known that -- they are not mind readers...





Dixie,

Yes, people who have something to hide run. Question is, if the police are chasing them because they are drunk or have been shoplifting or may have some pot on them, is it worth the officers life and yours or mine to even initiate the chase? Yes, there may be a child rapist, murderer, etc etc, in the car, but we have all said that police cannot assume ANYTHING (the best or the worst of the situation), all they can go on is what they know at the time and, if they suspect someone of drunk driving and the suspect runs, is it worth your life or mine on the very very off chance that the driver may have committed some other crime?

Kirk

It sounds like you are in favor of drunk driving.


Wow, I like your math -- 2+2=5?

Where do you get that I am in favor of DWI from I am against SOME police chases.

But I guess you ASSume that I am for shoplifting or pot possession (I guess I may be in favor of pot, but anyway.)

Get a clue....

Kirk

Get a life.


Is that the best you can do? Come on, you can do better than that, I would expect a better come back than that from a third grader.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
quote:
Originally posted by Sassy Kims:
quote:
Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
aaahhh yes.. that's always the solution.. longer sentences.. bigger fines.. more effective ways to destroy somebody's life...

I have hard time with the way so many around here have allowed themselves to be programmed.


If there is any "life destroying" going on, the criminal is the one doing it. No one forces them to break the law. That is a choice they make for themselves.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime.

I have a hard time with unrealistic leniency shown to common thugs and criminals, who endanger, rob, assault and kill law abiding citizens. For example, the thug and career criminal in Oakland, CA who killed four police officers while out of prison on parole.


This isn't Oakland Ca. Most of these under paid, under trained Barney Fife's wouldn't last a week out there.

The Law, Cops, fines, imprisonment isn't the answer to everything that isn't right.. the US has the highest percentage of incarcerated people in the world.. 1 out of every 100 Americans is locked down.. obviously something isn't working and I wonder how much money could be saved by completely re-evaluating and overhauling the system.

This staunch, lock em up and throw away the key mentality is a bigger problem than the so called criminals in many cases.. IMNSHO


ColdOne, I am amazed we finally agree on something! We have absolutely too many people locked up - a melding of the minds!
I agree that fines and imprisonment are not the answer to everything , so it's up to you and me to correct that situation. You beat me to the first place on the petition to correct this problem, but I will be proud to sign on the second line!
Wow, I can't wait to see the incarceration rate reduced from 1 in 100 to 1 in 50! Pretty big target to reach but just think, that's what we'll have after we fry up all the murderers, rapist, drug dealers, child molesters, etc., to the crispy critter look!
It's you and me ColdOne, all the way!!!!! Big Grin Eeker Roll Eyes Red Face
quote:
Originally posted by dntblnk:
I'm having a hard time understanding the logic of LEOs turning their lights on behind a drunk driver and once he flees just shuting the lights off and letting the drunk driver continue on his journey of slowing back down to 45mph in the on-coming lane!! Does this make any sense?


As John Q Public, driving along in that other lane coming toward that drunk, would you rather hit him head on at 45 because he slowed down when he saw the police back off or would you rather hit him at 100+ MPH? That is the logic.

When a dog is chasing a cat, and that dog gives up, does the cat just keep running and running until he falls over dead? No, he quits running when he realizes the dog has given up. Same line of thought.

The public is at ALOT less risk of a drunk driver cruising around than they are with a drunk driver running from the LEO. The LEO have them radios for a reason, try to get him by beating him home, cutting him off further down the road in the direction he was last seen heading, etc. Its time to work smarter, not harder....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
When a dog is chasing a cat, and that dog gives up, does the cat just keep running and running until he falls over dead? No, he quits running when he realizes the dog has given up. Same line of thought.

Kirk


If the cat is drunk he keeps running.

The reality here is once an LEO hits the lights on a drunk driver and he decides to run, being drunk, he's more than likely going to continue to run because to him everything on the road is an LEO. So what then? Let the LEO follow the guy to his driveway that he probably won't make it to? Could you imagine "John Q Public" driving down the road watching a LEO follow a drunk driver without trying to pull the guy over just to watch him plow into somebody? I smell lawsuit with good buddy John Q Public as a witness.
quote:
Originally posted by dntblnk:
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
When a dog is chasing a cat, and that dog gives up, does the cat just keep running and running until he falls over dead? No, he quits running when he realizes the dog has given up. Same line of thought.

Kirk


If the cat is drunk he keeps running.

The reality here is once an LEO hits the lights on a drunk driver and he decides to run, being drunk, he's more than likely going to continue to run because to him everything on the road is an LEO. So what then? Let the LEO follow the guy to his driveway that he probably won't make it to? Could you imagine "John Q Public" driving down the road watching a LEO follow a drunk driver without trying to pull the guy over just to watch him plow into somebody? I smell lawsuit with good buddy John Q Public as a witness.


Even if this was true in all cases (which I assure you it is not, many departments across the country have changed their rules of engagement for chases for this exact reason), what if that 'cat' is being chased for shoplifting? What if he has a joint and is afraid of being caught? Or his license is suspended? (All of these have been the cause of a suspect to flee recently)

You are going to have a lawsuit in either situation (in this litigious society), I would much rather be sued by someone that was hurt than by the family of someone that was killed....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
Even if this was true in all cases (which I assure you it is not, many departments across the country have changed their rules of engagement for chases for this exact reason), what if that 'cat' is being chased for shoplifting? What if he has a joint and is afraid of being caught? Or his license is suspended? (All of these have been the cause of a suspect to flee recently)

Kirk


I've only taken issue with the DUI...I don't see how you let that go. The other situations you mentioned, the LEO should base those given the circumstances of many factors. A smart LEO will terminate a pursuit himself when danger to the public begins to arise. I realize that doesn't always happen but it's not on the fault of the LEO that the pursuit began. Every situation here has started with one common link = someone committed a crime or violation. The LEO didn't just get behind a driver a say, "Let's see if this one runs."

quote:
orignally posted by mekirk2:
You are going to have a lawsuit in either situation (in this litigious society), I would much rather be sued by someone that was hurt than by the family of someone that was killed....


So let the brushfire spread to the house and burn it to the ground as long as no one is inside?

I can't see anybody (Public or LEO) being fine with the Police letting people crash into each other as long as no one gets killed.
quote:
Originally posted by shimara12:
One thing I will say about members of the FPD, they have always been nice anytime I have interacted with them. In the last few months I have been stopped twice. Once for crossing over the white line (not paying attention), and once I was 12 miles over the speed limit. Both times the cops were gracious and just gave me a verbal warning.

well.. good for you.. must have nice taters Roll Eyes
quote:
Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
quote:
Originally posted by shimara12:
One thing I will say about members of the FPD, they have always been nice anytime I have interacted with them. In the last few months I have been stopped twice. Once for crossing over the white line (not paying attention), and once I was 12 miles over the speed limit. Both times the cops were gracious and just gave me a verbal warning.

well.. good for you.. must have nice taters Roll Eyes


Rather insulting to the FPD isn't it? Maybe the fact that I was polite instead of confrontational. Didn't try the crybaby my way out of it, and freely admitted I was speeding, had something to do with them giving me a break. You think so bubba?
quote:
Originally posted by dntblnk:

So let the brushfire spread to the house and burn it to the ground as long as no one is inside?



If the brush fire is out of control and the conditions (wind, accelerate is present, etc) cause it to put the firemen in extreme danger, then yes, let my house burn down.

And my statement about it not being true in all cases was referring directly to your comment about drunks not slowing down when they no longer see the blue lights. Being drunk slows down the reaction time, it does not stop the reaction time. If a deer jumps out in front of them, it takes longer to hit the brakes. So, it may take them a little longer to slow down when the blue lights go off, but they will slow down.

And yes, people are accepting of allowing police to let someone 'get away' to reduce the risk to the public. Do a search on this forum for police chases, we have had this discussion before and there were as many people who agreed with me as disagreed.

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by mekirk2:
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:
Thanks for pointing out what I missed -- SANE PEOPLE DON'T RUN -- People that have committed NO CRIME DON'T RUN -- People that have something to hide are the ones that run and even though that particular case was horrible -- the officer couldn't have known that -- they are not mind readers...




Dixie,

Yes, people who have something to hide run. Question is, if the police are chasing them because they are drunk or have been shoplifting or may have some pot on them, is it worth the officers life and yours or mine to even initiate the chase? Yes, there may be a child rapist, murderer, etc etc, in the car, but we have all said that police cannot assume ANYTHING (the best or the worst of the situation), all they can go on is what they know at the time and, if they suspect someone of drunk driving and the suspect runs, is it worth your life or mine on the very very off chance that the driver may have committed some other crime?

Kirk


It is at least worth pursuing to find out. You want to stop all chases whatsoever -- without knowing who the suspect is and what they did and why they are running you are basically asking officers to let the bad guys go and I disagree with that. Our officers hands are tied by the laws in so many ways -- and now you are taking away something else they do to keep us safe.

What are the chances that you will get hurt during a high speed chase? None if you actually listen to the news. They announce on the news where the chase is occurring and warn the public with the little scroll at the bottom and Kix96 has even stopped the music to announce it before -- so unless you are one of the rubber-necking morons that doesn't listen to the news outlets and doesn't heed the lights and sirens and gets out of the way -- you have a slim chance of getting hurt in a high speed chase. Yes, people have been hurt but it is not the norm...Like I said, I trust the officers to do their jobs. It is not my job to tell them how to do theirs...

We don't hear about the serial killers and rapists that didn't get chased or that got away because they outran a chase -- because typically they don't get aaway and no one gets hurt in the process...you hear every day about a "short chase" or a "pursuit" -- to get the bad guy and we sing the praises that the guy was caught...but when someone "innocent" gets hurt you all want to prosecute the pursuing officer for murder and that is a messed up way of thinking...that is like sending the border agents to prison for 10-20 because they shot the drug dealer in the backside...they didn't shoot to kill or he would have been dead...it's wrong to punish officers for doing their job. It is wrong to try to control them while they are doing their job and then raking them over the coals for the one that got away or because they didn't catch the bad guy...let them do their job and if you think you can do it better, by all means, apply for the job...
quote:
Originally posted by shimara12:
quote:
Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
quote:
Originally posted by shimara12:
One thing I will say about members of the FPD, they have always been nice anytime I have interacted with them. In the last few months I have been stopped twice. Once for crossing over the white line (not paying attention), and once I was 12 miles over the speed limit. Both times the cops were gracious and just gave me a verbal warning.

well.. good for you.. must have nice taters Roll Eyes


Rather insulting to the FPD isn't it? Maybe the fact that I was polite instead of confrontational. Didn't try the crybaby my way out of it, and freely admitted I was speeding, had something to do with them giving me a break. You think so bubba?


Just being the class clown.. sorry.. no offense intended
maybe we could give the cops RPGs and if you are a big enough nilly widget to run from the cops they wont have to chase you the could just blow your nilly wiget self right off the road or how about one of those big harpon guns they use on whales nowadays mounted right to the cop car that whould make for good tv and posibley a whole new demo derpy type sport, why not running from the fuzz is why we have nascar
quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:

It is at least worth pursuing to find out. You want to stop all chases whatsoever -- without knowing who the suspect is and what they did and why they are running you are basically asking officers to let the bad guys go and I disagree with that.


Dixie,

I don't think you and I have ever seriously discussed anything here, and now I can see why. Don't put words in my mouth, especially when anyone who is reading the entire forum can go back and see within the past two or three pages that you so clearly do not know what you are talking about (or haven't read the thread).

Let me go back to the previous posts in this thread:


March 24, 10:32, MEKIRK2 says:

"Sometime chase is a must, but it must be tempered and the valid reason for a chase should be a short list. "

March 25, 8:19, MEKIRK2 says:

"Where do you get that I am in favor of DWI from I am against SOME police chases."

March 25, 8:37, MEKIRK2 says:

" There has to be a balence between the overall public safety vs what the original 'known' crime was when initiating a chase."

March 25, 9:47, MEKIRK2 says (and this is my favorite):

"Yes, you should pull folks over. You should even chase in certain situations. Why do you take it to the extreme of all or nothing? I am not saying that chases should be outlawed by no means."

So, my question is, are you as wrong about your opinion on chases as you are on your opinion on what I think? Especially when I have been soooo clear about it in this thread....

Kirk
quote:
Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
quote:
Originally posted by shimara12:
quote:
Originally posted by The Cold Hard Truth:
quote:
Originally posted by shimara12:
One thing I will say about members of the FPD, they have always been nice anytime I have interacted with them. In the last few months I have been stopped twice. Once for crossing over the white line (not paying attention), and once I was 12 miles over the speed limit. Both times the cops were gracious and just gave me a verbal warning.

well.. good for you.. must have nice taters Roll Eyes


Rather insulting to the FPD isn't it? Maybe the fact that I was polite instead of confrontational. Didn't try the crybaby my way out of it, and freely admitted I was speeding, had something to do with them giving me a break. You think so bubba?


Just being the class clown.. sorry.. no offense intended


Forgiven (If you are being sincere, which is really hard to discern on this forum)
I've cooled down a little from being over the edge about having words put in my mouth and have actually read your entire post, so let me respond:

quote:
Originally posted by DixieChik:

What are the chances that you will get hurt during a high speed chase? None if you actually listen to the news. They announce on the news where the chase is occurring and warn the public with the little scroll at the bottom and Kix96 has even stopped the music to announce it before -- so unless you are one of the rubber-necking morons that doesn't listen to the news outlets and doesn't heed the lights and sirens and gets out of the way -- you have a slim chance of getting hurt in a high speed chase. Yes, people have been hurt but it is not the norm...


At 90 MPH, a car travels 1.5 miles every minute (wow, like my math ;O) How long does it take, after the chase is initiated, before the radio station is notified and gets the word out? Where is the chase once they get the word (chances are its not where it was when they called it in)? San Diego PD might be able to keep you up to date with live chase updates with their helicopters, something tells me our local LEO don't have that luxury. I'm willing to bet, by the time it makes the radio, people are being told to stay out of the area where the chase ended, not where it is actively taking place.

quote:

We don't hear about the serial killers and rapists that didn't get chased or that got away because they outran a chase -- because typically they don't get aaway and no one gets hurt in the process...you hear every day about a "short chase" or a "pursuit" -- to get the bad guy and we sing the praises that the guy was caught...but when someone "innocent" gets hurt you all want to prosecute the pursuing officer for murder and that is a messed up way of thinking...that is like sending the border agents to prison for 10-20 because they shot the drug dealer in the backside...they didn't shoot to kill or he would have been dead...it's wrong to punish officers for doing their job. It is wrong to try to control them while they are doing their job and then raking them over the coals for the one that got away or because they didn't catch the bad guy...let them do their job and if you think you can do it better, by all means, apply for the job...


I agree, the LEO should not be held responsible if he followed his SOP. The officer does not make the rules, he follows them. The criminal should be charged with the crime as an extension of their initial crime of fleeing to evade arrest.

Also, you can't apply the 'if you can do it better, have at it, if not, shut up' attitude to their job. Same with politicians. LEO's are tasked with protecting the public and they are paid by you and I (as taxpayers.) That gives us the right to question the job they do, just like we question the job local governments do. If I were paid by taxpayers, then I would be open to have my job performance questioned by those taxpayers as well.

Kirk

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×