Police Chase
 

On Fox this morning they followed a medium speed pursuit in Las Vegas. I can never figure out why these people run because way back in the 60's we said a person could never outrun the police radio. Now they also have the news media helicopters to deal with. This guy this morning drove into a large parking garage and lost the cops. Then Fox announced that 1 in 4 do get away. I never would have guessed that. This guy did not get away. They found him in th garage.

As a side note. In Palm Bay the police drive all kinds of vehicles. SUV's, pickups and family type sedans. They also have two ultra lights they use for traffic control and whatever else they do. If you speed here you will be caught. It's just a matter of time.

We sure do spend a lot of $$$$ to generate traffic revenue don't we???
Kind of like a Zen riddle isn't it?

Except for the ultralights, we do the same thing up here.

Unmarked cars all over the damned place!

When I retired from the S.O. here, I was in charge of our traffic motor unit.

The key thing we stressed was high visibility! We didn't hide. Even when operating our (then) stationary radar or lazer units, we did so from a position of high visibility. If you didn't have your head stuffed completely up your arse, you could see us:thumbsup::rofl1:

If you want to reduce a problem, increase visability!

On almost any given summer day, you'll find a good number of our "motor units" sitting in unmarked cars, writing tickets at bruce b. downs and other major intersections.:thumbsdown: Put a marked unit at that same intersection, and watch compliance go UP and tickets go DOWN:yesnod:

An omnipresence of the police has always been and always will be, the most cost effective way of preventing crime and enforcing compliance (from a street level perspective).

With unmarked cars, sure you'll "catch" more violators, which will by it's very nature, increase revenues.

Unfortunately, the down side to unmarked cars is many people (obviously) don't see them. Especially the "true" unmarked vehicles such as the SUV's and sedans that blend into the surrounding crowd.

With a MARKED vehicle, more people see them which accomplishes a couple of things right off the bat:

1) compliance with traffic law.
2) Enforcement of Traffic law.

You probably won't write as many tickets, but you'll damned sure get more compliance. And that IS the goal, isn't it?

As well, MARKED cars are highly visible to the general public.
Therefore, when "patrolling" they're also having the effect of reducing crime through an "omnipresence."

It's the DAMN!! They're everywhere! approach:D that makes it happen.:thumbsup:

As to the number of people that get away. I'm not surprised it's not higher.

Police chases for anything other than major (forcible) felonies, are pointless, dangerous to everyone from the officer to the innocent citizen (left out the suspect intentionally-I don't care what happens to them!), and generally uncalled for.

Well honestly, at this time, NO, I don't believe that is the goal at all. Revenue generation appears to be the goal....

I am totally surprised by your comments. And of course you are right, I think. :D I understand your point that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure but on the other hand I feel like the bad guy, me included, needs to be caught.

This is just my opinion and based on nothing but my own thoughts but I feel like people obey the law for one of two reasons. It's either out of respect or out of fear. If you nail a guy enough times they will slow down. Again, just my opinion. If I'm on the streets in Palm Bay no way am I going nail it even just a little bit because I never know who is in that SUV.

Regarding the chases I am confused by my own thoughts. You are right but if we just let them get away then a lot more will be running. I respect your opinion especially with your background but I really don't know what to think. If more run, then more injuries are bound to happen. Right?

Bob,

Thanks for the response.:thumbsup:

The "bad guys" do need to be caught. that's why we need more MARKED UNITS and less UC cars on the road. Unless those UC cars are specifically detailed to high risk assignments (armed robbery, burglary and other felony details) the majority of them need to go away.

"Saturation" is more than an ounce of prevention. It's more like a ton of sledgehammer!:D:thumbsup:

We complain about not having "enough officers" on the street (let's blame it on budget:rolleyes:), yet we dump boocoo officers in unmarks daily making them almost invisible to the average citizen and the criminal.

I want the CRIMINAL caught.

Most traffic offenders are not "criminals."

They are hard working, mom and pops like you and I who occasionally make an error in judgment.
It's the minor few who are intentional azzholes and should be treated accordingly.

If ticket costs were not so damned high, I might be a little more lenient toward the matter. But they're not so I'm not!

I want to see our agencies use the officers and equipment we have more efficetively!

If the guys are not going to ride the damned motorcycles, get rid of all of them except for the few needed on occasion for a parade, funeral excort, or when some big chit comes to town.

Put them in marked cars all the up to Patrol Division Major! The more cars on the street, the less crime you'll have over all...including traffic crashes and violations.

While it's true that if you tag someone repeatedly, they may become shellshocked into compliance; however, most of the repeat offenders simply don't care.

It's somewhat true that not knowing what's behind the wheel of that expedition you just passed may serve to temper ones driving habits, if you look closely enough an "most" plain cars (SUV and sedans included), you'll find certain telltale signs. The first is, windows generally tinted darker than legally allowed:yesnod:

At the same time, the marked car will not only surpress both traffic and criminal violations by it's appearance on scene, by having more on the road at any given hour, the "omnipresence" will serve to reduce violations for a similar reason....you just never know where they're going to pop up next:D

You'll find my opinions here are tempered with years of OJT and BTDT:D (sounds like a chorus from a country song...:lmao:)

I taught tactical (pursuit) driving for years in to a multitude of agencies, big an small, in both Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties.

The level of (recurrent) training is insufficient to expect an officer to maintain a high degree of proficiency throughout the year(s) between sessions.

Pursuits are trained in a static, controlled environment, but occur in one that is fluid and volitile at best.

For anything other than a major (forcible) felony, the risk the public vs. the potential for apprehension is not justified (IMO).

A driver is speeding.
Why?
Late for work? Hurry to get home? New Vette?:D

OR...stolen car, just committed a hit and run or robbed a bank?

Since we don't know, you have to presume that the violation is merely traffic related unless there are other circumstances or information that indicates otherwise (damage to the car, BOLO, etc).

Not necessarily.

There's been an argument on both sides for decades. The police union whining about departments curbing chases, and the police departments whining about the cost of litigation and lost manhours and expenses when a chase goes bad (as most have a tendency to do).

Here's one scenario:

Lets assume for a minute that our errant driver is travelling at 70 in a 50 zone.

Police drop behind and he panicks (daddy's car:eek:) steps on the throttle and the chase is on...

He shortly reaches speeds in excess of the century mark and most likely well in excess of ou young drivers capabilities (relax FloridaZ-just using a "for instance" not picking on the "young":lmao:)

We continue to pursue...

With any luck, he heads someplace he's familiar with.
Most likely though, he will head away from friends and family for fear of being seen or having the car spotted later.

He's now focused on YOU, the police car, rather than the traffic ahead...

Moments later, while exceeding 100 mph and watching you in his rearview mirror, he fails to see the young mother pulling out of the side road ahead of him, with her child in the car!
When he does, it's too late!:eek:

He either over reacts, loses control, crashes, possibly kills himself and totals out what would otherwise be a perfectly fine vette...or....he hits and kills the mother and baby....:nonod:

Had we termintated the pursuit (in the absence of additional information elevating the level of the crime from traffic to ???), he'd have likely sped off into the night for a short distance and, when he felt it was "safe" ditched the car and reported it stolen.

A good detective would then put it all together rather quickly in the next day or so, from the previous nights events, and in the end, the youngster get's a night or so in jail/JAC, dad get's his car back in relatively intact, and they all get to hunt for a new insurance carrier:lmao::lmao::rofl1:

I've seen fellow officers go down in pursuits (on motors), and crash thier cars during them.

Of course on the flip side, I've seen and been in some that have gone as smooth as silk and right by the book, and no one got hurt, minimal property damage and the bad guy went to jail.

But overall, especially for traffic, I just can't justify them.
There are so many more scenarios that I can recount that end tragically for the innocent, for the officer...it's just not worth it...BTDT...

Damn Shadow, you have almost written a book. I need to read again everything you said but while I was outside I thought about our previous posts on the topic.

I came to the conclusion that I was being kind of stupid. When I state I'm not sure about something and then have the opportunity to learn from an expert such as yourself I need to shut up and listen.

Regarding that chase this morning in Vegas. It was a stolen car and a helicopter was on the guy and you are 100% right. A chase was uncalled for. They still would probably have gotten the guy and not jeopardized anyone.

Thanks. :thumbsup:

:NoNo:Not stupid at all my friend. It's what makes the world go 'round...differing opinions:thumbsup:

"Expert" (defined)
Ex- Has been
Spurt (pert) - A drip under pressure:lmao:

We all should try to learn from each other.

In this mornings case, you're probably right. Chase or not, with the eye's in the sky, there was likely no need.

Then again, what was traffic like that time of day? Weather? How much risk to everyone involved (even the thief). We had to take all these factors into consideration before continuing a pursuit. And they were usually made in a matter of seconds, by a supervisor, no where near the scene:lmao:

And you're right....I am a bit long winded....:D Thanks for puttin' up with me:thumbsup:

Putting up with you? I enjoy talking and spend way too much time on this computer.:)

This morning in Vegas it was about 6:00/6:30. Traffic was heavy but the police did maintain their distance. Not even close to a pit maneuver. The guy drove like a mad man but I have seen chases that would make him appear to be a careful driver.

You have me looking at these chases in a completely different way so don't try to confuse me and say maybe it was justified. Something I could never figure out was when a chase ends and there is a passenger sometimes they get thrown to the ground same as the driver. I could understand that if they were uncooperative but the ones I have seen they are not given the opportunity. Am I looking at future litigation? :shrug01:

I agree with shadow that it is the GOAL but the REALITY is what you said Rich.

I agree with you both!!:yesnod:
the new cameras that they are installing at intersections are generating a lot of revenue for sure, one of the news channel showed a few minutes of video
and honestly it scared me, the disregard for safety is incredebly stupid :banghead: I saw several cars speed thru the light well over the speed limit, and others just run the RED under hard acceleration :ack2:
they should put big signs "Smile you're being watched"" Big Brother is finaly here (1984):yesnod: