I am totally surprised by your comments. And of course you are right, I think.
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!
:thumbsup:
We complain about not having "enough officers" on the street (let's blame it on budget
), 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
You'll find my opinions here are tempered with years of OJT and BTDT
(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?
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).
...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?
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
) 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!
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...
