Police Chase

[Bob K]

Originally Posted by pmj341

I agree with you both!!
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 I saw several cars speed thru the light well over the speed limit, and others just run the RED under hard acceleration
they should put big signs "Smile you're being watched"" Big Brother is finaly here (1984)

Do you know how they identify the driver? If they can't, do they ticket the car?

[Fatbum]

I absolutely 100% agree with your first post Shadow, everything else is tl;dr

I think unmarked cars are inherently just a plain bad idea except for rare situations.

[Shadow]

Maybe? Just depends on why?

Just as with a tactical entry into a property, or any other arrest for that matter where there are multiple people involved, everyone is treated equally until you can sort it all out.

Since the police have no way of knowing who you are or what role you may have had in the chase/auto theft/etc., they would treat you and anyone else in the car, as cautiously as they would another suspect.

Once we know who is who, then we'll help you up off the ground, apologize and help dust you off

Seriously though.

Have you ever watched video of the school shootings or other matters where the suspect is still unknown and believed to still be at large inside?

The students, employess, everyone, are in many cases held at bay, brought out with thier hands interlocked over thier heads, patted down, etc....until the police can sort through them.

Unfortunatly, you sometimes just have no way of knowing

As far as slamming people to the ground, there's generally no reason (other than pure out of control adrenelin) to slam a cooperative subject to the ground. This type of action "could" result in civil (and criminal) litigation against the officer and/or the department for excessive use of force.

In many cases you see a large group of officers rush a vehicle immediately after a chase terminates. If the car has crashed, I can somewhat understand it.

If the suspect stops (for whatever reason-spike strips, fuel, OnStar, etc)., from an officer safety position, the LAST thing you'd want to do is rush the car. Watch some of these end of chase videos and see how many times officers place themselves in a cross fire position with thier back up officers

I need to watch the video of the chase. If there was no other traffic, that early in the morning, who knows? I'm still not a cheerleader for police pursuits, but it depends on the known facts surrounding his charges (Felony, Misdemeanor or traffic) and other factors. Lets assume for a moment that the police knew the had true felony criminal charges, not felony traffic (other than DUI Manslaughter or H & R), the roads were somewhat clear, weather was cooperating and the bird was doing it's job.

Staying back and letting the perp slow down might be an option. Uee the helo to guide officers into an intercept position with the spike strips or set up for a pitt.

My feeling is, if the pursuits justified, then whatever force necessary to end it is also justified! Get it over with before some innocent citizen gets hurt or killed.

BTW, I too enjoy these debates/discussions. They sometimes lead to a more open minded society

Have a good morning

Originally Posted by Bob K

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?

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Bob K

Do you know how they identify the driver? If they can't, do they ticket the car?

The citations are written to the owner of the vehicle not the driver. There are no points assessed, just the huge fine.

This is a point of contention with some ongoing litigation nationwide. Why should the driver be "punished" for the uncontrollable actions of another?

Then again, in probably 95%+ of the violations, it's going to be one or more of the owners who are driving when the violation occurs. I wonder how the multiple owner cars are going to be cited? First owner or both? That is going to be intersting. I need to look into that point.

I have mixed emotion over the cameras.

First, we're in the "public domain" and as such, have no expectation that our actions migh not be monitored (visually).

Second, if the cameras are well known, over time people may in fact start stopping simply due to the threat of a citation over the violation. Again though, it's almost the same as the "omnipresence" idea. If you know the police (camera) is there, you probably won't f**k up
At that point you have compelled compliance

The only issue I really have is the $$ part and who gets the ticket.

These fines have gotten out of hand! You send me a ticket for the actions of someone I loaned the car to, and I'll see you in court.

My feeling is, if they want to know who was driving the car, then they needed to stop the car. I wasn't driving and the car doesn't have a damned bank account or a brain!

Originally Posted by Fatbum

I absolutely 100% agree with your first post Shadow, everything else is tl;dr

I think unmarked cars are inherently just a plain bad idea except for rare situations.

What is tl;dr? That came across my computer as such. I'm sure it's a smiley but which one?

As far as unmarked cars, they serve a purpose. I can even see a few necessary for certain specialized traffic enforcement situations. But not as widely used as we are using them today

[floridaZ]

I agree with the unmarked units. Personally, I think that they shouldn't use any unmarked units at all. The exception would be, in my perfect little world, that they could use them for targeted busts (drugs, gangs, etc.) if they can get a signed... warrant I guess... from a judge. Beyond that, use highly visible patrol cars. The unmarked units are a big reason I have little respect for "LEOs", I honestly can't believe that they don't use the unmarked units for anything other than revenue collection. That, and when in a marked unit, the police officers seem to follow more traffic laws themselves. I can't pull the number off of the unmarked car that decides to speed, weave through traffic, tailgate (me specifically), or cut across 3 lanes of traffic in I4 to pull over somebody who pulled a u-turn on one of those "restricted roads" without using even a turn signal. And no disco lights either.

A little less accountability for a group of people empowered over everyone else has never been a good thing.

Originally Posted by Shadow

If the suspect stops (for whatever reason-spike strips, fuel, OnStar, etc).

BTW, was I the only one creeped out by that commercial? If I owned a car with On-Star, you can be damned sure first thing I'd be going when I got to the house is cutting me some On-Star kill wires.

[pmj341]

Originally Posted by Bob K

Do you know how they identify the driver? If they can't, do they ticket the car?

they don't identify the driver they do the car, they send 3 pictures and
if you are not satisfied you can go online and watch a short video!!!
they covered all bases.

[Fatbum]

Originally Posted by Shadow

What is tl;dr? That came across my computer as such. I'm sure it's a smiley but which one?

As far as unmarked cars, they serve a purpose. I can even see a few necessary for certain specialized traffic enforcement situations. But not as widely used as we are using them today

It means "Too long; didn't read"

I was on my way to bed and only was awake enough to read your first post so I was referring to the rest of your thread. Usually people use tl;dr when someone posts a huge wall of text that is either interesting or just too long. But it can be used in other situations as well, like this one.

I could imagine many situations where someone could have used the help of an officer in an unmarked car but didn't get it because they were unaware of their presence. It comes down to which one helps the populace more, and unfortunately I don't think unmarked cars accomplish that.

I agree they serve a purpose, but I believe more deterrence via presence is greater then more deterrence via fines.

[Bob K]

Originally Posted by Shadow

Maybe? Just depends on why?

Just as with a tactical entry into a property, or any other arrest for that matter where there are multiple people involved, everyone is treated equally until you can sort it all out.

Since the police have no way of knowing who you are or what role you may have had in the chase/auto theft/etc., they would treat you and anyone else in the car, as cautiously as they would another suspect.

Once we know who is who, then we'll help you up off the ground, apologize and help dust you off

Seriously though.

Have you ever watched video of the school shootings or other matters where the suspect is still unknown and believed to still be at large inside?

The students, employess, everyone, are in many cases held at bay, brought out with thier hands interlocked over thier heads, patted down, etc....until the police can sort through them.

Unfortunatly, you sometimes just have no way of knowing

A friend of mine was a detective in Ft Worth and I would ride with him. I remember one time he was tipped as to the location of a bad guy so he had uniformed officers meet him at the apartment complex. I had to maintain a distance but could see all that was going on. They cuffed everyone until they cleared the other people.


As far as slamming people to the ground, there's generally no reason (other than pure out of control adrenelin) to slam a cooperative subject to the ground. This type of action "could" result in civil (and criminal) litigation against the officer and/or the department for excessive use of force.

In many cases you see a large group of officers rush a vehicle immediately after a chase terminates. If the car has crashed, I can somewhat understand it.

If the suspect stops (for whatever reason-spike strips, fuel, OnStar, etc)., from an officer safety position, the LAST thing you'd want to do is rush the car. Watch some of these end of chase videos and see how many times officers place themselves in a cross fire position with thier back up officers

I haven't noticed that (cross fire) in chase videos but I have seen it during building entry. Problem is when you have many officers gaining entry and they expect the bad guy to appear shooting everyone is ready to return fire. Makes for a very dangerous situation.

I need to watch the video of the chase. If there was no other traffic, that early in the morning, who knows? I'm still not a cheerleader for police pursuits, but it depends on the known facts surrounding his charges (Felony, Misdemeanor or traffic) and other factors. Lets assume for a moment that the police knew the had true felony criminal charges, not felony traffic (other than DUI Manslaughter or H & R), the roads were somewhat clear, weather was cooperating and the bird was doing it's job.

Staying back and letting the perp slow down might be an option. Uee the helo to guide officers into an intercept position with the spike strips or set up for a pitt.

My feeling is, if the pursuits justified, then whatever force necessary to end it is also justified! Get it over with before some innocent citizen gets hurt or killed.

BTW, I too enjoy these debates/discussions. They sometimes lead to a more open minded society

Have a good morning

Looks like this forum could turn into a law enforcement forum. Let me give you a tip and see what you think. During a traffic stop, while the officer is approaching the stopped vehicle he should approach very close to the side of the stopped vehicle. If it's a van or maybe a limo and you can't see inside run your hand along side of the vehicle as you approach the driver.

Are you impressed?

[Bob K]

Originally Posted by pmj341

they don't identify the driver they do the car, they send 3 pictures and
if you are not satisfied you can go online and watch a short video!!!
they covered all bases.

I agree with Shadow. I think it sucks. If you're going to give me a citation you better be able to prove I did it. Don't cite me for something maybe my wife did.

[Shadow]

Originally Posted by Fatbum

It means "Too long; didn't read"
that about sums me up

I was on my way to bed and only was awake enough to read your first post so I was referring to the rest of your thread. Usually people use tl;dr when someone posts a huge wall of text that is either interesting or just too long. But it can be used in other situations as well, like this one.

gotcha, thx

I could imagine many situations where someone could have used the help of an officer in an unmarked car but didn't get it because they were unaware of their presence. It comes down to which one helps the populace more, and unfortunately I don't think unmarked cars accomplish that.

I agree they serve a purpose, but I believe more deterrence via presence is greater then more deterrence via fines.