5 ms·
This appears unremarkable. > will no longer be allowed to chase people on foot simply because they run away or they've committed minor offenses It explicitly
by mint2 4y ago
This appears unremarkable.
> will no longer be allowed to chase people on foot simply because they run away or they've committed minor offenses
It explicitly says they can chase for felonies and stuff or are dangerous
> Officers won't be allowed to chase people on foot if they suspect them of minor offenses such as parking violations, driving on suspended licenses or drinking alcohol in public. But they will still have discretion to chase people who they've determined are committing or about to commit crimes that post "an obvious threat to any person."
- cozzyd 4y agoThe title is... terribly misleading.
- ensignavenger 4y agoI don't understand how driving with a suspended license is considered to be not dangerous. Many people who have their licenses suspended are dangerous drivers, and that is why they lose their license. To me, driving with a suspended license is on obvious threat to public safety.
- NoPie 4y agoOnly if they are driving. If they are running away on foot, what is the threat?
- ensignavenger 4y agoThey commited a crime which put the public in danger. If they did it once and got away, why would one think they wouldn't do it again? Obviously each situation deserves its own consideration. But they are still a.dangerous criminal.
- NoPie 4y agoWe don't arrest people (yet) on the idea that they might commit crime in the future.
- ensignavenger 4y agoWe were talking about someone who had already co.mitted a crime and was now fleeing.
- NoPie 4y agoWhich according to the article is a minor offence.
- ensignavenger 4y agoYeah... my whole point was that it shouldn't be considered a minor offense.