6 ms·

>they believe that it's imperative that they chase anyone trying to get away, in order to make sure that anyone in the future knows that they can't run from the

>they believe that it's imperative that they chase anyone trying to get away, in order to make sure that anyone in the future knows that they can't run from the police, despite the risks of collateral damage to innocent people. Kinda forgot about the whole "to serve and protect" part didn't they.

wpietri 13y ago
Not at all. It's a hard question. If there is no point in running, way fewer people will run. That could mean net fewer chase-miles, and also fewer crimes committed, because fewer potential criminals would think they might be able to get away with it. The officers likely believe that serving and protecting requires them to always chase. Whether it's true or not is something that has no obvious a priori answer. It'd be great to find the answer empirically, but until then, I'm inclined to defer to the pros.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Have the number of car chases decreased over time due to all the chases teaching people its not worth running?
  - bradleyland 13y ago
    You're asking the wrong question. The question is how chase/no-chase policies would trend against a control. These types of social experiments are very hard to conduct, because there are so many confounding variables.
- hnriot 13y ago
  it's not a hard question at all. the cops shouldn't endanger the public just to chase people. It's why they shouldn't also shoot people in crowded areas. these days though the cops shoot first and ask questions later, then get away with it so why not go chasing around like cowboys too, they've already lost any respect I've ever had.
- belorn 13y ago
  If its such a hard question, I guess everyone country in the world is also struggling, and has equally high death count from car chases. O wait, they don't. It just easier to photo the license plate, and put down a road block.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    Well maybe you could post the stats from "everyone country"? And maybe the study controlling for the factors that make the US different? Hard data would help.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  > It's a hard question. The minute you start considering public safety, is the minute it stops being a hard question. In my jurisdiction (Ontario), cops will not to get into high-speed chases if there's a reasonable chance of injury to assailants or civilians. My cop friend told me they won't even attempt to chase after motorcyclist because the risk to him is just too great. It is a judgement call, and chases still happen, but you always consider public safety first before you engage in a reckless chase. >The officers likely believe that serving and protecting requires them to always chase. You know, I used to watch American police car chase shows, where they would show video of police chases. Most of those ended in a car crash, and significant of those ended with the assailant ramming into some civilian car. Great police work guys. You got some two-bit criminal but you killed or engendered an innocent bystander. I think if you look past a typical "always-get-your-man" cowboy mentality you'd find it's just not worth it in the grand scheme of things.
  - wpietri 13y ago
    You could be right. Indeed, were I to lay money down, it'd be on the side of fewer chases. But there are public safety concerns on either side of this, so just citing "public safety" doesn't cut it. However, the fact that you're citing reality TV as evidence definitely isn't helping your case.
lotu 13y ago
For each individual situation it is probably better to let the suspect get away instead of engaging in a high speed chase. However this makes it so people are more willing to break the law and then just run from police because they know they won't be chased, that makes society as a whole less safe. For example in New York City police will not chase suspects on motorcycles because it is so dangerous. You see groups of motorcycles and ATVs doing high speed wheelies through red lights regularly. So there are two sides to the issue we must look at.
- ams6110 13y ago
  I don't see this as being practical anyway. Once word gets out that the police are doing this, you only have to listen for the THUMP of the tracker hitting your car, wait for the police to fall back, pull over, and either pull it off or attach it to another nearby car.
- macspoofing 13y ago
  It doesn't have to a be a binary view of either "chase ever time", or "never chase". How about you give yourself some latitude and before you start chasing an assailant take 5 seconds and consider public safety implications. If you're in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of the night, maybe you should make a different decision than if you're in the middle of a city at noon. >You see groups of motorcycles and ATVs doing high speed wheelies through red lights regularly. You don't see that, actually. And second, all you have to do is take their licences down and you've got them.
baddox 13y ago
That part is just a slogan that sounds nice. It's probably not actual department policy, and it's definitely not a legal obligation.
- hnriot 13y ago
  maybe the LAPD should get their vehicles repainted then. it's like "2 hour dry cleaning" that actually means next-day service.
  - baddox 13y ago
    But "we murder black people with your tax dollars" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.
bullseye 13y ago
> Kinda forgot about the whole "to serve and protect" part didn't they. Hasn't been true for a while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia

wpietri 13y ago

Not at all. It's a hard question. If there is no point in running, way fewer people will run. That could mean net fewer chase-miles, and also fewer crimes committed, because fewer potential criminals would think they might be able to get away with it. The officers likely believe that serving and protecting requires them to always chase. Whether it's true or not is something that has no obvious a priori answer. It'd be great to find the answer empirically, but until then, I'm inclined to defer to the pros.

alan_cx 13y ago
Have the number of car chases decreased over time due to all the chases teaching people its not worth running?
- bradleyland 13y ago
  You're asking the wrong question. The question is how chase/no-chase policies would trend against a control. These types of social experiments are very hard to conduct, because there are so many confounding variables.
hnriot 13y ago
it's not a hard question at all. the cops shouldn't endanger the public just to chase people. It's why they shouldn't also shoot people in crowded areas. these days though the cops shoot first and ask questions later, then get away with it so why not go chasing around like cowboys too, they've already lost any respect I've ever had.
belorn 13y ago
If its such a hard question, I guess everyone country in the world is also struggling, and has equally high death count from car chases. O wait, they don't. It just easier to photo the license plate, and put down a road block.
- wpietri 13y ago
  Well maybe you could post the stats from "everyone country"? And maybe the study controlling for the factors that make the US different? Hard data would help.
macspoofing 13y ago
> It's a hard question. The minute you start considering public safety, is the minute it stops being a hard question. In my jurisdiction (Ontario), cops will not to get into high-speed chases if there's a reasonable chance of injury to assailants or civilians. My cop friend told me they won't even attempt to chase after motorcyclist because the risk to him is just too great. It is a judgement call, and chases still happen, but you always consider public safety first before you engage in a reckless chase. >The officers likely believe that serving and protecting requires them to always chase. You know, I used to watch American police car chase shows, where they would show video of police chases. Most of those ended in a car crash, and significant of those ended with the assailant ramming into some civilian car. Great police work guys. You got some two-bit criminal but you killed or engendered an innocent bystander. I think if you look past a typical "always-get-your-man" cowboy mentality you'd find it's just not worth it in the grand scheme of things.
- wpietri 13y ago
  You could be right. Indeed, were I to lay money down, it'd be on the side of fewer chases. But there are public safety concerns on either side of this, so just citing "public safety" doesn't cut it. However, the fact that you're citing reality TV as evidence definitely isn't helping your case.

lotu 13y ago

For each individual situation it is probably better to let the suspect get away instead of engaging in a high speed chase. However this makes it so people are more willing to break the law and then just run from police because they know they won't be chased, that makes society as a whole less safe. For example in New York City police will not chase suspects on motorcycles because it is so dangerous. You see groups of motorcycles and ATVs doing high speed wheelies through red lights regularly. So there are two sides to the issue we must look at.

ams6110 13y ago
I don't see this as being practical anyway. Once word gets out that the police are doing this, you only have to listen for the THUMP of the tracker hitting your car, wait for the police to fall back, pull over, and either pull it off or attach it to another nearby car.
macspoofing 13y ago
It doesn't have to a be a binary view of either "chase ever time", or "never chase". How about you give yourself some latitude and before you start chasing an assailant take 5 seconds and consider public safety implications. If you're in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of the night, maybe you should make a different decision than if you're in the middle of a city at noon. >You see groups of motorcycles and ATVs doing high speed wheelies through red lights regularly. You don't see that, actually. And second, all you have to do is take their licences down and you've got them.

baddox 13y ago

That part is just a slogan that sounds nice. It's probably not actual department policy, and it's definitely not a legal obligation.

hnriot 13y ago
maybe the LAPD should get their vehicles repainted then. it's like "2 hour dry cleaning" that actually means next-day service.
- baddox 13y ago
  But "we murder black people with your tax dollars" doesn't have quite the same ring to it.

bullseye 13y ago

> Kinda forgot about the whole "to serve and protect" part didn't they. Hasn't been true for a while. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia