A) is true almost by definition. You could also object that criminals who plan on speeding away from the scene of a crime may forget to put enough gas in their

A) is true almost by definition. You could also object that criminals who plan on speeding away from the scene of a crime may forget to put enough gas in their tank and run out of gas before they get away. It's plausible, but crime is a cat and mouse game and if something poses a severe enough threat to criminals, those who do not defend against it will get caught. Those left will learn from their mistakes. Even if all criminals initially neglect to remove the receiver and get caught, you don't expect a world where future criminals are too stupid to learn from the mistakes of others, do you? B) It might not have been entirely clear from how I worded it, but I was speaking only of crimes that are witnessed ocurring in public. The reasoning behind this exclusion is that the technology in the article is discussed in the context of being combined with police surveillance (either in person or via camera). I couldn't find reliable statistics on the percentage of crimes with cooperative witnesses that lead to charges being filed, but it's common knowledge among law enforcement that cooperative witnesses greatly improve the odds of charges being filed [1]. The point I was making here is that if the crime is witnessed by several people or captured on video the identity of the suspect can usually be determined. C) Like (A), this is impossible to prove either way since we're talking about what might happen in the future, conditioned on a certain technology seeing widespread adoption. However, rather than speculate ad nauseum, I simply invite you to review the last decade of history in both the US, UK, and Australia (possibly other countries as well) in which the legal restrictions surrounding the use of police force (see: stop-and-frisk, police dogs as probable cause on a leash, etc) have decreased while the technology they have available has increased in power (surplus armored vehicles sold to police, increasingly common license plate readers, etc). The point here, regardless of what would happen if the remote stop technology were adopted, is that police have earned a degree of public distrust and skepticism that has no parallel in recent history, and starting from a position of distrust and moving to trust when the populace is convinced later is much safer than the opposite. [1] http://www.npr.org/2012/11/13/163242604/in-chicago-violence-soars-and-witnesses-go-silent http://www.npr.org/2012/11/13/163242604/in-chicago-violence-...