Tried to Outrun Po-Po

[Thumper]

I wish the cops would put this much effort into catching thieves, robbers and other more serious criminals.

Also, if the cop didn't pursue, we would have had a Mustang not speeding or at least not as much and not causing an accident. Just dumb and not worth it.

Let's flip that script on you a bit, since I really hate the weak arguments to let criminals go. It's like that horrible abomination Avengers Civil War, where supposedly you should agree that letting terrorists who are planning to nerve toxin cities get away is better than knocking down a few buildings and local injuries and deaths. Clearly the scale is different, but the premise is identical.

The cops have no idea what this person is up to. Consider an officer sees a simple traffic violation and hits lights, the expectation is the person will pull over and they will have a chat and maybe get a ticket with a fine. Instead, the car roars off and runs. Why? Why would someone commit felonies to avoid a $200 fine? Is it because they have a dead body in the trunk? A load of guns for a gang? Maybe a kidnapped kid? At this point it's not only about the new crime being committed right in front of them, it's that question about what recent or soon to occur crime are they dealing with.

So this guy runs, cop says "Oh, if I chase them they might cause a crash, better let them go......" turns out it's a serial killer with a body in the trunk, and they go on to kill several more people. Or they just kidnapped a kid, tied up in trunk, could have found and saved them but decided not to pursue. Perhaps they just robbed a house and have loads of someone's stuff in the car. Not to mention the other most logical result would be criminals now know if they run, no one will chase them......so they run everytime. You want the cops to somehow catch "more serious" criminals, but then offer those criminals the means by which to further avoid detection and capture.

Here's a novel idea, let's have our police actually fight crime without needing to consult a magic 8 ball and let's blame the destruction and harm done by criminals evading cops on the CRIMINALS and not the cops. This chase and any damage and injuries were in no way the fault of the officer but 100% the fault of the moron in the Mustang who chose to run,, chose to drive recklessly, and chose to become a deadly weapon on the roads. Trying to blame the cop for doing his/her job only emboldens the criminals and makes us all less safe.

 

[mkv_martinez]

Let's flip that script on you a bit, since I really hate the weak arguments to let criminals go. It's like that horrible abomination Avengers Civil War, where supposedly you should agree that letting terrorists who are planning to nerve toxin cities get away is better than knocking down a few buildings and local injuries and deaths. Clearly the scale is different, but the premise is identical.

The cops have no idea what this person is up to. Consider an officer sees a simple traffic violation and hits lights, the expectation is the person will pull over and they will have a chat and maybe get a ticket with a fine. Instead, the car roars off and runs. Why? Why would someone commit felonies to avoid a $200 fine? Is it because they have a dead body in the trunk? A load of guns for a gang? Maybe a kidnapped kid? At this point it's not only about the new crime being committed right in front of them, it's that question about what recent or soon to occur crime are they dealing with.

So this guy runs, cop says "Oh, if I chase them they might cause a crash, better let them go......" turns out it's a serial killer with a body in the trunk, and they go on to kill several more people. Or they just kidnapped a kid, tied up in trunk, could have found and saved them but decided not to pursue. Perhaps they just robbed a house and have loads of someone's stuff in the car. Not to mention the other most logical result would be criminals now know if they run, no one will chase them......so they run everytime. You want the cops to somehow catch "more serious" criminals, but then offer those criminals the means by which to further avoid detection and capture.

Here's a novel idea, let's have our police actually fight crime without needing to consult a magic 8 ball and let's blame the destruction and harm done by criminals evading cops on the CRIMINALS and not the cops. This chase and any damage and injuries were in no way the fault of the officer but 100% the fault of the moron in the Mustang who chose to run,, chose to drive recklessly, and chose to become a deadly weapon on the roads. Trying to blame the cop for doing his/her job only emboldens the criminals and makes us all less safe.

I'm the first person to jump on the "cops are too aggressive and have been militarized" bandwagon, but I have to agree here.
I've heard of a few areas near me with 'no chase' polices and I kinda wondered.. so if I get caught doing something I just drive away and as long as no one IDs me I'm good??

 

[MonkeyMD]

Let's flip that script on you a bit, since I really hate the weak arguments to let criminals go. It's like that horrible abomination Avengers Civil War, where supposedly you should agree that letting terrorists who are planning to nerve toxin cities get away is better than knocking down a few buildings and local injuries and deaths. Clearly the scale is different, but the premise is identical.

The cops have no idea what this person is up to. Consider an officer sees a simple traffic violation and hits lights, the expectation is the person will pull over and they will have a chat and maybe get a ticket with a fine. Instead, the car roars off and runs. Why? Why would someone commit felonies to avoid a $200 fine? Is it because they have a dead body in the trunk? A load of guns for a gang? Maybe a kidnapped kid? At this point it's not only about the new crime being committed right in front of them, it's that question about what recent or soon to occur crime are they dealing with.

So this guy runs, cop says "Oh, if I chase them they might cause a crash, better let them go......" turns out it's a serial killer with a body in the trunk, and they go on to kill several more people. Or they just kidnapped a kid, tied up in trunk, could have found and saved them but decided not to pursue. Perhaps they just robbed a house and have loads of someone's stuff in the car. Not to mention the other most logical result would be criminals now know if they run, no one will chase them......so they run everytime. You want the cops to somehow catch "more serious" criminals, but then offer those criminals the means by which to further avoid detection and capture.

Here's a novel idea, let's have our police actually fight crime without needing to consult a magic 8 ball and let's blame the destruction and harm done by criminals evading cops on the CRIMINALS and not the cops. This chase and any damage and injuries were in no way the fault of the officer but 100% the fault of the moron in the Mustang who chose to run,, chose to drive recklessly, and chose to become a deadly weapon on the roads. Trying to blame the cop for doing his/her job only emboldens the criminals and makes us all less safe.

I didn't watch the full video. Did he have a dead body in the car?

What I'm saying is I have first hand experience with thefts and robberies. This is a known crime, not a potential crime like the mustang driver. And very little is done to catch the culprits. But in this case of an unknown or possible crime that you mention, the cops went all out with a high speed chase and helicopter.

And yet, my store is robbed, we have camera footage, exact car description, direction they're traveling and cops take 10 minutes to come to the scene and don't even bother looking for them.

I'm just saying taking the known more seriously than the unknown. But it's more exciting to get into a high speed chase I guess.

 

[Thumper]

I'm the first person to jump on the "cops are too aggressive and have been militarized" bandwagon, but I have to agree here.

Cops are WAY to militarized. You know what they say, if you're a carpenter with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Give a local PD a freaking tank, and they are going to find a use for it.

I didn't watch the full video. Did he have a dead body in the car?

Does it matter? That's the point. You're saying they have to confirm a dead body before they chase, and there's no way to do that. It's a pointless argument. As to your situation, I don't know what to tell you other than it has no bearing on this event, the events are completely unrelated and dissimilar. Sounds like you have some lazy cops and some community work to do to rectify it though.

I'm not saying every traffic stop assumes a dead body, what I am saying is that when someone acts opposite of what is expected of a lawful citizen the response should not be a shrug and letting them go, because more often than not it's not a dumbass in a Mustang but a criminal that might otherwise get away. And again, this stop was no "unknown" crime, the crime is right there in the video, felony resisting arrest and failure to stop. What you seem to want to do is pick and choose what laws we enforce. There should never be a question as to if our laws will be enforced, otherwise what point is it to have them. I am sure there are people out there that would feel like the cops in your case were right as well, spending their time catching murderers and not wasting time with some petty theft.

Just think about this, you seem to take issue with the dangers of a high speed chase but in reality your method would INCREASE these dangers. Since every criminal will know if they run from the police they will not be chased far, every criminal will try to run. Crashes don't only happen at the end of a long chase, a criminal could hit the gas to ditch a cop, turn a corner and instantly run over someone. The point is there would be more RUNNERS, even if the cops don't initiate a full chase it will encourage more reckless driving.

Ignoring crime will never result in less dangers and less crime.

 

[mkv_martinez]

Cops are WAY to militarized. You know what they say, if you're a carpenter with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Give a local PD a freaking tank, and they are going to find a use for it.




Does it matter? That's the point. You're saying they have to confirm a dead body before they chase, and there's no way to do that. It's a pointless argument. As to your situation, I don't know what to tell you other than it has no bearing on this event, the events are completely unrelated and dissimilar. Sounds like you have some lazy cops and some community work to do to rectify it though.

I'm not saying every traffic stop assumes a dead body, what I am saying is that when someone acts opposite of what is expected of a lawful citizen the response should not be a shrug and letting them go, because more often than not it's not a dumbass in a Mustang but a criminal that might otherwise get away. And again, this stop was no "unknown" crime, the crime is right there in the video, felony resisting arrest and failure to stop. What you seem to want to do is pick and choose what laws we enforce. There should never be a question as to if our laws will be enforced, otherwise what point is it to have them. I am sure there are people out there that would feel like the cops in your case were right as well, spending their time catching murderers and not wasting time with some petty theft.

Just think about this, you seem to take issue with the dangers of a high speed chase but in reality your method would INCREASE these dangers. Since every criminal will know if they run from the police they will not be chased far, every criminal will try to run. Crashes don't only happen at the end of a long chase, a criminal could hit the gas to ditch a cop, turn a corner and instantly run over someone. The point is there would be more RUNNERS, even if the cops don't initiate a full chase it will encourage more reckless driving.

Ignoring crime will never result in less dangers and less crime.

You're the first person I have ever seen or met to actually articulate that. No one ever understands when I try to say those points. They are not conflicting.

Are they militarized? Yes.
Are they sometimes too aggressive and tought to assume everyone is out to get them? Also Yes
Does that mean no one is out to get them and there are no times they actually may need that fire power? No... not at all... just we've gone a bit too far to the extreme end that ends in authoritarianism

We need to expect more from the police. Just walking around ready to shoot anything that disagrees with your command (including dogs) is not the way to address things.
Does that mean I have a better solution? Nope; just calling a spade a spade.

We have cops with tanks and ICE setting up checkpoints asking for proof of citizenship within 100 miles of ports of entry. This has evolved since 9/11 through Bush & Obama. Its both side of the aisles my friends.

Edit: I may have gotten a bit too political with the above comments; feel free to let me know if y'all want me to edit anything out.

Not too often I post in threads not talking specifically about mods and car parts.

 

[MonkeyMD]

Cops are WAY to militarized. You know what they say, if you're a carpenter with a hammer, every problem looks like a nail. Give a local PD a freaking tank, and they are going to find a use for it.




Does it matter? That's the point. You're saying they have to confirm a dead body before they chase, and there's no way to do that. It's a pointless argument. As to your situation, I don't know what to tell you other than it has no bearing on this event, the events are completely unrelated and dissimilar. Sounds like you have some lazy cops and some community work to do to rectify it though.

I'm not saying every traffic stop assumes a dead body, what I am saying is that when someone acts opposite of what is expected of a lawful citizen the response should not be a shrug and letting them go, because more often than not it's not a dumbass in a Mustang but a criminal that might otherwise get away. And again, this stop was no "unknown" crime, the crime is right there in the video, felony resisting arrest and failure to stop. What you seem to want to do is pick and choose what laws we enforce. There should never be a question as to if our laws will be enforced, otherwise what point is it to have them. I am sure there are people out there that would feel like the cops in your case were right as well, spending their time catching murderers and not wasting time with some petty theft.

Just think about this, you seem to take issue with the dangers of a high speed chase but in reality your method would INCREASE these dangers. Since every criminal will know if they run from the police they will not be chased far, every criminal will try to run. Crashes don't only happen at the end of a long chase, a criminal could hit the gas to ditch a cop, turn a corner and instantly run over someone. The point is there would be more RUNNERS, even if the cops don't initiate a full chase it will encourage more reckless driving.

Ignoring crime will never result in less dangers and less crime.

Love how you just picked my sarcastic comment to reply to...But

I don't disagree that all crimes should be pursued. And if time, resources, effort were infinite, they should all be pursued with equal fervor. What I was trying to convey is that resources, time, effort are finite. That means there needs to be better use of these resources and triage the ongoing circumstances to pick the best use of the resources.

Not saying my case was special as there might be others that demand more attention. Although I don't think $15k is petty.

But I will never agree that chasing random people that run from the police is the best way to catch those that have committed a serious crime. The odds are not in your favor. I think I read the number was like 20% off high speed chases were for suspected felony. Key word being suspected.

If instead of traffic cops, cops were placed strategically to be able to respond to crimes in a more timely manner, it would be a better use of their time. Especially as 50% of police time is spent in traffic patrol and non criminal calls.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[Thumper]

Love how you just picked my sarcastic comment to reply to...

Why not?

But I will never agree that chasing random people that run from the police is the best way to catch those that have committed a serious crime. The odds are not in your favor. I think I read the number was like 20% off high speed chases were for suspected felony. Key word being suspected.

At no point did I suggest traffic stops were "the best way" to catch serious criminals. What I stated was sometimes luck plays a big part in solving crimes. Statistics are a fun toy, I'd like to see the methodology of that study. For instance, my guess is that it refers to cops running a plate and seeing a person with a warrant or on parole in a bad neighborhood. Where would it fall when the cop simply sees a broken tail light and the driver hits the gas and flees? That wasn't a suspected felony to start with................but again, you have to ask why would someone run in that case? You are telling me that 80% of the high speed chases are law abiding citizens doing nothing wrong that just felt like running from the cops that day??

What I also said which you are ignoring is that ALL crime should be pursued because it is crime, not because maybe you'll catch a bigger fish. People that run from the cops are dangerous lunatics and should be pursued and removed from the road. Even if the cops don't pursue, the reckless driving they engage in can cause damage to property and life in the instant they begin their escape. And you have no response for the end result of your idea which is a massive INCREASE in reckless driving as everyone learns that the cops don't chase you, so more and more people will just keep driving recklessly to pull away.

Criminals are stupid, but they are NOT dumb. Once they realize if you speed away for a few blocks the cops will not chase you, they will be sideswiping cars and running down old ladies in no time. Even people that otherwise would not will then start running. The guy who's late to work and speeding would normally pull over, curse his luck and pay the fine. But now, what's that, if you run cops won't follow? Punch it, no need to pay a ticket and be later for work.

I don't disagree that all crimes should be pursued. And if time, resources, effort were infinite, they should all be pursued with equal fervor. What I was trying to convey is that resources, time, effort are finite. That means there needs to be better use of these resources and triage the ongoing circumstances to pick the best use of the resources.

If instead of traffic cops, cops were placed strategically to be able to respond to crimes in a more timely manner, it would be a better use of their time. Especially as 50% of police time is spent in traffic patrol and non criminal calls.

So, these two statements are completely at odds. Not only with each other but literally with your entire premise from before based on your personal experience. Resources are limited, but we should deploy cops in enough number to sit around and respond to crime?

And you argue here for a better use of time prioritizing crime response, but your prior point was outrage that the cops didn't investigate your robbery? Perhaps they were busy with gang banger murders and coke heads shooting up clubs, yet you were still angry they didn't jump on YOUR crime. When it is entirely likely that they were doing exactly as you suggest here when it helps fit your point.

So you're argument is cops shouldn't chase reckless drivers intent on causing harm to other people so that they can prioritize "real" crime because they didn't investigate your robbery.............because they were dealing with real crime. It's not very logical. Once you allow that there is a subset of crime you don't care about, it's a slippery slope. You think reckless driving is meh, but robbery should be investigated. Meanwhile, other people are like "Robbery? Did anyone die? Than who cares, investigate rapes and murders!!". If we accept your premise as reasonable we have to accept their premise as well which removes you're initial complaint about the cops ignoring your robbery. It simply wasn't a crime worth bothering with, which is what you state you believe in.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

And on THAT we can agree.

 

[GTIfan99]

Cops chasing a car driving triple digits are like a cop firing a weapon into a crowd of people to stop a suspect in a nonviolent crime. It's stupid, dangerous and lazy. We have cameras at every signal in cities, cops have dash cams and can read the plates. If you have a bird in the sky, that's different. They can allow officers to lag behind and direct road blocks ahead, but a straight up chase is dangerous and a terrible idea, unless the suspect is suspected to be armed and dangerous.

 

[bentin]

Cops chasing a car driving triple digits or like a cop firing a weapon into a crowd of people to stop a suspect in a nonviolent crime. It's stupid, dangerous and lazy. We have cameras at every signal in cities, cops have dash cams and can read the plates. If you have a bird in the sky, that's different. They can allow officers to lag behind and direct road blocks ahead, but a straight up chase is dangerous and a terrible idea, unless the suspect is suspected to be armed and dangerous.

Even then, a high speed chase is generally unwarranted. Just pursue discreetly and apprehend once they've exited the vehicle. High speed chases have been banned from most metropolitan areas for very sound reasons.

Reminds me of a very brief and misguided period that the small community I grew up in inside Dallas, which was entirely a 30 mph zone had a Lamborghini stolen from a driveway and they just casually fled from the chasing police Suburbans. The police department bought a Mustang immediately after that and would blaze through 30 mph intersections at over 70 mph. That only lasted a few months before reason returned and they just went back to the Suburbans.

 

[MonkeyMD]

Why not?



At no point did I suggest traffic stops were "the best way" to catch serious criminals. What I stated was sometimes luck plays a big part in solving crimes. Statistics are a fun toy, I'd like to see the methodology of that study. For instance, my guess is that it refers to cops running a plate and seeing a person with a warrant or on parole in a bad neighborhood. Where would it fall when the cop simply sees a broken tail light and the driver hits the gas and flees? That wasn't a suspected felony to start with................but again, you have to ask why would someone run in that case? You are telling me that 80% of the high speed chases are law abiding citizens doing nothing wrong that just felt like running from the cops that day??

What I also said which you are ignoring is that ALL crime should be pursued because it is crime, not because maybe you'll catch a bigger fish. People that run from the cops are dangerous lunatics and should be pursued and removed from the road. Even if the cops don't pursue, the reckless driving they engage in can cause damage to property and life in the instant they begin their escape. And you have no response for the end result of your idea which is a massive INCREASE in reckless driving as everyone learns that the cops don't chase you, so more and more people will just keep driving recklessly to pull away.

Criminals are stupid, but they are NOT dumb. Once they realize if you speed away for a few blocks the cops will not chase you, they will be sideswiping cars and running down old ladies in no time. Even people that otherwise would not will then start running. The guy who's late to work and speeding would normally pull over, curse his luck and pay the fine. But now, what's that, if you run cops won't follow? Punch it, no need to pay a ticket and be later for work.







So, these two statements are completely at odds. Not only with each other but literally with your entire premise from before based on your personal experience. Resources are limited, but we should deploy cops in enough number to sit around and respond to crime?

And you argue here for a better use of time prioritizing crime response, but your prior point was outrage that the cops didn't investigate your robbery? Perhaps they were busy with gang banger murders and coke heads shooting up clubs, yet you were still angry they didn't jump on YOUR crime. When it is entirely likely that they were doing exactly as you suggest here when it helps fit your point.

So you're argument is cops shouldn't chase reckless drivers intent on causing harm to other people so that they can prioritize "real" crime because they didn't investigate your robbery.............because they were dealing with real crime. It's not very logical. Once you allow that there is a subset of crime you don't care about, it's a slippery slope. You think reckless driving is meh, but robbery should be investigated. Meanwhile, other people are like "Robbery? Did anyone die? Than who cares, investigate rapes and murders!!". If we accept your premise as reasonable we have to accept their premise as well which removes you're initial complaint about the cops ignoring your robbery. It simply wasn't a crime worth bothering with, which is what you state you believe in.




And on THAT we can agree.

If we use an analogy with your logic
Hospitals should treat everyone, but if someone goes into the ER with chest pain and someone else with a broken toe, they should be given equal priority.

we shouldn't prioritize anything. Just use shotgun approach and try to get everything. What we'll end up with is lots of treading water and little results.

Key piece of information your ignoring is police spend 50% of their time on traffic patrol and non criminal calls. Why? What's the benefit to society? Can that time be better used? It's all about efficiency of time and resources. And again, using 10 police cars and a helicopter to chase what ended up being nothing is a poor use.

 

[Thumper]

If we use an analogy with your logic
Hospitals should treat everyone, but if someone goes into the ER with chest pain and someone else with a broken toe, they should be given equal priority.

we shouldn't prioritize anything. Just use shotgun approach and try to get everything. What we'll end up with is lots of treading water and little results.

If that's what you think I am saying it's no wonder we're going in circles. I don't for a second believe that you actually think that is my point because it's absurd but it's easy to attack isn't it?

Let me try, strawman arguments are fun. If we apply logic to your analogy, if someone goes to the hospital with chest pain they should be seen immediately, someone else with a broken toe should be told to go home and stop bothering them with minor issues. Actually not even really much of a strawman because you keep claiming to be talking about prioritization, but your examples and talking points are really about ignoring what you deem below necessity.

Key piece of information your ignoring is police spend 50% of their time on traffic patrol and non criminal calls. Why? What's the benefit to society? Can that time be better used? It's all about efficiency of time and resources. And again, using 10 police cars and a helicopter to chase what ended up being nothing is a poor use.

Key pieces you are ignoring is that A) the oft quoted statistic is for officers RESPONDING to calls. It specifically points out that this does not measure any time in the investigation of that crime and several other key aspects of policework. It's a deeply flawed metric for "how police spend their time" . You do realize that patrol officers are not out there investigating murders and other violent crime right? That this ridiculously narrowed 'study' ignores a vast majority of what is actual policework to push a goal? You are also ignoring the obvious benefits to society that when police are out working traffic calls myself and others can make the commute home with a smaller chance of being hit by a drunk driver or lunatic Baby Driver wanna be.

And B) unless you have documentation that shows the helicopter and 10 squad cars ignored a call for a crime you deem 'acceptable' for them to spend their time on than all you are saying is it would be better to have them all twiddling their thumbs in case there was a crime instead of pursuing an in process crime of lessor importance. So this position requires that we assume that for every single traffic stop there is a murder being ignored. Fanciful, complete and utter malarkey, but fanciful. Again, you're not arguing for prioritization as you claim, your point was stated quite clearly up front that all traffic crime should be ignored if there is any resistance.

As you said......agree to disagree. I think we've both said all we can say and it's clear neither will be swayed. Fun discussion though.