police not allowed to chase criminals?!! what do you think?!!?

Question

i read an article in the daily mail today which said the police could get sacked if they put themselves or a criminal in danger when chasing them!! so if theyre chasing a rapist are they gonna let him get away with it?!! society is better without criminals anyway so who cares if they hurt themselves whilst running away guilty!! if police have a chance to catch someone they should take it rather than creating extra work later on and opening up the chance for further crime to be committed.

this is not necessarily a car chase!! it talked about jumping over fences, runninig along rooves etc

Answer 1

This has been a problem here in the US for years. Where do you draw the line between catching the bad guy and endangering the public? The common rule of thumb has been:

Does the risk created to the public by the bad guy escaping
outway the risk created by chasing him?

A serial killer or rapist presents a serious threat the the community and catching him justifies risks. Therefore it is reasonable to chase him despite the possibility of an innocent person being hurt. The higher that possibility, the less justification there is for the risk. A high speed chase on a highway may be appropriate but if that same suspect leaves the highway and heads for a parade route it is not. No police officer likes to let any bad guy get away but they don't want an innocent person to get hurt either. Eventually society will have to decide how far they want the police to go in protecting them.

Answer 2

Car chases are very dangerous. There are scores of instances where the Police are chasing someone who ran for a minor infraction; i.e. speeding, no tag, etc. These chases have ended in tragedy when: a) the offender hits and injures/killes an innocent person(s), or b) the Officer hits and injures/kills an innocent person(s).

In the past, the rule was: Chase everyone who runs, every time, until you catch them. This is the policy that is changing. No body deserves to get killed over a speeding ticket. Someone who just killed a bank teller while committing armed robbery needs to be caught, so chasing them is appropriate.

What is happening all across the country is that departments are working on policies for car chases that clearly state when to chase, how long to chase, when to end the chase, and etc. Needless to say, there are many differing views on this subject, but most people want a reasonable compromise between the need to catch criminals, and how much danger the public is subjected to during the chase.

Cops will always try to catch bad guys. We just want to make sure the risk to the public is kept to an acceptable level while we chase.

Answer 3

I have mixed feelings on this, but I have to ask myself. If my son, or any other loved one, died bcause of a high-speed chase (after someone else), how would I feel about that. If my car is trashed and I'm injured for the same reason, I'm hurt - maybe crippled, I can't do my job, the cost of damage to my property (whatever I can get) comes out of my insurance and deductible - I can't get it from the criminal or the entity chasing them. Same if one of the vehicles plows into my home causing damage or injury.

A lot of movies and shows just love this stuff! The old Eddie Murphy movies are full of high speed chases and cops shooting off guns in public places, Walker has 2 - 3 Hig-speed chases a week with civilian vehicles getting slammed all over the place and the list goes on. Those are fiction, I grant you, but watch COPS - that isn't

So what's the solution? Is catching a car thief or a burglar or a drunk worth that? Is the damage they'll do if they get away worth worth the risks chasing them involves.

There is some EMP technology out there for diabling vehicles, but it's still full of bugs and severe limitations and it's own draw-backs. Perhaps a reassessment of tactics and strategy is what is needed - do the chases really produce the optimal result? Is there a better way that will still produce a good apprehension rate?

Ah, well, that is different. I think other than reckless (note I did not say any) discharge of firearms, police should be able to chase and take the steps needed to apprehend, including potential injury to the subject. The sucker is running for a reason, and he (she) has seen enough Cops to know what it coming - give up and get it over with, better chance of coming out of it without injury. Besides - is potential for them to duck into a house, jeopardizing the people in it.

Answer 4

I'd love to know what article you read. Usually the reason for breaking off pursuit is for the safety of bystanders and not the offender. High speed chases through densely populated areas can result in collateral deaths (deaths of innocent people). The duty of the police is to protect the public. If the risk to the public is greater due to the chase than the criminal represents, then the chase should be abandoned.

While we're at it, I was once a police officer. The motto used to be "To protect and to serve". Newer officers seem to have adopted the motto "I'm getting home safely, no matter what." The reason we have police is for public safety. The last thing I want to see is some hot shot shooting an innocent member of the public because he pulls out his id and "there was a flash. I thought he was pulling a gun." We as police officers are paid to accept reasonable risks. We need to be sure before discharging a fire arm.

Answer 5

Different departments have different policies regarding chases. Some have a strict no chase policy. This is due to the fear of liability , fear of damage to department equipment and possible injury to the officer and citizens.

Some have a chase policy that states that the officer may only chase if a felony has occured. Some give their officers the discretion of making the decision to chase or not chase.

I've found that nearly all departments have a policy of calling off the chase if it is going to be a risk to the general public.

There are two schools of thought in this matter. One is, if the police are not allowed to chase as suspect, and that knowledge gets out to the public, will a greater amount of suspect flea the police knowing that they will not be pursued.

The other, is just the opposite, if the suspect knows that the police WILL pursue will they be more apt to surrender immediately.

It's a dilemma all police departments deal with.

Answer 6

Political Correctness yet again. The way the Police are going why not make them all redundant. If it comes down to a criminal being hurt in a chase or being caught chase them. If you have commit ed no crime why run. Human rights are now a joke in the UK. It is the criminal that has the rights not the victim or the police.

Answer 7

How can they win? look at the case in the uk a little while ago, where 5, 14 and 15 year olds were killed when they crashed their stolen car during a police chase..;the 14 year old driver (amongst others) had been drinking..;whilst it's tragic in one respect, what are the authorities supposed to do? say it's ok to drink underage, steal cars, and put heaven knows how many peoples lives at risk, or try to stop them before they can kill other people? I have a friend who's just retired after 30 years in the police force..try telling him and others like him why it's their fault if criminals get killed during a chase, because they can't understand why they always get the blame for doing their job, and the criminals get the sympathy...

Answer 8

Trust me when I write that many cops in the USA are simply in no shape to give chase on foot or in a vehicle. Many departments are going to no pursuit policies unless it is of a known felon, because there's simply too much liability. This mindset varies widely from state to state, whereas in California they don't care - it's by whatever means necessary they catch fleeing suspects.
While I agree with your premise and think fleeing felons should just be shot, there's politics and too much liability in many cases. A friend I was a cop with in New Mexico shot a fleeing felon (accidentally in the back) (the guy had just committed an aggrovated battery on a police officer). Although he didn't serve any time (don't know how), he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and fired.

Answer 9

This has been the case for at least 10 years now. Officers RARELY abide by the policy.

It's mostly for car chases because too many innocent people were being hurt and it's mostly for non-violent offenders. Someone being hunted for a crime where they hurt someone is chased until they're caught.

A speeder who runs might rarely be let go and then revisited at their home at a later time when they can take the person into custody.

Answer 10

It sounds awful when the procedures manual says not to get involved in a pursuit, but most agencies will also have a stipulation where if you have to neutralize, you have to neutralize, like if you were to be chasing an active shooter, however in the matter of initiating pursuit to catch a no license plate stop...i think in smaller matters it's good because today all liability falls on the officer's shoulders, if no license plate light wanted felon runs over mom and baby as evading, there is a greater chance of you losing your job and catching charges, than him.