during a highspeed chase should cops really have to worry about the safety of the one fleeing when ending a?

Question

chase or take them out by any means necessary if your stupid enough to run and endanger lives why should your life mean anything

Answer 1

Yes, they should be concerned with safety of the fleeing vehicle. There may be someone in it against their will. There may be questions they have that will never or could never be answered if the fleeing vehicle gets involved in a deadly wreck.

Answer 2

We were told to consider the totality of the circumstances back in the day when we could chase with much fewer restrictions. The traffic out, the condition of the suspect's vehicle and yours, what other hazards might exist. For example, the suspect is driving towards school zone time, I would let that sucker go and try and keep them from fleeing at the high rate of speed and hurting a kid.
I hated to call off chases as a supervisor, but we had to account for what happened during the pursuit if we didn't.
Whether or not this is fair is beside the point. The attorneys who sue the government don't care that the idiot fleeing caused this. Plus if some innocent person was killed, that would be very hard to deal with as an officer. I do remember seeing a Missouri officer who disrearded a chase which was traffic only in his mind. Later he found out they had kidnapped a woman and had her in the car and subsequently murdered her. What a burden to carry around with you.

Answer 3

You're probably talking about the case that's at the supreme court now because the guy ran from police because he was "scared" and he was driving on a suspended license. Well, now that the chase ended in a crash and he's now paralyzed from the neck down. All I have to say is that if cops can't chase people, everyone is going to run, not caring about anyone else. Yes, I think cops should use any means necessary to stop a vehicle running from them, they're endangering many many people when they run, and it's almost like you're trying to kill somebody. So, if you think about it, it's kind of like attempted murder.

But that's only my opinion, and I think that they should be allowed to chase the suspect and use any means necessary to stop them.

Answer 4

This comes down to a civil liability issue more than anything. While they are in pursuit of the violator they have a duty to the public to protect the citizens they or the violator would come into no contact with. The officers actions to stop the violator are directly related to the actions the violator is taking to elude them.

Police will step up thier agression if the violator is further putting the public at risk. Bottom line is also that if the violator is fleeing in an overly agressive fashion placing the public at extreme risk and the officers cannot stop him using conventional means right at that time then they will call off the pursuit. This relieves them of any further civil liability for the violators actions...If they have the identity of the violator then this is the smart move.. they can always get a warrant for him later...Police are sworn to serve the public...the public includes criminals too....Its a double edged sword that they have to use everyday....

Answer 5

Sadly, what the Police are TRULY worried about are the damned lawyers !!

Just last week, on CNN there was a piece about an idiot who had led police on a several hour high speed chase. He was driving in excess of 100mph on a two lane road and often crossing the line into oncoming traffic. The police finally were cleared to wreck him for the public safety... the criminal ended up paralyzed from the waist down.

DAMNED lawyers have now sued that city for multi-millions.

Here on the San Mateo Peninsula, our departments have great restrictions on chasing criminals... BUT we now have several helicopters available... because you can't outrun the radio and the eyes of a helo.

OH... we got the helicopters because some stoned bunch of gang-bangers who were being pursued following a armed robbery were allowed to continue... they went thru a red-light and killed the family of a rather rich Silicon Valley executive. (the criminals weren't hurt). HE put up the money for the helicopters.

Answer 6

I personally agree with you but the problem with that is that stupid idiots start car chases when they havent done anything wrong.

They are so scared about being caught with an oz of weed or for a warrent they have from failed child support, that they run and then the media portrays it as the evil police killing people whose only crime was being behind in child support.

It makes the police department look bad.

I agree they shouldn't have to but public outcry always protects the guilty--punishment has to fit the crime and if the crime wasn't murder, it doesn't warrent the police killing the man. However, no one can know what he did wrong when he is running from the cops endangering others.

Answer 7

The police aren't worried about the one fleeing them, they're worried about the general public. If they stop chasing a guy he may slow down, and not run through a red light and T-Bone somebody for example.

Answer 8

My vote is to use WHATEVER means necessary to stop them.
Only someone with something to hide, runs. A runner endangers EVERYONE in their path. If the law enforcment were allowed to use any menas necessary, worst case, they would only be a danger to a very select few in a small radius.

Answer 9

The order of concern goes like this:
1. The Public
2. The other Officers involved
3. The Reports he now has to write
4. The grass or mud he may have to clean off his vehicle
5. Not getting clubbed by Brother Officer's once he is caught
6. Getting your spike strip back
7. The violators safety and comfort.

Answer 10

It's not worth chasing a criminal down "by any means necessary" if even one bystander is hurt or killed.