[Scleros]

To really understand the horror...

*snicker*

Our city witnessed this not long ago when a police vehicle smashed through a woman's house and into her living room when the officer lost control during the chase. I can blame no one but the officer involved for his lack of skill.

I believe police and criminal alike are cut from the same psychological cloth with the result determined by advantage and opportunity. When I see chases on TV or otherwise, all I see are two unyielding egos flying down the road.

As a general rule, if a car causes an accident, another car following them who does not collide with anything...

Fact: It takes two cars to have a chase.

Opinion: Consequently, both cars share responsibility for the ensuing mayhem. Your view of police and yourself as I read it sees the eluder as if they are in a vacuum and therefore solely responsible. I see two inviduals involved in a chase, either of which can choose to end the chase at anytime. Welcome to the court of public opinion, we make our own rules according to what we feel is just to those impacted by other's actions.

[JimGunther]

I will have have to admit, as you said, you are a liberal who hates police, and that philosophy has clouded your ability to read what I said and react objectively. Obviously, I was not referring to a case where a police vehicle hits something. I was specifically referring to the case where the offender hits something, not the police vehicle. If the police vehicle hits something, we are talking about another ballgame entirely!

If criminals and police are "cut from the same cloth" and the difference is based on "opportunity and advantage", what about the role of a person's concept of right and wrong? Isn't it obvious to you that flying down the road without regard to the safety of others is a horrible thing to do, whether anyone is chasing the driver or not? And isn't it equally obvious that something should be done about such a situation?

Again, don't get me wrong. Two egos ARE involved. One is the ego that is flying down the road, usually without professional training in high-spped driving, hell-bent to elude capture at the risk of everyone around them. The other ego is that of the person trying to stop them from the horror they are inflicting on every person they whiz past or slam into. I think any reasonable person can see a whopping difference in the two. The eluder should be responsible not because he is in a vacuum, but because he is the wrongdoer.

By the way. I never knew a police officer personally who came from an "advantaged" background. And too many people have died after a chase was called off because the wrongdoer kept on "fleeing." I can guarantee you that once the chase is over, the eluder does not become a friendly, courteous driver. Of the fleeing and eluding cases I was involed in, every one that resulted in an arrest revealled that the person had a long, nasty driving record.

These people are also generally not courteous enough to send in a change of address notification to the motor vehicle department. That's one reason taking their tag number and letting them go often doesn't work.

[Fr_Chuck]

Yes and most officers ( all in many states) are required to take Emergancy Vechile Operation, they are trained in operating their car in higher speeds, they are taught how to handle skids and operating their car to standards the average person never has to.

[Scleros]

I was specifically referring to the case where the offender hits something

The offender is less likely to hit something if he isn't being chased.

Isn't it obvious to you that flying down the road without regard to the safety of others is a horrible thing to do

Not as obvious as you would like. I don't believe that flying = automatic disregard for safety. In fact, many regular flyers are probably more focused on driving than the average motorist. I find crawling down the road in the left lane while chatting on the cell phone and trying to get your kids DVD to play equally horrible, if not more so, but those individuals are never a "safety" issue.

And isn't it equally obvious that something should be done about such a situation?

Perhaps, but exacerbating the situation with a higher speed pursuit isn't the correct something.

I think any reasonable person can see a whopping difference in the two.

Us mindless folk have no need for reason.

Of the fleeing and eluding cases I was involed in, every one that resulted in an arrest revealled that the person had a long, nasty driving record.

And yet, their comeuppance could only be delivered in the form of a high speed pursuit?


And so on, and so forth... 'til the end of time. We aren't going to agree.

[JimGunther]

We might if you would stop twisting the meaning of my words around. I did't say that flying=automatic disregard for safety, I said "flying down the road without regard to the safety of others". The difference should be obvious.

You think the "offender is less likely to hit something if he is not being chased." That's one of the reasons people bring up when they advocate limiting the ability of the police to get these people off the road. The problem is that as these people tend to be bad drivers in general. That's the point I was trying to make about seeing their driver's record. People often feel that the danger ends when the chase is over and the offender got away. What they don't realize is that the person who is willing to flee and allude is probably going to drive like a "jerk" the rest of the time and will probably hit someone eventually.

"Perhaps, but exacerbating the situation with a higher speed pursuit isn't the correct something."

What solution do you propose? People who are willing to do stuff like this don't leave the police much choice as to what can be done about it. Personally I think we need to come up with other measures as well, such as high-energy guns of some type that prevent the electrical system in a fleeing car from working. Until we have something like that, I see no solution to the problems these people cause except to catch them at the scene of the crime.

Helicopters and technology like FLUR have helped greatly in that the chase can be supervised from the air and anyone who bails can be spotted even at night, but someone on the ground still has to manually grab the driver.

"And yet, their comeuppance could only be delivered in the form of a high speed pursuit?"

What makes you think that's the only "comeuppance " they have ever received? A lot of these people have had their licenses suspended or revoked, have spent time in jail, or worse.

We may not agree, but as the laws now stand in most places, people recognize the need to catch these people as soon as possible in most circumstances.

[JudyKayTee]

[QUOTE=JimGunther] A conscious decision has to be made to do this. After I was a police officer, I also served as a court bailiff and saw many cases of this type. I heard a few people try to follow that line of "reasoning" and it was never accepted as a defense in court.

The problem with being an accident investigator is that you only see the accident after it happened. You do not see the horror in the faces of the people who have to take evasive action (if they can) to avoid these thugs. When a bank robber goes into a bank, he only threatens the lives of a few people, let's say 20 as a max (many bank robbers don't like to enter a busy bank). If he shoots, the kinetic energy of the bullets he fires is much, much less than a car flying down the road in a chase. A person who flees and alludes can endanger the lives of a lot of people very quickly. And some chases can last for an hour or more! It's a fact, not an opinion.


As I said - and keep saying - we are obviously in different States because this is most definitely not NYS Law and not the result of cases I have worked.

I fail to see what the look of "horror on the faces of the people who have to take evasive action" has to do with anything but thanks for explaining the problem with being an accident investigator.

[JudyKayTee]

[QUOTE=JimGunther]If criminals and police are "cut from the same cloth" and the difference is based on "opportunity and advantage", what about the role of a person's concept of right and wrong? Isn't it obvious to you that flying down the road without regard to the safety of others is a horrible thing to do, whether anyone is chasing the driver or not? And isn't it equally obvious that something should be done about such a situation?

By the way. I never knew a police officer personally who came from an "advantaged" background. And too many people have died after a chase was called off because the wrongdoer kept on "fleeing." I can guarantee you that once the chase is over, the eluder does not become a friendly, courteous driver. Of the fleeing and eluding cases I was involved in, every one that resulted in an arrest revealed that the person had a long, nasty driving record.


(1) Your passive/aggression comments add nothing to the discussion - "Isn't it obvious to you that flying down the road without regard to the safety of others is a horrible thing to do, whether anyone is chasing the driver or not? And isn't it equally obvious that something should be done about such a situation? " Do you really think anybody is going to say, "No, I don't think it is terrible to fly down the road without regard ..." and so forth or "No, I don't think anything should be done." Blanket questions of this type are senseless and accusatory.

(2) You never knew a police officer who came from an "advantaged" background. Would you explain what an "advantaged" background is and how that matters in this discussion?

(3) How many feeling and eluding cases have you been involved in - not the ones you've seen on reality shows? I thought you were Air Force Security (and I didn't know they are considered Police Officers) and a Court Bailiff (also didn't know they are Police Officers - thought they were some other arm of law enforcement).

[JudyKayTee]

[QUOTE=JudyKayTee
(3) How many feeling and eluding cases have you been involved in - not the ones you've seen on reality shows? I thought you were Air Force Security (and I didn't know they are considered Police Officers) and a Court Bailiff (also didn't know they are Police Officers - thought they were some other arm of law enforcement).[/QUOTE]


Feeling? I meant fleeing. Feeling is a whole different subject.

[N0help4u]

IF it were just another vehicle speeding, even tailgating, then they would not be responsible because the 'rule' would have been that you could have gradually slowed down or got into the other lane or pulled off the road and let him pass and therefore he did not cause the accident.

[JudyKayTee]

IF it were just another vehicle speeding, even tailgating, then they would not be responsible because the 'rule' would have been that you could have gradually slowed down or got into the other lane or pulled off the road and let him pass and therefore he did not cause the accident.

Absolutely agree - and in this case I would find Vehicle #1 (if it decided to outrace Vehicle #2) to be totally at fault.

[JimGunther]


I don't like to post long comments but you raise a lot of issues that need clarification so here we go.

“As I said - and keep saying - we are obviously in different States because this is most definitely not NYS Law and not the result of cases I have worked.”

I specifically stated that I recognize that there are places that require police to share in the liability caused by people who flee. The nature of my comments should indicate to you that I am making general statements about general concepts combined with the common sense notion that generalities always have exceptions.

“I fail to see what the look of "horror on the faces of the people who have to take evasive action" has to do with anything but thanks for explaining the problem with being an accident investigator.”

You missed my point entirely. I was responding to your statement that you don't need to watch police chase TV shows to learn about pursuits because you already know about them because you investigate accidents. My point was, and I stated it clearly, that as an accident investigator, you only see the accident after it happened. You don't experience the actual horror that is being inflicted on people as the offender flies down the road endangering people's lives. You only see the result, a snapshot of the event, I have seen the whole motion picture in real time. You haven't.

“Your passive/aggression comments add nothing to the discussion”

I have noticed that in threads of this type, people who disagree will sometimes get to the point where they start slinging insults, and it is obvious to me that you have reached that point. I'm simply responding with explanations to comments others have made. Isn't that what a thread of this type is all about?

"Isn't it obvious to you that flying down the road without regard to the safety of others is a horrible thing to do, whether anyone is chasing the driver or not? And isn't it equally obvious that something should be done about such a situation? " Do you really think anybody is going to say, "No, I don't think it is terrible to fly down the road without regard ..." and so forth or "No, I don't think anything should be done." Blanket questions of this type are senseless and accusatory.”

Again, you missed my point. My statement was made in response to Sclero's statement that “ I don't believe that flying = automatic disregard for safety” I simply explained that I didn't say that flying=automatic danger, my statement was, “flying down the road without regard to the safety of others". For me to say “isn't it obvious to you” certainly does mean that people of common sense will agree with the statement, but I made it because Scleros obviously thinks that police should not attempt to apprehend these people if they decide to flee.

"You never knew a police officer who came from an "advantaged" background. Would you explain what an "advantaged" background is and how that matters in this discussion?"

You will have to ask Scleros what he means by “advantaged”, he said something about the difference between police and offenders is that police come from an “advantaged” background. My statement was a response to this. It appears to me that you are reading my posts and not those of other people. My posts won't make sense if you don't read the comments I am responding to.

"How many feeling and eluding cases have you been involved in - not the ones you've seen on reality shows? I thought you were Air Force Security (and I didn't know they are considered Police Officers) and a Court Bailiff (also didn't know they are Police Officers - thought they were some other arm of law enforcement). "

Well it really doesn't matter as to how many chases I have been involved in other than the consideration that experience=knowledge on any given subject. Of course anyone is free to express their opinion on the subject whether they have been in a chase or not, just as you are doing.

Secondly, I said I first became a police officer in the Air Force when I was 18. I didn't say that that was the sum total of my experience and I certainly never said that a bailiff is the same thing as a police officer, only that I saw a lot of police chase cases as a bailiff, but only criminal cases, by the way, I never saw a civil case.

I didn't plan on burdening everyone with my work background, but since you asked, I will be courteous enough to respond. At the age of 18, I graduated from the 3275th Air Force Police Technical School Squadron at Lackland Air Force Base, Texas. I began serving as a military police officer when I was 19. I had full arrest powers and, in some cases, “shoot on sight authority.” Today they are called Security Police and I assume that means they are more involved with security but I have been out of the military for a long time.

I served as a police officer in Washington DC, and a Maryland Special Police Officer involved in retail security and loss prevention management. I was also a parole and probation agent. I got involved in more arrests and chases when I was an SPO in Maryland that I ever did as a DC police officer, I would guess that if you consider all stages of involvement in chases, I was involved in about 12.

Since you made the statement that my "passive/agression" comments (of course you mean passive/agressive) add nothing to the discussion, I will burden you with one war story, maybe someone will find some humor or other value to it.

I was once chasing a fleeing felon on a Yamaha 350 four-speed trail/street bike that I owned at the time. There is no way an auto is going to get away from this thing in dry weather. The guy finally abandoned the auto and fled into a K Mart retail store. I don't know if you can imagine a trail bike blazing through the aisles of a KMart, but when the thug darted out of a fire exit, all sorts of bras were hanging on my mirrors.

I finally had to lay the bike down on the guy, who had some open warrants and a long record. After getting out of the hospital, he served some jail time and paid a lot of restitution to K Mart as part of his probation, which he eventually violated.

[JudyKayTee]

You missed my point entirely. I was responding to your statement that you don’t need to watch police chase TV shows to learn about pursuits because you already know about them because you investigate accidents. My point was, and I stated it clearly, that as an accident investigator, you only see the accident after it happened. You don’t experience the actual horror that is being inflicted on people as the offender flies down the road endangering people’s lives. You only see the end result, a snapshot of the event, I have seen the whole motion picture in real time.

I will only tell one war story, then I will shut up. I was once chasing a fleeing felon on a Yamaha 350 four-speed trail/street bike that I owned at the time. There is no way an auto is going to get away from this thing in dry weather. The guy finally abandoned the auto and fled into a K Mart retail store. I don't know if you can imagine a trail bike blazing through the aisles of a KMart, but when the thug darted out of a fire exit, all sorts of bras were hanging on my mirrors.

I finally had to lay the bike down on the guy, who had some open warrants and a long record. After getting out of the hospital, he served some jail time and paid alot of restitution to K Mart as part of his probation, which he eventially violated.

If only Police Officers who have actually participated in chases are allowed to have an opinion perhaps that should be the title of this thread - Thoughts By Police Officers Who Have Participated on High Speed Chases.

You blazed (your word) through the aisles of KMart on a "bike" and don't think that put people - employees, customers - at risk? Speaking of unnecessary Police chases -

As a side note, was story security involved and injured in this episode and later left the area and moved in with her daughter? I am aware of a very similar situation - not saying it's the same incident or the chase caused the injury but as I recall she tried to slam the door shut or something and got knocked down. The Workers Comp argument was whether her actions were "necessary." Ridiculous case and she eventually won but it was an uphill fight.

Yes, we are on opposite sides of the argument on this one on everything from what constitutes a Police Officer on down.

My husband was also Army Special Forces - or something - issued a gun, powers of arrest and told he had the right to arrest and/or shoot people. He was also 19. This was after about 15 minutes of training, 10 minutes of which involved learning to clean his weapon. Something frightening about the Government - but that's another story.

It took me longer to get a carry permit than it took him to get arrest/shoot to kill authority from the US!

[JimGunther]

"If only Police Officers who have actually participated in chases are allowed to have an opinion perhaps that should be the title of this thread - Thoughts By Police Officers Who Have Participated on High Speed Chases."

Yep, but you asked me how many chases I had personally been involved in, with the obvious implication that a person who hasn't been in a chase might not know much about it. People can know a lot about a topic without having been there or done it. That's what college is for, among other things.

"You blazed (your word) through the aisles of KMart on a "bike" and don't think that put people - employees, customers - at risk? Speaking of unnecessary Police chases -"

People would only be put at risk if they were in the aisles at a time and my behavior placed them in danger. I didn't say there were. I don't recall that there were. If you think a person who committed a felony is not worthy of being pursued and apprehended, I am not sure that you think anyone would be. I think a fair and objective person who was not at the scene would not be able to make the judgement that that particular chase was "unnecessary" based on the few facts presented.

"As a side note, was story security involved and injured in this episode and later left the area and moved in with her daughter? I am aware of a very similar situation - not saying it's the same incident or the chase caused the injury but as I recall she tried to slam the door shut or something and got knocked down. The Workers Comp argument was whether or not her actions were "necessary." Ridiculous case and she eventually won but it was an uphill fight."

I have no idea what you are referring to.

We are on opposite sides on such items as what constitutes a police officer? The Air Force, the D.C. government and the State of Maryland told me I was a police officer, and that is what I was, among other things. A police officer is commonly considered to be a person who has a sworn an oath, received training and is certified to arrest and detain people within the scope of the Fourth Amendment and other applicable laws. Do you disagree?

"My husband was also Army Special Forces - or something - issued a gun, powers of arrest and told he had the right to arrest and/or shoot people. He was also 19. This was after about 15 minutes of training, 10 minutes of which involved learning to clean his weapon. Something frightening about the Government - but that's another story."

I'm sorry, but that comment has too many contradictory statements in it to be believable. Basic military training takes weeks, special forces training takes even more time and the training is much more intense. It takes a lot longer than 10 minutes to learn to clean a weapon and military weapons training is always lengthy and intense. They want to be certain you know what you are doing when it comes to firing a weapon, I also saw this in civilian life.

[JudyKayTee]

[QUOTE=JimGunther]People would only be put at risk if they were in the aisles at a time and my behavior placed them in danger. I didn't say they were. I don't recall that there were. If you think a person who committed a felony is not worthy of being pursued and apprehended, I am not sure that you think anyone would be.


I would think as you raced through the store you had no idea who was going to step out in front of you so, no, I guess, no, I don't think people who committed a felony should be chased through KMart on a bike. If you can't run faster than the bad guys you should find another profession. If thinking people should not be chased through KMart by motorized vehicles means I don't think anyone who committed a felony should be pursued and apprehended - well, then I guess that what it means.

I don't see a connection between chasing someone through KMart and chasing some other felon some other place, but, hey, it's your scenario.

I don't know how to be any more clear about the KMart "pursuit" - was the security person injured in this incident? If so, I worked on it. If not, I didn't.

Next time I speak to my ex-husband I'll ask him about his military training; until then, he went in after high school (for the college tuition) and was a security person at 18 or 19. The rest - I'm just repeating what he told me.

[inthebox]

In all this discussion, what goes unsaid is that the majority of people, when hearing and seeing police sirens behind them slow down and pull over.

I don't understand the rection of "I've got to get away" from the police and so will try to evade them.

Can anyone who thinks like this, answer this?

What makes you special that the law only applies to other people and not you?

[JimGunther]

"I would think as you raced through the store you had no idea who was going to step out in front of you”

The human eye can see almost 180 degrees from side to side, I'm not sure if you are talking about the “tunnel vision” syndrome that affects pursuing officers who are not trained to deal with it. I was trained to avoid the problem and had no difficulty seeing what was going on around me.

“ I don't think people who committed a felony should be chased through KMart on a bike”

As a general statement, police are allowed to use any reasonable means to apprehend fleeing felons. And these people are certainly willing to create situations that endanger people in the extreme so that they can get away, and in so doing stretch the limit of what can reasonably be done to catch them. In this case, if the store had had only one door, I would have simply waited for him to come out. But it is never that easy in such situations.

“If you can't run faster than the bad guys you should find another profession.”

I will have to admit that that is the most tasteless and mindless statement you have made so far. You don't honestly think there is some way to measure how fast these thugs run and then only hire people who can outrun them? It is a ridiculous notion.

"I don't see a connection between chasing someone through KMart and chasing some other felon some other place, but, hey, it's your scenario."

The connection is obvious-it's a high-speed chase, that's what this thread is about! Naturally its wasn't that fast inside a building, but that's what the conditions of the pursuit dictated at that point. That guy was really rolling before he ditched the car (it belonged to his girlfriend).

"I don't know how to be any more clear about the KMart "pursuit" - was the security person injured in this incident? If so, I worked on it. If not, I didn't."

What on earth are you talking about? You have no idea when or where this incident happened. And you think that if I tell you one fact about the case, you will be able to determine if you were involved? Actually, it was almost 20 years ago in Marlow Heights, MD and I can guarantee you that you had nothing to do with it. No one was injured but the fleeing felon.

I hope you understand that people like you, who are so quick to judge that police acted improperly even when you only know a few facts, and are willing to be in favor of measures that restrict police from getting dangerous people off the streets, are working in favor of lawlessness in this country. I have know plenty of thugs, especially when I was a probation officer, and they love people who hold the opinions you hold, and anyone else who is willing to make their jobs easier.

[JudyKayTee]

[QUOTE=JimGunther I hope you understand that people like you, who are so quick to judge that police acted improperly even when you only know a few facts, and are willing to be in favor of measures that restrict police from getting dangerous people off the streets, are working in favor of lawlessness in this country. I have know plenty of thugs, especially when I was a probation officer, and they love people who hold the opinions you hold, and anyone else who is willing to make their jobs easier.[/QUOTE]


I've posted this before and I'll post it again and then I'm out of here - nothing is getting resolved and the discussion has become petty. I spent my time working the border for the Feds so before you accuse "people like me who are so quick to judge" you should read this entire thread again and see that I actually agree with you in theory but not in practice. I know all about felons and smuggling and attempting to escape from the Police - all about it.

Your statement that plenty of thugs... "hold the opinions I hold" is WAY out of line and way off target to say nothing of insulting. You make yourself look small.

And as far as your infamous (in your mind, apparently) chase through KMart - I moved "here" from Baltimore.

[JimGunther]

“I've posted this before and I'll post it again and then I'm out of
here-nothing is getting resolved and the discussion has become petty.”

I will have to admit that I am glad to see you go. You have twisted
and misunderstood virtually everything I have said and have slung
insults like a teenager. You don't seem willing or able to carry on a
friendly discussion of the issues I raised when I opened this thread.

“Your passive/aggression comments add nothing to the discussion”

How could you be so rude and discourteous as to talk to anyone like
that? You are obviously not aware that free speech, whether you agree
with the content or not, is of great value in this country and many,
many people have died to keep it that way.

“Would you explain what an advantaged background is and how that
matters in this discussion?"

Again, that is a pretty rude way to talk to someone who didn't raise
that issue in the first place, but was responding to Scleros, who
raised it. But you missed that point.

“If you can't run faster than the bad guys you should find another
profession.”

It is obvious to me that a rational person would make never make such
a mindless statement.

“I don't think anyone who committed a felony should be pursued and
apprehended.”

Again, its irrational to think that we should just let these people
go. Can't you imagine what would happen if persons inclined to commit
serious crimes knew they could not be pursued?

“Yes, we are on opposite sides of the argument on this one on
everything from what constitutes a Police Officer on down.”

“I actually agree with you in theory but not in practice.”

Contradictory statements like that smack of a person who has some
problems with rational thinking.

“I know all about felons and smuggling and attempting to escape from
the police-all about it.”

I think that pretty much sums up the reason that I am glad to see you
go. Even U.S. Supreme Court justices have law clerks to help them deal
with criminal and civil cases because it is obviously impossible for
anyone to know everything about any given legal topic. Anyone who claims to
know everything about such things is of course, wrong, and secondly, is
making a claim they can't rationally substantiate.