[ranger1968]

And the law of unintended consequences takes hold....

These people in these places that enact stupid policies like that are getting the results that they deserve;

If they want to allow the criminals to run wild because "it's safer than trying to catch them" then they deserve what they get.

 

[ChuteTheMall]

They heavily tint their car windows, often to a degree that is prohibited under city ordinance. The tint is enough for police to pull over the cars, but if the driver flees, under department policy, officers cannot give chase unless they have evidence an occupant has committed a violent crime or is a threat to the safety of others.

A new police chief could decide that speeding away from a traffic stop is a threat to the safety of others. :car:

 

[Dave514]

Speeding isn't a violent crime so they shouldn't pull people over for speeding because the pursuit of that speeder is just too risky. :upeyes:

 

[oldman11]

Doing everything they can to help the criminals.

 

[merlynusn]

Our policy was felony dangerous to life. When they changed it to crime dangerous to life and that now included breaking and entering. First chase under that when they caught them first words out of their mouth was "You cant do this, you arent allowed to chase for a b&e."

 

[Bren]

When I was a cop, our policy was that you could only chase people who didn't stop. Never had a problem with it.

The U.S. Supreme Court's latest thinking on it is that the West Memphis, AR, police were OK when they put 12 shots into a car and killed both people in it, during a pursuit for having one headlight out.

 

[FiremanMike]

Speeding isn't a violent crime so they shouldn't pull people over for speeding because the pursuit of that speeder is just too risky. :upeyes:

So essentially, you didn't even click on the link to read the headline, much less attempt to understand the message of the article, you just wanted to come in here and troll..

 

[Stevekozak]

So essentially, you didn't even click on the link to read the headline, much less attempt to understand the message of the article, you just wanted to come in here and troll..

SSDD

 

[Dave514]

So essentially, you didn't even click on the link to read the headline, much less attempt to understand the message of the article, you just wanted to come in here and troll..

No, I read the article. I specifically read the part where they said "department policy, officers cannot give chase unless they have evidence an occupant has committed a violent crime or is a threat to the safety of others."

Which is why I made the point that the policy is SO stupid that you could apply the same logic to pursuing speeders. I didn't think I had to spell it out in more clear terms. I forgot that every post must start with "I am on the side of the police" because the giant chip on everyone's shoulder is "all replies must be judged as anti LE".

 

[cowboywannabe]

just smile and wave boys, smile and wave. :wavey:

 

[mj9mm]

Ya, I knew this was about Milwaukee, crazy people running the asylum :ack:

 

[Morris]

Been under BAARRKK rules for pursuits for some time. Apparently, King County has just adopted the same.

At this point folks, we had better be like firefighters because to do anything else invites career enders.

 

[steveksux]

So essentially, you didn't even click on the link to read the headline, much less attempt to understand the message of the article, you just wanted to come in here and troll..

I think you guys missed the sarcasm...

Randy

 

[steveksux]

No, I read the article. I specifically read the part where they said "department policy, officers cannot give chase unless they have evidence an occupant has committed a violent crime or is a threat to the safety of others."

Which is why I made the point that the policy is SO stupid that you could apply the same logic to pursuing speeders. I didn't think I had to spell it out in more clear terms. I forgot that every post must start with "I am on the side of the police" because the giant chip on everyone's shoulder is "all replies must be judged as anti LE".

You don't understand the sheer volume of posts in here from people who say similar stuff to what you did, but are absolutely serious. It's mind boggling. It's a mistake, but not an unreasonable assumption on their part...

Randy

 

[steveksux]

Motorcyclist killed in a chase.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/loc...ist-fleeing-police-severed-at-waist/29771949/

What a waste! :whistling:

Randy

 

[FiremanMike]

No, I read the article. I specifically read the part where they said "department policy, officers cannot give chase unless they have evidence an occupant has committed a violent crime or is a threat to the safety of others."

Which is why I made the point that the policy is SO stupid that you could apply the same logic to pursuing speeders. I didn't think I had to spell it out in more clear terms. I forgot that every post must start with "I am on the side of the police" because the giant chip on everyone's shoulder is "all replies must be judged as anti LE".

If your post was sarcastic and pro-le, I missed it. It came across as very anti-LE and totally irrelevant to the thread.

 

[Vigilant]

I think you guys missed the sarcasm...

Randy

Agreed. I caught it as well.

 

[Dave514]

If your post was sarcastic and pro-le, I missed it. It came across as very anti-LE and totally irrelevant to the thread.

I thought the rolling eyes at the end of what I said made it clear. And I thought the relevance of extrapolating such an absurd policy out to druggies made 'speeders' relevant, in further absurdity. Glad it's clear now. I'll keep this in mind in the future.

 

[fastbolt]

Been under BAARRKK rules for pursuits for some time. Apparently, King County has just adopted the same.

At this point folks, we had better be like firefighters because to do anything else invites career enders.

I was having cigars with a couple cops who work for a major PD the other day.

When the discussion came to how thing s have been rapidly changing about how society views its cops, and how agencies are increasingly failing to support actions which find disfavor with the currently vocal public, it was observed that self-initiated activities are declining. The consensus was that while there's still some cops who are willing to risk being proactive, that it's increasingly common to do some risk assessment before becoming involved in many self-initiated activities.

Another consensus offered by the oldest cop (late 40's, supervisor of high activity special unit, looking at nearing retirement age elegibility) was that this isn't a career choice that would be at all appealing under today's circumstances. Not as many people wanting to line up to fill academy slots, and it's probably going to get significantly worse, especially if the shift occurs from giving new-hires a defined pension benefit, to only offering something like a 410K system.

Unfortunately, the public is going to belatedly realize that what they want isn't really what they want, or need, but that pendulum recovery swing may be another 5+ (or more) years down the road.

Every day I'm glad I'm retired.

Sorry for you guys/gals who still have 2-5 years to go. Get your ducks in a row so you can afford to leave as soon as it becomes financially practical. Get on with your family & life.