"sometimes you should chase, sometimes you shouldnt, and the distinction is known only to me"

you think that's my position?

I've only stated "my position" overtly like three times in the last 50 posts. lazy people are lazy.

Maybe it's that the police should chase less than they do now, or something along those lines?

So in that situation, and I'm being serious, which is to blame, and please feel free to assign what percentage of blame you want to all 4 choices:

A: The Police Officers

B: The "System" (SOP/Policy/etc)

C: The victims of the crash

D: The individuals stealing scrap metal

Also, what would you change to ensure this didn't happen again?

The system is mostly all to blame IMO. The change I would suggest for consideration is less racing to the scene of stuff when there is no physical threat to people happening. If the scrap yard thiefs had guns/knives and were holding the place up, and thereby putting lives in danger, well that is what the police are for IMO. They are, IMO, most desired due to their ability and willingness to be rapid responders to dangerous situations.

Much of this has to do with the wording of the complaint. In your specific case, I'd assume they were racing because it was "in progress".

Probably, but if it's a couple of homelss junkies climing over the fence with some copper under their arms I see that as very different than if it's a couple of guys in the office with guns out demanding money.

Could you quote them?

I'm curious, what % of crime do people feel are committed by either people who are not drug users or by people who are drug users but don't have any problem funding their habits through legal means?

And for the purposes of this question don't include murders or similar crimes committed by drug dealers or drug distributors, as these are directly related to drug prohibition as well. And only include crimes committed by people under the influence of drugs IF they can also fund their drug habits by legal means without a problem.

My guess is something like 10%, and a lot of that is due to the abuse of alcohol. I think like probably 90% of 'crimes' are because of drug prohibition. Am I WAY off?

I have no idea. Watch it BK or we're gonna have to lock you into a "BKholdem's Discuss the War On Drugs containment thread" LMAO

Seriously though, I have no idea. Interesting question though.

Here is a decent discussion of your question.
http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?d...cumentID=32348

90 percent seems waay too high but the article has a bunch of data and you can draw your own conclusion.

My point, quoted.

.

.

So essentially, you have nothing of substance to add to this discussion of police chases, other than it's not that big of a deal if several hundred bad guys get away every day, but you have no particular solutions to solve the issue of apprehending them without chasing them, and the discussion of where to draw that line of chase/no chase isn't all that interesting?

You certainly do add much to the discussion PVN.

aka

What are some situations where they currently chase that people think they shouldn't?

I think that if the situation that occurred that would have police consider chasing didn't involve a violent act the chase shouldn't happen. For example: Don't chase drug dealers running from a controlled buy, don't chase speeders who don't want to stop, don't chase traffic violators that don't want to stop, don't chase kids, don't chase stolen cars. Do people disagree with these things? If so, why?

Holy ****, are you for real? I don't know if you're aware of this but bad guys are apprehended every day without chases. Sometimes cops have to do some... police work.

I'm not interested in debating the "correct" BAC level, is that the ONLY thing of "substance" that can be discussed in conversations about drunk driving IYO?

Hopefully one day I can add SUBSTANCE to discussions, such as "THEY MIGHT BE AXE MURDERERS YO" or "THEY RUNNIN SO THATS GOOD ENOUGH REASON TO CHASE EM LDO".

And don't a lot of people 'run' basically because they have an outstanding warrant (and not necessarilly one for murder or raping children) but because they want to avoid like a year of jail time or whatever and are not on violent crime sprees?

True story, they caught an axe murderer where I work... he claimed self defense and got off... ban juries imo

I hung a jury and have never been summoned for jury duty since. I never mentioned jury nullification to the court or other jurors. The system is rigged by the man.

I'm in agreement about the controlled buys etc.

I think you're being very shortsighted about the speeders and traffic violators. As I discussed earlier, they're not running because they got caught doing 60 in a 45 or they've got a broken brakelight, and the number of criminals apprehended during this type of stuff is high.

Also, how would I know until after the chase that I'm chasing kids? And you don't want stolen cars chased?

What percentage of police chases end badly? It seems that the only good ending is someone deciding to run changing his mind after a few miles and pulling over.

Define "end badly".

I ask because my personal definition of "end badly" means an innocent bystander hurt or killed. I don't consider situations where the police utilize the PITT maneuver or spike strips etc and cause the fleeing individual to wreck to be "ending badly".

From "An Introduction to Policing - John S Dempsey" Miami/Dade County study of 952 pursuits in their Metro area: 38% (361) ending in accidents. 17% (160) resulting in injuries, 0.7% ending in death. Of the 160 injuries, 30 involved injury to a police officer, 17 to an innocent bystander, 113 to a fleeing individual or passenger.

So in my line of thinking, I'm bothered by the 17 innocent bystanders injured. The 113 fleeing individuals I would consider those injuries self inflicted, and while I do feel for the 30 police officers who were injured, it's a risk of the job, although an unfortunate one. The death was not categorized in the text, so I'm unaware if it was police, fleeing individual, or 3rd party.

Of the 952 chases studied, 54% were initiated due to traffic violations, 2% for reckless/impaired driving, 33% for "Serious criminal activity" (as an aside, while reading this study I could not find a definition of "Serious criminal activity" although I'd assume it essentially means "felony") and 11% were answering BOLO (Be On Lookout) calls.

So, based on this study, injuries occur at all somewhere in the area of 20% of the time, and the vast majority of those times the injured person will be the fleeing individual. Police involved in the chase come in a distant second.

FWIW, there is no link to the study because I had the referenced title in my library, I did find the title on Google Books however. An Introduction To Policing p252.