Sure. But people probably run more frequently than they stop anyway, so if we change things everyone will be running from the cops in a cpl years... The old 'late for work run from the cops' game we all play a couple of times a month

So you really don't understand the old "late for work, running from the cops" game doesn't happen because you have very strong legal incentives not to do it at present?

I'm not going to type the same arguments 50 times just because you two refuse to read them, or read them and respond with "but.. It doesn't happen NOW!" of course it doesn't happen now. That's the point.

Who has suggested removing "strong legal incentives not to do it"?

What is wrong with the police only chasing when the benefit to society outweighs the risk. Note: even if you don't know who is driving the car, you can determine the likelihood that they are a violent felon and what risk they pose to society.

haha wut? Show your work.

so only chase if the driver is black, im sure that will go over well

Dbl, since your so convinced that random people would start running from the cops if the cops didn't use high speed chases as their SOP when people ran...how do you explain convicted criminals returning on work release while still incarcerate? Or people willingly reporting to jail after they are sentenced? Why doesn't everyone simply run to avoid all punnishment?

Wow, I really have to tell you what these have in common vs someone running on the highway?

Well ok, I will. In every single incident of the two you just mentioned, we know the identities of these individuals. Without question. Absolutely. So in these situations, the "catch them tomorrow" argument is both plausible and not LDO******ed.

With the running car, you really have no idea. Other than it's likely one of the two you listed above who decided not to do what they were supposed to.

No one is suggesting that police on the street corner not continue to stroll after an individual who doesn't immediately stand in place when a cop tells them to hold on because there is concern he might trip on a crack while walking away and get a boo boo.

What if the criminal getting away pushes a person into a passing bus, or knocks a passer by down? Why aren't you thinking of the innocent civilians? The cops can always pick them up later.

It seems to me the people who would really 'loose out' are the cops...I guess it's unconscionable to challenge their authority.

Wait......


Wut

In other, equally related to the topic news:

Let's just let the police TELL US what the best way to keep us safe is

So are you stating that police should have zero sayso in police policy or what?

Also, can you rewind a little bit an explain wtf an on foot surveillance operation or a footchase or whatever you were trying to describe here:
Has to do with police pursuits?

Could you expand on this, in particular challenging their authority? If by challenging their (police) authority you mean committing felonies which endanger public safety, I'd say it's pretty unconscionable. If you're saying randomly running during a traffic stop is the same as saying "I refuse to speak to you" then LOL to you.

Dbl, since your against the drug war the way most people are, I'm assuming you would agree that if there was no drug war police would be trying to stop and pull over a lot less people.

I also think it's offensive to pull people over for non dangerous traffic violations so am not including people with expired tags, expired stickers, tail lights out, people safely rolling through stop signs, people failing to signal (unless it created an imminent danger), people speeding but not creating an imminent danger, etc.. And without the drug law you really probably wouldn't be running people's plates unless they were reckless driving or observed seemingly breaking into a vehicle or already pulled over on the highway or something.

What are left?

*People weaving in such an obvious way that not just cops following them and studying their vehicle movements, but most all the other people in their cars around the person would be quickly determining the person is either drunk, soo extremely tired that they are an obvious safety hazzard, or having some type of medical issue making it unable for them to drive safely.

*People driving in an obvious reckless manner (not people who TECHNICALLY fit the definition of reckless driving) such as going 20mph greater than the flow of traffic and weaving in and out of traffic

Who else? What other groups am I missing?

I care about freedom and I care about people not doing violence or theft. I don't care about the vast majority of police activity and think it's harmful and unnecessary. I want it to stop and have cops simply respond to calls where someone is being robbed or physically harmed/threatened.

I do not think people who wouldn't run from cops would not start running from cops if they knew that they could engage in a high speed excape and thereby have cops stop pursuing. I am not agaisnt police 'following' people, some don't instantly pull over either because they are distracted or because they are trying to hide drugs or beer in their car. The beer your going to smell anyways. People who are driving their own cars or a friends car are not going to start running in any significant numbers. These people obey the laws (the one's that matter anyways).

I don't think it's in societies best interests to engage in high speed pursuits to catch people who are shoplifters or other type of minor criminals as they are not even a real threat to the public safety and they will all eventually get scooped up in another situation such as committing a shoplifting offense or being on the scene of some other type of event that the police are called to and wind up getting their info run and then you find out they have a warrant and they are scooped up without careening through traffic endangering innocent people's lives.

The only people I really care about not getting away are people on murder spreees and these types of things. Armed and dangerous and an active and ongoing threat to random innocent citizen's lives.

People evading police at high speeds are putting others at imminent threat. I would venture to guess they are a greater threat to public safety at this time than they are conducting their day to day affairs. So if their day to day affairs are not home invasions or armed robberies or rapes or murders I don't think they are as great a threat to the public in general than they are careening through the streets evading cops at high speeds.

So what % of those that run from cops are really in the top 2% of dangerous felons and what % are people trying to avoid a probation violation or a warrant or for some other reason triggering them to go to jail for a year or something like that?

And I really do think that cops take this personal and are not primarilly thinking of public safety, they are on auto piolet to do what they were trained to do. Even now when your not even a cop anymore your still pulling from your cop training to evaluate this. Cops don't get upset when a person disobeys them because they are a threat to the public, they get upset because they believe that they are to be obeyed and they take it personal and get a hair across their asses in an INSTANT when someone doesn't obey them or 'disrespects' them. I think that is a fundamental flaw with the way law enforcement interacts with society.

I obey cops out of fear of reprisals, not because I respect them. Respect is earned. I don't respect strangers regardless of what uniform they are wearing. And once I determine that a cop feels entitled to my respect I have NO respect for them. Cops feel entitled to respect and feel they can be verbally abusive to people who don't give them respect, regardless of whether or not they do things to demonstrate they are worthy when they come across a citizen who they are a stranger to.

Why have (traffic) laws (or police) at all? Isn't that what this discussion has evolved into?

(Also an odd comment about "without the drug law you really probably wouldn't be running people's plates" -- why not? The police aren't just looking for violations of drug laws...)

No, not at all. That is, however, what dblbarrel is trying to turn it into.

Actually to me it seems like it's more a 'have laws, just don't actually enforce them'.

What bkholdem said in his rant reminds me of something a particular person says in HP and/or B&M frequently: "It's not a problem until it is, and then it's a big one". That is, bk's saying don't penalize someone for doing X (rolling through a stop sign when it's safe, not signaling a turn when it's safe, maybe some other stuff). Problem is, those laws aren't really there for 'when it's safe', and sometimes people might not see that it isn't actually safe. Most of the time if you think it's safe it actually is, but there are those times when you're mistaken.

yeah you might want to actually read the thread.

We don't have to guess about bkholdem's opinion about when the police should pull people over. It's all right there in his post.

The topic has drifted a bit from the original question of police chases.

uh...

So if someone is opposed to chases you extrapolate that they oppose laws in the general sense?

and you might want to actually make more than one line posts and flesh out your ideas a bit more.

Though it is easier for you to continually duck direct questions and say that 'you've already answered the question ITT'.

No? I don't know what's so hard here for you. bkholdem and RR's positions on the matter are not obscure, and their reasoning for opposing police chases drifts toward just opposing police. Which makes the resulting conversation pretty pointless, as it's obviously in DblBarrelJ's interest to goad them into casting their position in these maximalist terms. Which they pretty willingly do.

[ ] question in this post