What constitutes a police pursuit?

Yep, in most cases they don't need to stop them immediately, just track where they're going and be waiting for them.


I don't object to police pursuits if there is no alternative. With so many cameras around, choppers, drones and satellites, I guess its a case of can they coordinate their resources to keep track of a fleeing vehicle. Probably easier said than done, of course. To really make it work we'd have to give up even more of our privacy and accept constant and total surveillance in public places, which I'm not comfortable about.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DiscoMick

Yep, in most cases they don't need to stop them immediately, just track where they're going and be waiting for them.


I don't object to police pursuits if there is no alternative. With so many cameras around, choppers, drones and satellites, I guess its a case of can they coordinate their resources to keep track of a fleeing vehicle. Probably easier said than done, of course....

---

Agreed, by covertly following them to their 'lair', could uncover a cache of other indictables :cool:

edit: but again, this is only a hypothetical, it depends on the previous actions as to the response taken, and I'd leave that hypothesising to the 'experts', politicians, nah, joking, police of course ;)

It's a tough call because, naturally the pursuing cops want to stop the bad guys before they do anything else, but equally we can't have peoples' lives being put at unnecessary risk.
I guess the best we can say is that most pursuits do seem to be handled sensibly, despite the stupid ways some people behave, and we only hear about the ones that go wrong. It's not like our roads are infested with cowboy cops.
Mind you, did you see that American one on the news where two cops pulled their guns on a woman with three little kids in her wagon and had the terrified kids screaming on the roadside? Blamed on bad information.
Of course, in the USA you would never know when someone was going to come out of a car with guns blazing, since they have such reckless ideas about allowing Joe Blow to carry weapons, so you can't blame the cops for being jumpy.

I dont see how any of us, myself included, with 1 or 2 notable exceptions, can say whether the police should or should not call off a particular chase. Those exceptions are for those that are actually in the job.

We are not on the scene, we don't have all the facts, and the media takes whatever side will make the best headline.

When was the last time that an offender was killed, and the family went on TV and said "he was a mongral. He had it coming to him?" No, he is always loving, caring, would do anything for his kids, and his mother, it is a great loss, a huge shock.... bla bla bla

Police do not WANT to chase people. Remember, the police are people too. They have families they want to go home to. Urgent duty driving brings with it a stack of risks, and all of those risks need to be weighed up in a couple of seconds. Did you realise that if the police chase an alleged offender, and even after they have called off the chase, if that offender wraps himself around a pole, even an hour or 2 later, there will be an investigation?

How many of us have their every action examined in absolute detail, by a coroner with 20/20 hindsight vision? Not too many, I would expect.



And, as for the incident in the US, the car matched the vague description, and I understand (thru the media) that the police only had a partial rego plate. Plus, it was in Texas, where the gun carry laws are very liberal. It would be a reasonable expectation that someone the police are pulling over would have a firearm, and thus, they exercised due caution. Again, the police have a right to go home to their families, just like we all do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greatsouthernland

Someone struggled for an easy to remember acronym ...:eek:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob10 & Queensland Police

http://www.police.qld.gov.au/Resourc.../Chapter10.pdf
..."Officers should embrace the ‘Consider all Options and Practise Safety’ (COPS) philosophy when dealing with vehicle interceptions that transition to pursuits and conduct a continual risk assessment in accordance with s. 10.5.5: ‘Risk assessment’

---

"C.O.P.S." Now don't you forget it class :D

---

I'm just wondering if the Risk Assessment has to be done online or its a paper form using the AGREE process. By the time one of them is completed it will be time for the officer's next days off! :o :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by olbod

I get the impression that a Police pursuit is one that does not involve the death of an innocent person.
I also get the impression that every pursuit was called off seconds before said innocent was killed.
But I think pursuits are necessary, I just hope that I dont become innocently involved. But then there would not have been a pursuit, eh.

---

Exactly, that's what inspired the original post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basil135

I dont see how any of us, myself included, with 1 or 2 notable exceptions, can say whether the police should or should not call off a particular chase. Those exceptions are for those that are actually in the job.

We are not on the scene, we don't have all the facts, and the media takes whatever side will make the best headline.
Ain't that the truth.

When was the last time that an offender was killed, and the family went on TV and said "he was a mongral. He had it coming to him?" No, he is always loving, caring, would do anything for his kids, and his mother, it is a great loss, a huge shock.... bla bla bla
And that.

Police do not WANT to chase people.
We all have parts of our job that we don't like, cops are no different
Remember, the police are people too. They have families they want to go home to. Urgent duty driving brings with it a stack of risks, and all of those risks need to be weighed up in a couple of seconds. Did you realise that if the police chase an alleged offender, and even after they have called off the chase, if that offender wraps himself around a pole, even an hour or 2 later, there will be an investigation?
In an ideal world the cops on the ground would be supported by the arse covering politicians and high ranking officers, who are usually more political animal rather than cop.
How many of us have their every action examined in absolute detail, by a coroner with 20/20 hindsight vision? Not too many, I would expect.

Every truck driver involved in a fatal accident; their work diary will be scrutinised for three months previous.

And, as for the incident in the US, the car matched the vague description, and I understand (thru the media) that the police only had a partial rego plate. Plus, it was in Texas, where the gun carry laws are very liberal. It would be a reasonable expectation that someone the police are pulling over would have a firearm, and thus, they exercised due caution. Again, the police have a right to go home to their families, just like we all do.

---

I've expressed my views on the punishment for clowns who fail to stop, so I won't go there again.
Why do Police Services distance themselves from chases that end in crashes, instead of stating that they were doing their job?
The blame lies squarely with the driver that fails to stop, end of story.
If do gooders want to turn the tables and blame the cops, why not follow the chain of responsibility further and blame the car, tyre, fuel suppliers et al?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Basil135

Police do not WANT to chase people.

---

I am sure if everybody stopped committing crime, most police would get bored very quickly, and talk fondly of the old days of chasing crooks. They joined the job knowing they would one day have to chase crims.

On a side note, the only policeman to have a running gun fight from a motorcycle in the history of the New South Wales Police passed away recently.

Jeff

:rocket:

Ok, let me re-phrase my statement.

MOST police would PREFER to not engage in high speed pursuits. This action places themselves, their partner, members of the public, and the alleged offender at greater risk of being involved in a collision potentially resulting in injury or death to one of the aforementioned persons.

Yes, they are trained in the very act of high speed driving. Yes, they will do it if necessary, but my point is if there was another way of catching the alleged offender, without the need to engage in a high speed pursuit, then I feel sure that would be the preferable option.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greatsouthernland

I think they already are budgeting for it, just not gonna bring it up in conversation :D a lot cheaper than helicopters and you can have a lot more of them. They've already been used for crowd monitoring o/s.

---

And here it is ...

More police departments considering the use of drones - baltimoresun.com

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by digger

**- have you ever tried to revive someone who has gone into cardiac arrest due to drugs not being "as advertised" or their having a bad reaction? Its not fun, if you are lucky enough to keep them going until ambos arrive they are still likely to have permanent damage..

Definitely not the brain

If not, (or even if they do live) you then have to knock on mr and mrs respectables door and tell them that little johnny or sheila is in fact in hospital or mortuary because theyve taken drugs...

Just send them a text

PS,
and Jeff, "our donut loving friends??" seriously??
get a grip son, thats from the US where

Been watching too much of chief Wiggam in the Simpsons.

---

On a serious note, great post Digger.