# Deadly Chase Caught On Tape



## MJS (Jun 25, 2008)

Here is a video of a police chase, which resulted in a fatal head-on crash with a non-involved vehicle. Here we see the chase as it took place, as well as comments from the lawyer for the family whos son was killed.

Now, in this chase we see a car with drug suspects driving pretty fast. The speed of both the police car as well as the suspects was pretty high, as well as the road conditions having alot of traffic. Both cars ran red lights, which in and of itself is to be expected during a chase, however, emergency vehicles should still proceed with caution. 

As the chase goes on, the suspects crash head-on into an on-coming car, killing the driver. One thing that caught my attention was about 1:14 or so on the clip, where the lawyer says that the officer was pressuring the driver to go those speeds. While that may be the case, the suspect could have simply pulled over. Yeah, I know, I know...foolish of me to think that, but wishful thinking anyways.  Lets not put all the blame on the cop. 

I'm sure there were other things that could have been done to prevent this, but I'll leave those for the discussion.

Thoughts on this event?


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 25, 2008)

MJS said:


> Here is a video of a police chase, which resulted in a fatal head-on crash with a non-involved vehicle. Here we see the chase as it took place, as well as comments from the lawyer for the family whos son was killed.
> 
> Now, in this chase we see a car with drug suspects driving pretty fast. The speed of both the police car as well as the suspects was pretty high, as well as the road conditions having alot of traffic. Both cars ran red lights, which in and of itself is to be expected during a chase, however, emergency vehicles should still proceed with caution.
> 
> ...



The lawyer needs a good :btg: because a cop wouldn't be "pressuring the driver to go those speeds". That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard of concerning these so called "high-speed" chases. The suspect is trying to "get away" ok... lets look at that mr. attorney... "get... away...." ok that means to put distance and as MUCH distance between you and the one who is trying to "catch" you. Now, mr attorney... how does one usually do that? 

It's tragic that an innocent got killed and the charges of felony evading police should be added (among initial charges) to felony manslaughter as well. 
The police try to stop suspects before someone gets hurt... or is that no longer the case. 
I've heard/read/seen about chases where the cops actually have let the guy go because the chase was getting too dangerous, i.e. residential street.


----------



## shesulsa (Jun 25, 2008)

Well ... there is apparently a no-chase policy in that area.  That's a problem in more ways than one.  As far as the officer "pressuring" the suspect to speed ... while we all know that's bull ****, that lawyer might get away with that for two reasons: 1) this officer has been investigated before on high speed chases and 2) the no-chase policy.

Grrr.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 25, 2008)

Okay I usually try and take situations like this and put it in perspective.  

Okay we have some *drug suspects*.  They have a car and want to get away.  LEO's have to make a decision to make allowance for that and get the license plate unless a major crime has been committed.  *The questions is what great benefit is served by the chase*?  With multiple LEO's around can we simply not head them off and apprehend when appropriate and not have a high speed chase. (this can be done but yes it is tricky)  Were the drug suspects known by name if so they can be apprehended in another venue.  *Is the value of the arrest greater than the potential for a violent accident?  *

*Now here is the stickler our prisons are over full to the brim with drug related cases. *(though personally I do not want us to stop enforcing drug related charges)  Just make them sensible!

This is a very, very hard situation to be in for LEO's.  No doubt about that and they need to make *critical decisions* at the right time.  Most agencies seem to have moved to a no chase vehicular policy because the end result of a minor arrest is not sufficiently valuable to counter effect the danger of a high speed chase.  Now if the *crime is major* then the greater good would indicate that a chase might be appropriate.  Personally I do not think a drug arrest is major enough for a high speed chase.

*Tough decisions to make by any LEO under intense adrenaline.  Very tough.* 

*I do fully support Americas LEO's and know first hand how difficult that pressure is!*  Critical thinking skills and training are a must for any individual in the LEO field.  Essential and on going training should be a top priority so that critical thinking happens and good judgement comes into play.   Just my 02.


----------



## MJS (Jun 25, 2008)

MA-Caver said:


> The lawyer needs a good :btg: because a cop wouldn't be "pressuring the driver to go those speeds". That is the most ridiculous thing I've heard of concerning these so called "high-speed" chases. The suspect is trying to "get away" ok... lets look at that mr. attorney... "get... away...." ok that means to put distance and as MUCH distance between you and the one who is trying to "catch" you. Now, mr attorney... how does one usually do that?


 
I agree with the BTG!   God forbid someone put blame on the bad guy, as I'm sure he was a good father, a great student and star athlete and overall great person.  Why on earth would the police do a horrible thing? *rolls eyes, sarcastic tone*  



> It's tragic that an innocent got killed and the charges of felony evading police should be added (among initial charges) to felony manslaughter as well.
> The police try to stop suspects before someone gets hurt... or is that no longer the case.
> I've heard/read/seen about chases where the cops actually have let the guy go because the chase was getting too dangerous, i.e. residential street.


 
The charges should be brought against the dirtbag that was fleeing the cops, not the cop.  Many times, if they're available, stop sticks are used in an effort to end the chase sooner and hopefully safer.  Depending on the crime, the officer has to weigh the crime vs. the risk to the public.  Where I work, it is against policy for the cops to pursue for minor motorvehicle charges, ie: running a red light, etc.  Can they go for a little while?  Yes, but 9 times out of 10, the shift supervisor will ask what the charges are and its usually broken off.  Now, an armed robbery...that would be something that would continue.  Speed, time of day, traffic...all those things come into play.


----------



## MJS (Jun 25, 2008)

shesulsa said:


> Well ... there is apparently a no-chase policy in that area. That's a problem in more ways than one. As far as the officer "pressuring" the suspect to speed ... while we all know that's bull ****, that lawyer might get away with that for two reasons: 1) this officer has been investigated before on high speed chases and 2) the no-chase policy.
> 
> Grrr.


 
Yeah, it looks like he already has a mark or two against him, so the lawyer in this case is all over it.  Dont know if there is a policy.  I would imagine so.


----------



## MA-Caver (Jun 25, 2008)

MJS said:


> Yeah, it looks like he already has a mark or two against him, so the lawyer in this case is all over it.  Dont know if there is a policy.  I would imagine so.



The lawyer in this case doesn't want to lose weight.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 25, 2008)

Pressuring the driver to go faster ?!?!? How about pressuring the driver to STOP, which is what he was by law supposed to do?!?!

The supreme court has already backed officers in cases like this. Take a look at THIS.



> The Court clearly places the blame on the suspect and rejects the idea that if the police had cancelled the pursuit, the public would be safer, citing:  &#8220;. . .we are loath to lay down a rule requiring the police to allow fleeing suspects to get away whenever they drive so recklessly that they put other people&#8217;s lives in danger. It is obvious the perverse incentives such a rule would create.&#8221; The Court went on to say that the incentive would be &#8220;escape.&#8221;



And that idiot was running from a speeding ticket.

Suck it bad guys.


----------



## Empty Hands (Jun 25, 2008)

No, it isn't the policeman's fault.  Nonetheless, chases aren't always wise, which is why this department apparently had a no-chase policy.  This officer violated that policy, and an innocent person is dead as a result.  The officer should face consequences for that, as of course should the fleeing suspects.

Policemen have advantages over suspects that make these sorts of things less necessary - i.e. radios and lots of friends.  They should use them.  Shadowing the car from the air, using spike strips, and setting up road blocks are all useful methods that can be used to apprehend fleeing suspects without endangering others.


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 25, 2008)

Spoken like someone whos never been in a vehicle pursuit. You still have to pursue to get that stuff into place. Not all departments have choppers or spike strips. Not all license plates are on the right cars or come back to useful addresses. Road blocks are fraught with their own peril and are regarded as deadly force if set up improperly. It was the bad guy who was breaking the law by fleeing a car stop thats at fault. Nobody elses. The Supreme Court has even began siding that way. Giving the bad guy the green light to drive recklessly to get the cops to stop chasing him is foolish law/policy.

The department has a "no chase" policy out of fear of lawsuits...full stop...period. Any department who rules out anything in entirety is a "no go" in my book. Thats what you get when bean counters and politicians run police departments instead of cops.

That being said, if he violated a known departmental rule, then yes he should be disciplined.


----------



## CoryKS (Jun 25, 2008)

I can't help but wonder if the no-chase policy might have contributed to this.  Is it possible that the driver knew about the policy and chose to run in the belief that he would not be pursued?


----------



## Archangel M (Jun 25, 2008)

In the 80's it was still common for cops to shoot a cars being persued. These days it seems like people expect the cops to catch bad guys with zero risk to the BG, the public or themselves. 

Neither extreme is the right answer.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jun 26, 2008)

My opinion is that since fleeing from the police in a high-speed fashion puts the public at risk, it's a violent crime.  We should shoot the driver when the opportunity arises and end the pursuit as quickly as possible before the driver has a chance to kill anyone else.  That's the only way to be sure that he won't continue driving in that fashion and kill someone down the road.  

Simply stopping chasing him doesn't work, several pursuits in the St. Louis area resulted in fatalities AFTER the police had long since abandoned the pursuit.  In fact, publicized 'No-Pursuit' policies ENCOURAGES suspects to take greater risks, knowing if they create enough of a danger, the agencies will let them go.  So 'No-Pursuit' policies often have the reverse effect of encouraging fleeing.

Bottom line.....start shooting people who flee from the police.  Just as soon as they are in a spot where the accident will only kill them and their passengers, fire away.  A good argument could be made that 'Tennesse versus Garner' doesn't apply as the Courts listed in their exceptions created a significant risk to the public. 

But that's just me venting.......it'll never happen.  

Seriously, the only answer to police pursuits is technological.......find a way to shut down vehicles while their fleeing.  The new gas crisis, however, may help mitigate the situation.  Fleeing in your hybrid will certainly reduce 'high-speed' pursuits!


----------



## MJS (Jun 26, 2008)

Empty Hands said:


> No, it isn't the policeman's fault. Nonetheless, chases aren't always wise, which is why this department apparently had a no-chase policy. This officer violated that policy, and an innocent person is dead as a result. The officer should face consequences for that, as of course should the fleeing suspects.
> 
> Policemen have advantages over suspects that make these sorts of things less necessary - i.e. radios and lots of friends. They should use them. Shadowing the car from the air, using spike strips, and setting up road blocks are all useful methods that can be used to apprehend fleeing suspects without endangering others.


 


Archangel M said:


> Spoken like someone whos never been in a vehicle pursuit. You still have to pursue to get that stuff into place. Not all departments have choppers or spike strips. Not all license plates are on the right cars or come back to useful addresses. Road blocks are fraught with their own peril and are regarded as deadly force if set up improperly. It was the bad guy who was breaking the law by fleeing a car stop thats at fault. Nobody elses. The Supreme Court has even began siding that way. Giving the bad guy the green light to drive recklessly to get the cops to stop chasing him is foolish law/policy.
> 
> The department has a "no chase" policy out of fear of lawsuits...full stop...period. Any department who rules out anything in entirety is a "no go" in my book. Thats what you get when bean counters and politicians run police departments instead of cops.
> 
> That being said, if he violated a known departmental rule, then yes he should be disciplined.


 
I'm in agreement with Archangel on this.  Here is the pursuit policy for the State of CT.  This is the guideline, although, as it says, some modifications can be made.  The dept. I dispatch for has some pretty strict chase policies in place.  As I said in another post, unless its a serious thing, the supervisor usually breaks it off.  Now, last year, there was a bank robbery in the city.  Guy displayed a gun and everything.  Got onto a motorcycle and fled.  Oh, we chased, speeds were approaching 100+, and when I heard that I was surprised it was still going.  One of the cops in the chase, was the first to break it off, due to traffic and as soon as he did, the Sgt. told everyone else to back off as well.  An unmarked car still followed for a short distance, but soon stopped, as the clown on the bike was still driving like an ***.  We contact surrounding towns of this.  This person was eventually caught.

Stop sticks...not every car has them, and the ones that do, need to get to the area if they're expected to use them.  Road blocks...an option, although I havent seen them used.  Helicopter...the only one available is the one used by the CT. State Police.  They also have a fixed wing plane as well.  Still, it takes time to contact them, to see if it able to go in the air, and it is going to take time to get there.  As for the plate...many times its a stolen car or stolen plate, so that isnt an option.  Now, in the case of the motorcycle, this guy had a friend waiting in the area with a truck and trailer.  He'd pull the bike into the trailer and they'd both leave.  Now, while everyone is looking for a bike, well, theres no bike to find.


----------



## Brian R. VanCise (Jun 26, 2008)

sgtmac_46 said:


> Seriously, the only answer to police pursuits is technological.......find a way to shut down vehicles while their fleeing. The new gas crisis, however, may help mitigate the situation. Fleeing in your hybrid will certainly reduce 'high-speed' pursuits!


 
Techonology certainly is the answer and I imagine that some entreprising person or group is working on this now.  Only a matter of time.


----------

