End of Car Chase??

[usranger74]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/this-cou...4562.html?vp=1

This is being used by the IA Highway Patrol and it works.

[HwyRider]

That was on my local news last week. Pretty good idea.

[spoon059]

Great idea, poor in practice though. It is prohibitively expensive at about $5000 per car and $500 per dart. That's $6000 per car. My department has about 800 marked cars... $4.8 million is a LOT of money.

Also, what is to prevent the offender from pulling over and removing the dart once police back off? Or simply ditch the car in a public place and walk away when the police back off? How does the officer positively identify the driver when he finds the vehicle at a later time? How does it work in the rain when the car is wet?

Can you imagine the liability when an officer is chasing a rapist, fires the dart and backs off the pursuit, then the rapist ditches the car and carjacks another vehicle and brutally rapes the driver??? You know that officer would be vilified by the media for allowing the rapist to flee and attack again.

At the end of the day, its going to be VERY hard to stop a fleeing car with a determined driver. If it is a car that absolutely needs to be stopped then the police need to maintain visual contact with the suspect from start to arrest. In the old days we used to PIT violent offenders, making the car crash. When done correctly and in a safe area the risk of injury to officers and citizens is very low and rate of capture is very high. Suspect may get injured, but that is an associated risk in that line of work.

[cnc]

Probably just as easy and not any more costly to come up with a device that gets fired at the fleeing car and sticks to it but shuts down the ecu computer and disables the vehicle.

[Top Cat]

Originally Posted by spoon059

Great idea, poor in practice though. It is prohibitively expensive at about $5000 per car and $500 per dart. That's $6000 per car. My department has about 800 marked cars... $4.8 million is a LOT of money.

Also, what is to prevent the offender from pulling over and removing the dart once police back off? Or simply ditch the car in a public place and walk away when the police back off? How does the officer positively identify the driver when he finds the vehicle at a later time? How does it work in the rain when the car is wet?

Can you imagine the liability when an officer is chasing a rapist, fires the dart and backs off the pursuit, then the rapist ditches the car and carjacks another vehicle and brutally rapes the driver??? You know that officer would be vilified by the media for allowing the rapist to flee and attack again.

At the end of the day, its going to be VERY hard to stop a fleeing car with a determined driver. If it is a car that absolutely needs to be stopped then the police need to maintain visual contact with the suspect from start to arrest. In the old days we used to PIT violent offenders, making the car crash. When done correctly and in a safe area the risk of injury to officers and citizens is very low and rate of capture is very high. Suspect may get injured, but that is an associated risk in that line of work.

So, are you saying to just chase the fleeing vehicle at what ever speed necessary collateral damage to civilian life be damned

[usranger74]

My family has been the victim of a police pursuit (for speeding) ending up with the Police T-boning a car carrying my uncle.

High speed pursuits are a controversial issue. Both within and from outside LE Departments. Some major Police Departments have policies that do now allow such. In my Department, our policy put a limit on how fast we could go - 20 MPH over posted speed limit and supervisors were expected to monitor pursuits and call them off if they felt such was warranted. From a liability point of view, not to engage in a pursuit carries far less liability than to engage and make a mistake.

The technology in this video may be expensive but like most new items the cost will come down over time.

This is how a local LE Department has used it.

http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2013/11/...g-gps-cannons/

[benmo109]

cnc I agree with you, it seems they could come up with something using the dart and shorting the electronics of the vehicle and shutting it down..hummm may have something here and retire rich like Bill Gates....lol

[spoon059]

Originally Posted by Top Cat

So, are you saying to just chase the fleeing vehicle at what ever speed necessary collateral damage to civilian life be damned

Is that even remotely what I said???

Lemme try to rephrase it, cause one of the two of us isn't paying attention.

Point 1 - Its too expensive and too easy to defeat
Point 2 - It opens too much liability by allowing someone to go that the department would otherwise chase
Point 3 - Pursuits are a difficult and dangerous tactic to stop
Point 4 - The only proven method over the years is the PIT maneuver (striking the vehicle and causing it to crash). If you read that paragraph again, I clearly state that the officer needs to be well trained and it needs to be done in a safe (ie no innocent victims/property nearby to get struck) area.

Where in there did I advocate using civilians as acceptable collateral damage?

[spoon059]

Originally Posted by usranger74

From a liability point of view, not to engage in a pursuit carries far less liability than to engage and make a mistake.

Very true. However, if it is a "must chase" scenario and the officers use this GPS dart and back off the suspect and the suspect gets away and continues to cause harm, you know the department will be held liable. If its "must chase" and officers stand by and do nothing, you know the department will be held liable.

"Must chase" is a particularly violent or brutal offense. If an officer watches a violent murder and the suspect gets in his car and drives away and police fail to pursue him, that department will be vilified. If that driver gets away and then rapes and murders a 16 year old girl the next town over, that department will get sued like no tomorrow.

I don't like it anymore than any of you would, but that is the truth of the matter. Police get sued because they acted too aggressively, police get sued because they weren't aggressive enough, police get sued even if they do everything right. I would rather do everything right and take my chances getting sued.

[Top Cat]

Originally Posted by Top Cat

So, are you saying to just chase the fleeing vehicle at what ever speed necessary collateral damage to civilian life be damned

Originally Posted by spoon059

Is that even remotely what I said???
Lemme try to rephrase it, cause one of the two of us isn't paying attention.

You have only been here for a year so you probably don't realize that sometimes, not often, I like to stir the pot.
I did get a kick out of the way you said, " one of the two of us isn't paying attention".

[HwyRider]

Originally Posted by spoon059

Great idea, poor in practice though. It is prohibitively expensive at about $5000 per car and $500 per dart. That's $6000 per car. My department has about 800 marked cars... $4.8 million is a LOT of money.

Also, what is to prevent the offender from pulling over and removing the dart once police back off? Or simply ditch the car in a public place and walk away when the police back off? How does the officer positively identify the driver when he finds the vehicle at a later time? How does it work in the rain when the car is wet?

Can you imagine the liability when an officer is chasing a rapist, fires the dart and backs off the pursuit, then the rapist ditches the car and carjacks another vehicle and brutally rapes the driver??? You know that officer would be vilified by the media for allowing the rapist to flee and attack again.

At the end of the day, its going to be VERY hard to stop a fleeing car with a determined driver. If it is a car that absolutely needs to be stopped then the police need to maintain visual contact with the suspect from start to arrest. In the old days we used to PIT violent offenders, making the car crash. When done correctly and in a safe area the risk of injury to officers and citizens is very low and rate of capture is very high. Suspect may get injured, but that is an associated risk in that line of work.

Have you been the victim of a police chase that went bad as a civilian? I have. I was nailed head on by a police car while sitting at an intersection at a red light. The cop was chasing someone that was going 15 mph over the speed limit on a busy Boston street to give them a traffic citation. A car that had the right of way was coming through the intersection and the cop swerved directly in to me.

[cnc]

Originally Posted by Top Cat

You have only been here for a year so you probably don't realize that sometimes, not often, I like to stir the pot.
I did get a kick out of the way you said, " one of the two of us isn't paying attention".

Tim, what the devil has gotten into you?

[usranger74]

Originally Posted by spoon059

Very true. However, if it is a "must chase" scenario and the officers use this GPS dart and back off the suspect and the suspect gets away and continues to cause harm, you know the department will be held liable. If its "must chase" and officers stand by and do nothing, you know the department will be held liable.

"Must chase" is a particularly violent or brutal offense. If an officer watches a violent murder and the suspect gets in his car and drives away and police fail to pursue him, that department will be vilified. If that driver gets away and then rapes and murders a 16 year old girl the next town over, that department will get sued like no tomorrow.

I don't like it anymore than any of you would, but that is the truth of the matter. Police get sued because they acted too aggressively, police get sued because they weren't aggressive enough, police get sued even if they do everything right. I would rather do everything right and take my chances getting sued.

I am speaking to Officers and Departments at the Federal level - A LE department or individual Officer being sued for following a no pursuit policy is rare, very rare. And, as long as the Officer is following approved policy, she/he will not be sued - the department might, but he will not. Even in the "must chase" outlined above there is little exposure as long as policy is followed. The point in law is called "discretionary authority". Now, at the State and Local level things may be different, but there are several large City Departments that do not allow pursuits.

[cactusjack]

No more police chases? Steve McQueen is rolling over in his grave!

[spoon059]

Originally Posted by Top Cat

You have only been here for a year so you probably don't realize that sometimes, not often, I like to stir the pot.
I did get a kick out of the way you said, " one of the two of us isn't paying attention".

Damnit... you got me. Guess I was the one not paying attention