Because of course chases, not crime, is what plagues the modern big city.....
* * * * * * * *
LOS ANGELES, California (AP) -- The city Police Commission is considering a proposal to ban most police pursuits after a series of high-profile collisions.
The new policy would stop officers from chasing people for minor traffic violations such as missing license plates or broken taillights. The Police Commission has found that at least 60 percent of Los Angeles pursuits are for such minor offenses.
A commission study of police chases in several large cities found Los Angeles had more pursuits, collisions and injuries last year than Atlanta, Boston, Chicago or Philadelphia.
The plan also follows a number of chase-related accidents, including one this month in which a 3-week-old boy lost his left arm when a suspect crashed into the infant's vehicle.
"Some of these high-speed pursuits have resulted in harm and even death to innocent bystanders," said Ramona Ripston, executive director of the ACLU of Southern California. "It's an ongoing problem and it's about time the Police Commission changed its policy."
Police Chief William Bratton suggested the change, which was to be considered Tuesday by the commission. The proposal also requires greater supervision of chases in progress.
Los Angeles had 781 police pursuits in 2001, up from 597 the previous year. More than 135 injuries resulted.
The chases also have been costly to the city. Liability claims resulting from police pursuits cost the city about $1.5 million from July 2000 to September 2002.
The department has proposed tracking fleeing suspects by air rather than the ground.
* * * * * * * * *
What kind of disjointed society do we live in if Merry Christmas is Politically Incorrect?
Gotta say that while I fear this may go overboard, I see no reason why they have to chase a guy with a broken friggen taillight. Take down his license number, and hope that he still lives at the provided address. THEN go give him the ticket for the taillight, and arrest him for fleeing. I think they SHOULD chase if the suspect committed a felony (or is believed to, I should say). That is what the police are for, for crying out loud. And DON'T get me started on that money hungry family of the one-armed baby- Odds are that they did not even install the baby-seat properly in the first place. And since the one FLEEING had no money, they are just looking for someone to sue with cash. Why not the police (and by extension, the taxpayer) then? Why is it that the only people who can be held responsible for things, are the ones who have money?
3 out of 5 Statisticians agree- Statistics are all bull$hit! "Pool-Boy"
At the very least, they should at least follow the guy long enough to get the police chopper on him, and then back off the squad cars and let the chopper take it from there. The guy has to stop at some point, and it would be good if you have more than one chopper in case people get out of the car and break in a whole bunch of directions. This way you're still tailing the guy right away but you're cutting down on the danger to other people.
"Well I'm here to tell ya, that as you go out into the world you're gonna find, that you're not gonna amount to JACK...SQUAT!!!" -Matt Foley, motivational speaker
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA621561?display=Breaking+News More links (news.google.com) I'll reserve comment until I see the ruling posted at the Supreme Court's website (supremecourtus.gov)...