This is why many departments only commit to chases when there is an active danger.
490
Drumphelstiltsken3 days ago
+50
Even then it’s stupid because now you’re creating a second “active danger.” It’s far, far, far more common than people realize that police chases end up causing way more damage than the original threat ever would have.
50
ChefCurryYumYum3 days ago
+17
If the active danger is "someone going around hurting people," then yes, you need to take care of that.
But overall I completely agree that police chases are very dangerous and should only be done when a serious threat is happening.
17
Fedora_Million_Ankle3 days ago
+71
Cant they figure a way to use drones now?
71
Tyrrox3 days ago
+108
You mean like they already can use helicopters?
108
RIP_Soulja_Slim3 days ago
+90
Drones are far cheaper and easier to get airborne, most departments can’t afford helicopters, even when they can they’re not up ready to go 24/7.
Drones are becoming really popular in the policing world because of this.
90
Tyrrox3 days ago
+24
Most departments don't need a helicopter, much like most departments don't need a SWAT team. When a situation gets out of hand you call in a larger department.
24
RIP_Soulja_Slim3 days ago
+11
Yeah I don't disagree, but I do think drones can be super useful here and in a lot of other scenarios without blowing a huge budget on a helicopter. Even things like foot chases or whatever are made far easier and safer with drones.
11
Antonidus3 days ago
+7
Do we really want our police agencies in the US to have MORE equipment with which to terrorize people? The current surveillance apparatus is already too much. Departments tend to just not give a shit about doing their jobs unless it's "fun" anyway.
You want criminals to be apprehended? Tell departments to get their detectives to put in office work with what they ahve and move people off of candy-crush-overtime duty sitting around where they aren't needed.
7
Slggyqo3 days ago
+6
NGL, I think a drone police force would probably result in less police violence.
Even if the drone is manned, there is clearly zero excuse for killing an innocent civilian when the only thing under threat is a police drone.
A drone also guarantees 100% camera uptime. Again just zero excuse to have the camera off on a camera operated drone.
We would obviously need new laws for this. Eg a police officer shouldn’t be allowed to just fly a drone past every open window an record everyone—rules for probably cause would still apply.
6
jebei3 days ago
+2
I agree with you. It's only a matter of time before drones are standard equipment in a police vehicle. Ukraine has made incredible advances in drone tech with some tracking drones that can fly for hours and achieve speeds as fast as any car. They've also got automated tracking tech and infrared cameras that allows them to loiter above a target allowing their forces to methodically get to the target. I'd be stunned if we don't see them in cops cars everywhere very soon.
2
Fedora_Million_Ankle3 days ago
+2
It is 1000x cheaper to use drones and you could be covert and track the car and then find them when they stop and send the cars in.
Not every dept has a helo, but could afford some drones.
2
Th1rte3n13343 days ago
-4
But it would be so expensive to deploy a helicopter. It’s much easier to kill a few people and say it was “in the interest of justice.”
-4
redpoemage3 days ago
+6
Car chases are dangerous for police too. Just dumb all around unless the person is an active threat.
6
progrethth3 days ago
+2
But most importantly it creates better TV to do a car chase.
2
Diplomatic-Immunityi3 days ago
+4
I’m I think that’s already starting to happen. San Francisco PD uses drones for car chases now.
4
Nugur3 days ago
+2
Can’t compare SF tech hub to your rural Alabama
2
Slggyqo3 days ago
+1
Which is why Drone PatrolTM will soon be a service offered by Palantir to police forces nationwide wide to reduce police budgets and increase patrol coverage!
Palantir: we’re in your neighborhood!
Honestly, I bet we would already have more of this if the premiere manufacturer of affordable commercial drones worldwide wasn’t Chinese. Once an American company gets a little more market share it’s inevitable.
1
ahorrribledrummer3 days ago
+13
Or one of thousands of security/traffic c*** all over metro areas.
13
buffysmanycoats3 days ago
+7
This is exactly what they do. I’m a crim defense attorney in a state where the police generally won’t chase at high speeds. But with all the flock cameras, real time crime center, etc., they usually end up finding people. They even use those StarChase GPS darts.
7
hobard3 days ago
+6
Not really. Most drones don’t go 100+ mph, don’t have enough battery power to maintain 100+ mph, don’t have communication range for extended pursuits, and need FAA approval before operating.
6
Bagellord3 days ago
+3
This is how we end up with the FPV drones being used by Russia/Ukraine being deployed from police cruisers...
3
jebei3 days ago
+3
Ukraine has made incredible advances in drone technology the past few years. They're using Starlink for communication and can go well over 100mph if needed. There is certainly size/speed/battery considerations to find the best combination for police work but we're going to see everywhere in policing very soon.
3
Slggyqo3 days ago
+1
I’d be willing to bet that there is a good mid-sized c**** drone that could fill this role. Especially with all of this drone combat going on. It doesn’t have to be a small battery powered quadcopter, or a $30,000,000 prop plane sized predator.
A Shahed drone is about the price of a police car, the size of a person, goes 115MPH and has a range of more than 1000 miles. Police helicopters are much more expensive and complex and their only real advantage is that they can hover.
If the DoD start pumping out drones I’m sure something will become available at even lower prices.
1
Daren_I3 days ago
+3
Not just that, but drones that can be launched from the cruisers. I get that the criminals create danger for everyone by running, but at the same time it would be a horrible idea to let criminals thinks that if they flee as dangerously as possible the police will stop chasing them. That just encourages it to continue. Let cruisers activate drones (maybe even piloted remotely?) that track the suspect(s) so they can move in when it's safer.
3
non_hero3 days ago
Yours is the only comment here that recognizes the problem with banning chases. It removes the deterrence factor. A city might have a couple dozen or so fleeing and eluding cases a year, but how many more will occur with the knowledge that police are not allowed to chase? Hundreds, maybe even thousands more. The amount of resources it will take to track all of them down will become prohibitive. Sure banning police chases to save innocent bystander lives sounds like a no-brainer, but people are not seeing the full ramifications that will arise. Much like how bail reform has resulted in a "catch and release" issue of low level criminals and why toiletries are now locked up behind glass at stores because penalties for shoplifting were lessened, there's always unintended consequences to any reform.
0
The-Shattering-Light3 days ago
+1
That doesn’t give cops the adrenaline high they demand, though
1
JLove4MVP3 days ago
+9
They tried that in Milwaukee, people just never pulled over because they knew cops wouldn’t chase.
That’s a danger regardless
9
LeshyIRL3 days ago
+9
It's a lot less dangerous than 20 cars all zooming down the highway at top speed
9
AgathysAllAlong3 days ago
+10
So? Cars have license plates. They're tied to people and where they live. It's not like they get away with it.
10
MrMerryweather563 days ago
+8
Criminals don't use legit plates or cars..they use stolen cars,no plates,temp tags,out of state plates,swapped plates.
8
Outlulz3 days ago
+3
Not all criminals have the foresight to do that, that is why pursuits can start when a cop runs a plate that has an active warrant associated with it.
Also stolen and swapped states should be followed up on by police regardless because there are victims if that happens.
3
CTeam193 days ago
+2
Cool. How about the police then do real police work:
* Get footage from cameras
* dust and stuff for DNA in the car
* Interview
2
MrMerryweather563 days ago
+3
Yeah no worries,most big city departments are heavily understaffed,let's spend the few man hours we have on investigating every non plated or non registered vehicle that we come across.
3
CTeam193 days ago
+1
The big cities then should work with local schools to develop a program to get more officers. Or maybe stop doing stuff that makes people not want to be cops.
1
Marcer_3 days ago
+1
Unless someone got close enough to get a good look at the driver, there's often not a great means to prove that the registered owner of the car was actually driving. The car itself being used in a crime is not in itself enough to prove someone's guilt. Cars get sold, have outdated reg, are driven by other people, are stolen, etc. Partly why it's extremely common that when a car is involved in a pursuit and gets away, it *coincidentally* gets called in as stolen shortly thereafter.
Point being: sometimes they absolutely get away with it.
1
canada4323 days ago
+1
Have you driven on a US highway lately? 1/10 cars has no plates. Police do jack shit about it.
1
cakesalads3 days ago
+11
This has not been my experience at all. Even on the interstate, a car without a plate stands out. 10% is an outrageously high number. Furthermore, State Police agencies are usually allowed to pursue still. At least, all the ones near me still are
11
AgathysAllAlong3 days ago
+10
So then if they can't be trusted to do their jobs in such an obvious scenario, why are you trusting them to kill people in chases?
10
JLove4MVP3 days ago
lol, you’ve never driven in Milwaukee have you.
Cars absolutely don’t have license plates and what if the car is stolen???
That doesn’t do you any good if they know where the owner of the car lives but they aren’t the driver
0
AgathysAllAlong3 days ago
+5
Okay so police are so incompetent that they can't do anything about obvious crimes in public, but you trust them to kill innocent people in high-speed chases?
5
JLove4MVP3 days ago
+2
The goal isn't to kill innocent people. It's about taking trash off the street.
I can't believe apologize for criminals.
2
scuffgamerr3 days ago
+2
This is why in my country they don't chase they follow with a helicopter. Only if there is a danger to the public they chase.
2
pyrhus6263 days ago
+1
A lot of places have walked that back because nobody would pull over at all knowing they wouldn’t be pursued. Which *is* overkill for petty crimes but a disturbing large number of serious wanted criminals are caught by traffic stops, as are a lot of trafficking victims and dead bodies.
1
Fallouttgrrl3 days ago
+295
"In southern California, the Pomona Police Department said in a statement that its officers were pursuing a fleeing domestic violence suspect Wednesday when his car hit another vehicle, killing the couple inside. The two were days away from the birth of their child, according to KCBS-TV.
F***, that hits hard in the feels. The ones before it were rough, but were the folks in the fleeing vehicle
And we've normalized this in the US
295
RIP_Soulja_Slim3 days ago
+100
I’m tied up and can’t find the exact study right now but IIRC about 50% of fatalities in police chases are innocent bystanders. The other part was like 40% those fleeing and 10% cops.
Which means that more often than not a random innocent person dies when cops decide to chase.
e: https://www.thefinelawfirm.com/people-killed-in-police-chases/
>From 2014-2018, fifty-six percent of people killed during police pursuits were someone other than the fleeing driver.
>An analysis by the Fine Law Firm and 1Point21 Interactive found that there were 1,699 fatal crashes involving police chases from 2014-2018, killing at least 2,005 people – 1,123 were not the driver of the fleeing vehicle.
>Among those killed were:
>882 fleeing drivers
>337 fleeing vehicle passengers
>21 police officers
>765 bystanders (occupants of uninvolved vehicles or non-motorists)
>75 non-motorists (67 pedestrians, 5 bicyclists and 3 on another means of personal conveyance)
100
TheAskewOne3 days ago
+23
>Which means that more often than not a random innocent person dies when cops decide to chase.
No that’s not what it says thankfully. It says that when there’s a chase *and* someone dies, they were a bystander. Now are cops often reckless and should a majority of chases be avoided? Yes absolutely. Protecting the public should matter more than arresting someone when there’s no immediate danger.
23
Dumpsterfire_473 days ago
+32
Thank god the courts clarified police have no duty to protect citizens.
32
DorkandPoon3 days ago
+16
It’s because the police do not care whether you live or die. Most of them are just assholes who are addicted to violence and adrenaline
16
Fit-Personality-18343 days ago
+5
F****** devastating.
5
TylerTman3 days ago
-51
We've normalized and praised criminals is the problem
-51
Fallouttgrrl3 days ago
+28
I don't think anyone is praising the criminal (outside of dukes of hazzard)
I think we're condemning recklessly ~~firing a weapon into a crowd to stop a fleeing subject~~ maneuvering thousands of pounds of steel at high speed in city limits
28
thehalfwhiteguy3 days ago
+34
you’re right. there’s way too much cop worship
34
TylerTman3 days ago
-44
Ah yes why blame the person fleeing when you can blame the police
-44
thehalfwhiteguy3 days ago
+33
going on a high speed pursuit is a great way to put the citizens they claim to protect in even more danger
33
Fallouttgrrl3 days ago
+17
The person fleeing has likely not yet escalated their crimes to "murder"
You don't have a high speed chase without the "chase" part of things
Reckless driving happens, and if it leads to death then that really sucks
But I'll take the chance it doesn't over cops escalating it until it does
If someone is going to die from a high speed "escape" without the cops, the cops weren't going to add much to the situation
I'd rather they try to get ahead of the situation rather than push from behind
17
AdministrativeTea6953 days ago
-21
You’re trying SO hard to do everything except recognize illegal and dangerous behavior lmao
-21
RIP_Soulja_Slim3 days ago
+10
The real world is not a binary, treating conversations like this as one where fault can only be assigned to one party only makes sense for winning some hypothetical argument, not for discussing better outcomes in society.
Yes, the criminal running is doing something dangerous that can put innocent lives at risk, and yes the police chasing contributes significantly to that risk by both prolonging it and amplifying it's intensity. Innocent lives lost in chases are absolutely the fault of police, as well as the criminal that ran, but one party largely escapes liability.
10
Stagnu_Demorte3 days ago
+6
Everyone is recognizing the dangerous behavior except you mate
6
WizardOfTheHobos3 days ago
+17
Why can’t multiple people be in the wrong? The cops actions resulted in deaths that would not have happed if the cop had made a smarter choice.
17
nickisdacube3 days ago
-14
Because then people can just flee police knowing that they won’t pursue them and get away with their crimes.
-14
sobuffalo3 days ago
+6
It was a domestic violence call, they easily can find the name and get him without a car chase. Just because you don't chase, doesn't mean they "let him go".
6
Bakedfresh4203 days ago
+5
If only license plates and cameras existed.
5
WizardOfTheHobos3 days ago
+8
Lmao the cops chasing after them does not make them a good person 😭
8
KneecapTheEchidna3 days ago
-2
Well I'm sure the guy who beat his gf/wife was just a really nice guy until those damn cops and their dog got in the way.
-2
christhomasburns3 days ago
+3
look, he's a scumbag, we all agree there. However, he's not am active danger if he's just leaving and not being chased. He could be tailed from a distance. police can stay with the victims in case he comes back, they can go go his workplace, there bar be frequents, his friends house, its not like he'll disappear forever if they can't chased him at 85mph. Then, maybe a family is still alive.
3
Fallouttgrrl3 days ago
+2
This this this
And I've called the police for domestic violence
I'd much rather they have a guy hang out around the neighborhood for a bit than pursue the dude
Instead it's basically like "if it's not a high speed chase I've done nothing and I'm all out of ideas"
2
kn1ghtbyt33 days ago
+1
google 40% cops
1
Morak733 days ago
>And we've normalized this in the US
How do other countries handle suspects who flee at life threatening speeds?
Running from the police has always struck me as uniquely American. Even movies set in Europe with Michael Bay style action scenes feel like an American thing forced into an unnatural setting.
0
DirtyFatB0Y3 days ago
+62
This advertisement is brought to you by Flock and all of the politicians that accept bribes from Flock.
62
traplords8n3 days ago
+11
Mass surveillance wooooo! It will totally be used for its intended purpose of stopping crime, and ONLY stopping crime! Our government (hell any government) has a great track record with this!
11
Schnitzhole3 days ago
+8
If not Flock then it is and will be another surveillance company.
8
BNLforever3 days ago
+47
John Oliver did a great special on this
47
Relevant_Grass95863 days ago
+13
Most jurisdictions have laws that prevent their officers from chasing at certain speeds or through populated areas
13
A_Nonny_Muse3 days ago
+44
Steal $20, get 20 years. Steal $2B, get 18 months probation.
44
todumbtorealize3 days ago
+27
I think you meant steal 2b get pardoned.
27
Stockholm-Syndrom3 days ago
+2
So steal 2.002 billions.
2
idkmyotherusername3 days ago
+4
Steal $20 while Black and get lynched in the street.
4
A_Nonny_Muse3 days ago
+1
Oh, just existing while black gets you murdered by cop.
1
Proper_Trouble81913 days ago
-1
Yeah, that's why there are no black people around. They have all been murdered by the police. In all honesty a black person is more likely to be killed by another black person than they are by a police officer of any color, but we can't talk about that.
-1
PigFarmer13 days ago
When it comes to law enforcement shootings minorities are the primary targets. Even in training scenarios minorities are going to get shot more than whites.
0
Lieutenant_0bvious3 days ago
+10
All I have to say is, do not run in Arkansas. I forget the other state, possibly Georgia. But YouTube ton of videos of state troopers unrelenting int their chase. To be fair obviously usually on the highway, but not always
10
UBC1453 days ago
+10
Yep, definitely Georgia you’re thinking about. The state police of those two states in particular are known for their…relaxed pursuit policy. For better or for worse, they don’t f*** around and won’t hesitate to pit your car at speeds over 100mph.
10
thiiiiiiisguy3 days ago
+1
You’re thinking of the Georgia State Police, or “God’s Special People” as they call themselves.
1
JadedIT_Tech3 days ago
+78
In the age of information, there is little reason to commit to these dangerous chases that needlessly puts innocent bystanders at risk
We have plenty methods to track these vehicles, get their tags and get them later.
78
Sunnyside7113 days ago
+75
You don’t have much of a legal prosecution if you don’t know who was driving or who was in the car, doesn’t matter who owned the car.
75
Stockholm-Syndrom3 days ago
+29
One comment above mentions someone chased for domestic violence. Does it matter to prove they were in the car?
29
Marcer_3 days ago
+8
I don't know about this case in particular, but in general the thinking with pursuing a domestic violence suspect is that there's a higher priority on actually apprehending them, because the thought is that if they get away and are at large, there's a higher likelihood that they'll come back to the victim again at some point and potentially further hurt or kill them. In contrast to an assault against a random person at Wal-Mart; still potentially an awful crime, but there's likely much less of a threat to the victim that the person is still on the loose.
8
christhomasburns3 days ago
-1
so protect the victim! move them, post am officer with them, don't chased the abuser in a way that created huge danger and in this case kills an entire family.
-1
Fallouttgrrl3 days ago
+16
I'm sure that reassures the family and friends of the citizens killed by a rolled vehicle or high speed impact
Hey, we got it on cam!
Now why do we consider this worth putting lives at risk, over all the work that doesn't go into most of the rest of urban crime and the numerous unsolved murders :p
16
Downtown_Skill3 days ago
-1
Honestly, probably because it's such a big lart of our media and culture.
There are promo videos for police departmenst featuring car chases. They are the climax of dozens of action movies, and on top of that I bet police love them.
None of those are good reasons, but the blue lives matter movement proved that the lives of police are more important than the lives of civilians or legally innocent suspects i guess.
-1
HYDROMORPHONE_ZONE3 days ago
+10
Flock cameras take care of that problem as much as I disagree with them
10
Marcer_3 days ago
+5
Flock cameras often don't give a clear image of who's driving.
5
HYDROMORPHONE_ZONE3 days ago
+6
There’s also the testimony of the officers which are taken as fact usually until proven otherwise
6
Fallouttgrrl3 days ago
+2
Hell I'd say these might be some of the only good uses of police drones, as well
Have homeboy followed by a high speed drone or get a cam shot like that
Saves on helicopters, which we use for the same thing
2
Existing-Parking45313 days ago
+4
So in the case of the DV suspect, he hit and killled a pregnant mother and father about to give birth, was that worth the prosecutions case?
4
Marcer_3 days ago
+1
Are you asking me if it was worth causing a fatal collision in order to apprehend a suspect? I would sure think not.
1
matt951103 days ago
All those Flock cameras on the freeway?
0
HYDROMORPHONE_ZONE3 days ago
+2
Yeah they’re along the freeway too. They usually catch you on the on-ramps and off-ramps though
2
BungeeGump3 days ago
+1
This is 100% accurate and most people don’t have enough legal knowledge to get this. 99.9% of the time, you won’t get a conviction if you don’t pull over the driver before you lose sight of them.
1
1917he3 days ago
-1
Oh no! If only cameras or prosecutorial processes could help! Guess we gotta keep killing people to help increase that identification.
It's trivial to issue a warrant and then through an investigation process beyond a reasonable doubt that the person you're interested in was/wasn't behind the wheel.
This only matters if the crime in question is a traffic violation as well which is rarely worth pursuit/life or death. Speeding/fleeing could be hit with a visit and investigation vs. pursuit.
-1
espressocycle3 days ago
-1
So what? Better a guilty man go free than an innocent person die.
-1
logos10203 days ago
+1
Right, but then we are at square one with the whole car chase thing.
1
darksoft1253 days ago
+7
And what if it's a stolen vehicle? Or expired/stolen tags? Or they don't have tags at all?
7
JadedIT_Tech3 days ago
+13
Better than innocent bystanders getting killed
13
darksoft1253 days ago
-7
You're assuming that they're only getting chased for driving violations. Should someone who's committed armed robbery be allowed to run? What about a rapist? How about a murderer? What if they commit a mass shooting?
-7
JadedIT_Tech3 days ago
+10
Again.
Better than innocent bystanders getting killed.
Or are you saying that the deaths of innocent people are perfectly okay so long as you get the "chance" of nabbing the bad guy?
10
PigFarmer13 days ago
+2
We have a rapist who is POTUS...
2
ChainLC3 days ago
+3
so that makes endangering many other innocents okay? I want you to go research how many mass murderers or even murders were caught via high speed pursuit and weigh that against how many people have been hurt or critically injured because of high speed pursuit crashes. protection is protection. If I choose not to pursue I probably protected more people than I would have by pursuing them and catching them. because 99 times out of 100 the person being pursued is not a killer. or rapist.
3
Th1rte3n13343 days ago
+3
Do you think it’s worth killing innocent people to ensure an alleged perpetrator is apprehended?
Just wondering.
3
Enlogen3 days ago
+1
Yes, absolutely. If perpetrators know they can escape justice by fleeing from police, they'll flee more often, which puts more innocent people at risk.
1
Th1rte3n13343 days ago
+3
So in your opinion letting them escape from capture is unacceptable because these dangerous car chases are the only way to catch them?
3
Enlogen3 days ago
+2
No, it's because they're much less likely to be caught if they aren't detained as soon as they're identified, and building a culture where there is no advantage to fleeing the police makes criminals much less likely to avoid trial and punishment (and put others at risk in their attempts to avoid trial and punishment).
2
Th1rte3n13343 days ago
+1
Do you have any proof that high-speed car chases are the only reason why perpetrators are more likely to be caught?
1
Enlogen3 days ago
+2
It doesn't have to be the only reason. It just has to be a reason.
2
Th1rte3n13343 days ago
+1
Okay I worded that poorly, do you have proof that high-speed car chases significantly reduce the risk of suspects not being caught?
1
Enlogen3 days ago
+1
https://www.tmj4.com/news/project-drive-safer/37-of-police-chases-in-2022-resulted-in-an-arrest-mpd-data-shows
37% is higher than 0%
1
TeslasAndComicbooks3 days ago
+2
Many of the car chases here in Los Angeles are in a stolen car.
2
kangaroospyder3 days ago
+3
Like the chase in Boston that was started when some guy carjacked a woman with a gun this past month...?
3
JadedIT_Tech3 days ago
-3
Better than putting innocent bystanders at unnecessary risk.
-3
kangaroospyder3 days ago
+5
So you want to keep someone who is actively stealing a car from random citizens with a gun, who was also driving recklessly before the chase even started on the street.... wow.
5
JadedIT_Tech3 days ago
-6
I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand, because my answer is still the same.
*Better than putting innocent bystanders at unnecessary risk, because the alternative is claiming that you think it's perfectly okay for uninvolved, innocent people to get hurt and killed to have a "chance" at nabbing the bad guy.*
-6
Varjek3 days ago
+4
Headline has it wrong.
Should be: Criminals Attempting to Flee from Police in Vehicles Leads to 8 Deaths Around US in Less Than a Week
4
forchinski3 days ago
+3
One of these happened near me I'm pretty sure. Heard a bunch of sirens and then a loud crash followed by even more sirens for a few hours
3
Hopeful-Flounder-2033 days ago
+3
There were 2 more deaths last week in rural Michigan that aren't even mentioned.
https://www.whmi.com/news/article/police-pursuit-fatal-crash-putnam-d-19-swarthout
3
Dinx813 days ago
+3
Park car safely
Turn off engine and put keys on dashboard
Wait for cop to let you go
Never had an issue with this and haven’t gotten any tickets since using this method.
3
LostTheGameOfThrones3 days ago
+5
Watching videos of American police car chases is always f****** wild. Everything about them is so aggressive and the cops always seem to be competing with the people they're chasing to be as reckless as possible.
Having the primary strategy of stopping a car chase being PIT manoeuvring is absolutely mental.
5
Independent_Tie_49843 days ago
+19
Unless the car being pursued has the equivalent of a large bomb in it or the person being pursued is planning a mass casualty event - high speed chases are ridiculously stupid.
It's up to shift leaders to pull pursuing officers off unless there's justification to put everyone else on the road at risk of serious injury or death.
We figured this out twenty years ago - why TF are they doing it again?
19
Strange-Ask-7393 days ago
Bro, haven't you seen the ice recruiting videos bro? It's all about looking cool and arresting bad guys! Chases are cool! Hit the lights!
Probably.
But in the age of Flock, Ring, and standby loitering police drones: a chase is just showing off how bad *everyone* is at doing what they're doing in that situation.
0
NYMinute593 days ago
+6
Here’s a simple solution, when a police officer pulls you over, you put your flashers on, then move to a safe spot
Things you don’t do, accelerate and try to flee. It’s not the police officers decision to run and put others in danger
6
nimsu3 days ago
+2
What's an average week?
2
idkmyotherusername3 days ago
+4
Road tripping and in both IN and MO I have seen high speed chases. The one in MO was in front of me so a bit less terrifying - they cut through a gas station parking lot then onto the freeway while I was at a stop light. The one in IN, the cops raced by on the shoulder, and it was scary AF. The mistakes that can be made as they drive like they're in a formula 1 race with a bunch of civilians also on the road.
4
stillwatersrunfast3 days ago
+2
Three people died when their car flew into the river here in Portland during a pursuit yesterday.
2
1917he3 days ago
+3
They solved this by creating "felony murder" statutes. If a person dies while you commit a felony, it's the criminals fault. So the police built a way to make sure people they kill are actually the fault of the suspect and thus have no responsibility in killing the public.
3
Dumpsterfire_473 days ago
+3
Police are not good drivers but they think they are because of the woo woo and flashy lights.
3
TwistedTreelineScrub3 days ago
+4
There were two kids that died in a police chase in Portland just the other day too
[https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/04/divers-comb-willamette-after-police-say-driver-fleeing-from-officers-launched-into-river.html](https://www.oregonlive.com/crime/2026/04/divers-comb-willamette-after-police-say-driver-fleeing-from-officers-launched-into-river.html)
Not included in the article because it happened right after it was published, so these would bring the count to 10
4
Outlulz3 days ago
+11
I wouldn't say this counts. They were driving down the wrong side of the road, cops understandably turned on lights to stop them, the car immediately decides to drive through the park and into the river. This was within a couple blocks, not really a pursuit.
11
Pickles_McBeef3 days ago
+5
This just happened in Ogden, Utah as well, just last week. Wasn't mentioned in the article. 2 kids from one family killed after a pursuit. Pursued vehicle hit the family's car, they were innocent bystanders.
5
Spirited_Childhood343 days ago
+2
Thought the insurance companies had put the kibosh on this shit. Apparently not.
2
JC19493 days ago
+1
Best police practise is to avoid such chases. Frustrating, yes. Good news is that dumb people are actually pretty easy to catch later.
1
starkraver3 days ago
+1
Well maybe people should stop chasing police cars.
(Adding the obvious /s because people are dumb now)
1
visiBleBreak03 days ago
+1
Over policing in the USA, virtually nothing outside of extreme scenarios warrants a chase and 99.99% of calls they answer aren’t those. A car chase should only happen like 3 times a year max across the country, we are over policed and they keep upping the ante to prove they need the amount of obscene money they get
1
Nandulal3 days ago
+2
gang bangers gonna bang
2
Adorable-Flight-4963 days ago
-16
Never forget the proximate cause is the perpetrator fleeing the scene in the first place
-16
Tyrrox3 days ago
+12
Everyone involved has choices to make. Including the police. They should not get a free pass to do whatever they want because someone is breaking the law.
12
JadedIT_Tech3 days ago
+12
That's a poor excuse for needlessly putting innocent bystanders at risk
12
Fallouttgrrl3 days ago
+2
We do have an entire license plate and registration system that gives cops a pretty decent idea on where the chase will end up or who to talk to
And for some of these, chasing a fleeing vehicle makes a dangerous situation even more dangerous
2
memberzs3 days ago
+7
That doesn't help when they are chasing a car reported stolen. As was the case in Utah.
7
Fallouttgrrl3 days ago
-3
Yeah I guess it's totally worth the risk of killing bystanders in the off chance you're pursuing someone who stole a vehicle
Idk I think over the course of a week "three to four people got away from the cops for a bit" is something I'd take over "eight people died but four of them did some bad things and ran"
Hell, if someone stole my car and the cops said "we'll be on the lookout" that's *basically what I already expect to get from the cops* and it sure beats "we chased them until they crashed it into a couple and baby"
There's a world of difference between "chasing in high speed pursuit" and "monitoring where the car is going" and if we're not getting our worth out of the military-grade police budget, what's the point. Break out the drone for high speed chases, not the PIT maneuvers
-3
memberzs3 days ago
+9
That quite the stretch from my statement. I just pointed out the flaw of not knowing who the driver is makes enforcement hard.
Sure some sort of tracking would be better. But you are here asking cops to simply do their job, which is a fools errand.
9
Fallouttgrrl3 days ago
-3
No, I'm pointing out that if the only way to nail someone for the crime is to potentially kill them and a bunch of people, the crime needs to be "killing themselves and a bunch of people" not "ran from a cop in a stolen vehicle"
If we wouldn't let a cop get away with unloading a gun into a crowd to stop a shoplifter, why would we allow it with a car instead?
-3
memberzs3 days ago
+2
Except we do allow that. That the problem. There's no accountability so it doesn't matter what resources they actually have.
2
aminervia3 days ago
-5
They wouldn't have to flee so recklessly if they weren't being chased. It's much safer for everyone to track them using technology and just find them again (unless they're an active danger obviously)
-5
13thmurder3 days ago
-12
Police kill people while chasing other people who are fleeing the police likely becuase police kill people.
-12
aerost0rm3 days ago
Maybe MAGA should stop running from their crimes?…
155 Comments