Speak Out: high-speed police chases/supreme court ruling

Replies (28)

• Me'Lange wrote:

  "There should be a clear cut set of pursuit guidelines."

  I disagree. Nefarious interests will use such information to their benefit. For example, let us say that the guidelines prohibit chases through residential areas. Meithinks a criminal planning a robbery would choose a location near a residential area, and plan his escpae route through the residential area, safe in the knowledge that he will not be pursued.

  The same would be true if the guidelines state that pursuits will not be allowed above a given speed. The criminal will merely need to exceed the speed that triggers the cutoff, safe in the knowledge that the pursuit will be terminated.

  Discretion is the key. We train our police officers to use their best sense in these matters. I am comfortable that they will use it.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Mon, Sep 20, 2010, at 2:36 PM

• Those darn testosterone charged adrenaline junkie piggies! When will they get it through their thick serve and protect heads that we are perfectly safe in this peaceful non-violent world and that we no longer need their ill intentioned services. I say good day to them!

  I suggest that you sit in your patrol cars and watch crimes happen...why bother getting involved you are obviously not needed and we can take care of ourselves...unless of course a meth head breaks into my house looking for my stash of liquid heat and D-cell batteries for his Saturday night cook off, then I will call you. But please remember if said meth head happens to get in his vehicle I do not want you to follow him in your patrol car, just wait until old lady Eunice across town calls you to say there is a scabby, toothless d-bag ransacking her medicine cabinet looking for cold pills...then go catch him there!

  I will now put on my helmet and cup (for the twig and berries)...let the police bashing begin.......GO!

  -- Posted by WittenfetusFan on Mon, Sep 20, 2010, at 7:58 PM

• High speed chases through City Parks and residential areas that have occured here in Cape have been UNECESSARY. Since this is the case I don't trust the judgement of any Cape Girardeau police officer in making a decision whether to chase or not. I almost got t-boned several years ago because some idiot and I mean idiot LEO was chasing a black car all over the west and south side. Turned out he was just wanted on drug charges. Its not like the perp was firing a weapon out his window for Gods sake! I agree with Me'lange. There has to be a set policy and as for the Supreme Court, Like many issues lately, I disagree with their findings on this subject. It's obvious you don't have to have common sense to be a supreme court judge.

  -- Posted by GREYWOLF on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 5:49 AM

• wow so if I decide to commit a crime all I have to do is drive at 100mph and I get off?>? w00t.

  -- Posted by futile_rant on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 7:05 AM

• Me'Lange wrote:

  "On TV, police use cell phones to locate individuals via gps. One show. they tapped into the cell phone and used it like a "bug". I do realize, not everything you see on TV is "real"...but makes one wonder how far away that technology."

  Some of it is 'real', but the capabilities are usually exagerated on television shows. Most police stations do not have those huge holographic screens you see on CSI, nor even the wall of computer monitors you see on N.C.I.S. It can still take hours, or even days, to get all of the footage from remote cameras, not the few seconds shown on television.

  To tap into a cell phone, you have to know the number, and it has to be one. Crooks can evade such things by switching the phone 'off', or simply not carrying one.

  The point is, there will always be a question of whether 'tis better to pursue or to break pursuit, and someone has to make that call. I trust that most police officers have the judgement to do so and, being closest to the scene, are in the best position to make that call.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 8:30 AM

• Regardless of the Supreme Court, Law Enforcement Agencies can adopt policies on pursuit as they see fit so long as they remain within the parameters set forth. Because the court rules Officers can use their discretion, it does not say this standard must be adopted by the differing agencies. The policy can be more restrictive.

  I don't live in Cape, but if I did and disapproved of the policy, I would attempt to change it.

  I have had friends killed while in pursuit or responding to emergencies and have somewhat mixed feelings.

  -- Posted by Red_Rhino on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 8:36 AM

• Me'Lange,

  Agree a study would be informative, but how do you quantify those "what if's"? What would have happened if some dangerous individual was not stopped and apprehended? I have been involved in pursuits though very limited and have backed up Officers when a stop was made and you often don't know with what you are dealing until after the fact. I know of instances in which murderers were apprehended when the stop was made for a minor traffic offense.

  I have read many studies on pursuits and have yet to find an approach with which I am completely comfortable.

  I do have a little bit of experience with CGPD and you would not believe how little information is in their policies in general.

  -- Posted by Red_Rhino on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 9:45 AM

• Regarding technology, I have said for years that someday some transmitting or authorizing device will be along side busy highways to interact with vehicles to limit top speed. The first place to test this will be construction and school zones.

  -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 11:54 AM

• Ha anyone seen the new "no cell phone" bumper stickers on the SHP cars. When you do, take a look to see if the trooper is on his cell phone while driving.

  -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 12:25 PM

• Rick,

  Actually, the laws of 'hot pursuit' allowed police from one jurisdiction to pursue suspects into an adjoining state, provided they were actually in 'pursuit'. However, radios allowed them to contact police in the adjoining states and have them waiting at the line to catch them.

  Also, crossing the state line resulted in charges of 'interstate flight', making the crime a federal one, instead of a state crime. It was this cross-state fleeing that involved the feds in many of these crimes. Prior to the days of Bonnie & Clyde, the feds had a pretty limited role.

  Of course, since liquour was outlawed at the federal level, bootlegging also moved the feds into a larger role, including the creation of the ATF.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 12:27 PM

• Maybe if there was a greater punishment for individuals who ran from the police it would not happen as often... say manditory tasing once they are caught. Remember people; the criminals are the problem, not the police! If criminals run from the Police they are gonna get chased. That's just the way it is!

  -- Posted by Liberal Patriot on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 12:45 PM

• I sometimes watch those 'wildest police chase' shows on television. It never ceases to amaze me how lightly many of them get off after nearly killing a dozen or so people through their recklessness and wanton disregard for the law.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 1:42 PM

• Maybe the answer is to require everyone to ride pedal powered tricycles within the city limits.

  -- Posted by voyager on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 2:33 PM

• Spaniard wrote:

  "It never ceases to amaze me how many of our good conservatives place so much faith in the foot soldiers of the government (the cops)."

  Well, there you go again. The cops are the 'foot soldiers' of the local government. It's the overreaching federal and, to a lesser extent, the overreaching State governments that most of us good conservatives have a problem with.

  I've said it before and I'll say it again: subsidiarity. Liberals believe in passing laws at the highest level and enforcing them selectively. Conservatives believe in passing laws at the lowest level and enforcing them effectively.

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 3:10 PM

• Ha anyone seen the new "no cell phone" bumper stickers on the SHP cars. When you do, take a look to see if the trooper is on his cell phone while driving.

  -- Posted by Old John on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 12:25 PM

  This has been raised before. MSHP has six months of training to become a Trooper. Among the training they receive is operating radio equipment while operating a vehicle. They do this day in and day out.

  Many professions have training in tasks for the job. Many professional drivers multitask. I couldn't do it, but I don't have the training required nor probably the attention span.

  -- Posted by Red_Rhino on Tue, Sep 21, 2010, at 4:01 PM

• Red, Thanks for responding to my slightly in jest, slightly serious but probably in poor taste remark. I have no problem with troopers using cell phones while driving. Nor do I have a problem with folks that are able to do so without being distracted. I just don't like the constantly increasing reasons to be pulled over.

  And there is that word again. "Trained, Training"

  For some reason I always want to connect those words with dogs and monkeys. Ok, add infants and toilets to the mix.

  Maybe that is why I am so warped in my thinking. I always resisted training in favor of learning and practiced, honed skills.

  -- Posted by Old John on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, at 12:26 AM

• Im still laughing at the police being trained to talk on cell phones and text while driving! All the "TRAINING" in the world won't make it safe!

  Frankly, almost everytime I see a local leo while on patrol he or she is talking on a cell phone.

  There not trained they just think their good at it. I call it careless and inprudent driving myself and would love to issue them a ticket.

  Im not bashing here folks just showing common sense.

  -- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, at 2:54 AM

• case in point!

  Just arrived at work via my motorcycle. While at a busy intersection on the west side I witnessed a City police officer traveling south through the intersection going at least 10 mph over the limit while talking on a cell phone. ( some might question my ability to judge speed but trust me another person at the light noticed it too and we shared stairs). I got his car number but no need to post it here or even complain to the chief. Im sure they will tell me they use the cell phones many times when in contact with the station if there is a concern of scanners picking up info. Whatever! No law against talking on cell phones so the officer has done nothing wrong except the fact that an automobile is a lethal weapon when being operated carelessly and inprudent. No need for more laws concerning cell phones, C & I is already on the books.

  -- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, at 7:12 AM

• Old John,

  I agree that we have given the government and by extension law enforcement too much power.

  As to MSHP and the whole "trained" thing, if you have ever known anyone who went through the Academy it might make more sense and be even a little scarier. Years ago, we received our "information delivery sessions" at the Academy and stayed in the facility. After the first time there, I would draw my bedding, make the bed and then go pay for a motel room in town out of my pocket; odd bunch of people.

  Greywolf,

  We will just to have to continue to disagree on this one.

  -- Posted by Red_Rhino on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, at 8:06 AM

• If you don't want the LEO's to chase the bad guy's then get the laws changed....

  -- Posted by Airborne 95B on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, at 8:13 AM

• Red_Rhino,

  I respect your opinions and thanks for respecting mine. However, not sure what part of my post you disagree with. Is it my opinion about the need for a set standard on police chases or cell phone use and texting while driving? Or both!?

  I completely agree with you and Old John concerning law enforcement having too much power.

  -- Posted by GREYWOLF on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, at 10:50 AM

• Grey,

  Several weeks ago the results of a study done by the University of Utah, I believe, were released and identified that as much as 3% of the population may be what is considered "supertaskers", meaning they have no inherent difficulty with driving and processing information, such as using a cell phone. As such it is possible to develope a training program to emulate such abilities. Such may not currently exist but could in the future.

  -- Posted by non-biasedphilosopher on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, at 2:22 PM

• Greywolf,

  Our disagreement lies in the ability of a thoroughly trained individual such as a MSHP/KCPD/SLPD etc. to safely operate a motor vehicle while using a 2-way radio/telephone or other communications device.

  As a Corpsman, you received considerable training on multitasking and I am sure you were able to do more than one thing under stressful conditions.

  As to the high speed chase rules/policy, I doubt we are too far off on that one.

  As always, just an opinion.

  -- Posted by Red_Rhino on Wed, Sep 22, 2010, at 5:24 PM

• 'Selective Enforcement' refers to the penchant of liberal politicians to hand out exemptions to various federal laws. I first made that statement in response to a political meeting in the Bootheel. A Democrat there was praising the Clinton administration for granting an exemption from the Prevailing Wage Law that allowed some work to be performed on the levees. I commented that this was evidence that the law was clearly not needed, at least not at the federal level.

  Passing laws that hamper industry, and then handing out exemptions to those laws as favours is common practice in Washington. Given that it is conservatives that usually stand against such laws, and liberals that usually support them, I think the 'sweeping generalization' fits quite appropriately. I notice you only seem to oppose 'sweeping generalizations' when they are applied to liberals, as I've not seen you speak out against the 'sweeping generalizations' of the T.E.A. Party members or of Republicans. Is there are reason for that?

  The police have their duties and, yes, they have the power to impact my freedom, but on an individual basis and not as a matter of codified policy. If a policemen arrests me falsely, that is a mistake. If the government passes a law that makes such an arrest legal, that is oppressive government. If the police are acting imprudently, we have higher authorities (state and federal) to which we may turn for remediation. If the federal government is acting imprudently, there is no higher authority to which to turn. That is what subsidiarity is all about. If you pass laws at the highest level, there is no arbiter of justice except the enforcing authority. Two thousand years of experimentation have taught us that subsidiarity is sound practice, but liberals, in general, want to throw it out the window.

  When Presidents talk about midnight basketball leagues and curfews as federal policy (as President Clinton did) then we have thrown out the concept of subsidiarity entirely. We also have 'federal cops' now, in the form of BATF, DEA, and the FBI acting in the role of police, but with a wanton disregard for the local enforement. (See: Ruby Ridge, Waco, etc.)

  -- Posted by Shapley Hunter on Thu, Sep 23, 2010, at 7:54 AM

• Red_Rhino

  Ok I will give you that. However, talking or texting on a cell phone is a huge distraction wheter or not one is capable of multitasking.

  It seems to me that todays technology would allow for LEO's to have hands off communication abilities. That being said I realize there is no easy answer here. Like the hill street blues cop always said to all the officers, "lets be careful out there"! something like that anyway.

  -- Posted by GREYWOLF on Thu, Sep 23, 2010, at 11:41 AM

• GREYWOLF,

  There might be the technology, I just haven't kept up with it. If it does, I don't know if you could get the money for it, so who knows.

  Agree completely on the being careful part.

  -- Posted by Red_Rhino on Thu, Sep 23, 2010, at 6:07 PM

• Red. I may be wrong but I think State Troopers use their own phones.

  By the way, did you see the St. Louis paper's article about fundraising? The Missouri Deputies Association only gets about 20% of what is donated. Same goes for the Troopers when they call you at home.

  -- Posted by Old John on Thu, Sep 23, 2010, at 7:38 PM

• Old John,

  They may, my son used his own. My only point was/is that people can be trained to multitask and I don't restrict that to Law Enforcement.

  I don't donate to any of those organizations and am not surprised at the low amount received. While I support Law Enforcement and all First Responders, Fire Fighters, EMT/Paramedics etc., I see them no more deserving of financial contributions than any other group.

  -- Posted by Red_Rhino on Fri, Sep 24, 2010, at 6:45 AM