I agree that everyone driving is an idiot at fault here, but it is on the police to make the better decision in this situation. They should not be giving chase in a vehicle under any circumstances. Police are not there to stop crime, they are there to investigate and seek justice ( by job description, I know they don’t actually do that). They will even refuse to protect citizens from crime, but when the cop wants to have little fun and give chase them suddenly they think it’s their job. They need to pick a side to stand on.
The officer has the vehicle description and license plate, they should investigate.
A speeding drunk person in my town last week recently drove himself into a bridge support leg at something of excess of 100mph. Turned himself into jello. No cops needed.
This person in the article was speeding as well. Without the police, you can argue it might not have happened. But sooner a later, they would have smashed into someone, regardless. It’s a matter of time before they hit something or someone.
Yes, but not through fault. I disagree with the notion that it’s a problem for police to attempt to pursue someone driving recklessly as their risk of collision already exists without police involvement.
There’s a big difference between using a pit maneuver to force a collision and following a person and them losing control of their own vehicle while fleeing.
If i were to chase someone down on the roads, whether they’re driving recklessly or not, and that person crashed as a result of my pursuit i would be held liable.
I would advise you look in to all of the times where cops let people get hurt because it is not their job to stop it. Most notably the NYC subway stabbing where the police officer locked themselves in the cockpit where it was safe and watched a madman stab another person several times.
Not being compelled to risk your life is different than it not being your job to stop/prevent crime.
It may be your job to collect shopping carts in a parking lot, and you may choose to go out in a thunderstorm to get those carts, but no judge is going to compel you to risk your life.
Much like a cop there is a risk of injury doing your job every day, so you can’t just never do the job, but some risks are above what people commonly consider normal. I think almost every example you are aluding to falls into that category and doesn’t preclude them from the job of preventing crime.
I agree that everyone driving is an idiot at fault here, but it is on the police to make the better decision in this situation. They should not be giving chase in a vehicle under any circumstances. Police are not there to stop crime, they are there to investigate and seek justice ( by job description, I know they don’t actually do that). They will even refuse to protect citizens from crime, but when the cop wants to have little fun and give chase them suddenly they think it’s their job. They need to pick a side to stand on.
The officer has the vehicle description and license plate, they should investigate.
Putting it another way, the police caused this directly. It would not have happened without their actions.
Oh I disagree.
A speeding drunk person in my town last week recently drove himself into a bridge support leg at something of excess of 100mph. Turned himself into jello. No cops needed.
This person in the article was speeding as well. Without the police, you can argue it might not have happened. But sooner a later, they would have smashed into someone, regardless. It’s a matter of time before they hit something or someone.
I’ll promise you that.
Yes, but not through fault. I disagree with the notion that it’s a problem for police to attempt to pursue someone driving recklessly as their risk of collision already exists without police involvement.
There’s a big difference between using a pit maneuver to force a collision and following a person and them losing control of their own vehicle while fleeing.
If i were to chase someone down on the roads, whether they’re driving recklessly or not, and that person crashed as a result of my pursuit i would be held liable.
What does that have to do with anything? Are you a cop?
I disagree with your assertion that the police are not there to stop crime. Detering and stopping crimes absolutely falls under their job description.
I would advise you look in to all of the times where cops let people get hurt because it is not their job to stop it. Most notably the NYC subway stabbing where the police officer locked themselves in the cockpit where it was safe and watched a madman stab another person several times.
Not being compelled to risk your life is different than it not being your job to stop/prevent crime.
It may be your job to collect shopping carts in a parking lot, and you may choose to go out in a thunderstorm to get those carts, but no judge is going to compel you to risk your life.
Much like a cop there is a risk of injury doing your job every day, so you can’t just never do the job, but some risks are above what people commonly consider normal. I think almost every example you are aluding to falls into that category and doesn’t preclude them from the job of preventing crime.