Posted by BrianNZ on October 18, 2009, 2:51 pm
J. Clarke wrote:
> BrianNZ wrote:
>> Sean_Q_ wrote:
>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>
>>>> The officers didn't cause the crash, it was the criminal failing to
>>>> pull over for the police that caused the crash....they were just
>>>> doing their job.
>>> True... but with due care and attention?
>>>
>>> What if the PIT maneuver in heavy traffic results in the death of
>>> an innocent bystander?
>>>
>>> SQ
>>
>> The criminal is at fault for not pulling over.
>
> Whoa. The cop has responsibility for deciding when he conducts the maneuver
> and if an innocent bystander gets killed who would not have if the cop had
> not done it then the blame lies with the cop.
>
> "Chasing a criminal" does not absolve the cops of the responsibility to
> exercise judgment and does not excuse them when they failed to properly do
> so.
>
The cop has a responsibility to catch criminals. As soon as the blue'n'
reds go on and you fail to stop, everything that happens from that
moment on is your responsibility.
Would you prefer the cops let the criminal carry on at speed and just
hope he doesn't kill an innocent person along the way....and be free to
do the same again because he knows the cops will back off?
Posted by little man upon the stair on October 18, 2009, 3:08 pm
> Would you prefer the cops let the criminal carry on at speed and just
> hope he doesn't kill an innocent person along the way....and be free to
> do the same again because he knows the cops will back off?
If there is no report of another felony associated with that vehicle,
the cops usually have standing orders to back off.
The driver who failed to stop will go home 95% of the time and they
can just go to his house and arrest him within the next hour or so.
Posted by J. Clarke on October 18, 2009, 4:35 pm
BrianNZ wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>> Sean_Q_ wrote:
>>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The officers didn't cause the crash, it was the criminal failing
>>>>> to pull over for the police that caused the crash....they were
>>>>> just doing their job.
>>>> True... but with due care and attention?
>>>>
>>>> What if the PIT maneuver in heavy traffic results in the death of
>>>> an innocent bystander?
>>>>
>>>> SQ
>>>
>>> The criminal is at fault for not pulling over.
>>
>> Whoa. The cop has responsibility for deciding when he conducts the
>> maneuver and if an innocent bystander gets killed who would not have
>> if the cop had not done it then the blame lies with the cop.
>>
>> "Chasing a criminal" does not absolve the cops of the responsibility
>> to exercise judgment and does not excuse them when they failed to
>> properly do so.
>>
> The cop has a responsibility to catch criminals. As soon as the
> blue'n' reds go on and you fail to stop, everything that happens from
> that moment on is your responsibility.
So if a cop decides to blow up a building to catch a kid who stole a penny
candy, it's the kid's fault?
Maybe in New Zealand the police are above the law and bear no responsbility
for any actions taken in the attempt to capture a criminal, but in the
United States the police are answerable to the law the same as anybody else
and "we caught the criminal" does not excuse their leaving a trail of
carnage.
When the police start thinking that their duty is "to catch criminals" and
not "to protect society" then the society they serve is in trouble.
> Would you prefer the cops let the criminal carry on at speed and just
> hope he doesn't kill an innocent person along the way....and be free
> to do the same again because he knows the cops will back off?
Yeah, far, far better to make him crash into a crowd and remove all doubt.
Posted by BrianNZ on October 18, 2009, 7:12 pm
J. Clarke wrote:
> BrianNZ wrote:
>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>> Sean_Q_ wrote:
>>>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The officers didn't cause the crash, it was the criminal failing
>>>>>> to pull over for the police that caused the crash....they were
>>>>>> just doing their job.
>>>>> True... but with due care and attention?
>>>>>
>>>>> What if the PIT maneuver in heavy traffic results in the death of
>>>>> an innocent bystander?
>>>>>
>>>>> SQ
>>>> The criminal is at fault for not pulling over.
>>> Whoa. The cop has responsibility for deciding when he conducts the
>>> maneuver and if an innocent bystander gets killed who would not have
>>> if the cop had not done it then the blame lies with the cop.
>>>
>>> "Chasing a criminal" does not absolve the cops of the responsibility
>>> to exercise judgment and does not excuse them when they failed to
>>> properly do so.
>>>
>>
>> The cop has a responsibility to catch criminals. As soon as the
>> blue'n' reds go on and you fail to stop, everything that happens from
>> that moment on is your responsibility.
>
> So if a cop decides to blow up a building to catch a kid who stole a penny
> candy, it's the kid's fault?
Now thats a bit of a stretch from a cop carrying out a PIT manouvre on a
stolen car. :)
>
> Maybe in New Zealand the police are above the law and bear no responsbility
> for any actions taken in the attempt to capture a criminal, but in the
> United States the police are answerable to the law the same as anybody else
> and "we caught the criminal" does not excuse their leaving a trail of
> carnage.
>
> When the police start thinking that their duty is "to catch criminals" and
> not "to protect society" then the society they serve is in trouble.
As far as I know, no buildings in NZ have been blown up to catch a crim.
But the police have shot dead a person when they missed who they were
aiming at.....no charges laid against the police.
>> Would you prefer the cops let the criminal carry on at speed and just
>> hope he doesn't kill an innocent person along the way....and be free
>> to do the same again because he knows the cops will back off?
>
> Yeah, far, far better to make him crash into a crowd and remove all doubt.
>
....the same crowd he may have crashed into while fleeing? (even though
the chase was called off)
Posted by J. Clarke on October 18, 2009, 9:28 pm
BrianNZ wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>> J. Clarke wrote:
>>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>>> Sean_Q_ wrote:
>>>>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The officers didn't cause the crash, it was the criminal failing
>>>>>>> to pull over for the police that caused the crash....they were
>>>>>>> just doing their job.
>>>>>> True... but with due care and attention?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What if the PIT maneuver in heavy traffic results in the death of
>>>>>> an innocent bystander?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> SQ
>>>>> The criminal is at fault for not pulling over.
>>>> Whoa. The cop has responsibility for deciding when he conducts the
>>>> maneuver and if an innocent bystander gets killed who would not
>>>> have if the cop had not done it then the blame lies with the cop.
>>>>
>>>> "Chasing a criminal" does not absolve the cops of the
>>>> responsibility to exercise judgment and does not excuse them when
>>>> they failed to properly do so.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The cop has a responsibility to catch criminals. As soon as the
>>> blue'n' reds go on and you fail to stop, everything that happens
>>> from that moment on is your responsibility.
>>
>> So if a cop decides to blow up a building to catch a kid who stole a
>> penny candy, it's the kid's fault?
> Now thats a bit of a stretch from a cop carrying out a PIT manouvre
> on a stolen car. :)
Not at all. If it's OK for police to willfully endanger the public by
running a car off the road in such a manner that it endangers pedestrians,
then why is it not OK for them to just blow up a building?
>> Maybe in New Zealand the police are above the law and bear no
>> responsbility for any actions taken in the attempt to capture a
>> criminal, but in the United States the police are answerable to the
>> law the same as anybody else and "we caught the criminal" does not
>> excuse their leaving a trail of carnage.
>>
>> When the police start thinking that their duty is "to catch
>> criminals" and not "to protect society" then the society they serve
>> is in trouble.
>>
> As far as I know, no buildings in NZ have been blown up to catch a
> crim.
So you're draw the line there?
> But the police have shot dead a person when they missed who
> they were aiming at.....no charges laid against the police.
In the US the victim's survivors would be sueing the officer and the
department and very likely would collect substantial damages. And if the
cop was not tried or terminated he'd very likely be driving a desk for the
rest of his career.
>>> Would you prefer the cops let the criminal carry on at speed and
>>> just hope he doesn't kill an innocent person along the way....and
>>> be free to do the same again because he knows the cops will back
>>> off?
>>
>> Yeah, far, far better to make him crash into a crowd and remove all
>> doubt.
>>
> ....the same crowd he may have crashed into while fleeing? (even
> though the chase was called off)
Why would he run off the road absent a cop crashing his car into him?
XML Sitemap
>> Sean_Q_ wrote:
>>> BrianNZ wrote:
>>>
>>>> The officers didn't cause the crash, it was the criminal failing to
>>>> pull over for the police that caused the crash....they were just
>>>> doing their job.
>>> True... but with due care and attention?
>>>
>>> What if the PIT maneuver in heavy traffic results in the death of
>>> an innocent bystander?
>>>
>>> SQ
>>
>> The criminal is at fault for not pulling over.
>
> Whoa. The cop has responsibility for deciding when he conducts the maneuver
> and if an innocent bystander gets killed who would not have if the cop had
> not done it then the blame lies with the cop.
>
> "Chasing a criminal" does not absolve the cops of the responsibility to
> exercise judgment and does not excuse them when they failed to properly do
> so.
>