Kentuckian
Officer
Posts: 10
Registered: 30-8-2005
Location: Kentucky
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 5-11-2005 at 21:30
|
|
|
Read question below before casting your vote
Do You Believe That Law Enforcement Should Be Able To Drive 100 mph,Or Condudt High-Speed police Pursuits For Minor Traffic Violations Or For Property
Violations?
So what do you think?
Unnecessary Pursuits can be prevented,Innocent Lives can be saved.It is left up to the Officer(s) to use common sense,because the one who is fleeing
doesn't have any.
What's more important,an innocent human being's life,or an stolen car? Afterall an stolen car can be replaced,but on the other hand an innocent
human being cannot be.Something to think about.
|
|
|
Kentuckian
Officer
Posts: 10
Registered: 30-8-2005
Location: Kentucky
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 5-11-2005 at 21:40
|
|
|
Travis,
It lists my rank as an officer,I don't want people to get the impression that I am one,because I am not one.Thought I would throw that in right
quick.
Thanks again for all your hard work and dedication in trying to make sure that public safety is number 1
Unnecessary Pursuits can be prevented,Innocent Lives can be saved.It is left up to the Officer(s) to use common sense,because the one who is fleeing
doesn't have any.
What's more important,an innocent human being's life,or an stolen car? Afterall an stolen car can be replaced,but on the other hand an innocent
human being cannot be.Something to think about.
|
|
|
MarkC
Captain
Posts: 211
Registered: 28-9-2006
Location: Salem, Oregon
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 4-1-2007 at 02:04
|
|
|
If an officer is running radar on a highway and a violator speeds by at 90 MPH, how fast must the officer get his vehicle up to in order to catch up
to the violator ? Certainly over 100 MPH. Safer option - use the radio and work in conjunction with a partner up the road. Of course, due to budget
cuts, your partner doesn't exist unfortunately, or as in our states case, there may be nobody else in the entire county working.
If you call in a reckless driver that just endangered you, would you insist that the responding officer driver over 100 to get to the location ?
If a loved one was choking, home alone, and able to dial 911, should the responding officer drive over 100 MPH ? tick tick tick
If a minor traffic violation turns into a pursuit, in my opinion, it really hinges on conditions. If the pursuit is down an empty highway at 2AM,
I'd say "yes". If the pursuit is downtown at 2AM with pedestrians, cars, bars closing....no way. I would terminate my own, or an officers
pursuit.
You pose an easier scenario at the end, property crimes. Simple answer, almost always "no". Property is easy to replace and humans can not be
replaced. We train that even bank robbery is a "property crime".
Boiling everything down to a phrase we embrace - "If the risk posed by the pursuit ( of time or person ) is greater than the benefit of apprehension
( or getting to the choking person ) then the pursuit should be terminated".
The question you pose is so complex - As a supervisor I may allow a pursuit to continue that has veteran officers involved, where it would have been
terminated given the same circumstances with a young officer at the helm. The variables are endless, but there are only two outcomes. Apprehension or
tragedy, neither of which are predictable. We can only manage the risk we pose to the public and ourselves.
The Norton family paid the ultimate price when a Deputy responded code three to a "child out of control". She passed the Nortons car on the left,
but the driver did not see/hear in time and turned in front of the patrol car. They lost two sons, and ultimately their marriage. We now watch a tape
produced by the mother ( who was in the car also ) as part of our basic EVOC training. Search: Michelle Norton
The vast majority of our profession take the driving aspect of our day VERY seriously, fully knowing the results of bad decisions made behind the
wheel. I think as simple an answer as possible would be; Continue to allow LEOs to make the critical decision on how fast to respond to a given
situation. Even with ideal conditions thing can go badly, but I am not sure you would want to live in a society in which the patrol cars have a 65 MPH
governor.
I look forward to your response.
|
|
|
Kentuckian
Officer
Posts: 10
Registered: 30-8-2005
Location: Kentucky
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 25-8-2007 at 17:11
|
|
|
Mark,
I posted this two years ago,and you state you look forward to my response,so I guess I will wait another two years and give you my response,LOL.Just
kidding.
For starters,I AM NOT against all police pursuits.There has to be restrictions on police pursuits.There NEEDS to be an understanding as to when
Officer's can pursue and when they can't pursue.There needs to be resrictions as to where they can pursue and where they can't pursue.
An good example,an Officer isn't allowed to fire his gun in a crowd of people even if he has a clear shot at an suspect.So why isn't he allowed? The
answer should be quite obvious,because he simply could shoot someone innocent.Just like they are resrictions as when an Officer can fire his gun,there
needs to be resrictions as to when they can pursue.
(If a loved one was choking, home alone, and able to dial 911, should the responding officer drive over 100 MPH ? tick tick tick)
If the above was at case,an Officer needs to respond as rapidly as possible,BUT THEN AGAIN,why put others at risk by driving over 100 MPH? What if
the Officer who is responding drives over 100 MPH and hits an family of six,and all six members are killed instantly?
(If a minor traffic violation turns into a pursuit, in my opinion, it really hinges on conditions. If the pursuit is down an empty highway at 2AM,
I'd say "yes". If the pursuit is downtown at 2AM with pedestrians, cars, bars closing....no way. I would terminate my own, or an officers
pursuit.)
I can agree with you on this one.But then again,why pursue over just a minor traffic violation.What if there was an armed robbery and there wasn't
any Officers in the area,and this Officer had been in the area,but since he engaged in a pursuit he was no longer in that area,and what if someone was
killed in this armed robbery? ding dong,ding dong
(You pose an easier scenario at the end, property crimes. Simple answer, almost always "no". Property is easy to replace and humans can not be
replaced. We train that even bank robbery is a "property crime". )
Agree.
(Boiling everything down to a phrase we embrace - "If the risk posed by the pursuit ( of time or person ) is greater than the benefit of apprehension
( or getting to the choking person ) then the pursuit should be terminated".)
Agree
(The question you pose is so complex - As a supervisor I may allow a pursuit to continue that has veteran officers involved, where it would have been
terminated given the same circumstances with a young officer at the helm. The variables are endless, but there are only two outcomes. Apprehension or
tragedy, neither of which are predictable. We can only manage the risk we pose to the public and ourselves.)
A veteran Officer may be professionally trained in police pursuits,BUT HOWEVER,the idiot who is fleeing isn't trained at all,and in most police
pursuits,it is the idiot who is fleeing from the police who is the one who crashes and kills someone innocent.I also believe the idiot if he is in
fact caught should get the stiffest penalty for fleeing from the police.There was an suspect not too long ago had wrecked as a result of an police
pursuit.He sued,because he was seriosly injured and it left him disbled.Anyways,to make the long story short he lost.Before he fled from police he
knew what he was doing and he knew the risks that were involved so he got what he deserved.What a person sows is what they reap.
Look at what happened the the Priano family.This was an pursuit that could've been avoided.If you haven't read about it,click the link below.
Kristie's Law
Unnecessary Pursuits can be prevented,Innocent Lives can be saved.It is left up to the Officer(s) to use common sense,because the one who is fleeing
doesn't have any.
What's more important,an innocent human being's life,or an stolen car? Afterall an stolen car can be replaced,but on the other hand an innocent
human being cannot be.Something to think about.
|
|
|
MarkC
Captain
Posts: 211
Registered: 28-9-2006
Location: Salem, Oregon
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 5-9-2007 at 23:58
|
|
|
It seems to me that this issue hinges on;
1. Hiring the right candidate. Somebody with common sense, and judgment. This is tougher than it sounds, especially given the pay in some areas. This
issue probably needs its own web site, much less thread.
2. Training the person to be an expert behind the wheel, both the physical skills, and knowledge based on case law and policy. It is SHAMEFUL what
some agencies are allowing to occur when it comes to training in this arena.
Given the very best set of circumstances, tragedy can still strike, and nobody may be at fault. Planes crash, but we cant even fathom "outlawing"
them. We make them as safe as possible and take the calculated risk every time we set foot in one. Officers are involved in countless pursuits every
day that end well. But you very rarely hear about them, and they NEVER make case law. Nobody seems to care until it effects THEM.
There is no easy, clear-cut solution to this issue.
I'm surprised more folks have not weighed in on this subject.
|
|
|
Kentuckian
Officer
Posts: 10
Registered: 30-8-2005
Location: Kentucky
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 13-9-2007 at 18:03
|
|
|
Mark,
You do make alot of sense.Especially your latest response,but still I believe you miss the point.
Almost ALL police agencies have police pursuit policies,but what if in the Priano case,the officer's break their own policies?That is why it is so
critical for a law to be in place so the same thing don't keep repeating itself.
I know that we can't take ALL pursuits away,the same we can't take an officer's gun away,BUT we can resrict the both of them so that they are both
used accordingly.
I'm not so surprised that more people haven't weighed in on this subject.
It's just like what Travis has told me through an e-mail several years ago.Everybody wanted a forum board,so Travis busted his butt and he finally
gets one put up a few years ago.But when he gets it up and running nobody seems to want to participate.
I used to have a site about this particular issue and it did quite well for awhile,but I got to where I couldn't keep it updated,so I decided to take
it down.
I am glad though that we seem to agree to disagree.
I agree with you that there is no easy,clear-cut solution to this issue.BUT HOWEVER,life in general sometimes we don't always have easy solutions.But
sometimes change is necessary,and sometimes change makes a difference.
Candy Priano has made several suggestions at www.kristieslaw.org and I believe that some of them will work,but if police departments refuses to even
at least try them then I guess we will never know.
Unnecessary Pursuits can be prevented,Innocent Lives can be saved.It is left up to the Officer(s) to use common sense,because the one who is fleeing
doesn't have any.
What's more important,an innocent human being's life,or an stolen car? Afterall an stolen car can be replaced,but on the other hand an innocent
human being cannot be.Something to think about.
|
|
|
MarkC
Captain
Posts: 211
Registered: 28-9-2006
Location: Salem, Oregon
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 14-9-2007 at 18:45
|
|
|
Hmmm...I didn't think we were disagreeing at all. Bullet number two above specifically mentions policy. If an officer willingly and negligently
violates policy, he/she is subjecting themselves to civil and criminal action. If the officers in the Priano case violated policy, I bet they paid a
price, one way or another.
Travis just posted a good, related article.
http://www.policedriving.com/forum/viewthread.php?tid=496&page=1#pid881
|
|
|
MarkC
Captain
Posts: 211
Registered: 28-9-2006
Location: Salem, Oregon
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 14-9-2007 at 19:24
|
|
|
I have seen accounts of the Priano incident that are at odds. One says the pursued vehicle sped thru stop signs ( plural ) and this account below says
low speed, then she suddenly accelerates.
If pursued thru stops signs at high speed, to me it is a clear cut case of a pursuit in need of termination before the inevitable happens. If it was a
low speed pursuit, and the suspect "suddenly floors it" it is a tragedy that was unforeseeable.
So much of this is "damned if you do - damned if you dont". There are many that would contend that there should be a police car with lights and
siren blaring to warn the public that a hazard is coming. Or some that would complain that the poilce were not doing their jobs, when a pursuit is
terminated. Just additional food for thought.
From CNN -
The other side of high-speed police chases
We've all seen police chases on television. They're fast, and lots of folks would tell you they're fun to watch. But the fun ends when you meet a
family that's been affected by a police chase in the worst of ways.
The Priano family of Chico, California, lost their only daughter, a 15-year-old girl they called "the sparkplug of the family," during a police
chase four years ago. I spent time with them recently at their home to see how that moment changed their lives.
Here's the background: 15-year-old Kristia Priano was on the way to a basketball game at her school. She was in the family van with her parents and
her brother.
Another 15-year-old girl had just stolen her mother's car across town and was out for a joyride. Police pursued her
in a slow-speed chase. But for some reason, the girl suddenly floored it and smashed into the Priano's van at an intersection.
Here's what Kristie's mom, Candy Priano, told me she remembers about the moment right after the accident: "She always was so talkative. I mean, if
she had been alright, I know she would have said something. So, in my heart of hearts I knew that something was really bad."
Kristie went into a coma and died one week later. And that other girl, the driver on the joyride, well, she left the accident scene uninjured.
Here's the question the Priano's have been asking for 4 years: If the suspect in this case was not a murderer, not even a dangerous felon, why were
police chasing her? She was a high school student who took the family car out for a joyride. Does that warrant a police chase?
"Yes, because it fits the policy, because it's more than just a vehicle infraction," says Chico Police Chief Bruce Hagerty, who wasn't with the
department at the time of the accident. "The trouble with pursuits is there is always a possibility that even if the officers do everything 100
percent the way they are trained to do that the pursuit will still end in a tragedy."
Hundreds of innocent people like Kristie Priano die each year as a result of police chases. You'd think law enforcement would have found a safer
means to snare a suspect. But some experts we spoke with say there are a lot of police departments out there that will "chase until the wheels fall
off."
The Priano's have been working for four years to pass "Kristie's Law" in California. It would restrict police chases to violent felons posing an
immediate threat and make it a felony to flee from police. The bill has yet to pass.
Kristie's mom told me something her daughter said to her a few days before she died. "Oh, if I were to die, I'd be okay, because I know in that
instant I would be with Jesus," she says Kristy told her.
Candy's reply: "Oh, well, Jesus isn't gonna have you die, because he knows I couldn't live without you."
It was sweet then, but haunting now.
|
|
|
CandyPriano
Rookie
Posts: 1
Registered: 17-9-2007
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 17-9-2007 at 22:29
|
|
|
Cpl. Croll,
Thank you for inviting me to join the discussion on this forum.
Here’s information and my personal thoughts on the death of my daughter
Kristie.
The hardest thing for me to comprehend is a police chase at any speed through a residential neighborhood for a known teen who took her mother’s car
without permission.
The hardest thing for me to live with is that the officers didn’t even arrest the teen once they caught her. She went home with her mother.
Family members of other blameless victims ask me one question: “Why?”
In my case, the police knew who the driver was and where she lived. Why chase her or any other driver through five stop signs, especially since the
pursuit policy states that such a chase must be abandoned.
Two eye witnesses stated the speed was at least 50-55 mph. The speed limit on this street is 25.
My hope is people will remember Kristie for being the reason for legislation that stopped “death by pursuits!”
|
|
|
MarkC
Captain
Posts: 211
Registered: 28-9-2006
Location: Salem, Oregon
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 19-9-2007 at 01:21
|
|
|
Thank you, Mrs. Priano for joining the discussion - we need more civilian input on some issues. I am very sorry for your loss. Issues such as this
weigh heavy on us as professionals, and as instructors. We train in an effort to prevent tragedies like yours, as well as tragedies that befall us.
I hope that you can take comfort from knowing that at many agencies, and certainly statewide in Oregon, we address this EXACT issue. The case we cite
is Lorimore v. Demmit. It was a case where the LEO knew the offender, the offender refused to pull over and the pursuit ended badly ( injury ). The
pursuit was in neighborhoods, with the offender running stop signs. We mention to the students that the outcome was foreseeable and that if the
offender is know you can certainly arrest/cite at another time.
We must rely on officers to make sound decisions behind the wheel - but you cannot legislate or train the "human factor" out of the equation. You
could make fleeing a death penalty crime and some would still insist on running from the police. Likewise, every officer has made decisions that lead
to mistakes, sometimes with life altering consequences.
A partner and I just wrapped up day 2 of 3 initial driver training. On day three they will see the "The Michelle Norton" story. We DO train to these
issues, not only for the liability aspect, but for the human aspect also, of course. If you have a similar DVD, etc., we would certainly be willing to
view it and possibly add it to our curriculum. I will copy this thread and ask for the students to discuss.
There must be a balance struck between "no pursuits at all" and "pursue if they run, and until they give up or crash". If mandated by law, I'm at
a loss as to how this can be accomplished without the LEO having a computation wheel affixed to the dash that tells them if the situation is "pursuit
worthy". I hope all who read this can see that there are literally endless variations on almost any situation.
|
|
|
MarkC
Captain
Posts: 211
Registered: 28-9-2006
Location: Salem, Oregon
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 27-9-2007 at 02:32
|
|
|
I did not give this thread to the students, but we did a pursuit scenario that involved a similar situation. Lets just say it was educational for the
recruits.
Kentuckian - I joined this site some time after your original post, then waited to respond thinking that some with more time here would reply. When I
realized nobody was going to reply I jumped in. I guess what I am saying is you weren't being ignored. It just took a while for things to get
rolling.
|
|
|
Kentuckian
Officer
Posts: 10
Registered: 30-8-2005
Location: Kentucky
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 3-10-2007 at 17:09
|
|
|
| Quote: | | Kentuckian - I joined this site some time after your original post, then waited to respond thinking that some with more time
here would reply. When I realized nobody was going to reply I jumped in. I guess what I am saying is you weren't being ignored. It just took a while
for things to get rolling. |
That's quite alright Mark.When I seen that nobody was responding then I agreed with Travis that people just didn't want to participate.As far as
disagreeing...I am sure that we haven't agreed on everything but alot of things we can agree on.I guess what I am trying to say is we are both adults
and on the things that we may disagree on we are not cutting at each other's throats.
Hey Candy,glad to see you on here.I guess you remember who I am.
From everything I have read Mark and from watching "Pursuing Justice"Dvd the teen that hit the Priano's van wasn't breaking any laws.Actually
since this teen had her mother's car my opinion is that the car wasn't stolen.She only took the car without her mother's permission.Kids takes alot
of things from their parents without their permission,but that doesn't mean that they stoled them.
And this teen wasn't speeding nor running stop signs until the police blue-lighted her,then she fled and then she started speeding and then she
started running stop signs.
And what really bothers me is that this girl stopped at her friends house and picked her friend up and the police had time to corner her in and then
could have made the arrest.If they had done this then maybe Kristie would still be alive.
Another thing that really bothers me is that this teen didn't even serve any time in jail.She was released to her parents.So therefore in this
particular case "the end result didn't fit the means of a pursuit".
I think we need stricter laws on police pursuits as well as alot of other things.I believe if a teen does an ADULT crime then they need to do ADULT
time.
Unnecessary Pursuits can be prevented,Innocent Lives can be saved.It is left up to the Officer(s) to use common sense,because the one who is fleeing
doesn't have any.
What's more important,an innocent human being's life,or an stolen car? Afterall an stolen car can be replaced,but on the other hand an innocent
human being cannot be.Something to think about.
|
|
|
MarkC
Captain
Posts: 211
Registered: 28-9-2006
Location: Salem, Oregon
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 22-1-2008 at 04:42
|
|
|
At the risk of being called callous, I just dont see that the officers did anything wrong in the above pursuit. The driver chose the outcome, not the
officers. Life is fragile, and the world is a dangerous place with many things in a given day that can kill.
|
|
|
Allmotor
Super Administrator
Posts: 126
Registered: 21-2-2007
Location: Lane County, Oregon
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 22-1-2008 at 06:13
|
|
|
I have to agree. It should be common sense when a police car attempts to stop someone they should stop. Call it common knowledge. The person who
stole the vehicle (by legal definition) always had the power to end the situation by simply stopping.
It is just saddening that a fair number of folks do not have even this minimal level of responsibility and choose to endanger others needlessly,
sometimes at the ultimate cost to others. It is also difficult for many to fathom that minors in 95% of the cases are treated differently simply
because they are minors, except in certain circumstances. If they do the same thing and are of age, the results may be quite different.
|
|
|
debbie
Rookie
Posts: 1
Registered: 19-11-2009
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 19-11-2009 at 11:41
|
|
|
Hmm. I'm torn. But i'm learning more on the disagreement side. I think even if you're an officer, you're not excused by the laws.
Regards,
Debbie
|
|
|
Allmotor
Super Administrator
Posts: 126
Registered: 21-2-2007
Location: Lane County, Oregon
Member Is Offline
|
|
posted on 22-11-2009 at 11:42
|
|
|
A question like this does not have an easy answer that all can agree on. Most of the public does what they should. Most officers do what they
should. We only read about the minority that cause the majority of problems. Also, the simple answer (which does not exist) will not really fit a
yes/no catagory.
|
|
|
|
