Quote:
|
Originally Posted by flstf
The_Jazz
Some of the chases I have seen on the reality TV shows where the police chase someone for miles and miles because of a traffic violation or reported stolen car go way beyond what I think is reasonable and for safety reasons these pursuits should be called off.
But how far are you willing to go? If the police try to catch up to you to give you a ticket and you flee is it their fault if you crash into someone? Obviously it is the driver of the fleeing vehicle who is at fault. Since he doesn't have insurance, you seem to think it is OK to make the citizens of the city pay for the damages.
No one wants to see those injured left destitute and bankrupt but that is no reason to shift the blame to anyone else other than the driver of the fleeing car. This search for deep pockets whenever someone gets hurt is getting to the point of being ridiculous. Life is not fair and sometimes the person who hurts you does not have any money.
|
I think Jazz has done an excellent job of explaining the financial reasoning behind this sort of thinking. I think ace has tapped into some social explanations, as well. I agree with their posts for a number of different reasons. the thing that surprises me is that people keep wanting to hold irrational people to rational decision making processes and responsibilities.
Look, when a child eats too much chocolate and is throwing up, we don't ignore the kid and say to ourselves that the little snot had a choice not to eat it all day long on Easter. well, hopefully we don't. I would tend to wonder what got into the parents' heads who didn't take better care of their child. because someone is expected to be responsible in a situation where only one of the agents are rational/sensible/mature enough to warrant responsibility.
it's very simple to me: stupid criminals simply don't care one way or other about the law. it's not as though they will flee or not flee depending on the status of local regulations regarding police chases. they will flee or not flee depending on their own stupidity. the police, presumably the rational agents in comparison to the criminals, have an obligation to everyone around them to do what's best, safest, and most effective in reducing the harm to the public.
on top of that, stupid criminals are really, really dumb. they flee prison and go right on home. they flee the scene and go right on home. whatever they do, they go habitual and fly right into the nest they remember. it should be a no brainer to just take their info down and cruise up to their doorstep in a half an hour. they'll be sitting on the porch drinking a 40...bragging about getting one over on the pigs.
I TA'ed for a cop once and his response, when I said the above, was that he basically agreed with me on the part about what they tend to do. but he has a reasonable, I think, response. if the police didn't give chase, and the suspect then shoot some people, the police would be to blame for that, instead. so it's damned if they do, damned if they don't. I personally disagree that people often start spraying bullets in a significant number of these types of cases, and I don't think the ones that do would do so on their own, so I don't agree at the end of the day with his response. I just can understand where he's coming from and see why someone would believe that.
obviously, to my mind, something needs to be worked out. it just doesn't make sense to me to say the police shouldn't have some sort of responsibility to the public to look out for them.