High Speed Chases

  • Wanna Join? New users you can now register lightning fast using your Facebook or Twitter accounts.

Defy

Cannabis Connoisseur
Jan 23, 2006
24,139
16,658
0
46
Rich City
#1
obviously half the responses will be "fuck the police" or "I be on high speed chases everyday because I'm a gangster and you're not", but seriously, do you think from a cop's standpoint they're necessary or should be avoided?

Someone on a bicycle was just hit by a car on my corner. The suspect was being chased by police (with no siren) and made a wide turn and hit the biker. they tossed a pistol and took off while the cop stopped to help dood who got hit. the car was found empty a couple blocks away so the suspects got away.

was this necessary? who knows what they were being stopped for, or if they just started taking off since they saw the cop, but that could've been a deadly traffic stop.


recently there was another high speed chase from berkeley that ended in my neighborhood.

OAKLAND (CBS 5 / KCBS / BCN) ―

Scene of the crash in North Oakland following the shooting in Berkeley.
CBS

Three people were dead following a murder and high speed chase through the East Bay Saturday night, which ended in a fatal crash.

Berkeley Police Sgt. Mary Kusmiss said it all started at 6:35 p.m. when Berkeley Police responded to reports of gunfire near Allston Way and 10th Street in West Berkeley.

Patrol officers found an unidentified male victim suffering up to 10 gunshot wounds, who died at the scene. They also spotted a tan Cadillac speeding away from the area, and pursued the suspects inside.

Kusmiss said the officers chased the suspects to North Oakland, where the Cadillac crashed into two other vehicles at the corner of Aileen Street and Martin Luther King Jr. Way -- killing two innocent bystanders, one in a car, and one who was walking down the sidewalk.

After being struck by the Cadillac, a Mazda was forced across the street and into a pedestrian on the sidewalk in the 5600 block of Martin Luther King Jr. Way and then crashed into a building, Oakland police spokesman Jeff Thomason said.

The driver of the Mazda, a 26-year-old Sunnyvale man, was pronounced dead at the scene, Thomason said. The pedestrian, a 41-year-old Berkeley man, died at a local hospital.

Meanwhile, the force of the collision with the Mazda sent the Cadillac into a Lexus along Martin Luther King Jr. Way, Thomason said. The driver and passengers of the Lexus were transported to a local hospital with minor injuries.

The driver of the Cadillac, a 22-year-old San Leandro resident, and another suspect were taken into custody by Berkeley police officers and guns were also confiscated from that vehicle, police said.

SWAT teams combed through Oakland Streets late into the night, pounding on doors, and using dogs to try to find two other men who were also in the Cadillac -- both of whom ran away from the scene.

Meantime, Kusmiss said Berkeley officers also dealt with a chaotic scene at the site of the shooting, where a number of the victim's friends and family members showed up with a lot of questions they wanted answered.

All three deaths were being treated as homicides, according to Thomason.
 
Jun 23, 2003
5,126
4
0
44
#2
They probably arent that nessecary.

best chases were in sand diego when them mafiosos were throwin wads of money out the car and people were stopping to grab it lol.


and the other one when suv rolls onto oncoming traffic and driver is ejected.

you tubem.
 
Jun 4, 2004
3,183
7
0
#3
You can thank Arnold next time an innocent California get killed due to a high speed chase.



The law is named after Kristie Priano, a high school sophomore and innocent third party who was killed during a police chase in Chico.

According to a 1987 state law, California Vehicle Code 17004.7, law enforcement agencies that adopt a written pursuit policy, even if that policy is not followed, have complete immunity against lawsuits brought by injured third-parties.

According to activist organization www.kristieslaw.org, 2,114 "blameless victims" and 87 police officers have been killed in the United States from 1982 to 2005 as a result of police pursuit. The site also claims that these figures are under-reported for a several reasons, including that reporting is not mandatory.

California's Fourth Appellate Court expressed concern over this law in its 2002 opinion in Nguyen v. City of Westminster, stating "it is also sad that one blameless person was seriously injured as a result of the pursuit, and that his family has no option for redress. We urge the Legislature to revisit this statute. . . . The adoption of a policy which may never be implemented is cold comfort to innocent bystanders. . . . The balance appears to have shifted too far toward public entity immunity and left public safety, as well as compensation for innocent victims, twisting in the wind."

California State Senator Sam Aanestad, R-Grass Valley, first introduced Kristie's Law in February 2003. The Associated Press, The Christian Science Monitor, and other media nationwide covered this proposed pursuit law when it was re-introduced in 2004 and 2005 and today.

In 2005, the Peace Officers Research Association of California introduced a counter-proposal to Kristie's Law. This measure, Senate Bill 719, met no opposition from the state legislature and was signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger on October 4, 2005. This measure keeps intact the 1987 state law that provides complete immunity to law enforcement agencies that adopt a written pursuit, without requiring that the policy be followed. "What SB 719 proposes is to slightly change the list of elements of pursuit policy -- while making no quantitative requirements," wrote the late Jim Phillips, founder of PursuitWatch.org.

Candy Priano, Kristie Priano's mother, is an active lobbyist campaigning for stricter limits on high-speed police pursuits.
 
Dec 9, 2005
11,231
31
0
42
#4
Well, they can't just let 'em go because they're willing to hit the gas and bounce.


I guess their logic is that if they aren't willing to stop, then maybe they're doing so for more than just the reason for being pulled over.
 

Defy

Cannabis Connoisseur
Jan 23, 2006
24,139
16,658
0
46
Rich City
#9
I just think there should be other tactics involved instead of just chasing. I dunno, I see & hear about too many mishaps from police chases where most of the time someone else gets hit or killed and the suspects get away.


the cop at the scene said he had to stop as soon as the person on the bicycle got hit to make sure he was ok. the car was seen empty a few blocks away so they got away, so dood basically got hit for nothing.
 
Dec 12, 2008
9,493
299
0
46
Roseville , Ca.
#10
I know when I lived on Sutter & Hyde in S.F. everybody would go the wrong way on the one way-the cops would stop the chase immediatly when they shot up sutter from larkin.... most likely the only way to get away iz to hurt others in the process so the cop has to stop.....sad
 

DuceTheTruth

No Flexxin No Fakin
Apr 1, 2003
6,883
6,017
1
46
#11
It's 2009.

The govt is full of shit.

All this technology we have, there should be something you can shoot at the car to disable it...I've seen t.v. shows b4 where they talk about it.....but where is that shit??

I've seen different types of devices on newer cars (and maybe you have too) to where somehow some agency can disable your shit; say your too drunk or you've missed a payment...guess what...your shit wont start.

It might sound crazy but I think one day every car will have something of that nature tied into the PD.

So it'll be like fuck turnin on the lights and siren...they'll just tap into your shit and turn your car OFF........... automatically

Thats the ONLY way I see high speed chases bein a thing of the past.
 
Jun 23, 2008
5,090
14,497
113
34
Gold Coast, Australia
#12
It's 2009.

The govt is full of shit.

All this technology we have, there should be something you can shoot at the car to disable it...I've seen t.v. shows b4 where they talk about it.....but where is that shit??

I've seen different types of devices on newer cars (and maybe you have too) to where somehow some agency can disable your shit; say your too drunk or you've missed a payment...guess what...your shit wont start.

It might sound crazy but I think one day every car will have something of that nature tied into the PD.

So it'll be like fuck turnin on the lights and siren...they'll just tap into your shit and turn your car OFF........... automatically

Thats the ONLY way I see high speed chases bein a thing of the past.

Even if they rig up cars with things like this if someones going to be transporting drugs or something big theyre just gong to disable it.
 
Apr 25, 2002
1,671
71
48
44
#13
It's 2009.

The govt is full of shit.

All this technology we have, there should be something you can shoot at the car to disable it...I've seen t.v. shows b4 where they talk about it.....but where is that shit??

I've seen different types of devices on newer cars (and maybe you have too) to where somehow some agency can disable your shit; say your too drunk or you've missed a payment...guess what...your shit wont start.

It might sound crazy but I think one day every car will have something of that nature tied into the PD.

So it'll be like fuck turnin on the lights and siren...they'll just tap into your shit and turn your car OFF........... automatically

Thats the ONLY way I see high speed chases bein a thing of the past.
I think you have a good idea there. The issue is whether or not the Supreme Court would allow such a thing as it could be a 4th Amendment violation. Allowing the gov. to have that kind of control over your personal vehicle would be quite the invitation of big brother into your life.

It boils down to whether or not the public is willing to give up civil liberties for a greater assurance of security and safety.
 

Defy

Cannabis Connoisseur
Jan 23, 2006
24,139
16,658
0
46
Rich City
#14
I think what DudefaceD was talking about is highly probable given the time we're in now. we're in a time of "terrorists could be anyone!!!! so be scared!!!! and buy what we tell you!!!!" so I think that the car disable shit could be something that actually happens. I don't think it'll be argueable for 4th amendment violation because it is neither a search nor seizure, and you can be stopped and have your car stopped and not be searched (or have nothing seized) so....uh....yeah....but I live in Oakland, so I don't see that being an issue out here. if that were to actually happen I think at least 50% of cars in Oakland would not be adhering to that shit.
 

Arson

Long live the KING!!!!
May 7, 2002
15,795
10,860
113
#15
If it wasnt for the police terror, complete disregard for the constitution, alot less people would run.
 

DuceTheTruth

No Flexxin No Fakin
Apr 1, 2003
6,883
6,017
1
46
#16
I think what DudefaceD was talking about is highly probable given the time we're in now. we're in a time of "terrorists could be anyone!!!! so be scared!!!! and buy what we tell you!!!!" so I think that the car disable shit could be something that actually happens. I don't think it'll be argueable for 4th amendment violation because it is neither a search nor seizure, and you can be stopped and have your car stopped and not be searched (or have nothing seized) so....uh....yeah....but I live in Oakland, so I don't see that being an issue out here. if that were to actually happen I think at least 50% of cars in Oakland would not be adhering to that shit.

Thanks DooFee for seeing my point of view.

And to the person that replied above you.

I see both of your points and I really dont think it would go over well with the public for obvious reasons....if it went to a vote.......as stated above.

I think too many people would feel that it's an invasion of privacy.

It's so many ways you can look at it.
 
Apr 25, 2002
1,671
71
48
44
#17
I don't think it'll be argueable for 4th amendment violation because it is neither a search nor seizure, and you can be stopped and have your car stopped and not be searched (or have nothing seized)
Ummmm, in legal speak, a traffic stop IS a seizure of your person. The gov. (police) are temporarily 'seizing' your freedom to leave the scene.

With that being said, the implementation of such devices would be considered a gray area by the Supreme Court...
 

Defy

Cannabis Connoisseur
Jan 23, 2006
24,139
16,658
0
46
Rich City
#18
I think the argument will be that it can & will be used only when an officer can make a "legal stop", but "legal stop" will be up in the air.

lol @ DudefaceD calling me Doofee
 
Apr 25, 2002
1,671
71
48
44
#19
I think the argument will be that it can & will be used only when an officer can make a "legal stop", but "legal stop" will be up in the air.
Agreed. That would be the argument of those in favor. The liberals against would suggest that it's another opportunity for police to abuse power.

For the record, I'd prefer some sort of car de-activtion system be installed...
 

Defy

Cannabis Connoisseur
Jan 23, 2006
24,139
16,658
0
46
Rich City
#20
the con argument would also include "what would happen if you deactivate a car at high speeds?" cuz I think that might cause bodily harm and/or property damage to people not involved in the pursuit if the car is deactivated while moving and it hits something.