In a society where the government is surveiling every other person and have cameras everywhere, the old “if we don’t get our perp now he’s gone forever” trope is bullshit.
As much as they make for entertaining TV and make cops feel all macho and accomplished, car chases are COMPLETELY unnecessary reckless endangerment in almost all cases.
From what I understand most police agencies have a no-pursuit policy. It’s generally more hazardous to chase the person than it is to just phone ahead in the direction that the person’s driving and have a blockade setup or just show up at their house
just phone ahead in the direction that the person’s driving and have a blockade setup
Generally illegal as of 1989’s Bowyer v. Inyo and impractical regardless; you vastly overestimate how many patrol cars are in a given area.
or just show up at their house
Assuming the driver is the registered owner, their address is up to date, and they change their mind about fleeing. I guess now that Flock is getting popular that’s increasingly less of a problem, though.
that was a good read, but, I don’t think the term “generally illegal” will apply to it. The only thing that supreme court case provided that that a road block can lead to a seizure, which triggers the fourth amendment protections. That doesn’t outlaw the roadblock, or does it mean it will be a violation of the fourth amendment as generally speaking seizure under the fourth amendment has leniency that allows for probable cause and a reasonable approach. It means that road blocks need to be looked at when done and decided if it was a reasonable method of stopping them.
In the specific case listed, it was passed down to the lower court again to decide whether the roadblock was a reasonable use of force or not, so it was never an argument about whether the roadblock was allowed to be done, but whether or not how they implemented the roadblock was reasonable due to the fact it was constructed around a corner and contained lights that were positioned in a way that would blind drivers coming in.
I don’t know why you are coming in as hot as you are. You mentioned a case that I decided to spend two hours last night looking into because it made me curious as I have seen roadblocks constantly. I felt I needed to respond that your supporting evidence didn’t support your claim. For the reasons already provided. If you care to look it up yourself (I recommend looking at the actual supreme court hearing first) instead of relying on the “my girlfriend is in another state” reasoning, feel free. It’s clear by your aggression you aren’t open for discussion on this and as such I’m moving on.
P.S I didn’t refute your claim on the flock cameras because I partially agree with you. But good job owning me I guess? I hope your day ends up getting better.
Because it’s annoying to see a topic you know about circlejerked by a bunch of people speculating in ignorance while patting each other on the back despite being wrong.
The great tragedy of the internet is that every person thinks their opinion has equal weight to experts because they have an equal voice. You’re doing the same “do your own research” thing as anti-vax/mask/science people, just in a different flavor.
If a (large collection of) doctor(s) tell me a vaccine is safe but [email protected] insists it’s not and insists I should review the clinical data myself to find out why, I’m just going to roll my eyes.
You’d think it’s from dangerous assignment-based activities but it’s not. It’s from doing stupid shit in traffic stops and getting hit by innocent drivers. It’s what happens when superficial authority meets 3 tons of metal at a mile a minute.
They initiate traffic stops based on infractions that had no impact on safety at all, like rolling through a stop sign at an intersection with no other cars, and cause a far more dangerous situation with a roadside stop.
This came up in a brilliant way in a manga I was reading.
Two combat pros are facing off in a back alley, the aggressor trying to “test” their victim. The loser protagonist, who’s useless in a fight, hears the altercation from his store job, and rushes out to help his friend. He throws a paint bomb, used by stores to identify robbers, at the assailant.
The assailant runs, and spends the rest of the issue in a panic about how to conceal the paint; since they’d very much been relying on the option of being able to sneak out through crowds.
…So Flock cams need laser projectors, and they can just mark criminals with a big red X as they drive around. Maybe a different color for whatever they’re wanted for. And then let the vigilanteism fly!
Or doing the pursuits at all, for that matter.
In a society where the government is surveiling every other person and have cameras everywhere, the old “if we don’t get our perp now he’s gone forever” trope is bullshit.
As much as they make for entertaining TV and make cops feel all macho and accomplished, car chases are COMPLETELY unnecessary reckless endangerment in almost all cases.
From what I understand most police agencies have a no-pursuit policy. It’s generally more hazardous to chase the person than it is to just phone ahead in the direction that the person’s driving and have a blockade setup or just show up at their house
Generally illegal as of 1989’s Bowyer v. Inyo and impractical regardless; you vastly overestimate how many patrol cars are in a given area.
Assuming the driver is the registered owner, their address is up to date, and they change their mind about fleeing. I guess now that Flock is getting popular that’s increasingly less of a problem, though.
that was a good read, but, I don’t think the term “generally illegal” will apply to it. The only thing that supreme court case provided that that a road block can lead to a seizure, which triggers the fourth amendment protections. That doesn’t outlaw the roadblock, or does it mean it will be a violation of the fourth amendment as generally speaking seizure under the fourth amendment has leniency that allows for probable cause and a reasonable approach. It means that road blocks need to be looked at when done and decided if it was a reasonable method of stopping them.
In the specific case listed, it was passed down to the lower court again to decide whether the roadblock was a reasonable use of force or not, so it was never an argument about whether the roadblock was allowed to be done, but whether or not how they implemented the roadblock was reasonable due to the fact it was constructed around a corner and contained lights that were positioned in a way that would blind drivers coming in.
You have a different interpretation of that than the lawyer that taught me about that case, so I think it’s safe to say you’re wrong.
But congratulations on getting into the weeds about 1/3 of my comment while ignoring the other 2/3.
I don’t know why you are coming in as hot as you are. You mentioned a case that I decided to spend two hours last night looking into because it made me curious as I have seen roadblocks constantly. I felt I needed to respond that your supporting evidence didn’t support your claim. For the reasons already provided. If you care to look it up yourself (I recommend looking at the actual supreme court hearing first) instead of relying on the “my girlfriend is in another state” reasoning, feel free. It’s clear by your aggression you aren’t open for discussion on this and as such I’m moving on.
P.S I didn’t refute your claim on the flock cameras because I partially agree with you. But good job owning me I guess? I hope your day ends up getting better.
Because it’s annoying to see a topic you know about circlejerked by a bunch of people speculating in ignorance while patting each other on the back despite being wrong.
The great tragedy of the internet is that every person thinks their opinion has equal weight to experts because they have an equal voice. You’re doing the same “do your own research” thing as anti-vax/mask/science people, just in a different flavor.
If a (large collection of) doctor(s) tell me a vaccine is safe but [email protected] insists it’s not and insists I should review the clinical data myself to find out why, I’m just going to roll my eyes.
You’d think it’s from dangerous assignment-based activities but it’s not. It’s from doing stupid shit in traffic stops and getting hit by innocent drivers. It’s what happens when superficial authority meets 3 tons of metal at a mile a minute.
They initiate traffic stops based on infractions that had no impact on safety at all, like rolling through a stop sign at an intersection with no other cars, and cause a far more dangerous situation with a roadside stop.
This came up in a brilliant way in a manga I was reading.
Two combat pros are facing off in a back alley, the aggressor trying to “test” their victim. The loser protagonist, who’s useless in a fight, hears the altercation from his store job, and rushes out to help his friend. He throws a paint bomb, used by stores to identify robbers, at the assailant.
The assailant runs, and spends the rest of the issue in a panic about how to conceal the paint; since they’d very much been relying on the option of being able to sneak out through crowds.
less pronouns, more well-defined references please. I had to read that last paragraph three times before I understood who you meant by “They”.
Thanks for the feedback. Been working on creative writing recently, and it helps to know when my attempts at brevity are making things unclear.
You’re welcome, “the assailant” is much more clear now :) (I mean - as clear as it could be)
…So Flock cams need laser projectors, and they can just mark criminals with a big red X as they drive around. Maybe a different color for whatever they’re wanted for. And then let the vigilanteism fly!
Most agencies these days have incredibly restrictive pursuit policies for this reason.
In other words, your message is apt for 2000 or so, but not 2026.