Quote:
Originally Posted by Scalded Dog
I agree that there are circumstances in which it would have been better to have terminated a pursuit... but with almost no exceptions, the knowledge of whether is would have been better to terminate the pursuit can only be known after the fact. At the time the red lights go on, there's no way to know if the driver is intoxicated, texting, sleepy, or has a kidnapped kid in the trunk. Only AFTER a pursuit has ended can anybody say with certainty that it was better or worse to pursue, only because hindsight is 20/20. Bottom line is that the criminals--- the drunks, the outlaws, the bad guys--- ARE indeed responsible for accidents that occur during pursuits. The cops pursue when somebody has done something wrong (or appears to have), and pursuits only happen when the pursued makes ANOTHER bad decision to run.
|
yes, but another citizen pursuing as in this case, was also a bad decision, which led to even another bad decision and the second accident. Officers are trained, common folk aren't.
That woman that pursued should share a little of the responsibility, the drunk is at fault yes, but the article even stated she was driving the speed limit 35 mph until she decided to get away from the pursuer..
I put that in the same category as my belief that an unlicensed driver should ALWAYS be at fault for ANY accident they are involved in, because the truth of the matter is, if that unlicensed driver was not driving, he/she would not have been in that spot at that time and that accident would not have occurred.
---
agree to disagree I guess.. I believe there is sufficient technology today for an officer to disable a vehicle electronically if the suspect decides to run.
unfortunately it would fall under "violation of my rights" to do so.