Did the police know what volume of drugs were in the car when they decided to put the lives of everyone else on the road in danger because of a traffic violation?
The police didn’t cause the chase. They participated in it, of course but I don’t think it’s reasonable to hold them responsible for the chase happening in the first place. The drug dealer(s?) could have stayed put.
eta: I am by no means a police apologist or a “back the blue” type, either. There is plenty wrong with how police do the job they have but this isn’t that
Your bias shows with every comment. There is a law. A law is broken. An officer witnesses the law being broken and initiates a stop. (Pivotal or action moment occurs!!) the person who is engaged in a stop does not adhere to the law (for a second time!!) when the police signal them to stop. Then the police (dependent on chase policy) begin a chase and/or initiate a PIT.
If we step-by-step this… it’s the law breaker… who is wrong in THIS* SPECIFIC CASE.
now, if you want to question what information the media has received, and if it came from the police directly… then I may be there with you, since ‘police stated’ is and has been heavily debated in the past.
There’s a possible worldview where… both wrong things are wrong. Endangering others is what the drug dealer is doing (I don’t really believe ecstacy is worth this event but I digress.)… endangering others is what the cops also actively did. Neither is right. Cops have the ability to back off and find the person pretty efficiently when they have plates on their car. Also this is ecstacy not fentanyl or meth.
All we know is that it was initiated on a moving or traffic violation. The drugs were found afterwards, so don’t factor into the chase decision. We do not have information to support that lives were put at risk.
Everything I have stated up until this very comment has argued that you have failed to prove what you just said, by using this specific case as your example. Your statement is an opinion, and a false one at that because you have continued to fail to prove your argument.
Edit: this case disproves your argument on its merits alone. This case proves that you are wrong.
Did the police know what volume of drugs were in the car when they decided to put the lives of everyone else on the road in danger because of a traffic violation?
The police didn’t cause the chase. They participated in it, of course but I don’t think it’s reasonable to hold them responsible for the chase happening in the first place. The drug dealer(s?) could have stayed put.
eta: I am by no means a police apologist or a “back the blue” type, either. There is plenty wrong with how police do the job they have but this isn’t that
What? Of course the police caused the chase. The guy drove off, yes, but if the police don’t chase him there’s no chase.
Your bias shows with every comment. There is a law. A law is broken. An officer witnesses the law being broken and initiates a stop. (Pivotal or action moment occurs!!) the person who is engaged in a stop does not adhere to the law (for a second time!!) when the police signal them to stop. Then the police (dependent on chase policy) begin a chase and/or initiate a PIT.
If we step-by-step this… it’s the law breaker… who is wrong in THIS* SPECIFIC CASE.
now, if you want to question what information the media has received, and if it came from the police directly… then I may be there with you, since ‘police stated’ is and has been heavily debated in the past.
There’s a possible worldview where… both wrong things are wrong. Endangering others is what the drug dealer is doing (I don’t really believe ecstacy is worth this event but I digress.)… endangering others is what the cops also actively did. Neither is right. Cops have the ability to back off and find the person pretty efficiently when they have plates on their car. Also this is ecstacy not fentanyl or meth.
All we know is that it was initiated on a moving or traffic violation. The drugs were found afterwards, so don’t factor into the chase decision. We do not have information to support that lives were put at risk.
There are no safe police chases, and no safe PIT-maneuvers to cause a safe crash. People and property are at peril.
Everything I have stated up until this very comment has argued that you have failed to prove what you just said, by using this specific case as your example. Your statement is an opinion, and a false one at that because you have continued to fail to prove your argument.
Edit: this case disproves your argument on its merits alone. This case proves that you are wrong.
I like how you just decided to break out philosophy 101 terminology like it’s going to make your point for you.
The other user cited examples and made an argument using said examples. It’s a valid argument. The question is whether it is sound.
To that I would say, “Yes”. Police chases do endanger lives. In fact, many jurisdictions have outright bans on chases.
deleted by creator