Let's hear it for citizen initiatives!

[HoosierLife]

IMPD will respond to every call for service (with a few exceptions), but what Denny said is that we can't chase your stolen car.

I’m not an expert on criminal psychology, but if criminals know this, wouldn’t that lead to more stolen cars?

What’s the reasoning behind this?

Unintended consequences (no pun intended) of chasing a criminal who has just stolen a car that might cause more crimes during the pursuit?

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

I’m not an expert on criminal psychology, but if criminals know this, wouldn’t that lead to more stolen cars?

What’s the reasoning behind this?

Unintended consequences (no pun intended) of chasing a criminal who has just stolen a car that might cause more crimes during the pursuit?

It doesn't just lead to more stolen cars, it also leads to people not stopping for traffic infractions/ordinance violations. The reasoning behind the policy change was the admin in the ivory tower not wanting to answer questions when someone was hurt or killed as the result of a pursuit.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What’s the reasoning behind this?

The safest thing to do is nothing. If you do nothing, nobody gets injured or killed (officers, bystanders, suspects). If you do nothing you can't get sued (although people who don't know any better crow "qualified immunity" like they think they know what it means, we get sued pretty regularly for the actions of suspects and of officers). If you do nothing no police cars sustain damage (damage = $$$).

And why bother to chase a stolen car when there are no consequences for the offender when they are caught? It's fairly tough to prove the driver is the one who stole it (I bought it on Craigslist for $4k a few hours ago = reasonable doubt to a jury) and felony fleeing will result in you being unmonitored probationed so hard you'll really learn your lesson.

People got what they thought they wanted. A softer, more liability concerned, more cost effective, more scared of the public and public perception police force. People complain government isn't efficient. This is efficient. Efficient is just often at odds with effective in the realm of security, crime prevention, etc.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

The safest thing to do is nothing. If you do nothing, nobody gets injured or killed (officers, bystanders, suspects). If you do nothing you can't get sued (although people who don't know any better crow "qualified immunity" like they think they know what it means, we get sued pretty regularly for the actions of suspects and of officers). If you do nothing no police cars sustain damage (damage = $$$).

And why bother to chase a stolen car when there are no consequences for the offender when they are caught? It's fairly tough to prove the driver is the one who stole it (I bought it on Craigslist for $4k a few hours ago = reasonable doubt to a jury) and felony fleeing will result in you being unmonitored probationed so hard you'll really learn your lesson.

People got what they thought they wanted. A softer, more liability concerned, more cost effective, more scared of the public and public perception police force. People complain government isn't efficient. This is efficient. Efficient is just often at odds with effective in the realm of security, crime prevention, etc.

I should start paying you to be my translator.

 

[actaeon277]

The idiots coming up with this, never think of the 'unintended consequences'.

And the public, that blames the police for the chase.
And not the CRIMINAL.


Sort of like the 'ban guns' crowd.

 

[Denny347]

The idiots coming up with this, never think of the 'unintended consequences'.

And the public, that blames the police for the chase.
And not the CRIMINAL.

THIS!!!!! Until the public STARTS blaming the suspect drivers for their actions, this will be the predicted reaction. As it sits now, a news story about a suspect fleeing and crashing, the first reactions are questioning why the officer was chasing them. Nothing about the suspects actions causing this in the first place.

 

[Twangbanger]

THIS!!!!! Until the public STARTS blaming the suspect drivers for their actions, this will be the predicted reaction. As it sits now, a news story about a suspect fleeing and crashing, the first reactions are questioning why the officer was chasing them. Nothing about the suspects actions causing this in the first place.

Now do "Mass Shooting." I'm surprised at how the pierced-buzzcut-nonbinary-purple hair girls who survive school shootings almost seem to have a sort of empathy for the monster who shot up their school. Why isn't that sort of thing "not cool?" The losers of society have reached consensus not to hold each other responsible for anything, and turn the blame outward toward functional people. The problem is always "The System." People with Masters Degrees in public policy always have to find the "systemic" root cause, because blaming people "doesn't compute."

We need to regain our ability as a society to stand back and throw tomatoes at the losers again, and make these people "not cool." The empathy and compassion thing has been tried, and it isn't working. Let's try something new: "Vilification of the Individual." But then again, I guess that leads back into the supposition that individuals have rights and free agency to make choices again - "Nah, scratch that old Boomer sh!t"

 

[Shadow01]

Sounds like the perfect storm that will create another Ken McElroy….

 

[Tactically Fat]

Well, SOME crimes. You see someone steal your car. You calk 911. Officer pulls up as they are leaving with your car. We'll take a report but we are not allowed to chase them AT ALL if its only a stolen vehicle. Just smile and wave, Same with traffic violations. Drive however you want. If I try to pull you over, you don't stop, we'll shut it down and go the other way. No pursuits for traffic violations. No consequences AT ALL. So guess what, officers stopped caring about stolen vehicles and driving behavior. Street takeovers? Let State handle them as there is not much we can do about them.

Sweet!

I'm gonna be running those metered on-ramp accesses, then.

Question though: If a plate can be read during the commission of a traffic infraction - is that information recorded "for later" when a person DOES pull over? Like - you ran red lights 3x last month, I saw you, and now you're getting cited for 4 of them? Asking for a friend...

 

[Twangbanger]

The safest thing to do is nothing. If you do nothing, nobody gets injured or killed (officers, bystanders, suspects). If you do nothing you can't get sued (although people who don't know any better crow "qualified immunity" like they think they know what it means, we get sued pretty regularly for the actions of suspects and of officers). If you do nothing no police cars sustain damage (damage = $$$).

And why bother to chase a stolen car when there are no consequences for the offender when they are caught? It's fairly tough to prove the driver is the one who stole it (I bought it on Craigslist for $4k a few hours ago = reasonable doubt to a jury) and felony fleeing will result in you being unmonitored probationed so hard you'll really learn your lesson.

People got what they thought they wanted. A softer, more liability concerned, more cost effective, more scared of the public and public perception police force. People complain government isn't efficient. This is efficient. Efficient is just often at odds with effective in the realm of security, crime prevention, etc.

This is an outstanding post, but we need to keep it real on the "efficient" part. This isn't being done as the result of the public clamoring for a more "efficient" government. Most of the public is standing athwart the trend, screaming they want more money spent on police and jails. Similar to the military, the demand for less police expenditure is coming from liberals with bullhorns (and lawyers). They really want to spend that money elsewhere on social workers, so efficiency has nothing to do with it, other than an incidental benefit.

The madness is legitimized and driven to completion by managerial-class obsession with the "modern organizational philosophy" of maximum risk aversion, sniffing out risks and driving them to zero. It's similar to schools having "Individualized Education Plans" for violent and disruptive students. The public isn't clamoring for keeping violent kids in the classroom (outside of those kids' parents). It's social welfare advocates holding a gun to the school board's head, and the school board's lawyers identifying another place where a signed agreement prevents them from getting sued, then acting with a single-minded fiduciary focus on achieving that.

The public doesn't want this, and it's not about efficiency. It's about organizations off-loading risk from themselves, and onto citizens and society at large.

 

[bwframe]

What are the realistic chances of getting the pursuit rules changed? Is it kind of like unringing a bell?

 

[Twangbanger]

What are the realistic chances of getting the pursuit rules changed? Is it kind of like unringing a bell?

Citizen initiatives can "do" anything, but my guess is it will be like immigration laws. Fine, the no-chase law is repealed, but good luck getting us to actually chase anyone. It's inducing an organization to take on risk it doesn't want to take. Short of creating some kind of "lawsuit fund" to compensate municipalities, I can see the initiative "happening," just not being "enforced."

 

[bwframe]

Citizen initiatives can "do" anything, but my guess is it will be like immigration laws. Fine, the no-chase law is repealed, but good luck getting us to actually chase anyone. It's inducing an organization to take on risk it doesn't want to take. Short of creating some kind of "lawsuit fund" to compensate municipalities, I can see the initiative "happening," just not being "enforced."

Yeah, lawyers making lawyer work...

 

[BehindBlueI's]

Citizen initiatives can "do" anything, but my guess is it will be like immigration laws. Fine, the no-chase law is repealed, but good luck getting us to actually chase anyone. It's inducing an organization to take on risk it doesn't want to take. Short of creating some kind of "lawsuit fund" to compensate municipalities, I can see the initiative "happening," just not being "enforced."

Remember threads on INGO about how officers should always be personally liable, pension funds should pay lawsuits, and qualified immunity was just a way to say officers can do anything they want without repercussion?

I do.

 

[Denny347]

Sweet!

I'm gonna be running those metered on-ramp accesses, then.

Question though: If a plate can be read during the commission of a traffic infraction - is that information recorded "for later" when a person DOES pull over? Like - you ran red lights 3x last month, I saw you, and now you're getting cited for 4 of them? Asking for a friend...

Remember, ISP does NOT have our same restrictions. Driving violation are for the driver, not the vehicle. I cannot cite a vehicle for running a red light, it has to be the driver. I have to know who you are in order to write you a ticket.

 

[Denny347]

Remember threads on INGO about how officers should always be personally liable, pension funds should pay lawsuits, and qualified immunity was just a way to say officers can do anything they want without repercussion?

I do.

 

[Twangbanger]

Remember threads on INGO about how officers should always be personally liable, pension funds should pay lawsuits, and qualified immunity was just a way to say officers can do anything they want without repercussion?

I do.

"Always?" "Anything?" "Qualified Immunity?" You lost me. Were those threads where INGOers wanted cops perp-walked for merely chasing suspects?

 

[BehindBlueI's]

"Always?" "Anything?" "Qualified Immunity?" You lost me. Were those threads where INGOers wanted cops perp-walked for merely chasing suspects?

You're noting the results of liability driven policing. The far left and far right want that.

Given the calls for more civilian oversight, more official MMQB-ing, and more individual liability combined with the inherent risks of engaging in a vehicle pursuit and posts already made, it seems pretty self explanatory as to the relevance to the thread.

 

[Twangbanger]

You're noting the results of liability driven policing. The far left and far right want that.

Given the calls for more civilian oversight, more official MMQB-ing, and more individual liability combined with the inherent risks of engaging in a vehicle pursuit and posts already made, it seems pretty self explanatory as to the relevance to the thread.

What's the evidence for the "far right" wanting zero-liability policing? I'm teachable, but if the referenced INGO butthurt thread content consisted of anyone other than the usual pot-smoking, "Am I being detained, " ex-Democrat faux-libertarian kooks, I'll wager the original issue being fomented about was more egregious than police car pursuits.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

What's the evidence for the "far right" wanting zero-liability policing? I'm teachable, but if the referenced INGO butthurt thread content consisted of anyone other than the usual pot-smoking, "Am I being detained, " ex-Democrat faux-libertarian kooks, I'll wager the original issue being fomented about was more egregious than police car pursuits.

Not a rabbit hole I'm willing to spend the time looking for specific threads or rehashing to deal with the resulting butthurt (not from you, mind you) that inevitably comes with these conversations. If you see it differently or believe I'm way off base, I'm ok with that.