To Chase or Not To Chase

Yesterday in Kansas City, there was a pursuit which lasted 130 miles.

Apparently a guy started flipping out in a grocery store, ran outside to a gas station, took a guy’s van at knifepoint, and took off. It started in Lawrence (home of the Jayhawks) and ended somewhere in rural Missouri.

When the guy was finally stopped, the police asked him why he ran for so long. His response was probably the most classic response ever uttered by a criminal. “Because the police were chasing me.” Ahh, how could it have been so simple!

Of course, today the news is talking about “should police pursue” and “isn’t the public safety worth considering.” Both of which are retarded statements.

First of all, a criminal who runs is probably up to no good. For all the police know, he might be on his way to shoot up a school with an AK-47. They have to assume that’s what he’s doing. Otherwise the public will say “You knew he was running away, obviously up to no good, why didn’t you stop him before he killed all our kids?” A catch-22 to be sure.

Second, the Missouri highway patrol discontinues roughly 30% of its pursuits when they endanger the public. So… it’s not as if they’re going to chase a guy at 150 MPH in a school zone. There’s some judgment involved.

Third, if the stupid criminals would STOP when they are identified and chased by the police, the chase wouldn’t be necessary. The fact is, the police are NEVER the REASON for a chase… merely a catalyst. The criminal is the real problem, and frankly, we just don’t give them enough incentive to stop.

I think the police should ALWAYS use deadly force when dealing with a pursuit. Obviously, you have to have some guidelines. For instance, you need to give the average citizen a couple of minutes to notice they’re being followed, just in case they’re oblivious. Say… 2 minutes.

Once your two minutes are up, the police have the authority…nay, the DUTY to pull along side you and shoot you in the head. It’s your own stupid fault for trying to run away, as if your car can somehow magically outrun helicopters, 15 ground units, and a flippin’ radio. If you’re that stupid, or that brazen, you deserve whatever you get.

I would even support installation of sidewinder rocket launchers on highway patrol vehicles… if the occupant is riding alone, just take out the entire vehicle.

Sometimes I think China just got it right on some things. Like execution by a single bullet to the head, the cost of which is charged to the criminal’s family.

  4 comments for “To Chase or Not To Chase

  1. Dave
    November 15, 2006 at 2:18 pm

    That would definitely streamline the justice process, and ease the strain on the judges, who unfortunately are so overworked taking care of mindless obvious cases that in the end they want to actually make a difference (and unfortunately, in their strained and fatigued mindset, that difference is made through judicial legislation – a term you will not find anywhere in the constitution).
    I think that in America, we might be a little more open-minded. I think taxpayers would be willing to take the cost of the bullets out of congressional “petty cash.” Shoot, I bet Arnold could get Hollywood to sponsor the entire program straight up. And actually, as a major action movie fan, I think it would be nice if, in exchange for their sponsoring the executions, we let them do it in full costumes on the sets of whatever Bruce Willis films need to depict bad guys dying. It would help to capture verisimilitude of the events, and would save the average moviegoer money, as studios would not have to use as many special effects!

  2. November 15, 2006 at 3:26 pm

    You forgot to mention a point you made before. If criminals KNEW that police were not allowed to give chase, they would ALWAYS run.
    I know I would!

  3. allie
    November 15, 2006 at 6:00 pm

    i personally loved the use of the “nay”

    well done.

  4. November 15, 2006 at 7:46 pm

    >

    I agree…that sentence simply rocked

Comments are closed.