If my children ever do something stupid enough to earn a criminal record, they will also have earned the denunciation and social stigma that comes it. They're adults who understand that bad choices can lead to even worse consequences. I won't be making any excuses for them if they screw up.
|
|
|
SIU investigation of motorcycle running from cops..
- Thread starter kiwi
- Start date
If my children ever do something stupid enough to earn a criminal record, they will also have earned the denunciation and social stigma that comes it. They're adults who understand that bad choices can lead to even worse consequences. I won't be making any excuses for them if they screw up.
So then the solution is to let this poor 3rd year student continue along on his rip? What would be said if that student then crashes at high speed, and kills himself and it is revealed that he was "caught" by an officer speedign prior but was permitted to continue his "rip" unmolested? In todays society you can bet the kids parents would be on the line to a lawyer within hours of learning this wanting "compensation" for their kids tragic death, and they would sue the cop and the force for "negligence".
Or that same kid takes out a family of three who suddenly merge onto the same 400 highway at "normal" speed and fail to see the rocket blasting at them when they do their shoulder check etc. Again people would be all over the cop for "not doing their job" and "not protecting" the kid from him/herself, and the family from the kid. This is why there can be as you rightfully pointed out no black and white scenarios.
As for the kid, if you go out for a "rip" on ANY PUBLIC road then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of your decision and actions. If it would bankrupt him and he "might lose his bike" Then that is merely a consequence of the CHOICE they made. If you murder someone, should you not be punished as that too will bankrupt you and cause you to lose most of what you own? I know you wouldn't suggest that. Now let's get closer to reality it is a clear choice to go out for a "rip" which the rider would NEVER expect their actions to end in a death. But someone goes to a bar and has 3 - 4 drinks. They CHOOSE to drive thinking they are ok to do so. They to would NEVER expect someone to die from their actions. People are just as likely to try to avoid being caught driving impaired as they are to avoid a potential s172. Now this student may go out and have their "rip" 30 times and never get caught, (that is part of the risk/reward assessment). Just as an imparied driver may drive home over the limit 30 times and never get caught. But it takes just one tiny millisecond for something/someone else to do something unexpected, and the outcome is VERY dofferent, from the other 30 times.
Everyday we as humans make "calculated risks", in most of those calculations we tend to underestimate the potential impact, (of getting caught etc). But we must also a member of soicety, (and the rules that society has accepted), be prepared to face the consequences of those decisions and the risks associated with doing so.
Or that same kid takes out a family of three who suddenly merge onto the same 400 highway at "normal" speed and fail to see the rocket blasting at them when they do their shoulder check etc. Again people would be all over the cop for "not doing their job" and "not protecting" the kid from him/herself, and the family from the kid. This is why there can be as you rightfully pointed out no black and white scenarios.
As for the kid, if you go out for a "rip" on ANY PUBLIC road then you have to be prepared to accept the consequences of your decision and actions. If it would bankrupt him and he "might lose his bike" Then that is merely a consequence of the CHOICE they made. If you murder someone, should you not be punished as that too will bankrupt you and cause you to lose most of what you own? I know you wouldn't suggest that. Now let's get closer to reality it is a clear choice to go out for a "rip" which the rider would NEVER expect their actions to end in a death. But someone goes to a bar and has 3 - 4 drinks. They CHOOSE to drive thinking they are ok to do so. They to would NEVER expect someone to die from their actions. People are just as likely to try to avoid being caught driving impaired as they are to avoid a potential s172. Now this student may go out and have their "rip" 30 times and never get caught, (that is part of the risk/reward assessment). Just as an imparied driver may drive home over the limit 30 times and never get caught. But it takes just one tiny millisecond for something/someone else to do something unexpected, and the outcome is VERY dofferent, from the other 30 times.
Everyday we as humans make "calculated risks", in most of those calculations we tend to underestimate the potential impact, (of getting caught etc). But we must also a member of soicety, (and the rules that society has accepted), be prepared to face the consequences of those decisions and the risks associated with doing so.
油井緋色;2328276 said:
Without the police, there would be no high speed pursuit, just a speeder. I suggest the pursuit is far more dangerous at times than just a speeder. Like in the world of medicine, at times the "treatment" is worse than the cause of the pain, so it's better to deal with the discomfort than risk further injury or pain. I'm not saying the speeder is not to blame or not putting other peoples' lives/health at risk. I am saying that a pursuit may makes things much worse than they would otherwise be, in some if not most cases. That's why in some jurisdictions, they will not pursue, and I applaud that. I don't know of any statistical study that shows there are higher incidents of speeding and accidents in those jurisdictions.
The speed limit in Ontario on major highways was 120 km/h at one time in the 70's. Then it was lowered to 90 in the 80's. Now it's 100.
I agree with raising the speed limits. Long overdue.
That's a convenient argument that avoids a significant point. When the speeder is speeding and pulls over as soon as it's safe after the lights go on, there is no pursuit.
Police don't pursue speeders, they pursue motorists that fail to stop. We've argued from all directions about what motivates people to run, and that's where we still struggle to find the right balance about when and when not to pursue.
If it's too easy to get away, if the public policy is to avoid pursuits at all costs, then there are clearly those among us (in fact, many on this board) that will simply choose to never stop. Significant increase in Griff's scum population inevitable.
There is no pursuit, unless the police instigates it; there is just a speeder. The pursit stops when the police stops the pursuit, whether or not the speeder pulled over or not. The responsibilty of the pursuit, *ultimately* belongs to the police, whether to start or when to stop, independently of the speeder. The decision to speed or not to pull over is that of the rider, but he is not responsible for the pursuit. I have passed many police radar patrol vehilces parked on the side of the road while doing 130 km/h in a 100. They chose not to pursue, hence there was no pusuit that could have endangerred innocent parties, had I chosen to flee for whatever reason.
Last edited:
ddusseld
Well-known member
There is just a speeder until the police "light them up" and the speeder does not stop. The responsibility of the pursuit begins and ends with the person who decided to run as opposed to pull over. There would be no pursuit if the speeder pulls over. The not pulling over is what initiates a pursuit. I'm in the camp of pursuing all runners but damn would it not be nice if there was a policy of prohibiting all chases. Just throw away your license plate, ride how ever you want and run baby run. I would of course become scum but it would be worth it... 
Sounds to me like this is an instigating factor.
Last edited:
There is just a speeder until the police "light them up" and the speeder does not stop. The responsibility of the pursuit begins and ends with the person who decided to run as opposed to pull over. There would be no pursuit if the speeder pulls over. The not pulling over is what initiates a pursuit. I'm in the camp of pursuing all runners but damn would it not be nice if there was a policy of prohibiting all chases. Just throw away your license plate, ride how ever you want and run baby run. I would of course become scum but it would be worth it...
Where's the "like" button on this damned thing.
Yup, it's called "failure to stop" for a very good reason.
Now you guys STOP making sense and showing responsibility. That simply will not be tolerated. We have to learn and get to the self entitled special snowflake euphoria that is earned the second you throw yur leg over an SS..lol We are going to cause heads to explode with all the quick paced decisions they are forced to live with, let's not complicate their lives further by making them decide if they should stop for speeding at 20 k over the limit.
Obviously, it is the fault of the officer for being so arrogant as to try to do their job. Who do they think they are? Trying to stop an SS rider who is simply out enjoying themselves at 250 km/h.
That poor rider is hurting no one, he is just relieving the stress of his life. I mean it can't be easy living at home paying nothing, while you barely scrape by on your wages. Don't the police know the high cost of that bike and the BMW they have in the driveway. Good thing their bike is fast enough that they need not concern themselves with pesky insurance for the bike. Have you seen what the insurance company wants??? With their mad skillz it is highly unlikely they are ever going to crash so why have insurance.
Obviously, it is the fault of the officer for being so arrogant as to try to do their job. Who do they think they are? Trying to stop an SS rider who is simply out enjoying themselves at 250 km/h.
That poor rider is hurting no one, he is just relieving the stress of his life. I mean it can't be easy living at home paying nothing, while you barely scrape by on your wages. Don't the police know the high cost of that bike and the BMW they have in the driveway. Good thing their bike is fast enough that they need not concern themselves with pesky insurance for the bike. Have you seen what the insurance company wants??? With their mad skillz it is highly unlikely they are ever going to crash so why have insurance.
PLau
Well-known member
You used the word "Criminal" as a determining factor of whether a person is considered scum or not - which didn't make sense as in the government's eyes, following everything by the book, most of us would be considered scum.
Reading what you said over, it looks more like you're trying to say "If you choose to commit a criminal act that does put other's lives at risk, you're scum". Which can be reworded to, "If you choose to risk someone else's lives due to your own poor decisions, you're scum" - Correct?
Not limited to whether you're labelled as a criminal or breaking the law.
Simply going out and driving or riding puts others at some degree of risk, but when your driving or riding becomes extreme enough to come under criminal law, you pass a certain threshold that separates you from responsible and socially acceptable society.
There is just a speeder until the police "light them up" and the speeder does not stop. The responsibility of the pursuit begins and ends with the person who decided to run as opposed to pull over. There would be no pursuit if the speeder pulls over. The not pulling over is what initiates a pursuit. I'm in the camp of pursuing all runners but damn would it not be nice if there was a policy of prohibiting all chases. Just throw away your license plate, ride how ever you want and run baby run. I would of course become scum but it would be worth it...
Speeders only instigate the speeding. Police officers instigate any pursuit. Not all speeeders are pusued. The police can pick and choose not only who they will puruse, but they also decide for how long they will pursue and at what speeds. When a pusuit has been started by a police officer, it's up to him or her as to whether he/she will continue the pursuit or stop, *regardless of what the rider does*. The pursuit, its commencement and its end is fully in the domain of the police officer; the speeding and decison to stop or not is in the domain of the speeder. There comes a tipping point when the officer has to ask him or herself a question, and then make a decision: "Am I causing a greater danger to myself and others than the person I am pursuing has caused?" Just as the rider has the feedom to make a decision to stop or run, so to does the officer have the freedom to decide to pursue or not, but as the pusuit is a police act, not an act by any speeders, it's up to the police officer who started it, to stop it...regardless of what the rider, or scum bag of your choice does. Therefore, injuries caused by the police in the act of high speed pursuits, should be considered their reponsibility because they chose the wrong policing methodology/response. Just as all accidents are avoidable, so are all police pursuits that end up with tragic results. If they weren't...there would not be any investiagtions after a pursuit that results in personal injury, like we have here.
Speeders only instigate the speeding. Police officers instigate any pursuit. Not all speeeders are pusued. The police can pick and choose not only who they will puruse, but they also decide for how long they will pursue and at what speeds. When a pusuit has been started by a police officer, it's up to him or her as to whether he/she will continue the pursuit or stop, *regardless of what the rider does*. The pursuit, its commencement and its end is fully in the domain of the police officer; the speeding and decison to stop or not is in the domain of the speeder. There comes a tipping point when the officer has to ask him or herself a question, and then make a decision: "Am I causing a greater danger to myself and others than the person I am pursuing has caused?" Just as the rider has the feedom to make a decision to stop or run, so to does the officer have the freedom to decide to pursue or not, but as the pusuit is a police act, not an act by any speeders, it's up to the police officer who started it, to stop it...regardless of what the rider, or scum bag of your choice does. Therefore, injuries caused by the police in the act of high speed pursuits, should be considered their reponsibility because they chose the wrong policing methodology/response. Just as all accidents are avoidable, so are all police pursuits that end up with tragic results. If they weren't...there would not be any investiagtions after a pursuit that results in personal injury, like we have here.
No, it isn't. As has been stated previously, repeatedly, the pursuit is started by the rider who "fails to stop." When an officer lights you up, you are legally bound to comply and pull over. If you do not, you have then committed the offence "fail to stop as directed by officer." This is then followed by committing the offence of "evasion", most likely while also committing the offence of "dangerous operation of a vehicle." The onus is on the rider to stop. Again as has been said previously and repeatedly, in this thread and the dozens (hundreds?) that have gone before, if you run then the officer is likely going to assume that you've done something else that makes you think that getting away is worth risking your life.
And, again, I point to American "felony murder" statutes. Maybe it's time that we adopted them also?
This is a circular argument that just ends in "don't chase riders when they take off".
The police have no idea why someone is fleeing, they can't have any idea. Is it someone avoiding a speeding ticket? Or are they carrying a weapon? drugs? how can they make that assessment? People run from cops for the worst reasons.
The responsibility lies in in the rider.
Some guy blows by a speed trap and then takes off, exactly what is the right policing response? Turn of the lights and have a donut?
All this comes down to people who feel that they don't like being told what to do, they don't think laws should apply to them, and they don't want to take responsibility for their actions.
Wrong on so many levels. A pursuit is monitored by police supervisors. A supervisor at ANY point may terminate a pursuit. It is not to the sole discretion of the officer involved. This policy was intstitued long ago, at one time late 70's, the officer was the one who "made the call" but back then, typically, pursuits didn't reach anywhere near the speeds we see at times today.
I have called off a few pursuits, the supervisor is trained to at least be familiar with the are in which the pursuit is occuring, (IE is it residential, commercial, or industrial). The supervisor also listens to the "broadcast" of the pursuit, and monitors the officers voice for signals that the pursuit may need to be terminated, (IE heavy or laboured breathing from high stress levels, excited utterances, etc etc etc).
The "tipping point" you referred to is to be assessed on an ongoing basis from the second it becomes clear the subject is "failing to stop". It is assessed by the pursuing officer, also by any other units assisting in the pursuit, as well as dispatchers and supervisors.
The pursuit is a function of policing it is is till the subjects responsibility because as has been pointed out several times the subject has the option of stopping. Everyone thinks an officer lights someone up for say 20 km over and the subject takes off that the rider is only "guilty" of speeding. The officer at that point has NO idea what other offences the subject has committed. Once the subject has been given an "opportunity" to stop, say a couple of blocks but the go WOT then they are no longer wanted for speeding they have now also committed the much more serious violation of stop for police.
Just as an officer should approach every interaction not knowing if the subject is armed, (doesn't mean they are), but the officer MUST consider it for officer safety. A "reasonable" person isn't going to risk all that is associated with running over a 20 km speeding ticket therefore, the quetion the officer has to ask is "why are they running". Typically if a person begins to take unacceptable risks, (Blows through a 4 lane intersection at 100+ km/h), then one has to ask why are they running so hard? Generally it isn't over a mere 20km/h over.
So there are many many factors an officer cnsiders when conducting a pursuit. Most pursuits are relatively short in distance and duration. It is rare for the ones we see on TV out of California where the guy is on the freeway for 90 minutes. I believe if recollection serves me right the longest pursuit I was involved in was abiut 15 minutes and covered about 60 KM, (rural area at 2 am). Guy did pretty well considering how drunk he was.
Now in the case which begun this thread first there is no evidence of a pursuit. The guy crashed virtually right after he was lit up. The SIU hasn't released it's findings.
Also your taking the position that if the pursuing officers terminates a pursuit, (turns off lights and siren and returns to "normal" speed, that means the rider will return to riding normally. That would be VERY rare, most continue along wrecklessly, because they fear other untis are flooding the area and they will be spotted. The main exception to that is if they are close to home that they can duck into.
There are investigations into post pursuit collisions just as there are in any collision. The main difference here in Ontario is that it is turned over to the SIU. It isn't an option it is mandated by law to be done this way. That doesn't mean the pursuit is/was avoidable. It means that like any collision it MUST be investigated.
You may wnat to make any collision resulting from a pursuit the "fault of the police" but that isn't what the law states. It is indeed the offender who is guilty, because without their runnign there would be NO pursuit. The law exists to, (as do mist of our laws), as a deterrent to the offender.
I have called off a few pursuits, the supervisor is trained to at least be familiar with the are in which the pursuit is occuring, (IE is it residential, commercial, or industrial). The supervisor also listens to the "broadcast" of the pursuit, and monitors the officers voice for signals that the pursuit may need to be terminated, (IE heavy or laboured breathing from high stress levels, excited utterances, etc etc etc).
The "tipping point" you referred to is to be assessed on an ongoing basis from the second it becomes clear the subject is "failing to stop". It is assessed by the pursuing officer, also by any other units assisting in the pursuit, as well as dispatchers and supervisors.
The pursuit is a function of policing it is is till the subjects responsibility because as has been pointed out several times the subject has the option of stopping. Everyone thinks an officer lights someone up for say 20 km over and the subject takes off that the rider is only "guilty" of speeding. The officer at that point has NO idea what other offences the subject has committed. Once the subject has been given an "opportunity" to stop, say a couple of blocks but the go WOT then they are no longer wanted for speeding they have now also committed the much more serious violation of stop for police.
Just as an officer should approach every interaction not knowing if the subject is armed, (doesn't mean they are), but the officer MUST consider it for officer safety. A "reasonable" person isn't going to risk all that is associated with running over a 20 km speeding ticket therefore, the quetion the officer has to ask is "why are they running". Typically if a person begins to take unacceptable risks, (Blows through a 4 lane intersection at 100+ km/h), then one has to ask why are they running so hard? Generally it isn't over a mere 20km/h over.
So there are many many factors an officer cnsiders when conducting a pursuit. Most pursuits are relatively short in distance and duration. It is rare for the ones we see on TV out of California where the guy is on the freeway for 90 minutes. I believe if recollection serves me right the longest pursuit I was involved in was abiut 15 minutes and covered about 60 KM, (rural area at 2 am). Guy did pretty well considering how drunk he was.
Now in the case which begun this thread first there is no evidence of a pursuit. The guy crashed virtually right after he was lit up. The SIU hasn't released it's findings.
Also your taking the position that if the pursuing officers terminates a pursuit, (turns off lights and siren and returns to "normal" speed, that means the rider will return to riding normally. That would be VERY rare, most continue along wrecklessly, because they fear other untis are flooding the area and they will be spotted. The main exception to that is if they are close to home that they can duck into.
There are investigations into post pursuit collisions just as there are in any collision. The main difference here in Ontario is that it is turned over to the SIU. It isn't an option it is mandated by law to be done this way. That doesn't mean the pursuit is/was avoidable. It means that like any collision it MUST be investigated.
You may wnat to make any collision resulting from a pursuit the "fault of the police" but that isn't what the law states. It is indeed the offender who is guilty, because without their runnign there would be NO pursuit. The law exists to, (as do mist of our laws), as a deterrent to the offender.
Speeders only instigate the speeding. Police officers instigate any pursuit. Not all speeeders are pusued. The police can pick and choose not only who they will puruse, but they also decide for how long they will pursue and at what speeds. When a pusuit has been started by a police officer, it's up to him or her as to whether he/she will continue the pursuit or stop, *regardless of what the rider does*. The pursuit, its commencement and its end is fully in the domain of the police officer; the speeding and decison to stop or not is in the domain of the speeder. There comes a tipping point when the officer has to ask him or herself a question, and then make a decision: "Am I causing a greater danger to myself and others than the person I am pursuing has caused?" Just as the rider has the feedom to make a decision to stop or run, so to does the officer have the freedom to decide to pursue or not, but as the pusuit is a police act, not an act by any speeders, it's up to the police officer who started it, to stop it...regardless of what the rider, or scum bag of your choice does. Therefore, injuries caused by the police in the act of high speed pursuits, should be considered their reponsibility because they chose the wrong policing methodology/response. Just as all accidents are avoidable, so are all police pursuits that end up with tragic results. If they weren't...there would not be any investiagtions after a pursuit that results in personal injury, like we have here.
Last edited:
Yes, but with the stunt driving laws, the amount of criminality assigned is insane:
- Immediate seven (7) day licence suspension
- Immediate seven (7) day vehicle impoundment
- Minimum fine of two thousand ($2000.00) dollars
- License suspension of up to two years
- Seven (7) demerit points
- Imprisonment for a term of not more than six (6) months
- Dramatic increase of insurance rates
- Second conviction drivers licence suspension of up to ten (10) years
6 months imprisonment for speeding 50km/h over. Meanwhile you won't see any of that for stealing motorcycles.
Something is rotten in that law. One guy is responsible for the towing and hotelling of seized vehicles for those 7 days @ $200+ a day , and he likes to show off his impressive collection of Italian sports cars.
We have a corruption problem in Ontario, and its no better than Quebec.
|
|
|
|
|