Overnight Police Chase Reaches Speeds of 85 mph ThursdayOh, look! Even when no one is actually killed or injured directly by firearms, the rest of the city - in this case at least two cities, because this started in Minneapolis and concluded in St. Paul, MN - we are exposed to greater danger.
An overnight police chase that started in Minneapolis and ended in Ramsey County reached speeds of up to 85 miles per hour Thursday morning.
5 EYEWITNESS NEWS followed the chase using Traffic Management Cameras as a car raced through the metro.
It started around midnight in Minneapolis, when police say they responded to a call for shots fired. (my emphasis added - DG) The chase ended nearly an hour later at the corner of Sylvan Street and Larpentuer in Ramsey County.Officers there used what are called "stop sticks" and a pit maneuver to stop the suspect. Police say one person was taken into custody.
This was a danger that would not have occurred without the catalyst of firearms.
Life liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Or the high speed pursuit of reckless drivers who also apparently are reckless in discharging firearms in high density urban surroundings?
Lets here a rousing chorus, do sing along at your respective computers, for being free - free for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, and for the safety of all the people we love (and ourselves) to be free from the risk of firearm violence:
(It just fit my mood - hope whether you agree or disagree, it gives you each a smile. There is nothing like a little "Queen" to get the blood circulating.)
"This was a danger that would not have occurred without the catalyst of firearms."
ReplyDeleteFalse. People run from the police for all sorts of reasons. If firearms weren't the catalyst, it would have been weed, crack, meth, heroin, alcohol, money, psychosis, or the theft.
True enough - yes, people do run from the police for a variety of reasons.
ReplyDeleteBut THIS instance was because of THIS apparently illegal discharge of a firearm - which may very well have been related to one of the other items you mentioned.
That makes the gun firing the catalyst for THIS incident.
THIS danger, from this incident, would not have occurred without the catalyst of firearms.
Your argument is flawed. Removing firearms from the equation would have prevented THIS particular incident from occurring; it would also dramatically alter the other problems you mention that also cause at least some high speed police chases, dramatically reducing them.
I do agree that it would not eliminate them entirely - but it would still be an improvement that would make us all a lot safer, especially our law enforcement.
Pursuit of high speed car chases over illegal weapons fire, or life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Which is the safer, healthier, happier, less-criminal better choice for us as a society, as a nation?
"Your argument is flawed. Removing firearms from the equation would have prevented THIS particular incident from occurring;"
ReplyDeletePure speculation considering all the possible reasons one would run from the police.
If you truly wanted to prevent this particular high speed pursuit, the logical thing to do would be to remove the automobile from the equation as it is the only constant (aside from the criminals and police) in a high speed pursuit.
The news article was quite clear:
ReplyDelete"It started around midnight in Minneapolis, when police say they responded to a call for shots fired."
Without that initiating event, this wouldn't have happened at all, or it would have happened differently, at the very least.
Let us not even try to pretend that law enforcement doesn't respond in a heightened way to shots being fired. Those are quite logically deemed inherently more dangerous on the basis of a firearm being used.
Both Minneapolis and St. Paul - and Hennepin and Ramsay Counties - have very strict guidelines for engaging in high speed chases. Under those guidelines in many cases - most cases - because of the danger of those chases they DON'T pursue them. Unless -----they have a reason to believe that not doing so could be more dangerous than doing so; as in, the firing of weapons, for one.
So yes, certainly there can be many reasons for a police chase...but not like this kind. NO.
Without the firing of a weapon, we have no reason to assume any chase would have ensued, or that there would have been a call to law enforcement either, so your argument about the vehicle is wrong, on all points.
The defining factor, the initiating cause - the catalyst - was the gun fire; the defining factor for such a high speed chase versus such a chase NOT being pursued, again, gun fire.
AzR, the difference between vehicles, which can be used recklessly, or even to intentionally kill, is that it is not ever the primary purpose of one, nor is it the customary use of them.
ReplyDeleteFirearms are always and only weapons. That seems an important distinction between the two.
Aztec Red, are you familiar at all with the concept of proximate cause, a legal concept?
ReplyDeleteAn act from which something (it usually refers to injury) results as a natural, direct, uninterrupted consequence and without which it would not have occurred.
Other things besides injury, including examples of risk or threat, can have proximate causes.
The defining criteria is that without the action, nothing else would have directly occurred.
"Some jurisdictions apply the "substantial factor" formula to determine proximate cause. This rule considers whether the defendant's conduct was a substantial factor in producing the harm. If the act was a substantial factor in bringing about the damage, then the defendant will be held liable unless she can raise a sufficient defense to rebut the claims."
The firing of shots was the proximate cause that the police responded, and that the subsequent chase ensued, and that it ensued in the way that it did rather than the authorities discontinuing the chase rather than driving at high speed through the metro area.
"The firing of shots was the proximate cause that the police responded, and that the subsequent chase ensued, and that it ensued in the way that it did rather than the authorities discontinuing the chase rather than driving at high speed through the metro area."
ReplyDeleteThere is little to support proximate cause. First, it fails the foreseeability test. Shots are fired all the time without police chases ensuing. And not all police responses are followed by police chases. So it's not foreseeable that shots fired lead to police chases.
Second, it fails the risk enhancement test. Did the shots being fired make the subsequent chase any more or less dangerous? No, they did not.
So if you were to argue that the gun shots are a proximate cause of the chase or any resulting injuries from the chase, you would fail.
"Firearms are always and only weapons. That seems an important distinction between the two."
ReplyDeleteTo the dead person, the distinction is meaningless. Dead is dead.
This is an interesting debate between Dog Gone and AztecRed, but one thing is clear to me. The answer is NOT to make it easier for people to get guns. When we do that, like most of the gun rights folks want, we make it easier for the criminals to get guns too. The self-centered short-sighted pro-gun demands concerning gun control are the problem. That's why I blame gun owners, those who fight for the self-centered short-sighted pro-gun demands concerning gun control.
ReplyDeleteAR wrote: "Shots are fired all the time without police chases ensuing."
ReplyDeleteNot in this state/metro, AR. If shots are fired in an urban area (as both Mpls and St.P are), and the cops are called to investigate - as they were here - they DO always chase people who are connected to that illegal weapons fire attempting to flee their investigation.
That was clearly the case here. It is a rule relating to the decisions about high speed chases in many areas; we are not unique in that regard either.
"And not all police responses are followed by police chases. So it's not foreseeable that shots fired lead to police chases."
All cases where someone flees police are pursued. In this part of the country, the continuation of a pursuit AT HIGH SPEED (as this was) is regulated by rules, which boil down to - is it more dangerous to continue or not to continue. In this case the shots fired were integral to the decision to pursue and continue to pursue, when this became a high speed chase.
This makes it distinctly different from other pursuits, and directly makes it a result of gunfire.
To compare this to slower-speed chases for other reasons is specious reasoning and a false argument.
Second, it fails the risk enhancement test. Did the shots being fired make the subsequent chase any more or less dangerous? No, they did not.
They did because the continuation at high speeds is a direct result of the gun fire; otherwise the chase would have broken off, and other methods of finding these people - air surveillance, traffic cams, etc. ALONE would have been used.
Or are you arguing that high speed chases aren't dangerous? Or that police don't have guidelines governing when they can and cannot engage in them? There are serious legal liabilities connected with those decisions:
http://www.aele.org/law/2007LRFEB/2007-02MLJ101.pdf
There are a lot of others I could provide, but this is another excellent one, that gets to the point very well more quickly
http://www.policemag.com/Channel/Vehicles/Articles/2008/09/He-Flees-To-Pursue-or-Not-to-That-is-the-Question.aspx
"Pursuit Policies
There are three types of pursuit policies: judgmental, restrictive, and discouraging. Most agree that the restrictive model is the appropriate standard of care in requiring that the risks of the pursuit must be balanced against the need to immediately apprehend the suspect. The United States Supreme Court has noted, in their recent Lewis vs. Sacramento County decision, that "the police officer deciding whether to give chase must balance on the one had the need to stop a suspect and, on the other, the high-speed threat to everyone, be they suspects, their passengers, other drivers, or bystanders.
In other words, it must be so important to catch someone that you are justified at putting innocent third parties at risk of losing their lives. When making the decision to continue a pursuit, it may be sobering to imagine any innocent third party as being your own parent, wife or child because they always are someone's."
So, unless you can provide me another reason, from the available specific information provided here or in some other account of this specific chase, that these multiple police departments ALL participated in this high speed chase, other than shots fired, your argument AR fails.
To win this argument you need to show me some other reason the high speed chase took place. I don't think you can; it's that simple.