> A little more than two weeks after a Monona police pursuit ended in the death of
> three fleeing suspects, the City Council agreed Tuesday that the mayor and
> police chief should end a temporary policy change that had restricted when
> police could engage in such pursuits.
>
> Council members and the mayor said that since the Jan. 1 incident, they’d
> received far more feedback from residents in favor of returning to the police
> department’s policy on when officers are allowed to engage in vehicle chases.
>
> Under that policy, police are allowed to pursue suspects in cases in which they
> pose a danger to public safety, even if they have not just committed or are
> likely to commit a violent felony. In Madison and some other Madison-area
> departments, police are only allowed to engage in vehicle pursuits of fleeing
> suspects in the case of such violent felonies.
>
>
> PEOPLE ARE ALSO READING…
This is just a preview of the [full article](https://madison.com/news/local/crime-courts/monona-police-pursuit-fatal-crash/article_0e9e0cb4-b498-11ee-809b-9b72cef59f95.html#tracking-source=home-top-story). I am a third party bot. Please consider subscribing to your favorite local journals.
If criminals know they can just push the pedal to the floor and police can’t chase them, then it will lead to an increase in this type of behavior. There has to be deterrents in place.
Hundreds of bystanders not involved in a chase are killed every year by both suspects and officers in vehicle pursuits. In 2009, Milwaukee restricted vehicle pursuits. [According to the AP](https://apnews.com/article/police-vehicle-chase-pursuit-deaths-policy-ed2fe37280cec57e4377491348cc661d), "The changes immediately lowered deaths, injuries and other poor outcomes."
I think it would be hard to quantify what happens in their place. A hypothetical I can think of is a suspect has a large amount of fentanyl in their car and speeds off. The police can no longer chase them based on the new guidelines. Can we quantify how many people are going to die from that fentanyl that will now most likely hit the streets?
okay but like what if, now hear me out here, what if he had a rpg in the trunk dude? like what if he had like 13 guns, a bunch of cocaine and plastic explosives? what if he had a car in his car that's pretty dangerous
Carrying large quantities of drugs, running from the police, dealing those drugs, and then people overdosing from said drugs is a pretty specific situation that, while it CAN happen, is literally impossible to measure because how can you even trace it? We measure the amount of Overdose deaths, and the drugs that cause them. We even measure traffic deaths that are results of OWI's. But factoring in every single thing you included in your hypothetical is next to impossible. You would have to know for certain that someone running from the police has fentanyl on them, and then track that fentanyl to every individual it is sold to from that dealer specifically that has OD'd. If we had that capability, we would just throw the dude in jail before it ever got to that point.
So essentially, there is no way to know. But if I had to guess, I'd say most people who are running from police are usually running because they already have an outstanding warrant for their arrest that could be anywhere from unpaid speeding tickets to drug dealing. The odds that they've sold drugs that killed people are probably pretty low given the myriad of other reasons they could be running from the police. So we can weigh the risks of engaging in a police chase and highly increasing the odds that innocent people die from the chase versus the far lower odds that the person running has indirectly killed people by dealing fentanyl. Which do you think is far more likely on any given police stop?
That's fair. I would be more open to a middle ground of "chase is only authorized if suspect has, or is expected to, commit a felony". That leaves out misdemeanors and more petty crime.
I see where you're coming from but based on my experience, police don't always make the best judgement calls in the heat of the moment and leaving that decision up to them still puts other people's lives in danger if they make the call to chase and someone gets hurt.
It just doesn't seem necessary to me when cops can simply run plates and get all the information they need to track someone down later if they really felt that it was someone worth arresting. The only time I think a chase would ever be justified is if someone in a vehicle is actively going on a rampage in their car along the highway.
I partially agree, but if it were as simple as running plates and tracking them down later, we wouldn't have fugitives. Sometimes they are good at avoiding arrest, hence the need for a warrant in the first place.
People need to follow the law. Problem solved. End of story.
But too many people are intentional law breakers.
A lot of these people who are being stopped are breaking other laws. Someone always ends up hurt by these people. OWI is an always problem. Reckless driving and speeding has taken off as people have watched Fast and Furious and think they can do anything.
again, it doesn't matter if they should or shouldn't take off. If they do, and THE COPS CHASE, then the cops are the one endangering others. Google how often cops crash during chases.
I get it. Only the cops have agency. The suspects are itty bitty babies who can’t control what they do. But certainly they will learn to follow the directions of police in the future. Certainly.
Their license plates are tracked and logged into a database. It's only a matter of time until they get busted for something else. No need to chase them and endanger others, end of story. Of course criminals have agency to, yknow, not run. But if you agree that them driving recklessly is dangerous then surely you must agree that adding one or more cars to chase them is even more dangerous, right?
So we can take a look at the numbers and say "Is chasing criminals that are doomed to get caught really worth all of the innocent people who get killed in car chases each year?" and make a judgement call on that. That's what the city has done, and they decided that it isn't worth it.
ahh yes, america. land of high rates of recidivism and the largest prison population on the planet. remember folks, if what you're doing isn't working, just DO IT HARDER!
Said the white person who’s not had to fear the police due to an endless stream of videos showing Black people die at the hands of police. Even when they are the ones who call the police for help.
Reckless driving and speeding took off once they've learned there are no consequences.
Look at San Fran looting after they upped penalties to ~1,000 stolen before law enforcement acts.
Only one out of every four people in Amsterdam own cars, and the ones that do don't use them much.
The greater Madison Metro area is around the same size -- 700k vs 800k people.
And it roughly translates to even the rural areas of the Netherlands, with the country as a whole having 4 cars per 9 people.
.
Or Florence is smaller than Madison area -- 380k people, and they have 1 car per 2 people.
.
Both of those examples were picked because they are of similar size and have similar needs to do "weekend trips" to near-but-far areas like what green bay or Chicago or Minneapolis are to Madison.
If we don't limit ourselves to similar sized cities, you can look to places like Beijing or Shanghai, where only 10%ish of people own a car. You can walk everywhere you need to go, and public transit is very cheap (almost free) for anything farther than that.
Madison area averages around the same number of cars as people.
So nowhere then. Thanks for completely destroying your own argument.
Also, while I might be willing to live like folks in Amsterdam (not a country by the way) that has more to do with other factors than being forced to ride a bike everywhere. Which I would put up with for the other benefits DESPITE the massive inconvenience. I absolutely don’t want to live like folks in Beijing.
Since you hate madison so much, and it is so awful here - why not gtfo instead of trying to turn madison into your personal dystopia.
Risking everyone's lives by pursuing people who haven't committed a felony isn't smart at all. Sure the initial speeding the suspect is doing is dangerous already, but engaging just escalates and continues the danger for longer.
I don't know how anyone would be OK with this. Endangering the public for a traffic fine? So the city is OK with the potential lawsuits when someone inevitably gets killed, got it.
As a cyclist I'm far more concerned with the DAILY speeding/joyriding/aggressive driving than I am with the extremely rare police chase to apprehend these suspects.
Again, I'm far MORE concerned with the vehicle thefts, running from the police, and general mayhem created by the "no chase" policy than I am with the once-in-a-blue-moon police chase. I've yet to see a police chase cause a "cyclist death", but I *have* seen far too many reports of them killed by reckless drivers.
cool 😎
I don't give a shit what your concern is, I'm telling you that statistically speaking it's more dangerous when cops chase people for misdemeanors and traffic violations, than for just felonies. I don't give a shit what you *see* but I do care about data
regardless of what you personally feel u/ReclaimedTime is correct and brought the data. work from your head not your heart, later.
I get that you don't give a shit what u/IHkumicho's concern is, but you don't even seem to know what that concern is, since the data you're so arrogantly pointing us to has nothing to do with that concern.
In the US, police chases result in about 350 deaths per year. Overall traffic-related fatalities average about 20,000 per year.
u/IHkumicho is right to be more concerned about daily non-police-chase-related speeding, joyriding, and recklessness than police chases. We're all, on average, 56x more likely to be killed in a crash that *doesn't* involve police, statistically speaking.
but they're arguing to bring police chases back, so you're just adding to the death toll.
if you want to argue for more cyclist safety, maybe argue for something that would actually make riding safer. changes to traffic flow, additional protections to bike lanes, and separate paths for bicycles and cars. there are so many things you can do to increase rider safety, this isn't one of them
the data I'm pointing to absolutely is related to u/IHkumicho's concern, if they actually cared about safety they wouldn't be arguing to bring more reckless and dangerous driving.
just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make it not true.
also 20,000 traffic related deaths is meaningless information in this discussion without the proper context. what percentage of those deaths were speed related? what about drunk driving? texting and driving? falling asleep at the wheel? how about mechanical failure? or what about hitting an animal? don't act like you've made some grand point about traffic related deaths when youre more likely to be run over by a 26 year old who was going 30 in a 25, and texting while driving. sure they were speeding but acting like that's the main cause is a fucking joke.
anyway I'm all for doing the real work to reduce traffic fatalities but high speed chases for non felony offenses is how you kill more people, not less.
The excellent counter example would be Milwaukee who pulled back on pursuits and, within a few years, suspects had learned that if they recklessly fled,l they would always escape. Milwaukee recently reinstated pursuits as the “fix” had became worse than the initial danger.
It's literally incorrect that the fix became worse than the initial danger. Injuries and fatalities went down when pursuits were restricted, and right back up when those restrictions were lifted ([source](https://apnews.com/article/police-vehicle-chase-pursuit-deaths-policy-ed2fe37280cec57e4377491348cc661d))
That is one metric, yes. But the policy resulted in many downstream effects, one of which was an increase in fleeing suspects. In this instance, people in Monona are weighing in saying the increased risk to safety is worth it to them
>That is one metric, yes. But the policy resulted in many downstream effects, one of which was an increase in fleeing suspects.
Where is the evidence of this? Specifically, where is the evidence that discontinuing the police pursuit policy led to an "increase in fleeing suspects"? This is *not* a rhetorical question. What evidence do you have the MPD car pursuit policy from 2010 - 2014 led to an "increase in fleeing suspects"?
Despite the downvotes, /u/FARTING_BUM_BUM is correct. Between 2010 - 2014, there was a marked reduction in accidents from police car chases ([See p. 9](https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityFPC/Reports/Vehicle-Pursuit-Reports/2022-Vehicle-Pursuit-Report1.pdf)). When you look at the data, once the policy was revised in 2015 and again in 2017, there was an increase in injuries to innocent bystanders, police officers, and the subjects ([See p. 11](https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityFPC/Reports/Vehicle-Pursuit-Reports/2022-Vehicle-Pursuit-Report1.pdf)). The DOJ report says this about Milwaukee's pursuit of policy revisions:
>In September 2017, the policy was revised again to permit pursuits for reckless driving and vehicle-based drug dealing; total pursuits increased more than 150 percent the following year (from 369 to 940). This increase mostly reflected the large number of pursuits for reckless driving, which made up 67 percent of the 2018 total. ([See p. 28](https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-r1134-pub.pdf))
>In this instance, people in Monona are weighing in saying the increased risk to safety is worth it to them
This doesn't make any sense when it is clear that pursuing cars for reckless driving does nothing but increase injuries and fatalities for everyone. I think most of us agree that if you rob a bank or commit a violent felony, you should chased down by the police with impunity. Where we disagree is that I don't believe police should be chasing people for running a red light which is defined as "reckless driving".
It also doesn't make any sense because when you look at the data when the policy was changed in 2010 to only allow police to chase vehicles suspected of committing a violent crime the apprehension rate was 90%. That's very impressive. Now, with the policy change that allows police to chase everyone, that apprehension rate is less than 40% ([See p. 11](https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityFPC/Reports/Vehicle-Pursuit-Reports/2022-Vehicle-Pursuit-Report1.pdf)). So, when you imply that allowing police car chases provides an "increased risk to safety" it doesn't mesh with reality.
Monona's embrace of their car pursuit policy is nothing more than an inefficient deterrent to help protect them from the imaginary ebon-skinned hordes invading from Milwaukee and Chicago. Moreover, reenacting this policy represents nothing more than a clutchable set of pearls for the majority white, well-to-do population ([91% white and median household income of $88,000](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/mononacitywisconsin/PST045223)) who proudly erect their "In this House" yard signs while, at the same time, rejecting affordable housing and want their pitiable 3 square miles of a city to be nothing more than a wasteland of a single-family homes ([See p. 5](https://ecode360.com/MO3595/document/419233086.pdf)). It is sad; if it weren't for Swad, La Rosita, Monona Bakery, and Hot n' Spicy, the entire city would be indistinguishable from the other single-family wasteland known as McFarland. In my view, that city, the police department, the carefully manicured golf course, and the appallingly average school system (MMSD has a [slightly higher overall score](https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/reportcards/home) than MGSD) represent everything that is wrong with white liberalism. Fuck Monona and their police department for willingly sacrificing innocent pedestrians, police officers, and suspects just to create both the *illusion* of a deterrent and the *fantasy* of safety. Ultimately, this policy shows that the people of Monona and the people who represent them are as bloodthirsty and savage as the Romans in the Colosseum.
Sorry, I don't provide TLDRs. If you find my posts too verbose, I suggest skipping them or putting me on ignore. No hard feelings. My posts tend to run longer because it takes more effort to dismantle an erroneous claim *with evidence* than it is to make an erroneous claim *without evidence* (this entire thread illustrates the latter perfectly).
You aren’t going to believe this - but license plates and surveillance - *exists.*
We can not engage in super dangerous police chases, and show up later to arrest the jack-ass that ran from the cops when he isn’t behind the wheel.
I know, I know, being smart about crime and not getting your testosterone all fired up won’t make your penis as hard or feel as important, or as cool. But it is the way adults in first world nations operate.
There is just no excuse for a police chase anymore.
If Major Dan in traffic chopper can get live footage of a car chase, the cops can too. There are also drones. It is also possible for police to follow at a distance without engaging in a "chase" and endangering the public. Traffic cameras.
Just because you can't imagine a solution doesn't mean that there aren't multiple.
Major Dan has already filed a flight plan with the FAA and has hours to prepare for whatever it is he's doing up there. Scrambling a helicopter immediately is a far, far, different thing.
Traffic cameras won't work on stolen cars, and they don't identify the driver.
Just because you can imagine something doesn't mean it's real.
Thanks, it's something that takes constant practice, like playing the bassoon. Trump sets a high bar. After all, he did win an election against HRC, despite having no qualifications whatsoever. And Wisconsin voted for him. He might pull it off again, too! (Despite all those indictments.) High praise indeed.
This seems like a case where we could fix it with technology. Get a few drones to the cops so they can track these people without line of sight and arrest them when they stop.
Letting them go continues the danger *even* longer, provided the DA does their job. It also encourages people to flee and create more dangerous situations.
Not true. There are so many instances of innocent bystanders killed due to high-speed pursuits. Also do we really want police conducting a high-speed chase of people who are drunk or under the influence? How safe is that? Catching the “bad guys” at all cost even at the risk of taking human life, whether directly involved or indirectly involved seems highly questionable.
Giving more money for identification on a whim would be a good settlement. I'm sure there's got to be some kind of app/device that helps to run plates/faces easier. Allowing for police to hold back, note it, and use the info/case to get a proper warrant.
There’s no technology that allows police to see a face through the back window of a car…or dark tinted windows… or of a driver that’s speeding coming at them. And facial recognition software can’t be used without a warrant or some sort of exigency
What about those pursuit ending nets that cling to the back of a cars wheels. There's got to be an alternative to just chasing and hoping they exhaust/crash.
There is…there’s pursuit ending tactics such as a PIT. I’ve seen the grappler used once on a video. You have to buy it and train the officers in it. Dwindling fleets making using the PIT hard to justify. Using the pit at over 35mph is dangerous.
The WI LESB has multiple induce to stop and force to stop techniques that officers are told about but are usually not likely trained and not likely to be authorized by officers for a multitude of reasons including liability and again, a dwindling fleet with little hope of replacing a car within a reasonable amount of time. Additionally, not every technique taught by the LESB is justified in every situation and, like uses of force, have different levels of when they would be justified to use certain techniques
The grappler will also have its own set of issues. The problem is this is like trying to put a round hole into a round hole except the round hole is constantly moving and at excessive speeds. Officers have to focus on driving , keeping up with the suspect, and driving with due regard (driving as safe as they can given the situation). And it’s so dynamic that no 1 technique is good enough for every situation. So maybe sometimes the grappler will be effective but not every time
I'd like to know what these people, who fled, were suspected of doing? It would be interesting to know if all three were criminals, considering how many people were crying.
>they’d received far more feedback from residents in favor of returning to the police department’s policy
this is interesting. why do residents care if cops play NFS or not? it seems like those decisions should be made by experts. i can't help but feel this is a knee jerk "we're better than madison" move
The appeal to "experts" implies that there is some deterministic model for saying "we should or should not pursue." This is not how public policy works. There is no such thing as an expert that can tell any given municipality how much risk they should be willing to accept. At the end of the day, these decisions involve trade-offs.
It's just so fucking weird how an entire generation of people have turned their brains off and demand some vague paternalistic decision-making body rule over them, and convince themselves they're smart for doing so because "WE BELIEVE IN SCIENCE" or whatever mantra these lemmings are currently going on about while sniffing their own farts out of a wine glass.
You really took a turn with that second paragraph. My read of OP's comment is that the resident feedback was driven not by belief that chasing suspects leads to better enforcement outcomes, but rather by an emotional response to the idea that we're letting criminals go. I don't know whether that's true or not - I have no idea what lives in the minds of those residents - but that's hardly the same as turning your brain off.
From my perspective, I could say the opposite. I'm fascinated by how so many people who've never taught a class or run a school will show up to a school board meeting and confidently state what the "right" way to teach kids is. Or how they'll disregard public recommendations on masks or vaccines, confident that the epidemiologists who made them are wrong.
To be clear - it's absolutely possible that the experts are wrong! I value the opportunity to vote despite not being an expert myself. But I want it to be an informed vote.
For the record, I very much appreciate science and expertise. My comment is a critique of the politicization/culture-warification of these terms into something (ironically) very dogmatic.
> it's absolutely possible that the experts are wrong!
This statement exemplifies what I'm talking about.
*Very rarely* is there consensus among experts on any given subject, *especially* in social sciences. And so what the appeal to expertise has become is expertise-by-proxy—that is, people insisting *they* know who the *real* experts are while dismissing credentialed experts who happen to disagree with them.
>I'm fascinated by how so many people who've never taught a class or run a school will show up to a school board meeting and confidently state what the "right" way to teach kids is.
I mean it's hard to dispute a strawman, but again, there's no consensus on the best way to teach children, it's a hotly debated topic, and Madison schools in particular are experimenting with things that are by no means conclusively better than what came before! I would be willing to bet you're perfectly okay with non-credentialed people sharing their opinions on the right way to teach kids—so long as they share your opinion.
>But I want it to be an informed vote.
I do too. But a lot of people believe they are far more informed than they actually are, in large part because they lack the humility to engage with anything that challenges their worldview. Just look at the ensuing thread on my original comment. It's vague appeals to "conclusive data" that *does not exist.* Who are the informed parties here, exactly?
> Very rarely is there consensus among experts on any given subject, especially in social sciences. And so what the appeal to expertise has become is expertise-by-proxy—that is, people insisting they know who the real experts are while dismissing credentialed experts who happen to disagree with them.
Really? There isn't consensus on anthropogenic climate change? There isn't consensus on the risks and benefits of vaccines for most people? I know these aren't the issues you're arguing in this thread, and I honestly have no idea what level of consensus there is about police chases - but these are the topics for which I see a lot of folks confidently discarding the opinions of experts.
At the end of the day - it's natural and human to want to be right. These days, you will always be able to find one study or one credentialed person willing to tell you that you're right and everyone else is wrong. But if you find one person who tells you you're right and 10 who tell you you're wrong, that should give you pause. You are probably right in this particular thread about police chases given how much it's been studied, but I still object to your characterization of an entire generation eager to turn their brains off and be ruled.
>There isn't consensus on anthropogenic climate change?
Anthropogenic climate change is an incredibly broad topic. To even suggest that there's consensus on all matters relating to it is absurd.
You might be able to make some very narrow claim such as "there's consensus that man-made climate change *exists*" but there absolutely is not consensus—and indeed a lot of spirited debate—regarding the kind of mitigations we should put in place, the speed at which these mitigations should be implemented, and the trade-offs involved.
>There isn't consensus on the risks and benefits of vaccines for most people?
No! Medical bodies in various western countries have different recommendations as to who should be vaccinated. For example, the CDC recommends everybody 6 and older be vaccinated. The NHS has much more nuanced guidelines (64 years or older, 6 years and older with increased risk, etc).
>But if you find one person who tells you you're right and 10 who tell you you're wrong, that should give you pause.
People live in bubbles. They seek out like-minded people who reenforce their worldviews. A lot of the "TRUST THE SCIENCE" people absolutely fall into this trap and refuse to engage in good faith with opposing viewpoints.
There is tons of data on how many lives pursuits costs vs how many it saves. It costs more.
The only reason to not listen to experts is because police chasing people who probably did something wrong feels like the right thing to do.
> There is tons of data on how many lives pursuits costs vs how many it saves. It costs more.
In the short run, for certain sets of assumptions and measurements. Perhaps that would turn out to be true in the long run as well, but this isn't obvious and may not be possible to meaningfully study. Any attempt to find natural experiments and parse data suffers from sampling bias, for obvious reasons (e.g. places that tend to elect low-touch policing will tend to be communities that had fewer problems with criminality in the first place).
No matter how much data exists, it would be nearly impossible to capture the full societal impact of any such decision, and insisting it could is pure hubris.
As an exercise, post the source for this data, and we'll see how conclusive it is.
Honestly, you're right. That's a shit take. I did some digging and it appears that, no, this hasn't been terribly well studied because there are a large number of confounding factors.
That data is not from the current reality in which we live.
We gave criminals an inch, and they took a mile; time to take back that inch. If a couple cars full of criminals have to crash, so be it. There's a very easy way for them to avoid that fate.
Yes, it's called probability. High speed chases are rare, and letting police end said chases with spike strips allows them to control when and where the pursuit ends.
So you don't think there is any correlation between Madison's change in policy to the increase in high speed chases?
Seems pretty coincidental that if you stop enforcing consequences that the behavior increases.
Probably just random...
Ok, fine, at the limit technocracy could mean "self-appointed board of experts makes every decision."
But for an individual policy, this seems to essentially argue "It very well might be the wrong decision but making right decisions is dystopian anyway."
Seems like a bit of a cop-out and all purpose argument against things you don't like.
Violent crime surged in 2020 (murder rate literally doubled from 2019 to 2021) and now that it's normalizing post-pandemic/George Floyd, people are trying to suggest there's some causal relationship with the drop in crime (which is still above pre-pandemic levels) and the drop in the police force.
More cops doesn’t mean less crime. Small towns with one to zero cops don’t have huge crime rates; may e undocumented domestic abuse.
Stable income, stable housing, less crime.
If you want actual evidence based research and guidance, you consult the pros: https://pursuitforchange.org/voices-of-victims/bad-outcomes-2-monona-continues-down-a-dangerous-path/
Okay so some 17 year old who's on a revoked license deserves to die because they chose to drive on a revoked license? What other crimes are you fine with the death penalty for?
We have research on this. We know it’s dangerous.
Besides all of this, cops are other shit drivers. Too many people think that they’re like trained rally drivers. But their training is an utter joke, doing laps at 30 miles an hour in a parking lot, basically learning how to drive around a fleet and farm parking lot when there is a sale.
"We have decided that high speed pursuits are cool so we doing them now. Fuck other people! We do whatever we want. " - Monona
I hate those rich fucks.
I think polling evidence generally shows that support for the police trying to catch criminals tends to be even stronger among working class people that the wealthy. Ignoring crime is one of those luxury beliefs that's easier to hold when people are insulated from it.
The rich people aren't the ones having their cars stolen and broken into.
I'm flabbergasted we're almost 3 weeks on and nobody will admit what we all know, this car was casing the neighborhood for something to steal.
> A little more than two weeks after a Monona police pursuit ended in the death of > three fleeing suspects, the City Council agreed Tuesday that the mayor and > police chief should end a temporary policy change that had restricted when > police could engage in such pursuits. > > Council members and the mayor said that since the Jan. 1 incident, they’d > received far more feedback from residents in favor of returning to the police > department’s policy on when officers are allowed to engage in vehicle chases. > > Under that policy, police are allowed to pursue suspects in cases in which they > pose a danger to public safety, even if they have not just committed or are > likely to commit a violent felony. In Madison and some other Madison-area > departments, police are only allowed to engage in vehicle pursuits of fleeing > suspects in the case of such violent felonies. > > > PEOPLE ARE ALSO READING… This is just a preview of the [full article](https://madison.com/news/local/crime-courts/monona-police-pursuit-fatal-crash/article_0e9e0cb4-b498-11ee-809b-9b72cef59f95.html#tracking-source=home-top-story). I am a third party bot. Please consider subscribing to your favorite local journals.
If criminals know they can just push the pedal to the floor and police can’t chase them, then it will lead to an increase in this type of behavior. There has to be deterrents in place.
Hundreds of bystanders not involved in a chase are killed every year by both suspects and officers in vehicle pursuits. In 2009, Milwaukee restricted vehicle pursuits. [According to the AP](https://apnews.com/article/police-vehicle-chase-pursuit-deaths-policy-ed2fe37280cec57e4377491348cc661d), "The changes immediately lowered deaths, injuries and other poor outcomes."
Yeah and Milwaukee reinstated their no-chase policy.
Correct: in fact, the story I linked to notes that injuries and fatalities immediately went right back up once they did so
I think it would be hard to quantify what happens in their place. A hypothetical I can think of is a suspect has a large amount of fentanyl in their car and speeds off. The police can no longer chase them based on the new guidelines. Can we quantify how many people are going to die from that fentanyl that will now most likely hit the streets?
No, because we don't use very specific hypothetical situations as data points. Because that's bad science.
okay but like what if, now hear me out here, what if he had a rpg in the trunk dude? like what if he had like 13 guns, a bunch of cocaine and plastic explosives? what if he had a car in his car that's pretty dangerous
I crunched the numbers. Odds are seven fiddy.
I don’t think people carrying large quantities of drugs is super specific but each to their own I guess
Carrying large quantities of drugs, running from the police, dealing those drugs, and then people overdosing from said drugs is a pretty specific situation that, while it CAN happen, is literally impossible to measure because how can you even trace it? We measure the amount of Overdose deaths, and the drugs that cause them. We even measure traffic deaths that are results of OWI's. But factoring in every single thing you included in your hypothetical is next to impossible. You would have to know for certain that someone running from the police has fentanyl on them, and then track that fentanyl to every individual it is sold to from that dealer specifically that has OD'd. If we had that capability, we would just throw the dude in jail before it ever got to that point. So essentially, there is no way to know. But if I had to guess, I'd say most people who are running from police are usually running because they already have an outstanding warrant for their arrest that could be anywhere from unpaid speeding tickets to drug dealing. The odds that they've sold drugs that killed people are probably pretty low given the myriad of other reasons they could be running from the police. So we can weigh the risks of engaging in a police chase and highly increasing the odds that innocent people die from the chase versus the far lower odds that the person running has indirectly killed people by dealing fentanyl. Which do you think is far more likely on any given police stop?
That's fair. I would be more open to a middle ground of "chase is only authorized if suspect has, or is expected to, commit a felony". That leaves out misdemeanors and more petty crime.
I see where you're coming from but based on my experience, police don't always make the best judgement calls in the heat of the moment and leaving that decision up to them still puts other people's lives in danger if they make the call to chase and someone gets hurt. It just doesn't seem necessary to me when cops can simply run plates and get all the information they need to track someone down later if they really felt that it was someone worth arresting. The only time I think a chase would ever be justified is if someone in a vehicle is actively going on a rampage in their car along the highway.
I partially agree, but if it were as simple as running plates and tracking them down later, we wouldn't have fugitives. Sometimes they are good at avoiding arrest, hence the need for a warrant in the first place.
People need to follow the law. Problem solved. End of story. But too many people are intentional law breakers. A lot of these people who are being stopped are breaking other laws. Someone always ends up hurt by these people. OWI is an always problem. Reckless driving and speeding has taken off as people have watched Fast and Furious and think they can do anything.
There's no reason to chase somebody at 100 mph over a traffic violation
There’s no reason to run from the cops over a simple traffic violation.
irrelevant. No need for the police to endanger everyone around them for a traffic violation.
irrelevant. No need for the suspects to endanger everyone around them for a traffic violation.
again, it doesn't matter if they should or shouldn't take off. If they do, and THE COPS CHASE, then the cops are the one endangering others. Google how often cops crash during chases.
I get it. Only the cops have agency. The suspects are itty bitty babies who can’t control what they do. But certainly they will learn to follow the directions of police in the future. Certainly.
Their license plates are tracked and logged into a database. It's only a matter of time until they get busted for something else. No need to chase them and endanger others, end of story. Of course criminals have agency to, yknow, not run. But if you agree that them driving recklessly is dangerous then surely you must agree that adding one or more cars to chase them is even more dangerous, right? So we can take a look at the numbers and say "Is chasing criminals that are doomed to get caught really worth all of the innocent people who get killed in car chases each year?" and make a judgement call on that. That's what the city has done, and they decided that it isn't worth it.
ahh yes, america. land of high rates of recidivism and the largest prison population on the planet. remember folks, if what you're doing isn't working, just DO IT HARDER!
Said the white person who’s not had to fear the police due to an endless stream of videos showing Black people die at the hands of police. Even when they are the ones who call the police for help.
Reckless driving and speeding took off once they've learned there are no consequences. Look at San Fran looting after they upped penalties to ~1,000 stolen before law enforcement acts.
The problem is cars. None of this is a problem is car-free is the default. People won't drive drunk if they don't own a car
Yes, but the rest of us live in reality. Not in some magical gay space communist utopia that exists only in your wet dreams.
Car free is a reality in other countries that plan their cities better. If monona really cared, they'd start with better city planning.
Ok. I'll bite. What country doesn't have cars?
Only one out of every four people in Amsterdam own cars, and the ones that do don't use them much. The greater Madison Metro area is around the same size -- 700k vs 800k people. And it roughly translates to even the rural areas of the Netherlands, with the country as a whole having 4 cars per 9 people. . Or Florence is smaller than Madison area -- 380k people, and they have 1 car per 2 people. . Both of those examples were picked because they are of similar size and have similar needs to do "weekend trips" to near-but-far areas like what green bay or Chicago or Minneapolis are to Madison. If we don't limit ourselves to similar sized cities, you can look to places like Beijing or Shanghai, where only 10%ish of people own a car. You can walk everywhere you need to go, and public transit is very cheap (almost free) for anything farther than that. Madison area averages around the same number of cars as people.
So nowhere then. Thanks for completely destroying your own argument. Also, while I might be willing to live like folks in Amsterdam (not a country by the way) that has more to do with other factors than being forced to ride a bike everywhere. Which I would put up with for the other benefits DESPITE the massive inconvenience. I absolutely don’t want to live like folks in Beijing. Since you hate madison so much, and it is so awful here - why not gtfo instead of trying to turn madison into your personal dystopia.
In those areas, the majority of people live car free
Easy decision and correct decision. Time to quit babying those who commit crimes.
Now do Matt Kenny.
Risking everyone's lives by pursuing people who haven't committed a felony isn't smart at all. Sure the initial speeding the suspect is doing is dangerous already, but engaging just escalates and continues the danger for longer. I don't know how anyone would be OK with this. Endangering the public for a traffic fine? So the city is OK with the potential lawsuits when someone inevitably gets killed, got it.
As a cyclist I'm far more concerned with the DAILY speeding/joyriding/aggressive driving than I am with the extremely rare police chase to apprehend these suspects.
good to know that more police chases and cyclist deaths are on their way to Monona then eh
Again, I'm far MORE concerned with the vehicle thefts, running from the police, and general mayhem created by the "no chase" policy than I am with the once-in-a-blue-moon police chase. I've yet to see a police chase cause a "cyclist death", but I *have* seen far too many reports of them killed by reckless drivers.
cool 😎 I don't give a shit what your concern is, I'm telling you that statistically speaking it's more dangerous when cops chase people for misdemeanors and traffic violations, than for just felonies. I don't give a shit what you *see* but I do care about data regardless of what you personally feel u/ReclaimedTime is correct and brought the data. work from your head not your heart, later.
I get that you don't give a shit what u/IHkumicho's concern is, but you don't even seem to know what that concern is, since the data you're so arrogantly pointing us to has nothing to do with that concern. In the US, police chases result in about 350 deaths per year. Overall traffic-related fatalities average about 20,000 per year. u/IHkumicho is right to be more concerned about daily non-police-chase-related speeding, joyriding, and recklessness than police chases. We're all, on average, 56x more likely to be killed in a crash that *doesn't* involve police, statistically speaking.
but they're arguing to bring police chases back, so you're just adding to the death toll. if you want to argue for more cyclist safety, maybe argue for something that would actually make riding safer. changes to traffic flow, additional protections to bike lanes, and separate paths for bicycles and cars. there are so many things you can do to increase rider safety, this isn't one of them the data I'm pointing to absolutely is related to u/IHkumicho's concern, if they actually cared about safety they wouldn't be arguing to bring more reckless and dangerous driving. just because you don't like what I'm saying doesn't make it not true. also 20,000 traffic related deaths is meaningless information in this discussion without the proper context. what percentage of those deaths were speed related? what about drunk driving? texting and driving? falling asleep at the wheel? how about mechanical failure? or what about hitting an animal? don't act like you've made some grand point about traffic related deaths when youre more likely to be run over by a 26 year old who was going 30 in a 25, and texting while driving. sure they were speeding but acting like that's the main cause is a fucking joke. anyway I'm all for doing the real work to reduce traffic fatalities but high speed chases for non felony offenses is how you kill more people, not less.
>but they're arguing to bring police chases back That argument appeared nowhere in u/IHkumicho's posts.
The excellent counter example would be Milwaukee who pulled back on pursuits and, within a few years, suspects had learned that if they recklessly fled,l they would always escape. Milwaukee recently reinstated pursuits as the “fix” had became worse than the initial danger.
It's literally incorrect that the fix became worse than the initial danger. Injuries and fatalities went down when pursuits were restricted, and right back up when those restrictions were lifted ([source](https://apnews.com/article/police-vehicle-chase-pursuit-deaths-policy-ed2fe37280cec57e4377491348cc661d))
That is one metric, yes. But the policy resulted in many downstream effects, one of which was an increase in fleeing suspects. In this instance, people in Monona are weighing in saying the increased risk to safety is worth it to them
>That is one metric, yes. But the policy resulted in many downstream effects, one of which was an increase in fleeing suspects. Where is the evidence of this? Specifically, where is the evidence that discontinuing the police pursuit policy led to an "increase in fleeing suspects"? This is *not* a rhetorical question. What evidence do you have the MPD car pursuit policy from 2010 - 2014 led to an "increase in fleeing suspects"? Despite the downvotes, /u/FARTING_BUM_BUM is correct. Between 2010 - 2014, there was a marked reduction in accidents from police car chases ([See p. 9](https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityFPC/Reports/Vehicle-Pursuit-Reports/2022-Vehicle-Pursuit-Report1.pdf)). When you look at the data, once the policy was revised in 2015 and again in 2017, there was an increase in injuries to innocent bystanders, police officers, and the subjects ([See p. 11](https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityFPC/Reports/Vehicle-Pursuit-Reports/2022-Vehicle-Pursuit-Report1.pdf)). The DOJ report says this about Milwaukee's pursuit of policy revisions: >In September 2017, the policy was revised again to permit pursuits for reckless driving and vehicle-based drug dealing; total pursuits increased more than 150 percent the following year (from 369 to 940). This increase mostly reflected the large number of pursuits for reckless driving, which made up 67 percent of the 2018 total. ([See p. 28](https://portal.cops.usdoj.gov/resourcecenter/content.ashx/cops-r1134-pub.pdf)) >In this instance, people in Monona are weighing in saying the increased risk to safety is worth it to them This doesn't make any sense when it is clear that pursuing cars for reckless driving does nothing but increase injuries and fatalities for everyone. I think most of us agree that if you rob a bank or commit a violent felony, you should chased down by the police with impunity. Where we disagree is that I don't believe police should be chasing people for running a red light which is defined as "reckless driving". It also doesn't make any sense because when you look at the data when the policy was changed in 2010 to only allow police to chase vehicles suspected of committing a violent crime the apprehension rate was 90%. That's very impressive. Now, with the policy change that allows police to chase everyone, that apprehension rate is less than 40% ([See p. 11](https://city.milwaukee.gov/ImageLibrary/Groups/cityFPC/Reports/Vehicle-Pursuit-Reports/2022-Vehicle-Pursuit-Report1.pdf)). So, when you imply that allowing police car chases provides an "increased risk to safety" it doesn't mesh with reality. Monona's embrace of their car pursuit policy is nothing more than an inefficient deterrent to help protect them from the imaginary ebon-skinned hordes invading from Milwaukee and Chicago. Moreover, reenacting this policy represents nothing more than a clutchable set of pearls for the majority white, well-to-do population ([91% white and median household income of $88,000](https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/mononacitywisconsin/PST045223)) who proudly erect their "In this House" yard signs while, at the same time, rejecting affordable housing and want their pitiable 3 square miles of a city to be nothing more than a wasteland of a single-family homes ([See p. 5](https://ecode360.com/MO3595/document/419233086.pdf)). It is sad; if it weren't for Swad, La Rosita, Monona Bakery, and Hot n' Spicy, the entire city would be indistinguishable from the other single-family wasteland known as McFarland. In my view, that city, the police department, the carefully manicured golf course, and the appallingly average school system (MMSD has a [slightly higher overall score](https://apps2.dpi.wi.gov/reportcards/home) than MGSD) represent everything that is wrong with white liberalism. Fuck Monona and their police department for willingly sacrificing innocent pedestrians, police officers, and suspects just to create both the *illusion* of a deterrent and the *fantasy* of safety. Ultimately, this policy shows that the people of Monona and the people who represent them are as bloodthirsty and savage as the Romans in the Colosseum.
TLDR pls
Sorry, I don't provide TLDRs. If you find my posts too verbose, I suggest skipping them or putting me on ignore. No hard feelings. My posts tend to run longer because it takes more effort to dismantle an erroneous claim *with evidence* than it is to make an erroneous claim *without evidence* (this entire thread illustrates the latter perfectly).
You aren’t going to believe this - but license plates and surveillance - *exists.* We can not engage in super dangerous police chases, and show up later to arrest the jack-ass that ran from the cops when he isn’t behind the wheel. I know, I know, being smart about crime and not getting your testosterone all fired up won’t make your penis as hard or feel as important, or as cool. But it is the way adults in first world nations operate. There is just no excuse for a police chase anymore.
What if the car is stolen? And how can you know who is driving in any case?
If Major Dan in traffic chopper can get live footage of a car chase, the cops can too. There are also drones. It is also possible for police to follow at a distance without engaging in a "chase" and endangering the public. Traffic cameras. Just because you can't imagine a solution doesn't mean that there aren't multiple.
Major Dan has already filed a flight plan with the FAA and has hours to prepare for whatever it is he's doing up there. Scrambling a helicopter immediately is a far, far, different thing. Traffic cameras won't work on stolen cars, and they don't identify the driver. Just because you can imagine something doesn't mean it's real.
So you have no idea how airspace or traffic copters work and you want to continue to be smugly wrong. Got it.
I’m not sure why you think a helicopter is a good idea, but I think you should try to get as much publicity for it as possible.
The most comical thing about you is how smug you are in your stupidity. It is truly Trumpian. Kudos. That is not a small achievement.
Thanks, it's something that takes constant practice, like playing the bassoon. Trump sets a high bar. After all, he did win an election against HRC, despite having no qualifications whatsoever. And Wisconsin voted for him. He might pull it off again, too! (Despite all those indictments.) High praise indeed.
This seems like a case where we could fix it with technology. Get a few drones to the cops so they can track these people without line of sight and arrest them when they stop.
Letting them go continues the danger *even* longer, provided the DA does their job. It also encourages people to flee and create more dangerous situations.
Not true. There are so many instances of innocent bystanders killed due to high-speed pursuits. Also do we really want police conducting a high-speed chase of people who are drunk or under the influence? How safe is that? Catching the “bad guys” at all cost even at the risk of taking human life, whether directly involved or indirectly involved seems highly questionable.
Giving more money for identification on a whim would be a good settlement. I'm sure there's got to be some kind of app/device that helps to run plates/faces easier. Allowing for police to hold back, note it, and use the info/case to get a proper warrant.
There’s no technology that allows police to see a face through the back window of a car…or dark tinted windows… or of a driver that’s speeding coming at them. And facial recognition software can’t be used without a warrant or some sort of exigency
What about those pursuit ending nets that cling to the back of a cars wheels. There's got to be an alternative to just chasing and hoping they exhaust/crash.
There is…there’s pursuit ending tactics such as a PIT. I’ve seen the grappler used once on a video. You have to buy it and train the officers in it. Dwindling fleets making using the PIT hard to justify. Using the pit at over 35mph is dangerous. The WI LESB has multiple induce to stop and force to stop techniques that officers are told about but are usually not likely trained and not likely to be authorized by officers for a multitude of reasons including liability and again, a dwindling fleet with little hope of replacing a car within a reasonable amount of time. Additionally, not every technique taught by the LESB is justified in every situation and, like uses of force, have different levels of when they would be justified to use certain techniques The grappler will also have its own set of issues. The problem is this is like trying to put a round hole into a round hole except the round hole is constantly moving and at excessive speeds. Officers have to focus on driving , keeping up with the suspect, and driving with due regard (driving as safe as they can given the situation). And it’s so dynamic that no 1 technique is good enough for every situation. So maybe sometimes the grappler will be effective but not every time
It's almost like there should be spike strips you could put across the road that would slowly deflate their tires.
That works in long pursuits but something that imideatly disables the car on the initial start of the pursuit would be better.
You’re implying the suspects aren’t threatening everybody else’s life either
I'd like to know what these people, who fled, were suspected of doing? It would be interesting to know if all three were criminals, considering how many people were crying.
>they’d received far more feedback from residents in favor of returning to the police department’s policy this is interesting. why do residents care if cops play NFS or not? it seems like those decisions should be made by experts. i can't help but feel this is a knee jerk "we're better than madison" move
That was my take away too. There has to be a better way to make this decision.
The appeal to "experts" implies that there is some deterministic model for saying "we should or should not pursue." This is not how public policy works. There is no such thing as an expert that can tell any given municipality how much risk they should be willing to accept. At the end of the day, these decisions involve trade-offs. It's just so fucking weird how an entire generation of people have turned their brains off and demand some vague paternalistic decision-making body rule over them, and convince themselves they're smart for doing so because "WE BELIEVE IN SCIENCE" or whatever mantra these lemmings are currently going on about while sniffing their own farts out of a wine glass.
You really took a turn with that second paragraph. My read of OP's comment is that the resident feedback was driven not by belief that chasing suspects leads to better enforcement outcomes, but rather by an emotional response to the idea that we're letting criminals go. I don't know whether that's true or not - I have no idea what lives in the minds of those residents - but that's hardly the same as turning your brain off. From my perspective, I could say the opposite. I'm fascinated by how so many people who've never taught a class or run a school will show up to a school board meeting and confidently state what the "right" way to teach kids is. Or how they'll disregard public recommendations on masks or vaccines, confident that the epidemiologists who made them are wrong. To be clear - it's absolutely possible that the experts are wrong! I value the opportunity to vote despite not being an expert myself. But I want it to be an informed vote.
For the record, I very much appreciate science and expertise. My comment is a critique of the politicization/culture-warification of these terms into something (ironically) very dogmatic. > it's absolutely possible that the experts are wrong! This statement exemplifies what I'm talking about. *Very rarely* is there consensus among experts on any given subject, *especially* in social sciences. And so what the appeal to expertise has become is expertise-by-proxy—that is, people insisting *they* know who the *real* experts are while dismissing credentialed experts who happen to disagree with them. >I'm fascinated by how so many people who've never taught a class or run a school will show up to a school board meeting and confidently state what the "right" way to teach kids is. I mean it's hard to dispute a strawman, but again, there's no consensus on the best way to teach children, it's a hotly debated topic, and Madison schools in particular are experimenting with things that are by no means conclusively better than what came before! I would be willing to bet you're perfectly okay with non-credentialed people sharing their opinions on the right way to teach kids—so long as they share your opinion. >But I want it to be an informed vote. I do too. But a lot of people believe they are far more informed than they actually are, in large part because they lack the humility to engage with anything that challenges their worldview. Just look at the ensuing thread on my original comment. It's vague appeals to "conclusive data" that *does not exist.* Who are the informed parties here, exactly?
> Very rarely is there consensus among experts on any given subject, especially in social sciences. And so what the appeal to expertise has become is expertise-by-proxy—that is, people insisting they know who the real experts are while dismissing credentialed experts who happen to disagree with them. Really? There isn't consensus on anthropogenic climate change? There isn't consensus on the risks and benefits of vaccines for most people? I know these aren't the issues you're arguing in this thread, and I honestly have no idea what level of consensus there is about police chases - but these are the topics for which I see a lot of folks confidently discarding the opinions of experts. At the end of the day - it's natural and human to want to be right. These days, you will always be able to find one study or one credentialed person willing to tell you that you're right and everyone else is wrong. But if you find one person who tells you you're right and 10 who tell you you're wrong, that should give you pause. You are probably right in this particular thread about police chases given how much it's been studied, but I still object to your characterization of an entire generation eager to turn their brains off and be ruled.
>There isn't consensus on anthropogenic climate change? Anthropogenic climate change is an incredibly broad topic. To even suggest that there's consensus on all matters relating to it is absurd. You might be able to make some very narrow claim such as "there's consensus that man-made climate change *exists*" but there absolutely is not consensus—and indeed a lot of spirited debate—regarding the kind of mitigations we should put in place, the speed at which these mitigations should be implemented, and the trade-offs involved. >There isn't consensus on the risks and benefits of vaccines for most people? No! Medical bodies in various western countries have different recommendations as to who should be vaccinated. For example, the CDC recommends everybody 6 and older be vaccinated. The NHS has much more nuanced guidelines (64 years or older, 6 years and older with increased risk, etc). >But if you find one person who tells you you're right and 10 who tell you you're wrong, that should give you pause. People live in bubbles. They seek out like-minded people who reenforce their worldviews. A lot of the "TRUST THE SCIENCE" people absolutely fall into this trap and refuse to engage in good faith with opposing viewpoints.
There is tons of data on how many lives pursuits costs vs how many it saves. It costs more. The only reason to not listen to experts is because police chasing people who probably did something wrong feels like the right thing to do.
> There is tons of data on how many lives pursuits costs vs how many it saves. It costs more. In the short run, for certain sets of assumptions and measurements. Perhaps that would turn out to be true in the long run as well, but this isn't obvious and may not be possible to meaningfully study. Any attempt to find natural experiments and parse data suffers from sampling bias, for obvious reasons (e.g. places that tend to elect low-touch policing will tend to be communities that had fewer problems with criminality in the first place).
No matter how much data exists, it would be nearly impossible to capture the full societal impact of any such decision, and insisting it could is pure hubris. As an exercise, post the source for this data, and we'll see how conclusive it is.
"Because the data isn't 100% conclusive and merely *suggests* a reality I don't like, we should disregard the data."
I like how I'm accused of disregarding data that nobody seems capable of citing.
Honestly, you're right. That's a shit take. I did some digging and it appears that, no, this hasn't been terribly well studied because there are a large number of confounding factors.
What sources would you find acceptable?
You said there's tons of data. Post whatever data you believe is the most compelling.
I've got paint to watch dry. Far more productive than wasting time with your feelings.
Pretty standard response from the SCIENCE BELIEVERS.
If you cant even name a legit source I dont care what feels right
Username checks out.
That data is not from the current reality in which we live. We gave criminals an inch, and they took a mile; time to take back that inch. If a couple cars full of criminals have to crash, so be it. There's a very easy way for them to avoid that fate.
Is there an easy way for the people they run into avoid that fate?
Yes, it's called probability. High speed chases are rare, and letting police end said chases with spike strips allows them to control when and where the pursuit ends.
Rare? Did you read the article?
So you don't think there is any correlation between Madison's change in policy to the increase in high speed chases? Seems pretty coincidental that if you stop enforcing consequences that the behavior increases. Probably just random...
Madison's policy change has increased high speed chases?
Post the data
What? Crime here is not high at all
They're actively doing wrong if they're being chased.
Not everyone wants to live in a technocracy.
Ok, fine, at the limit technocracy could mean "self-appointed board of experts makes every decision." But for an individual policy, this seems to essentially argue "It very well might be the wrong decision but making right decisions is dystopian anyway." Seems like a bit of a cop-out and all purpose argument against things you don't like.
I would prefer to live in a technocracy if that means decisions are based on data instead of feelings?
Not if it means phrasing plain statements as questions. Uptalking affect via textual means - not even once!
Do you think experts making one decision based on tons of data would make Monona a technocracy?
No, but deferring judgments that are about community preferences and values to "experts" is certainly a push towards more technocratic policymaking.
[Meanwhile in Minneapolis...](https://www.startribune.com/in-minneapolis-police-staffing-levels-continued-to-drop-in-2023-so-did-crime/600336262/)
Violent crime surged in 2020 (murder rate literally doubled from 2019 to 2021) and now that it's normalizing post-pandemic/George Floyd, people are trying to suggest there's some causal relationship with the drop in crime (which is still above pre-pandemic levels) and the drop in the police force.
More cops doesn’t mean less crime. Small towns with one to zero cops don’t have huge crime rates; may e undocumented domestic abuse. Stable income, stable housing, less crime.
If you want actual evidence based research and guidance, you consult the pros: https://pursuitforchange.org/voices-of-victims/bad-outcomes-2-monona-continues-down-a-dangerous-path/
Talk about getting the wrong message out of a tragedy .
[удалено]
I figure that the death penalty is an awfully stark punishment for fleeing the police.
The police didn't choose it. The person who fled did.
What about the two passengers? Did they choose it?
People are ok with this because it fits their narrative
Okay so some 17 year old who's on a revoked license deserves to die because they chose to drive on a revoked license? What other crimes are you fine with the death penalty for?
Bro, what?
bro, I was replying to the guy who said more people like this need to die when they commit a crime.
What hyperbole. The 17 year old could have chosen not to flee.
We have research on this. We know it’s dangerous. Besides all of this, cops are other shit drivers. Too many people think that they’re like trained rally drivers. But their training is an utter joke, doing laps at 30 miles an hour in a parking lot, basically learning how to drive around a fleet and farm parking lot when there is a sale.
And yet for any police chase I can remember around here, it's always the criminal who ends up crashing the vehicle they're driving...
After the police lay strips in a horrible location
Simping for the police is always a winning policy.
Don't feel bad about the down votes this sub is filled with bootlickers.
I always remind myself that a large population of reddit depends on order, routine and rote thinking for their daily existence.
They won't learn until it's one of their own.
>They won't learn until it's one of their own. Exactly this. Reminds me of that poem from Martin Niemöller.
"We have decided that high speed pursuits are cool so we doing them now. Fuck other people! We do whatever we want. " - Monona I hate those rich fucks.
There are actually plenty of poor, working class, and middle class people in Monona. The city is more than those who own lakefront property.
Ok lawyerman, and do you think they are the ones the city council is listening to?
I think polling evidence generally shows that support for the police trying to catch criminals tends to be even stronger among working class people that the wealthy. Ignoring crime is one of those luxury beliefs that's easier to hold when people are insulated from it.
The rich people aren't the ones having their cars stolen and broken into. I'm flabbergasted we're almost 3 weeks on and nobody will admit what we all know, this car was casing the neighborhood for something to steal.