Almost got taken out by a car running from the cops

[Mister Tee]

My nerves are a little frazzled right now. I left the house at zero dark thirty to make my trek to the gym. I pull off the freeway on to a cross town arterial, and I notice a Sheriff's car with the lights on tailing a gray Lexus with no plates. The Lexus is going slowly but not stopping. Officer blips the siren, car keeps going. I trail behind because I don't want to get in the middle of that. No traffic on the road. Finally the officer puts on the siren, and the car reluctantly stops after another minute. I pass by and continue on my way.

 

Maybe five minutes later I'm stopped at a light in the middle lane, and I feel a "whoosh" that rocks my truck. The Lexus flys by me to my right, and I'm going to guess his speed was probably on the order of 140-150 mph (I'm a pretty good judge of speed, I can usually estimate it within plus or minus 10 mph). Certainly it was very well in excess of 100 mph, and this was a 45 mph zone. He actually slightly scraped my right mirror - if he would have hit me that would not have been survivable. He proceeded to blow through two red lights in a row without slowing down.

 

No cop was trailing him. My first thought was bad - I was about ready to do a u-turn and go back to see if something happened to the cop. But, finally the cop came flying by with sirens blaring.

Now I know what happened here - he probably got out of the car to make the stop, and then the car took off again as he approached.

 

Now, I'm obviously not trained in traffic enforcement but I saw that coming. It seems to me that cop 101 should have trained him to call for backup before making the stop. It's not like this was a remote area where he would have to wait half an hour for some help. What's our officers' take on the situation? Upflying? Motorman?

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

Very difficult to predict on that one. Fairly daily occurrence that someone stops in a weird manner. Rationale and explanations run the entire gamut of possibilities. It's also fairly standard to update Comm that the car isn't stopping normally. In that instance, usually another car will start heading that way.

 

Another thing, staffing has drastically cut the number of beat units out on most departments. That is also a factor in getting a fill on a car stop. Lots of cars have no plates and a DMV temp card that can't be seen.

 

Glad he didn't hit you though. That would not have gone well.

[Selden]

That sort of thing can be really unnerving. A few years ago, headed southbound on Georgia 400, about 15 miles north of Atlanta, A bright pinpoint of light on the right shoulder. As it got bigger, I realized it was a UJF sportbike, doing well over 120mph, going north on the outside shoulder of the southbound lane. As he passed me, I saw a squad car in hot pursuit. My speed 75 mph + cop car at 125 mph equals a closing speed of 200 mph, which was a very scary prospect.

[Kathy R]

REAL GLAD to know you and the cop are OK. Sure hope they caught him/her.

[Husker Red]

Like I needed one more reason not to go to the gym...

 

[tallman]

Like I needed one more reason not to go to the gym...

 

 

Husker you da man...

I try to avoid even people named Jim (JK).

{Odd people named Jim are good to go)

 

Always a dangerous thing for fleeing, pursuer(s), other vehicles/people etc.

 

Rarely does anything good come from it.

Glad it seems all are OK AFAYK.

[Lawman]

You were lucky. I have no idea why we tolerate that.

[jviss]

You were lucky. I have no idea why we tolerate that.

We don't tolerate it, that I know of.

[upflying]

I make stops on unplated vehicles without backup everyday. Some don't end up well. Had many split as I make the approach. Waiting for backup prior to the stop would not have made any difference in this case.

BTW, many agencies in Ca have a no pursuit policy if the original reason for the stop is a traffic infraction. Sheriff probably should terminate.

Yes I know the Lexus was probably stolen.

[MarkyP]

Ditto in Illinois. We have a no pursuit policy for anything but bad felonies (and a stolen Lexus doesn't count). Our staffing levels are down 40% since I came in 94. That translates to calling for backup and hearing that your partner may be 30 miles away. I'll take backup anytime I can get it, but the reality is that we are often in our own. So the issue becomes do the right thing and stop the car alone and roll the dice....or do nothing, a solution many of us do not agree with. At the risk of sounding dramatic, we knew this getting into the business.

 

As for you, Tee, I'm glad you avoided real contact with the idiot. That would have been dynamic. And I have to say it was refreshing that you worried about the safety of the officer, good on ya.

 

 

 

[Mister Tee]

I guess what struck me about this particular incident is that it was a) on a virtually deserted road in the dark, and b) the Lexus driver appeared as if he could have been a bad actor. I think in terms of officer safety alone I would have been apprehensive of approaching the Lexus solo if I had been in his shoes, just based on my observation of the driver's behavior. But I don't do this for a living either, so I'm not in a position to render judgement one way or the other.

 

I know you officers do this a lot and I'm sure that thought process goes through your head on almost every stop. I suppose you don't really know what you're in to until you get there.

 

Anyway, thanks for the replies. And yes the Tee is on your side.

[Lawman]

You were lucky. I have no idea why we tolerate that.

We don't tolerate it, that I know of.

 

Of course we do..From a legal standpoint we don't even consider the act of running from police a serious offense as is demonstrated from the "no chase" policies.. If offenders were treated as the attempted murder suspects they are it would save innocent lives and property. I say use deadly force to protect innocent citizens from deadly force...Offenders could choose to go to jail or the morgue..It's their choice..

[David13]

Lawman, I agree with you 100% on that one. But few others will.

dc

[jviss]

You were lucky. I have no idea why we tolerate that.

We don't tolerate it, that I know of.

 

Of course we do..From a legal standpoint we don't even consider the act of running from police a serious offense as is demonstrated from the "no chase" policies.. If offenders were treated as the attempted murder suspects they are it would save innocent lives and property. I say use deadly force to protect innocent citizens from deadly force...Offenders could choose to go to jail or the morgue..It's their choice..

One must balance the risk of injury to bystanders with the value of apprehending a suspect. By 'not tolerating' that behavior, I was referring to what will happen to someone who does that who gets caught. Implementing a no-chase policy is not equivalent to tolerance.

 

Putting the public's life in danger to apprehend a suspected car thief is not responsible, or at least, a good trade-off, in my opinion; many legislatures and police policy makers agree.

 

I don't understand your statement where you say that offenders are all attempted murder suspects.

[upflying]

You were lucky. I have no idea why we tolerate that.

We don't tolerate it, that I know of.

 

Of course we do..From a legal standpoint we don't even consider the act of running from police a serious offense as is demonstrated from the "no chase" policies.. If offenders were treated as the attempted murder suspects they are it would save innocent lives and property. I say use deadly force to protect innocent citizens from deadly force...Offenders could choose to go to jail or the morgue..It's their choice..

One must balance the risk of injury to bystanders with the value of apprehending a suspect. By 'not tolerating' that behavior, I was referring to what will happen to someone who does that who gets caught. Implementing a no-chase policy is not equivalent to tolerance.

 

Putting the public's life in danger to apprehend a suspected car thief is not responsible, or at least, a good trade-off, in my opinion; many legislatures and police policy makers agree.

 

I don't understand your statement where you say that offenders are all attempted murder suspects.

 

Fleeing suspects in high speed pursuits are all attempting to murder you or someone else.

[Danny caddyshack Noonan]

I say use deadly force to protect innocent citizens from deadly force...Offenders could choose to go to jail or the morgue..It's their choice..

 

Long ago before all of the new no pursuit policies, I had a guy that was going to run after I stopped him. After a couple words were exchanged, I asked him "can your car go 1450 feet per second?"

 

 

[David13]

Another good one.

You see, a 'deadly weapon' can be anything, when used to try to injure someone. A piece of pipe, which would otherwise be just a conduit for water, if used in a menacing manner, would be a deadly weapon.

Because a good whack from a pipe could split a head open and kill someone. Deadly. Even tho' the pipe only weighs 5 or 10 pounds.

How much does a car weigh?

 

I guess the other thing that totally fails in logic is to believe that it is the pursuit that puts anyone in danger. It is not. It is the fleeing.

dc

[plext]

Very pleased that he didn't get you, I was not so lucky a few years back when a runner got my back wheel from 90 degrees at an intersection.

 

He was moving too, launched me several hundred metres and got me an ambulance ride. The police said "above 140KMH". I was very lucky in only dislocating a finger, a few cracked ribs and having the best concussion I ever hope to experience. The bike was needless to say not so fortunate.

 

My little debacle made the paper with the usual tut tutting about high speed chases and the dangers of. My letter to same defending the actions of the officers and supporting the policy of running down these fools was sadly found to be unsuited for publication...

 

Chase them to the gates of hell I say.

[Lawman]

 

Putting the public's life in danger to apprehend a suspected car thief is not responsible, or at least, a good trade-off, in my opinion; many legislatures and police policy makers agree.

 

I don't understand your statement where you say that offenders are all attempted murder suspects.

 

He was just a car thief before he started running red lights and stop signs in a 4000 pound vehicle..Now he's a potential killer..

 

Steal a gun and start randomly shooting into a school classroom filled with kids.. What are you now? a thief????

 

[beemerman2k]

I'm with you here, Billy. Run or die, your choice. Choosing to run IS choosing to put innocent lives in danger. It's the ultimate expression of childish and cowardly behavior.

 

Do these people actually expect that they will escape and then "poof", the law will just forget about them? Is that what happens when a runner does manage to evade capture -- assuming the original stop was for a traffic violation?

 

Oh, and Tee, I am also very glad you managed to avoid disaster. And I agree, good on you for thinking about the LEO

[DavidEBSmith]

Putting the public's life in danger to apprehend a suspected car thief is not responsible, or at least, a good trade-off, in my opinion; many juries made up of average citizens who award millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to injured innocent bystanders agree.

 

Fixed it for you to make it conform with reality.

[jviss]

Putting the public's life in danger to apprehend a suspected car thief is not responsible, or at least, a good trade-off, in my opinion; many juries made up of average citizens who award millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to injured innocent bystanders agree.

 

Fixed it for you to make it conform with reality.

 

For the record, in case anyone doesn't notice, that's NOT a quote of what I posted, it's been doctored. I don't think that's right to do.

 

 

[Lawman]

Putting the public's life in danger to apprehend a suspected car thief is not responsible, or at least, a good trade-off, in my opinion; many juries made up of average citizens who award millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to injured innocent bystanders agree.

 

Fixed it for you to make it conform with reality.

 

Which goes exactly to my point...I don't understand why we tolerate it..

[beemerman2k]

Putting the public's life in danger to apprehend a suspected car thief is not responsible, or at least, a good trade-off, in my opinion; many juries made up of average citizens who award millions of dollars of taxpayers' money to injured innocent bystanders agree.

 

Fixed it for you to make it conform with reality.

 

For the record, in case anyone doesn't notice, that's NOT a quote of what I posted, it's been doctored. I don't think that's right to do.

 

Yes, we notice. This altering of another's quote to underscore an alternative view is often done with the aim of showing how just a slight change in the quote underscores the very different meaning.

 

I wouldn't sweat it, take it personally, or wonder if anyone will associate the changed text with you.

[tallman]

Another good one.

You see, a 'deadly weapon' can be anything, when used to try to injure someone. A piece of pipe, which would otherwise be just a conduit for water, if used in a menacing manner, would be a deadly weapon.

Because a good whack from a pipe could split a head open and kill someone. Deadly. Even tho' the pipe only weighs 5 or 10 pounds.

How much does a car weigh?

I guess the other thing that totally fails in logic is to believe that it is the pursuit that puts anyone in danger. It is not. It is the fleeing.

dc

 

I disagree.

This board has had numerous threads about this.

LEO's here and elsewhere have provided me with a different perspective.

 

[Quinn]

If your police have a no pursuit policy, why wouldn't you flee?

 

-----

 

 

[upflying]

If your police have a no pursuit policy, why wouldn't you flee?

 

-----

 

Because 95% of us respect authority and pull over.

[beemerman2k]

I think the question being asked, Bob, is that if there is a "no pursuit" policy, doesn't that actually encourage a criminal to take his chances and flee?

[Nice n Easy Rider]

I have mixed emotions about this issue. Obviously some LEOs, by virtue of their number of years of experience and/or training and/or intrinsic level of skill, are better equipped for high speed chases than others. But if we trust LEOs to make split second decisions regarding use of their weapons (which can also involve bystander safety) I'm inclined to think that we should also afford them an equal level of trust regarding when to initiate/break off a high speed pursuit.

[Lawman]

The two opposing schools of thought on this both have pros and cons. Allowing serious offenders to avoid justice encourages offenders just as paying ransoms for hostages encourages hostage taking. In the short term the decision to pursue an offender may in fact result in the death of a an innocent victim but make no mistake about it the choice to let offenders escape justice and the overall disrepect for the law that is just one of the results of that decision also comes with a high price..much higher in my opinion.. BTW...I don't pay ransoms either..

[Quinn]

I think the question being asked, Bob, is that if there is a "no pursuit" policy, doesn't that actually encourage a criminal to take his chances and flee?

 

Exactly. At some point in school, maybe a week after the girls see the special Disney film about growing up, they could show a film of the Rodney King beating to everyone.

 

No pursuit policy reminds me of the old joke about British Bobbies. "Stop! Or I'll yell Stop again!"

 

----

 

 

[upflying]

I think the question being asked, Bob, is that if there is a "no pursuit" policy, doesn't that actually encourage a criminal to take his chances and flee?

Never have I arrested a pursuit suspect who told me, "I ran because I thought you couldn't chase me".

Knowledge of assorted agency pursuit policies is not within the realm of the feeble minds of criminals.

BTW, the California Highway Patrol chases until the bloody end.

[Huzband]

Ain't that the truff.

 

[beemerman2k]

Ain't that the truff.

 

 

[beemerman2k]

BTW, the California Highway Patrol chases until the bloody end.

 

When I lived in LA, oftentimes television shows were interrupted to broadcast a police pursuit in progress somewhere in the city. I used to wonder how on earth these cars could run and where exactly they were? Every time I tried to go somewhere there was nothing but bumper to bumper traffic!

 

[beemerman2k]

BTW...I don't pay ransoms either..

 

Somehow, I don't doubt this at all.

 

But what's a criminal to do? Go to school, get a job, and earn a living? What's this country coming to?!

[Paul Mihalka]

"BTW...I don't pay ransoms either.."

You should move to Venezuela. The Central Bank makes available special low interest loans to families where a member got kidnapped, to pay off the ransom. This is not a joke!

[Jaguar]

This is a video from the local Orlando news station of a car running from the law. Granted the cops gave up pursuit in busy downtown, but the guy didn't slow down at all. The news helicopter caught the whole thing on camera.

Ugly crash in a busy intersection. Thank God that nobody was killed.

 

http://www.wesh.com/video/30049494/detail.html

[ESokoloff]

Thank God that nobody was killed.

 

And the two dogs were recovered & unharmed.

[Lawman]

This is a video from the local Orlando news station of a car running from the law. Granted the cops gave up pursuit in busy downtown, but the guy didn't slow down at all. The news helicopter caught the whole thing on camera.

Ugly crash in a busy intersection. Thank God that nobody was killed.

 

http://www.wesh.com/video/30049494/detail.html

 

So let the litigation begin...

[upflying]

Thank God that nobody was killed.

 

And the two dogs were recovered & unharmed.

 

Thank God the suspect broke his leg and couldn't foot bail.