[What you are about to read arguably ventures into the realm of opinion.]
Every time we publish footage of a high speed chase, the comments are full of spirited debate. Predictable spirited debate. The following example was created from a mashup of actual conversations:
A: Of course, the capital felony of shoplifting. Punishable by 126 MPH deadly PIT maneuver. The pursuit created too much danger for everyone. It should have been called off.
B: It’s a crime and the thief was driving at speeds that would kill! Plus they had a gun. So do you want to recant your ignorant statement?
A: If you watch the video, they clearly say they don’t think the person has a gun. The police chasing them is the reason they continue to drive at high speeds. If police back off the chase that person will slow down to blend in with regular traffic and not put the public at risk. Is shoplifting that serious of a crime that it requires such a large police response, and deadly force? Also, guns are not illegal.
B: WTF? Are you defending a criminal? That’s the real problem today. Not the police. It’s people defending the criminals and then complaining constantly when the police didn’t arrive to help them against criminals! Pick a side, DOLT!
A: I am not defending the shoplifter. The police responded to a shoplifting incident like they do to an armed robbery. My point is this could have been handled better, and more safely. CHP’s top speed for PIT is 35 mph, the maximum speed recommended by the agency that developed the technique. I’m saying that in this situation the risk wasn’t worth it. Even the risk to the officer is too high. It’s crazy. Pursuits are dangerous enough without intentional crashes.
B: So you just want to let criminals go? How fast do you have to speed before you don’t get a ticket anymore? That’s ridiculous. It would lead to chaos.
That conversation has happened countless times in comments on this channel. In fact, it consists almost entirely of actual quotes. Rather than directly weigh in, I want to provide you with more information.
First, a recent comment caught my attention. The commenter, referencing California Highway Patrol pursuits, wrote “Just wait until one of those pursuits kills an uninvolved party.”
It caught my attention because California pursuit stats are readily available. I am also familiar with them, and there is no “waiting” necessary. In 2019, of nearly 9,000 California pursuits, more than 2,000 ended in a collision, injuring more than 1,200 and killing 35. Fourteen of the 35 dead were uninvolved third parties. Of the injuries, 370 were uninvolved and 60 were officers. The most common originating violation was speeding.
I also want to share with you the Arkansas State Police pursuit policy, and to contrast it with that of Nevada Highway Patrol. The most striking difference is in their approach to safety.
Although both start with references to safety, ASP’s safety note is one sentence long, quoting the state law that requires officers to drive with “due regard for the safety of all persons.” The policy then dictates the number of units that can be pursuing at one time — unless an exception is made.
Overall, ASP’s policy provides little actual guidance and almost no explicit direction on when pursuits should or should not be initiated or terminated. Under some circumstances, ASP policy allows troopers to PIT motorcycles. It doesn’t allow troopers to drive on the wrong side of the road during a pursuit unless exigent circumstances exist and supervisor approval is obtained in advance.
NHP’s policy begins: “Vehicle pursuits expose innocent citizens, law enforcement officers and fleeing violators to the risk of serious injury or death. The primary purpose of this policy is to provide officers with guidance in balancing the safety of the public and themselves against law enforcement’s duty to apprehend violators of the law. Another purpose of this policy is to minimize the potential for pursuit related collisions. Vehicular pursuits require officers to exhibit a high degree of common sense and sound judgment. Officers must not forget that the immediate apprehension of a suspect is generally not more important than the safety of the public and pursuing officers. . . An individual’s unreasonable desire to apprehend a fleeing suspect at all costs has no place in professional law enforcement.”
NHP’s policy provides explicit guidance to officers about pursuit initiation and termination, emphasizing safety throughout. It also, of course, covers the mechanics of pursuits.
I encourage you to read them both.
NHP’s pursuit policy: https://rwp.yt/nhp
ASP’s pursuit policy: https://rwp.yt/asp
The CA data source: https://rwp.yt/cadata
~~~
/r/realworldpolice
@realworldpolice
~~~
Want to help make Real World Police happen and get rewarded for it? Become a Sergeant on Patreon today!
https://patreon.com/realworldpolice
Rather not?
No sweat! There are more than 700 free videos to enjoy ✌ï¸
** (Disclaimer: This video content is intended for educational and informational purposes only) **
[FYI: What you are about to read arguably ventures into the realm of opinion. It's also nearly identical to the video description.]
Every time we publish footage of a high speed chase, the comments are full of spirited debate. Predictable spirited debate. The following example was created from a mashup of actual conversations:
A: Of course, the capital felony of shoplifting. Punishable by 126 MPH deadly PIT maneuver. The pursuit created too much danger for everyone. It should have been called off.
B: It's a crime and the thief was driving at speeds that would kill! Plus they had a gun. So do you want to recant your ignorant statement?
A: If you watch the video, they clearly say they don’t think the person has a gun. The police chasing them is the reason they continue to drive at high speeds. If police back off the chase that person will slow down to blend in with regular traffic and not put the public at risk. Is shoplifting that serious of a crime that it requires such a large police response, and deadly force? Also, guns are not illegal.
B: WTF? Are you defending a criminal? That's the real problem today. Not the police. It's people defending the criminals and then complaining constantly when the police didn't arrive to help them against criminals! Pick a side, DOLT!
A: I am not defending the shoplifter. The police responded to a shoplifting incident like they do to an armed robbery. My whole point is this could have been handled better, and more safely. CHP’s top speed for PIT is 35 mph, which happens to be the maximum speed recommended from the agency that developed the technique. I'm saying that in this situation the risk wasn't worth it. Even the risk to the officer is too high. It’s crazy. Pursuits are dangerous enough without intentional crashes.
B: So you just want to let criminals go? Like, how fast do you have to speed before you don't get a ticket anymore? That's ridiculous. It would lead to chaos.
That conversation has happened countless times in comments on this channel. In fact, it consists almost entirely of actual quotes. Rather than directly weigh in, I want to provide you with more information.
First, a recent comment caught my attention. Its author, referencing California Highway Patrol pursuits, said something like "Just wait until one of those pursuits kills an uninvolved party."
It caught my attention because California pursuit stats are readily available. I am also familiar with them, and there is no waiting needed. In 2019, of nearly 9,000 California pursuits, more than 2,000 ended in a collision, injuring more than 1,200 and killing 35. Fourteen of the 35 dead were uninvolved third parties. Of the injuries, 370 were uninvolved and 60 were police officers. The most common originating violation was speeding.
I also want to share with you the pursuit policy of Arkansas State Police, and to contrast it with that of Nevada Highway Patrol. The most striking difference is their approach to safety.
Although both start with references to safety, ASP's safety note is one sentence, quoting the state law that requires officers to drive with "due regard for the safety of all persons." The policy then dives into the mechanics of the pursuit, dictating the number of units that can be involved at once — unless an exception is made. Overall, ASP's policy provides little actual guidance and almost no explicit direction on when pursuits should or should not be initiated or terminated. Under some circumstances, ASP policy allows troopers to PIT motorcycles. It does not allow troopers to drive on the wrong side of the road during a pursuit unless exigent circumstances exist and supervisor approval is obtained in advance.
NHP's policy begins as follows: "Vehicle pursuits expose innocent citizens, law enforcement officers and fleeing violators to the risk of serious injury or death. The primary purpose of this policy is to provide officers with guidance in balancing the safety of the public and themselves against law enforcement's duty to apprehend violators of the law. Another purpose of this policy is to minimize the potential for pursuit related collisions. Vehicular pursuits require officers to exhibit a high degree of common sense and sound judgment. Officers must not forget that the immediate apprehension of a suspect is generally not more important than the safety of the public and pursuing officers."
NHP's policy provides explicit guidance to officers about pursuit initiation and termination, emphasizing safety throughout. It also, of course, covers the mechanics of pursuits. Surprisingly, in NHP's policy is the following line: "An individual's unreasonable desire to apprehend a fleeing suspect at all costs has no place in professional law enforcement." Not surprising because of its content, but because of its presence in the agency's policy manual.
I encourage you to read both.
NHP's pursuit policy: rwp.yt/nhp
ASP's pursuit policy: rwp.yt/asp
CA data source: rwp.yt/cadata
The world needs more people like the guy in the purple shirt! 💕💕
I don't know if that cop was just holding back but it looks like he was getting gaptized by that Impala
Lady in light blue shirt: Please STHU
Ohhh, a cop car. My neck, ouch 😫
We getting paid. 🤪 🤑
Is that a stringer at 14:00
Fuck man. I hate that I read the description and know you are on the side of truth, no matter what. Now we are brothers.
I ate all my brothers.
These pieces of shit aren't injured. They just kno they're about to win our tax dollars in a settlement.
This is all blown out of proportion…obviously the Impala with no tail lights was running late to work, should have just been a warning. The lady in the Kia was texting and was clearly at fault and this could have been avoided.
First one crash wasn't even bad, they just saw a check
The lady on the ground milking it for all it’s worth 😂😂😂
4:55 I do not blame her one bit. cop screwed the pooch on this one
Oh brother, the black lady craws out of her car from a fender bender acting like she is hurt LOL. Oh boy I can sue and get money.
In every state it is the law that people have to yield the right of way to emergency vehicles that have their lights or sirens on, that means you get your car out of the way for emergency vehicles even if they are on the other side of the road you are supposed to come a stop & wait for the lights & sirens to pass by before you continue on. I didn't see 1 car yield the right of way & that police car definitely had his lights & sirens on. All of those assholes should be ticketed for failing to yield the right of way.
This video is proof why HIGH speed chases on congested roads, especially THRU CONGESTED INTERSECTIONS, need to b outlawed!!! Is it worth ruining, maiming r killing innocent people???
Hot pursuits n sparsely remote areas r even very low traffic on wide open freeways is ok…..but NOT congested heavy traffic!!!
They should stop chasing people I knew it was going to be bad when HE was doing 100 COMING OFF THE EXIT
evading the police is Arkansas seems like a hobby what a dumpy state
Skinny bird leg black girl yellin !
If I’ve learned one thing from your channel it’s don’t run from the Arkansas State Police. They will Daytona 500 your ass into the weeds doing a hundred. Those guys take NASCAR way too serious
Why do so many people not move over if a cop came up going 100mph+ I'd move over even if he wasn't in my lane
They are literally right by the capitol building. How long does it take to get other officers and ambulances on scene?
3:40 see how brown nosing white folks are?? Didn't even ask the person in the Kia, just bypassed them and walked past them as if they didn't even exist……. Da fuk
How the fuck they blaming them people as they are the ones who caused this
This cop was driving like a maniac not even attempting to slow down some at red lights. Going that speed there is no way those people coming off the highway even had a chance to know he was coming. Plus I love how that one cop after like 5min finally goes to Check on them people
Arrest that woman for disturbing the peace. Christ
Thought that smashed Soul wanted a chase for a sec…
There is no way it's not the officers fault. I think the lady was already driving into the intersection before the officer was visible. 3:03
I don’t understand the cop has the license plate of the vehicle (assume he did) thus no reason to go 120 mph after him liked this is a movie and harm himself and others just plain stupid
white car somewhere along 2:30 is MVP for moving over so quick.
Stupid arrogant cop was not driving defensively!
Lmfao a cop crashed learn to drive buddy
I would sue the shit out of the city if that happen to me. dumb ass cop
3:05 Kia Soul drivers I swear to God are all shit and think they're entitled
3:20 crash definitely not my fault
Waiiiiiit the officers name is elvis????
Hey sh!t happens
Don't know if the officer saw the turning car, there's no obvious evidence he did, not that it would have made any difference either way. You can question the decision to continue a high speed chase in such a traffic dense area but watching the video we don't have context to second guess that decision.
She was trying to get a whole check
Not worth watching after 7 minutes.