Vehicle Pursuits ARE Police Use of Force or Response to Resistance
I think it’s time to change the mentality around what police pursuits actually are.
If an officer is making an arrest and is met with resistance, that officer is covered under the laws of arrest to use reasonable force to overcome that resistance to the lawful arrest. Sometimes, part of the resistance encountered is the subject fleeing.
Now here’s where my theory gets interesting:
In a police pursuit, you have two musts:
The subject fleeing in a motor vehicle
The officer(s) chasing in a motor vehicle
But there’s a hidden “must.” This “must” is the calculated and accepted level of collateral damage. This means there’s an acceptable level of damage and carnage to the community at large in the attempt to apprehend the subject fleeing.Knowing this isn’t a military strike—where collateral damage is built into mission briefings—it’s somehow decided in real time by the pursuing officer and a sergeant or other higher-ranking officer. Assuming all elements of the environment have been accounted for, laid out, and analyzed in time to avoid disaster. Are you kidding me?!
Let me make it even worse...
A big part of a vehicle pursuit going “right” (meaning no property damage and certainly no deaths or serious bodily injury to civilians) is...are you ready? Hope. The word is hope.
During a vehicle pursuit, the engaging officers must have the following:
Hope that the subject doesn’t crash into civilians.
Hope that the subject can maintain control of their vehicle.
Hope that the subject’s vehicle is so well maintained that no parts fly off and injure someone.
Hope that the subject has a realization and decides to surrender by the end of the pursuit.
You can equate this “hope” and the danger to the public with the same level of recklessness as choosing to get into a gunfight in a crowd.
Let me explain:
If you choose to get into a gunfight while standing in a crowd, you have to hope that no one other than the target gets shot.
Hope that the subject is accurate enough not to shoot a civilian.
Hope that the subject stays calm enough to aim clearly.
Hope that the subject is aware of their backstop.
Hope that they realize the risk to everyone around them and surrender instead.
I would argue that “hope” should never be a factor in tactical planning—especially when public safety and civilian lives are on the line. Anyone would agree that a gunfight in a crowd is a last resort, done only in the most extreme circumstances (i.e. a terrorist with a bomb in a highly populated area). Even then, we would require full justification, and the families of any civilian harmed would need to understand that there was truly no other option.
So, are we supposed to believe a vehicle pursuit is less dangerous?
Are we okay with loved ones becoming collateral damage...To catch a stolen car? To stop someone with a suspended license? To arrest someone with a warrant?
I’ve heard the argument a thousand times: “What if it’s a homicide suspect?” My answer doesn’t change: The homicide already occurred. It's done. That crime already happened. And I’m not willing to accept another possible homicide-by-pursuit in the name of justice.I simply can’t agree with collateral damage.
I ‘hope’ that supporters of vehicle pursuits would rethink their stance if it were their loved one caught in the crossfire—rather than someone else’s.
Let’s talk about policy.
If you look into some departments’ pursuit policies, you’ll see that they [departments and cities] try their best to, let me be blunt, cover their asses. They include a laundry list of “factors” and “considerations” officers must evaluate... while chasing a fleeing suspect at high speeds.
It’s common for officers to provide “pursuit updates” while actively engaged—often hoping their supervisor doesn’t call it off. Even though officers have the authority to terminate the pursuit themselves.
Why don’t they? Because it’s exciting.That’s hardly a good enough reason... wouldn’t you agree?
Let me make a comparison:
If an officer was striking a subject with a baton, would it make sense for them to radio a supervisor mid-strike to ask whether they should continue or stop?
Maybe pursuit policies should just say “Yes” or “No.” Let the chips fall where they may.
It might be time to listen to the community.
There is no such thing as acceptable “collateral damage” in police work.
You cannot rely on hope for a safe outcome.
You cannot hide behind outdated policies and procedures.
You cannot excuse ignorance or arrogance.
I believe it’s time—through the courts—to redefine what police pursuits actually are.Because I’m not so sure they’re reasonable anymore.
M.B.