Are citizens required to pursue fleeing armed felons in high speed pursuit?

The driving officer should have known the other officer was deploying stop sticks in a given area, they communicate these things.

First thing, go try to monitor communications from even two different agencies during a pursuit--much less three or four, depending on the jurisdictions that are crossed.

Next, go get some training on how spike strips are deployed. See what you have to do to deploy them, and play close attention to methods of deployment and where you have to be when they are deployed.

Then come back and post.

Are police required to exercise reasonable caution/care and drive with due regard for the safety of others?

Just released !!!!

All 3 in the red fleeing truck are Id'd and are teens.

16, 17, 18

I hope these fucks never see daylight again..

Yadda yadda yadda, ramble, ramble, (insert infinite wisdom here) more ramble yadda ramble.........

Most things are avoidable. When a pedestrian is hit, cops ask how fast you were going, if your eyes were on the road, etc. I've said numerous times if you're in the road, outside a crosswalk, it's your own damn fault you got hit. This situation seems a bit different. The driving officer should have known the other officer was deploying stop sticks in a given area, they communicate these things. I think the most likely scenario (again, limited info, admitted conjecture) is that both cops had tunnel vision and were paying attention to the fleeing vehicle. Cop 2 ran into the roadway to deploy stop sticks, cop 1 going 'pursuit speeds' ie well above the speed limit, didn't see the cop 2 until it was too late and ran him over.

That's not 'accidents happen'....That's a clusterfuck, or to quote a meme... "You want a safety briefing? Because that's how you get a safety briefing."



Questioning authority/'the official story' and/or requesting accountability is not anti-cop. You cannot blame the criminal for negligence on the officers part.



Interestingly, you'll note in each case the state says 'emergency vehicles can....' they specifically state they can't drive like an asshole. A cop is dead, I'd say that's 'without due regard to the safety of all persons', wouldn't you?

I just don't see a scenario, other than the perp pushing the cop car into the wrong lane, where cop 1 and/or cop 2 don't shoulder the majority of the blame for this. You can sit there and say 'but he was chasing someone'... Cool, here's a cookie, doesn't mean he gets to drive recklessly, or jump in front of a car....




and this is relevant how? Have you ever seen me post about a guy pointing a gun at a cop and saying he shouldn't have been shot?



Uh huh... and if the responding officer is driving 110 MPH in a 35, blowing through red lights and T-bones a car?




'accident' vs negligence/carelessness.

Someone committing a crime does not give LE carte blanche, and blame anything bad that happens on the criminal.



Again, 'pedestrian hit' signals that you think it's expected for cops to hit pedestrians during a pursuit, that basically means that it's an acceptable loss to pursue/catch the bad guy. I find that unacceptable. Same goes for the idiot cops that PIT a vehicle going 80 MPH in heavy traffic, then blame the perp when the vehicle crashes into the opposing lanes and sends 3 people to the hospital in critical condition. The cop caused the vehicle to go out of control into opposing traffic.

Please start a police training academy.

You seem to know more about law enforcement than anyone I ever met in my entire life.

You might not agree with the law as it is written, but I do.

It gives me some comfort to know that at least one shit rat law breaker will get the Club Fed vacation of his dreams, with complimentary ass stretching for his full term behind bars.

Be that as it may, while "reckless" is prima facia exceeding the speed limit, I'm confident a totality of the circumstances defense/shield will be invoked. The Kent and Seattle PD have similar policies. Pursuit of fleeing suspects is discretionary and only upon a balancing test of the risk of harm from pursuing vs not pursuing.

I would also point out that "reckless" is also a subjective term. It's far different for an inexperienced 16 year old than for a professional stunt car driver - and these officers have enhanced driving training and vehicles more suited for pursuit, therefore I'd suggest that "reckless" is not a strict liability inquiry but a totality of the circumstances (i.e. the officers have training, and the totality is that it was inherently more dangerous to not pursue than to give pursuit).

https://www.kent.police.uk/policy/opera ... he-police/

https://www.seattle.gov/police-manual/t ... g/pursuits

.

I can come up with many scenarios where the accident occurs but the police driver is not negligent or reckless. For instance, maybe the deceased cop made an unexpected move into his path of travel. It's unknown at this point, but we cannot give blanket blame to the LEO driver when we don't know the details.

A source tells KOMO News' Jennifer Sullivan that the teens are all juveniles ranging in age from 15 to 17. They are being held for investigation of eluding police and firearms violations.
Shouldn't have been driving, or in possession of guns. Change the age to 21 for rifles, and 594 would have stopped this..