Atlanta PD "Zero Chase" policy

[lwt16]

My former agency was super tight on pursuits. It appears that they've had a change of heart.

https://www.wsfa.com/2019/08/15/new-...erty-offenses/

[blues]

Atlanta P.D.

Maybe mañana.

[CraigS]

I am just a regular citizen but I like to think police will do the best they can in whatever situation comes up. To me this is just stupid. It's another zero tolerance thing. Just like a kid getting punished for shaping his fingers like a gun, an officer will get nailed for ANY car chase? Out in the country at 2AM? A one block chase on an empty city street at 2AM? On and on. I understand chases can have unfortunate side effects but I'd much rather see the police be allowed to make their own decisions based on what is happening right now. And not be 2nd guessed by a suit sitting at a desk. Looks to me like criminals will be doing real well in Atlanta. Now they know they are guaranteed to get away as long as they can get into a car. Great.

[Dave T]

Check with San Francisco PD about how well not enforcing laws works. Out there the prosecutors have decided anything under $900 is not a crime. Thefts like shoplifting and other property crimes are going through the roof.

Dave

[Alpha Sierra]

This is what affirmative action and a mentally retarded city government gets you.

[BehindBlueI's]

Here's the PoliceOne article: https://www.policeone.com/chiefs-she...dHFl4OkcM2TZ8/

City of Atlanta police officers will no longer chase suspects’ vehicles while the department reviews its protocol, Chief Erika Shields said Friday.

So this does not appear to be permanent. I think it's too far to so zero pursuits, I could get restricting it to violent felonies while you review, etc. but I think even as a temporary measure this is too far.


Now this one is interesting:

“I don’t want to see us cost someone their life in pursuit of an auto theft person or burglar, when the courts aren’t even going to hold them accountable” Shields said. “How can we justify that?”

I have heard pretty much the same thing here in reference to auto theft, though not burglars. The prosecutor is so reluctant to file on anything but the freshest of steals, and even those that get filed tend to result in house arrest. Why should I risk my life and the life of the general public for someone to go to jail overnight then get an ankle bracelet, which isn't even effectively monitored, for a few months?

Fulton District Attorney Paul Howard responded...“I am not sure of the connection between police chase policies and a flawed judicial system...

Oh, I do. I don't know about Atlanta specifically, but I figure it's same-same in most big cities. There's no punishment for fleeing. It gets rolled in with other charges as part of a plea and is basically a "freebie" crime. Decades ago there were two reasons not to flee. You'd get your ass kicked when you got caught, but the police can't do that any more. You'd get some jail time out of it, but the courts won't do that any more.

Plus you've got the same shit bags in the revolving door court system who shouldn't be out to flee in the first place. I've had robbers and burglars wearing ankle bracelets at the time of their crimes. Dope dealers continue to deal dope on house arrest. You arrest a guy three times and he's still out running his local chop shop? Again, why should I risk my life and the lives of the motoring public to catch someone just for the court system to let them go to do again later?

That's the connection.

Under that policy, officers were authorized to pursue a vehicle if a suspect had a deadly weapon, posed an immediate threat of violence to officers or others or if officers believed the suspect had committed or threatened serious physical harm.

That's already a very restrictive pursuit policy. So now no chasing someone who posed a threat to officers with a deadly weapon? Smart.

[txdpd]

The people we catch in car chases usually aren't worth chasing. Under the terms that we generally chase under, ie the chase ends when the violator gives up, his vehicle breaks down, or he crashes into an innocent person, it's just not worth it. Fleeing in a vehicle essentially creating a deadly force scenario and the police are generally limited to using officer presence as force. The situation is out of control, the police are largely forbidden from bringing it under control, and the suspect dictates what happens.

While I don't have high hopes for Atlanta PD's management, a large agency has manpower to come up with alternatives to most chases. Sometimes you're going to have to chase them.

[BehindBlueI's]

While I don't have high hopes for Atlanta PD's management, a large agency has manpower to come up with alternatives to most chases. Sometimes you're going to have to chase them.

I strongly suspect that before I retire a trunk deployable drone will be as common as stop sticks. A couple of drones and a moving perimeter would be able to replace surface street chases pretty easily. Interstate, maybe not so much.

[txdpd]

I strongly suspect that before I retire a trunk deployable drone will be as common as stop sticks. A couple of drones and a moving perimeter would be able to replace surface street chases pretty easily. Interstate, maybe not so much.

I once heard about this agency in a far away place called Los Angeles that tries to identify habitual violent offenders, the ones that are worth chasing, and follows them around. They very rarely they make news because they are involved in a car chase. By far and large they do good work in the shadows because they do good police work.

[Magsz]

The rabid do gooder in me wants to chase anyone that would break any law and run from the police.

Once I smash my ego down and think about things logically there is a definitive risk versus reward here.

Traffic? Hell no.
Violent, forcible felonies? Id say hell yes based upon time of day, staffing, location, etc.

On the one side, I appreciate the idea that agencies want to minimize risk to their officers. Not because they care but because risk=financial liability. I can get past this as in the end, it does benefit the officer/deputy.

The problem that I have with that is that we all signed up aware of the inherent risk associated with the job. We cant "policy away" crime, violent motherfuckers and people looking to do harm no matter how much we want to stick our heads in the sand.

I don't really have an answer for this one other than the idea that there has got to be a middle ground.