The offenses in this case started with shoplifting, but then quickly turned into running from a police officer, a high-speed chase, as well as firing a handgun towards chasing officers.
Are you saying that:
1. Police shouldn't have pursued the shoplifter?
2. Police shouldn't have engaged in a high-speed chase?
3. Police shouldn't have further escalated after taking gunfire?
At what point did the Police go wrong, in your opinion?
I was directly responding to your stat that only 2% of shoplifters are caught after the fact, pointing out how this differs.
I have already stated my general judgement for when the police went wrong - escalating into causing some serious public safety hazards.
You keep trying to drag the conversation into a simplistic paradigm where the heroes can always do something more to win, with its corresponding blindspot to all the resulting destruction. Watching a movie, nobody really cares when some extras die. But in reality the entire mandate of the police is to protect the extras.
> I have already stated my general judgement for when the police went wrong - escalating into causing some serious public safety hazards.
The high-speed chase already appears to meet your criterion. So are you suggesting, that the Police should have not escalated and pursued the high-speed shoplifter?
Escalating to a high-speed pursuit innately increases the risk: the police may crash into innocent civilians. The criminal may crash into innocents. Etc. etc.
So that's why I'm asking: what is the correct decision, in your opinion, when a criminal floors it and reaches 90 mph in an attempt to evade officers? Should the officers just let them go?
---------
If the pursuit was "morally correct" by your judgement, then the next point of escalation was when the criminal started to shoot his handgun at the Police. Should the Police stand-down now that gunfire is involved? Stray bullets have a high chance of harming innocent civilians (even if the criminal isn't intending to kill someone, the risk remains).
Should the officers let the criminal go at this point?
Etc. etc. There's a series of decisions here which make up the story. I'm trying to figure out how your point of view lines up to the reality of the case.
We all can agree that deescalation should be prioritized. But we have a realistic case here. How would you have de-escalated the situation? Furthermore, we have the benefit of analyzing this from the safety of our desks, with all known information. So surely you can come up with a better decision with careful analysis, compared to an Officer who has to make a decision on the spot.
> what is the correct decision, in your opinion, when a criminal floors it and reaches 90 mph in an attempt to evade officers
They've got a suspect description, car description, and license plate. There is no reason to believe the car is stolen, so there is a registered address. There is likely a helicopter on the way, and ANPR cameras will flag the plate. It was a property crime. Yes they should let the perp speed away and catch up with them later, rather than using the situation as an excuse to engage in their own sanctioned criminality.
If you call any police station and ask this question in terms of say a hit and run collision and whether you should pursue, they will give you a similar answer.
3. Ran around town... jumping a fence, ran across a highway, attempted hitchhiking, eventually entering a private home.
4. Police eventually caught up, blocked the garage with their vehicles, and the siege started. The time was 1:54 at this point.
Apologies for wasting your time with unnecessary hypotheticals, but its important to stick with what happened. The car was already abandoned, the Police caught up because the people's home was invaded by the shoplifter.
-------------
> They've got a suspect description, car description, and license plate. There is no reason to believe the car is stolen, so there is a registered address.
With regards to this hypothetical: The car was registered to David Seidle. NOT Robert Jonathan Seacat. The car also had temporary tags. I don't know if Seidle was related to this case at all.
Under your hypothetical, Mr. Seacat would have gotten away, and Officers would have at best, gone to David Seidle's house.
The offenses in this case started with shoplifting, but then quickly turned into running from a police officer, a high-speed chase, as well as firing a handgun towards chasing officers.
Are you saying that:
1. Police shouldn't have pursued the shoplifter?
2. Police shouldn't have engaged in a high-speed chase?
3. Police shouldn't have further escalated after taking gunfire?
At what point did the Police go wrong, in your opinion?