Police Pursuits Questioned in Philly

[Soup DeVille]

You dont' get away with it if caught or someone knows who you were- it's a felony to run from the cops so you get hit with that.  Is that the answer you're lookinfg for or did I miss your point because I'm not entirely sure if that's what you meant?

I mean, why should I be charged with a lesser crime simply because no cops got hurt chasing me? I did the same things, my intent was exactly the same.

[rohan]

If the officer has to drive so beyond the limits of his cruiser that he puts himself and the public at risk, I think it might be time to back off and wait for back up. You can't out run the radio... or the helicopters.

don't disagree except that either you've watched to many movies or you live in a really big town- most places and none in Michigan don't have access to helicopters.

[rohan]

I mean, why should I be charged with a lesser crime simply because no cops got hurt chasing me? I did the same things, my intent was exactly the same.

Because no cops got hurt- therefore lesser charges.  You can't charge people for crimes they didin't commit. 

[Soup DeVille]

Because no cops got hurt- therefore lesser charges.  You can't charge people for crimes they didin't commit. 

Cops can get hurt during the course of doing their job in a hundred different ways, just because one does does not mean you automatically have to find someone to blame other than the cop himself.

[Catman]

Do you know why I'm obtuse? Because you cannont comprehend anything that you didn't read in a police manual.
Do you know why I'm wrong? Because you don't think anybody is right unless they admit that the police can do no wrong.

Nick, with all due respect these legal concepts have been in place since this country was founded.  It comes from common law (England) and has been reinforced in case law over and over again.  You're ignoring facts that meet requirements for conviction.  I think its been explained very well by both Dave and Randy and their explanation has been backed up by just about every court in this country both in police involved cases and civilian cases, criminal and civil.  The fact that you don't like it or think it's wrong is just your opinion and is totally inconsistent with core common law practice.  To put it in plain english, you're wrong.

It's already been explained but if you commit a willful and wanton act, and that act results in a chain of events that causes the death of someone then you are criminally liable.  It's a simple concept.   A good way to work your way through this is to ask, "If the suspect had complied with the law and stopped, would the officer have died"?  Obviously the answer is no, the officer would not have died.  The suspect's decision to run is the act that set into motion the chain of events that resulted in the officer's death, end of story. 

Not sure if this will help you get it but you, like many people, confuse proximate and ultimate causation:

In philosophy a proximate cause is an event which is closest, or immediately responsible, for causing some observed result. This exists in contrast to a higher-level ultimate cause (or distal cause) which is usually thought of as the "real" reason something occurred.

    * Example: Why did the ship sink?
          o Proximate cause: Because it was holed beneath the waterline, water entered the hull and the ship became denser than the water which supported it, so it couldn't stay afloat.
          o Ultimate cause: Because the ship hit a rock which tore open the hole in the ship's hull.

In most situations, an ultimate cause may itself be a proximate cause for a further ultimate cause. Hence we can continue the above example as follows:

    * Example: Why did the ship hit the rock?
          o Proximate cause: Because the ship failed to change course to avoid it.
          o Ultimate cause: Because the ship was under autopilot and the autopilot received bad data from the GPS.

Separating proximate from ultimate causations frequently leads to better understandings of the events and systems concerned.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Nick, with all due respect these legal concepts have been in place since this country was founded.  It comes from common law (England) and has been reinforced in case law over and over again.  You're ignoring facts that meet requirements for conviction.  I think its been explained very well by both Dave and Randy and their explanation has been backed up by just about every court in this country both in police involved cases and civilian cases, criminal and civil.  The fact that you don't like it or think it's wrong is just your opinion and is totally inconsistent with core common law practice.  To put it in plain english, you're wrong.

It's already been explained but if you commit a willful and wanton act, and that act results in a chain of events that causes the death of someone then you are criminally liable.  It's a simple concept.   A good way to work your way through this is to ask, "If the suspect had complied with the law and stopped, would the officer have died"?  Obviously the answer is no, the officer would not have died.  The suspect's decision to run is the act that set into motion the chain of events that resulted in the officer's death, end of story. 

Not sure if this will help you get it but you, like many people, confuse proximate and ultimate causation:

It's not all that simple, and England has stupid laws which is why we don't live there anymore.

Let's say I speed by a speed trap and a cop decided to pull out to pull me over, but he pulls out in front of a semi truck because he didn't look, gets creamed, dies, etc.
You're saying I'd be guilty of homicide, because he wouldn't have pulled out in front of that truck if I wasn't willfully and wantonly speeding. If that ever happened to me, I would go completely fucking insane, because it doesn't make any damn sense at all. It's the cops fault for pulling out in front of that truck without looking. It's the cop's fault for driving his Tahoe through a curve too fast. I think I'm just going to move to Mexico.

[Catman]

It's not all that simple, and England has stupid laws which is why we don't live there anymore.

Let's say I speed by a speed trap and a cop decided to pull out to pull me over, but he pulls out in front of a semi truck because he didn't look, gets creamed, dies, etc.
You're saying I'd be guilty of homicide, because he wouldn't have pulled out in front of that truck if I wasn't willfully and wantonly speeding. If that ever happened to me, I would go completely fucking insane, because it doesn't make any damn sense at all. It's the cops fault for pulling out in front of that truck without looking. It's the cop's fault for driving his Tahoe through a curve too fast. I think I'm just going to move to Mexico.

You drive by a speed trap and the cop pulls out to catch up to you and gets killed.   Where's the drivers criminal act?  Speeding is a civil infraction.  It's really not that murky at all.  For all we know the driver had yet to be signaled to stop.  Let's assume he did pull out without a problem, caught up to the driver and signaled the driver to stop.  The driver makes a decision to not stop as required by law.  A half mile later the semi swerves into the officer's path and he is killed.  The driver's decision to not stop put the chain of events into motion that caused the death. 

You have a serious mental block with this. 

In criminal law, the defendant's act must have been the proximate cause of the death of a victim to prove murder or manslaughter.

but-for test  Law Definition

In criminal and tort law, the principle that causation exists only if the harm suffered by a party would not have happened in the absence of (“but for”) the defendant’s conduct.

[sparkplug]

I wasn't there but a speeder does retain a certain level of responsibility for events in a police chase.

It may really be the policeman's bad driving. He could have choked on a pretzel.

[Eye of the Tiger]

You drive by a speed trap and the cop pulls out to catch up to you and gets killed.   Where's the drivers criminal act?  Speeding is a civil infraction.  It's really not that murky at all.  For all we know the driver had yet to be signaled to stop.  Let's assume he did pull out without a problem, caught up to the driver and signaled the driver to stop.  The driver makes a decision to not stop as required by law.  A half mile later the semi swerves into the officer's path and he is killed.  The driver's decision to not stop put the chain of events into motion that caused the death. 

You have a serious mental block with this. 

In criminal law, the defendant's act must have been the proximate cause of the death of a victim to prove murder or manslaughter.

but-for test  Law Definition

In criminal and tort law, the principle that causation exists only if the harm suffered by a party would not have happened in the absence of (“but for”) the defendant’s conduct.

Potato - potato... but that doesn't really work unless you can hear me.
Our legal system is shit in many ways, and this is one of them. The proximate cause of death is loss of control of the officer's vehicle, caused by his own driving. Tort laws are bullshit.

[bing_oh]

Nick, you seem to be overestimating an officer's ability not to act simply because acting places them in some degree of danger. The public expects an officer to act even in situations where the average citizen would not because of the inherent danger. That's an accepted part of the job. As an officer, I can't say, "I'm not going to respond to [insert kind of call here] because I might get hurt." Not only is it irresponsible, it's potentially criminally negligent. And, one of the things that officers are expected to do is pursue felons (which the motorcyclist became in most states when he fled). We do so as safely as possible because we're not suicidal, but we do it despite the inherent dangers because it's what we're expected to do by the public as part of our job.

I also agree with Randy when he says that you seem to be overestimating the resources available to the average law enforcement agency. Understand that 75% or more of the nation's law enforcement officers work for an agency with less than 50 total officers. These small departments don't usually have access to expensive toys like helicopters. But, just because those officers in small departments don't have the expensive resources doesn't mean that we don't have to do the same job. It just means we have to do the job with the resources we have at hand.

As for your analogy about an officer killed puling out after a speeder, you'd have to prove that the average person could reasonably expect that speeding would result in serious injury or death to find the speeder criminally liable to the same degree of the fleeing motorcyclist. That's an awfully big stretch.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Nick, you seem to be overestimating an officer's ability not to act simply because acting places them in some degree of danger. The public expects an officer to act even in situations where the average citizen would not because of the inherent danger. That's an accepted part of the job. As an officer, I can't say, "I'm not going to respond to [insert kind of call here] because I might get hurt." Not only is it irresponsible, it's potentially criminally negligent. And, one of the things that officers are expected to do is pursue felons (which the motorcyclist became in most states when he fled). We do so as safely as possible because we're not suicidal, but we do it despite the inherent dangers because it's what we're expected to do by the public as part of our job.

I also agree with Randy when he says that you seem to be overestimating the resources available to the average law enforcement agency. Understand that 75% or more of the nation's law enforcement officers work for an agency with less than 50 total officers. These small departments don't usually have access to expensive toys like helicopters. But, just because those officers in small departments don't have the expensive resources doesn't mean that we don't have to do the same job. It just means we have to do the job with the resources we have at hand.

As for your analogy about an officer killed puling out after a speeder, you'd have to prove that the average person could reasonably expect that speeding would result in serious injury or death to find the speeder criminally liable to the same degree of the fleeing motorcyclist. That's an awfully big stretch.

I know that not every department has a fleet of helicopters. I know that sometimes shit happens no matter how careful you try to be. I'm not an idiot, I'm just a big fan of personal responsibility.

Here is an article on an unrelated casee. Go ahead and tell me this Commissioner guy is lying:

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/high.speed.chases.2.843103.html
"Long-lasting implications can come from decisions that have to be made in a split second," Rye Police Commissioner William Connors said.

Officers must evaluate the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood of apprehension, the weather and road conditions, population density and pedestrian traffic.

"The officer is not bound to pursue, and should continually during the course of a pursuit question his judgment to make sure he's engaged in the pursuit for the right reasons and is still operating safely," Commissioner Connors said.


Everything he just stated implies that the officer is responsible for how he engages in a pursuit. He didn't say anything that would suggest to me that they will chase down anybody no matter what the cost.

In the specific case involving the motorcyclist; When that officer found himself flying down the road in his Tahoe unable to catch up to a motorcycle who's only initial offense was speeding (this is what I assume based on the information), he had to ask himself whether or not it was worth the risk to continue pursuit. If what Commissioner Conners said is true in that unrelated case, then the officer was absolutely wrong for continuing the pursuit. Likelihood of apprehension was low, risk was high, and the initial offense was minor. It was certainly not worth the officer's life for a speeding ticket, or even whatever charges would follow due to fleeing.

[Catman]

I know that not every department has a fleet of helicopters. I know that sometimes shit happens no matter how careful you try to be. I'm not an idiot, I'm just a big fan of personal responsibility.

Here is an article on an unrelated casee. Go ahead and tell me this Commissioner guy is lying:

http://wcbstv.com/topstories/high.speed.chases.2.843103.html
"Long-lasting implications can come from decisions that have to be made in a split second," Rye Police Commissioner William Connors said.

Officers must evaluate the seriousness of the offense, the likelihood of apprehension, the weather and road conditions, population density and pedestrian traffic.

"The officer is not bound to pursue, and should continually during the course of a pursuit question his judgment to make sure he's engaged in the pursuit for the right reasons and is still operating safely," Commissioner Connors said.


Everything he just stated implies that the officer is responsible for how he engages in a pursuit. He didn't say anything that would suggest to me that they will chase down anybody no matter what the cost.

In the specific case involving the motorcyclist; When that officer found himself flying down the road in his Tahoe unable to catch up to a motorcycle who's only initial offense was speeding (this is what I assume based on the information), he had to ask himself whether or not it was worth the risk to continue pursuit. If what Commissioner Conners said is true in that unrelated case, then the officer was absolutely wrong for continuing the pursuit. Likelihood of apprehension was low, risk was high, and the initial offense was minor. It was certainly not worth the officer's life for a speeding ticket, or even whatever charges would follow due to fleeing.

You're confusing policy and procedure with criminal procedure.  I give up here.  You have formed an opinion in your mind that supersedes hundreds of years of criminal procedure and common law and want to argue that you're right and everyone else is wrong.  That is certainly your prerogative but I realize there's no point in discussing it further because you are stubborn and your problem is with the legal system itself.  We're not discussing what we would "like" the law to be but what it "is". 

[Eye of the Tiger]

You're confusing policy and procedure with criminal procedure.  I give up here.  You have formed an opinion in your mind that supersedes hundreds of years of criminal procedure and common law and want to argue that you're right and everyone else is wrong.  That is certainly your prerogative but I realize there's no point in discussing it further because you are stubborn and your problem is with the legal system itself.  We're not discussing what we would "like" the law to be but what it "is". 

I am not confusing anything. The criminal procedure is direct conflict with policy, safety, responsibility and common sense. You can't just write this off as "an opinion in my mind" and call me stubborn. This is a seriously fucked up problem with our legal system. The very fact that these laws have been around for hundreds of years is reason enough to question them. I find it very disappointing that you, the other officers and people here on this board can actually justify that an officer should recklessly chase down a speeder, knowingly risking his own life and probably violating his department's policy, and then conveniently place the blame for his death on someone who is only really guilty of speeding and evading. Negligent homicide absolutely does not apply because the officer was in complete control of his vehicle, and his decision to purse at the speed he chose. The courts must be just like this forum, they can only care that cops are good, and civilians are bad.

[Catman]

I am not confusing anything. The criminal procedure is direct conflict with policy, safety, responsibility and common sense. You can't just write this off as "an opinion in my mind" and call me stubborn. This is a seriously fucked up problem with our legal system. The very fact that these laws have been around for hundreds of years is reason enough to question them. I find it very disappointing that you, the other officers and people here on this board can actually justify that an officer should recklessly chase down a speeder, knowingly risking his own life and probably violating his department's policy, and then conveniently place the blame for his death on someone who is only really guilty of speeding and evading. Negligent homicide absolutely does not apply because the officer was in complete control of his vehicle, and his decision to purse at the speed he chose. The courts must be just like this forum, they can only care that cops are good, and civilians are bad.

Wow you're completely irrational.  It's SIMPLE, You do something illegal or negligent and someone gets killed you're responsible.  Its a simple and appropriate concept that most people can wrap their head around.   The same concept applies to criminal and civil cases and has absolutely nothing to do with police.  It can be two civilians, it does not matter.  You're getting mad because you don't understand a concept that is pretty clear to most people.  You can keep getting madder but it doesn't make your argument any stronger, if fact, it keeps coming off as weaker and your disdain for authority is starting to show.  Not everyone is out to get you.

[GoCougs]

I fail to see the argument here. Run from LE and you're biting off a mighty big piece of responsibility.

[ChrisV]

A civilian has no legitimate reason to drive recklessly.  An officer in pursuit of a lawbreaker is required to.  That's the part you're missing.

He better NOT be "required" to drive fucking "recklessly." He's supposed to be trained. If this officer crashed with no goddamn perp in sight, then it's HIS goddamn fault, no other.

If you're on a racetrack and you're down a half lap and you're trying to gain the lead, you push the limits, but you STLL brake into corners, and make sure you stay on the track ('cause you can't win if you crash). If you DO crash trying to get back to the lead, it's YOUR fault, not the fault of the guy who's ahead of you. YOU made the decision to win instead of coming in second, and it's YOU who made the decision to push too hard and cause a crash. Not the guy in the lead that you're trying to chase down.

An officer, according to the officers here, is trained "better" than us lowly race car drivers, and so should have an even BETTER understanding of automotive physics and when to slow a little to "finish the race and win" instead of crashing. If you're coming up to a corner that you either don't know or are trained to know you're going too fast for, you slow your ass down and make it safely around the corner and get back on the throttle as you exit the corner. BASIC FUCKING STUFF HERE! You fail to do that, it's no one's fault but your own!

The problem in this litiginous society is that no one is responsible for their own actions. ERVERYONE is a goddamn victim of someone else. And court cases have upheld this. Doesn't mean that that's the right way to do things, just that lawyers and ex-lawers (now judges) have skewed everything towards a lack of personal responsibility. This officer failed to take basic driving precautions which he had been trained for and he avoids blame for his own actions by pawning it off on someone who wasn't even there at the time. And lo and behold, he shows court precedence that pawning the blam off is legal, 'cause it's been done before.

Funny, though, when I bring up court precedence that driving is a Right that needs not be licensed, the LEOs say that's not good enough. Pick one: either court precedence is good enough, or it's not.

[Eye of the Tiger]

Wow you're completely irrational.  It's SIMPLE, You do something illegal or negligent and someone gets killed you're responsible.  Its a simple and appropriate concept that most people can wrap their head around.   The same concept applies to criminal and civil cases and has absolutely nothing to do with police.  It can be two civilians, it does not matter.  You're getting mad because you don't understand a concept that is pretty clear to most people.  You can keep getting madder but it doesn't make your argument any stronger, if fact, it keeps coming off as weaker and your disdain for authority is starting to show.  Not everyone is out to get you.

I understand the concept, and I'm saying it is unjust, especially in this case. The motorcyclist was probably an absolute jackass and should be punished to the fullest extent of the crimes he committed. The officer was just trying to do his job, but sadly, crashed his own vehicle through his own dangerous, and probably policy-violating actions. He either got carried away with the adrenaline of the moment, lacked the proper driving skills, or both. No action, or inaction of the motorcyclist was a direct cause of the officer's crash. The officer could have probably continued the pursuit in a safe manner if he had slowed down and realized that catching a speeder was not important enough to risk his life.

[Catman]

I understand the concept, and I'm saying it is unjust, especially in this case. The motorcyclist was probably an absolute jackass and should be punished to the fullest extent of the crimes he committed. The officer was just trying to do his job, but sadly, crashed his own vehicle through his own dangerous, and probably policy-violating actions. He either got carried away with the adrenaline of the moment, lacked the proper driving skills, or both. No action, or inaction of the motorcyclist was a direct cause of the officer's crash. The officer could have probably continued the pursuit in a safe manner if he had slowed down and realized that catching a speeder was not important enough to risk his life.

So if he had stopped the officer would still be dead?  Are you being serious?

[Eye of the Tiger]

So if he had stopped the officer would still be dead?  Are you being serious?

If he had stopped, the officer still could have crashed anyway before he caught up. Why? Because he failed to control his own vehicle. What's the difference?

[Catman]

If he had stopped, the officer still could have crashed anyway before he caught up. Why? Because he failed to control his own vehicle. What's the difference?

You're ignoring the intent of the motorcyclist.  Again, he made a willful and wanton decision to run.  That shows intent, a required element for the crime he was charged with.  You are ignoring the "But For" argument:

In criminal and tort law, the principle that causation exists only if the harm suffered by a party would not have happened in the absence of (?but for?) the defendant?s conduct.

It should be obvious here that, but for running from the police, the death of the officer would not have occurred.

The main question for the jury to ponder in this case is foreseeability.  It determines if the harm resulting from an action was reasonably able to be predicted.  A reasonable person understands that running from the police at high speed puts lives in danger; his own, the police and innocent civilians.  Once he made the decision to run he accepted the responsibility that his actions may cause the death or serious injury to someone.  Everything that occurred after that decision was made is on him.  The only thing that would change this is if there were some type of combine negligence of a third party which is not the case.  This guy admitted to running which amounts to responsibility of the chain events that occurred.

[Eye of the Tiger]

But for losing control of his own vehicle, the death of the officer would not have occurred.
A reasonable person does not expect an officer in a Tahoe to try to match his speed with a motorcycle.
That you think the police can do anything they want during a pursuit and not take any responsibility for it... well, it's irresponsible. How can you possibly think it through and logically come to the conclusion that the officer did nothing wrong? I understand that officers need some leeway to get their jobs done, but there is a line between that and taking unnecessary risks.

I have acknowledged several times your legal argument, and although it is legally ok, it is morally is wrong. Yet time and time again, you refuse to even acknowledge that the officer may have made a mistake, and that he may have violated protocol. How can you deny that the officer should have been in control of his own vehicle? How can you deny him responsibility? Do you expect officers to respond like robots and ignore any judgment? It is insulting to all police officers that you don't expect them to take responsibility for their actions. You're argument is just as bad as a lawyer's.

[hotrodalex]

But for losing control of his own vehicle, the death of the officer would not have occurred.
A reasonable person does not expect an officer in a Tahoe to try to match his speed with a motorcycle.
That you think the police can do anything they want during a pursuit and not take any responsibility for it... well, it's irresponsible. How can you possibly think it through and logically come to the conclusion that the officer did nothing wrong? I understand that officers need some leeway to get their jobs done, but there is a line between that and taking unnecessary risks.

I have acknowledged several times your legal argument, and although it is legally ok, it is morally is wrong. Yet time and time again, you refuse to even acknowledge that the officer may have made a mistake, and that he may have violated protocol. How can you deny that the officer should have been in control of his own vehicle? How can you deny him responsibility? Do you expect officers to respond like robots and ignore any judgment? It is insulting to all police officers that you don't expect them to take responsibility for their actions. You're argument is just as bad as a lawyer's.

You still don't seem to understand that it is also the officers responsibility to prevent crime. While they need to make sure they are operating safely and following the book, they also need to take risks every once in awhile. You can't expect them to just give up because it might be dangerous. If cops were like that, I'd be robbing banks every weekend.

[Catman]

But for losing control of his own vehicle, the death of the officer would not have occurred.
A reasonable person does not expect an officer in a Tahoe to try to match his speed with a motorcycle.
That you think the police can do anything they want during a pursuit and not take any responsibility for it... well, it's irresponsible. How can you possibly think it through and logically come to the conclusion that the officer did nothing wrong? I understand that officers need some leeway to get their jobs done, but there is a line between that and taking unnecessary risks.

I have acknowledged several times your legal argument, and although it is legally ok, it is morally is wrong. Yet time and time again, you refuse to even acknowledge that the officer may have made a mistake, and that he may have violated protocol. How can you deny that the officer should have been in control of his own vehicle? How can you deny him responsibility? Do you expect officers to respond like robots and ignore any judgment? It is insulting to all police officers that you don't expect them to take responsibility for their actions. You're argument is just as bad as a lawyer's.

It's not morally wrong at all.  It's taking responsibility for negligent behavior.  The officer's failure to control the vehicle is part of the chain of events that began with the defendant's willful disregard of the law. I don't really care what the issue was with the officer's mistake because it is inconsequential as it relates to the crime charged.  The issues you keep bringing up is separate.   

How is it insulting to all police officer's.  We're talking about whether the charge was appropriate.  I think you just like being a pain in the ass.

[rohan]

Cops can get hurt during the course of doing their job in a hundred different ways, just because one does does not mean you automatically have to find someone to blame other than the cop himself.

It does if that someone's actions are directly linked to the cop or someone else getting hurt. 

[rohan]

He better NOT be "required" to drive fucking "recklessly." He's supposed to be trained. If this officer crashed with no goddamn perp in sight, then it's HIS goddamn fault, no other.

I will defend dave here even though he usually doesn't need it- I don't think he meant "reckless" when he talked about the cops driving.  I think he just meant that we're supposed to and often required to drive much harder than the average person.  Reckless for me- a certified pursuit driving instructor- is way less reckless or dangerous than "reckless" would be for the average driver.  Like Tony would say -it's all relative.

[ChrisV]

You still don't seem to understand that it is also the officers responsibility to prevent crime.

Well, he can't prevent crime if he crashes, now can he? It's like my racing analogy: you can't win if you don't finish.

All I'm hearing is basically excuses for abdicating responsibility:

"We are trained for high pursuit and to drive fast safely, unlike the general public. But if we crash chasing you, it's not our fault."

Why bother training them if 1) it's ok for them to crash anyhow in the execution of their duty, and 2) they don't have to be held responsible for crashing?

I will defend dave here even though he usually doesn't need it- I don't think he meant "reckless" when he talked about the cops driving.  I think he just meant that we're supposed to and often required to drive much harder than the average person.  Reckless for me- a certified pursuit driving instructor- is way less reckless or dangerous than "reckless" would be for the average driver.  Like Tony would say -it's all relative.

"If you crash, you were driving recklessly." That's the argument from the police towards us trained performance drivers.

Yeah, he may have crashed at a higher speed than the average driver would have. But if he crashed it's still because he lost control of his vehicle, which meant he was going faster than even his training was designed for, thus driving recklessly (i.e. driving well above his and his vehicle's abilities for the apparent conditions).

[Soup DeVille]

It does if that someone's actions are directly linked to the cop or someone else getting hurt. 

In the case we're talking about, that link is less than 100% direct. If a suspect rammed a poice car and drove him off the road, that is 100% related. This, i would contend, is not.

[Catman]

Actually, reckless operational is not a lesser included offense when you crash. 

[Submariner]

{FOP President John McNesby agreed. "Police officers have just a split second to make a decision [whether to pursue] . . . }

An officer can call off the chase at any point he chooses.  When he deliberately continues the pursuit, he must be held accountable for that decision. 

{ . . .and everybody else has hours and days to second-guess their decision later."}

What??!!  I?m shocked ? shocked, I tell you ? to learn that life is unfair and it applies to LEOs as well.

And it was the bikers choice to continue speeding.

Lets make sure every time a perp enters a city, the police stop pursuing.  Hmmm...that won't cause criminals to do anything drastic like...flee in the city.

Your zealous hatred for LEO isn't warranted here.  The cop didn't hit the kid, the biker did. 

[dazzleman]

And it was the bikers choice to continue speeding.

Lets make sure every time a perp enters a city, the police stop pursuing.  Hmmm...that won't cause criminals to do anything drastic like...flee in the city.

Your zealous hatred for LEO isn't warranted here.  The cop didn't hit the kid, the biker did.