Oculus VR Co-founder Andrew Reisse Killed In Auto Collision

ccguy writes with this excerpt from a sad report on CNET: "Oculus Rift co-founder and lead engineer Andrew Reisse was hit in Santa Ana, where he was a resident, by a speeding car being pursued by police." Reisse was killed, says the report, when the car "slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse at Flower Street and MacArthur Boulevard."

Comments

FTA

[rmdingler]

Police were pursuing a vehicle for an unnamed offense which ran several red lights before striking Reisse's vehicle at an intersection. The cynic in me says the offense wasn't extremely grievous if it has thus far gone unnamed: these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents.

Re:FTA

[dunkelfalke]

Let us be fair. Cars kill too many innocents. Cities should be for the people, not for cars!

Re:FTA

[gl4ss]

Police were pursuing a vehicle for an unnamed offense which ran several red lights before striking Reisse's vehicle at an intersection. The cynic in me says the offense wasn't extremely grievous if it has thus far gone unnamed: these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents.

the offence was fleeing after a firefight.. apparently the perps were on probation too(and had warrants on their heads).

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if they had suspended the chase, the offending vehicle would have slowed down and obeyed all traffic laws thereafter?

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, anyone with even a modicum of standing out to be filing wrongful death suits.

Re:FTA

[kurt555gs]

Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

Re:FTA

[Dins]

When you outlaw cars, only outlaws will have cars.

Re:FTA

[Reliable Windmill]

Cars don't kill people, people kill people.

Sure, but no one is out on the streets to kill people with their car, yet people get hit and die, and if you take X * 4000lbs of travelling metal out of the equations of a city, there will be fewer deaths, among other benefits. Motor vehicles should really be reserved for when they're actually needed. Not that it would matter in this case, but you get me.

Re:FTA

[PolygamousRanchKid]

. . . is one of the perps named "Justin Bieber", by any chance . . . ?

Re:FTA

[Luckyo]

Because you know, guys with guns fleeing after a firefight and a violent encounter with police are totally white, nice and fluffy, model citizens and police should just wait for them to show up again and not try to prevent them from doing it again. What a nice example of police brutality!

Sometimes, it actually helps to read the source:

Authorities say the incident began when officers saw two vehicles full of people involved in some type of criminal activity in the 1000 block of Rosewood Court Thursday. When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Source: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999

Re:FTA

[cffrost]

Because if they had suspended the chase, the offending vehicle would have slowed down and obeyed all traffic laws thereafter?

Probably — why risk wrecking the vehicle or attracting further attention once the pursuing police have fallen back?

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

And in cities, they typically are reserved for this. "when needed" includes "i need to get somewhere that's not well served by public transportation"

Which in the US unfortunately is pretty much every trip that has an endpoint outside the core of the city....

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

"Authorities say the incident began when officers saw two vehicles full of people involved in some type of criminal activity in the 1000 block of Rosewood Court Thursday. When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Investigators allege 21-year-old Victor Sanchez and two other suspects then took off in a Dodge Charger. With Sanchez at the wheel, the Charger slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse, police said."

Still not clear, but the situation was bad enough to warrant a shooting by police

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999

Re:FTA

[danceswithtrees]

Another article gives a bit more information than the one in the summary:
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999

It appears the chase was preceded by a "physical altercation" and a "fatal officer-involved shooting." You can also make an argument for testosterone-fueled fights and shootings but it seems that the police had reason to be chasing these guys and the alleged bad guys had a reason to run. Oh yeah, they were also all gang members on probation.

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

That is precisely what the police do. If a pursuit will lead to a prolonged, high speed chase, the police cruisers are supposed to be pulled back and a helicopter is used to follow the perpetrators until they can be apprehended more safely.

Re:FTA

[aitikin]

Which in the US unfortunately is pretty much every trip that has an endpoint outside the core of the city....

Are you kidding me? Public transit in the US is abysmal even when you're endpoint is within the core of the city.

Re:FTA

[ClioCJS]

Anytime someone gets killed by someone, we should take it away from all the people who don't kill anyone with it.

Also, when one kid in class chews gum, everyone in the class should get detention.

When a right is abused, it should be taken away too. Because of Westboro Baptist Church, we should repeal the 1st Amendment.

Re:FTA

[ClioCJS]

*something, i mean, not someone

Re:FTA

[Grand Facade]

Public transit kills their share, plus they are one of the biggest hazards on the road. moving violation

Re:FTA

[erroneus]

Not troll.

There are laws in the books in California about the rules of hot pursuits. If, for example, they are suspected of having done something with a gun or are otherwise already a danger to society, they can chase. If they are illegal immigrants, don't chase. That they didn't name the suspect's crime suggests that they either didn't know what they were being chased for or that it was something which did not warrant such a chase. Either way, giving chase was very likely an inappropriate response by the police.

Re:FTA

[erroneus]

Ah, I just read... it was, in fact, chasing for reasons within the law. The cops were acting properly.

So this is just really, really unfortunate and I hope the criminals get what's coming to them.

Re: FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

In cases where details are as vague as this, it often boils down to the cops shooting first (or sometimes even being the only ones shooting).

Sometimes the right solution is to let criminals go. If the alternative has a high likelihood of human injury, the police has an obligation to not escalate the situation. Remember that their oath is to protect and serve. In that order, not the other way around.

Posting anonymously because of the idiots who don't understand that the lack of "-1 disagree" is intentional.

Re:FTA

[candeoastrum]

Because you know, guys with guns fleeing after a firefight and a violent encounter with police are totally white, nice and fluffy, model citizens

What does being white have to do with anything?

Re: FTA

[O('_')O_Bush]

Unfortunately, with the large drug trade, these kinds of gang related shootouts are regular occurances in some parts of the U.S. And frankly, I would still prefer they not chase these kinds of perps.

For the most part, gang violence only affects gangs and our gun rights, while high-speed chases move that danger to places where people like this engineer can get caught up in it.

Re:FTA

[Fieryphoenix]

Um, because you're still panicked and desperate to escape?

Re:FTA

[Luckyo]

"White nice and fluffy" refers to kittens.

Re:FTA

[Luckyo]

You just flat out accused them of lying. Then you claimed that you didn't. What?

Re:FTA

[hairyfeet]

Don't think you are from around these parts friend. You see America? Don't really have any public transportation to speak of except in a few select cities (and often in only select places in those cities) and what little public transport we have? You wouldn't want to ride on it, its not very nice in most places.

So unless you expect everyone to walk dozens of miles its not like there is much of a choice friend. Heck in my state there is a single bus line, which is very lousy, and which only follows a little circuit that covers MAYBE 20% of the capital. That's it, that is all there is. If you need to go anywhere besides that little circuit, or to any other city in the state? Tough shit.

Just a little FYI there, for while I hear other countries actually have public transport and in some places its actually quite nice that sure as hell doesn't describe a good 85%+ of the USA. Again using my state for example you drive or you get to "enjoy" living in the shittiest neighborhood in the state capital, since it only really goes to that one dirt poor area and to the malls.

Re:FTA

[Bing Tsher E]

There's a Venn-diagram you should study sometime. Your main point is correct, however.

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

Public transportation is bad because there's no demand. If cars were banned, the demand for public transport would rise dramatically, which would greatly improve its reach. Yay, capitalism!

Re:FTA

[Reliable Windmill]

So unless you expect everyone to walk dozens of miles its not like there is much of a choice friend.

It's interesting that your reply and those above all mention how poor public transport is, but none mention lack of bicycle lanes. I don't think it's because there are none or because it's not viable, but because most of you don't want to; why should I have to use my legs to get somewhere when I can just drive?

I understand the infrastructure in some parts of the USA is not wrapped up in bicycle lanes like in the Netherlands, but in a city environment there's certainly a lot of opportunity to travel by bicycle instead of car, but again - many of you just don't want to.

Re:FTA

[redback]

*your

Re:FTA

[Fallen Kell]

This is why many sane cities and police departments have strict guidelines for engaging in a chase. For instance, this would never have happened in Philadelphia, as a chase requires deadly violence to have already occurred by the suspects involved. The rational being that you put more people at risk of death by chasing a suspect than simply letting them go on their way, unless that suspect has already proven that he/she is putting the population at risk of immediate violence/death.

Re:FTA

[g0bshiTe]

You obviously haven't seen the movie Christine.

Re:FTA

[g0bshiTe]

True, but if you simply remove people from the cities you have the same result. Then the cars can still roam free in their natural habitat.

Re:FTA

[g0bshiTe]

Also not all guns are banned due to shooting incidents, so in this case only Dodge Chargers should be banned.

Re: FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

My commute to work in dfw which is about half through the metroplex is 50 miles that's 80 km. I ain't going to bicycle 160 km a day with above 40 degrees Celsius temperature. thats the same distance as between amsterdam and maastricht, i dont belive even the bicycle crazy dutch commute by bike between those cities. i think most europeans just dont understand the massive size of the us continent and cities that were built for cars. Just because lilleput countries like Netherlands has the bicycle infrastructure doesn't mean that's available or even possible in other countries.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

For the most part, gang violence only affects gangs and our gun rights,

A similar thing could be said for police chases. "For the most part police chases only effect the people being chased."

I would still prefer they not chase these kinds of perps.

Tell that to the bystander killed in their next shootout.

There have been many instances where innocent people have been injured or killed by drug gang violence. I seem to remember a child being killed in a crib when a bullet came through the wall during a drive by shooting.

It would be OK if gang violence effected only the gangs but it does not. It terrorizes entire neighborhoods.

The problem with not pursuing fleeing felons is that more will flee if they know they can get away by driving fast enough. If driving fast is a get out of jail free card, more people will do it.

Re: FTA

[Redmancometh]

The last example ruins your point! Choosing between those 2 isn't easy

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

If cars were banned people would just leave the cities. Might be a good thing after generations of living like rats.

Re:FTA

[0111 1110]

The "criminal activity" will probably turn out to be disorderly conduct or some other charge that the cops just make up on the spot. The fact that they are being so vague about what happened is highly suspicious.

Re:FTA

[Alef]

For what it's worth, that is the standard operating procedure for Swedish police: They fall back and essentially just track the fleeing vehicle at a distance, then coordinate a road block using other vehicles, or just wait until the suspects eventually stop and apprehend them then. The reasoning is that, in most cases, a close pursuit will create even greater danger for innocent bystanders, and for the people in the fleeing car, some of which could be innocent as well (e.g. children).

Re:FTA

[Jappus]

If cars were banned people would just leave the cities. Might be a good thing after generations of living like rats.

Actually, the opposite would happen.

If you would ban cars, people would leave their suburbs in droves and return back into the city core.

After all, that's how it was from the very first cities of Mesopotamia (~65k inhabitants for the city of Ur in 2000 BC!) over the cities and city-states of Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece (~100k inhabitants in 1000-500BC), continuing with Ancient Rome and the first large cities in South America (up to 250k inhabitants) all the way to the metropolises of the industrial Revolution (London, Paris, Berlin; with millions of inhabitants) and finally the mega-cities of today; like Tokio, Shanghai, Singapore, Mexico and New York City with each near or exceeding tens of millions of inhabitants.

As you notice; all the way up to the very recent histories, these cities grew from ~65k people to over 6 million people; all without the help of cars. The jump from then to now (when cars were available) only pushed that up by a factor of 2.

Cars are actually the reason why cities grew slower than before, with the suburbs and "greater metropolitan" areas soaking up most of the excess population that'd otherwise live much closer to the city core where they could make use of public transportation much more easily. You would see nearby cities grow together, until the boundary between them vanishes; like the Ruhrpott [1] (which grew without the presence of cars) which is more like a huge city with multiple city cores.

So tldr; : No cars would mean even bigger cities. Not in terms of density, but sheer diameter and area filled with people.

[1] - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrpott

Re:FTA

[Darby]

Probably -- why risk wrecking the vehicle or attracting further attention once the pursuing police have fallen back?

Now I hate cops for the lying nazi fuckholes the vast majority are as much as any sane person, but I still think "possibly" would fit better than "probably".

My brother's car and the other cars at his apartment were broken into and robbed. We interrupted them and almost got shot. They left and we filed a police report. An hour later the police picked us up and drove us ~20 miles to where they (different cops obviously) had pulled over the people who did it. They were driving over 100 miles an hour in a stolen car with several unregistered guns in the car....20 miles from the scene of the crime. They would have gotten away clean if they acted in the rational manner you suggest.

Shit like that happens a lot.

Elaborate computer crimes or Ocean's 11 type shit takes some serious brain power. Most run of the mill crime just takes balls and often a lack of intelligence rather than an overabundance.

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

. . . is one of the perps named "Justin Bieber", by any chance . . . ?

He said fleeing a firefight not a temper tantrum.

Re: FTA

[Darby]

There have been many instances where innocent people have been injured or killed by drug gang violence.

I think you mean drug law violence.

It would be OK if gang violence effected only the gangs but it does not. It terrorizes entire neighborhoods.

Again, you mean the violence created by drug laws.

We did an experiment called prohibition. It conclusively demonstrated that those sorts of laws and the enforcement thereof are the root cause of increased gang violence and organized crime. Hell, that's why the name "Kennedy" even means anything to you.

Blaming the effect while ignoring the cause is a problem.

Re:FTA

[flayzernax]

Also don't we live in a surveillance state yet? There should be no need to chase when you can just be waiting at their run down shack in the slum.

P.S. I'm not judging the perps. Though by killing an innocent bystander through negligence they are no better than the purported force mongers. I say put em all in the same cell together.

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

I think the unspoken assumption the person you're replying to makes, is that cars have been banned in select cities, but are legal everywhere else. Such a ban would make no sense in rural areas and would never be implemented. A lot of people wouldn't live in a big city if they were offered money to do so. I'm sure that number would increase if it became exceedingly difficult to leave the city to go to anywhere more than 5 miles away. People with extended family in rural areas, people who want to go to a national park once in awhile, are just a few that come to mind.
 
Living like rats has always been my sentiment. (I'm a different AC) Cities make even less sense today because of mass communication -- we don't need cities to be a central forum anymore.

Re:FTA

[wonkey_monkey]

The cynic in me says the offense wasn't extremely grievous if it has thus far gone unnamed: these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents.

The cynic in me says you, like the rest of us, have next to no information about what actually occurred, and are using the event as an excuse to pontificate.

Re:FTA

[Luckyo]

Criminal misconduct that resulted in a firearm-related fatality?

I'm pretty sure you can't just "make up" corpses with gunshot wounds. Not can you "make up" dead people hit by the person running away from the police.

Re:FTA

[wonkey_monkey]

I would guess that one of them transformed into a giant pink unicorn and broke into a rendition of "Livin' La Vida Loca" leaving the cop no other alternative to shooting him. Fun game, who's next?

Re: FTA

[Microlith]

The problem with not pursuing fleeing felons is that more will flee if they know they can get away by driving fast enough. If driving fast is a get out of jail free card, more people will do it.

Yeah, it's not like we could have a helicopter pursue them from a distance or anything. The only thing can do is chase them at dangerously high speeds through crowded areas and risk a violent ending or let them go completely. No middle ground. So we'll just accept that innocent people will die needless, violent deaths for the sake of catching criminals.

Re:FTA

[ubermiester]

these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents

Be careful what you wish for. The next obvious solution to the fleeing suspect problem is the manned/unmanned drone. A spidey-tracer shot onto an escape car can be auto-tracked by a quad-copter. Such technology already exists and will likely be sold as toys in the next few years (the ad reads: "Film your kid playing soccer...from overhead! Tracks her every move and lets you monitor the action in real-time on your smartphone. You can even zoom in on that winning goal as it happens!")

The world of drones is here, and you may end up wishing it was even possible to escape the authorities in a car again.

Re:FTA

[stoploss]

Take it from me: bicycle lanes are confined to larger metro areas, and even then coverage is minor.

Instead, bikers are driving in the road lanes, as is required by law in most places... bikes aren't allowed on sidewalks (where they exist). This often upsets people in cars because there's some biker tooling along at 20 kph in the middle of a single available road lane with a speed limit of 75 kph and thus the biker is restricting all the traffic.

Besides, as another poster pointed out: is it really ideal to bike 100+ km a day in order to commute to/from work? Note that taking the bus isn't practical in most cases due to "inability to get there from here" (in the case of commuting to another area), very poor latency where available, having to switch lines often, and having to walk 2+ km at each end to reach a terminal from home and work. And there are essentially no commuter trains anywhere in the US (this is a reasonable first pass estimate).

Having a car (or carpooling) is essential. I stay fit using methods other than biking to work and then having to baste in my own stink all day (because, you know, most workplaces don't have showers here).

So, you can chalk this up as "sorry, dude, cool idea but it won't work here in most cases" rather than a defense of the stereotypically obese American couch potato who drives their car to get to their mailbox 10 meters away.

Re: FTA

[CastrTroy]

But why live so far from work? Even in a car that still takes a ton of time out of your day. At rush hour speeds, it probably takes 1-1.5 hours to do that commute. That's 2-3 hours of your day lost just to travel back and forth to work. If you live closer to work, the difference between travelling by bike and car is negligible, and in some cases, it takes less time to travel by bike. Some people say they can't afford to live so close to work. Personally, I can't afford to live further.

Re:FTA

[Nyder]

Because you know, guys with guns fleeing after a firefight and a violent encounter with police are totally white, nice and fluffy, model citizens and police should just wait for them to show up again and not try to prevent them from doing it again. What a nice example of police brutality!

Sometimes, it actually helps to read the source:

Authorities say the incident began when officers saw two vehicles full of people involved in some type of criminal activity in the 1000 block of Rosewood Court Thursday. When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Source: http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999

I think you forget how cops act in the United States. Even for small crimes that are NOT violent in nature, they pull out a full squad, armed to the teeth, kick down doors and terrorize whomever they are going after. Since criminals know the cops will have guns out for non violent crimes, then it only makes sense to start shooting at the cops when you see them for violent crimes? Why? Because the cops are going to be gunning for you. Cops actions for all crimes have made it so criminals really have no choice but to get in shoot outs.

Re:FTA

[rmdingler]

Black kittens do better at football and worse on the SAT. Yellow kittens can't drive and the Bombay browns are, truly, smarter than a 5th Grader. Jest saying.

Re: FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

3 hours a day, 5 times a week, 48 weeks a year, 40 years of your life = 28800 hours. Aka 1200 days. Aka, at 300 working days/year rough average, 4 years of your life spent commuting. How can you accept that.

Re:FTA

[kermidge]

And if no helicopter?

Where I live seems like every squad on the force lights out in pursuit; no one looks at a map so no exit points blocked. Just a parade of cop cars 'giving chase', until those fleeing crash, run out of gas, or the county mounties block them on a country road.

Re:FTA

[rmdingler]

Well... there is truth in what you say, but a lifetime of observing has given me cause to carefully examine Authority's use of force. The police can have their job. I do not want it; but law enforcement is a necessary evil, if you will. More times than people want to believe, a posse of college-age men in blue are chasing a 'bad guy' generating the collective testosterone of a rugby scrum. Apologies to the twenty-somethings, but as every older fellow knows, that is not the time of your life when the most rational decisions are made.________________________________________________The penchant for the obvious in me says I've used your post as an excuse to pontificate.

Re:FTA

[rhizome]

apparently the perps were on probation too(and had warrants on their heads).

So, in other words the police knew who they were and had their license plates.

Also, I've not seen anything describing "a firefight," the only description I've seen is that a cop shot someone. Not the same thing.

Re:FTA

[AlphaWolf_HK]

A fatal shooting isn't "deadly violence" enough?

Re:FTA

[drinkypoo]

It's interesting that your reply and those above all mention how poor public transport is, but none mention lack of bicycle lanes.

That's partly because Americans are (on average) lazy spoiled brats who have never been anywhere to see what the rest of the world is like, and partly because our country is bigger than a postage stamp. Many of our states are bigger than many of your countries. Indeed, all but nine of our fifty states are larger than entire nation of The Netherlands.

You can't really blame USians for not having seen the world, though. Many of us are broke, most of the rest can't get the time off if they do have a job, to the North is a country that's much like ours but colder and to the South is a country that's basically experiencing a sort of on and off civil war between druglords and druglords and between cops and druglords. Meanwhile, Europeans can hop on a nice fucking train and visit another country for a few euros. And their money will even work there.

Now, I can't speak for anyone else, but everything about my county is inappropriate for bicycling, and I'm also asthmatic. So really, the only kind of cycling you're going to see me doing is downhill. Given the choice, I'm going to drive (or whatever) to the top, too. But for most of the year it's crappy cold or shitty hot, so even if I were in good condition it would be a bad idea. This is also a really good place to get run over by some old curmudgeon who hates bicyclists or just someone on a lot of drugs, prescription or otherwise. It would make more sense to flap my arms and try to fly.

Re:FTA

[geoskd]

I'm pretty sure you can't just "make up" corpses with gunshot wounds.

I'm pretty sure you can. Making corpses with gunshot wounds requires only a non-corpse that you don't care about, and a gun. Police are regularly in the presence of great quantities of both, often together.

Re:FTA

[geoskd]

A fatal shooting isn't "deadly violence" enough?

It depends who did the murdering, and who got murdered. If the perp murdered a cop, then yes they are well justified in chasing and catching this person, as the altercation will likely occur when and where the perp is apprehended anyway. If the police did the murdering, well then, that's a different matter altogether now isn't it.

Re: FTA

[drinkypoo]

Some people say they can't afford to live so close to work. Personally, I can't afford to live further.

Homes aren't available, or are in fact so expensive that people can't get a down payment. Many of us got no help whatsoever from our parents, who may have been in dire financial straits themselves as both of mine were and probably still are. I've been lucky in terms of commutes but sometimes I've had to be willing to rent a room or what have you because rents are so absurd. The ongoing situation with mortgage foreclosures and banks simply sitting on properties and letting them rot while people go homeless sure isn't helping these matters.

Re:FTA

[drinkypoo]

Cars have a proper time and place. And the proper place is not in the city. Banning cars outright is not the answer, banning them from cities is the right idea though. Replacing them with functional public transportation systems (I still favor PRT, but anything that works is a win) and replacing pavement with trees solves much of what is wrong with a modern city.

Re:FTA

[lxs]

So how is life in Hazzard County these days?

Re: FTA

[hairyfeet]

Probably because he has the same situation as in my state, where if you want to live any closer you 1.- better make at least triple what everybody else does because the nice gated communities are insanely expensive, or 2.- Its "You know where you are? You're in the jungle baby, you're gonna die!" time. Really its THAT extreme, it Mc Mansions or slums, not really anything in between unless you live way the hell away from the capital.

And i don't know about where he lives but you couldn't pay me to ride a bicycle in the state capital, you either stick to the freeway (good way to get run over and I hope you like sucking smog) or again you drive through welcome to the jungle land since its right in the middle of town. Its like that old Chris Rock joke "You're on MLK? RUN,forget the car just RUN!" because even the cops won't go down MLK or main without being in force, not even in daylight, I sure as hell wouldn't try pedaling a bike down MLK.

Re: FTA

[Crewdawg]

If you read further you see that an occupant in that vehicle had just shot and killed a police officer and the three occupants had outstanding warrants.

Re:FTA

[Dahamma]

And when you outlaw outlaws, only outlaws will be outlaws!

Re:FTA

[Capt. Skinny]

a lot of opportunity to travel by bicycle instead of car, but again - many of you just don't want to

I'm one of them. I'm lucky enough to work only a few miles from my house, but not everyone wants to arrive at work drenched in sweat, soaked by rain or snow, or with frostbite. I'll postpone the bike ride until after I get home, on a nice day, when I don't have to maintain a professional appearance at my destination.

These anti-car people have an awfully narrow view of the world, insisting that their favorite niche mode of transportation will work for everyone. The ones in Europe assume that efficient, accessible public transportation is ubiquitous. The ones in American cities don't realize that some people actually have reason to leave the city. The ones advocating bikes assume that the weather is fair, the commute is short, and people can show up to work smelling like they just came from the gym.

Give me a viable alternative to a car that meets my needs without causing congestion and I'll consider it. But don't assume that what works for your personal circumstances will work for everyone.

Re:FTA

[Seumas]

When I saw this story, my first response was that I (mistakenly, apparently) recalled that California and a number of other states had issued a policy (or even a law) to forbid police chases where it is not a life and death issue (kidnapping, etc) as they had been determined to simply cause seriously dangerous situations like this (and that they could usually just as well track them by a helicopter, anyway).

Re:FTA

[Seumas]

It's a good thing the police gave chase, to make sure nobody else got killed.

Re:FTA

[Seumas]

In all fairness, a black child with a candy bar is enough to warrant a shooting by police.

Re:FTA

[Seumas]

Then chasing after than at high speeds is sure to mitigate the fight or flight response...

Re:FTA

[Seumas]

It has everything to do with your chances of being shot or not every time you encounter a cop ready to draw their gun.

Re:FTA

[Seumas]

I don't see how this is acting properly. These guys were out there shooting members of the public. They were not directly a danger to the public at large and since they clearly had stopped the guys and knew who they were (on probation, etc), it's not like they would lose them forever. Call in a chopper. Head to their home. Do a little detective work to track them down. We already know the "give chase" option sure as fuck didn't save any lives. In fact, it took one.

Re: FTA

[Seumas]

No... the guy got in a PHYSICAL altercation with the police and then there was an "officer involved shooting". There is no indication in the reporting I have seen about an "officer down" situation.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

1. They do chase from helicopters when available. The patrol cars need to stay in contact with the fleeing vehicle until the helicopter arrives. In this case the accident happened 1.2 miles from the start of the chase. That is less than two minutes into a chase and a helicopter would not have been on scene yet.
2. Felons know about helicopters and try to out run them too.
3. Police do call off chases in certain circumstances. In this case the fleeing suspects had just shot at police and would be a high priority to apprehend..

So we'll just accept that innocent people will die needless, violent deaths for the sake of catching criminals.

The deaths are not needless; they are a byproduct of catching criminals. We also accept similar risks every day just crossing the street. On the other hand are we to just accept that suspects who flee will almost always get away?
The police are in a hard spot. If they pursue and someone dies they are the bad guys. If they don't pursue and the felons kill someone later, they are the bad guys. It is a no win situation and one can't please everyone all the time.

In the nine year period 1994 through 2002 1088 deaths were of people not in the fleeing vehicle, That is 121 deaths per year in the entire United States. Considering the number of high speed pursuits that occur that is a very small number. That may sound harsh but the benefits of apprehending criminals, who have demonstrated their lack of respect for their lives and the lives of others by entering the high speed chase, outweigh the costs.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

Intra gang violence is caused when one gang tries to protect it's territory from another gang. How is that related to whether or not the substance is illegal? Do you see Ford dealers shooting at Chevy dealers?

Re:FTA

[Solandri]

As you notice; all the way up to the very recent histories, these cities grew from ~65k people to over 6 million people; all without the help of cars. The jump from then to now (when cars were available) only pushed that up by a factor of 2.

You're comparing 4000 years of growth and 100 years of growth as if they're somehow equivalent?

So tldr; : No cars would mean even bigger cities. Not in terms of density, but sheer diameter and area filled with people.

That conclusion doesn't fit the data. Here's U.S. census data from 1800 to 1990 of the percentage of the population living in urban vs. rural areas. As you can see, the advent of widespread car ownership does not correlate with a slowdown in urbanization as you're hypothesizing.

What's going on is that in order to support a city, you need to be able to transport goods and resources in and out of the city. Improved transportation facilitated that, and allowed cities to grow bigger than before. If a city needs x amount of food every day, and transportation in the 1800s by horse and wagon can only bring food from a 25 mile radius into the city in a day, then the city's population is capped at whatever food you can grow in a 25 mile radius (this is a simplified explanation - I know some food can survive trips of greater than a day). In the 1900s transportation improved to where you can bring in food from a 250 mile radius, and thus the city's population cap was higher. Current trucking and speed limits pushes that radius out to about 500 miles (though modern refrigeration increases the timeframe to several days), and so our cities can be much larger. The start of the shift to an urban population in the U.S. actually correlates almost exactly with the advent of railroads (1830s-1850s).

Re:FTA

[jklovanc]

The accident happened 1.2 miles from the start of the chase. That is less than 2 minutes into the chase. The police would have had not not even start a chase for this to not happen.

Re:FTA

[Solandri]

That's the policy in many areas of the U.S. as well. The final decision though rests on how easy it will be to track the fleeing vehicle. In a rural area or on a highway, it's pretty easy. In a city with lots of buildings and parking structures, not so much.

Re:FTA

[jklovanc]

In this case the police didn't have a chance to fall back as the accident occurred 1.2 miles from the start of the pursuit. That is about a minute into the pursuit.

Re:FTA

[chihowa]

Where I live has bicycle lanes (I'm only seven miles from work and would love to bike every day), but they are largely only present on larger busy streets and often the bike lanes are shared with on-street parking. Due to this arrangement, bikers are killed and seriously injured all the time. Car drivers rarely even manage to see the bikers, but when they do they often act extremely aggressive toward them. I tried biking to work for a couple of months, but every day contained at least one near collision with a car that would have left me maimed.

When I lived in a college town, biking was possible, but biking in a big city in the US is flirting with death.

Re: FTA

[scarboni888]

Here's how I read your post: "So in order to avoid risking the lives of innocent bystanders, the police must take action which may risk the lives of innocent bystanders"

Doesn't seem like we get much further ahead with that, really.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

The issue is with scale. In a 9 year period 1088 people lost their lives outside the pursued vehicle in the US. Considering the number of pursuits over that period of time 121 per year is a pretty small number. If no high speed chases were done I bet more than 121 deaths per year would result just from the drunk drivers who didn't get caught This is the same logic that comes with many life saving medications. All medications have a chance of saving a life and a small chance of complications that will take a life. So in effect all medications are saving lives and risking them at the same time.

Re: FTA

[tftp]

First, you have zoning. City fathers decreed that you must work in one zone, buy your groceries in another, and sleep in third. You can easily see these zones in Google Earth. Some are small and navigable on a bike, other are large.

Second, you have areas of the town that are residential but bad for your health. Want to live near an industrial zone? No problem. But it will be surrounded by freeways that deliver noise, dust and pollution right into your house 24/7. These or other areas have high crime.

Third, you can have nice residential areas of the town that are still within reach of your office. But these areas are built up with condos or apartment buildings. Not everyone is excited about such living conditions.

Fourth, you can have nice residential areas where you can buy a detached house. However you cannot afford that, period. You are not the only one who is smart enough to want a nice house in a nice area *and* close to everything else.

Fifth, and finally, you end up with a house that is 20-30 miles away, in a different town. There is plenty of land there, and it's cheaper. You will be living next to farms, and you will be seeing cows and horses every day. You can buy fresh produce there; you will know your neighbors, but they will be far enough to not intrude upon you. You can have a larger house, you can have dogs, you can enjoy life. In exchange for all that you have to drive to work for 30-40 minutes one way, and there might be traffic.

There is yet another catch. Once you buy the house and start the family there, you may need to change jobs. This may happen without you ever asking for it. Business is volatile, and whole businesses are closing down. The laws are not stable either; Obamacare is driving reduction of worked hours now. If you are lucky you may find another job, but how close or how far will that be from your home? It costs a lot of money to sell one house and buy another. Many people cannot afford it. Moving every few years is a disaster from every point of view.

This means that a bicycle is a viable vehicle for a young person who lives in an apartment, works nearby, and has no family to support. (Just the groceries alone will bend your bike into a letter W.) Rear seats in my car are folded down for years, and I always carry something in that extended cargo space.

Re: FTA

[Crewdawg]

I stand corrected. Either way, this was not a running a stop sign car chase. It started with a physical alteration, leading to someone ring fatally shot. The car being chased was known to be full of criminals at the time it was being chased.

The point still stands that the police could have stopped the chase. The outcome may not have changed.

Re:FTA

[Sardaukar86]

You still don't get it....

Why do they have to be white kittens?

Racist

Fuck you. You know damn well what he meant but you're one of those cunts that won't let reason trump the opportunity to scream 'Racist'.

Well FUCK YOU again, utter fucking cunts like you are far, far worse than racists.

Re:FTA

[icebike]

Police were pursuing a vehicle for an unnamed offense which ran several red lights before striking Reisse's vehicle at an intersection. The cynic in me says the offense wasn't extremely grievous if it has thus far gone unnamed: these testosterone-fueled police chases kill far too many innocents.

The cynic in you is dead wrong.

Quote: the link in TFA:

Authorities say the incident began when officers saw two vehicles full of people involved in some type of criminal activity in the 1000 block of Rosewood Court Thursday. When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Also

Police say all are gang members on probation, with outstanding warrants for their arrest.

Re:FTA

[baegucb]

Reisse was a pedestrian in a crosswalk, not a driver.
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9122999

Re:FTA

[Anonymous Coward]

That's the policy in many areas of the U.S. as well. The final decision though rests on how easy it will be to track the fleeing vehicle. In a rural area or on a highway, it's pretty easy. In a city with lots of buildings and parking structures, not so much.

In a city with lots of buildings and parking structures, it would be even easier.

About 20 years ago, there was a rare robbing of a jewelry shop in a city center using guns done in Asia, where guns were outlawed. The criminals drove their car and flee. Chasing them would exactly replicate the problem you see in the article, innocent bystanders would be put in danger.

So what did the local police do? They simply switched ALL traffic lights in the area to red, then surrounded the area on foot (the traffic lights outside the area remained normal, so the police can quickly drive to the perimeter, then proceed on foot). Parking structures nearby? Just call their management and tell them to stop allowing any car in/out of the lot (just one switch from the security guard posts, all parking lots in the city are paid lots, and those always have someone on guard in case the payment facilities are not working. The guard can just switch off the payment system and no car can enter or leave.)

The criminals now found themselves stuck in a traffic jam, and the police totally surrounded the area. Once they get off the car, they will be spotted. But if they remained in the car, they have no where to run. Once the police located the criminals, they can change the traffic lights in other road sections to clear nearby of bystanders, and proceed to surround the smaller area.

In the end, the criminals were caught without anyone being hurt.

THAT is how police do their work if their priority is "protect and serve", in that order. Protecting innocents is the first priority, criminals can be tracked and caught afterwards even if they got away once.

Re:FTA

[Luckyo]

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about a Western country, not Somalia.

Re:FTA

[Mr. Freeman]

Not really. There is no mental health test, there are no periodic tests (you just have to show up and fill out a paper, you are NEVER tested again), there is no waiting period, and suspension only happens if you kill multiple people. Also, NONE of these restrictions apply unless you want to drive on public roads. If you want to use the vehicle on private property then you don't have to register it.

Cars kill far more people than guns (by many orders of magnitude) and yet they are far less controlled than guns. Interesting.

Re: FTA

[ArsonSmith]

No because making and selling fords and chevys is legal. Making and selling drugs is illegal and the area it is most profitable to do it in is an area you'd both want to protect if it's yours or acquire if it's someone elses.

Re: FTA

[KingMotley]

I would recommend moving to another state, because yours sounds like crap.

Re:FTA

[Sardaukar86]

I am sensing that you aren't white.

You sense wrong.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

The point is that the drug gangs are killing competitors and generally not the police who are enforcing the fact that the drugs are illegal. It is quite possible for illegal drugs to be sold without gang violence. I live in a city where one can get just about any illegal drug one wants and there is no gang violence. The difference is that gangs enforce monopolies with guns instead of competing for customers like legitimate businesses. The gang violence is more about the greed and disdain for life on the part ofthe gangs than the illegality of the drugs.

Re: FTA

[Alef]

The problem with not pursuing fleeing felons is that more will flee if they know they can get away by driving fast enough.

What do you base this assertion on? It suggests that with the current situation, a significant number of felons stop and hand themselves over as soon as the police initiates a chase, because they might not get away with certainty. I'm much more inclined to believe that someone who has just committed a felony, and is being chased by the police, is going to flee regardless of their chances. Even if there is just tiny shred of hope of getting away, people try to run.

Re:FTA

[dunkelfalke]

There is a "yo dawg" joke inside there somewhere.

Re: FTA

[Alef]

In the nine year period 1994 through 2002 1088 deaths were of people not in the fleeing vehicle, That is 121 deaths per year in the entire United States. Considering the number of high speed pursuits that occur that is a very small number. That may sound harsh but the benefits of apprehending criminals, who have demonstrated their lack of respect for their lives and the lives of others by entering the high speed chase, outweigh the costs.

The total number of high speed chases isn't a terribly interesting number if you're going to do a cost-benefit analysis. What's important is the number of criminals apprehended by virtue of the high speed chases, that would not have been apprehended by other means, and the amount of damage these criminals would have done while free.* So while you have the cost side pretty much covered -- 121 deaths per year is at least the most obvious component of it, property damages aside (although I would argue that the lives of the people in the chased car have some value as well, even when the driver is suspected to have committed a crime) -- the benefit side isn't at all clear in any quantitative terms, so I'm not sure how you can conclude that the benefits outweigh the costs.

That is, unless you think it's worth 121 human lives per year out of mere principle.

(* Or if you want to be thorough, the number of "criminal hours" times damage per hour. Other means of capture might be slower. On the other hand, most serial criminals would presumably get caught for other crimes sooner or later.)

Re:FTA

[archshade]

No you don't have to do any of that. You simple need to be outspoken and equally loud as the nuts (WBC are not the only ones, just the best known). The issue is that from outside it looks like most Americans are staying quiet on the subject. The people at the head of WBC are obviously clever and using US law to there advantage, are there no people with comparable skill set that see there actions as abhorrent and willing to take them on? Or are people to scared to take on these hate spewers, that they wont stand up and at least go on record that they don't? Maybe people just don't think its worth there time.

I know there are people who protest against the bigots but it is a small proportion of the community. If 70%+ came to a few of these protests it would send a clear message that the majority did not agree with there message, and found it disturbing/painful/unwanted/ etc... This would send a strong message to all the people viewing. As it is there is no way to tell that Average Joe does not agree or at least not see a big problem with the actions of the group.

Re: FTA

[ClioCJS]

No, it doesn't.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

Then there are those who do a minor offense that would know if they sped up the would almost certainly get away. Think of these scenarios;
Without police chases;
I am being pulled over for expired tags. If I run at high speed I will get away because the police won't chase me and not have to pay the fine. I'll run at high speed.
With police chases;
I am being pulled over for expired tags. If I run I will probably be caught and go to jail or possibly die in an accident. I'll pull over and pay the damn fine.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

There was a traffic stop that turned into a high speed chase that ended in the capture of a man that was on a multi state killing spree. He had already killed at least three people and was planning on killing more. Had the chase not occurred more people would have been killed.

The "what if the chase never happened" numbers are very difficult to come by as it is almost impossible to know what might have happened. The only thing we can go by is generalities. I find it hard to believe that letting every person who initiates a high speed chase go would not cause more damage than the deaths of 117 people per year. The number of habitual drunk drivers that would not be caught would cause more deaths than that.

Re: FTA

[Alef]

OK, so now we are talking about minor offences instead. I agree that that is a different situation, but I think you are wrong about the first scenario (no chases). What would realistically happen is that the police would look up my license plate, and a couple of them would be waiting at my porch when I got home to greet me, not only with the fine for the expired tag, but with speeding and reckless driving charges as well. So I would certainly not run at high speed.

Re: FTA

[Alef]

The "what if the chase never happened" numbers are very difficult to come by as it is almost impossible to know what might have happened.

Sure, estimating such numbers is probably difficult, although hardly impossible. It's the sort of thing someone working as a researcher in the field would spend a lot of time doing (and then hopefully publish!).

I'm not going to argue with your conclusion, since neither I have any data to support a different one. I'll simply satisfy with noting that neither of us knows whether the benefits outweigh the costs, and that I don't think the answer is particularly obvious by only looking at a single case and the total number of innocents dead.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

Can't prove that the owner of the vehicle was driving unless you catch them in the act. All one can prove is that the vehicle was on the road and not who was driving it. For those serious offences one can not charge the vehicle. Then there is the issue if stolen plates and stolen vehicles.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

Since nether of us have data we have to go on belief. Considering the number of drunk drivers that kill innocent people I believe that if drunk drivers sped away and were not chased there would be more deaths than not chasing.

Re:FTA

[drinkypoo]

employers won't provide showers until a significant percentage of potential employees start demanding them

...there, fixed that for you. Meanwhile, if you want to get to work and keep one of the few jobs available when hiring managers are often hit with thousands of resumes for any new position, you're going to need to smell like you had a shower in the morning, because we still care about such things.

This is a good drum to beat when times are good, not when there's dozens to thousands of resumes waiting for each job to become available.

Re: FTA

[Alef]

Technically, maybe, but they would still drag me to court*, where I would have to argue that I in fact wasn't driving the car, potentially against photographic evidence showing someone resembling me in the drivers seat. It's pretty much the same situation as with a traffic enforcement camera, really. So instead of paying the initial fine, I would drive away in high speed (to my own peril), probably get arrested by police officers at my home for all my neighbours to see, have to explain to my boss that I need to take some days off to go to court, lie under oath in the court, risk getting convicted of much more serious offences, and I would probably still have to pay the expired tag fine.

(* At least where I live, YMMV.)

Re:FTA

[hairyfeet]

Dude the state capital in my home state covers more than 30 miles counting the subdivisions, you expect people to bike that shit? Man you could take the entire Netherlands and drop it into most states in the USA and there would be land left over, I really don't think you quite grasp the scale you are talking about here. There was a story a few years back on a guy that decided to bike across the 50 states, know how long it took him with him doing NOTHING but that 9+ hours a day? Nearly 8 YEARS.

Then there is the other elephant in the room, the fact that in most places you get the "choice" of either biking on the freeway (which I hope you like sucking smog and being a target for inattentive drivers) or you can bike through the inner city...just be sure to pin a note to your body so we know where to send your corpse when the gang bangers are done using you for target practice. Our fricking coroner has to wear a BPV when he goes to the inner city and I'll never forget a video of him trying to pick up a body, with him picking up a megaphone and saying "Stop shooting he's dead already,not an ambulance, I'm the meat wagon!" and he still ended up with a half a dozen rounds in the vehicle.

So biking? REALLY not an option friend. In my home town they got tired of all the splattered bicyclists so they banned 'em on city streets, you can only go 2 miles or less without risking a ticket, and instead made a bike path...3 miles out of town and which goes absolutely nowhere, just a flat paved road that goes along a bunch of fields, so if you want to bike for anything other than exercise here? Tough shit.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

It's pretty much the same situation as with a traffic enforcement camera

Traffic violations have a different burden of proof than criminal complaints. Traffic cameras are used in speed traps and red light cameras. Both of these are relatively minor fines and are charged to the vehicle. More serious offences like excessive speed, hit and run, etc which could entail jail time require proof of who was driving.

I would drive away in high speed (to my own peril),

Some people believe they are great drivers

probably get arrested by police officers at my home for all my neighbours to see,

To some people that is a badge of honor.

have to explain to my boss that I need to take some days off to go to court

It would never get to court as any vaguely competent defense lawyer would get the case dismissed long before it went to court on precedents alone. Any district attorney would be sanctioned for even placing the charges. They may pay the fine but the police didn't get the cocane that was in the back seat.

Re:FTA

[kermidge]

It's a city of ~70,000 in north central U.S. There's a Flight for Life chopper based at the local airport, used to be a National Guard squadron of Hueys until about ten years back, and some whirlybirds from some of the TV stations at a city not too far away. Oh, and there's a charter operation has a helicopter, don't know if it's used by sheriffs or city.

Re:FTA

[rtb61]

Probability kills us all, one way or another.

Re: FTA

[hairyfeet]

Riiiight, because in a dead economy one can afford to just throw everything away and move because some basement dweller thinks i need to ride a bike to work. And what magical state would you suggest? Again the USA simply isn't designed around a bicycle, and nearly all places where you can get a job better than saying "You want fries with that?" to ride a bike will either have you living in a closet that cost every cent you make because of how high the nice neighborhoods are, or you better be comfy wearing a BPV and having a 9mm on your little bike trek.

Re: FTA

[KingMotley]

First of all, what "dead economy"? We have an unemployment rate of 7.5%, which is still higher than normal for the US, but lower than many countries. Secondly, it's not magic to happen to live in a non-shitty state. Come to Illinois, between the metra trains, and a bike, you can get anywhere. Live in the suburbs, bike to the train, and either walk or ride or bike the office. It's not a magic state, and it has some of it's own problems, but public transportation isn't one of them mostly. And no, you don't need a BPV or a 9mm downtown. Not unless you want to go into the bad neighborhoods, which unless you are a large person and of a minority race I'd highly recommend you don't live there anyway, and most jobs are around the central loop, far far away from any bad neighborhoods.

Not all the roads have bike lanes, but many of them do, with more and more of them popping up every day.

Re: FTA

[Alef]

It feels like this is going in circles a bit; are we back at felons again? So in summary, your argument is that felons would not get caught for minor traffic offences as often, because in those cases they would choose to run, and don't particularly mind the judicial aftermath that it could lead to. Sure, you may have a point there. It feels a bit construed, but given that your original claim was only that "more people will run", I have to concede that at least from a strictly formal standpoint you are probably correct.

(By the way, over here no offence can be charged to a vehicle. Speed traps fall in the same category as other traffic offences, meaning they have to prove who the driver is. But like I said, "your mileage may vary".)

Re: FTA

[Alef]

Since nether of us have data we have to go on belief.

Yes, well, or not. I those cases I tend to stop at "I don't know". But I guess people are different.

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

I too prefer to stop at "I don't know" but in certain cases that is not possible. The question at hand is should high speed chases occur or not. There is no data to support either contention but a decision needs to be made. My gut feeling is that letting all fleeing suspects go is a bad one. There definitely needs to be guidelines to control the risk but a blanked ban is not the answer.

Re: FTA

[oreiasecaman]

First, you have zoning. City fathers decreed that you must work in one zone, buy your groceries in another, and sleep in third.

Maybe those city fathers played too much SimCity in their time?

Re:FTA

[oreiasecaman]

There was a story a few years back on a guy that decided to bike across the 50 states, know how long it took him with him doing NOTHING but that 9+ hours a day? Nearly 8 YEARS.

That's the proverbial snail's pace I guess

Re: FTA

[tftp]

There is no evidence that they ever stopped playing.

Re: FTA

[strikethree]

Hm. Very valid points. I suppose the only question left is the actual success rate with catching fleeing criminals. If the rate is low, then I would suggest that chasing them is not a good idea. If the rate is high, then I would suggest that chasing them is a good idea.

Personally, I like the idea of catching criminals in the act. Makes the death penalty much more appealing.

Re: FTA

[Agent0013]

And you think licence plates mean nothing?!?

Re: FTA

[jklovanc]

Stolen cars, stolen plates and the owner may not be the driver. It is not valid to suspend the license of someone who loaned their vehicle to a friend who drove while drunk. Also they have to prove that the suspect was driving while drunk. If they catch up with him hours later the driver could be sober by then or say he drank when he got home. All a suspect needs is reasonable doubt and that is easy if the diver is not caught in the act. It is like the ruling that an IP address is not proof that the owner of the hardware broke copyrights. A license plate is not proof that the owner of the vehicle broke the law.

Re: FTA

[Redmancometh]

I was saying it's contrary to your point, because suppressing the WBC is a really good argument against the first amendment. At least the was the absurdity I was trying to create.
Whoosh.

Re: FTA

[ClioCJS]

It's not a whoosh, it's that I fundamentally disagree, so I do not evaluate my statement the same as you.

People should be able to express whatever they want on public property. If you only respect the rights of people when they use them in a way you agree with, then you don't actually respect those rights. "Freedom of speech unless I disagree with you" is not freedom, but an illusion of freedom.

Re: FTA

[hairyfeet]

If you believe those bullshit numbers the government keeps pulling out its ass i have a nice bridge you might be interested in, as those numbers DO NOT COUNT those that have given up, those with degrees flipping burgers because that was all they could get, or those stuck trying to survive on a part time job because no full time jobs are to be had.

Summer is here, if you have some vacation time (which most people don't) why don't you take a little road trip to the midwest and south to see the REAL story, you'll see business districts that look like something out of Escape From New York, huge sections of towns consisting of boarded up buildings, in a good portion of the country it looks like those pictures you see of the great depression.

And again what you are describing exists ONLY in a few coastal cities, no trains, no buses, no public transport in a good size section of the country. Lets take my home state's capital for example, no buses except for a tiny line that goes between MLK and the shopping mall so your white ass ain't gonna be riding that, and unless you want to be sucking smog on the freeway you'll have to live in the river district, housing there starts at 3 quarters of a mil and rental properties can easily cost you 4k and up, and this is in a state where the average person makes less than 40k a year.

so sorry but I'm throwing a flag, bullshit on the field. unless you want to live packed in like rats in one of the coastal megacities what you are describing? Doesn't exist. Hell I'd pay good money to see you try to bike through MLK in DFW, Memphis, or pretty much any major city as I'd be willing to bet you'd be a hood ornament or target practice for a gang banger before your ass even made 5 blocks, and unless you are a CxO of a fortune 500 company your ass ain't living close enough to bike to work unless you want to live in the jungle that is the inner cities. Hell most cops won't even go down MLK in most cities without a major show of force or SWAT, your ass wouldn't last 20 minutes trying to bike through there.

Re: FTA

[KingMotley]

take a little road trip to the midwest

Ok, I pulled out of my driveway. Whew, that was far. Now what were you saying? I'll see the REAL deal? Oh.

what you are describing exists ONLY in a few coastal cities

Chicago? A coastal city? That's a new on me. I guess if you want to consider Lake Michigan a coast, then sure. Do you could any city with a river within 30 miles or pond a coastal city too?

Hell I'd pay good money to see you try to bike through MLK in DFW, Memphis, or pretty much any major city

I would consider Chicago a major city. Yes, the same city I just talked about. Wow, your reading comprehension is pretty low.

If you believe those bullshit numbers the government keeps pulling out its ass

Get off your lazy butt, stop bitching about how the world is ending, and realize that you are all alone. Housing prices have gone up 15% on average NATION WIDE. The stock market is up 25%-ish this year alone. The government says unemployment is down to less than 7.5%. Banks are making credit available again. Interest rates are rising. Hairyfeet says we have a dead economy. Which one of those things doesn't belong? If you think we still have a dead economy, I'd have a bridge to sell you, but apparently you don't have the money for a gum ball let alone a bridge. I'll sell it to one of the other 92.5% that realize the world isn't ending.

Re: FTA

[Alef]

Sure, but that decision doesn't have to be made by us, or anyone else on an internet tech forum, and that's not what we are doing here either. Those who do, however, have both the time and the resources to do some thorough research before deciding.

More to the point, there is a difference between making a decision based on intuition, in the face of incomplete knowledge, and stating that intuition as a fact. In a discussion of this sort, it is important to separate what we know from what we presume, and that's what I'm getting at. While I'm also guessing that a blanket ban would probably not be optimal, I don't think it's clear or has been established that the current situation is optimal either, or even net positive. Perhaps it is, perhaps the ideal lies somewhere in between, or even on the side of more chases.

(If I were to continue to speculate, however, I would wager it is more likely that car chases happen too often than too seldom, simply based on the psychological dynamics involved; that it is mentally more rewarding in a heated situation like that to "go after the criminals" rather than to show intellectually conditioned restraint and composure -- and people are not perfect.)

Just to be clear, nevertheless, the anecdotal evidence provided by TFA is not by any means ground for assuming that the police is overeager in going after suspects in high-speed car chases, like many here seem to have assumed. The 1088 deaths figure you provided was much more interesting (although it is incomplete). So thank you for that.

Sadness

[jimmetry]

Too young :(

Last words.

[Anonymous Coward]

"It's so real, it's like it's coming right at me !"

Re:Last words.

[Roachie]

Man... thats kinda a dickhead comment at this stage. But I wonder if the fact that the guy spent months/years in a 3D environment ignoring simulated danger... could it have affected this poor slobs reaction time??

Bus factor

[Edulix]

It's a strong thing to say, but this is what happens when the bus factor strikes.

Please update the Oculus wiki

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know enough about the gentleman to do so but it stands to reason he deserves mention on their wiki page, albeit posthumously.

At a glance i see no mention of him and it appears he was rather integral.

Go ahead, use crosswalks, see you in heaven!

[Anonymous Coward]

let's see here....

Jwalk, risk a cop stop but probably live through them all

vs.

Crosswalk, where you face death all around you

Re:Reckless Cops

[DiamondGeezer]

Amazing.

Re:Reckless Cops

[thegarbz]

In addition to the fault that lies with the driver that struck him, Reisse is also a victim of these "hero" cops' negligence and incompetence in chasing that suspect in the first place. New York City seems to manage with its no-pursuit policy; what's the Santa Ana Police Department's excuse?

Maybe you should actually do a bit of research before running your mouth (figuratively speaking).

From the ABC:

When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Investigators allege 21-year-old Victor Sanchez and two other suspects then took off in a Dodge Charger. With Sanchez at the wheel, the Charger slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse, police said. ...

Police say all are gang members on probation, with outstanding warrants for their arrest.

Or do you condone that we just let anyone who flees from a fatal firefight by getting into a car just escape because catching them may be a bit risky?

Re:He should not have been pursued

[Charliemopps]

Oh really?
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/two-dead-after-police-car-chase-8554266.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2012/sep/04/azelle-rodney-shooting-police-chase-video

As usual some British asshole uses the word "yank" and "Cowboy" to describe something that's happening in his own backyard. This isn't a US problem, it's a police problem. If anything, UK police have an even bigger sense of "We're your mommy and daddy, do what we say" than they do in the US.

Re:Reckless Cops

[ClioCJS]

It is actually progressive policy in many jurisdictions that you disengage a police chase when it becomes a danger to the public, as this chase was. The police actually acted as an accelerant to the harm here. The criminal activity that originally started this might have just been them smoking a joint. In this case, the major harm to society was caused by the police. This is also why it's against police policy to shoot at a fleeing vehicle. "OMG do you condone letting someone dangerous get away, just because the police might shoot an innocent bystander?!?!"

"Fatal officer-involved shooting" means a cop shot one of them.

It's pretty easy to track people via helicopter, or all the damn cameras everywhere. It's really hard to hide. Especially if they were to commit a real crime with a real victim at some point in the future.

Re:Reckless Cops

[cffrost]

In addition to the fault that lies with the driver that struck him, Reisse is also a victim of these "hero" cops' negligence and incompetence in chasing that suspect in the first place. New York City seems to manage with its no-pursuit policy; what's the Santa Ana Police Department's excuse?

Maybe you should actually do a bit of research before running your mouth (figuratively speaking).

From the ABC:

When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Investigators allege 21-year-old Victor Sanchez and two other suspects then took off in a Dodge Charger. With Sanchez at the wheel, the Charger slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse, police said. ...

Police say all are gang members on probation, with outstanding warrants for their arrest.

Or do you condone that we just let anyone who flees from a fatal firefight by getting into a car just escape because catching them may be a bit risky?

False dichotomy; I condone coordinating roadblocks — not instigating further carnage, which is exactly the outcome that occurred here.

Re:Reckless Cops

[Charliemopps]

Ok, think of it this way. Lets say instead of jumping into a car, the suspects picked up a pipe bomb with a dead-mans switch. Would the police chase them? No. They'd follow slowly at a safe distance. Now, why wouldn't they chase them with the same vigor as the car chase? There's a big difference between a car chase and a pipe bomb, and it's not really obvious at first. Both chases end with a lethal release of energy... the bomb explodes, the car crashes. No suspect fleeing from a murder scene is going to stop until he crashes after all... The difference is the cars lethal force is uni-directional. The POLICE'S lives are not in danger. When the suspects come to a stop that lethal force is applied in the opposite direction of the police. So the police will not risk their own lives, but if it's the public who's in danger from their actions they're not as concerned.

Re:He should not have been pursued

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

A major crime...like someone's death...before this incident?

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[arth1]

"Victor Sanchez". There's a nice, 'American' name...

Unless your own name is in the vein of "Runs Through", "Onawa" or "Aipaloovik", you can shut up now.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[drinkypoo]

Victor Sanchez is a nice American name. Mine is another exemplary example, if I do say so myself. Anonymous Coward, however, sounds British, or possibly French.

Re:Reckless Cops

[berashith]

so what we have is "some guys were obviously up to something" , as the crime being investigated. I would like to know exactly what it was. When a group of police charge into a group of gang members who are on probation, there is a high likelihood that the gang members will react in a negative way. They may have been mugging old ladies, or they may have been just sitting around talking. Testosterone takes over on both sides, and a firefight breaks out. Again, did this need to happen? We will only know when the original reason that the police decided to engage the group is releases.

I am not saying that these guys are innocent, or didnt need to be arrested for whatever they were doing, but the end result is a completely unrelated innocent person has died do to the processes being followed by the police. Maybe they were saving someone else, maybe they just instigated a crime by looking hard enough.

Re:Reckless Cops

[Bing Tsher E]

What does 'progressive policy' mean? It seems like a rather imprecise term.

something has to be changed

[zr]

there should be a better way of catching perps, a way that doesnt involve putting the innocent at grave risk.

perhaps we dont chase them withe swarm of squad cars but deploy a swarm of small UAVs to keep an eye on them until a more local unit can pick them up sans the dangerous chase.

there has to be a better way..

Re:something has to be changed

[elashish14]

there should be a better way of catching perps, a way that doesnt involve putting the innocent at grave risk.

Sarlac pits.

Re:something has to be changed

[zr]

+1!

Re:something has to be changed

[strikethree]

There is but it is not an option due to the fact that the government will abuse it: Place transponders in ALL vehicles.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[Holi]

So not only are you a racist and a white supremacist, but your also an idiot.

Re:Reckless Cops

[mwvdlee]

False dichotomy; I condone coordinating roadblocks — not instigating further carnage, which is exactly the outcome that occurred here.

I for one condone split-second deployment of roadblocks in unpredictable locations as well.
While we're at it, why didn't the policecars just start flying and use their tractorbeams to lift the car up from the road?

Everybody, especially the police, prefers safe methods over risky methods.
Sadly, there aren't always safe methods available when and where you want them.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[mwvdlee]

A worthless, selfish, non-white piece of shit, who wasn't worth the dirt on your shoes, who shouldn't be IN your country in the first place.

"Give me your tired, your poor/Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free"

UAV? won't work.

[bussdriver]

They'll just run like mad to get away UAV or not. If they are in flight mode they'll instinctively run like a wild animal without reason. This is why somebody surrounded will jump out of the car and run hopelessly on foot - the survival instinct is strong in those perps...

Real Solutions:
GPS gun. Shoot the car with a tracking device.

Use the car's built-in blackbox GPS cell modem (high end but often those features become standard)

Cell phone tracking - detect any pings from the phone in the car then track it... even possibly ID the driver.

Have all cars give off radio IDs (could even be audio) which can be triangulated accurately; which is being done today with gunshot sounds (even to the point of knowing the kind of gun.)

Use computer tracking to smartly predict where to intercept.

Stun gun for cars or remote shutdown of cars. Don't know why a stun gun system hasn't already been mandated. Radio freq stops all cars within range for example. You have zero rights to prevent such things; but the lawyers and prisons love that you are constantly given choices that can be used against you for their benefit.

Re:UAV? won't work.

[zr]

They'll just run like mad to get away UAV or not

why would they do that if they dont know they're being chased? worst case they make few turns, ditch the car and get away by blending into population. tragic, i know, but i'll take that over losing an innocent life.

Re:UAV? won't work.

[RobertLTux]

even better use the cars engine "blackbox" to cut the engines and remote lock the car. heck with a decent flatbed you can have an officer (with safety harness) read them their rights on the way to impound/holding.

Re:Collateral damage

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi Fred Phelps! Does God hate FPS too?

Re:Reckless Cops

[0111 1110]

We will only know when the original reason that the police decided to engage the group is releases.

Unfortunately we may never know. If it was something trivial you can bet that they will simply make something up so that it sounds justified. The majority of the public will believe the cops over the suspects and those cops are well aware of that.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[Nimey]

You could at least have the stones to not post as an AC if you're going to say something like that.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[jwinterm]

idiot and a grammar nazi, apparently

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[burningcpu]

I get where you're coming from, but if you go far back enough on the timeline, we're all immigrants, including the 'Native' Americans.

Re:He should not have been pursued

[flayzernax]

Than in the case of good laws and freedom. The bystanders will be able to protect themselves just fine without the police.

Re:The Danger of Police Chases

[flayzernax]

They are a deterrent. But should not be the only deterrent or last hope for us all. There are things called U.S. Marshalls. And bounty hunters. etc... We can track people down and arrest them in safer situations.

Sounds more like these cops may have wanted to be a big hero catching the gangers in the middle of something and jumped their guns.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[Anubis IV]

I know a Victor Sanchez. Nice guy. Brilliant mind. American through and through. I had the pleasure of working alongside him for three semesters when we were both assigned as Teaching Assistants to a senior-level, 650 student, Ethics in Engineering course at a major American university. He was working on his PhD in Philosophy at the time, while I was working on my Masters in Computer Science, and we ended up working together quite a bit, since I was the lead TA over the 14 that we had, and he was the guy who took the lead with the seven philosophy TAs.

From what I recall, he does have a Mexican heritage, but his roots in the country go back further than my own, since my ancestors didn't immigrate from northern and western Europe until the late 1800s. And yet you'd likely be fine with me while finding fault with him, simply because he has a Hispanic name and tan-colored skin, despite the fact that he's better educated than I am, has a richer and longer heritage in America, and speaks clearly with an American accent that's better than my own slurred way of talking.

Judging a person by their name alone is just about the shallowest thing I can think of.

I AM YOUR DENSITY.....

[TiggertheMad]

So tldr; : No cars would mean even bigger cities. Not in terms of density, but sheer diameter and area filled with people.

The parent doesn't spell this out, but denser == better. As density increases, per capita will fall, public transportation dollars give you more bang for the buck.

Re:I AM YOUR DENSITY.....

[TiggertheMad]

No. Because then, the number of people at each train stop will increase, requiring more trains/drivers/tracks.

..and more is better, because then things will run more often and be more convenient to use because more specialized routs and solutions become affordable. As more people use the systems, more money will become available to develop and grow new systems.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[wonkey_monkey]

So not only are you a racist and a white supremacist, but your also an idiot.

-1 Tautological.

Re:Reckless Cops

[Nyder]

In addition to the fault that lies with the driver that struck him, Reisse is also a victim of these "hero" cops' negligence and incompetence in chasing that suspect in the first place. New York City seems to manage with its no-pursuit policy; what's the Santa Ana Police Department's excuse?

Maybe you should actually do a bit of research before running your mouth (figuratively speaking).

From the ABC:

When officers went to investigate, there was a physical altercation between police and 26-year-old Gerardo Diego Ayala that ended with a fatal officer-involved shooting. Police say a gun was located at the scene.

Investigators allege 21-year-old Victor Sanchez and two other suspects then took off in a Dodge Charger. With Sanchez at the wheel, the Charger slammed into two vehicles during the pursuit before hitting Reisse, police said. ...

Police say all are gang members on probation, with outstanding warrants for their arrest.

Or do you condone that we just let anyone who flees from a fatal firefight by getting into a car just escape because catching them may be a bit risky?

Maybe if the cops in america weren't so big on pulling guns for non violent offenders, they wouldn't find so many serious offenders willing to shoot them.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[CAIMLAS]

Since when was that equivalent to "drug-dealing, cop-shooting criminal underclass"?

That phrase/song was written by an elitist Marxist, and it was satirical. He was not fond of America soaking up Europe's underclass due to the above mentioned lack of equivalency.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[Nimey]

...I don't think the guy who responded to me was the racist dipshit.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[H0p313ss]

So why do you support this? Because you're an ignorant cretin who can't even begin to THINK about the most basic things in the world.

Oh... if only you had actually been aiming for irony.

Re:Reckless Cops

[Sechr Nibw]

There were a couple of guys. They were up to no good. They started making trouble in the neighborhood. They got in one little fight, and the cops got scared?

Re:He should not have been pursued

[AlphaWolf_HK]

You mean as in being held accountable for the same laws, and having everything they do recorded on camera? Wow, enlightened England is so unique and smart, I wish we would have thought of that. And surely having a violent crime rate more than four times that of the US makes them more than four times better, right?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1196941/The-violent-country-Europe-Britain-worse-South-Africa-U-S.html

Clearly the problem is that America has too many guns.

Re:Reckless Cops

[Jah-Wren Ryel]

+1

So much of what is wrong with police conduct boils down to putting police interests ahead of the interests of the people they are sworn to protect and serve.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[arth1]

That phrase/song was written by an elitist Marxist, and it was satirical. He was not fond of America soaking up Europe's underclass due to the above mentioned lack of equivalency.

You're ignorant of history - I am not surprised.

It was written by Emma Lazarus in 1883, and although the first volume of Das Kapital had been published a couple of years before, it hadn't become popular across the Atlantic yet. It's highly doubtful that she ever read it.
And "Marxism" most certainly didn't exist in 1883.
If you are to accuse Emma Lazarus of any political leaning, it would have to be of being right-wing, with opposition to taxes and wanting a state for the Jews.

Re:Collateral damage

[rochrist]

Which was also involved with, among other things, a shootout with police.

Re:He should not have been pursued

[Seumas]

In the US, we fight hard to make sure citizens can't carry weapons . . . but would never *ever* consider also taking weapons away from the police. The ultimate goal is a very one-sided balance of power and protection.

Re:Reckless Cops

[Seumas]

They knew who the guys were and probably could have engaged a chopper quickly, right?

What was the risk of letting the guy go? What, was he going to get a few blocks away and open up on the public with an uzi? Of course not. No, the right decision was to give chase and pursue the guy at high speeds, driving him to ever more dangerous driving in his fight-or-flight situation and making him a certain and immediate risk to the public (along with the risk posed by all of the speeding cruisers chasing after him).

Also, there is no confirmation that the douche bag killed anyone and certainly nothing stating a COP was killed. It just says a fatal "officer involved shooting". For all we know, the cop fatally shot another one of the members.

At any rate, the fact of the matter seems quite clear. These douches were surely a "danger to the public" in a general sense, but not in the sense that "if we don't chase them down like a pack of 100mph wolves through city streets right this very second, then they're going to start killing people" sort.

The problem is that we have too much of this sense of "you did something bad and I'm gonna step you no matter what the cost". It is more important that the cops "get their man" than that they exercise some restraint, measure the situation, and accept that the safest option for the *public* might be to back the fuck off.

Then, of course, there's always the fact that there will come a day when we hear a story about some assholes who shoot a store clerk or something and it is uncovered that just weeks or months before, they were involved in a police chase where the cops had to back off . . . and now we hold the cops accountable for letting them go...

Re:Reckless Cops

[Seumas]

Car chases look fun as shit. Of course they want to hop in their cruisers and give chase.

Re:A MEXICAN killed him - had enough yet?

[Seumas]

You're a gross fucking human being.

Re:Reckless Cops

[jklovanc]

The police are also putting their loves at risk during police chases and they know it. Of the 1088 deaths that occurred outside the pursued vehicle in a nine year period, 40 were of the pursuing officers. There were many more injured in accidents. Both the public and police are at risk.

Re:The Danger of Police Chases

[jklovanc]

For them to be tracked down later the suspects have to be positively identified first. That is not the case in most high speed chases. Also, considering the number of fugitives at large in the US, that "we'll catch them later" idea does not work very well.

Re:Reckless Cops

[notknown86]

No dichotomy; when the police do it like this:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-national/vic-police-order-motorist-roadblock-claim-20120515-1yo55.html

Bad history

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment *might* apply outside the US, but within the US it is historically and culturally wrong

The US is very large and due to the way land was made available to average people and the history of agriculture the population was NOT originally packed into big cities and then allowed to spread-out by the arrival of the car.... the population was spread-out broadly with a huge number of small (and very small) towns serving the needs of the farmers, miners, ranchers etc plus a few big cities like New York and Chicago where the bankers, stock traders, rail hubs, and sea ports were. In the US, the arrival of the car enabled the creation of many of the big cities like Los Angeles (one reason why LA is not well-suited to mass transit... the development is horizontal rather than vertical). You can easily tell that Chicago and NYC pre-date the car; they developed with much more dense cores and more early vertical development... and mass transit actually works there for the poor and the stupid (the wealthier still travel point-to-point like Americans outside of the big cities always have, but they do it in cabs, limos, etc... which is to be expected as the elites always champion schemes for the masses that they exempt themselves from)

In the US if you took away all the cars, a huge portion of the population would not even DREAM of moving into big cities; they'd happily gravitate toward the smaller towns with low crime, peaceful living, clean air, clean water, etc. The natural home of the American is NOT the over-stuffed over-paved metropolis; those who think it is are happy to go/stay there and leave the rest of us alone

Re:The Danger of Police Chases

[flayzernax]

Agreed. But this may have not been the right time or place to pursue these individuals. Particularly if the cop could identify they were wanted before engaging them. But if he was in the process of making an arrest and there was a show of force. I could bend the rules and say maybe they needed to be stopped. But fleeing from the scene after one of their fellows were shot by an officer of the law is pretty normal.

I cannot judge them because the information available is limited. Honestly they could have been wanted for any number of crimes. Where would you draw the line?

I would probably pursue if they were very dangerous criminals with multiple murder charges. If there can be a trial after they evade arrest and they can be charged guilty by a jury than it is fair to just kill them on site. This is of course if they were actually served and denied the court summons or fled prior arrest. And if their crimes and judgement befits capitol punishment.

But even dangerous people in this country who were not charged and found guilty for a capitol offense deserve the chance to demonstrate peaceful behavior. Maybe you are afraid that complete lawlessness and chaos would erupt under such a noble gesture. But all they have to do is screw it up once enough that their peers find them unworthy of second chances. This assumes a fair justice system.

Our justice system is not always fair.

That is why many argue that perhaps in this case they should have been let go. We cannot judge this without all the facts. That may come out later if the law enforcement officers are charged. Which I doubt. Question is who gets to make that call as well. Perhaps we have laws and regulations and rules and procedures to help the majority of people make these hard decisions. Again I am not educated enough to say for sure. Personally when someone innocent is killed I think all parties involved should be held accountable and they should be examined by the full extent of the law. It is the responsibility an officer bears by being elevated to the position of using deadly force. Just like in the military a commander can be held accountable for the loss of an Airplane, or civilian casualties. Even if it was not their intention. It is how we select the BEST to protect and serve.

But I would have let them go for anything less than murder.

On a Serious Note

[nagalman]

Sounds like this was a tragic loss for not only Oculus but for the developer world as well. I hope Oculus will be able to continue and my thoughts are with the Reisse's family as well.

Re:The Danger of Police Chases

[jklovanc]

But fleeing from the scene after one of their fellows were shot by an officer of the law is pretty normal.

Wow you sure picked an interesting point to start a scenario. How about you start at the beginning.
1. police come upon a scene that appears to be illegal activity.
2. A confrontation between the police and the suspects occur.
3. The police shoot one person.
4. Some suspects flee.
This complete scenario is not common. Why did you start at step 3? Was that to make the police look bad. What is most common is for people who are wanted for serious crimes who get in armed altercations with police and flee. Police officers have to work with the information they have at hand and all indications were that these were serious criminals. The police are there to catch suspects. It is not their job to weigh the severity of the crime but to follow procedure. Suspects that have shot at police and flee are generally chased.

But I would have let them go for anything less than murder.

They had fired at police officers with the intent to kill. Would you let them off because they were bad shots?

If there is blame to place it is on the people who fled the police and ran over an innocent bystander and not the police who were doing their job of catching suspects.

Blame

[jklovanc]

If there is blame to place it is on the people who fled the police and ran over an innocent bystander and not the police who were doing their job of catching suspects.

Typical fucking geeks.

[BlacKSacrificE]

So, does anyone here actually give a shit for the life, intelligence and potential lost with the passage of this life or are you emotionally inept cum towels just going to keep pebble spraying each other over who's right about where cars/guns/criminals/mexicans/drones should be allowed?

Oh wait. This is slashdot. My bad.

R.I.P Andrew. At least one of us see's your passing as something beyond an opportunity to garner insightful mod points.

Re:He should not have been pursued

[ssam]

most criminals in the UK are unarmed.

Re:Reckless Cops

[ClioCJS]

Progressing from knee-jerk to reason.

In the End

[PingPongBoy]

Ironically, he made something for us to experience a virtual reality where the end of the game did not mean life was over in the real world. Yet in reality the same circumstances really mean life is over. So tactics for staying alive in a game need to be applied in the real world all the time: having an out, acquiring protection, etc. The world is friendly enough to let us develop the science and technology to simulate a virtual world but the real world isn't always that friendly either.