Comment by tnohtyp | Hacker News Reader

Comment by tnohtyp | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

According to the article they killed a police officer and ran, if you don't pursue them how are you going to catch them? Aftersll, they did murder someone, and apparently they had warrants, so it seems reasonable to assume we dont want them out running around anymore as they sre likely to commit more fiolent crimes. Furthermore, if have a policy to not pursue, then every criminal is always going to run.

The fault is on the criminals, not on the police trying to apprehend them or the pursuit.

Read more closely.

"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."

The cops killed one of the suspects then pursued the rest, then a pedestrian died in the chase. But the fricken media did a great job phrasing things so the cops seemed justified, woo-hoo.

See:

http://blogs.ocweekly.com/navelgazing/2013/05/santa_ana_pede...

(taken from further on this page, belongs further up btw)

Wow. So every stage went as bad as it could have. Sure, there is a series to events where more people could have died, and I'm sure this will be brought up. There should be some people doing some pretty hard thinking about how they handled this.

Why do you say as bad as it could have? This is a physical altercation with known gang members (if I'm properly informed). It's not going to go well.

I think the difficulty in handling a situation like that in any way other than immediate armed confrontation must be immense. If somebody tasked me with "handling" a gang member I'm pretty sure I'd want a gun, and I'd want absolutely no restrictions or post-event questioning on its use. Obviously I'm not involved in professional law enforcement in LA but even with training I can imagine it to be an incredibly difficult situation.

I think that the hard thinking to be done should be directed primarily at the underlying issues that result in (and support) organized street crime.

I'm more commenting on the number of fatalities. Given how it panned out, it was handled badly. Confrontation there and then was the wrong choice. I don't pretend to have any great solutions, but I'd like to think that any armed confrontation that occurred near me had been done with consideration for what-if scenarios. Confrontation often brings out the worst in people, and it did here.

You know, police in EU normally don't chase criminals at high speed and they normally found them easily after the fact (especially if they wound/killed a cop). High speed chases are extremely rare, there is no rational need for them (and the consequent danger for passers by).

Given that all of the suspects had outstanding arrest warrants, this episode was the result the suspects 'being found easily after the fact.'

It seems you can find them all you want, but eventually you're going to have to take them in and many times the bad guys just won't want to go.

EU is not a country. The police in Finland will almost always chase 'criminals' until they stop. The 'criminals' are mostly people who are drunk drivers or speeding, tough.

Ironically, the reason there's very few chases is that punishments are not severe for crimes. If you are certain that you'll get federal prison in USA for almost any crime, it makes sense to risk it and try to get away.

There isn't a EU wide police or justice system. It's all done at the national level. Policing standards can vary widely around countries.

Your statement is true. The parent poster's statement is also true.

Not really, the typical action in many EU countries is to go for pursuit. This is case in Finland and Sweden, for example.

I don't know enough about all the countries to say either way, but if FI/SE were the only two countries with this policy (not saying they are - I've no idea) then it would still be accurate to say that the opposite is true in the vast majority of the EU.

The way I read it, gang member Gerardo Diego Ayala was killed by a police officer. Then Victor Sanchez and 2 unidentified subjects fled the scene in a car. It's unclear what "officer involved shooting" means, but that's how I took it...

That is what "officer involved shooting" normally means — a cop shot them.

In the US this means the fleeing are accused of murder, right?

Quite possibly felony homicide (ironically). And not just the US, any common law country (e.g. most commonwealth countries).

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Felony-Murder+...

Is it feasible to just track them from above with a helicopter? That would reduce the number of speeding cars on the road at least.

Once police have drones high-speed chases become much harder to justify.

I seriously doubt drones will cause less innocent deaths.

You seem to have confused "armed drone" with "drone".

How so? I think they're just implying that even once police drones are in use it won't necessarily deter suspects from driving erratically.

You may even need to drive faster...

Implying you can spot the drone. Best police drone would simply tag the vehicle and see where it is moving around, then apprehend the fugitive one he settles for a longer period (during the night usually).

You don't need to spot the drone. If they start getting used regularly, the escapees will assume it's there and may try to evade it anyway.

Yes, but how are they going to do that if they can't see the drone? How will they know when they have succeeded? Are they just going to continue driving recklessly until they run out of gas?

Driving evasively seems like a very good way to attract the attention of other officers who might not recognize the suspects' car. Once the cruiser is out of sight, the suspects' best bet would be to "act casual." If the drone can see the suspects then it doesn't matter how they drive, and if it can't see them then driving like a maniac only makes it easier to be found.

Really, to "act casual" in areas with lots of tunnels and trees and other cars of similar make and model and color. Or to get off the road quickly somewhere underground (parking garage?) and leave the vehicle, though that has difficulties as well long term (CCTV being a major one).

Drive until you've got some distance from the police, head underground, then switch to public transport.

They won't even know they're there. Small, quiet drones thousands of feet up are practically invisible.

Once it's known that the police uses such machines, they know that they're there. Don't expect the conclusions to be in any way rational.

he doesn't mean they won't generally be there. he just means that they won't try to erratically avoid specific drones.

It is, but it takes time for the helicopter to get off the ground and show up, and if you don't chase them in the meantime they will likely get away.

I am curious what the average response time is for a police helicopter though.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com