Kinda forgot about the whole "to serve and protect" part didn't they.
If there is no point in running, way fewer people will run. That could mean net fewer chase-miles, and also fewer crimes committed, because fewer potential criminals would think they might be able to get away with it.
The officers likely believe that serving and protecting requires them to always chase. Whether it's true or not is something that has no obvious a priori answer. It'd be great to find the answer empirically, but until then, I'm inclined to defer to the pros.
O wait, they don't. It just easier to photo the license plate, and put down a road block.
The minute you start considering public safety, is the minute it stops being a hard question. In my jurisdiction (Ontario), cops will not to get into high-speed chases if there's a reasonable chance of injury to assailants or civilians. My cop friend told me they won't even attempt to chase after motorcyclist because the risk to him is just too great. It is a judgement call, and chases still happen, but you always consider public safety first before you engage in a reckless chase.
>The officers likely believe that serving and protecting requires them to always chase.
You know, I used to watch American police car chase shows, where they would show video of police chases. Most of those ended in a car crash, and significant of those ended with the assailant ramming into some civilian car. Great police work guys. You got some two-bit criminal but you killed or engendered an innocent bystander.
I think if you look past a typical "always-get-your-man" cowboy mentality you'd find it's just not worth it in the grand scheme of things.
However, the fact that you're citing reality TV as evidence definitely isn't helping your case.
>You see groups of motorcycles and ATVs doing high speed wheelies through red lights regularly.
You don't see that, actually. And second, all you have to do is take their licences down and you've got them.
Hasn't been true for a while.