Here’s an interesting question: should the police vigorously chase armed bank robbers who have already left the scene and who haven’t used deadly force on anyone? Maybe you should TRACK that person but not really CHASE them? Because if you chase a suspect you risk further harm to innocent bystanders, but if you fail to apprehend a suspect who didn’t actually use the weapon, they… usually don’t go on to use a weapon on anyone else? I’m guessing? First, if you’ve robbed a bank once… congratulations, now don’t mess it up by attempting it again and potentially risking arrest and prosecution for TWO bank robberies. Second, if you brandish a weapon without actually attacking anyone with it in order to commit a robbery, then I guess the chance that you’ll be a future weapon user is pretty low because it’s most likely that you’re hesitant or reluctant to attack someone with a weapon at all? So, if you chase a bank robber you’re taking someone who may have never put the public in harm’s way again and putting them into an immediate, hasty decision process that has a high chance of harming the public? I’m not saying that you let the robber drive off into the night without justice, I’m just saying… maybe keep 2,000 ft back and try to get him when he lets his guard down in a week?
This is irrelevant to the last post, where the bigger concern was that over two dozen others were jacked up by the police - most of them probably violently handcuffed to their complete surprise - in order to figure out which driver’s car was the one with the robbery evidence inside. Because that’s just not something that the courts should allow? If someone robs an ATM in Manhattan on 42nd Street, do you arrest everyone you see in Times Square? That’s where the logic goes on that one.