If, for instance, officers were not held accountable for compliance with deadly force policies, does anyone doubt that we would have many more bad shootings? The fact is that police pursuits seriously injure and kill far more innocent third parties than are ever going to be placed at the risk of a police shooting. Why is that permitted? Officers are strictly prohibited from firing into a crowd, but they are routinely given the latitude to pursue a stolen car through urban streets against traffic control devices until a collision terminates the chase.
This has happened over and over again throughout the United States and will continue to occur until chief policymakers assert effective administrative control over when and how vehicular pursuits are to be conducted. Can there be any question that this is a critical public safety issue demanding attention?
It seems like one of the reasons so many restrictions are placed on the use of firearms is because it is viewed as not necessary to take that steps to catch the bad guy. In other words, shooting into a crowded room isn't worth it because, hell, if you are close enough to shoot him you can bring it to a safer end.
For some reason, when it comes to vehicle pursuits, people seem to think it is over if police do not chase suspects. I'll say it again: Just because the suspect escapes the view of the patrol car does not mean he wins. Technology such as the two way radio, helicopters, video equipment, the ability to run license plates, etc. ensure the chase is not over...