427
Most Dangerous Jobs
(lemmy.nz)
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.dbzer0.com/post/74446906
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 24 Aug 2026
427 points (98.0% liked)
Political Memes
12425 readers
2036 users here now
Welcome to politcal memes!
These are our rules:
1) Be civil
Jokes are okay, but don’t intentionally harass or disturb any member of our community. Sexism, racism and bigotry are not allowed. Good faith argumentation only. No posts discouraging people to vote or shaming people for voting.
2) No misinformation
Don’t post any intentional misinformation. When asked by mods, provide sources for any claims you make.
3) Posts should be memes
Random pictures do not qualify as memes. Relevance to politics is required.
4) No bots, spam or self-promotion
Follow instance rules, ask for your bot to be allowed on this community.
5) No AI generated content.
Content posted must not be created by AI with the intent to mimic the style of existing images
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
Or doing the pursuits at all, for that matter.
In a society where the government is surveiling every other person and have cameras everywhere, the old "if we don't get our perp now he's gone forever" trope is bullshit.
As much as they make for entertaining TV and make cops feel all macho and accomplished, car chases are COMPLETELY unnecessary reckless endangerment in almost all cases.
From what I understand most police agencies have a no-pursuit policy. It's generally more hazardous to chase the person than it is to just phone ahead in the direction that the person's driving and have a blockade setup or just show up at their house
Generally illegal as of 1989's Bowyer v. Inyo and impractical regardless; you vastly overestimate how many patrol cars are in a given area.
Assuming the driver is the registered owner, their address is up to date, and they change their mind about fleeing. I guess now that Flock is getting popular that's increasingly less of a problem, though.
that was a good read, but, I don't think the term "generally illegal" will apply to it. The only thing that supreme court case provided that that a road block can lead to a seizure, which triggers the fourth amendment protections. That doesn't outlaw the roadblock, or does it mean it will be a violation of the fourth amendment as generally speaking seizure under the fourth amendment has leniency that allows for probable cause and a reasonable approach. It means that road blocks need to be looked at when done and decided if it was a reasonable method of stopping them.
In the specific case listed, it was passed down to the lower court again to decide whether the roadblock was a reasonable use of force or not, so it was never an argument about whether the roadblock was allowed to be done, but whether or not how they implemented the roadblock was reasonable due to the fact it was constructed around a corner and contained lights that were positioned in a way that would blind drivers coming in.
You'd think it's from dangerous assignment-based activities but it's not. It's from doing stupid shit in traffic stops and getting hit by innocent drivers. It's what happens when superficial authority meets 3 tons of metal at a mile a minute.
They initiate traffic stops based on infractions that had no impact on safety at all, like rolling through a stop sign at an intersection with no other cars, and cause a far more dangerous situation with a roadside stop.
This came up in a brilliant way in a manga I was reading.
Two combat pros are facing off in a back alley, the aggressor trying to “test” their victim. The loser protagonist, who’s useless in a fight, hears the altercation from his store job, and rushes out to help his friend. He throws a paint bomb, used by stores to identify robbers, at the assailant.
The assailant runs, and spends the rest of the issue in a panic about how to conceal the paint; since they’d very much been relying on the option of being able to sneak out through crowds.
less pronouns, more well-defined references please. I had to read that last paragraph three times before I understood who you meant by "They".
Thanks for the feedback. Been working on creative writing recently, and it helps to know when my attempts at brevity are making things unclear.
You're welcome, "the assailant" is much more clear now :) (I mean - as clear as it could be)
...So Flock cams need laser projectors, and they can just mark criminals with a big red X as they drive around. Maybe a different color for whatever they're wanted for. And then let the vigilanteism fly!
Most agencies these days have incredibly restrictive pursuit policies for this reason.
In other words, your message is apt for 2000 or so, but not 2026.