Car being chased by police crashes into two cars, killing one driver

We know that a car running from police is more dangerous than a car not running from police. This holds true whether the driver is under the influence.

So they should let the drunk driver continue on his way unimpeded?

What you would say if the news report said a drunk driver killed a woman and her child crossing the street when the police decided not to chase him because he fled.

Seems as though the satsu doesn't have the same "no pursuit when doing so increases the danger" policy as cops in the US.

They chased him less than a mile. Hard to tell what kind of potential danger there might be at that short distance, especially with a potentially drunk driver who may cause injuries or deaths whether he is being chased or not. It's always easy to judge in the aftermath.

Condolences to the innocent bystander and his family. This could have happened to any of us.

We can come up with these hypotheticals all day long, but it serves no purpose.

Which is why your initial statement is just as useless. The cops tried to stop a fleeing reckless driver for less than a mile and are already being judged.

Like I said already, hindsight is 20/20.

I guess the solution is much stricter and well-publicized penalties for running from the police. You cannot create a situation where running is advantageous.

It seems that every week the police cause deaths due to their chasing people in cars.

What? Who is causing the deaths?

It seems that every week the police cause deaths due to their chasing people in cars.

What? Who is causing the deaths?

In the bizarre world of some people commenting here, the deaths are caused by the police and not the actual culprits. The driver is somehow not at fault because the police chased him and made him crash into those cars. The thought process is ridiculous.

Some people seem to think there are teams of police vehicles parked around every corner just waiting to form roadblocks to stop fleeing drivers. Unfortunately that isn’t the case and cops have to make the difficult decision in a split second on what to do because it’s their job to stop them. Unfortunately bad things sometimes happen, but I’m going to blame the criminal for his actions, not the person trying to stop him.

Extanker, you are completely right. The police did nothing wrong. They saw an erratic driver who posed a threat to the community at large, tried to stop him and the fool decided to run. Did any of you think how short a mile is when driving, they really only followed him for less than a minute.

Chipstar, you said radio others, set up roadblocks, what is stopping this guy from ramming the police cars or trying to escape anyway he can? This guy is a loser and was going to injure people one way or another!

He ran from police because he knew he was going to jail. Then killed another person.

Sigh. The thought process of drunks. Now he is going to stay in jail even longer.

Why not take note of the number plates and smoke out the guys later

Then the driver denies having been behind the wheel during the incident in question. And it’s impossible to prove otherwise.

That is exactly why cops in the US do not continue a pursuit when it's obvious it's dangerous;

How fast is ‘immediately’? How long does it take to tell if it’s ‘obviously dangerous’? Since this chase lasted roughly one minute, how do you know the officers could tell if it was going to be too dangerous?

In the US, police chases are widely publicized and they can go on for a lot longer than you are giving the impression, even among regular traffic.

You are also way over simplifying things. It isn’t simply ‘don’t chase if it’s dangerous’, it’s also ‘does the danger of the chase outweigh the danger of the driver’. You can see plenty of chases where the police didn’t abandon the chase because of what the person fleeing might do if let go. A drunk driver is usually one of those cases.

So they should let the drunk driver continue on his way unimpeded?

I didn't say this, nor is it a logical inference from my post. Ever hear of radios or roadblocks? 

What you would say if the news report said a drunk driver killed a woman and her child crossing the street when the police decided not to chase him because he fled.

I would say it's tragic.

What would you say if the news report said a drunk driver killed a group of kindergarten students because the police continued their pursuit after the driver failed to stop?

We can come up with these hypotheticals all day long, but it serves no purpose.

I completely agree with ChipStar. Obviously you want to stop drivers breaking the law but chasing a fleeing driver is simply more dangerous for others than allowing them to continue doing what they were doing in 99% of cases. Most people will stop when they are flashed. The ones that don't need to have other methods of capture used than high speed pursuits. There are some ridiculous videos from the UK of high speed pursuits for minutes on end through residential areas at 80mph, or both police car and pursued hurtling the wrong way 3 times around large roundabouts. How on earth would anyone come to the conclusion that it's better to have 2 cars screaming down your street at 80mph than to have one driver who may be a bit tipsy but doing 30, just because one of those cars has some pretty blue flashing lights that you don't even see until they are upon you??

Car chasing in Japan is bound to be more disastrous and harmful the runaway crime.

Why not take note of the number plates and smoke out the guys later instead of causing deaths or dangers to other people during the chase?

Look at hostage situations. It amazes me how driving violations are not treated the same way. In hostage situations the police can clearly see there is a deranged lunatic sitting there with a gun at someone's head. They don't just storm in immediately and try and act all hard and try and blow his head off, as that would blatantly endanger the hostage. It should be the same with car chases.

Excuse me, but no. In a hostage situation, the police surround the hostage taker and attempt to put pressure on the hostage taker while negotiating for the hostages release and if that fails, they will take violent action to attempt to free the hostage.

Your comparison of police should not pursue a feeling driver and let him go on his way because he might be too dangerous would be akin to the police leaving a hostage situation and letting the hostage taker leave with his hostage to save the hostage.

And that is ridiculous.

By the way, my initial post was more of a question than a judgment.

There should be an alternative to police chases. They too often result in the death or serious injury to innocent people.

My 2 cents : I think everyone is right.

Police should avoid chase and use others ways. Other ways include telling the driver to stop and making sure he is not willing to stop. How many case were there of people hitting the wrong pedal ? It seems the Police saw dangerous driving so they followed the car telling the driver to stop. Instead, the driver accelerated. Then you can imagine the Police have accelerated (or perhaps not) and ordered again the driver not to accelerate but to stop. That should take not so far from 1 minute.

It is possible that the rules in Japan, say Police to not chase. As the other way is possible. As the police not following the rules too is possible.

So the article's title is clickbait. A more accurate title should be : Car though ordered to stop by police speed up and crashes into two cars, killing one driver.

They chased him less than a mile. Hard to tell what kind of potential danger there might be at that short distance, especially with a potentially drunk driver who may cause injuries or deaths whether he is being chased or not. It's always easy to judge in the aftermath

We know that a car running from police is more dangerous than a car not running from police. This holds true whether the driver is under the influence.

ex-tanker, the problem with your way of thinking is that regardless of the moral intention of the poilce and the perpetrator, the actions of the police simply are a contributory factor. Like I said, if they chase him he speeds up and kills at 80mphs, if they don't he probably cruises home at 30mph. Just because your intentions are good doesn't mean you don't have a responsibility to think your actions through, keep a cool head, not play the "hero", and decide on the best course of action.

Look at hostage situations. It amazes me how driving violations are not treated the same way. In hostage situations the police can clearly see there is a deranged lunatic sitting there with a gun at someone's head. They don't just storm in immediately and try and act all hard and try and blow his head off, as that would blatantly endanger the hostage. It should be the same with car chases.

Which is why your initial statement is just as useless. The cops tried to stop a fleeing reckless driver for less than a mile and are already being judged. 

Had the police ceased the pursuit immediately, this may not have happened. That is exactly why cops in the US do not continue a pursuit when it's obvious it's dangerous; they use their radios.

Again, a car fleeing from police is far more dangerous than a car not fleeing from police.

Seems as though the satsu doesn't have the same "no pursuit when doing so increases the danger" policy as cops in the US.

Another drunk driver killing innocents in law-abiding Japan.

As Chip Star says, other techniques should be used. It seems that every week the police cause deaths due to their chasing people in cars.