Keep notes on what direction they run, post observers along the route, eventually you figure out where they're garaged.  Not so hard. 

 

I agree the main problem is, once again, bad choices made by local leadership.  The police refuse to work and the city should be fighting back.  It's been this way for years now.

I know many people in law enforcement.  Mostly good people but there are people in LE that just want to be able to do what they want without questions. Any limitation is being anti-cop.  Everyone has rules on their job and you don;t get to stop working because you don;t like the rules.

I've had two cops explain to me, in no clearer terms, that they were under no circumstances allowed to chase the dirtbike/ATV thugs around Cleveland. I had called in several riders on multiple occasions when I lived on South Moreland of riders ripping up and down the sidewalks and roadway, through intersections, and on the wrong side of the road - playing "chicken."

 

The straw that broke my back was when I saw a gang of 12 rip down Woodland eastbound on the -wrong- side of the road. A pickup truck followed. They were playing chicken with traffic and ran all of the red lights to turn up Buckeye.

 

I called Cleveland PD who told me to refer to OSP. They didn't ask me anything about the dirtbikes/ATV's - only about the pickup truck. "Did you get a license capture?"

 

I wonder if the sherrifs can cite them, especially on state routes.  They helped chase the 152nd bank robbers today.

I've had two cops explain to me, in no clearer terms, that they were under no circumstances allowed to chase the dirtbike/ATV thugs around Cleveland. I had called in several riders on multiple occasions when I lived on South Moreland of riders ripping up and down the sidewalks and roadway, through intersections, and on the wrong side of the road - playing "chicken."

 

The straw that broke my back was when I saw a gang of 12 rip down Woodland eastbound on the -wrong- side of the road. A pickup truck followed. They were playing chicken with traffic and ran all of the red lights to turn up Buckeye.

 

I called Cleveland PD who told me to refer to OSP. They didn't ask me anything about the dirtbikes/ATV's - only about the pickup truck. "Did you get a license capture?"

 

I wonder if the sherrifs can cite them, especially on state routes.  They helped chase the 152nd bank robbers today.

 

Highway Patrol should be able to as well.  I have personally witnessed them pursue into a neighborhood.

I've had two cops explain to me, in no clearer terms, that they were under no circumstances allowed to chase the dirtbike/ATV thugs around Cleveland. I had called in several riders on multiple occasions when I lived on South Moreland of riders ripping up and down the sidewalks and roadway, through intersections, and on the wrong side of the road - playing "chicken."

 

The straw that broke my back was when I saw a gang of 12 rip down Woodland eastbound on the -wrong- side of the road. A pickup truck followed. They were playing chicken with traffic and ran all of the red lights to turn up Buckeye.

 

I called Cleveland PD who told me to refer to OSP. They didn't ask me anything about the dirtbikes/ATV's - only about the pickup truck. "Did you get a license capture?"

 

I wonder if the sherrifs can cite them, especially on state routes.  They helped chase the 152nd bank robbers today.

 

Highway Patrol should be able to as well.  I have personally witnessed them pursue into a neighborhood.

 

I was thinking that too, but the previous post sounded like OSP is unwilling.

The police 'can cite them'

 

Who did the sherrifs help?  The security guards?

Solution: residents who have to endure these ATVs and motorcycles speeding up and down their streets set up a chain across the street and when the bikes appear, pull the chain tight against utility poles and take out the bikers. Problem solved.

^ There needs to be a "like" button...

^^ Can we add a brick through the windshield catapult for cars that speed down neighborhood streets too?

Solution: residents who have to endure these ATVs and motorcycles speeding up and down their streets set up a chain across the street and when the bikes appear, pull the chain tight against utility poles and take out the bikers. Problem solved.

 

You'd definitely be charged with attempted murder and you'd be in prison for a long time. Many people believe they're the victims because they aren't given a proper track to ride on. If cops were to pursue them, they'd have a criminal record for life that will work against their ability to be employed in the future. These bikers are being treated unfairly! So what if they're jumping up on people's hoods in traffic; those motorists in cars should have insurance to take care of any damage or wreck or injury that occurs.

 

The mayor defends and promotes it. He called it harmless. His grandson has been caught twice riding in the street and even caught evading police, with his grandson's dirt bike later being seen on the mayor's porch.

 

They're getting a $2M dirt bike track even though hardly any of the bikers have a truck or trailer to properly haul them to the track. Even if they use the track (which I'm sure a few will but most won't,) they'll have to ride in the street just to get there. The main point of it is to pop wheelies, do tricks and drive recklessly in traffic to show-off.

 

If the mayor condones it, why wouldn't the police?

 

I've been pulled over for riding a bicycle without a helmet and accused of not having my headlights on when they clearly were - they checked me for warrants and told me my bicycle needs to be 'registered' - and these guys get away with this?  :-o

And you can bet if one of them ran into your car and hurt themselves, they have no insurance and would come after you.  I would spend every last dollar of my savings defending myself and trying to sue their parents.

Solution: residents who have to endure these ATVs and motorcycles speeding up and down their streets set up a chain across the street and when the bikes appear, pull the chain tight against utility poles and take out the bikers. Problem solved.

 

You'd definitely be charged with attempted murder and you'd be in prison for a long time. Many people believe they're the victims because they aren't given a proper track to ride on. If cops were to pursue them, they'd have a criminal record for life that will work against their ability to be employed in the future. These bikers are being treated unfairly! So what if they're jumping up on people's hoods in traffic; those motorists in cars should have insurance to take care of any damage or wreck or injury that occurs.

 

The mayor defends and promotes it. He called it harmless. His grandson has been caught twice riding in the street and even caught evading police, with his grandson's dirt bike later being seen on the mayor's porch.

 

They're getting a $2M dirt bike track even though hardly any of the bikers have a truck or trailer to properly haul them to the track. Even if they use the track (which I'm sure a few will but most won't,) they'll have to ride in the street just to get there. The main point of it is to pop wheelies, do tricks and drive recklessly in traffic to show-off.

 

If the mayor condones it, why wouldn't the police?

 

I've been pulled over for riding a bicycle without a helmet and accused of not having my headlights on when they clearly were - they checked me for warrants and told me my bicycle needs to be 'registered' - and these guys get away with this?  :-o

 

It's legal for an adult to ride a bicycle without a helmet, except maybe in Shaker Heights where that law was roundly mocked.

 

You're 100% correct about the track, and never mind that money could be used to fix things like swimming pools.  The track is also inevitably going to be a crime center, assuming Jackson is re-elected and it's built.  The gangs started using those things to move drugs and decided they're fun.

The track is also inevitably going to be a crime center, assuming Jackson is re-elected and it's built.

 

Where is that coming from?

Solution: residents who have to endure these ATVs and motorcycles speeding up and down their streets set up a chain across the street and when the bikes appear, pull the chain tight against utility poles and take out the bikers. Problem solved.

 

You'd definitely be charged with attempted murder and you'd be in prison for a long time.

 

You are forgetting about the "no chase" policy.  If the cops try to arrest you, all you have to do is walk away and they can't chase you. 

I've been pulled over for riding a bicycle without a helmet and accused of not having my headlights on when they clearly were - they checked me for warrants and told me my bicycle needs to be 'registered' - and these guys get away with this?  :-o

 

You were likely pulled over in Shaker, which has a helmet law.

I've been pulled over for riding a bicycle without a helmet and accused of not having my headlights on when they clearly were - they checked me for warrants and told me my bicycle needs to be 'registered' - and these guys get away with this?  :-o

 

You were likely pulled over in Shaker, which has a helmet law.

 

Yeah, buddy. On good ol' Van Aken. I know it's a very specific jurisdiction we're talking about, my point is simply that there should be some consistency in traffic laws being enforced and every jurisdiction should have a good sense of what's actually a threat and what isn't. Whether it's technically this city or that city or whatever mode of transportation.

 

The video I saw on the news showed a phone call to 9/11 where the caller was explaining that the bikers were jumping onto the hoods of cars right in front of the caller. I'm no lawyer or judge but I think I'd argue that that's more-so attempted murder than 'reckless driving.' I got a reckless driving charge when I was 19 because two cars wrecked in front of me on the highway and I swerved to avoid hitting them and hit a guard rail and busted my tire in the process. I called the police to report the incident- my own and what happened in front of me (hoping that the people wrecked were okay and wanted to make sure 9/11 knew about the wreck that caused me to wreck. When the cop came, the ss[/member]hole cited me with reckless driving! I drove two hours to Columbus to go to court and fought it and finally got it reduced to "excessive muffler gas" which was less points but the ticket still cost me about $250 and points! I digress... It's just sad that with traffic laws, you can so easily be punished for doing the right thing but just as easily get away with purposely breaking the law and harming others.

 

Really makes me angry that you can ride a dirt bike up the hood of someone's car and the response from the police is that they can't do anything about it. So assuming someone doesn't get into a wreck and die as a result of an incident like that, at the very least they have to pay a $500 deductible because of some ss[/member]-clown. There would usually be no way to sue the biker and recover damages in the future since it's not possible to chase them down and get an identity. That's why license plates are so important in the first place and just one more reason why these dirt bikes/ATVs are such a threat. They don't have headlights, turn-signals, plates, insurance and all of the other things that make it reasonably safe to drive at a high speed.

 

I like riding dirt bikes and quads. Do all jurisdictions have this no-chase policy? It seems like Shaker more than any city around here would be most likely to chase and have a zero-tolerance for BS. If they were on Warrenville, it sounds like Cleveland Hts or University Hts has that no-chase policy.  If they all do, I'm tempted to save up and get one now, since I know I can ride it anywhere. I'll ride it all around Shaker Lakes and up and down the hills in Cain Park. "Catch me if you can, b!tches!" 8-) If they shoot at my tires to try and stop me and miss and hit my leg or wherever, I'll claim police brutality/excessive force and sue them. I'll probably even have any army of protesters behind me.  :lol:

 

:roll:

The mayor seems like a complete idiot. Why do you guys keep voting for him? Hasn't he been a mayor for like 13 years? How many terms are you allowed, anyway? I'm pretty sure he was the mayor since at least 11 years ago when I first joined UrbanOhio. I don't know much about local politics yet but reading articles where he defends his grandson and the biker gangs, is pretty disturbing. It doesn't seem like he's offered any good or innovative solutions to the city's problems. A dirt bike track is innovative and could be a good idea if it were something that didn't cater to gangs and drug dealers riding stolen ATVs. It's a cool solution for parks and recreation (although it's debated that $2M could be better spent...) However, it's not a solution to THIS problem. It seems so clear to me and many others but Frank Jackson has this gift of gab - he's great at persuading people (and coming up with excuses for things...)

 

Seems like the city's recent come-up in terms of investment has much more to do with the Cav's and the success of The Cleveland Clinic than anything he could have ever done. Cleveland still seems to have the same old problems with crime, blight, police apathy, etc., that it had long before him.

 

I admit, I haven't lived here long and I'm not the most qualified person to speak but it seems like Cleveland's administration needs a lot of fresh energy.

Calling Frank a complete idiot is pretty strong.  He's certainly had his missteps, but he's had successes too.  His stance on the dirt bike park, as well as the Public Square bus closure, turned people off. But what proof do you have that he defends biker gangs? 

The mayor seems like a complete idiot. Why do you guys keep voting for him? Hasn't he been a mayor for like 13 years? How many terms are you allowed, anyway? I'm pretty sure he was the mayor since at least 11 years ago when I first joined UrbanOhio. I don't know much about local politics yet but reading articles where he defends his grandson and the biker gangs, is pretty disturbing. It doesn't seem like he's offered any good or innovative solutions to the city's problems. A dirt bike track is innovative and could be a good idea if it were something that didn't cater to gangs and drug dealers riding stolen ATVs. It's a cool solution for parks and recreation (although it's debated that $2M could be better spent...) However, it's not a solution to THIS problem. It seems so clear to me and many others but Frank Jackson has this gift of gab - he's great at persuading people (and coming up with excuses for things...)

 

Seems like the city's recent come-up in terms of investment has much more to do with the Cav's and the success of The Cleveland Clinic than anything he could have ever done. Cleveland still seems to have the same old problems with crime, blight, police apathy, etc., that it had long before him.

 

I admit, I haven't lived here long and I'm not the most qualified person to speak but it seems like Cleveland's administration needs a lot of fresh energy.

 

Yeah he's not exactly Churchill when he speaks, but our city has done incredible things in the pastb13 years.  Did u see cleveland circa 2004?  We are building things, reinvesting in infrastructure, winning political conventions, some of our neighborhoods have a lot of momentum, I could go on.  It could be a lot worse than Frank.  I assume when you refer to the city's problems, you refer to crime.  Crime is really hard to figure out. Just ask our president who recently said he'll send the national guard to Chicago to fix the crime

 

Yeah, buddy. On good ol' Van Aken. I know it's a very specific jurisdiction we're talking about, my point is simply that there should be some consistency in traffic laws being enforced and every jurisdiction should have a good sense of what's actually a threat and what isn't. Whether it's technically this city or that city or whatever mode of transportation.

 

 

I guess it's not technically a traffic law because the irony is they are not allowed to require motorcyclists to wear helmets when state law makes them optional.

The mayor seems like a complete idiot. Why do you guys keep voting for him? Hasn't he been a mayor for like 13 years? How many terms are you allowed, anyway? I'm pretty sure he was the mayor since at least 11 years ago when I first joined UrbanOhio. I don't know much about local politics yet but reading articles where he defends his grandson and the biker gangs, is pretty disturbing. It doesn't seem like he's offered any good or innovative solutions to the city's problems. A dirt bike track is innovative and could be a good idea if it were something that didn't cater to gangs and drug dealers riding stolen ATVs. It's a cool solution for parks and recreation (although it's debated that $2M could be better spent...) However, it's not a solution to THIS problem. It seems so clear to me and many others but Frank Jackson has this gift of gab - he's great at persuading people (and coming up with excuses for things...)

 

Seems like the city's recent come-up in terms of investment has much more to do with the Cav's and the success of The Cleveland Clinic than anything he could have ever done. Cleveland still seems to have the same old problems with crime, blight, police apathy, etc., that it had long before him.

 

I admit, I haven't lived here long and I'm not the most qualified person to speak but it seems like Cleveland's administration needs a lot of fresh energy.

 

Careful what you wish for.  The City could do a LOT worse than Frank Jackson.  Your assessment of him is not accurate.  Persuasion is not one of his strong suits.  He's terrible at addressing a crowd.  What he has done is focused some initiatives that have paid off well for the City proper and not racked up huge amounts of debt in doing so.  He's at least ensured that, unlike the 90's, our resurgence is not so gilded.  He's far from the complete package and I would be in favor of replacing him with someone who was less 'conservative' in his approach to governing..... i.e. someone who took some more risks and thought 'bigger'

 

I like riding dirt bikes and quads. Do all jurisdictions have this no-chase policy? It seems like Shaker more than any city around here would be most likely to chase and have a zero-tolerance for BS. If they were on Warrenville, it sounds like Cleveland Hts or University Hts has that no-chase policy.  If they all do, I'm tempted to save up and get one now, since I know I can ride it anywhere. I'll ride it all around Shaker Lakes and up and down the hills in Cain Park. "Catch me if you can, b!tches!" 8-) If they shoot at my tires to try and stop me and miss and hit my leg or wherever, I'll claim police brutality/excessive force and sue them. I'll probably even have any army of protesters behind me.  :lol:

 

If for no other reason than to not confuse the police (if you believe the scuttlebutt, they are confused..... I don't believe it, btw), I still hate the term 'no chase policy.'  It is a police pursuit policy and hardly unique to Cleveland and its surrounding communities.  Best practices are being developed across the country on the issue of police pursuits.  Not one city has prohibited police from chasing suspects in totality.  Nothing even close to that.

 

The bottom line is there is a whole lot of grey area between a "no chase policy" and allowing police officers, at their discretion, to engage in high speed chases through densely populated areas while shooting at the suspect rear tires while throwing hand grenades at the front ones.

There was an empty but not-quite-abandoned house across E. 156th from Walgreens on the edge of the Beulah Park neighborhood that was more or less the area open-air bar, potty, no-tell motel and other sundry things whenever the weather was at least decent.

 

As of early yesterday morning:

 

You know, other cities actually do something about the crime in the city:

 

D.C. cracked down on the dirt bike incidents that were plaguing the city last year; no one was killed or injured during the arrests

 

Baltimore is actively curbing the activity amid reports of local shops and residents of the nearby counties having dirt bikes stolen

 

At this point, it's a leadership problem. Jackson is calling out Reed for being a pimp? How about Jackson take some initiative to rid the city of one of its bigger quality-of-life and crime issues?

I don't know if it's the biggest crime issue but it is wildly out of control. I was downtown with my girlfriend last night and saw a teenager who didn't even look old enough to have a drivers license, just casually riding a mini bike down around Euclid Ave. in the heart of downtown. It was the kind with a very basic frame, running on a Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine. That kid could have easily crashed and killed himself or injured somebody. You really get the sense that police don't care when kids have the audacity and are even comfortable doing that downtown where it's heavily policed and you'd expect the kid to get caught before even making it downtown to such a highly trafficked area.

Jackson's calling Reed a "pimp" was really weak and small-minded by the mayor.  I'm really surprised given is long incumbency and wisdom through age he would stoop to such childish name calling.  Bad move out of Frank.

I don't know if it's the biggest crime issue but it is wildly out of control. I was downtown with my girlfriend last night and saw a teenager who didn't even look old enough to have a drivers license, just casually riding a mini bike down around Euclid Ave. in the heart of downtown. It was the kind with a very basic frame, running on a Briggs and Stratton lawn mower engine. That kid could have easily crashed and killed himself or injured somebody. You really get the sense that police don't care when kids have the audacity and are even comfortable doing that downtown where it's heavily policed and you'd expect the kid to get caught before even making it downtown to such a highly trafficked area.

 

I see kids riding mini-bikes around my neighborhood.  Some look not any older than 12.  I suppose I never considered what the legal restrictions on operating those are.  Not sure if this is still the law, but when I was a kid you could ride a moped or scooter down a major road when you were 14.  Not a good idea, but legal.  As for him riding it on Euclid Ave., I ride my bicycle on Euclid Ave..... not allowed to ride it on the side walk, even after the bike lane ends.

I see it a lot too. I think we live pretty close to each other. I don't think it's a big deal on tertiary or secondary streets in Cleveland hts. Speed limits are low and drivers are really cautious around here but it seems like a really bad idea downtown. We're talking about primitive mini bikes. It seems like there's a lot of grey area or potential for grey area when it comes to motor sports. There's slight differences between mopeds, dirt bikes, mini bikes, motorized scooters, motorcycles, motorized skateboards, etc. - all having different degrees of suitablility for hard core urban environments. I'm sure it's hard to figure out where to draw the line or when to enforce laws. It's really confusing.

 

I'm pretty sure a moped is just an under-powered motorcycle, though. You can ride one before you're sixteen but you still have to get it registered with tags and they have head and tail lights with turn signals. Unless I remember incorrectly or the laws have changed.

Some interesting context on these police pursuit policies stemming from the NYC tragedy today.  A drunk robbery suspect was reportedly fleeing the police and plowed into a group of pedestrians in Times Square.  1 dead.  13 injured.

^ but if they didn't chase him then the liberals have won. /s

I am definitely not in favor of letting robbery suspects just get away.  But it does provide some insight into the dangers of police pursuits and the types of tragedies which can ensue.  Everyone should be in favor of all departments looking over their policies and weighing the pros and cons of certain situations.  Much better than just letting the cops have free reign to pursue under any and all circumstances.

^ You sound very anti law and order.  /s

Chasing a suspect into Times Square is downright dangerous.

Pretty soon they'll just be sending drones after people. Problem solved.

Do we know he wouldn't have caused deaths and serious injury if the police had not pursued?  We aren't trusting the judgment of the officers, but we'd trust the judgment of a drunk criminal suspect on the run?  Why aren't we blaming the suspect for that death?

^ he likely wouldn't be fleeing from nothing.  it's not my opinion that the officers are responsible here.  my opinion is a nuanced view on the fact that police departments should have chase protocols and the existence of said protocols does not mean that the city is anti-cop. 

Even if the pursuit is not "hot", I wouldn't assume he'd have reverted to sedate and safe driving.  Again, you're trusting the judgment of a drunk criminal.

Do we know he wouldn't have caused deaths and serious injury if the police had not pursued?

 

You can never know the outcome of something that didn't happen.

 

We aren't trusting the judgment of the officers, but we'd trust the judgment of a drunk criminal suspect on the run?

 

Who is "we"? 

 

 

Why aren't we blaming the suspect for that death?

 

I'm not sure who isn't.  He should be arrested for robbery, fleeing, felonious assault, and quite possibly felony murder.

 

Even if the pursuit is not "hot", I wouldn't assume he'd have reverted to sedate and safe driving.  Again, you're trusting the judgment of a drunk criminal.

 

Again, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that anyone has suggested that police should never pursue criminals.  That's certainly not what the CPD's policy says, no matter what some disgruntled cop or curmudgeon at the local watering hole may tell you.  It's just that this incident is unfortunately illustrative of the dangers of police pursuits.  Perhaps he wouldn't have driven through the crowd if he wasn't being chased.  Most criminals who don't think they are being pursued don't want to draw attention to themselves as they escape, so it's no illogical at all to assume this passes the 'but for' test.  Regardless, we know the actions and we know the results.

 

If a suspect on a dirt bike flees through a crowded public beach at 100mph, do you think the police should pursue him through that beach?  Or would you be willing to concede that perhaps other measures to apprehend him should be explored for the sake of public safety.  This ain't a Hollywood movie where the hero cop drives his car on a sidewalk with pedestrians diving out of the way at the last minute like a trained stunt man (just ONCE, I would like to see a movie where the pedestrian is a step slow and doesn't make it out of the way in time).

Do we know he wouldn't have caused deaths and serious injury if the police had not pursued?

 

You can never know the outcome of something that didn't happen.

 

I don't think you can ague otherwise that he would do anything other than try to escape the scene with the goal of going entirely under the radar and by any means. It's safe to make that assumption because anyone in his position (unless they are mentally incapacitated) would know that if they made a more safe plan to travel on foot or even by bike (much more safe to both pedestrians and drivers) said person would have been guaranteed to be caught within minutes.

 

I hate to hear stories like these and in some cases I do agree that police pursuit is not worth it but in this instance I don't think the police should be to blame and I don't view it as a case study against pursuit. It's just a very unfortunate accident.

 

 

 

 

No one is blaming the police.  But it is a prime example of the type of tragedy which justifies limitations on and sound procedures in place for police pursuits in urban areas.  Of course he would still flee, but it would be highly unlikely (yet not out of the realm of possibility) that he would be driving through Times Square against the flow of traffic in the middle of the day

Do we know he wouldn't have caused deaths and serious injury if the police had not pursued?

 

You can never know the outcome of something that didn't happen.

 

We aren't trusting the judgment of the officers, but we'd trust the judgment of a drunk criminal suspect on the run?

 

Who is "we"? 

 

 

Why aren't we blaming the suspect for that death?

 

I'm not sure who isn't.  He should be arrested for robbery, fleeing, felonious assault, and quite possibly felony murder.

 

Even if the pursuit is not "hot", I wouldn't assume he'd have reverted to sedate and safe driving.  Again, you're trusting the judgment of a drunk criminal.

 

Again, I'm not sure where you are getting the idea that anyone has suggested that police should never pursue criminals.  That's certainly not what the CPD's policy says, no matter what some disgruntled cop or curmudgeon at the local watering hole may tell you.  It's just that this incident is unfortunately illustrative of the dangers of police pursuits.  Perhaps he wouldn't have driven through the crowd if he wasn't being chased.  Most criminals who don't think they are being pursued don't want to draw attention to themselves as they escape, so it's no illogical at all to assume this passes the 'but for' test.  Regardless, we know the actions and we know the results.

 

If a suspect on a dirt bike flees through a crowded public beach at 100mph, do you think the police should pursue him through that beach?  Or would you be willing to concede that perhaps other measures to apprehend him should be explored for the sake of public safety.  This ain't a Hollywood movie where the hero cop drives his car on a sidewalk with pedestrians diving out of the way at the last minute like a trained stunt man (just ONCE, I would like to see a movie where the pedestrian is a step slow and doesn't make it out of the way in time).

 

Well this also ain't a Hollywood movie where the police are able to throw unlimited resources at finding a criminal who's evaded them and then setting up the perfect ambush to snare them with no risk to officers or bystanders, either.  There are significant risks either way.

At any rate, I just read an actual article about the event.  No mention of a police chase, just a high, violent man who's had multiple previous run-ins with the law.

 

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/18/nyregion/times-square-crash.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

What leads you to believe that it would be highly unlikely he would end up running into the crowd?! The dude was drunk and high after robbing a bank, on a dirt bike in the heart of Manhattan for God's sake! That's ridiculous. Sometimes I think you'll just stop at nothing to prove your point and defend your argument and refuse to give in and admit when your wrong.

 

With your logic, every criminal would have every reason to commit a crime like this and flea, knowing they can get away with it. You don't think the problem would grow exponentially once this no-chase policy gets around - which I'm sure it will?! Your example in NYC is a worse case scenario which coincidentally happened during this discussion.

I'll stop at nothing?  Coming from the guy who spent 10 pages arguing about 3rd rate gas station ice cream?  That's a good one.

 

First of all, the guy wasn't on a dirt bike.  He was in a car.  At the time I posted, it was being reported that he was fleeing the police.  Secondly, there is no such thing as a 'no chase' policy, I wouldn't support such a policy, and spreading rumors of one is 10x more dangerous to the public safety than having an adult conversation (feel free to not participate if unable) about The rationale and reasons behind the nationwide review of police pursuit policies. 

^ I had posted an FBI report a few pages back about the dangers of police chases and the importance of creating policies for them.  Apparently no one really read it and decides that their uninformed opinion is more important than actual data.

On one of these boards, this one I think, we were talking about the differences between the mafia, et al, and modern gangs.  Some claimed there's no difference.

 

Here's the differences:

 

http://fox8.com/2017/05/19/cleveland-police-issue-arrest-warrant-in-carjacking-of-97-year-old-woman/

 

And non locally but horrifically:

 

http://www.al.com/news/index.ssf/2017/05/he_was_a_baby_mississippi_mour.html

 

Imagine what Scalish, Birns, Ciasullo, or even Danny Greene would have done to these guys.

anybody here live in the slavic village area? it is a huge area and there's several different neighborhoods within, it feels like. wondering which particular pockets are considered quiet and/or safer? would love to hear from people that have experience with the neighborhood! thanks

^^I do think there is a difference, but not for the reasons you are trying to establish.  Are you suggesting figures connected to the mafia never committed horrific crimes against the innocent?  Families/children were never used or killed for leverage?  The whole "I want his family dead!" Is just a Hollywood cliche?  You romanticize too much this time when white people ruled the crime world.  They were still ruthless criminals. 

ATV, two vehicles crash in Cleveland's Stockyards neighborhood: "A crash involving an ATV and two vehicles left passengers with serious injuries Monday night, police said.

 

Few details about the crash were immediately released. It happened about 7:30 p.m. near the intersection of West 67th Street and Denison Avenue in the city's Stockyards neighborhood."

^^I do think there is a difference, but not for the reasons you are trying to establish.  Are you suggesting figures connected to the mafia never committed horrific crimes against the innocent?  Families/children were never used or killed for leverage?  The whole "I want his family dead!" Is just a Hollywood cliche?  You romanticize too much this time when white people ruled the crime world.  They were still ruthless criminals. 

 

I'd defer to Ken on this one, but "I want his family dead" would have almost always meant his mob "family" or been an aberration.  "Collateral damage" was severely frowned upon.  It's one of things the so-called "Commission" was started to prevent.

ATV, two vehicles crash in Cleveland's Stockyards neighborhood: "A crash involving an ATV and two vehicles left passengers with serious injuries Monday night, police said.

 

Few details about the crash were immediately released. It happened about 7:30 p.m. near the intersection of West 67th Street and Denison Avenue in the city's Stockyards neighborhood."

 

You know, there was a reference to those "coal roller" pickup trucks on another thread.  IIRC they were just a brief fad, but I'd say they have some value where the dirt bikes and ATVs are concerned.