A Police Technological Advancement

[konerko14]

I was watching the tv show "Wildest Police Chases" and I thought of a possible technology that could bring car chases to an abrupt end. Its just a rough idea for right now but let me know if you think its possible or if its a good idea.

The main idea of it is to allow the police to shut off any running car that is breaking the law. There could be a government regulation that forces all new cars to have a mechanism that will allow the police to stop the car with something similar to a remote control. If a car forbids to stop for police, the authorities can shut off their car themselves. This will ensure no innocent civilians get put at risk of a reckless driver in a police chase.

This technology will be very valuable to police 10 years or so after it starts getting placed into new cars, since any older car wouldnt have the technology. But soon enough the majority of cars will have this special mechanism.

[FreeLogic]

I was watching the tv show "Wildest Police Chases" and I thought of a possible technology that could bring car chases to an abrupt end. Its just a rough idea for right now but let me know if you think its possible or if its a good idea.

The main idea of it is to allow the police to shut off any running car that is breaking the law. There could be a government regulation that forces all new cars to have a mechanism that will allow the police to stop the car with something similar to a remote control. If a car forbids to stop for police, the authorities can shut off their car themselves. This will ensure no innocent civilians get put at risk of a reckless driver in a police chase.

This technology will be very valuable to police 10 years or so after it starts getting placed into new cars, since any older car wouldnt have the technology. But soon enough the majority of cars will have this special mechanism.

I've heard of this concept before. My question is what's to stop someone with devious intentions from using this technology to stop people's cars and harm them? There are many cases where a car is a safety device such as using it to getting away from people chasing you for malicious reasons.

It's a good idea if you could confine it to only police use, but that would be very difficult given the technology available in our society today. People have cracked the keyless entry systems using wireless laptops. The same could and would eventually be done by similar means.

[Inspector]

More importantly, by what right could the police force manufacturers to install such a device?

[konerko14]

More importantly, by what right could the police force manufacturers to install such a device?

Doesnt the police have a right to protect other individuals? -in this case innocent civilians, who have a right to life, that would have their lives endangered by those criminals. And say, hypothetically, this device would be the most efficient way of stopping the chase, shouldnt the police/gov't create a law to have this thing in all new vehicles?

[Inspector]

Doesnt the police have a right to protect other individuals? -in this case innocent civilians, who have a right to life, that would have their lives endangered by those criminals.

Careful: that line of thought is leaning toward emotionalism. You need to think deeper than the emotional reaction to criminals and car chases. I ask again: By what right would the police force manufacturers to install such a device?

And say, hypothetically, this device would be the most efficient way of stopping the chase, shouldnt the police/gov't create a law to have this thing in all new vehicles?

Absolutely not. They would have no right to make such a law.

[konerko14]

I dont quite understand why having the device mandatory in vehicles is different than using all the other tactics the police use to end the car chase. Is it because its a violation of property rights if they force the manufactures to install the thing?

[Inspector]

Is it because its a violation of property rights if they force the manufactures to install the thing?

Yes, precisely. If they had a raygun that fried you car's computer it would be less of a problem.

[RationalBiker]

Actually, this technology already exists and is in place in "bait" cars. "Bait" cars are specially designed vehicles owned by police departments and they are placed in areas where there is a high frequency of auto thefts. The car is left is such a manner as to be an appealing target. When the thieves start the car, the dispatcher is alerted and they can track it by GPS. When the police are ready to stop the vehicle, they advise the dispatcher to disable the vehicle and lock the doors. There have been numerous apprehensions using these vehicles with this technology. Even when used in this capacity, the police have to be very selective of when they tell the dispatcher to disable the vehicle because quite obviously the driver will "lose" most of the control of it's operation.

However, I'm with Inspector on the problems posed by forced installation of these devices on all cars. If manufacturers voluntarily chose to install this "feature" with customers fully aware of it prior to purchase, it would not be an issue.

[konerko14]

When the police are ready to stop the vehicle, they advise the dispatcher to disable the vehicle and lock the doors.

How exactly do the police disable the car? Is it with a remote control or what? And do you think regular citizens would be able to hack their way into shutting down other peoples cars, like Freelogic pointed out?

Also, you mentioned that it would be fine to install this device into cars if manufactures voluntarily agreed to it and let their consumers know as well. I can see why some buyers would want this device in their car- to ensure that their car doesnt get damaged in a car chase if it gets stolen, especially if its a very expensive car or car that they very much value.

Edited August 14, 2006 by konerko14

[bobsponge]

When you say "There oughtta be a law", you are flushing your objectivism down the toilet.

You're pushing big government crap.

How 'bout we trust the police with the ability to aim and shoot the car, so it can't further endanger the lives of innocents? Problem solved.

If criminals knew the cops were more likely to shoot them, crime would drop quickly. Same if we were all allowed to carry sideearms in public. We've neutered our police and citizenry in this country, to the point that criminality is almost sanctioned and encouraged (my sister-in-law is a cop)

Folks were a lot more polite to each other in the old days when a being rude brought a backhanded slap that started a duel to the death.

Bring back the duel I say!

[RationalBiker]

How exactly do the police disable the car? Is it with a remote control or what? And do you think regular citizens would be able to hack their way into shutting down other peoples cars, like Freelogic pointed out?

I haven't really looked into the exact technology used, but I'm assuming it's most likely by cellular or satellite transmission signals recieved by the bait car. I would suspect that such a hack by "regular citizens" would indeed be possible.

Here is a link to the baitcar.com website. That may provide more information for you. The cars are also equipped with video and audio and some of those are floating around the 'net. It can be quite humorous watching the thieves brag about their theft and confess other criminal activity only to have their ride cut out from underneath them. Their tone and attitude change immediately.

[RationalBiker]

How 'bout we trust the police with the ability to aim and shoot the car, so it can't further endanger the lives of innocents? Problem solved.

As an almost 21 year veteran in the biz, I would offer that this solution is far from 'problem solved'. For one, shooting at a car and disabling it or hitting the occupants is easier said than done. Secondly, flying lead endangers the lives of innocents as well. There are very specific circumstances in which it is appropriate to shoot at a car, but I don't think they apply to the bulk of police pursuits today. I'd rather stick with spike strips and similar such technology.

We've neutered our police and citizenry in this country, to the point that criminality is almost sanctioned and encouraged (my sister-in-law is a cop)

Without a more specific idea of what she's talking about, on the surface I'd have to disagree somewhat with this sentiment.

Bring back the duel I say!

This would seem to me to be a step away from the Objectivist principle of relinquishing the retaliatory use of force to the government, who should retain the monopoly on the use of force except in emergency situations. A person being rude generally does not constitute and emergency situation worthy of capital punishment.

[bobsponge]

So if someone's about to deck you, you call for the government to come in and catch the guy's fist?

No, you should be able to defend yourself, or deck him back.

We want to bring back the ideal of personal responsibility, and that means giving people the power to smack each other around if they act like idiots.

[konerko14]

How 'bout we trust the police with the ability to aim and shoot the car, so it can't further endanger the lives of innocents? Problem solved.

Police use that tactic, but its not always an option. Thats why some car chases last for hours. Plus, shooting out one, two, or even all four tires doesnt always disable the cars use, as Ive seen many instances where the driver is able to continue at fairly high speeds just on rims, only now he is destroying the roads and may be putting others at even more of a risk from the sparks hes creating and less control of the car. I think there definitely can be more efficient ways of handling these situations.

If criminals knew the cops were more likely to shoot them, crime would drop quickly.

So you think police should shoot car thieves and similar type criminals? I think police prefer to give the suspect every chance to their life as possible. Thats why police usually only shoot suspects in self-defense.

[RationalBiker]

So if someone's about to deck you, you call for the government to come in and catch the guy's fist?

No, you should be able to defend yourself, or deck him back.

We want to bring back the ideal of personal responsibility, and that means giving people the power to smack each other around if they act like idiots.

I don't know what "we" you are talking about. You need to be more specific when you say "rude" if you mean a person is about to be physically assaulted. Being rude and being "decked" are two different things. Being rude does not constitute an emergency situation in which you should be able to "deck" somebody whereas being able to defend yourself from being "decked" does constutue an emergency situation in which you should be able to defend youself. Acting like an idiot does NOT constitute an emergency situation that justifies the use of force.

How much have you read and/or do you understand of Objectivist Ethics?

[DavidOdden]

Similar ideas have been proposed for stopping fleeing criminals, though it is all conceptual and not yet implemented. But you'll see these ideas exploited in sci-fi movies, where the state implants explosive devices in the brains of citizens, or paralyzer-chips, or (closer to implementable) explosive collars that permanently disciple and stop the forward movement of miscreants. Forcing all people to have these obedience-devices would make us safer, maybe.

[JMeganSnow]

Yeah, I mean, why not just lobotomize everyone at birth if protecting people from potential harm is the overriding principle here?

The overriding principle that rules the government isn't protection of "innocents" but protection of rights. I have the right, as a human being, to not have a device that's not under my personal control implanted in my car. Things like this proposed car-stopping-chip and the mandatory V-chip in televisions are a violation of people's rights, something that government has no business getting involved in. It doesn't matter whether a few people are saved by seat-belt laws or speed limits or any other of the godawful number of things the Great Nanny does to protect us from ourselves, what matters is that we have a right to do these things.

As for duels and other similar laws: that's using violence as a threat to keep other people in line, and we have a word for people that do that: thugs. Civilization requires that men be forbidden to exercise violence on a whim; the only thing that temporarily allows you to use violence against another person is an emergency, and even then you are accountable, you can even be charged if you use a demonstrably excessive amount of violence to handle the situation.

[konerko14]

It doesn't matter whether a few people are saved by seat-belt laws or speed limits or any other of the godawful number of things the Great Nanny does to protect us from ourselves, what matters is that we have a right to do these things.

There wouldnt be any speed limits in a Capitalistic society? I guess that wouldnt be much different on the freeways/highways from how it is now because most people would probably still drive in the 70-80mph range, and then there would be the occassional triple digit drivers. But since roads would be privately owned, the road owners would have a right to post a speed limit on it if they want, dont they? How does ownership of roads work though? -do investors and some city residents own all the roads in that city, or could each street/road be owned by different people? Like, someone would own Vine St and another owner(s) would own Blueberry Rd, etc throughout the city?

[Lathanar]

There are prototypes being built for guns that discharge the electrical system of newer cars and disable them

Microwave guns, there is already an incar chip designed to be shot with a laser and shut down by police called HALT (High Speed Avoidance Using Laser Technology) with accompanying legislation to try and fiorce automakers to use it. There is also talk of testing GPS darts which would be shot and attached to fleeing vehicles, so a chase is not needed.

[-archimedes-]

I was watching the tv show "Wildest Police Chases" and I thought of a possible technology that could bring car chases to an abrupt end. Its just a rough idea for right now but let me know if you think its possible or if its a good idea.

The main idea of it is to allow the police to shut off any running car that is breaking the law. There could be a government regulation that forces all new cars to have a mechanism that will allow the police to stop the car with something similar to a remote control. If a car forbids to stop for police, the authorities can shut off their car themselves. This will ensure no innocent civilians get put at risk of a reckless driver in a police chase.

This technology will be very valuable to police 10 years or so after it starts getting placed into new cars, since any older car wouldnt have the technology. But soon enough the majority of cars will have this special mechanism.

You know...the "NorthStar" navigation/engine systems monitoring devices are receiving an ever wider distribution, in one form or another, in the automotive markets, from one marque to the next, so...one wonders just how difficult it would actually be for enforcement agencies to lobby for such a legal provision and how simple it would be to adapt the pre-existing technology to meet the requirements"?"