Should the Police Chase Vehicles?

The police pursued two unlicensed teenage girls who ran a red light, resulting in one death and one injury. The loss of a 15-year-old life has left everyone grieving, and once again sparked social controversy over whether law enforcement's actions were excessive. This should have been an opportune moment to review and refine police enforcement techniques; unfortunately, due to media oversimplification, it turned into a zero-sum conflict.

What is even more absurd is that as various parties added fuel to the fire, the voices of the victims were erased, and the complex emotions of the psychologically traumatized police officers were usurped by others speaking on their behalf. The authentic voices of the parties involved were suppressed, leaving seemingly nothing more than a proxy war of stances between representatives. All of this intensified antagonism, simplified the issue, and aggravated the pain of the parties involved as they were labeled with unwarranted tags through others' "well-intentioned" interpretations. The issues that truly deserved discussion were thus obscured.

Thinking Through Two Temporal Points

On calm and careful reflection, when the police witness a violation or crime and initiate a pursuit, it is naturally correct in principle; however, where to draw a reasonable line and boundary is a matter worthy of discussion. For citizens to ride a motorcycle without a license and run a red light is certainly unlawful, but they obviously should not lose their lives as a result. We believe these are starting points that everyone can accept, and we should continue to probe further based on these mutually agreed-upon arguments.

First, it may be necessary to understand two different points in time in order to refine the difficult discussion on "whether the police should chase vehicles." One point in time is the present moment, and the other is after the fact. At the moment a crime or violation occurs, the situation may be sudden and urgent, and subsequent developments can change in a split second. The judgments made by the police on the spot are likely based merely on intuition, a decision made in the flash of a moment. At this time, the standard for holding the police accountable should be somewhat relaxed, or in other words, this "urgency" must be taken into account.

However, whether pursuing administrative, civil, or criminal liability, one inevitably stands from an "ex-post" standpoint to analyze and judge retrospectively. At this point, lacking the urgency of the on-site situation, or because the details of the on-site urgency are too difficult to reconstruct, the details evaluated and considered after the fact will be more comprehensive and meticulous.

Thorough thinking is certainly not a mistake. However, if "urgency" is not factored into consideration, the standard sometimes appears overly strict; judges or superior officers holding the police accountable after the fact may then appear devoid of human empathy, or simply demanding of others what they themselves could not accomplish.

Even with these understandings, we must still apply the "principle of proportionality" to our analysis. Operating the principle of proportionality is not difficult; what is difficult is that in cases like this, one cannot rely solely on an "ex-post perspective," otherwise it is merely "hindsight is 20/20." In addition to this, one must also consider the specific circumstances and context at the time of the incident, combined with the objective behavioral patterns manifested by the violators, as well as the police's motives for taking action and their internal thoughts.

Conclusions Lacking Clear Facts Are Merely Sympathy

Thus, we believe that if the police had known at the outset that it would lead to one death and one injury, they would have abandoned the pursuit. (Conversely, if it could be proven that the police did not care about the other party's life or death at the time and pursued them flat out, that would be another matter, and they might have to bear responsibility for excessive law enforcement.)

If initiating a pursuit is a standard operational response in law enforcement and a norm of execution, the police would not have much grounds for being held accountable. Unless, in the future, for the safety of the police (or those not wearing helmets, or young people), we adopt an enforcement approach of photographing violations rather than pursuing those who run red lights or flee without a license. This would certainly be another way of enforcing the law.

Therefore, when the police decided to pursue, there may not have been any major problem or responsibility to bear. However, after the pursuit began, the situation could change in a split second. If significant changes in circumstances occurred, the police might have to start deciding whether to "escalate" by calling in the police network for a joint pursuit, or simply to "let go" and halt the pursuit.

These maintenance measures required by the principle of proportionality—that law enforcement should not be excessive—must be judged based on the specific context and circumstances. The reference factors for judgment are closely related to the motive and purpose of the pursuit, the duration of the pursuit, the damage caused during the process, and the potential hazardous outcomes that might follow.

Unless we are willing to grant the police absolute power—that upon discovering any illegal act, even if it is merely for a NT$1,800 ticket, we agree that the police may arbitrarily smash roadside cars, harm innocent pedestrians, and disregard the life or death of the person being pursued—otherwise, endless pursuits carry the potential of excessive law enforcement.

These are all potential analyses tailored to this case. As long as we continuously imagine and create new possible facts, the analysis can be made even more refined. Yet, we have actually failed to grasp even the most basic facts of the ins and outs of this case. With a paucity of information, it is difficult to make an appropriate judgment.

Furthermore, the behavioral motives of the police officers and the young girls are hidden within their minds, and without appropriate methods, it is not easy to comprehensively explore them. Before facts and details are clarified, at best, one can only abstractly categorize and deduce through imagination. To claim one can thereby settle the conclusion and decide who is right and who is wrong is surely overstating the case. When all is said and done, it is nothing more than showing support based on whichever side one chooses to sympathize with.