There’s a possible worldview where… both wrong things are wrong. Endangering others is what the drug dealer is doing (I don’t really believe ecstacy is worth this event but I digress.)… endangering others is what the cops also actively did. Neither is right. Cops have the ability to back off and find the person pretty efficiently when they have plates on their car. Also this is ecstacy not fentanyl or meth.
What? Of course the police caused the chase. The guy drove off, yes, but if the police don’t chase him there’s no chase.
deleted by creator
There’s a possible worldview where… both wrong things are wrong. Endangering others is what the drug dealer is doing (I don’t really believe ecstacy is worth this event but I digress.)… endangering others is what the cops also actively did. Neither is right. Cops have the ability to back off and find the person pretty efficiently when they have plates on their car. Also this is ecstacy not fentanyl or meth.
deleted by creator
There are no safe police chases, and no safe PIT-maneuvers to cause a safe crash. People and property are at peril.
deleted by creator
I like how you just decided to break out philosophy 101 terminology like it’s going to make your point for you.
The other user cited examples and made an argument using said examples. It’s a valid argument. The question is whether it is sound.
To that I would say, “Yes”. Police chases do endanger lives. In fact, many jurisdictions have outright bans on chases.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator