Read the article. That isn’t what they describe at all.
Cops start a pursuit when the suspect fails to yield. Once they lose visual they stop the pursuit. They don’t say what speed or how long but they stoped perusing
A short time later they see the suspect and pit the car.
The article is poorly written but this doesn’t appear to be bad policing. They knocked off the pursuit when it wasn’t safe and immediately stopped him when they don’t the suspect later.
I love to bash shitty cops but this is how I want them to behave unless I see evidence otherwise.
Yeah, “high speed” isn’t mentioned in the article. It’s in the headline, though, and if we’re believing the TV station’s coverage enough to have a conversation about it, the headline is part of the coverage.
Read the article. They don’t describe that at all.
The original headline at the news site is “Driver caught with $400K in Ecstasy pills, cash after high-speed I-20 chase.”
Read the article. That isn’t what they describe at all.
Cops start a pursuit when the suspect fails to yield. Once they lose visual they stop the pursuit. They don’t say what speed or how long but they stoped perusing
A short time later they see the suspect and pit the car.
The article is poorly written but this doesn’t appear to be bad policing. They knocked off the pursuit when it wasn’t safe and immediately stopped him when they don’t the suspect later.
I love to bash shitty cops but this is how I want them to behave unless I see evidence otherwise.
So since the title has the words high speed chase, but they don’t repeat it in the text of the article, the headline can be ignored?
Go back to school and learn to read.
Nice ad hominem.
The article doesn’t describe that headline at all. It describes the opposite of the headline.
You clearly don’t know what words mean.
I am very aware what words mean
Can you cite the speed and distance of the chase?
Can you cite the part of the article that contradicts the title?
Already asked and answered
deleted by creator
‘click bait’
Yeah, “high speed” isn’t mentioned in the article. It’s in the headline, though, and if we’re believing the TV station’s coverage enough to have a conversation about it, the headline is part of the coverage.
Headlines are to hype the article.
When you read the article the exact opposite is described.
As I said it’s a poorly written article but based on the actual article. I do not see an issue.
I only found one other cite and it was similar.
I have a huge issue with idiotic chases but this doesn’t appear to be one.