[ACCEPTED] - Protect And Swerve

[Candensia]

Here's another one. As always, I appreciate your feedback.

https://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atlant ... 5KMY25RAY/

First Draft

[DRAFT] – Protect And Swerve

[The Issue] – A high-speed police pursuit ended in disaster last night when the suspects suddenly lost control of their vehicle and swerved into incoming traffic, triggering a fatal pileup. The deadly chase has raised questions regarding whether pursuits on the nation's roadways are worth the danger they present to the public.

[issuevalidity] – Must allow cars.


[Option 1] – "Let's cut to the chase," asserts roadway safety official @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Police pursuits are driving @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ into their graves, and they present an unacceptable risk to public safety! A national no-pursuit policy must be imposed, with exceptions only in extreme circumstances, such as to capture suspects involved in violent crimes. Sure, it might embolden petty criminals and demoralize law enforcement, but dead bodies can't be brought to justice."

[effect] - it's too dangerous to pursue stolen golf carts


[Option 2] – "If cops can't tail thugs then why even have police cars!" snaps @@CAPITAL@@ Police Chief @@RANDOMNAME@@, channeling @@HIS@@ frustration into your desk with a truncheon. "A no-pursuit policy only helps criminal lowlifes! Our law enforcement must be trained to end pursuits quickly and forcefully to minimize danger to the community. Drill officers extensively in pursuit-stopping tactics, like high-speed PIT maneuvers, spike strip deployment, and tire sharpshooting. If criminals know escape is impossible, then maybe they won't run to begin with."

[effect] – rim-driving skills are crucial for aspiring car thieves


[Option 3] – "Pursuits are overrated," moans @@RANDOMNAME@@, Director of the Infrastructure Ministry Administration for the Creation of Resources to Eliminate Existing Problems on Roads. "@@NAME@@ should expand urban and suburban street camera networks, and extend roadway surveillance to cover all major highways. We could then track evasive suspects - so long as they aren't in the middle of nowhere - and make arrests when risk to bystanders is low. Besides, we wouldn't need to rob a bank to pay for it, since all that CCTV would let us get away with downsizing the police force."

[effect] – the government always has its eyes on the road

Second Draft

[DRAFT] – Protect And Swerve

[The Issue] – A high-speed police pursuit ended in disaster last night when the suspect suddenly lost control of @@HIS@@ vehicle and swerved into incoming traffic, triggering a fatal pileup. The deadly chase has raised questions regarding whether pursuits on the nation's roadways are worth the danger they present to the public.

[issuevalidity] – Must allow cars.


[Option 1] – "Let's cut to the chase," asserts roadway safety official @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Police pursuits present an unacceptable risk to the general public and drive @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ into their graves! A national no-pursuit policy must be imposed with exceptions only in limited circumstances, such as to capture suspects involved in violent crimes. Sure, it might embolden petty criminals and demoralize law enforcement, but dead bodies can't be brought to justice!"

[effect] - it's too dangerous to pursue stolen golf carts


[Option 2] – "If cops can't tail thugs then why even have police cars!" snaps @@CAPITAL@@ Police Chief @@RANDOMNAME@@, channeling @@HIS@@ frustration into your desk with a truncheon. "No-pursuit policies only help lawbreaking lowlifes! Law enforcement must be trained and equipped to end pursuits quickly- before a fleeing perp can obliterate innocent motorists! Drill officers extensively in forceful, pursuit-stopping tactics like high-speed PIT maneuvers, spike strip deployment, and tire sharpshooting. If criminals know escape is impossible, then maybe they won't run to begin with."

[effect] – car thieves rely heavily on rim-driving skills


[Option 3] – "We can be crime-tough without engaging in trivial pursuits," moans @@RANDOMNAME@@, Director of the Infrastructure Ministry Administration for the Creation of Resources to Eliminate Existing Problems on Roads. "@@NAME@@ should vastly expand urban and suburban street camera networks, and extend roadway surveillance to cover all major highways. We could then track evasive suspects - so long as they aren't in the middle of nowhere - and make arrests when risk to bystanders is low. Wouldn't need to rob a bank to pay for it either, since all that CCTV would let us get away with fewer beat cops on patrol."

[effect] – the government always has its eyes on the road

Current Draft

[DRAFT] Protect And Swerve SUBMITTED 6/13/2020

[The Issue] A high-speed police pursuit ended in disaster last night when the suspect suddenly lost control of @@HIS@@ vehicle and swerved into incoming traffic, triggering a fatal pileup. The deadly chase has raised questions regarding whether pursuits on the nation's roadways are worth the danger they present to the public.

[issuevalidity] Must allow cars.


[Option] "Let's cut to the chase," suggests roadway safety official @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Evidence shows that police pursuits present an unacceptable risk to the general public and drive @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ into their graves! A national no-pursuit policy should be adopted, with reasonable exceptions when authorized by a senior police officer. After all, there's no point in running down the guilty if the innocent are collateral damage."

[effect] the long arm of the law possesses a rather slow hand


[Option] "If cops can't tail thugs then why even have police cars?" complains @@CAPITAL@@ Police Chief @@RANDOMNAME@@, channeling @@HIS@@ frustration into your desk with a truncheon. "Besides, you'd be letting lawbreaking lowlifes escape! LEOs should instead be extensively trained in PIT, TPAC and TVI against GTAs, TWOC and perps DUI, to prevent IRTCs and RTAs. If criminals know escape is impossible, then maybe they won't run to begin with. Do it ASAP!"

[effect] car thieves rely heavily on rim-driving skills


[Option] "Nobody can escape a traffic jam!" declares @@RANDOMNAME@@, the Interim Director of Infrastructure, Oversight and Traffic at the transportation ministry. "Roadway congestion near vehicle pursuits can be easily manipulated by altering traffic lights or closing roads, ensnaring evasive goons in bumper-to-bumper backups, which all but guarantees quick apprehension by police. Motorists might not appreciate being made into unwitting roadblocks, but why care? If you ask me, the only thing more despicable than a bottleneck is a criminal!"

[effect] it takes a village to catch a criminal

[Ostrovskiy]

fine with me

[Electrum]

This is a great issue. I suggest deleting "otherwise known as IMACREEP" because explaining the joke is not as funny

[Australian rePublic]

Why not an option to give police tire spikes?

[Candensia]

This is a great issue. I suggest deleting "otherwise known as IMACREEP" because explaining the joke is not as funny

I agree. Edited.

Why not an option to give police tire spikes?

Option 2 does that. It doesn't explicitly say "give police tire spikes", which I assume are analogues to "spike strips or "stop sticks", but it essentially advocates that viewpoint. That being better equipment and training for the police, of course.

[Candensia]

Draft version updated.

Most changes are simple stylistic tweaks to improve flow.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Oh, this is very good. Nice relevant issue that most people (myself included) didn't even consider an issue, but a little research suggests it absolutely is.

[Option 1] – "Let's cut to the chase," asserts roadway safety official @@RANDOMNAME@@. "Police pursuits present an unacceptable risk to the general public and drive @@DEMONYMNOUNPLURAL@@ into their graves!

I'd tweak it slightly to "Evidence shows that police pursuits...", just to make it clear that this speaker's position is based on statistics, not just a response to this one incident.

A national no-pursuit policy must be imposed with exceptions only in limited circumstances, such as to capture suspects involved in violent crimes.

I'd suggest removing the description of the exceptions, and instead just say:

A general national no-pursuit policy should be adopted, with reasonable exceptions when authorised by a senior police officer.

That's reasonable sounding, for sure, but I don't think it's unreasonable to open reasonably.

Sure, it might embolden petty criminals and demoralize law enforcement, but dead bodies can't be brought to justice!"

This line doesn't work, as its arguing against its own position. I'd suggest making it more in favour of the position. Something like:

"There's no point in running down the guilty if the innocent are collateral damage."

[effect] - it's too dangerous to pursue stolen golf carts

Hmmm.

Maybe something more like:

[effect] gentlemen of the police will walk but never run

or

[effect] the police believe that bad things will come to those who wait

[Option 2] – "If cops can't tail thugs then why even have police cars!" snaps @@CAPITAL@@ Police Chief @@RANDOMNAME@@, channeling @@HIS@@ frustration into your desk with a truncheon.

Question mark rather than an exclamation mark, I think.

"No-pursuit policies only help lawbreaking lowlifes! Law enforcement must be trained and equipped to end pursuits quickly- before a fleeing perp can obliterate innocent motorists! Drill officers extensively in forceful, pursuit-stopping tactics like high-speed PIT maneuvers, spike strip deployment, and tire sharpshooting. If criminals know escape is impossible, then maybe they won't run to begin with."

[effect] – car thieves rely heavily on rim-driving skills

Yeah, seems good. Feels like high-speed PIT maneuvers are not something that a reasonable policeman would suggest though, as they're deployed specifically at low speeds of 35 mph or lower, and specifically avoided at high speed. Plus sharpshooting suggests police have guns, which isn't universal. I'd suggest instead an acronym barrage.

Something like:

"You'd be letting lawbreaking lowlifes escape! LEOs should instead be extensively trained in PIT, TPAC and TVI against GTAs TWOC and perps DUI, to prevent IRTCs and RTAs. If criminals know escape is impossible, then maybe they won't run to begin with. Do it ASAP! "

[Option 3] – "We can be crime-tough without engaging in trivial pursuits," moans @@RANDOMNAME@@, Director of the Infrastructure Ministry Administration for the Creation of Resources to Eliminate Existing Problems on Roads.

DIMACREEPR? I feel like that should mean something.

"@@NAME@@ should vastly expand urban and suburban street camera networks, and extend roadway surveillance to cover all major highways. We could then track evasive suspects - so long as they aren't in the middle of nowhere - and make arrests when risk to bystanders is low. Wouldn't need to rob a bank to pay for it either, since all that CCTV would let us get away with fewer beat cops on patrol."

I don't like this option because it doesn't state an opinion on the pursuits themselves. Are we talking about replacing pursuit, or supplementing pursuit?

Either way, I think its redundant -- its implicit from option 1 that if you institute no-pursuit you'd be looking at other ways to catch and track perps.

Instead, I think you have room for a crazy third option here. Maybe deliberately create city congestion to make vehicular escapes impractical, or something like that?

[Candensia]

Thanks CWA!

Draft Version Updated.

Maybe something more like:

[effect] gentlemen of the police will walk but never run

or

[effect] the police believe that bad things will come to those who wait

Hmm, not really feeling those, what about:

[effect] - the long arm of the law possesses a rather slow hand

I'd suggest instead an acronym barrage.

I hadn't considered the acronym angle for option 2, and I think it works quite well, so I'll nab that.

DIMACREEPR? I feel like that should mean something.

I was going for "IMACREEP" as the acronym for option 3, but it didn't work well. I've come up with a new one, IDIOT, and have reworked the option itself.

Thank you for your continued feedback, everyone.

[Candensia]

I'm switching this to last call, due to the contest deadline.

[Electrum]

Option 1 - 'Asserts' is used when you say a fact or belief - cutting to the chase is not really a belief/fact that you can assert. I suggest using a different word.

Suggested edits for your last option:

"Roadway congestion near vehicle pursuits could can be easily manipulated by altering traffic lights or closing roads, ensnaring evasive goons in bumper-to-bumper backups,- and all but guaranteeing quick apprehension by police. Motorists might not appreciate being made into unwitting roadblocks, but why care? If you ask me, the only thing more despicable than a bottleneck is a criminal!"

(just wanted to add a degree of certainty to this option)

[Candensia]

I'll think over the speaker verb for option 1. I personally think it works, but I'll mull it over some more.

EDIT: Replaced "asserts" with "suggests".

Good calls on option 3. Edited.