Why US police is so lenient to criminals &amp; car robbers?
<p>I've seen many videos on youtube like this, but this was the <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZH-hucZ94-g" rel="nofollow noreferrer">most surprising one</a>, where US police is chasing for 5,10,15 minutes to the criminal (who drives with either stolen car or his car) and police is just chasing those persons endlessly (until they stop by accident or for some reasons).</p>

<p>I just don't understand, why police don't immediately stop them (either blocking the car or crashing it), and instead, allows the criminals to drive for half-an-hour and destroy many things on roads and kill people (who knows how many them were in cars).<br>
This doesn't relate to only that specific video or either tanks only, but there are plenty of videos like this, showing how police doesn't take any action in such occasions, until the robbers stop themselves...</p>

<p>I think the problem lies in thinking like that "how to stop a tank..".  How to? ... Is that a question really?  Police should stop! Get another tank,  a big excavator, fire a missile to it on a empty road or do whatever...
  is that good that he killed people, crashed machines and destroyed half the city??</p>

<p>There are various practical considerations such as the fact that a spike strip is not effective against a tank. The main legal reason is that in the US, a seizure (arrest) must be reasonable under existing interpretations of the 4th Amendment. A person has a constitutional right to his life and property, and police force potentially infringes that right. For example, stopping a jaywalker with a shotgun blast would be unreasonable force, and could open the government up to a section 1983 lawsuit (referring to <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1983" rel="nofollow noreferrer">42 USC 1983</a>). So while the police are motivated to protect lives and property and to enforce the law, their use of force has to be reasonable.</p>

<p>There is no mechanical procedure for determining, in any arbitrary instance, where the line is between reasonable and unreasonable force. The courts have determined that it is whatever force a reasonable officer would use in the given circumstances. More force is justified if the reasonable officer believe that he or others are in imminent danger of serious bodily injury or death, and lack of such a reasonable belief could lead to a protracted low-speed car chase to arrest a suspect. There are guidelines that help police make these decisions, see <a href="https://www.nij.gov/topics/law-enforcement/officer-safety/use-of-force/Pages/continuum.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">this</a> for example, and department will have specific rules about use of force. </p>

<p>There is a tradeoff between spending more time waiting for a suspect to stop, and using force to stop a vehicle. One way to stop a fleeing vehicle is with a spike strip, but that will destroy property and is likely to cause injury, so you need a policy. <a href="https://www.ohioattorneygeneral.gov/Files/Briefing-Room/News-Releases/Policy-and-Legislation/Vehicular-Pursuit/CORSA-Vehicular-Pursuit-Model-Policy.aspx" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Here</a> is a policy in Ohio, which begins by stating that</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Due to the unique conditions within the community we serve the agency
  designee has determined that high speed pursuits are  generally 
  restricted  to  exigent  circumstances,  and  when  occurring  are 
  authorized  and closely monitored by supervisors.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Spike strips can be used in some circumstances, but not all. That is, police have to follow the law in making an arrest.</p>

police