On August 25, 2004 an argument was published in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution regarding the banning of police chases. The writer was Cynthia Tucker and she believes that high-speed police chases should be ended. She believes that there are two ways to do this; the first way is through a ban on Police chases in the United States enacted by the Supreme Court. The other option is that Police Chiefs should themselves ban high-speed chases in their districts. Her reason for this is that she feels it is the duty of police officers to not chase suspects in order to protect innocent bystanders. In her argument, Cynthia compares the shooting of criminals fleeing on foot to the maneuvers used by law enforcement to end high-speed chases. It is Cynthia's opinion that police chases should be banned in order to protect the innocent bystander and the criminal that is fleeing the police. In her argument she uses both logos and pathos to try and persuade us to see the situation the same way that she does.
             Cynthia uses many facts to try and show that there is not a good reason to chase after the people that flee. "The vast majority of police chases --about 70 percent of them -- emanate from traffic violations." She gives us this one to say that the odds are against catching a real criminal in a police chase. Another fact that Cynthia gives us is that between 1993 and 2002, 3,525 deaths were caused by high-speed chases. She tries to appeal to us by stating that police could simply take down the tag number and then get the person later. Also, the Miami police are used as an example of a location where chases were banned and there has been no increase of people fleeing.
             Even though all of these are good facts, there is something missing. The 70% refers to the violation that made police start after them, not why the person did not pull over. There is no way to know this until you stop the car and check the driver's information...