I was watching one of those stupid "Wildest [insert uninteresting word] Videos" on Saturday, and one of the videos showed a standard police chase, complete with jumpy video of about 10 police cars chasing a 15-year-old 4-cylinder lawn mower Honda.  It showed police officers in the prime of their ineptitude, struggling to keep up with a stupid teenager speeding through traffic and evading capture.  The chased car didn't even stop when it hit the well-positioned road block that blew out its tires.  So the cops continued to chase it back and forth along some backcountry highways as the driver of the car had a blast keeping away from the cops.  Even when the cops finally cornered him, he simply rammed into their cars and kept on going. 

I've had my run-ins with The Man, and most have been unpleasant.  For some reason, cops don't seem to like being called "fat" or "short".  Kidding.  But for once, I'm gonna take the side of law enforcement.  I firmly believe that cops should have the right to use any force necessary to accomplish their objectives, assuming their objectives are legitimate and legal.  The cops in these videos should've used brute force to run this kid off the road.  They used a little force, but they were careful not to hurt him.  Why?  He was evading law enforcement.  And he was making a joke of it.  He knew the cops could only use a certain level of force on him, so he played their little game.  He bumped their cars.  He said he'd stop but then didn't.  After he finally stopped, he refused to get out of his car and/or show his hands.  Meanwhile, the bumbling cops could only point their (probably unloaded) guns at him and yell things in a threatening manner.  I'm sure my opinion on this matter is quite disagreeable to some, but I think they should've shot him.  As a mild humanitarian, I don't think people should be shot and/or killed for no reason.  But I think this kid should've been shot in order to force him to cooperate (not merely to kill him).  A shot to the arm or leg usually isn't life threatening, and it definitely would've gotten the message across.  Or for the more humanitarian out there, there's a magical weapon called a taser.  Police warn 3 times before using it.  After that, the perp gets 50,000 volts shot into his system.  It's effective and fair.  I don't know why these cops didn't use it. 

My opinions on this can be easily argued against.  "How could you legitimize shooting a human being?"  "You're a jerk."  And that's fine.  But what I don't understand is when people argue against cops being able to use force.  One person's argument said that cops shouldn't be allowed to use any force at all; it could cause too much collateral damage.  For example, if a person is evading pursuing cops while driving, the cops could inadvertently push the vehicle into oncoming traffic or innocent bystanders.  My argument against that is this:  What about the guy speeding away from the cops?  Doesn't he pose a threat to innocent bystanders?  I understand the opposing position, but I'd rather have power in the hands of law enforcement instead of in the hands of criminals.