This appears unremarkable.

> will no longer be allowed to chase people on foot simply because they run away or they've committed minor offenses

It explicitly says they can chase for felonies and stuff or are dangerous

> Officers won't be allowed to chase people on foot if they suspect them of minor offenses such as parking violations, driving on suspended licenses or drinking alcohol in public. But they will still have discretion to chase people who they've determined are committing or about to commit crimes that post "an obvious threat to any person."

I don't understand how driving with a suspended license is considered to be not dangerous. Many people who have their licenses suspended are dangerous drivers, and that is why they lose their license. To me, driving with a suspended license is on obvious threat to public safety.

Only if they are driving. If they are running away on foot, what is the threat?

They commited a crime which put the public in danger. If they did it once and got away, why would one think they wouldn't do it again? Obviously each situation deserves its own consideration. But they are still a.dangerous criminal.

We don't arrest people (yet) on the idea that they might commit crime in the future.

We were talking about someone who had already co.mitted a crime and was now fleeing.

Which according to the article is a minor offence.

Yeah... my whole point was that it shouldn't be considered a minor offense.

The title is... terribly misleading.

As someone who used to run away from the police, it's generally easiest to get away from them by running on foot -- if your environment and circumstances doesn't let you run away on foot then you'll rarely succeed getting away using another method.

But I don't understand this policy. What constitutes "running"? Can someone just slowly walk away?

Good news, police seem to have this bad habit of shooting unarmed people in the back out of pure laziness according to body cam footage.