The point is, zero tolerance is stupid. We need to have an appropriate balance between clear rules and discretion, so that the law actually means something rather than only being whatever the prosecutor says it is, without being so overly rigid that you have people being prosecuted for doing harmless or beneficial things.
The existing law is very, very far away from being overly rigid. Government officials have far too much discretion and get away with far too much. But it is theoretically possible to go too far the other way -- we just haven't, and never have to worry about doing so in practice, because of the politics of the situation. Politics making zero tolerance for police misconduct unachievable in practice doesn't mean it would be a good idea even if we could manage to implement it.
Yes, zero tolerance is stupid, and this remains a bad example.
If the suspect is flagrantly running red lights or driving 140 in a 55, someone else doing the same thing is going to be conspicuous. If the suspect is ignoring "no turn on red" signs or driving 65 in a 55, they're doing the same thing as 80+% of other motorists and someone else doing the same thing is not going to stand out.
> In this case, many police departments will not pursue because a chase endangers too many lives (I don't have a reference handy for this, but I believe I read about here on HN some months back).
You're referring to situations where the suspect is aware of the pursuit.
Please don't forget the fact that you have the privilege of being encased in a few tons of steel with multiple safety systems. When doing your moral calculus and weighing how many lives are worth risking to save time, please remember there are other people on the road who don't have that privilege. Cyclists have to be constantly aware of cars breaking traffic laws if they want to stay alive, and they are not as visible as you would like to imagine.
If there is a non-zero chance of causing an accident and harming someone by breaking traffic laws, and the only benefit is saving time or not annoying residents, how do you justify that?
I justify that because I am not an absolutist. If you're really going for the 'what price a life' argument, unless you're giving your entire income and free time (excluding enough to keep yourself alive) to a relevant charity (say, clearing minefields), you also don't believe in 'any-percentage-over-zero-is-too-high'.
It's in the best interest of the police and for scoping out the area around where a theft has occurred to not draw attention to themselves, by both NOT turning on sirens on AND by not skirting traffic laws. If they are are intent on not alerting the criminal, then driving normally would help with that. And if they are driving normally, then there is no need for sirens then either.