Milwaukee’s Police Chase Policy Is Stuck In Neutral 5%

By Jeramey Jannene26%

8/3/2026, 3:24:24 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Negativity Bias, and Slippery Slope, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 8.8% saturation with 57 hits. Analysis detected 248 faulty-reasoning hits from 649 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 14.9% and a BS Rank of 5% (25,050 of 26,312 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 95.20% of the article peer group.

Milwaukee Police Department officer pulls over a vehicle on N. 12th Ln. 
Photo by Jeramey Jannene. 
Despite a request from the Fire & Police Commission (FPC) to change the city’s vehicle pursuit policy, the Common Council will let Chief Jeffrey Norman ‘s policy stand. 
On a 6-9 vote Friday, the council rejected even considering the change. 
It was the second time in as many months the council voted down changing the policy. 
After 10 people died in high-speed chases in 2025, more than half of whom weren’t involved in a chase, the FPC unanimously voted to request Norman change Milwaukee Police Department policy to bar chases from being initiated when an officer attempts to pull a motorist over for a nonreckless driving offense and the motorist flees. 
The change would eliminate up to 15% of the almost 1,000 chases that happen annually. 
“The Milwaukee pursuit policy is dangerous, and it’s dangerous because it’s too permissive,” said then-commission Vice Chair Bree Spencer to the council’s Public Safety & Health Committee on June 11. 
“We know it’s too permissive because we are way off the national standard.” 
MPD opposed the change because it had modified its policy in February to allow officers to terminate chases without threat of discipline if they believed the chase was a threat to public safety. 
It also prohibited a chase from being initiated with speed as the sole factor. 
Chief of staff Heather Hough said Norman wants more time to see the impacts of the policy. 
After substantial debate, the committee voted 4-1 to recommend rejecting the change, with only Ald. 
Sharlen P. 
Moore in opposition. 
Then, on June 23, the full council unanimously voted the change down as part of a bulk approval of the committee’s recommendations. 
But that wasn’t the end. 
Proponents of the policy change sought to revive the effort at the council’s July 14 meeting, but the revised legislation wasn’t ready. 
On July 31, they tried again. 
Moore moved to have the council review the proposal again. 
The unusual action would have had the council reopen discussion on a policy it had already “placed on file,” the council’s method of rejecting a proposal. 
“That is a dangerous precedent, because that means nothing we as a council have voted down is truly done for a while,” said Ald. 
Scott Spiker , the Public Safety & Health Committee chair. 
Items placed on file formally die at the end of the council’s four-year term, the next instance of which is April 2028. 
Moore said she was voting to respond to what the public was asking for. 
“I want to use this opportunity as a moment to share our thoughts and make a decision on it,” said the alderwoman. 
“I think the public deserves to know our positions on this,” said Ald. 
Alex Brower of the pursuits. 
But their colleagues didn’t agree. 
They needed eight votes to reopen the debate and received only six. 
Brower, Moore, Andrea Pratt , Lamont Westmoreland , Milele A. 
Coggs , and Marina Dimitrijevic voted to restart the debate. 
Even if they had received eight votes to reconsider the file, passage would have been an even larger hurdle. 
The parliamentary thicket the council found itself in was a creation of the Wisconsin Legislature and a negotiation with Mayor Cavalier Johnson . 
The 2023 sales tax law, Act 12, stripped the FPC of its policymaking authority. 
The change was sought by the Milwaukee Police Association and gave more power to the police and fire chiefs. 
To counterbalance the change, the law granted the council the authority to modify policies with a two-thirds (10 of 15) vote. 
Even if Brower and Moore could have persuaded two more colleagues to reopen the debate, they would have needed two more to adopt the change. 
But with only six votes, the change remains dead, at least for now. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 2.6%Urban Milwaukee: 1.7%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.8%Urban Milwaukee: 0.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Jeramey Jannene: 1.7%Urban Milwaukee: 1.4%Availability Heuristic8.5%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.2%Urban Milwaukee: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.2%Urban Milwaukee: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.2%Urban Milwaukee: 0.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 1.2%Jeramey Jannene: 3.2%Urban Milwaukee: 3.0%Framing Effect1.2%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 2.6%Jeramey Jannene: 0.2%Urban Milwaukee: 0.5%Status Quo Bias2.6%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.3%Urban Milwaukee: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 1.3%Urban Milwaukee: 1.9%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 1.1%Urban Milwaukee: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 8.5%Jeramey Jannene: 7.7%Urban Milwaukee: 5.3%Negativity Bias8.5%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 2.5%Urban Milwaukee: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.8%Urban Milwaukee: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Jeramey Jannene: 0.9%Urban Milwaukee: 0.5%In-Group Bias2.9%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 1.0%Urban Milwaukee: 1.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.8%Urban Milwaukee: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.2%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.5%Urban Milwaukee: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 1.1%Urban Milwaukee: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.2%Urban Milwaukee: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.0%Jeramey Jannene: 1.2%Urban Milwaukee: 1.4%Appeal to Authority2.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.6%Urban Milwaukee: 0.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 3.7%Jeramey Jannene: 0.4%Urban Milwaukee: 0.6%Slippery Slope3.7%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.8%Urban Milwaukee: 1.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.8%Jeramey Jannene: 2.5%Urban Milwaukee: 3.8%Appeal to Emotion8.8%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 1.1%Urban Milwaukee: 0.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 1.4%Urban Milwaukee: 1.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.7%Urban Milwaukee: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 1.1%Urban Milwaukee: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.5%Urban Milwaukee: 1.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.3%Urban Milwaukee: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 1.8%Urban Milwaukee: 0.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.1%Urban Milwaukee: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 1.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.7%Urban Milwaukee: 1.3%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.1%Urban Milwaukee: 0.8%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.7%Urban Milwaukee: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 1.2%Urban Milwaukee: 0.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.2%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Jeramey Jannene: 0.0%Urban Milwaukee: 0.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

649 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers20%attributed speech518writer words
Selected voice

Bree Spencer

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words33% of attributed speech19% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.