another chase. Another do not get involved order

Are you for real? Pines just chased 41 and zero suspects into our city. Officers workin ask can we assist them? Supervisor denies. Are they requesting our assitance. Yes thats right. Those famous words. Do the other agencies even know to say that specifically. If they are advising they are comming we should be helping. I feel like I work glorified security. Hands are always tied with this department. Does policy say anything about the other agency asking for assistance? Damn this place sucks. Let us do out jobs. Why not buy us all scooters with a lap top tray. They will be better on gas and we wont be chasing on them!

Classic example why we should have stop sticks. Chases comming South we could end them. Great invention not Miramar approved.

Classic example why we should have stop sticks. Chases comming South we could end them. Great invention not Miramar approved.

That's what got those 2 PBSO Deputies killed, our hands are tied because citizens don't want us to chase (too dangerous). The tide will shift and people will get tired of crime and say we should chase. Until then we can't.

That's what got those 2 PBSO Deputies killed, our hands are tied because citizens don't want us to chase (too dangerous). The tide will shift and people will get tired of crime and say we should chase. Until then we can't.

No, improper deployment of the sticks is what got them killed. When deployed properly, the stop sticks are an EXTREMELY useful tool.

And PLEASE cite a survey or any published research that shows that the public does not want police to chase and apprehend violent criminal suspects... I'd love to see that one.

The issue is NOT with the public. It's with the department wanting to avoid liability. It's much easier to say "public safety was at risk, so we broke it off," than to later justify an Officer or civilian's death as a result of a pursuit. That's the bottom line.

That's what got those 2 PBSO Deputies killed, our hands are tied because citizens don't want us to chase (too dangerous). The tide will shift and people will get tired of crime and say we should chase. Until then we can't.

No, improper deployment of the sticks is what got them killed. When deployed properly, the stop sticks are an EXTREMELY useful tool.

And PLEASE cite a survey or any published research that shows that the public does not want police to chase and apprehend violent criminal suspects... I'd love to see that one.

The issue is NOT with the public. It's with the department wanting to avoid liability. It's much easier to say "public safety was at risk, so we broke it off," than to later justify an Officer or civilian's death as a result of a pursuit. That's the bottom line.








You said it. Show me a chase that justifies your death or my death. Also, do your own work and look up the surveys that show the people are against pursuits. They are all over the web.

PS- I share the frustration, I just go with the flow.

You said it. Show me a chase that justifies your death or my death. Also, do your own work and look up the surveys that show the people are against pursuits. They are all over the web.

First, if someone shot you, I'd pursue them at all costs.

Second, just show me ONE survey that says that the public does not want us to pursue violent criminal suspects. It shouldn't be MY responsibility to justify your heresay comments.

so basically other agencies have to say the magic words........ because every supervisor says are they requesting our assistance? not only have I seen this with pursuits but also with other incidents such as marabou cafe in pines..... its ridiculous gimme my moped so i can go 10-8 already

Second, just show me ONE survey that says that the public does not want us to pursue violent criminal suspects. It shouldn't be MY responsibility to justify your heresay comments.

Well, I figured I'd research my OWN contention and found evidence like the following excerpt:

"Public opinion Interviews with 555 residents of Aiken County and Omaha indicate support for police in apprehending individuals suspected of violating the law. The public agreed with law enforcement personnel that the seriousness of the offense increases the need to pursue suspects, but the level of risk to the public decreases that need. Although some differences in opinion were found between races and socioeconomic
levels for some law violations, no differences were found for serious
felony offenses."

From: the US DOJ:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/164831.pdf

Or from the "Journal of Criminal Justice"

The findings from three sites indicate that citizens support the police in their attempt to apprehend suspects of serious crimes, but the support diminishes when the nature of the offense is not as serious. In addition, the findings suggest that public support decreases when information about the dangers of pursuit are presented. Overall, the study indicates that an informed public is less likely to accept the necessity of police use of pursuit, especially for less serious crimes.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 16ebf9cda2 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V75-3VY509W-B&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b30d434dd27c1caf3cea4916ebf9cda2)

Or again from the NIJ:

"Data from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety's Summary Report
dated April 1992 reveal that more than 80 percent of respondents to a
public opinion survey approved pursuing a violent felon under high-
risk conditions (those situations that would pose a greater threat to
innocent third parties), but only 20 percent approved pursuing a
traffic offender in those situations. In low-risk conditions (those
situations posing a lesser threat to innocent third parties), these
percentages change to 94 and 58, respectively, in favor of pursuit.
However, only 12 percent of respondents believed that most suspects
flee police because they have committed serious crimes."

http://www.nlectc.org/txtfiles/speed.html

Or how about the informal poll that just asked if Police should be allowed to engage in "high speed pursuits" of suspects, where 70% agreed that they should (AZFamily.com).


So, Mr. BS, I've proven my point. Now, again, please show me ONE survey or document that shows that the public does not want us to pursue violent criminal suspects..........

like your homework.....good job

Citizen preferences and perceptions concerning police pursuit policies

Robert J. Homant and Daniel B. Kennedy
Department of Criminal Justice University of Detroit Mercy Detroit, Michigan 78219, USA

Available online 4 June 2002.



Abstract
A sample of 450 registered voters was surveyed concerning their attitudes towards police pursuit policies and practices. Based on a 40 percent return rate, it was found that most police officers were thought to use good judgement in pursuit decisions;nevertheless, a slight majority of responders favored more restrictions on police pursuit. Most responders felt that such restrictions would not tempt them to elude; however, 21 percent either said they might elude or were not sure how they would be affected by the restrictions on police, Concerning specific policy types, citizens were found to be only slightly more likely than police officers to prefer a restrictive policy. Likewise, in response to a traffic stop scenario, citizens were only slightly less supportive of pursuit than were the police officers in that same city. Support for pursuit was found to have a slight



I commend you on your homework. My point is until the citizens support the use of chases in any case, because your next response will be until we know what they did we should continue the chase we will not be able to pursue. The courts have said we are liable, so we should set a few million for that chase justto appease all of you that think we should chase.
Public opinions unfortunately dictates policy all over the country now. Pay attention to the next article in the news and watch for the opinion poll they will post about a fatal crash resulting from a chase and it will be overwhelmingly against the chase.
I support chases, but I also support the use of COMMON SENSE which seems to be lacking in this department.

Stay Safe

Well Jose it doesn't take too much common sense to know that if you have a robbery suspect running from the law, you should chase them. Even if they are going sousbound. Why do you think they carjacked the vehicle in dade but came to broward to do their robbery spree. Cause they know in dade, they will get chased and shot by RID. As they say on the streets- Cowards from broward get sprayed in dade.

"Concerning specific policy types, citizens were found to be only slightly more likely than police officers to prefer a restrictive policy. Likewise, in response to a traffic stop scenario, citizens were only slightly less supportive of pursuit than were the police officers in that same city. "

My point is until the citizens support the use of chases in any case

Pay attention to the next article in the news and watch for the opinion poll they will post about a fatal crash resulting from a chase and it will be overwhelmingly against the chase.

The survey that you chose completely supports my contention: that the Public DOES want us to pursue violent criminals. This whole discussion started because you wrote that the public perception is what keeps us from chasing people. I COMPLETELY disagree. It's the department's fear of liability that keeps us from chasing people. Is it a well founded fear? Perhaps. My point is not that we should or should not pursue people. My point is only to refute your unfounded contention that the public does not support the police in pursuing violent felony suspects.

As far as the response AFTER a pursuit that ends in tragedy, of course the public will be against that pursuit. It's over, and it ended in tragedy. If my family was killed as a result of a police pursuit, I'd probably be against that, too. But, if my family was killed by a violent felon who fled from the police and they didn't do anything about it, I'd be just as mad...

The bottom line is, public perception is that we should pursue violent felons. Most police departments have policies that allow us to pursue violent felons. However, because of the fear of liability (which is instilled in ALL of us from the academy on), we sometimes lose sight of the benefit of a pursuit (ultimately keeping the public safe from a criminal) and focus too much on the liability. It will continue to extremes and eventually being concerned about liability can get you killed.

I do agree with your point about common sense, though. Just because we are allowed to pursue an armed robbery suspect, doesn't mean that we should also pursue a traffic violator... Perhaps if more of us used common sense, the departments could ease up a bit and trust us a bit more....

Just advise on NIPSAC so MDPD can wait for them at the county line and take care of them the way Miramar won't.

There used to be a time when Dade punks were terrified to go into Miramar because they knew their skulls would get split. You new guys on the road need to start spreading the message again or one of these thugs will have no problem taking an officer out. Just my unqualified opinion.

Not with the spineless two bar shitheads we have that get off on burning us for doing police work. When we get rid of the lazy and clueless people in charge things will get back to normal. We are not out to hurt anyone but we used to search them out for hours and caught a lot of them before we got the lazy leaders on the road. Until there is a change it will be come in answer the radio and collect the paycheck just like Capt MG did her entire life. BG never answered the radio and ID666 was first on scene and first to leave when he heard there would be paper to write or just so he could drive 100 mph like he does on his way to work every day (Late)!.

Do you really think that when these people retire things will change? Look at who they are promoting and who they are not. Its all about grooming the ones that will comply with what the brass wants. Thats why you will never see ML, PB, JW, JA, TT, and some other ones that I cant think of right now, get promoted. And thats a shame because those guys are great leaders. Which reminds, whatever happened to wanting to be a cool Sgt? Like the ones they all worked for, and tell tall tales about how they all kicked ass back in the day. And then they turn around and try to squash you with their thumb. I dont get that at all. Oh well, at least I can say I've seen an elephant fly.

Sgt JD/245 more than likely will be a future capt because he's a good capt's pet. Not to mention master micromanagement at it's best! :evil:

Feel sorry for his squad....always showing up to calls and constantly has to be on main channel. If I'm working a detail, I turn my radio off!

Relax Lanoue.

[quote="No BS":3k0qawy3]Second, just show me ONE survey that says that the public does not want us to pursue violent criminal suspects. It shouldn't be MY responsibility to justify your heresay comments.

Well, I figured I'd research my OWN contention and found evidence like the following excerpt:

"Public opinion Interviews with 555 residents of Aiken County and Omaha indicate support for police in apprehending individuals suspected of violating the law. The public agreed with law enforcement personnel that the seriousness of the offense increases the need to pursue suspects, but the level of risk to the public decreases that need. Although some differences in opinion were found between races and socioeconomic
levels for some law violations, no differences were found for serious
felony offenses."

From: the US DOJ:
http://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/164831.pdf

Or from the "Journal of Criminal Justice"

The findings from three sites indicate that citizens support the police in their attempt to apprehend suspects of serious crimes, but the support diminishes when the nature of the offense is not as serious. In addition, the findings suggest that public support decreases when information about the dangers of pursuit are presented. Overall, the study indicates that an informed public is less likely to accept the necessity of police use of pursuit, especially for less serious crimes.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_o ... 16ebf9cda2 (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V75-3VY509W-B&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=b30d434dd27c1caf3cea4916ebf9cda2)

Or again from the NIJ:

"Data from the AAA Foundation for Traffic Safety's Summary Report
dated April 1992 reveal that more than 80 percent of respondents to a
public opinion survey approved pursuing a violent felon under high-
risk conditions (those situations that would pose a greater threat to
innocent third parties), but only 20 percent approved pursuing a
traffic offender in those situations. In low-risk conditions (those
situations posing a lesser threat to innocent third parties), these
percentages change to 94 and 58, respectively, in favor of pursuit.
However, only 12 percent of respondents believed that most suspects
flee police because they have committed serious crimes."

http://www.nlectc.org/txtfiles/speed.html

Or how about the informal poll that just asked if Police should be allowed to engage in "high speed pursuits" of suspects, where 70% agreed that they should (AZFamily.com).


So, Mr. BS, I've proven my point. Now, again, please show me ONE survey or document that shows that the public does not want us to pursue violent criminal suspects..........[/quote:3k0qawy3]

Public opinion is not just surveys. Take a look at the seriously expensive lawsuits paid out due to a bad chase. Until the courts change or legislation supports it chases will be restricted. If you want to help change it get the PBA involved with their paid lobby to make a difference for all of us.

I just wanted to say it wasnt improper deployment that lead to the two pbso d/s's being killed it was the improper retrivel . It was found that both sets of stop sticks that were deployed did not have the retrivel ropes attached,the deputies fairing that if they left the sticks in the rode would blow out the tires on the on coming units . both d/s's went out in the jet black darkness to retrive the sticks and t6hats when they were struck.Now getting to chases,,, WHO CARES, back when I first started it was pretty neat to get involved in a chase and then it was a free for all , nobody got in crashes, the public got out of the way. and you always got the bad guy. but things have changed. So somtimes you just got to say "what the f--k .

Look up the Michelle Norton story...you can YAHOO or GOOGLE it.

http://www.policedriving.com/Norton%20Article.htm

WHAT'S THIS HAVE TO DO WITH POLICE CHASES?

THE PROBLEM WITH THIS COUNTRY IS THAT THEY GO WHERE THE MONEY IS. THEY KNOW DAMN WELL THAT THE FLEEING SUSPECT WILL PROBABLY NEVER PAY THEM ONE CENT, BUT THE CITY WILL ALWAYS COME TO SOME AGREEMENT.
ANOTHER PROBLEM I HAVE IS THESE SO-CALLED "SURVEYS". HAS ANYONE HERE EVER BEEN ASKED TO TAKE ONE OF THESE SURVEYS? DO YOU KNOW OF ANYONE THAT'S BEEN ASKED TO TAKE ONE OF THESE SURVEYS? I DON'T KNOW ONE PERSON THAT'S EVER BEEN ASKED TO TAKE PART IN A "HOT TOPIC OF THE DAY" SURVEY. SOUNDS LIKE FABRICATION TO ME.

Hollywood Police is accepting applications for those who want to improve their policing skills and be able to actually pursue criminals. We all no it's frustrating to get the "do not assist" order, and I will be happy to tell you, you won't hear that here. The only catch is that you will have to take the psych again, and if you work for Miramar....you probably won't pass it!!!!