...and the reports are in....(O'Hara - Chase)

[RETIRED LT 275]

My friend, you write very eloquently, but ask yourself this. Do you think stop sticks should have been used on the call where two deputies were killed in Belle Glades. The answer is yes and no. Wheather or not they should have been used is not the question. The real question is what could go wrong?? Is it possible on an unlight road that someone may not see someone standing in the road?? Two Deputies died, but yes it was a situation where the use of stop sticks would normally be used.

Something went wrong that night. Had a Watch Commander Lieutenant, said no not out here on this dark road the worst thing that would have happened is the guy would have gotten away with a used Toyota.

Huge studies by lawyers and police agencies have determined that stop sticks are dangerous, and that is why there are restrictions on their use by the agency.

Tasers are not supposed to kill people but many have died.

Ask yourself this and be honest. Would you want to stand in the middle of the road on 95 and put out stop sticks. Would you stand in the middle of 95 under any condition being sober. It is just not a safe place.

I had a split second to make that choice. No one has to like it. My job is to protect the deputies first. I made that decision, the end result was a dangerous person was taken of the streets and no one was hurt that have been reported to my knowledge.

What a great ending. Who could have asked for more?
Pat

Pat.......You explain your reasonings at least to some minimal degree of why you did not allow for the deployment of the TDD's on I-95. You seem to be very conservative and fail to recognize the need for taking calculated risks, even in the face of inherent risks. When you are too conservative, and unwilling to push the envelope at all, then you fall short of doing what many of us in this business call "police work." I am not a proponent of taking any and all risks, but we didn't take the calculated risks that we do, the following consequences would arguably occur: We would fail to adequately engage, We would send a message to the scumbags and evil-doers that we'll play as long as it is safe to do so, and We will send a message to our community that we don't like to engage when things get a bit too risky. In the end, we will have an agency full of deputies that are no longer committed to engaging those that need to be brought to justice. Our deputies will lose complete confidence in those that are in a position to make the decision to engage, or not, like the Lt. or watch commander. Finally, the community will lose faith in our abilities and no longer be confident that when we are called upon to act, that we will (within reason) respond and TCB in order to keep them safe and from keeping our community becoming one of lawlessness.

Let's not confuse the decision that were faced with versus the one out in the glades. The case in the glades involved a stolen vehicle that probably should have been pursued at all and it also involved the improper deployment of the TDD's. The circumstances of your case were completely different than that, and I understood it to be circumstances that definitely warranted a pursuit.

In light of the incident having a story book ending, which is what you tend to describe, where was the support for your decision making? How is it that your event ends well, and all is good according to you, but then you are recommended for demotion to sergeant? That seems to be a bit strange to me.

[RETIRED LT 275]

To Guest.

What you asked me at the end of your post is a long detailed subject that can not be explained here.

But in short, I did everything that was asked of me for over 17 years at the agency, but it got to the point I could no longer sit and watch what people like the ones I sued do what they were doing to people.

I stood up to them, and that's why they were going to demote me.

Pat

It has been many years now since that eventful evening. I was there, in the chase, up to and including the final shootout. Having said that, I will not disparage 275 for the horrible decision he made. Nor will I comment on the erroneous statement he made about people dying from Tasers. (It's known as, 'Excited delirium'). But I will say he made a command decision, right or wrong, (It was horribly wrong), from the rear. He was no where near the scene. Most military and law enforcement personnel will tell you, your troops respect and admire you more, when you lead from the front.
I knew 275, from his time as a Deputy, to first line supervisor, to (somehow watch commander), and as previously stated, he is a very nice man; but not one I EVER felt was a worthy back up officer, much less a supervisor. I don't believe in continuing this, but it has taken me this many years to say something. Permit me to reiterate myself...275 is a very good man, but his lack of leadership should never permit him to head an agency as professional and meticulous as the PBSO.
As for Al Musco, sure he has his shortcomings, doesn't everyone? But I wholeheartedly concur with previous posts, that Musco never hid his feelings. I have had my differences with him as well, but he has the knowledge to make a CORRECT decision, and the professionalism to admit when he screwed up. Even to me, a subordinate at the time.

I worked with O'hara when he was just a deputy. He was scared of his own shadow and incompetent for that position. How this man ever got above that rank, I have no idea.

I laugh when I think about Pat as a boss. Want to know what kind of cop he was? Cowardly comes to mind. I know that two of his FTO's were amazed that despite substandard performances in the FTO process he was passed along. Not a bad person, just not someone I wanted on a call with me. I was thrilled that he never worked a shift with me, he was a tool then and I suspected that he remained one even to this day. The old adage applies, its who you know, not what you know.