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

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