What happened in Citrus

What is going on ? I heard the supervisor would not permit any PC's to be done. I will tell you I have called Citrus before and more then 1 Officer has stated that this supervisor does not permit PC's or searches. Well it looks like this time this supevisor and the Department are going to have a lawsuit on there hands if what I have read is true. The media needs to look into this and see jsut how many people we let walk in our Department. Its not the Officers fault more then it is the Supervisors fault that continue to give Officers problems because of there "Social Work" views.

Please Mr. Mcneil if it is the case where we could have apprehended this lady and did not because of a poor supervisor telling us not to run after anyone, then demote this person or get rid of them.

Same thing at 12-0

The Supervisor you are talking about is Mobley. She is all about re entry and Social Work. If this doesnt open the eyes about some of the lack of leadership we have (such as Mobley) then nothing will. This is not the first time something like this has happened in this Circuit. Mobley and the CA should be let go or asked to retire. We could have prevented this or at least did the best we could to prevent it. How will Mr. Mcneil deal with this. It is obvious that Mobley or the CA violated Department policy in not permitting any PC's. Talk to there Officers there not even permitted to serve active arrest warrants on there cases. This needs to be investigated. This would have never happened in the Tampa or Miami Regions (or would it?). I guess it depends on who the Supervisor is not policy. Way to make us look good Citrus!

This is not about Re Entry. I think that is fine. However, we need to remember what we do, and that is put people in jail. You can sugar coat this all you want, you can try to ignore this, but if you are a Social Worker then go be a Social Worker. First and foremost we need to protect the public. In this case we failed to do our job. I do agree though it was a direct result of a Supervisor not knowing the correct way to act as it relates to PC's. Read the case notes, the Officer wanted to put this lady in jail but was told no. I'm not one to say who should or should not be fired. However the Supervisor should be held accountable for not following arrest policy. A PC arrest is one of the most important part of our jobs and to tell Officers not to do them is telling the public we are not going to do our job. I agree, we might have stopped this, or at least did the best we could to stop it. The sup has really dropped the ball on this one. Face it the public does not care who you help with re entry, but they sure as hell care if someone kills someone becuase we didnt putthem in jail like we should have. Its just the nature of the busniess.

Hope Circuit 12 plays close attention!

What happened?? Lot of Judgement but no details

[CPSO North]

In my office, if an officer tells a supervisor that a case needs to be arrested, and can simply explain why they are a danger, then the PC gets done and the officer is backed up. I could not imagine a search being turned down for any reason, either. The more nonsense like this that I hear, the more I doubt that I could work in one of these crazy offices that I keep reading about. And before the "wanna-be" critics pop up, these same supervisors will back an officer when they want to work with and help deserving cases.

Where are all the Wannbe comments ? I agree with the above poster we might have been able to stop this. I workin circuit 6 and we arrest and search all the time. I think for the most part circuit 13 is the same way. Sounds like this Mobley person is from the old social work school. I dont know if she should be fired but there is some real bad calls made in this one. If what the above states is true and no pc's or searches were permitted then the supervisor is violating policy. Remember we protect the public before anything. I think sometimes we forget that. Depending on how long she/he has been here, she may have came to Probation before we were actually trained in Law Enforcment. Most of those people came in from the old "HRS" and really dont think anything like PO's that were hired after 1988. That is a big problem with our agencey. Supervisors who are nothing like the P.O.'s of today. However, I would be doing an injustice to not say that if it was not for some of those old timers with the Law Enforcment mentality that was needed, we would not be were we are at today.

My office is the same way. If you can articulate why you need to do a warrantless arrest we get the okay. Searches are aways approved and encouraged. We are in the business of making sure that offenders do what they are suppose to do, keeping bad people off the streets and you can't enforce that while shining a seat with your backside! :mrgreen:

What is going on ? I heard the supervisor would not permit any PC's to be done. I will tell you I have called Citrus before and more then 1 Officer has stated that this supervisor does not permit PC's or searches. Well it looks like this time this supevisor and the Department are going to have a lawsuit on there hands if what I have read is true. The media needs to look into this and see jsut how many people we let walk in our Department. Its not the Officers fault more then it is the Supervisors fault that continue to give Officers problems because of there "Social Work" views.

Please Mr. Mcneil if it is the case where we could have apprehended this lady and did not because of a poor supervisor telling us not to run after anyone, then demote this person or get rid of them.

Those lawsuits dont work. The bar is super high on those. Not doing something allowed in policy or even a policy not being followed doesnt even come anywhere in the ballpark to be successful on a lawsuit like that.