Guest wrote:I can't believe some of the logic and reasoning that I see being posted here. Some of you act like we are and SHOULD BE helpless to do anything about criminals fleeing from law enforcement. Like the St Pete PD officer stated above, the policy at HCSO has actually gotten more strict then, OF ALL PLACES, St Pete PD! If you or a loved one have ever been a victim of a residential burglary, you know just how emotionally devastating this is. Now lets say that HCSO gets behind the suspect vehicle who just stole your priceless personal property and enough paperwork to quickly make you and other family members identity theft victims. The deputy tries to pull them over and they flee in a stolen car. The deputy adheres to the current pursuit policy, so he/she turns off the equipment, turns the patrol car around and asks for the next holding delayed call for service. Would you the victim be satisfied with this type of approach? HE*L NO you would not be! Anyone with any common sense & logical reasoning would be mad as he*l.
The problem is that HCSO has decided to protect itself by going to the extreme opposite side of this issue, instead of finding other solutions or alternatives to the problem. One such solution that was mentioned above, was to have the helicopter up and flying much more frequently and for longer periods of time. The office also spent many man hours and money into training it's deputies to use the PIT, VIP, rolling roadblock or stop sticks to bring pursuits to an end, yet they put in place a pursuit policy that is so ridiculously strict that the deputies almost never have a chance to use any of methods.
I too agree that most criminals will still try and flee no matter whether they know we will pursue them or not. I also agree that the local judicial system is way too lenient on criminals in Hillsborough County, but this should not be a deciding factor on whether a deputy should pursue or not pursue a vehicle. After all, the deputy's job is to apprehend the violators, not try them in court.
Take the same burglary scenario.................
But this time the high speed chase ends when the fleeing felon T-Bones another car at a signal light controlled intersection where the other car had the green light. The pursing deputies rush up to the crash scene and inside the victim car is a dead woman and and a dead five year old girl. They are YOUR WIFE and YOUR DAUGHTER. NOW compare and contrast how "emotionally devastating" (your words) the loss of property is when placed next to the loss of human life.
The cowboy cop days are over. If you can't accept that then you should go into another line of work. Human Resources could probably find you a nice civilian job somewhere in the agency.
This is a debate that has been going on for years and will continue for years to come. Agencies create more strict pursuit policies while other agencies have more lenient policies. These same agencies often switch as the years go by. Take FHP for example.
One of the things I think that people forget is that fleeing from the police is not about the officer's ego. I would compare it to battery on a law enforcement officer. Battery on a LEO is prosecuted (ideally) as a more serious offense than a battery on a civilian. Why is this the case? It is not because the public or the government particularly cares about the LEO. It is because the LEO represents society and the people of their jurisdiction as a whole. An attack on that person is an attack on the public, an attack on the law, and a show of blatant disregard for society. That is why it is punished more severely.
Pursuits fall into a similar category. Is a tag light worth someone getting killed over? Certainly not. But most people do not flee for a malfunctioning tag light. Without fail there is always an underlying felony. The person either has felony warrants, a weapon, drugs, felony traffic, or has committed another felony that law enforcement may not be aware of, but will find out about upon capture. This does not include pursuits for felony crimes in progress or just occurred.
Times have changed. There is no doubt about it. The world is more populated. Citizens have less tolerance for people being hurt or killed. Court rooms and juries are more inclined to punish law enforcement agencies/officers and award larger statutory and punitive damages during law suits.
I don't envy the leaders that have to make these decisions. At the same time, I think pursuits have their place. Criminals that know that we can't do anything about their actions will be inclined to continue flaunting the law. Criminals that know that the agency will hunt them down relentlessly may be more hesitant in their actions. It is true that the death penalty and long prison sentences do not deter people. However, the act of getting caught is a deterrence because it is immediate. The drivers and passengers that I have arrested following pursuits or "long 10-50s" are always amazed that I have caught them. Every single one has told me that they thought the HCSO couldn't chase them. That's a terrible sentiment for bad guys to have.
I think there's a difference between a pursuit at 1430 hrs in an urban setting going the wrong way up a one way street in a school zone versus a pursuit at 0330 hrs on the east side of the county where there are no cars within 10 miles and the last car that passed by on the road was before midnight. If it's safe, let's get them. It's almost like dealing with a pet. They don't care or can't make the connection between a crime now and arrest next week. But if you smack them on the nose with a rolled up newspaper (arrest them) right after the criminal act, it gives them immediate feedback that the HCSO can and will capture them and deliver them to the courts for punishment. (Let's pretend our SAO actually does something about criminals for the time being.)
I hate to say use common sense, but that is often what it comes down to. It is a black mark on us that us deputies and supervisors often can't be trusted to use common sense and do the right thing. Does the criminal need to be immediately apprehended (unknown suspect with no leads, immediate physical danger to the public, subject wanted for serious felonies) or is the person a known dirt bag that we can just go pick up from his mother's house tomorrow afternoon? It's a lot less black and white than people would like to think. I miss the good old days where we could pursue for anything. That said, I believe that pursuits have their place and I think the agency is too scared of downtown and too scared of liability to do what needs to be done sometimes. At the same time, we have resources that didn't exist back in the day to track down dirt bags and to yank them out of bed by their hair the next day for running form us.
The officer's ego shouldn't be a factor. The decision points should be "What is the risk to the public near by" and "Given the risk, do we need to capture this person now or can we get them later." I think our agency errors on the side of not pursuing more often than not. And for the love of god, exhaust your resources before shutting down your lights and sirens. Get a tag, get a vehicle description, take a look at the driver through the window, do your best to get enough information to go capture the felon later on even if you have to give them up for that night.
A person fleeing in a car, is driving a 4,000 pound battering ram. The battering ram is pointed at EVERYBODY on the road. That is deadly force. The fleeing car should be taken out IMMEDIATELY.
I'll say it again, a fleeing car IS DEADLY FORCE !!!!!!!!!!!
I have long said a fleeing criminal in a vehicle is using deadly force. However, the rules and laws do not allow us to respond appropriately to the situation. Logic says the deadly threat (criminal fleeing a vehicle) be eliminated immediately using deadly force. Logic says you should be able to ram the criminal into a wall, or pull up next to him and shoot him in the head...whatever it takes to stop the deadly threat quickly before he kills someone. BUT logic is not allowed to come into play because of the media and the ACLU etc. We shouldnt chase until society lets us do it the right way...addressing deadly force with deadly force.
Guest wrote:A person fleeing in a car, is driving a 4,000 pound battering ram. The battering ram is pointed at EVERYBODY on the road. That is deadly force. The fleeing car should be taken out IMMEDIATELY.
I'll say it again, a fleeing car IS DEADLY FORCE !!!!!!!!!!!
You are a bit overwrought. Perhaps Human Resources can find you a civilian position in the ORJ warehouse.
Guest wrote:I have long said a fleeing criminal in a vehicle is using deadly force. However, the rules and laws do not allow us to respond appropriately to the situation. Logic says the deadly threat (criminal fleeing a vehicle) be eliminated immediately using deadly force. Logic says you should be able to ram the criminal into a wall, or pull up next to him and shoot him in the head...whatever it takes to stop the deadly threat quickly before he kills someone. BUT logic is not allowed to come into play because of the media and the ACLU etc. We shouldnt chase until society lets us do it the right way...addressing deadly force with deadly force.
So right my friend. Look at many agencies in Texas and a few in Georgia that do just that. They have the green light to end a pursuit immediately by shooting out the tires, engine block or the driver if need be. I also know for a fact that this has resulted in a tremendous reduction in perps trying to flee in a vehicle. How I know this is that my brother has worked at a medium sized Texas LE agency for over 15 years and since giving the officers permission to use up to deadly force if needed 4 years ago, pursuits have declined by a whopping 70%. It doesn't take long for criminals to pass the word around to each other that they or their vehicle may get shot up if they flee, just like it doesn't take long for them to know when a agency will not pursue or is lenient. Just like the above deputy mentioned, I too have had criminals tell me at the end of a pursuit that they can't believe we pursued them and some even said they would not have fled if they knew they were going to be pursued. I know this is a HOT TOPIC where emotions can run high, but now more then ever we need to look at both sides of the argument and find a happy median. This knee jerk reaction of just turn around and drive the other direction is a disgrace to anyone that has ever proudly wore the uniform, as it to is a disgrace to the citizens of Hillsborough County. We know that these criminals don't slow down or suddenly begin obeying traffic laws after the deputy turns off his lights. We know this to be true because look how often they crash AFTER the pursuit was terminated. This seems to be happening more often then crashes while the LE officer is still pursuing them. Could it be because the LE officers lights & sirens forewarn upcoming motorists that they need to pay strict attention to the roadway. So, is it better to at least have emergency lights & sirens warning motorists of the upcoming hazard, or is it better to just leave them to fend for themselves with a nutcase behind the wheel heading their way? I mean also, what ever happened to the days when deputies used to shut down traffic at intersections before the fleeing suspect got there? Think about it, should the correct LE response to this serious problem be to do NOTHING, PRETEND TO HAVE BLINDERS ON AND IMMEDIATELY TURN THE PATROL VEHICLE AROUND AND DRIVE THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION? Then when the suspect crashes several minutes later, the LE agency can quickly explain to the media that they NEVER pursued this vehicle and therefore deny any responsibility. After all, it all comes down to $$-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY-$$ in the end, not whats right or wrong.
Guest wrote:So right my friend. Look at many agencies in Texas and a few in Georgia that do just that. They have the green light to end a pursuit immediately by shooting out the tires, engine block or the driver if need be. I also know for a fact that this has resulted in a tremendous reduction in perps trying to flee in a vehicle. How I know this is that my brother has worked at a medium sized Texas LE agency for over 15 years and since giving the officers permission to use up to deadly force if needed 4 years ago, pursuits have declined by a whopping 70%. It doesn't take long for criminals to pass the word around to each other that they or their vehicle may get shot up if they flee, just like it doesn't take long for them to know when a agency will not pursue or is lenient. Just like the above deputy mentioned, I too have had criminals tell me at the end of a pursuit that they can't believe we pursued them and some even said they would not have fled if they knew they were going to be pursued. I know this is a HOT TOPIC where emotions can run high, but now more then ever we need to look at both sides of the argument and find a happy median. This knee jerk reaction of just turn around and drive the other direction is a disgrace to anyone that has ever proudly wore the uniform, as it to is a disgrace to the citizens of Hillsborough County. We know that these criminals don't slow down or suddenly begin obeying traffic laws after the deputy turns off his lights. We know this to be true because look how often they crash AFTER the pursuit was terminated. This seems to be happening more often then crashes while the LE officer is still pursuing them. Could it be because the LE officers lights & sirens forewarn upcoming motorists that they need to pay strict attention to the roadway. So, is it better to at least have emergency lights & sirens warning motorists of the upcoming hazard, or is it better to just leave them to fend for themselves with a nutcase behind the wheel heading their way? I mean also, what ever happened to the days when deputies used to shut down traffic at intersections before the fleeing suspect got there? Think about it, should the correct LE response to this serious problem be to do NOTHING, PRETEND TO HAVE BLINDERS ON AND IMMEDIATELY TURN THE PATROL VEHICLE AROUND AND DRIVE THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION? Then when the suspect crashes several minutes later, the LE agency can quickly explain to the media that they NEVER pursued this vehicle and therefore deny any responsibility. After all, it all comes down to $$-FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITY-$$ in the end, not whats right or wrong.
Guest wrote:Just wondering why last night when tpd was asking for assistance during a gta pursuit we had the acting lt advise not to get involved. Its 3 am in the morning and there was no traffic the least we could have done was throw stop sticks down. Unbelievable.
It's because we have top leadership that have instilled fear in the ranks. Even the majors hate hearing from the Tower and let those under them know not to let anything happen that rocks the ship in fear of getting that dreaded phone call from the one that thinks he knows it all.
Damn Joe, first time I have ever agreed with you, well said.
Guys and gals I was the original poster and didnt realize their would be this much response. To clarify my point was Tpd had a pursuit going and was asking for assistance. They had two patrol units plus a K9 unit behind the car they didnt need us to get involved in the pursuit itself 3 cars is plenty. What they needed was for the acting lt to give the green light to lay stop sticks down and slow the pursuit down which for those screaming about pursuits are a danger to citizens would have dramatically reduced that danger. But the acting lt made the wrong decision again (remember the same scenario with pcpd) when he refused to allow any involvement at all. That was my point is that we could have assisted in more than just getting involved in the high speed portion of it. The acting lt has taken it to the extreme so he wont be monday morning quarterbacked which is the wrong attitude if you are the acting lt.
Guest wrote:Guys and gals I was the original poster and didnt realize their would be this much response. To clarify my point was Tpd had a pursuit going and was asking for assistance. They had two patrol units plus a K9 unit behind the car they didnt need us to get involved in the pursuit itself 3 cars is plenty. What they needed was for the acting lt to give the green light to lay stop sticks down and slow the pursuit down which for those screaming about pursuits are a danger to citizens would have dramatically reduced that danger. But the acting lt made the wrong decision again (remember the same scenario with pcpd) when he refused to allow any involvement at all. That was my point is that we could have assisted in more than just getting involved in the high speed portion of it. The acting lt has taken it to the extreme so he wont be monday morning quarterbacked which is the wrong attitude if you are the acting lt.
Understood. Another question is why our fellow brother agency is allowed to correctly pursue a stolen vehicle, while the sheriff of the same county has told his deputies not to go after stolen vehicles Last but not least, based upon the responses of captured drivers following a pursuit and statistics, you have to figure that many times a vehicle would not flee at all if the person behind the wheel knew they were going to be pursued
Sheriff Gee didnt impose a ban on pursuing stolen vehicles, only to be smart and not chase during high peek times like 7pm on a saturday night. The supervisors have taken that to the extreme and are afraid of the chiefs iron fist.
Guest wrote:Sheriff Gee didnt impose a ban on pursuing stolen vehicles, only to be smart and not chase during high peek times like 7pm on a saturday night. The supervisors have taken that to the extreme and are afraid of the chiefs iron fist.
Only at HCSO can they take a extremely important and critical area of any law enforcement agency and make it so flippin confusing. Depending on which supervisor or deputy you talk to, some say you can only pursue for violent forcible felonies, others say NO pursuits at all, some say YOU CAN pursue stolen vehicles, others say NO you cannot, still others say auto theft involves a auto burglary so the Sheriff WANTS US to pursue stolen vehicles and yet others still say that deputies CAN use their discretion and pursue for anything, as long as the roadway conditions and weather are right? Once again, it is the continuing LACK OF COMMUNICATION at HCSO that causes so many problems.
I don't understand the confusion on your behalf as it comes to pursuits. Follow the SOP, but if a supervisor calls you off, then that is what you are to do. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. We chase for forcible felonies, no misdemeanors, but can chase for leaving the scene of a crash with great bodily harm, which is a felony. If you recall, a legal bullentin was produced indicating chasing a stolen vehicle was authorized, as someone had to BURGLARIZE it to steal it, therefore there is your forcible felony. Your not chasing a stolen vehicle your chasing a burglar.
Do I like the limitation on vehicle pursuits, no I do not. But I'm not in charge. Do the best you can, follow the rules and live to fight another day.
mythdeputy wrote:I don't understand the confusion on your behalf as it comes to pursuits. Follow the SOP, but if a supervisor calls you off, then that is what you are to do. NO QUESTIONS ASKED. We chase for forcible felonies, no misdemeanors, but can chase for leaving the scene of a crash with great bodily harm, which is a felony. If you recall, a legal bullentin was produced indicating chasing a stolen vehicle was authorized, as someone had to BURGLARIZE it to steal it, therefore there is your forcible felony. Your not chasing a stolen vehicle your chasing a burglar.
Do I like the limitation on vehicle pursuits, no I do not. But I'm not in charge. Do the best you can, follow the rules and live to fight another day.
Not sure what district you are in, if any, but I assure you that it is not this black & white out on the street in the district I am assigned to. It is a complete Chinese fire drill from the time a deputy first advises that a vehicle is fleeing to the next 30 seconds when the supervisor terminates the pursuit. Terminates every pursuit I might add. The vehicle could have just been involved in kidnapping 10 school children and certain supervisors in this district would immediately terminate the pursuit. So I hardly figure that they will ever allow the pursuit of a stolen vehicle, no matter whether the sheriff has given the go ahead or not. Personally, I have never seen so many spineless supervisors and timid deputies all assigned to the same district. They truly are a criminals best friend..
Unfortunately, there is a little flaw in your theory that a stolen vehicle equals a burglary or other forcible felony. There is the real possibility that the suspect borrowed the car but then refused to give it back (eg. a crack rental, etc). Then there is no burglary. If you do not have knowledge of the circumstances specific to that particular stolen vehicle, you better hope nobody gets hurt. What do you think will happen if the suspect kills a church bus full of kids?
Civil lawyer: deputy, did the NCIC stolen vehicle hit say "stolen/burglarized vehicle"?
Deputy: Well, no, but...
Civil lawyer: Does you policy explicitly authorize you to pursue GTA suspects?
Deputy: Well, no, but...
Civil lawyer: Pay up.
Media: 12 little saints were killed when a mean ol' deputy forced a suspect to flee and then engaged him in an unauthorized pursuit...
The community will not support us in a circumstance when things go bad like this. They will all say they think the cops should pursue until the wheels fall off to get the bad guys, but the reality is they will turn their backs on us the instant it doesn't play out like a TV cop show.
