Escape Goat at the Cost of Your Personnel File

[Curios George]

I have been in Law Enforcement for nearly twenty years now. This is not my first agency to work at so I know that what I am about to write about does not pertain exclusively to CCSO.

As I set back and watch the news to include reading the paper I am in disbelief because two of our deputies have been placed on a 12 month probation and given letters of reprimand in their files because they did what they were taught to do! (And what we all do every day)

If I had a dollar for each time I heard the words “Do not tie up the radio just to tell dispatch you are 51 to a priority call.” “Just respond and advise dispatch at a later time.” I would be a rich man!

Now I know that what I am saying is not new news to any of you who have spent at least one month on the road. It is told to us from phase 1 in FTO and in fact, I just heard it said again, from a seasoned supervisor’s mouth, on the radio, within the past 30 days.

Someone please explain to me how two deputies followed this very same standard and then gets punished for NOT informing a supervisor that they were 51 to a priority 1 call?

Someone also tell me which other common practices I am no longer allowed to follow so this does not happen to me either. Does this mean we should not tell drivers following a BOLO vehicle to NOT turn on their hazard lights to help us identify the BOLO vehicle? Some may say that this is apples to oranges but I say that it is not because they are both common practices and each has a valid purpose although not identified by policy.

What those two deputies did was lawful and accepted practice, not only at our agency but at agencies across this state. There are factors from what I have read that allowed this crash to occur; the speed at which the deputies were traveling and the fact that the civilian driver was impaired. We know the speed in this crash was lawful and within policy so that leaves the civilian driver, who was impaired, at fault in this crash. Not the fact that the deputies did not inform their supervisor that they were 10-51 to a priority call. At fault means that if you take away the fault, the crash would not have happened. Taking away the impaired driver changes the outcome of this crash not failing to advise your supervisor you are 51 to a priority call.

These two deputies are young and have nothing to fall back on when making decisions except what we have taught them. How can we fault them with something that we teach and practice daily. If through this investigation we have learned that this is no longer a good practice to be teaching then lets state this in policy, not through the personnel files of two young deputies!

The rule or common practice of staying off the radio when responding to a priority 1 call has just changed with the issuance of two letters of reprimand; you can bet your arse that I will be talking on that radio every single time I am responding to a call; priority radio traffic, 10-03 and 10-33 just became obsolete for me in my book… like it or not.

To the two deputies who were made examples of for the wrong reason I say to you that you two do good work. Do not let this discourage you. As hard as it might be to swallow, you will be defending this for the rest of your careers. But if this is any comfort at all know that you two were not the first to be thrown under the bus and you will not be the last. It is the nature of this job. You just got your cherry popped in the Veteran Club.

George, all I can say is, thatif you knew the more detailed information on this case you would understand. First, it was 12 mos. probation, not suspension, and a letter. Basically nothing. The real crux of the situation here was the Dep #1 was well over the speed limit without lights or siren on. NOT a violation of policy if respnding to a call, BUT violation of Florida Statute if it is not reasonable and prudent. We still have a duty to drive with care, ie. we can't run through red lights with lights and siren, even if we slow down to 20mph and crawl through, if IT IS not clear for you to go through, it's partially your fault. This case was not a red light, but involved speed and due care. When someone dies, regardless of their mental, physical state, impairment or imigration status it is still a human being that has been lost.
Had the deputy been cited by FHP with failure to use due care, or too fast for conditions ( even though the other driver was drunk, there can be more than one person at fault in a crash), he would have lost his drivers license for at least a year. Try getting personal car insurance after that, or getting hired by another agency. I'm not saying the outcome should have been any different than what it was but I'm pointing out that complex situations like this one could have been much worse for both young men. ( I suspect they actually wanted to say the deputy should have had his lights and siren on, because of the speed, but IF they said that, the agency would PAY)
Turn your blues on boys and girls and dont get burned.

George,

Usually the things you write make me re-visit my lunch; however, in this case I strongly agree with you. The only problem I have with this agency is the politically-stained method of discipline. The agency taught these deputies this behavior (because it works and makes sense in practical circumstances). Now they punish them for behaving the way they were taught. The agency should take ownership of the issue - if it is a problem, it is a systemic problem created by the training program - not two deputies who opted to act on their own without due care.

It is not alright that this is "just probation" - it is about what is right. You either have honor or you don't - it is not a matter of degree, convenience or political expedience. It is not about finding a political middle-ground to save face and finances for the agency. Hopefully, one day, this agency will be about people again - not politics!

Drive on George....Drive on....

"Hunter says Todd and Avery were disciplined because they did not radio in to dispatch or a supervisor that they were responding to the robbery call, not because of their involvement in the fatal crash."

I suspect just the opposite.

[Curios George]

George, all I can say is, thatif you knew the more detailed information on this case you would understand. First, it was 12 mos. probation, not suspension, and a letter. Basically nothing. The real crux of the situation here was the Dep #1 was well over the speed limit without lights or siren on. NOT a violation of policy if respnding to a call, BUT violation of Florida Statute if it is not reasonable and prudent. We still have a duty to drive with care, ie. we can't run through red lights with lights and siren, even if we slow down to 20mph and crawl through, if IT IS not clear for you to go through, it's partially your fault. This case was not a red light, but involved speed and due care. When someone dies, regardless of their mental, physical state, impairment or imigration status it is still a human being that has been lost.
Had the deputy been cited by FHP with failure to use due care, or too fast for conditions ( even though the other driver was drunk, there can be more than one person at fault in a crash), he would have lost his drivers license for at least a year. Try getting personal car insurance after that, or getting hired by another agency. I'm not saying the outcome should have been any different than what it was but I'm pointing out that complex situations like this one could have been much worse for both young men. ( I suspect they actually wanted to say the deputy should have had his lights and siren on, because of the speed, but IF they said that, the agency would PAY)
Turn your blues on boys and girls and dont get burned.

The only thing factual you have referred to in this case is the fact that they received 12 months probation and not suspension. You are correct; my bad. I have editied my post to reflect the fact (thank you). However, nothing you have given as an example justifies or even explains why they wre given probation for something that is accepted and taught!

Again, if we have now realized that this is not a good practice then say so as a matter of policy but do not say it in a letter of someone's personnel file. (JMHO)

It is not just a simple letter in their personnel file as you state. They will be defending that letter for the rest of their career. That little letter will never go away and they will forever be judged by it, both by this agency and by the public!

According to this agency, they err'ed by not communicating when they were taught it is not necessary to communicate under that situation. Not communicating did not cause or alter the crash so why hold them partly responsible (Apperance given to the public) for it?

[Paparazzi LEO]

I agree George. Letters placed in your personnel file tend to formulate opinions about one's reputation. Someone needs to explain further how we are told not to waste air time and just go to the call and then turn around and say you were wrong for doing so. The Sheriff said on the news that the speed and manner of response was lawful and within policy so where is the problem?

Those guys got hosed and like you, I will always announce my intention to respond to a call on the radio, even if it is in the middle of ten three traffic.

I agree. I am usually a big cheerleader for the Sheriff but these guys got screwed. Shame on the S.O. for this. These guys were not in violation of any policy except not telling dispatch they were responding? And that is a 12 year probationary period? Come on...not to beat a dead horse here, but how many rookies get yelled out for piping up with "Naples show me 51 to that "insert signal here"" with a "just go!" form their sergeant..........shamefull.

I do not know who their supervisor was that night, but I would hope that he stepped up to the plate and told PRB that we are regularly instructed not to tie up radio traffic during hot calls.

The problem that I see is that the persons who investigated this and ultimately suggested letters of reprimand do not work the road and probably listen to the radio very little. SOOOO, they were not aware that this is the way we do business on the road.

Rx for Admin:

Take 2 big shots of your favorite spirit
Realize that this is wrong and sets a bad example
Somehow make the letters and probation disappear

[quote="Anonymous"]George,

Usually the things you write make me re-visit my lunch; however, in this case I strongly agree with you. The only problem I have with this agency is the politically-stained method of discipline. The agency taught these deputies this behavior (because it works and makes sense in practical circumstances). Now they punish them for behaving the way they were taught. The agency should take ownership of the issue - if it is a problem, it is a systemic problem created by the training program - not two deputies who opted to act on their own without due care.

It is not alright that this is "just probation" - it is about what is right. You either have honor or you don't - it is not a matter of degree, convenience or political expedience. It is not about finding a political middle-ground to save face and finances for the agency. Hopefully, one day, this agency will be about people again - not politics!

Drive on George....Drive on....[/quote
ON THE MONEY, THIS MAKES ME CAREFULL AND THINK TWICE ABOUT THINGS BEFORE ACTING. I HOPE THE EXTRA CONCERNS ABOUT BEING TOO CAREFULL DOES NOT CAUSE ANYONE TO GET HURT!

P.S. SOMETHING SIMILAR HAS HAPPENED TO ME IN THE PAST, YOU NEVER RALLY GET OVER IT, YOU JUST GO ON AND HOPE NOTHING ELSE EVER HAPPENS.

I agree George. Letters placed in your personnel file tend to formulate opinions about one's reputation. Someone needs to explain further how we are told not to waste air time and just go to the call and then turn around and say you were wrong for doing so. The Sheriff said on the news that the speed and manner of response was lawful and within policy so where is the problem?

Those guys got hosed and like you, I will always announce my intention to respond to a call on the radio, even if it is in the middle of ten three traffic.
From now on me too, itf they want you anything can be used against you.

[quote="Anonymous"]I agree. I am usually a big cheerleader for the Sheriff but these guys got screwed. Shame on the S.O. for this. These guys were not in violation of any policy except not telling dispatch they were responding? And that is a 12 year probationary period? Come on...not to beat a dead horse here, but how many rookies get yelled out for piping up with "Naples show me 51 to that "insert signal here"" with a "just go!" form their sergeant..........shamefull.[/quote
I agree, I think it might have cost one officer a transfer, and will always be part of the permanent record. Both are good officers, unfair!

Well being a newbee, I am somewhat uncertain of the outcome. Hopefully more to come out that is more than what we hear. In field training everyone teaches you the policy and then what is expected. It was also explained that a lot of things that we do as tactics and is understood, however if something happens as a result, the sheriff has to punish us for the violation. I feel it was clear that everything we do is always our choice. I see older officers always driving slower and usually don,t take as many risks when it comes to enforcement. Maybe we should except this and do everything by the book and no one gets in trouble. I know that our job is harder because of all the laws, rules, and policies that we are governed by. The bad guys have no rules and always has the advantage. I think the message for me is play the rules, laws, and policies and the sheriff can not punish you.

What a great job, we get paid by the hour, not how fast we do the job!

[Paradise]

Ok time for me to chime in. This may come as a shock to retnuh and his supporters but I always support the agency and admin when I feel they are right. But this time I would have to agree with Curios George and others on this matter. They (Admin) got this one wrong in my eyes unless there is information that has not been stated by the press.

No since repeating what others have said, the point and reasons have been made perfectly clear. I also think the DR was right on with his diagnosis and perscription for healing.

Don't think this gives you a free pass retnuh to rip on my butt. Even a blind hog finds an acorn once in a while :wink:

I also think this time the administraton has sent the wrong message to the troops. At least no one got fired, maybe just lost a transfer or promotion. I used to think that what ever I did while on the job and off would be supported by the people I work for as long as it was done in good faith. But in these times of whatever, election, or who knows what , I believe we as officers need to be more alert and very mindfull of the gerneral orders and how this administration might be changing due to what ever pressure is upon them. Due to the election and the sheriff not running puts alot of "his people" on the edge, and on the edge people can be unpredictable.
History has shown that to argue with the outcome of the sheriff can be very damaging and could even be worse after your appeal.
This next year is going to be stressful and uncertain, be smart in your choices concerning this agency and your actions, the wrong plays could end your future.

This is exactly why Unions exsist. I do not support a Union moving into this Agency but the consistent inconsistancies on discipline, promotions and transfers is complete BULLS*%T.

Don't you guys comprehend that even if we had a union, they can only sit in on your prb interview. They can't even say anything. Crap , I can bring my wife to do that!! THEY are useless in Florida period. Hey if you need some pogue sitting there with you in front of your PRB interview, bring someone with kahunas like Gerry Berry not FOP or PBA.

A union attorney present in the interview helps to prevent "bullying" at the hands of PRB and to protect your rights which PRB has no hesitation to step on. Part of your union dues goes to help provide an attorney.
By the way, a kahuna is a medicine man or priest. I think you meant to use the term cojones which is crude term for "balls".

Donald Day will represent you for free so keep your money in your pocket. :shock:

[quote="Anonymous"]This is exactly why Unions exsist. I do not support a Union moving into this Agency but the consistent inconsistancies on discipline, promotions and transfers is complete BULLS*%T.[/quoteI agree, things are not right here!

I'll represent you. Give short answers to only the questions asked. Refuse any agency polygraph, and offer to take one from an outside polygraph examiner. Don't trust them, as they are there to protect the old man - not you. To those who say a lawyer can't speak in a prb interview, please advise on the statute that says that....I can't seem to find it. I believe Donald Day spoke up in several interviews, and told them where it was!

The scapegoat was a goat that was driven off into the wilderness as part of the ceremonies of Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, in Judaism during the times of the Temple in Jerusalem. The rite is described in Leviticus 16.

The word is more widely used as a metaphor, referring to someone who is blamed for misfortunes, generally as a way of distracting attention from the real causes. Another term for scapegoat is fall guy.

I'll continue my hunt for the elusive "escape goat" though.

*This post was removed by Mod 167. Please refer to the thread titled "Attention Guest Users" if you need further information.

I'll represent you. Give short answers to only the questions asked. Refuse any agency polygraph, and offer to take one from an outside polygraph examiner. Don't trust them, as they are there to protect the old man - not you. To those who say a lawyer can't speak in a prb interview, please advise on the statute that says that....I can't seem to find it. I believe Donald Day spoke up in several interviews, and told them where it was!

Only in a criminal investigation...which this wasn't. In an administrative investigation, even Donald Day is useless. (You have no right to a lawyer for non-criminal charges)

Not sure what the actual findings are of the investigation but NDN has been off mark before even within quotation marks.

The message being sent seems pretty clear...

Do your job, acknowledge and accept the risks involved and realize that you may be twisting in the wind as penance for the consequences.

God Bless both these guys. They are good people and good cops and I am proud to have worked with them.

mee a butt rippper? no way jose. i am happy to sea that maybe a few cracks have finaly developed in some of the meny rose colored glasses peeple have been wearin.

whut happend in this kase is not the first timme such has hapened. this is not the furst time right and truuth and honor have been fourced to take a far bak seet to what i wass told was political expediency. big words for coverring some buts at the cost of some won elsess butts.

i hope it does knot take a more serius situatiion to make the amdmin wake up and practize whut dey preech.

I agree with retnuh, another CYA on the part of admin. Did they think they would look bad in the eyes of our ignorant public if nothing happened to the two deputies? I do disagree with some of the other comments posted. 10-3 traffic means shut the f up. I will not change the way I do things when it comes to offer safety. Besides, you can do everything right; if they want to get you they will always find something in that green book. Don’t you remember signing off on that policy? It was one of the one hundred something revisions last month.

Guest 2007 hit the nail on the head. Any good street cop knows to do this job you have to work in the gray area. There thousands of laws, admin rules & procedures that are written in black and white, but a good street cop/deputy has to know how to work outside the black and white to get the job done. With that goes the old adage, if something "bad" happens and the procedure wasn't followed, you’re on the hook for the punishment. The deputies who only work by strictly following the policy aren't very effective on the street and usually end up working a desk or even some investigating other deputies. This was a token punishment required since there was a traffic fatality. I have seen a lot worse up North (both union & non-union departments); they would have fired officer/deputy to appease the public. Hey the two deputies did what had to be done and didn't tie up radio traffic or jeopardize another deputy’s safety. "ROAD PATROL - HOO-RA"

[Curios George]

What the two deputies did was not a grey area; it is taught and preached to ALL new deputies.

The two deputies do not have enough experience to draw from. At this point in their careers they can only watch and learn. Most of it being from thier supervisors and their chain of command. And so the vicious cycle continues...

They were political escape goats and it was wrong!!

I have (98%) always supported the Admin but in this case they got it wrong and set the wrong example only to further the cries of retnuh and the likes. This was a missed opportunity to stand behind your deputies and make a policy change if need be. But now we have the same conditions to have history repeat itself or worst yet, cause a deputy to hesitate before making a decision and we all know how that ends up.

But we are all human and we can not always get it right even though some try harder than others. My hat is off to the two deputies and the mature way they have accepted this unjustified stain on their career for following what we taught them to do.

Time to move on....

time two move on yes thats truue. that wil meen in this agency a new sherifff and a new staff at te top levils. georges point about history reepeting itself is just a bit of center. this incidnt IS history repeeting itself. its the same oled do as they say not as they dew system of mangement and leadrship.

i dont cry do i?