# Wellford Mayor Sallie Peake Defends No Chase Policy



## Big Don (Sep 19, 2009)

*Wellford Mayor Sallie Peake Defends No Chase Policy*

Chris Cato
WSPA EXCERPT:

*Updated September 18, 2009*
  (Wellford, SC)The Mayor of Wellford is defending her policy which bans police officers in that city from chasing suspects. Sallie Peake says the policy also includes vehicle chases along with pursuits on foot.
  A memo issued on September 2nd from Peake to all Wellford officers reads:
  As of this date, there are to be no more foot chases when a suspect runs. I do not want anyone chasing after any suspects whatsoever.
  WSPA first reported the mandate on Wednesday after an anonymous citizen faxed a copy of the memo to our newsroom. Peake was out of town and unavailable for comment. On Friday, reporter Chris Cato caught up with her in her office and questioned her about the origin of the policy. Peake says she issued the mandate because several officers have been injured during chases, driving up insurance costs for the town.
  The officers are costing us more money on insurance than most citizens here in the city of Wellford are even earning, says Peake.
  She says the city is paying out $20,000 annually in workers compensation claims, much of it due to the police force. In July, two officers wrecked their cruisers while chasing suspects and had to go to the hospital for minor treatment. The police chief says three officers have been injured during foot chases in the last two years.
  Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright says the policy prevents police from upholding the lawa direct violation of their constitutional oath.
  If a bank robber or a drunk driver or a shoplifter or somebody with a warrant runs on foot, its our obligation to do what we can do to bring them to justice, says Wright.
  But when we asked Peake about her order impeding an officer from stopping a crime in progress, she became defensive and irate. The conversation went as follows:
  Reporter: Are you telling your officers if they witness a crime - they witness someone commit a crime on someone else and theyre ten yards away - they cant go stop that person?
Peake: Is that in there? (referring to policy)
Reporter: It says no chases whatsoever.
Peake: Well, thats what I said, no chases, didnt I? I didnt say nothing about a crime. If you see a crime, this that and the other -
Reporter: Well, thats what a chase is - 
Peake: Well, I told them no chase on foot, and (the police chief) know exactly what I mean, so youre trying to twist what I -
Reporter: No, Im not. You said no chases. No chases means no chases.
End Excerpt
That's it, I'm flying to SC and robbing a damn bank


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 19, 2009)

Is each police force funded by the town/city it's in? If they are does that mean politicians can literally lay down the law in each place as in this case?


----------



## jks9199 (Sep 19, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Is each police force funded by the town/city it's in? If they are does that mean politicians can literally lay down the law in each place as in this case?


Each state has a slightly different structure, but generally, each locality funds its own law enforcement agency, if they have their own.  For example, I work for a town, and the PD's budget (including my salary) is part of the town budget.  I think (but I'm not certain) that they receive a little bit from the state -- but it's not much.  The county PD is paid out of the county coffers, as is the sheriff's office, though the sheriff's office gets more from the state due to the peculiarities of Virginia's state constitution.  

So -- yes, the town manager and the town council can have a very big influence on what we can do.  Fortunately, they tend to leave police policy decisions in the hands of the cops, under the guidance of the town attorney.

With regard to this no chase policy...  it's dumb.  There are legitimate reasons to restrict both foot and vehicular chases.  For example, we can't chase a car unless the circumstances meet specific criteria, spelled out in our General Orders.  But a no chase policy, especially one so poorly understood by the person who drafted it!, is just dumb.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 19, 2009)

Foot chases being forbidden - I don't get it.

Car chases - well, that one's a bit iffy.

People get upset when a police pursuit of, say, a carjacker, ends up in some innocent person being killed, whether it is by the carjacker or by the police car.

People also get upset when a jurisdiction forbids pursuits and then someone gets away because a pursuit is called off and then later injure or kill someone else.

It's a no-win situation.  You can't guarantee that innocent people are not going to be put at risk when you engage in a pursuit.  You also cannot guarantee that a fleeing suspect will not later engage in other crimes that put the public at risk.

I also understand that in these litigious times, many smaller cities and counties simply cannot afford the liability insurance for lawsuits stemming from such incidents.  Public outrage is one thing, but a couple of huge settlements with the family of an innocent person killed in the line of police pursuit can bankrupt a city or county pretty quickly, or end up getting their liability insurance rates so high they can't pay them.

I wish there was an easy answer for this, but I don't see one.


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 19, 2009)

Sweet, I can Mug someone and flee and Im scott free.  Woo!  You Go Sallie!

That's a Campagin Slogan: "Sallie Peake, Empowering Criminals in your Community"


----------



## arnisador (Sep 19, 2009)

Can't chase someone_ on foot_? Sheesh!


----------



## MJS (Sep 19, 2009)

Big Don said:


> *Wellford Mayor Sallie Peake Defends No Chase Policy*
> 
> Chris Cato
> WSPA EXCERPT:
> ...


 
I dont think the Mayor knows what the hell she is talking about.  She's thinking one thing and trying to say another.  First, pursuit policy in a car will most likely vary from state to state. For example, here is CT's pursuit policy.  Each agency can make a change, but it will not conflict with what is written.  If we look at procedures, we see that the seriousness of the crime is taken into consideration.  Additionally, this line:



> (1)  The decision to initiate a pursuit shall be based on the pursuing police officers conclusion that the immediate danger to the police officer and the public created by the pursuit is less than the immediate or potential danger to the public should the occupants of such vehicle remain at large.


 
So, officers where I work have initiated a chase for simple m/v violations.  Car refuses to stop.  In the 7yrs that I've worked there, I've yet to see a chase continue for things like running a light/stop sign, expired plate, etc.  Now, an armed robbery...well, chances are that will continue.  

As far as foot chases go, I don't believe there is any written rule on that.  In this case though, the Mayor seems to be pretty much giving the green light for crime in that area.  So, any bad guy that mugs someone, rapes someone, kills someone, once he/she starts running away or driving away, they are free birds???  

This woman is nuts IMO.  God help the residents of that town, as it seems like it'll be a safe haven for scumbags.


----------



## Ken Morgan (Sep 19, 2009)

Are they allowed to walk quickly towards the bad guys?


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 19, 2009)

Ken Morgan said:


> Are they allowed to walk quickly towards the bad guys?



Only if the bad guys don't walk quickly away.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 19, 2009)

Who is the "ball less" chief of that dept?

This dimwit mayor just assured that every crook is going to run.


----------



## Gordon Nore (Sep 19, 2009)

Wellford stats



> Population in July 2007: 2,198.
> Males: 996      (45.3%)
> Females: 1,202      (54.7%)
> 
> ...



With a population that small, the officer might be able to identify the perpetrator on sight. Maybe they don't do foot chases that often and are getting sprains and pulls from not stretching first.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Sep 19, 2009)

Someone should mug her. We'll see how long the no-chase policy lasts.
She has set a new all time record for la-la-land stupidity imo.


----------



## stone_dragone (Sep 19, 2009)

I have to say that this is the dumbest **** I have ever heard of...today, any way.

Perhaps with health care reform, the cost of insurance for the city will be lower and the police can afford to run again.  If not, the cost of crime will have to go up so that the criminals can afford health care of their own and then they won't need to be criminals in the first place.  

Never mind, this is pure genius...

No.  Never mind.  It belongs in the same pile as the DVD Rewinder.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 19, 2009)

2, 3 lawsuits against the PD and city for letting criminals escape may wake her up. Maybe not. Whens she up for reelection again?


----------



## geezer (Sep 19, 2009)

Bruno@MT said:


> Someone should mug her. We'll see how long the no-chase policy lasts.
> She has set a new all time record for la-la-land stupidity imo.



Seriously, you are not far off the mark. If I lived and paid taxes in that town, I'd be tempted to get a large group of my fellow citizens together, put on masks and walk into her office and each of us would steal the office supplies right off her desk, then run away. Maybe we could have a few friends who were cops conveniently stand idly by just to really rub it in! Oh, and you can bet we'd call the local TV news guys in advance too! 

PS I'd get dibs on the candy bowl. You could have her paper clips!


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 19, 2009)

It's not as clear-cut as you guys seem to think it is.

The mayor in this case sounds a little frazzled and possibly has overstepped, due to the high costs her city is experiencing from on-the-job injuries to cops running after bad guys and from skyrocketing insurance costs.

You guys are throwing stones at her - tell me, what should she do about those costs?  Ignore them?  When a city goes bankrupt, they lose the police department, that's the fact.  We've got several small cities here in Michigan which no longer have police departments at all.

One reason that pursuits are sometimes banned is that pursuits kills cops:

http://www.policedriving.com/article68.htm

There are different types of pursuit policies.  No agency I ever worked for had a wide-open, all-pursuits-permitted policy.

The encyclopedia of police science, Volume 1
 By Jack R. Greene

And when some innocent person gets hurt due to a police chase - even one that is a 'good' chase for a good reason, citizens get up in arms, and cities get sued. 

http://www.kvue.com/news/local/stories/091809_kvue_police-pursuit_changes-tg.1935853e0.html


> Four injuries and one death have all been the result of people running from police in the past three weeks in Austin. Now as the latest victim fights for his life some are calling for change.
> 
> The latest victim was man who was hit while sitting at a bus stop in his wheelchair. Hes now in a hospital bed in critical condition.



Remember Wasilla, Alaska?  Here's a fun one:

http://www.adn.com/news/alaska/matsu/story/936387.html


> WASILLA -- The City of Wasilla has agreed to pay $100,000 to settle a lawsuit filed last year by a woman injured during a high-speed police pursuit of a drunk driver.
> 
> In August 2006, Jennifer Setters was driving the Glenn Highway home to Wasilla when a red pickup driven by 35-year-old Martha Harper with patrol cars in pursuit swerved across the median and smashed into Setters' Ford Expedition near the Knik River bridge.



It's just not cut-and-dried.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 19, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> 2, 3 lawsuits against the PD and city for letting criminals escape may wake her up. Maybe not. Whens she up for reelection again?



What about the lawsuits that cities experience when the police are involved in pursuits and innocent citizens get injured and sue?  Those don't matter?


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 19, 2009)

No..it's not "cut and dry". But a "pursuit policy" is NOT "no chasing ever..not even on foot". Thats plain silly.

We can "follow for a short time and distance" on simple traffic violations and misdemeanor crimes. The intent being to get a description/plate and then the pursuit will be terminated. We can pursue for felony crimes but it is the supervisors responsibility to monitor the chase and terminate it if necessary. There is more of course but THAT is a policy.



> Reporter: &#8220;Are you telling your officers if they witness a crime - they witness someone commit a crime on someone else and they&#8217;re ten yards away - they can&#8217;t go stop that person?&#8220;
> Peake: &#8220;Is that in there?&#8220; (referring to policy)
> Reporter: &#8220;It says no chases whatsoever.&#8220;
> Peake: &#8220;Well, that&#8217;s what I said, no chases, didn&#8217;t I? I didn&#8217;t say nothing about a crime. If you see a crime, this that and the other -&#8220;
> ...


 
This mayor cant even explain this policy. The counting of beans is being placed over common sense and some officer who probably understands this "policy" even less than the mayor is going to be the one hung out to dry in the end.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 19, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> No..it's not "cut and dry". But a "pursuit policy" is NOT "no chasing ever..not even on foot". Thats plain silly.



Probably, yes.  But it looks like the mayor got all wound up and is now trying to climb down, but the interviewer wasn't going to let her.



> We can "follow for a short time and distance" on simple traffic violations and misdemeanor crimes. The intent being to get a description/plate and then the pursuit will be terminated. We can pursue for felony crimes but it is the supervisors responsibility to monitor the chase and terminate it if necessary.



Sounds like what my old department had.  We also had only the primary unit allowed to run code three to a call, all backup units had to obey speed limits and not use lights or siren.  This may not have always been strictly obeyed, but it was the rule.  And code three responses were not supposed to go more than 10 mph over the speed limit - again, often ignored.

The point is that there are serious insurance and liability issues to be considered - you can't just chase everyone.  If a city goes bankrupt or can no longer afford liability insurance, that's no good.  And for all those who get upset that an agency decides to put a no-pursuit (or only some pursuit) policy in place, there are plenty more citizens who get bent out of shape when a police pursuit ends up injuring an innocent citizen.  It's a no-win.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 19, 2009)

I would like to know what the old policy said..if there was one.

Of course you shouldnt chase EVRYONE. But that sure as hell shouldnt mean that you chase NO ONE. 

Some kid on a bike getting run over by a cop going 120 mph through a school zone to go to a shoplifting complaint is one thing, BUT even if we were chasing a serial killer with 3 co-eds in the trunk and it caused a wreck...yeah we will still get sued. That is the nature (unfortunately) of our litigation happy society. Wise administration means looking past the bottom line to see that sometimes this job COSTS. You place limits to deal with minimizing risk, but if you try to run an operation "risk free" you may as well pack it up and go home.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 19, 2009)

geezer said:


> Seriously, you are not far off the mark. If I lived and paid taxes in that town, I'd be tempted to get a large group of my fellow citizens together, put on masks and walk into her office and each of us would steal the office supplies right off her desk, then run away. Maybe we could have a few friends who were cops conveniently stand idly by just to really rub it in! Oh, and you can bet we'd call the local TV news guys in advance too!
> 
> PS I'd get dibs on the candy bowl. You could have her paper clips!


That is a completely twisted idea.


I love it


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 19, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Wise administration means looking past the bottom line to see that sometimes this job COSTS. You place limits to deal with minimizing risk, but if you try to run an operation "risk free" you may as well pack it up and go home.



I agree that you can't run risk-free, which is why there is such a thing as liability insurance.  However, here in Michigan, we've already had several cities go belly-up.  No more police department.  If a city manager is faced with a choice - eliminate police pursuits or declare bankruptcy and have no more police department - which one does a 'wise manager' choose?  Those are the harsh realities we face in some places now.


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 19, 2009)

Still no excuse for this BS...sorry. Nor any evidence that that is what THIS town is facing.

And if it is...having a PD costs money, and this is part of the price tag. If you cant afford it then you have some choices to make. Raise taxes or YES disband the PD and let the Sheriffs Dept or the State Troopers take over the job. Better to have SOMEONE who can do the job right than a hamstrung local PD.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 19, 2009)

Fark has the PERFECT headline for this:
*South Carolina Mayor bans police pursuit of suspects -- even foot pursuit. May ban Trivial Pursuit later this week*


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 19, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Still no excuse for this BS...sorry. No any evidence that that is what THIS town is facing.



http://www.city-data.com/city/Wellford-South-Carolina.html

Their population is 2,000 and she says they are paying $20,000 annually just for workman's comp claims for officers who have injured themselves in foot pursuits.

In 2007, they had 1 murder (their first in many years), 3 rapes, 3 robberies and 8 assaults.

The entire city had (in 2007), 8 full-time employees, and their payroll was just over $17,000 a month.  That's $204,000 a year, and a $20,000 price for workman's comp is 10% of their entire city payroll.  That's a lot.

I'm not saying the mayor is right.  I'm pretty sure she doesn't think she's right, either.  In fact, I think she's been embarrassed by being caught making a dumb statement and now she's trying to climb down and save face, but the reporter wasn't going to let her get away with that.

I do understand the pressure she's under.  She just overreacted to a budget pinch caused by workman's comp claims.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2009)

Archangel M said:


> Still no excuse for this BS...sorry. Nor any evidence that that is what THIS town is facing.
> 
> And if it is...having a PD costs money, and this is part of the price tag. If you cant afford it then you have some choices to make. Raise taxes or YES disband the PD and let the Sheriffs Dept or the State Troopers take over the job. Better to have SOMEONE who can do the job right than a hamstrung local PD.


 
How many police forces cover an area then? How is the responsibilty handed out for who does what if you have these different departments? Sorry just very nosy when it comes to others policing. It's interesting.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 20, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> How many police forces cover an area then? How is the responsibilty handed out for who does what if you have these different departments? Sorry just very nosy when it comes to others policing. It's interesting.



In the US, you generally have state, county (or parish) and municipal (town, village, or city) police.  You also have federal, but they are generally not 'sworn' in the state they work in, and do not perform the typical police duties.

Typically, if a city (town, village, etc) is large enough to have their own police force, they have primary jurisdiction within their own borders for all things not interstate highway-related.  However, many (most?) states have state-wide certification of all peace officers, so they can make arrests anywhere in the state if need be, can carry their weapons concealed off-duty, etc.  However, unless they are in 'hot pursuit', their normal jurisdiction ends at the city limits.  They are generally known as police officers.

A county will have a sheriff's office.  They're responsible for primary law enforcement for all areas inside the county but outside the city limits of the cities within the county.  Typically spread much more thinly.  They also provide backup for city officers when necessary.  Often, the county will also provide the detention facilities for all agencies except federal inside the county, so the 'jail' is a county lockup with county detention officers running it.  Officers are typically known as 'deputies' rather than 'officer'.

States have either state police or state highway patrols.  They are responsible for primary law enforcement of state owned lands and highways.  They are quite often doing more in the way of DUI, speeding, drug interdiction, and so on than they are taking reports on burglaries.  However, states also generally maintain crime labs and have their own investigative divisions, and they'll often be asked to get involved or to actually take over and direct investigations involving multiple jurisdictions or cases that are just too big for local county or police to handle. They are often known as 'officers' but can also be known as 'troopers'.

This is just general, not hard-and-fast rules.  But in general, the state troopers write speeding tickets on the highways, the county transports drunks to the county lockup, and the city cop writes you a ticket for running a red light in town.

All of them are usually sworn peace officers, whose arrest authority covers the entire state.

Primary jurisdiction for interstate crimes goes to the FBI.  Their officers are known as 'agents'.  There are many, many, uniformed and plain-clothes law enforcement and investigative agencies in the federal government, from US Marshalls to Border Patrol to Forest Service Police to Railroad Police but most do not or cannot perform local policing or make arrests for non-federal crimes.  An FBI agent cannot write a ticket for speeding, for example.

Oh, and by the way, something I found interesting from long ago...

The most 'powerful' police officer in the USA?  Railroad cop.  They have federal, state, and local jurisdiction over any bloody thing they want.  Tradition dating back to the days of the Pinkerton Detective Agency.  Most people don't ever see a railroad cop, but they've got amazing arrest and jurisdictional powers if they choose to use them.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> In the US, you generally have state, county (or parish) and municipal (town, village, or city) police. You also have federal, but they are generally not 'sworn' in the state they work in, and do not perform the typical police duties.
> 
> Typically, if a city (town, village, etc) is large enough to have their own police force, they have primary jurisdiction within their own borders for all things not interstate highway-related. However, many (most?) states have state-wide certification of all peace officers, so they can make arrests anywhere in the state if need be, can carry their weapons concealed off-duty, etc. However, unless they are in 'hot pursuit', their normal jurisdiction ends at the city limits. They are generally known as police officers.
> 
> ...


 

Wow, thank you, thats a lot of policing! would it be cheaper or at least more cost effective to have one police force to cover everything if money is proving a problem? Budgets though are always a problem whatever type of policing you have and police budgets are always contentious. People want the best policing they think they deserve but at the least cost in money and effort to themselves.
I think I may have to start a new thread asking what the difference if any there is between a police officer and a law enforcement officer which is what I notice people tend to call themselves on here, it would be a bit distracting to have that discussion on here though it's something I've been curious about for a while.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 20, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> Wow, thank you, thats a lot of policing! would it be cheaper or at least more cost effective to have one police force to cover everything if money is proving a problem? Budgets though are always a problem whatever type of policing you have and police budgets are always contentious. People want the best policing they think they deserve but at the least cost in money and effort to themselves.



There has been a lot of discussion around that subject in the USA of late.

Many small towns and cities have lost the ability to keep a full-time police department and have cut back to daytime policing or none at all, with the county taking over.

The problem is that the county generally does not have the staff or the budget to provide the level of policing services that the municipality does.  They have to cover a larger area (generally the county is larger than the city) and they can't be seen to short the rural dwellers to provide services to the townfolk, all of whom pay into the system equally.

And if the county goes bankrupt, then you have some real problems, since the state simply cannot provide local and county and state policing.

Some smaller cities and some subdivisions within cities have been experimenting with private police.  These are generally not sworn officers, they are basically 'security guards' who can perform a citizen's arrest if need be (as any citizen can).  

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2194/is_n9_v63/ai_16166625/

Privatizing police services is highly controversial, but it is cheaper.



> I think I may have to start a new thread asking what the difference if any there is between a police officer and a law enforcement officer which is what I notice people tend to call themselves on here, it would be a bit distracting to have that discussion on here though it's something I've been curious about for a while.



Go for it.  I think you may find that people in the law enforcement community refer to themselves as LE or LEOs because it is a catch-all that every cop understands.  I was a military policeman in the Marine Corps.  That's law enforcement, but totally different than civilian policing.  I have also worked in civilian law enforcement as well.  But MP/Police Officer/Reserve Sheriff's Deputy is a bit unwieldy.  Former LE works for me.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> There has been a lot of discussion around that subject in the USA of late.
> 
> Many small towns and cities have lost the ability to keep a full-time police department and have cut back to daytime policing or none at all, with the county taking over.
> 
> ...


 
I'm on leave for a couple of weeks, going a way for a well earned break sans computer so when I get back I'll have thought of how to word it. (If I forget remind me lol) it could cover I think what we expect of police/Leos and what they think their responsibilities are,how they see their job ie just dealing with crime or taking a wider part in the communities  etc.
I'm very wary of 'private' policing, could be potentially very bad. One thing thats happening here is CSOs, I have my doubts about them but we don't use them so have no experience to judge them by but perhaps maybe a help for your country. You still need 'proper' police but these are cheaper and can replace a few officers (hence the worry)
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/recruitment/community-support-officer/


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 20, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> I'm very wary of 'private' policing, could be potentially very bad. One thing thats happening here is CSOs, I have my doubts about them but we don't use them so have no experience to judge them by but perhaps maybe a help for your country. You still need 'proper' police but these are cheaper and can replace a few officers (hence the worry)
> http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/police/recruitment/community-support-officer/



We have something that is sort of similar - reserve and auxiliary police officers.  Many local agencies have them.  They often assist with crowd control at events, but can be used in almost any law enforcement capacity - they are 'real' police.  However, they nearly never work unsupervised and they generally are not graduates of police academies.  They're unpaid volunteers for the most part.  Sometimes retired cops or just retired citizens looking for something to do to give back to their communities.  Most people are unaware that their city even has a reserve department.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We have something that is sort of similar - reserve and auxiliary police officers. Many local agencies have them. They often assist with crowd control at events, but can be used in almost any law enforcement capacity - they are 'real' police. However, they nearly never work unsupervised and they generally are not graduates of police academies. They're unpaid volunteers for the most part. Sometimes retired cops or just retired citizens looking for something to do to give back to their communities. Most people are unaware that their city even has a reserve department.


 
We have the 'specials'  who aren't paid and do it in their spare time (hobby bobbies lol) but these CSOs are full time and paid. They will go out on their own despite having no police powers (or proper training) other than those of citizens arrest and often instead of two police officers on the beat there will be one and a CSO. This is why it's worrying as it seems they are replacing the police or at least enabling the government to cut down on police officers. Their uniform though similiar to the police does make it clear who they are but frankly there's little public confidence in them and often the wrong type (the little Hitlers) are applying and getting the jobs. Many patrol their own neighbourhoods which in general the police here don't and it leads to problems of victimisation. It's a bit cheap vigilante in many ways. I know many police officers ae unhappy, it erodes their standing in the community too.


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2009)

Gordon Nore said:


> Wellford stats
> 
> 
> 
> With a population that small, the officer might be able to identify the perpetrator on sight. Maybe they don't do foot chases that often and are getting sprains and pulls from not stretching first.


 
Given those stats, I'm sure this is why the mayor is saying what she is. Sounds like a real small town, so the more cops that get hurt, the less they have on the road. But still....to not make an attempt to catch the bad guys??


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> It's not as clear-cut as you guys seem to think it is.
> 
> The mayor in this case sounds a little frazzled and possibly has overstepped, due to the high costs her city is experiencing from on-the-job injuries to cops running after bad guys and from skyrocketing insurance costs.
> 
> ...


 
Its a catch-22.  But I'm sure if the crime rate goes thru the roof, people will be complaining.  As I said in another post, given the stats on that area, it sounds like a real small town, so yes, the budget is probably small as well.  

The city where I work, is pretty strict on their car chases.  Long before I started working there, a Sgt. went to a reported burg. in progress.  He got there before the backup, but the guys were taking off.  He chased them onto the highway.  He ended up crashing and getting killed.  However, this was due to mis-matched tires on the car.  Yes, a suit was filed on behalf of his wife.  Badguys ended up getting caught.  

I think the issue that many of us have is the fact that there is a no chase policy vs. one that is in place, but has restrictions, such as the link that I posted for the State of CT.  

I dont think anyone can deny the fact that the Mayor is basically giving the green light to criminals in that town.


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> What about the lawsuits that cities experience when the police are involved in pursuits and innocent citizens get injured and sue? Those don't matter?


 
Of course, the citizen always sues the PD.  Why not sue the badguy?  Afterall, if the badguy had stopped, there'd never have been a chase in the first place.  Easier said than done, I know, but here is the catch 22 again....if the cops let the BG go, they get **** on.  If they chase them, they still get **** on.  They can't win.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 20, 2009)

MJS said:


> Given those stats, I'm sure this is why the mayor is saying what she is. Sounds like a real small town, so the more cops that get hurt, the less they have on the road. But still....to not make an attempt to catch the bad guys??



If you read what she said in the interview, she tried to back down and say that officers who observed a crime in commission could chase...but she got interrupted and her own words thrown back at her and she got flustered and went a bit nutso.  I think she made a mistake and is trying to climb down and the reporter just wasn't going to let her do it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 20, 2009)

MJS said:


> Of course, the citizen always sues the PD.  Why not sue the badguy?  Afterall, if the badguy had stopped, there'd never have been a chase in the first place.  Easier said than done, I know, but here is the catch 22 again....if the cops let the BG go, they get **** on.  If they chase them, they still get **** on.  They can't win.



Yeah, agreed.  Citizens sue the city because the city has liability insurance.  The bad guy is what they call judgment proof.  You can sue him and win but so what?  He has no money and you'll never get a dime from him.  He can't be forced to pay unless he someday has a real job and you can get a second judgment to garnish his wages - then he just quits that job.  No point in it.


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2009)

Tez3 said:


> How many police forces cover an area then? How is the responsibilty handed out for who does what if you have these different departments? Sorry just very nosy when it comes to others policing. It's interesting.


 
Alot of it also comes down to how many cops are working on a shift.  For example...where I work, the city is broken into 6 districts, with 1 officer per dist.  We also have 3 cops that walk Main St.  There are some days when you have extra cops that are assigned to one of the other districts, so that is a plus.  So, there are days when the calls stack and stack and stack, because its just so busy.  

The State Police have huge areas of highway to cover.  Some smaller towns here, that don't have a regular PD, are covered by the State Police as well.  So its possible for 1 Trooper to cover a portion of the highway, in addition to taking calls in the town with no regular PD.  

Yet another catch 22.....people in the city complain that they never see a cop driving thru their neighborhood, but when its time to hire more cops, people complain about the increases that come with that.


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> We have something that is sort of similar - reserve and auxiliary police officers. Many local agencies have them. They often assist with crowd control at events, but can be used in almost any law enforcement capacity - they are 'real' police. However, they nearly never work unsupervised and they generally are not graduates of police academies. They're unpaid volunteers for the most part. Sometimes retired cops or just retired citizens looking for something to do to give back to their communities. Most people are unaware that their city even has a reserve department.


 
The Dept. that I dispatch for had them....but the Chief did away with them.  She kept the explorer program though.  Go figure.  It was nice when we had a few aux. cops working.  If you got a good crash and portions of the road needed to be closed, rather than tie up a regular cop, we'd send the aux guys.


----------



## MJS (Sep 20, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> If you read what she said in the interview, she tried to back down and say that officers who observed a crime in commission could chase...but she got interrupted and her own words thrown back at her and she got flustered and went a bit nutso. I think she made a mistake and is trying to climb down and the reporter just wasn't going to let her do it.


 
Agreed.  I think she realized that she opened mouth/inserted foot. LOL!  



Bill Mattocks said:


> Yeah, agreed. Citizens sue the city because the city has liability insurance. The bad guy is what they call judgment proof. You can sue him and win but so what? He has no money and you'll never get a dime from him. He can't be forced to pay unless he someday has a real job and you can get a second judgment to garnish his wages - then he just quits that job. No point in it.


 
True, true, true.


----------



## Tez3 (Sep 20, 2009)

MJS said:


> Alot of it also comes down to how many cops are working on a shift. For example...where I work, the city is broken into 6 districts, with 1 officer per dist. We also have 3 cops that walk Main St. There are some days when you have extra cops that are assigned to one of the other districts, so that is a plus. So, there are days when the calls stack and stack and stack, because its just so busy.
> 
> The State Police have huge areas of highway to cover. Some smaller towns here, that don't have a regular PD, are covered by the State Police as well. So its possible for 1 Trooper to cover a portion of the highway, in addition to taking calls in the town with no regular PD.
> 
> *Yet another catch 22.....people in the city complain that they never see a cop driving thru their neighborhood, but when its time to hire more cops, people complain about the increases that come with that*.


 

Isn't that the truth!!!


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 20, 2009)

You think liability is an issue NOW? Wait till you see what happens when a jurisdiction is policed entirely by aux.police who don't do the job full time.


----------



## Bob Hubbard (Sep 20, 2009)

You're damned no matter what.

"We need more cops!"
Ok, we have to raise taxes.

"No tax increases, less taxes"
ok, then less police, fire and other services.

"No, more fire, more police, more services"
ok, but then we have to raise taxes and maybe add a few mandatory fees.

"No, we said no more taxes!".

etc


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 21, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You're damned no matter what.
> 
> "We need more cops!"
> Ok, we have to raise taxes.
> ...


 
Yup. Then factor in the issues of paying for vehicles, weapons, ammo, training, etc. We dont really need "more cops" where I am, but we would like vehicles that dont break down and a HQ building that wasnt falling apart but we run into the same issue you mention.


----------



## MJS (Sep 21, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You're damned no matter what.
> 
> "We need more cops!"
> Ok, we have to raise taxes.
> ...


 
Slightly off topic, but realted to this post.  I was reading in todays paper, how the Gov. on CT. wants the Dept. Of Corrections, to make cuts.  It'll be interesting to see what happens, but I'm sure we'll hear much of what you just said above.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 21, 2009)

Big Don said:


> *Wellford Mayor Sallie Peake Defends No Chase Policy*
> 
> Chris Cato
> WSPA EXCERPT:
> ...


I would hold off on robbing that bank; she does not say anything about cops being banned from just shooting the fleeing suspect(s).

Daniel


----------



## CoryKS (Sep 21, 2009)

> She says the city is paying out $20,000 annually in workers compensation claims, much of it due to the police force. In July, two officers wrecked their cruisers while chasing suspects and had to go to the hospital for minor treatment. The police chief says three officers have been injured during foot chases in the last two years.
> Spartanburg County Sheriff Chuck Wright says the policy prevents police from upholding the lawa direct violation of their constitutional oath.


 
Okay, the vehicle accidents sounds like a training issue, but what's the deal with the foot chases?  Were they injured as a result of chasing, or were they injured as a result of catching up to the person they were chasing?  I mean, are they not supposed to arrest anyone who doesn't just go along with it?  

This just in:  police work is dangerous.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 21, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Okay, the vehicle accidents sounds like a training issue, but what's the deal with the foot chases? Were they injured as a result of chasing, or were they injured as a result of catching up to the person they were chasing? I mean, are they not supposed to arrest anyone who doesn't just go along with it?
> 
> This just in: police work is dangerous.


Maybe they lack regular physical exercise and are getting the equivallent of training injuries.

Daniel


----------



## Archangel M (Sep 21, 2009)

The odd thing about the story is that the mayor is focused on the workmans comp issue vs. accident lawsuits.


----------



## Daniel Sullivan (Sep 22, 2009)

Apparently, workmans comp is costing them more than accident lawsuits.

Daniel


----------



## MJS (Sep 22, 2009)

CoryKS said:


> Okay, the vehicle accidents sounds like a training issue, but what's the deal with the foot chases? Were they injured as a result of chasing, or were they injured as a result of catching up to the person they were chasing? I mean, are they not supposed to arrest anyone who doesn't just go along with it?
> 
> This just in: police work is dangerous.


 
I would say that a part of the vehicle accidents is training related, with the other half of the blame put on the general public.  I've gone on more than my share of ride-a-longs, going code (lights/siren) to a call.  Now, its one thing to put your life in someone elses hands, when they're going at high speeds, but now factor in the clueless ones who, a) dont see you because they're too preoccupied with something else, b) do see you, but think that they can still make it across the road, change lanes, etc. before you come up on them.  

As for the injuries from the foot chase...all of the ones that I've heard about where I work, were a result of fighting with the suspect after they caught up to him.  I dont want to speak for every dept. and injury in the world, so I'm only going on what I've seen and heard where I work.


----------



## MJS (Sep 22, 2009)

Daniel Sullivan said:


> Maybe they lack regular physical exercise and are getting the equivallent of training injuries.
> 
> Daniel


 
And THAT is something that always leaves me scratching my head.  You gotta be in great shape before the academy, in great shape during the academy, but after you get out, you can pack on the pounds???


----------



## Cryozombie (Sep 27, 2009)

Bob Hubbard said:


> You're damned no matter what.
> 
> "We need more cops!"
> Ok, we have to raise taxes.
> ...



Yeah Bob, but one has to wonder... would we need to raise taxes to hire more cops and firefighters, if (Illinois Anyhow) stopped spending millions to have all the highway signs, DMV paperwork, pamphlets etc re-printed every time we have an election because arrogant assclowns need their name every 1000 feet on the highway, or on every scrap of paper?

Seriously... I dont need to see "I-90 Brought to you by Governer Jim Ryan, and then see it Replaced with "Open Road Tolling Brought to you By Rod Blagojevich" etc etc everywhere I look.

I believe there is probably plenty of money for the important things, as soon as the assclowns stop wasting the rest of it.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Sep 27, 2009)

Cryozombie said:


> I believe there is probably plenty of money for the important things, as soon as the assclowns stop wasting the rest of it.



Tell me about it.

I was in an elevator in Michigan and I noticed that the elevator inspection certificate had a color photo of the county clerk on it.  A color photo of the county clerk?  On an elevator inspection sticker?  That's not a legal document, that's an advertisement.


----------



## Big Don (Sep 27, 2009)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Tell me about it.
> 
> I was in an elevator in Michigan and I noticed that the elevator inspection certificate had a color photo of the county clerk on it.  A color photo of the county clerk?  On an elevator inspection sticker?  That's not a legal document, that's an advertisement.


How many billions could we save if we didn't print forms in 28 languages?
How many billions will it cost us once we start, and it's only a matter of time, printing street signs in multiple languages?


----------

