View Full Version : "No Chase" policy may have helped killed 2 children
There are still a few questions that need to be answered. Such as did they know the children were in immediate danger, car in view, and so on.
If you knew the children were in danger and no chase policy, would you pursue or "follow" the vehicle? I would! Are we still Public Servants? Sometime I wonder.
This one really pulls my chain!!!:steamed:
May the father be used as a weiner warmer in prison and rot in hell upon arrival.
I understand a general policy forbidding chases where the car has no light and siren package.
But could those Constables have done more than just call dispatch? I think so.
Yeah, I can understand that if they didn't actually see what happened, they likely wouldn't feel comfortable just relying on the story of a (I presume) hysterical woman to give chase. But still...
Hopefully, the "No Pursuit" policy will be modified to account for police necessity, such as this.
Dont get me started on no chase policies. I understand the liability behind pursuits, but since our policy was enacted a couple of years ago the number of people fleeing has quadrupled.
Word gets out and people just keep going knowing we cant chase.
If their car was not equipped with emergency equipment then "pursuit," defined as chasing a suspect at high rates of speed while violating traffic laws, was absolutely out of the question. They made the right decision, as difficult as it might have been and as tragic as the result may be.
Could they have "followed" the suspect, defined as following him at legal speeds while obeying all traffic laws? Certainly, but given the totality of the circumstances as we now know them to be, the suspect would have undoubtedly fled once he realized he was being followed, turning the situation into a "pusuit." He was planning on murdering his children. He absolutely would have run if he realized he was being followed.
I don't care for overly restrictive pursuit policies, particularly when they restrict the ability of uniformed police officers in fully marked police cars from pursuing. If this was a case where officers with marked and fully equipped units were prohibited from pursuing by policy, I'd be right there with the OP. but this is not that case.
I understand having restrictions on unmarked cars, even when they are equipped with lights and a siren. For example, my department prohibits the use of an unmarked car as the lead pursuit vehicle once marked units join the chase. The unmarked unit is supposed to back off once a marked unit arrives and, since our pursuit policy limits the total number of vehicles involved in a pursuit to two primary chase units, a supervisor, and K-9, once a second marked car joins the pursuit the unmarked car should completely drop out.
I definitely support the prohibition of engaging in pursuits with cars that have no emergency equipment at all. Real life is not TV, where Sonny Crockett gets to powerslide his Ferrari Testarossa all through the streets of Miami or Frank Bullitt gets to fly off the hills of the streets of San Francisco in his dark green Mustang with nary a flashing light or wailing siren to be heard. If you do not have both lights and a siren to warn the public of the emergency that is approaching them at 80 mph, then you are a danger to yourself and the rest of the public that we're supposed to be protecting.
As horrible as it is that two young children might die, we can't run the risk of killing two or more other children who happen to also be in or on the roadway while engaging in a reckless pursuit without emergency equipment. You have to have the tools to do the job as safely for yourself and the public as possible.
Just for fun a couple of vids of Sonny and Frank doing it the wrong way:
Welcome to the litigious world we live in, people.
To the public: You ***** and moan when we do chase and someone gets hurt, be it, "innocent" suspect or a truly innocent civilian, and then when we don't chase, due to a restrictive, knee-jerk reaction policy to your outcries, you *****. I guess You the People need to decide how and where you want it.
Prayers for the souls of the innocent children.
I agree with Dukeboy. You can tell their administration considers "following" a pursuit. I'm sorry, but following along while maintaining the speed limit and obeying traffic laws is not a pursuit. We have a restrictive pursuit policy, but are allowed to follow. Now of course if it comes out (through either our cameras or GPS) that we were pursuing, then we're up the creek.
Without lights and siren, it would have been extremely dangerous to pursue that car. Pursuits are dangerous for marked cars with lights and sirens as it is. The other question you have to ask yourself is whether the Constables knew the seriousness of the situation as she was talking to them.
There are a lot of variables to which we don't know the answer yet. But just remember, those two Constables will have to look at themselves in the mirror every day. I could not imagine getting into a pursuit without the appropriate equipment. But I would sure try to "follow" as long as I could. But again, that's also contingent upon me knowing the kids are in danger and it isn't just a hysterical female who is mad that her husband has the kids which is a civil matter here. Now if she had said she was kidnapped, now we're in a whole new ballgame.
They were in a fully marked car without L/S?
Right off the bat, woman comes up babbling about how the babies daddy just "kidnapped" the children. Stock answer is, no ma'am, he did not kidnap the children. Unless there is a protective order or something else on file, he did not "kidnap" the children. As the father, he has as much right to the children as she does.
Does he have a gun? No.
Did he say he was going to harm the children? No.
Based on prior experience, the money is on the fact that he is not going to harm the children, he's pissed off at her and is trying to teach her a lesson. When everybody calms down, the kids will be back home safely in a few hours.
So, lets say we chase him. Follow him. Follow him very quickly. Whatever you want to call it. With red lights and sirens or not. He crashes. And kills the children. Since he has not yet had a chance to kill the children, it will be on the cops that "caused" this death of innocent children. And, they are hanging in the breeze. Certainly looking at an end of thier carreers and civil suits and possibly criminal charges. They violated policy, a policy designed to protect the agency as much as possible. Mom will win the multi million dollar lottery. She will go on the stand and tell God and everyone that she knew her husband, he was a good man and would never hurt those children, if the cops hadn't chased him, they would still be alive and so would her husband as they were working on thier marriage and were getting back together again.
The only way this would have ended well is if the Officer violated policy and chased him. He bailed out with both kids and ran for a creek and, the Officers stopped him while he was in the process of actually drowning them, thus saving thier lives. Of course, the argument would then be that he simply stressed out and tried to kill the kids because the Police were chasing him.
The safest thing to do, for everyone, is have a firm "We will pursue anyone that runs from us. We will use whatever means are necessary to stop the pursuit as quickly as possible."
"Muhammed", is that a Presbyterian?
I also agree with Dukeboy.
Damned if you do....damned if you don't.
OD Green Glock 19
Damned if you do....damned if you don't.
That just about sums it up. Poor children
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2013, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.