- Thread Starter
- #21
Wellford Mayor Sallie Peake Defends No Chase Policy
- Thread starter Big Don
- Start date
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
Senior Master
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2007
- Messages
- 4,555
- Reaction score
- 154
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.
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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/
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.
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??
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Agreed. I think she realized that she opened mouth/inserted foot. LOL!
True, true, true.
