For several months I have heard many rumors of a new "Hug a Thug" policy that was forthcoming. As with most rumors I gave it a "rumor's" credence and thought little else of it. But, unlike most rumors, this one keeps picking up steam.
The rumored policy does not literally call for officers to provide conciliatory affection to criminals (yet), but does call for something that most officers and law-abiding citizens will find equally egregious.
The department is considering instituting a policy that will prohibit officers from chasing suspects on foot unless it meets a certain criteria.
Some of the rumored criteria are:
You cannot chase a suspect unless a felony has been committed.
You cannot chase a suspect alone.
You cannot chase a suspect unless exigent circumstances exist (i.e. immediate threat to the public or other officers).
You cannot continue a foot pursuit if the identity of the suspect is known. A warrant can be obtained at a later time.
All references to this policy that I have been able to locate indicate that this idea has been around since 2003 and refer more to avoiding potential "liability" rather than officer safety. It seems the IACP and Departmental Lawyers have lost their focus on combating crime and changed over to vicarious liability.
They want me to believe that they only have my best interests...
Sorry, I don't believe that, but I do believe I am a responsible adult in a profession where injury is possible and I might skin a knee or even frighten a suspect.
For Heaven's sake people we are talking about catching criminals and putting them behind bars. We do what is necessary. We are not talking about running into outlaw biker bars after dark all alone chasing a suspect. We are talking about them basically prohibiting Officers from chasing suspects on foot unless it meets their guidelines.
Whatever happened to catching the bad guys responsible for breaking into homes and robbing people? Are Police agencies going to get so litigation crazy that we stop policing all together? This timidity can only further endanger the public.
I blame this on Departmental heads watching too many movies and police dramas and deciding policy based on Hollywood renditions of ludicrous situations. I further cast blame upon the knee jerk reactions of liberal agendas vs. public safety.It all boils down to the public needs the police to do their absolute best to catch criminals not creating policies that let the criminals get away.
We have laws on the books that make fleeing or evading a crime and now the department wants us to ignore those and take out a warrant if we know or later learn the identity of the suspect. What if we were after the suspect because he was already wanted on warrants?
Is this policy going to open the door for criminals to commit more crimes knowing full well that the police cannot chase them?
Are we becoming a department that does crime scene clean up and after the fact reporting as opposed to actually catching criminals and putting them behind bars?
Anyone who flees from the police is committing a serious offense and one that at which we should all be upset. We should do our utmost to protect and serve the citizens of this community.
Do foot pursuits consist of some risk to the Officer involved? Of course they do. Do Firefighters face risk when they respond to burning buildings? Of course they do. Should the Fire Department have a standing policy to contain the blaze and make sure it doesn't spread to other structures but not worry about anyone that may be inside?
When I joined the department I knew there were inherent risks involved with my chosen profession. I knew that I was going to be doing some dangerous things. I accept that and more importantly the public knows that also. In other words, a civilian who watches as some "idiot" is running from the police, can become upset and outraged at the fleeing person's actions, not at the Police for chasing him.
A fleeing suspect is running to avoid apprehension and/or arrest; he is not running to exercise. The idea that we can set up a containment zone or "we'll just catch him later is asinine." The public should be outraged if their police department is so restricted by policies that it makes it impossible for them to perform their jobs.
As a Police Officer for over 20 years I have been involved in numerous foot pursuits that have ended with a criminal going to jail. Officers sometimes get injured, suspects sometimes get injured, but that is the cost of doing business.
What it all boils down to is let the Officer on the street make the call. We don't have enough officers on the beat to immediately saturate and area nor with only one helicopter do we have immediate access to let the air unit provide coverage.
I don't need a policy to tell me that I may be involved in a dangerous situation. I don't need a policy that will second guess my decision that the subject needs to be arrested now not later. I don't need a policy that puts everything on my Sergeant's shoulders because I am not capable of making good decisions.
We definitely don't need a policy that will tell the criminals that if you want to pursue a life of crime your job just got easier. Once the criminals learn of this then there is no reason for anyone not to run. As it stands now, they know they will be chased and most likely caught.
Every year that goes by I see more and more that the officer's job is made more difficult and the public suffers. It is not only my duty but my personal responsibility to do my best to apprehend criminals not pat them on the head and worry about hurting their feelings.