This does not sound like good police work

[idlewind]

While I do not typically respond to anonymous posts this particular thread was brought to my attention by one of my officers. I feel that I have a responsibility to defend my officers from unwarranted criticism. I accept that as a candidate I must submit to inquiry and unfortunately innuendo. I do not accept that police officers under my command should be ridiculed or second-guessed simply because they work for me. If you do not feel that I am the right candidate for you then most certainly that is your choice. However, I would ask that as a matter of respect that you refrain from commenting on the performance of these officers when you are not in possession of all of the facts. Investigator Schultz and Ward were performing their duties within department guidelines and at no point were they in pursuit. They were traveling at a very low rate of speed. They were attempting to intercept a confirmed drug currier (said vehicle was later stopped). While attempting to maintaining visual observation our unit pulled out in front of an oncoming vehicle. This was a traffic accident. We were at fault and have taken appropriate corrective action. Investigator Schultz has shown himself to be capable and competent police investigator, the fact that he was involved in a traffic accident does nothing to negate that fact. I apologize to Investigator Schultz and his family for having to be submitted to this type of unwarranted scrutiny.


Mike Adkinson Jr
City Marshal/Chief of Police

Chief/Marshall:

Thank you for your reponse to this issue. It is a refreshing change from some other public officials. I also admire your willingness to assume responsibility for those under your command, which is also a welcome change from others in this county. However, I must beg to differ on a couple of points.
1. It is certainly fair to question as a point of public policy whether this type of pursuit is in the best interest of the citizens. I respect your point of view, but I think you can see where these are differences on this issue. I also think we can agree that your current policy is a legitimate matter for scrutiny. I brought the issue to light in order to begin such a dialog in hopes that our voting decisions can be clarified. As I have stated elsewhere, I am only decided on two races: Mark Davis for school board and Larry Jones for Commissioner. Further, I have completely ruled out only one candidate: Ralph Johnson. As regards every other race and candidate, I am seeking information to base an educated choice on. I respectfully suggest that this incident sheds some light on this choice, either pro or con.
2. While I did not seek to embarrass the officers involved, in fact, someone gave their names to the media, the fact is that they are professional law enforcement officers. As such, they are charged with public safety and are in fact public servants. While I agree such service demands respect and professional courtesy, the facts are that they work for the citizens and citizens have every right to scrutinize their actions and inquire as to what the facts of a particular incident are. Police officers are role models for society and society has every right to judge their performance. Anyone who enters the field of public service should know that the public is alway watching and has a right to comment when the standard is violated. That standard is set not by the agency, not by the officers but by the citizens.

 

[idlewind]

Not to answer for idle, who I disagreed with earlier but generally respect, but most of us use the emoticons simply because they are available. :shock:

Santiago: I am old enough to know better and too young to care. My A.D.D. enjoys constant visual breaks.

Shallows: We are not required to agree but must respect each other's right to their opinion. I certainly respect yours and generally agree.

 

[The Watcher]

Difference

If I could ask you to spare a minute and come down from your high horse, let me ask you a question. Why is this "negative campaigning" and all the opportunities all of us have taken to point out the shortcomings of Johnson's administration not? What is the difference? What I said/quoted did not mention any race or any candidate but did point out a serious public safety issue with the DFSPD. One is not required to ride in an unmarked car "chasing perps" to know that running full speed through a crowded interchange with a civilian in tow is not good public policy. Protecting and serving is not accomplished by placing the driving public in unneccessary danger. Would you feel the same way if the city car struck and killed your wife/husband/child?

For the record, I do not question the courage or dedication of these officers and fully support our officers, as I fully support our troops. Calling into question the policies and procedures that either group operate under is just that, questioning public policy, not using our officers or troops as "cannon fodder."

OK, I have climed down now, took me a while...

The difference is that all of the R.J. & Staff comments I have made is from first hand knowledge, based on FACT. If you go back and review my posts, I have NEVER used an officers accident or unfortunate situation against anyone or against the administration. All the supervisors and Ralph have something these officers did not have "choice". RJ chooses to be negligent with the budget, others choose to remain loyal, the list goes on...

The three involved did not CHOOSE to get into an accident. They were doing their jobs. Now if you want to dispute the policy and procedures, fine. Go get yourself a copy of the DFS Policy Manual and look at it. I am sure there are several interesting things listed in it, especially on page 42.

Climbing back up now, be seeing u.

 

[Starfish2008]

Everybody knows that if this had been two walton deputys then Adkinson and his good ole boys would have been all over it. They did not hesitate to ram it to Ms. Adams and captain Ferris when they were only doing there job and made mistakes. Things do have a way of coming around don't thye?

 

[idlewind]

OK, I have climed down now, took me a while...

The difference is that all of the R.J. & Staff comments I have made is from first hand knowledge, based on FACT. If you go back and review my posts, I have NEVER used an officers accident or unfortunate situation against anyone or against the administration. All the supervisors and Ralph have something these officers did not have "choice". RJ chooses to be negligent with the budget, others choose to remain loyal, the list goes on...

The three involved did not CHOOSE to get into an accident. They were doing their jobs. Now if you want to dispute the policy and procedures, fine. Go get yourself a copy of the DFS Policy Manual and look at it. I am sure there are several interesting things listed in it, especially on page 42.

Climbing back up now, be seeing u.

Thanks for taking time out from your riding. Could I trouble you further to tell me what the **** is on page 42 of the manual? I seem to have misplaced mine.:funn:I also don't ride that way very often myself in case you were thinking I could go get another one.

 

[The Watcher]

Hatch

Thanks for taking time out from your riding. Could I trouble you further to tell me what the **** is on page 42 of the manual? I seem to have misplaced mine.:funn:I also don't ride that way very often myself in case you were thinking I could go get another one.

There are two references to the once very obscure "Hatch Act". This Act was brought forward by Ralph Johnson in order to eliminate Bill Imfeld from the race early on. Many wonder how R.J. and his Attorney (who couldn't find dope in a crime lab) could have stumbled upon this documentation. I found it, on page 42 of the DFS Policy Manual. ;-)

 

[Seeker1]

does this help any?

The Hatch Act applies to executive branch state and local employees who are principally employed in connection with programs
financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency. Employees who work for educational or
research institutions which are supported in whole or in part by a State or political subdivision of the State are not covered by the
provisions of the Hatch Act.
Employees of private nonprofit organizations are covered by the Hatch Act only if the statute through which the organization receives its
federal funds contains language which states that the organization shall be considered to be a state or local agency for purposes of the
Hatch Act, e.g., Headstart and Community Service Block Grant statutes.
An employee?s conduct is also subject to the laws of the state and the regulations of the employing agency. Additionally, employees
should be aware that the prohibitions of the Hatch Act are not affected by state or local laws.​

Permitted Activities​

Covered state and local employees​

​

may-​

?​

​

run for public office in nonpartisan elections​

?​

​

campaign for and hold office in political clubs and organizations​

?​

​

actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections​

?​

​

contribute money to political organizations and attend political fundraising functions​

Prohibited Activities​

Covered state and local employees​

​

may not-​

?​

​

be candidates for public office in a partisan election​

?​

​

use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination​

?​

​

directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate​

Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act​

If the Merit Systems Protection Board finds that the violation warrants dismissal from employment, the employing agency must either
remove the employee or forfeit a portion of the federal assistance equal to two years salary of the employee. If the Board finds the
violation does not warrant the employee's removal, no penalty is imposed.​

Covered employees​

​

are those whose principal employment is with a state, county or
municipal executive agency, and whose job duties are ?in connection with? programs financed in whole or in
part by loans or grants made by the United States or an agency thereof. 5 U.S.C.
? 1501(4). Employees are subject to the Act if, as a normal and foreseeable incident of their principal
employment, they perform duties in connection with the federally financed activities.
In re Hutchins, 2 P.A.R. 160, 164 (1944); Special Counsel v. Gallagher, 44 M.S.P.R. 57 (1990).
Coverage is not dependent on the source of an employee?s salary, nor is it dependent upon whether the
employee actually administers the funds or has policy duties with respect to them.​

Special Counsel v. Williams, 56 M.S.P.R. 277, 283-84 (1993), aff?d, Williams v. M.S.P.B.,

 

[NoHall]

I thought this was interesting because I just spent the last two weeks with a deputy/SWAT team member/etc. who was serving as a house parent with his wife at our camp. From the conversations I've had with this officer, I've come to understand that it isn't unusual to have an intern in a car (marked or unmarked) in a high-speed pursuit or during training for high-speed pursuits. New officers/interns/whatever are introduced to aspects of police work; car chases are unfortunately sometimes part of that work.

I'm not sure what her position as an intern specifically entails, but I think it's reasonable to assume that if she got in the car with an investigator and an officer during the course of a work day she was aware (as were the two others) that there was a possibility of doing some police work.

 

[Seeker1]

thats reinforcement of...

I would rather see an actual policy manual supporting that persons decision. It sounds more like someone who is just as wreckless or has no knowledge of what thier own departments policy is on the issue. Ive contacted Okaloosa, Fort Walton, Crestview, Escambia, Santa Rosa, Bay, Holmes, Jackson, FHP and Yes even talahassee. None encourage unmarked vehicles to get involved in pursuits. In fact according to them they have written policy forbidding it for the same reasons mentioned earlier on this thread.
As for training purposes, thats unrealistic and absurd. There are controlled invironments for that. The safety of the public must come first above all else. If a leader does not recognize this basic principal then he/she is questionable in the basic ability to lead.

 

[Seeker1]

Good Points

I'm glad everyone will be okay. Cars are just things and things can be replaced, lives cant.
This is a result of poor training, judgement and maybe even current policy.
I cant think of one department that encourages unmarked cars to be involved in pursuits. Even if it were an approved method of emergency vehicle operation in the pd, the safety of the vehicles passengers, primarily an intern and the public should have been of paramount importance. Thats why its common to see riders with investigators as you mentioned. They are not approved for pursuits and are not generally the first on scene to potentially violent situations. It appears in this case it was more important to stop someone. Seems more like a case of POP, pissing off police. It never was said why the vehicle was being stopped in the first place.
I hope they capture the suspect and above all I hope it was worth it all. I hope the pd has a post pursuit investigation policy in place. If they dont, they should.
I hope the PD addresses this in a possible policy change as well.
As for the "detailed waiver" thats only good if policy was followed. It does not release anyone from liability if policy was violated or poorly written. Waivers dont instill common sense either. This was completely avoidable. As for another comment about catching criminals, would you still say that if the officers wanted to stop the vehicle only for a tail light not working or the tag was expired? A "run'em till the wheels fall off" policy sooner or later results in death. Im not sayong let them all go, im saying make better and safer traffic stops thats all.

Hope all feel better soon.

Ditto, nicely said