When I started this thread I believed that this incident shed some light on one of the candidates I am considering. I believe 1) the officer was following policy and therefore the person who is responsible for the policy should be closely examined or 2) the officer was not following policy and the department should admit it. Mr. Adkinson clearly stated that number 1 is applicable in this case. Since this policy is not in tune with almost any other area department's policy, I think that we should consider how this efects Mr. Adkinson's run for office. After all, isn't out of date, misguided policies the main beef everyone has ( myself included) with RJ?
This does not sound like good police work
- Thread starter idlewind
- Start date
-
Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
I guess I don't know enough about law enforcement protocol. Was DFSPD's policy dangerous, or was it a bad decision by the officers? Maybe some of those out there with law enforcment background can help us out on this.
I agree with you, Idlewind, one of the reasons we need a new sheriff is to move beyond some of these seemingly arcane policies that lead to such bad decisions.
If Mr. Adkinson is responsible for not having proper procedure in his department, it is concerning.
Although, I do commend Mr. Adkinson for the way he stood up for his officers. Funny how we don't see Johnson doing that. Taking responsibility as a leader, and standing up for those working for you is a good character trait if you ask me.
I agree with you, Idlewind, one of the reasons we need a new sheriff is to move beyond some of these seemingly arcane policies that lead to such bad decisions.
If Mr. Adkinson is responsible for not having proper procedure in his department, it is concerning.
Although, I do commend Mr. Adkinson for the way he stood up for his officers. Funny how we don't see Johnson doing that. Taking responsibility as a leader, and standing up for those working for you is a good character trait if you ask me.
the answer is.....
Mike did nothing more than delfect attention away from the issues and even created an issue that was non existent. Nobody was attacked personally. Re-read the posts then read his reply. Mikes version contradicts the medias who only repeated what they were told by the police. So whos right?
The police or the police?
The media said an officer asked for assistance in stopping a vehicle.
Mike says they were attempting to intercept.
Then in the very next sentence Mike says they were attempting to maintain visual observation.
Which is it? It cant be both.
Mike says they were traveling at a very low rate of speed.
How do you travel at a very low rate of speed while maintaining visual observation of a high speed fleeing vehicle?
Let me enlighten you a bit here. The phrase "maintaining visual observation" is one used by experienced police officers and deputies alike that are involved in a pursuit they know they are not supposed to be involved in. This way the officer can say " I never advised I was in pursuit, I only advised I was maintaining visual observation, so I never violated any policy". Word play? Heck yeah! Does it work? Sometimes. It mostly works with the media.
Is this the case here? I dont know. I can only hope not. But the odor is in the air.
Then Mike says the vehicle was later stopped. The media says it got away. Mike needs to get his story straight.
Mike says the suspect vehicle was a confirmed drug currier.
Does that mean there were drugs in the vehicle at that time? NO.
It only means the vehicle is known to carry drugs.
Is that enough reason to join a pursuit? I hope not.
Mike released information that may be critical to the states investigation. This not a very good example of practical confidentiality in an active ongoing investigation being conducted by another agency.
As for the public making comment on the incident, that is their right.
Mike better get used to it. Or should I say "Welcome to his officers world".
Theres more to policing than administrative experience.
Any good police officer knows he/she is constantly under the watchful eye of the public. They will spend an entire career in the public arena. Mike better remember he is a public servant. He better get used to answering to the public. He better learn to deal with criticism better than he just did.
He needs to dump the charisma and learn straight up public relations. Mike needs a better policy that puts public safety and officer safety in front of all else as stated in seekers post.
This last example of dealing with pressure and criticism only confirms that he might not have the experience to deal with the pressures and responisibility of sheriff. His response was nothing more than a temper tantrum.
I hope all involved are doing well and wish a fast road to recovery to all.
Mike did nothing more than delfect attention away from the issues and even created an issue that was non existent. Nobody was attacked personally. Re-read the posts then read his reply. Mikes version contradicts the medias who only repeated what they were told by the police. So whos right?
The police or the police?
The media said an officer asked for assistance in stopping a vehicle.
Mike says they were attempting to intercept.
Then in the very next sentence Mike says they were attempting to maintain visual observation.
Which is it? It cant be both.
Mike says they were traveling at a very low rate of speed.
How do you travel at a very low rate of speed while maintaining visual observation of a high speed fleeing vehicle?
Let me enlighten you a bit here. The phrase "maintaining visual observation" is one used by experienced police officers and deputies alike that are involved in a pursuit they know they are not supposed to be involved in. This way the officer can say " I never advised I was in pursuit, I only advised I was maintaining visual observation, so I never violated any policy". Word play? Heck yeah! Does it work? Sometimes. It mostly works with the media.
Is this the case here? I dont know. I can only hope not. But the odor is in the air.
Then Mike says the vehicle was later stopped. The media says it got away. Mike needs to get his story straight.
Mike says the suspect vehicle was a confirmed drug currier.
Does that mean there were drugs in the vehicle at that time? NO.
It only means the vehicle is known to carry drugs.
Is that enough reason to join a pursuit? I hope not.
Mike released information that may be critical to the states investigation. This not a very good example of practical confidentiality in an active ongoing investigation being conducted by another agency.
As for the public making comment on the incident, that is their right.
Mike better get used to it. Or should I say "Welcome to his officers world".
Theres more to policing than administrative experience.
Any good police officer knows he/she is constantly under the watchful eye of the public. They will spend an entire career in the public arena. Mike better remember he is a public servant. He better get used to answering to the public. He better learn to deal with criticism better than he just did.
He needs to dump the charisma and learn straight up public relations. Mike needs a better policy that puts public safety and officer safety in front of all else as stated in seekers post.
This last example of dealing with pressure and criticism only confirms that he might not have the experience to deal with the pressures and responisibility of sheriff. His response was nothing more than a temper tantrum.
I hope all involved are doing well and wish a fast road to recovery to all.
Last edited by a moderator:
twincheeks,
One thing for sure, there twincheeks, nobody has tackled you any at all regarding your aforementioned analysis of Mike's reply. I guess that?s a compliment to your thought and/or argumentive writing skills, or something, uh? Good argument, regardless who I support for sheriff.
Its amazing how non law enforcement individuals think they know how to do police work and that they know more than the officer whos been doing law enforcement for 5, 10 15 or more years. This was not a PURSUIT, not a HIGH SPEED PURSUIT, not a CHASE being conducted by the Defuniak Springs officer. They were assisting another agency. Assisting in "stoppng a vehicle" does not necessary mean that you will place your patrol car in front of the bad guy or start chasing him. Observing, keeping an eye, on the bad guy is assisting " to stop the vehicle". This was an accident plain and simple!. You would not want people telling you how to do your job so stop telling the cops how to do theirs.
Please listen carefully
When I am working I have two groups of people who can tell me what to do and criticize my efforts: 1. the bosses and 2. the customer. Both groups can and will comment pro and con whether they know what they are talking about or not. 
Why? BECAUSE THEY CAN.
If you don't want people commenting on what you do, move to an uninhabited island. Meanwhile, I will state my opinion whether I am qualified to do so or not.
In the cops case I represent both groups, boss and customer.
Didn't you read Mike Adkinson Jr's post? He said, "THERE WAS NO PURSUIT"! Some people have a hard time reading evidently and, no, I am not an Adkinson supporter.
I guess what is confusing everyone is when does "attempting to intercept" end and "pursuit" start.
Both sound sort of high risk to me.