Originally Posted by hoog62
Yeah, yeah, yeah. I noticed you've glossed over the part where he was suspended for 60 days (violation of policy). Wrong is a done deal here.
IMO, living in a real world where my judgement isn't clouded by being geeked up on adrenalin, running your squad car into a motorcycle carrying an innocent passenger is wrong. The only assumption is that the officer knew there was a passenger on the bike, and I highly doubt that tidbit was left out by the officer that started the pursuit.
Liability and wrongdoing aren't necessarily synonymous either.
Why Dave you are absolutely right. I never once mentioned anything in any of these posts about Department Policy or SOP's did I...not more than four times I'm sure, so yeah I "glossed over it" didn't I.
Now O wise one would you care to share your inside knowledge with us a little more and tell us exactly WHAT violation of department policy he was suspended for? You see I looked at everything I could find and all it says is one officer was suspended for 60 days and the other was suspended for 15 days for a violation of department policy. So, what violation are you saying makes the officer wrong for his actions in the pursuit and where did you find it please? What violation was it that caused him to loose 60 days pay? Please tell us and share your wisdom. Or could that be another one of those assumptions you mentioned?
Let me give you a little insight into how it works here Dave and save you the trouble of more second guessing. Here if an officer violates the law (attempted murder is one suggestion I read in this thread) he is put on what's called "Indefinite Suspension" which is a fancy term for, fired and just waiting on the verdict. If an officer is convicted of said crime he is considered to be on "Indefinite Suspension" or using the same term for, pack your shit and get out...or you are going to jail, but in either event your days as a police officer are over. Now if an officer is suspended for a term it means he violated some rule the department has that controls an officer's conduct both on and off duty and there are hundreds of them, which are called Department Policy or Standard Operating Procedures (SOP's). Which means the violation is not a crime, but a violation of the code of conduct. Why am I telling you this you may ask, because I was involved in a shooting, which was 100% by the book, completely justified and I was No-Billed by the Grand Jury (no charges were brought up against me), but I did something the next day that was against the agencies SOP's and it got me a 14 day suspension. The press published the story with a headline "Agent linked to shooting suspended for cause!" and they had a field day with it. Others were second guessing me and assuming the shoot was a bad one. I was getting it from all directions, because the paper said I was suspended for cause and no one within the agency (those that actually knew all the facts not the people on lists who assumed, you know..like you're doing here) would say what the suspension was for. Now the interesting thing about all that is the suspension came about, because a know it all reporter who just knew I must have done something wrong, and was ready to ruin my integrity (you know, kind of like you Dave), asked me "What gave me the right to be judge, jury, and executioner?" and I went off on him. The agency had an SOP about talking with the press after a sensitive incident (of which they consider a shooting to be sensitive...go figure), so they sent me away for 14 days to cool down. Everyone jumped to the wrong conclusion and it could have jeapordized my entire carrier. The suspension had absolutly nothing to do with the shoot, but everyone jumped to the wrong conclusion.
Now I am just going to guess here, which I assume will be alright with you Dave, cause that seems to be what you did. My guess is going to be based on my experience of 20 + in law enforcement and the information available at this time. Your guess was based on........... Well anyway, in the news paper articles a Lieutenant, from Wautauga, is quoted as saying "The officer did everything he could to get out of the speeding motorcycle's way" and then later the reporter rebuffs this based on the dash cam you saw and some were so quick to execute the officer for. Now comes the guess on my part: It is my experience both in federal and municipal law enforcement that if you lie to a supervisor, that supervisor is going to get a pound of flesh from you over it, usually resulting in a 7 to 30 day suspension, but if said supervisor is made to look like a complete jackass on the 6:00 news, your butt will be swinging with at least a 45 day suspension, so, again this is just a guess, but the possibility exists that the officer that hit the bike lied to his supervisor about the accident initially, and said he tried to avoid the colision but the dash cam showed his actions didn't match his statement, his Lieutenant gets made into a complete fool on the news, so that officer got 60 days off and the other officer may have gotten the 15 for backing up the story and there could have been no violation of policy actually relating to the officers actions at the time of the accident, remember it was NOT a crime.
Now the department could very well have a pursuit policy and the officer could be guilty of violating a portion of that, but my point is there are still a whole lot of facts that the public, and that includes us, doesn't know yet, so to say the officer is wrong for his actions in the pursuit is way premature. You may not like what you saw and you may think it was wrong the way it was handled, but the fact remains in this state, unless the officer's department has a policy stating otherwise, he was completely legal (and yes Dave that does mean not liable). If his department does have a pursuit policy and he violated it, that is the only thing he did wrong and his suspension (if that is what it is for) is his punishment. Why can't you wait for the facts before you crucify the officer, remember even cops are innocent until proven guilty. All you have seen is a video tape. Now when all the facts come out there could, and there always is, be a lot more to it than that, but until then WE can't say it was right or wrong. So is it asking too much to hold off on the cop bashing....again?