Readers' Tips Confirmed: Officer's Children in High-Speed Chase

[MiMiMi]

Originally Posted by Woodyspda

I'm not a cop hater. I only commented that this particular officer was a dumbass that didn't utilize his head and should be reprimanded for both the unauthorized maneuver and taking on a chase without securing the safety of his children first. If you read the article, other officers listening on the radio had concerns too.... I'm guessing you weren't one of them. He should have allowed the Trooper to do HIS job.

MiMiMi the Sheriff has an obligation to ensure this does not happen again. Just because this guy was off duty (and put himself on duty mind you) does not mean he is no longer under Coffey's command. Once again you do not understand a leader's role.

And yes, an officer of the law has an obligation to live at a higher moral standard than most... as do politicians and military members which I was for 20 years active and will be for the remainder of my life,

And yes people do make mistakes.... and they should pay for them... in this case I stated counselling and a desk job.... as far as I'm concerned this guy lost his "priveledge" to utilize a public vehicle in his off time.

I never said he wasn't under the Sheriff's command I said the Sheriff can not be held responsible for every thing his officers do. Do you know any person who can be responsible for what a few hundred people do every minute of the day? If the officer did this with Sheriff Coffey's knowledge then yes, but if he didn't know about it or authorize it and the officer was technically off. Then no I don't agree. And it has nothing to do with not understanding a leader's role. A leader Webster defines as "a person who rules or guides or inspires others" no where does it say knows and takes the blame for what a person does 24 hours a day seven days a week. I think the word you are thinking about is dictator.

[Woodyspda]

Originally Posted by MiMiMi

I never said he wasn't under the Sheriff's command I said the Sheriff can not be held responsible for every thing his officers do. Do you know any person who can be responsible for what a few hundred people do every minute of the day? If the officer did this with Sheriff Coffey's knowledge then yes, but if he didn't know about it or authorize it and the officer was technically off. Then no I don't agree. And it has nothing to do with not understanding a leader's role. A leader Webster defines as "a person who rules or guides or inspires others" no where does it say knows and takes the blame for what a person does 24 hours a day seven days a week. I think the word you are thinking about is dictator.

I never said that Coffey could control his men 100% of the time... but when one of his fledglings does something that lacks common sense and sensability the Sheriff should institute repercussions.....

As I currently read it, Coffey justified what the officer did.... which makes him look just as bad as his officer.

As far as your definition of leader goes... yes they inspire.... you are ignoring the "rules and guides" part of the listed definition.... rules: ensures his men and women follow them. Guides: trains and sets standards.

A perfect example would be if a ship's captain has retired for the evening and his Officer of the Deck is given the helm.... ship runs ashore.... who do you think is going to be the skipper the next day???

Not the captain because the Admiral is going to relieve him of his command and place someone else in command who can rule and guide his "men" in a more efficient and effective manner.

If the Admiral does not do that, he is liable to lose HIS command.

Who writes the letters to the families of those who have fallen in war???? Their commanding officers.

As I see it the standard in Chuck county is to act on impulse and ask for forgiveness later..... people get hurt and killed that way.

[PrchJrkr]

Originally Posted by Sharon

Did you forget the tag or do you really approve of this cop's cowboy behavior?

I did not say I approved of the cop's behavior.

woody just seems to jump in with both feet, whenever a cop is involved. I should've used the smiley.

My post was just a jab at woody. Please excuse.

[Tomahawk202]

Man, there is a lot of tension on this topic, isn't there? Ok here are my points, so listen up:

1) Common sense = wasn't used. I WOULD NEVER, EVER JEOPARDIZE THE LIVES OF MY CHILDREN, for my job! I would never be able to live with myself, ( nor would I want to) if something were to happen to them. Although I am a self proclaimed azzkiker, this would have been one pursuit I would have passed on.

2) Vertical Liability = not necessary. In the police department, as well as the military, we have a thing called Vertical Liability. It is where not only are YOU responsible for your actions, but your supervisor and his boss, and his boss are responsible as well. Look at the Walter Reed scandals and the Abu Gahrib thingy. ( total of three Generals got fired for the actions of their subordinates ) Sheriff Coffey ( I am going to pick a side here ) should not be held accountable for this moronic deputy's actions. In this case, he caught a lucky break. But I do think that the deputy should be severely reprimanded and given a little time off. I say Coffey isn't liable, ONLY because nothing tragic happened. But if something would have went south, you COULD/SHOULD place this in his lap. I am just thanking God everything turned out fine. Imagine the headlines: Off duty Deputy engages in high speed pursuit with kids in car, crashes, three people dead.....page 3.

I could come up with something else on this topic, but frankly, it's late and I don't care enough to. So with that said.......

[vraiblonde]

Help me understand what the problem is.

The cop had his kids in the car.
A call went out for a pursuit.
The cop joined the pursuit while his children were in the car with him.

Is that right? If so, so what? How were the kids in danger?

Was the cop on or off-duty?

[Mikeinsmd]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

Help me understand what the problem is.

The cop had his kids in the car.
A call went out for a pursuit.
The cop joined the pursuit while his children were in the car with him.

Is that right? If so, so what? How were the kids in danger?

Was the cop on or off-duty?

From the article I just read, he performed a PIT manuever although he is untrained to do so and he had his kids in the car of a high speed chase.

I feel he should not have joined the chase with the kiddos in the car. Suppose he wrecked?

[Bay_Kat (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Mikeinsmd

From the article I just read, he performed a PIT manuever although he is untrained to do so and he had his kids in the car of a high speed chase.

I feel he should not have joined the chase with the kiddos in the car. Suppose he wrecked?

If he wasn't trained to do the PIT that could have turned bad very quick. Those are dangerous to trained officers, those kids could have been hurt or killed. I think it was really bad judgement on his part to join the chase, he was off duty and it wasn't like they didn't have other officers to do the job. I hope the kids' mom let him have it for this. I would have.

[MMDad]

Originally Posted by Mikeinsmd

From the article I just read, he performed a PIT manuever although he is untrained to do so and he had his kids in the car of a high speed chase.

I feel he should not have joined the chase with the kiddos in the car. Suppose he wrecked?

In most departments, high speed chases with civilians in the car is not allowed. He broke the rules, he deserves punishment.

If there isn't a CCSD rule against this, then their policies need to be fixed.

[vraiblonde]

Originally Posted by Mikeinsmd

From the article I just read, he performed a PIT manuever although he is untrained to do so and he had his kids in the car of a high speed chase.

I feel he should not have joined the chase with the kiddos in the car. Suppose he wrecked?

He could wreck off-duty in his own car.

The bigger deal, to me, is that he performed a maneuver that he's not trained to do. That was kind of dumb. I've seen this maneuver on COPS and it seems to me that there would have to be some training involved - not something I could just run out there and do.

Did they get the drunk driver or did he get away?

[Mikeinsmd]

Originally Posted by vraiblonde

He could wreck off-duty in his own car.

The bigger deal, to me, is that he performed a maneuver that he's not trained to do. That was kind of dumb. I've seen this maneuver on COPS and it seems to me that there would have to be some training involved - not something I could just run out there and do.

Did they get the drunk driver or did he get away?

Dunno about the DUI status but if in his own car, it's not likely that he'll be chasing DUI suspects at 80 mph.