Rural Mayor to Cops: Do Not Chase Criminals
Far be it from me, who has spent the better part of three decades working as a police officer, to encourage anyone to take up a life of crime. But for anyone already disposed toward such a life, a golden opportunity briefly presented itself in the rural burg of Wellford, South Carolina. Mind you, this is no insult to the police officers of Wellford, all of whom I’m sure are dedicated public servants doing their absolute best to protect the town’s 2,000 inhabitants and their hard-earned property.
But a police force, whether in a city as large as Los Angeles or as small as Wellford, is after all an arm of the local political structure, and the evidence would lead the prudent observer to conclude that the political structure of Wellford, S.C., is on less than solid ground. The good people of Wellford, it would seem, have gone and elected a lunatic as mayor.
Strong language, you say. And indeed it is, but I have the evidence to back it up, courtesy of WSPA television, the CBS affiliate serving Spartanburg County, S.C. On September 18, WSPA reporter Chris Cato went to Wellford to speak with Mayor Sallie Peake, who had issued a directive to the effect that Wellford’s police officers should not engage in foot pursuits, as they often result in injuries to officers and an increase in the cash-strapped town’s workmen’s compensation premiums. A description of the interview would never come within a mile of doing it justice; watch it for yourself here, and see if you don’t agree that you have just beheld what may be Mother Nature’s last word in madness. One must wonder about the deficiencies in the rest of the field in the municipal election that thrust Ms. Peake into the mayor’s chair. One also suspects that Mr. Cato, directly upon leaving the mayor’s office, went to some local watering hole and pondered his choice of career over some strong drink.
I keep on saying “Now I’ve seen everything”, and every time I say it, I’m proven wrong within a day or three. I actually had to stop watching that woman partway into the first interview. I can’t believe she got elected to anything, and the other things I’m thinking aren’t fit for proper conversation. Please, could we get some sanity around here, somewhere?
I think there is a virus going round police farces of the world that turns them into raving lunatics and jobsworth.
Also see here for another prime example of this curious brainrot: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/sep/26/police-frustration-pilkington-inquest
I have a serious problem with the concept of breaking the law to uphold the law.
Anyone rational does.
It is a very steep and slippery slope, deciding which law to break and which one to uphold. Why should only police officers have the power to decide which law to uphold and which one to break? Should Judges be given this power also? How about lawyer? Law professors? Law Clerks? Convenience Store clerks? Doctors? Interns? Band-aid salesmen?
Just where is the line drawn here? No line?
That means no law, which means no reason for hot pursuit.
That cop in hot pursuit is doing more harm to society then any crime the perp he is chasing could have committed.
Besides, the basic theory of policing is that sooner or later, if you don’t get him some other cop will.
Pardon me for being suspisous BUT is there a difference in melanin production between chasers and chasees?
We all get the government we deserve.
Thankfully, stupid sally has since rescinded her stupid order ( with a little help from the state AG, I believe).
Actually, I think there are a lot of cases where officers should not engage in foot pursuits. If there aren’t any innocent civilians around “Police officer, stop or I’ll shoot” BANG, BANG, bleed, bleed, works for me. Perp has his choice.
7. glenn:
How do you feel about . . . “Conservative voter, stop or I’ll shoot” BANG, BANG, bleed, bleed”
It should always be the Officer’s discretion to chase or not whether on foot or car. Sometimes the crime is minor like a teenager bailing from a party; or the danger for the officer might be great danger like the beginning of Robocop.
Because remember, the police is neither responsible for your safety or bringing your assailants to justice. A policeman is just a government enforcer.
If I were a criminal, I know where I would be setting up shop about right now.
I wonder whether Ambroise Bierce would have made the following entry in his Devil’s dictionary: “A mafia is a governement that is not legitimate, just yet”.
Conversely, a government failing to enforce its laws is bound to degrade itself into a mafia, and become co-opted by a special breed of entrepreneurs who would have been considered criminals if the standard by which they used to be defined had not been “improved” to some nutsy politician progressive “superior” standard.
Don’t we have anything worth defending? Can we preserve our property and our rights without a police? What is left of a civilization that repudiates itself?
$20k a year for a town of 2k. I wonder if they could get a discount if they joined up with other small towns in the area? Of course, I guess those officers shouldn’t be chasing who ever they are chasing at night. ‘Cause, we know they just are out their chasing people to chase them.
“local prosecutor Trey Gowdy wrote to South Carolina Attorney General Henry McMaster to ask if the policy violated police officers’ obligation to uphold the law”
Interesting since the Supreme Court has already determined that the police have NO obligation to protect citizens. When seconds count, the police are only minutes away. Let me have a gun and I’ll protect myself, thank you very much.
Not all the officers were opposed to her policy and are dedicated professionals. The Chief of Police rolled over for her absurd orders like a trained lapdog. He even endorsed the policy.
@8. Now and Then:
I thought that ACORN was already doing that at the polls….OTOH I do not agree with Glenn, most states have very specific rules regarding the use of deadly force, they should be followed.
@3. John “birther” Samford:
What the heck are you talking about? A mayor’s directive is not a law.
How is a police officer chasing a criminal doing more harm?
Clarity, please.
This is just another case of a nut-ball politician having to say something to stay in the media. I do agree though, this is a case of the citizens getting what they deserve, it is up to them to correct it. They should have little trouble getting a recall petition organized and signed in a city of 2,000.
The urge to flee when accountability is breathing on the neck of the perpetrator is as old as the hills.
So, why then is the perpetrator, or why are the perpetrators, allowed to get away nonchalantly with what they have done? It looks like the mayor wants to be defeated in the next municipal direction. Can’t say that I blame her, given what is the best case scenario for the United States: a weaker greenback.
Playing Devil’s advocate, I am guessing that she
wants the streets to be safer than they would be
when the perpetrator is fleeing, and the police
are in hot pursuit.
Watching the initial interview with the good and excellent mayor, I was reminded of politicians in Baghdad when we first went in there, who were busily issuing comnmands and orders with the intent of protecting their newly-unemployed family members who had turned to terrorism, theft and the attempted murder of American soldiers to sustain their families.
And the thought occurred to wonder how many relatives of this dingbat mayor have prison records, or are out on parole, or have just used up their last unemployment check and may be forced to resort to crime real soon now to maintain their affluent lifestyles.
And whether Ms. Sally gets a cut of those efforts.
I also bet she voted for Obama and is eagerly awaiting his promised assistance to get her and her family free gasoline refills and mortgage payments.
Post #8 is fantasy projection N&T.Please seek help.
“What the heck are you talking about? A mayor’s directive is not a law.
How is a police officer chasing a criminal doing more harm?”
HE IS NOT chasing a criminal. He is chasing a suspect. That “suspect” has the right of presumption of innocence, granted him by the same Constitution that gives you the right to post anonymously.
Depriving that suspect of his constitutional rights is a greater danger to the USA then any petty crime committed. Or even a felony.
America has lost much property and many lives over the centuries and is still going. Lose the Constitution and we are toast. Just another pile of dirt between two oceans.
When that police officer chases a suspect he is attacking your right to post anonymously as well as that suspect right to a presumption of innocence.
That suspect might or might not have done something illegal. The cop for sure has broken the law. So who should be arrested?
The issue here isn’t bad boys playing withhot cars, it’s ‘are the police above the law? Can you enforce one law by breaking another?
Anyone answering yes to both those questions has no idea what America is about and should consider relocating to Cuba or China. Maybe N. Korea.
All those places have dual legal systems, one for the Elite and one for the peons. I don’t want to see the USA become another Cubsa, so I encourage those that do to immigrate. Nothing forces American to stay in America, they can leave whenever they want.
If you think the police should be above the law, try living someplace where they are.
AS far as the suspect getting away, so What? Where is he going? To a gas station if he’s running that hard. Auto dial the stations close to where he was last seen an ask them to give a call if he shows up. Then sneak up on him.
What I’m getting at is there are other solutions besides automobile flying around at unsafe speeds. Like F.E.D.O. says, be original.
7. glenn:
My thought eggzacery! What is even more funny is the moron at 8 who admitted democrats are criminals… lol.
Lemme guess… she’s a member of ACORN and her cops belong to SEIU, right?
19. John “birther” Samford wrote:
That suspect might or might not have done something illegal. The cop for sure has broken the law. So who should be arrested?
Peter writes: I’m sorry, but somewhere you went off the deep end! You are actually saying police are committing crimes by chasing the suspects that have been accused of committing a crime?
By your ‘logic’ there should be no one in jail or out on bail either, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But by that ‘logic’ you can’t arrest or hold anyone until they have already been to trial, and since you can’t take them to trial unless you arrest them for a crime, ergo no one in jail anymore by your ‘logic.’
The law works the way it does because it must. If someone is suspected of a crime, they must be investigated. If they flee to avoid investigation, they must be chased and arrested in order to allow the investigation to proceed. Anything else is is anarchy.
One thing I have noticed most often in my life is the people who don’t want police to be allowed to chase suspects are the ones most often being chased by the police.
If you think this little town has troubles, check out the mayor of Atlantic Beach, SC. I pity residents of both towns.
“By your ‘logic’ there should be no one in jail or out on bail either, because everyone is innocent until proven guilty. But by that ‘logic’ you can’t arrest or hold anyone until they have already been to trial, and since you can’t take them to trial unless you arrest them for a crime, ergo no one in jail anymore by your ‘logic.’”
Abosuletly NOT what I wrote. You should re-read it. I didn’t use any big words, maybe the concepts were beyond you ability to understand.
Let try to be even simpler. ‘Some one accused of a crime SHOULD be apprehended IF there is enough evidence to warrent a trial.’ Any words there you have trouble understanding?
‘The Police should NOT commit a crime in the process of apprehending that suspect’. Any more tough words there?
The basic concept here is committing a crime to apprehend a criminal means there has been TWO crimes committed. Two crimes IS NOT an improvement over one crime.
Or are you arguing that a cop speeding, reckless driving and committing actions hazardous to the public welfare (reckless endangerment) is not a crime?
Please explain your logic there.
I am not arguing against arresting the speeder, I’m arguing against breaking the law to do it. Especially when there are ways to arrest that suspect that do not involve breaking the law. A Digital camera in the squad car and you have a tag number. Send over a car the next day and pick up the suspect. Two cars if that seems wise. If the owner of those tags wasn’t driving the car, then odds are they know who was. Hold them for the 72 hours allowed by law and see if it jogs their memory.
If you want to attack me, fine. I’m a big boy and take care of myself. I just would ask that you don’t put words in my mouth then attack those words.
“because everyone is innocent until proven guilty.”
That isn’t logic, that is the LAW of the land. If you have a problem with it, either immigrate, or try to get a Constitutional amendment passed.
25. John “birther” Samford wrote:
‘Some one accused of a crime SHOULD be apprehended IF there is enough evidence to warrent a trial.’ Any words there you have trouble understanding?
‘The Police should NOT commit a crime in the process of apprehending that suspect’. Any more tough words there?
25. John “birther” Samford wrote:
‘Some one accused of a crime SHOULD be apprehended IF there is enough evidence to warrent a trial.’ Any words there you have trouble understanding?
‘The Police should NOT commit a crime in the process of apprehending that suspect’. Any more tough words there?
Peter writes: A criminal holding up a victim at gunpoint is committing a crime, no? They should be apprehended, even if they try and flee and dispose of the weapon, no? The criminal, even if there is not enough evidence to be found guilty at trial (until MORE investigation is done) SHOLD be chased. By your own logic, you say no, he shouldn’t. You’re letting the criminal get away with his crime just because he hasn’t already been found guiulty in a court.
The police officer chases the criminal, even though the crook has not YET been found guilty. By YOUR logic, you say the police are committing a crime by chasing an ‘innocent person.’ The police are merely doing their job, trying to arrest and prosecute the crook.
Get back onto the right side of the law. Support your police, not the crooks who would sooner shoot you as give you the time of day.
I have always thought thay fleeing from the police was a crime in itself——
Actually, perhaps I am going about this the wrong way.
Please explain, exactly, what law is being broken by a police officer who, in the course of their duly appointed job for which they affirmed an oath to serve and protect the public, chases and catches a criminal in the course of, or shortly after, committing an act known to be against the law?
I guess the mayor does not have the ability to think past the front of her nose. I am amazed at how such stupid people like her get elected. I think I know how she got elected, but that’s another story in itself. I feel bad for those police officers that must work for that “Moronic Mayor” Maybe “Georgie Porgy Puddin Pie Gascon” will leave San Francisco and run to her town to work for her. Crime will run rampant in her City. The miscreants know that they only have to run and they’re free.
Oh come on, I was really hoping to learn what law a police officer is supposedly breaking by fulfilling the obligations of his/her job and chasing after crooks and criminals!
Hello? John ‘Birther’? I want to know what law a police officer breaks when he chases a criminal?
If I don’t hear back today I’m going to conclude you admit you were wrong.
John Birther needs to take a class on logic. How do you expect an officer to catch a speeding car without speeding himself? Your comment at using a camera to take a picture of the car and simply arresting the next day shows your lack of understanding about how the real world works.
I know it is a shocker but some people drive cars that are not registered to them. Other people may not live in the same place on the plate and have no fixed address. Some crooks swap license plates. Some take the plates off. Some crooks go on crime sprees and commit multiple crimes in one night so letting them go exposes the public to substantial risk.
Get away from your computer and go walk around in the real world for a while before posting such nonsense.
These rural pigs dont show an urban cop like me any proffessional courtesy. They are useless. Not too bright.