Los Angeles, CA: Three top cops debate whether or not police policy should prohibit officers from chasing criminal suspects on foot when they are alone or without police back-up. In an eight minute Video News Blog, Full Disclosure Network® presents a dynamic exchange of views as presented by LASD Chief William McSweeney, Detective Roy Burns,(retired LASD) and LAPD Captain Ken Hillman, (retired). The video is available for viewing FREE, on demand, 24/7 as a public service of the Full Disclosure Network®.
Here are a few points made during this debate:
- CHIEF BILL McSWEENEY: Says that Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has a policy prohibiting a single patrol Deputy from chasing and challenging a suspect on foot. The Department policy says that they are not to physically engage the suspect so as not to endanger the officer or the suspect.
- DET. ROY BURNS, LASD (ret) Points out that in Compton, the 4th most dangerous city in America, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Department only has one officer assigned to each patrol car. He says foot pursuit ban is not needed due to the fact it has been over 20 years since the last LASD Deputy was killed in a foot pursuit and only four in the last 50 years.
- CAPTAIN: KEN HILLMAN: Says management should "never restrict officers from doing their duty" and then asks..."what kind of a message does that send to the community and to gang members?" "Do we really want our officers only to be a clean up crew to crime scenes?"
Following the video news debate viewers are asked to participate in an online survey by casting their vote on questions pertaining to the issue. They are also asked to leave their comments and to join in the online blog discussion of the issue.
Billed as "the news behind the news" the Full Disclosure Network® is an independent, educational, public affairs cable program featured on 43 cable systems and the worldwide Internet website www.fulldisclosure.net/ Hosted by Leslie Dutton, who in 2002 was presented with a public affairs Emmy Award from the Academy of Television Arts and Sciences for their series entitled "L.A.'s War Against Terrorism". Channels and airtimes can be found on the website.
Comments to date: 48. This is page 1 of 5.
John San Diego
Posted: 09:09 am [PST] on April 29 2008
Yes Phil from Alabama, COPS don't have an obligation to risk their lives, but most do voluntarily. That's why they chose the profession. As stated by WW from AZ, Keep being a sheep and let the sheepdogs do their jobs! It is political bureaucrats that prevent officers from doing their job the right way.
Phillip Lambro Los Angeles
Posted: 01:55 pm [PST] on March 01 2008
Invite the Elohim Extraterrestrials who have the ability to arrest the field of force without confrontation, and through chemical alteration of the brain render violent criminals peaceful with remorse for their previous actions.
Phillip Alabama
Posted: 11:34 am [PST] on February 13 2008
So the cops have no legal obligation to risk their life to protect us, and now they don't even have to give chase?
Why do we have cops again?
Mike Bailey Santa Clarita
Posted: 09:53 am [PST] on January 17 2008
As a retired LASD deputy I believe it's all about the money. The County government is willing to trade Officer safety for dollars. They will save some money while the Deputies are put in jeoprady.
Mike Bailey Santa Clarita
Posted: 09:49 am [PST] on January 17 2008
Thank you for providing a venue
for this discussion.
WW Loughrige Arizona
Posted: 11:40 am [PST] on December 24 2007
Your Three Strikes Rule is tough and driving your felons to us in AZ. The moral of the story is and has always been, being tough on crime works it might not be pretty it can't always be civilized, but it works. They choose the level of force, we bring along the choices. Don't look if you Don't like it. Sheep have no business telling the sheep dogs how to do their jobs, just keep grazing along and be thankful we are here.
Yorba Linda Reserve Officer Orange Co
Posted: 04:29 pm [PST] on December 19 2007
Officers need the freedom to respond to the dynamic situation. It is sometimes necessary to address the demand of the threat.
Stephen Vaughn Tallahassee, FL
Posted: 02:11 pm [PST] on December 17 2007
Since law enforcement officers are sworn to protect the public this means that their safety is priority, with the police next and the bad guys last. Having a policy that is so restrictive that it does not allow an officer to engage in a foot pursuit and apprehend a suspected criminal, if alone, is not in the best intrest of the public. It must be left to the officer to decide based on training, physical fitness, and the totality of the circumstances. To be so restrictive is an attempt to protect the purse of the employing agency because of our sue happy society. Failing to allow officers to chase criminals on foot is a neglect of duty in my opinion.
John Jackson Wildomar, CA
Posted: 09:02 pm [PST] on December 14 2007
Chief McSweeny is more concerned about the executive heat than the safety of the Deputy or the Public. As a retired LASD SGT of 30 years, I have seen his type rising to control. He would do well to find another line of work. Law enforcement is dependant of training, trust, and sworn commitment of it's officers. All enforcement involves risk...cops above all know that and make indivdual judgements every day....keeping their own safety upermost in mind. The don't need people like McSweeny second guessing them.
Jack Freitas San Diego
Posted: 10:35 am [PST] on December 14 2007
Retired 31 yrs officer,If they quit hiring wimps and females this would not be an issue.