This does not sound like good police work

[idlewind]

DeFuniak police car crashes during pursuit





July 10, 2008 - 10:34PM
Andrew Gant (andrewg@nwfdailynews.com)
Daily News
DeFUNIAK SPRINGS - A pickup truck slammed into an unmarked police car Thursday as officers tried to help catch a suspect in an undercover state case.

DeFuniak Springs Police Investigator Brian Schultz was driving with passengers Sgt. Joseph Ward and police intern Laura Gainey when he heard a request to help catch the suspect, according to police.

Schultz turned onto U.S. Highway 331 at the intersection of the Interstate 10 eastbound on-ramp, police said. But he didn't see a northbound blue Dodge pickup, driven by Elliot W. Harrah of Fort Walton Beach.

Harrah hit the cruiser hard enough to pin Ward and Gainey inside. They were later released with the Jaws of Life.

Gainey was taken to HealthMark Regional Medical Center with a fractured shoulder and transferred to Pensacola for more treatment.

Everyone else was treated at HealthMark for cuts and bruises and released.

The suspect police were chasing got away, they said.

The Florida Highway Patrol is investigating the crash.



I do not think that allowing unmarked police cars with a civilian (intern) as a passenger is too thoughtful.:yikes: I wonder if this was allowed in policy, what does this say about the administration of the police department. :idontno: In any case, sounds like an expensive bill for the citizens of DFS.:angry:
I am glad that everyone is OK and that the young lady only has a broken shoulder.:clap:

[The Watcher]

DeFuniak police car crashes during pursuit





July 10, 2008 - 10:34PM
Andrew Gant (andrewg@nwfdailynews.com)
Daily News
DeFUNIAK SPRINGS - A pickup truck slammed into an unmarked police car Thursday as officers tried to help catch a suspect in an undercover state case.

DeFuniak Springs Police Investigator Brian Schultz was driving with passengers Sgt. Joseph Ward and police intern Laura Gainey when he heard a request to help catch the suspect, according to police.

Schultz turned onto U.S. Highway 331 at the intersection of the Interstate 10 eastbound on-ramp, police said. But he didn't see a northbound blue Dodge pickup, driven by Elliot W. Harrah of Fort Walton Beach.

Harrah hit the cruiser hard enough to pin Ward and Gainey inside. They were later released with the Jaws of Life.

Gainey was taken to HealthMark Regional Medical Center with a fractured shoulder and transferred to Pensacola for more treatment.

Everyone else was treated at HealthMark for cuts and bruises and released.

The suspect police were chasing got away, they said.

The Florida Highway Patrol is investigating the crash.



I do not think that allowing unmarked police cars with a civilian (intern) as a passenger is too thoughtful.:yikes: I wonder if this was allowed in policy, what does this say about the administration of the police department. :idontno: In any case, sounds like an expensive bill for the citizens of DFS.:angry:
I am glad that everyone is OK and that the young lady only has a broken shoulder.:clap:

OK, come on. THIS post is an example of negative campaigning at its best. I may or may not support Mike Adkinson, or any other candidate at this point, but to use a crash and injury of an officer and an Intern as cannon fodder is poor taste.

I know both Brian and Joey and I am glad that they are OK. Unless you have ever worked in a plain clothes, driven an unmarked car, or worked in an undercover capacity, you need not judge the officers. They made a choice to act and attempt to take out a criminal. Until you walk in their shoes (maybe you have, but I doubt it) leave the hard working officers and an accident out of the negative campainging.

If Brian, Joey or the new intern were chasing the perp who just broken into your home and did who knows what, would you still feel the same way. Regardless of the policies and procedures, leadership in DFS, etc., to bring the three into the mix is wrong.

P.S. the intern signs a waiver, very detailed, just for situations like this. I too am glad she is fine.

Too bad the perp got away, next time guys.

[ShallowsNole]

I agree with the Watcher on this one. There have been many occasions - job shadowing, FTO, etc where Fuzz has had a non-sworn person ride with him. In fact, it is typically safer for a intern/etc to ride with an investigator in an unmarked vehicle than it is in a marked unit, as marked units are the one normally involved in traffic stops, pursuits, and other potentially violent situations.

It was a VERY bad accident, and I am glad they are OK.

[rdelong43065]

That's why they call them accidents.

[Seeker1]

I agree with the Watcher on this one. There have been many occasions - job shadowing, FTO, etc where Fuzz has had a non-sworn person ride with him. In fact, it is typically safer for a intern/etc to ride with an investigator in an unmarked vehicle than it is in a marked unit, as marked units are the one normally involved in traffic stops, pursuits, and other potentially violent situations.

It was a VERY bad accident, and I am glad they are OK.



I'm glad everyone will be okay. Cars are just things and things can be replaced, lives cant.
This is a result of poor training, judgement and maybe even current policy.
I cant think of one department that encourages unmarked cars to be involved in pursuits. Even if it were an approved method of emergency vehicle operation in the pd, the safety of the vehicles passengers, primarily an intern and the public should have been of paramount importance. Thats why its common to see riders with investigators as you mentioned. They are not approved for pursuits and are not generally the first on scene to potentially violent situations. It appears in this case it was more important to stop someone. Seems more like a case of POP, pissing off police. It never was said why the vehicle was being stopped in the first place.
I hope they capture the suspect and above all I hope it was worth it all. I hope the pd has a post pursuit investigation policy in place. If they dont, they should.
I hope the PD addresses this in a possible policy change as well.
As for the "detailed waiver" thats only good if policy was followed. It does not release anyone from liability if policy was violated or poorly written. Waivers dont instill common sense either. This was completely avoidable. As for another comment about catching criminals, would you still say that if the officers wanted to stop the vehicle only for a tail light not working or the tag was expired? A "run'em till the wheels fall off" policy sooner or later results in death. Im not sayong let them all go, im saying make better and safer traffic stops thats all.

Hope all feel better soon.

[idlewind]

OK, come on. THIS post is an example of negative campaigning at its best. I may or may not support Mike Adkinson, or any other candidate at this point, but to use a crash and injury of an officer and an Intern as cannon fodder is poor taste.

I know both Brian and Joey and I am glad that they are OK. Unless you have ever worked in a plain clothes, driven an unmarked car, or worked in an undercover capacity, you need not judge the officers. They made a choice to act and attempt to take out a criminal. Until you walk in their shoes (maybe you have, but I doubt it) leave the hard working officers and an accident out of the negative campainging.

If Brian, Joey or the new intern were chasing the perp who just broken into your home and did who knows what, would you still feel the same way. Regardless of the policies and procedures, leadership in DFS, etc., to bring the three into the mix is wrong.

P.S. the intern signs a waiver, very detailed, just for situations like this. I too am glad she is fine.

Too bad the perp got away, next time guys.


If I could ask you to spare a minute and come down from your high horse, let me ask you a question. Why is this "negative campaigning" and all the opportunities all of us have taken to point out the shortcomings of Johnson's administration not? :idontno: What is the difference? :idontno: What I said/quoted did not mention any race or any candidate but did point out a serious public safety issue with the DFSPD. One is not required to ride in an unmarked car "chasing perps" to know that running full speed through a crowded interchange with a civilian in tow is not good public policy. Protecting and serving is not accomplished by placing the driving public in unneccessary danger. Would you feel the same way if the city car struck and killed your wife/husband/child? :yikes:

For the record, I do not question the courage or dedication of these officers and fully support our officers, as I fully support our troops. Calling into question the policies and procedures that either group operate under is just that, questioning public policy, not using our officers or troops as "cannon fodder." :clap:

[Mike AdkinsonJr]

While I do not typically respond to anonymous posts this particular thread was brought to my attention by one of my officers. I feel that I have a responsibility to defend my officers from unwarranted criticism. I accept that as a candidate I must submit to inquiry and unfortunately innuendo. I do not accept that police officers under my command should be ridiculed or second-guessed simply because they work for me. If you do not feel that I am the right candidate for you then most certainly that is your choice. However, I would ask that as a matter of respect that you refrain from commenting on the performance of these officers when you are not in possession of all of the facts. Investigator Schultz and Ward were performing their duties within department guidelines and at no point were they in pursuit. They were traveling at a very low rate of speed. They were attempting to intercept a confirmed drug currier (said vehicle was later stopped). While attempting to maintaining visual observation our unit pulled out in front of an oncoming vehicle. This was a traffic accident. We were at fault and have taken appropriate corrective action. Investigator Schultz has shown himself to be capable and competent police investigator, the fact that he was involved in a traffic accident does nothing to negate that fact. I apologize to Investigator Schultz and his family for having to be submitted to this type of unwarranted scrutiny.


Mike Adkinson Jr
City Marshal/Chief of Police

[Santiago]

If I could ask you to spare a minute and come down from your high horse, let me ask you a question. Why is this "negative campaigning" and all the opportunities all of us have taken to point out the shortcomings of Johnson's administration not? :idontno: What is the difference? :idontno: What I said/quoted did not mention any race or any candidate but did point out a serious public safety issue with the DFSPD. One is not required to ride in an unmarked car "chasing perps" to know that running full speed through a crowded interchange with a civilian in tow is not good public policy. Protecting and serving is not accomplished by placing the driving public in unneccessary danger. Would you feel the same way if the city car struck and killed your wife/husband/child? :yikes:

For the record, I do not question the courage or dedication of these officers and fully support our officers, as I fully support our troops. Calling into question the policies and procedures that either group operate under is just that, questioning public policy, not using our officers or troops as "cannon fodder." :clap:

Why do you have to put the little symbols throughout your posts? How old are you?

[ShallowsNole]

Why do you have to put the little symbols throughout your posts? How old are you?

Not to answer for idle, who I disagreed with earlier but generally respect, but most of us use the emoticons simply because they are available. :wave::confused::shock::clap::biggrin::razz:

[CiaoBella]

Idlewind and Seeker1 are right on. It is sickening that SOME (not all) cops get away with so much. I personally am against any chase that is not worth the possible costs. I have read about cops chasing people when they didn't know for sure they had the right car with the correct passengers. Just because someone is a police officer does not mean they get a pass for bad judgment, fat ego or any other faulty action. I get really tired of "mistakes" being played down! I personally know a traffic cop who could have saved a life but poor judgement by failure to act caused a family devastation. He is fine. Posters on other forums are right, what if this had been caused by a civilian? Most of us will probably never know what really happened. Most police protect their own no matter the cost.

[idlewind]

While I do not typically respond to anonymous posts this particular thread was brought to my attention by one of my officers. I feel that I have a responsibility to defend my officers from unwarranted criticism. I accept that as a candidate I must submit to inquiry and unfortunately innuendo. I do not accept that police officers under my command should be ridiculed or second-guessed simply because they work for me. If you do not feel that I am the right candidate for you then most certainly that is your choice. However, I would ask that as a matter of respect that you refrain from commenting on the performance of these officers when you are not in possession of all of the facts. Investigator Schultz and Ward were performing their duties within department guidelines and at no point were they in pursuit. They were traveling at a very low rate of speed. They were attempting to intercept a confirmed drug currier (said vehicle was later stopped). While attempting to maintaining visual observation our unit pulled out in front of an oncoming vehicle. This was a traffic accident. We were at fault and have taken appropriate corrective action. Investigator Schultz has shown himself to be capable and competent police investigator, the fact that he was involved in a traffic accident does nothing to negate that fact. I apologize to Investigator Schultz and his family for having to be submitted to this type of unwarranted scrutiny.


Mike Adkinson Jr
City Marshal/Chief of Police


Chief/Marshall:

Thank you for your reponse to this issue. It is a refreshing change from some other public officials. I also admire your willingness to assume responsibility for those under your command, which is also a welcome change from others in this county. However, I must beg to differ on a couple of points.
1. It is certainly fair to question as a point of public policy whether this type of pursuit is in the best interest of the citizens. I respect your point of view, but I think you can see where these are differences on this issue. I also think we can agree that your current policy is a legitimate matter for scrutiny. I brought the issue to light in order to begin such a dialog in hopes that our voting decisions can be clarified. As I have stated elsewhere, I am only decided on two races: Mark Davis for school board and Larry Jones for Commissioner. Further, I have completely ruled out only one candidate: Ralph Johnson. As regards every other race and candidate, I am seeking information to base an educated choice on. I respectfully suggest that this incident sheds some light on this choice, either pro or con.
2. While I did not seek to embarrass the officers involved, in fact, someone gave their names to the media, the fact is that they are professional law enforcement officers. As such, they are charged with public safety and are in fact public servants. While I agree such service demands respect and professional courtesy, the facts are that they work for the citizens and citizens have every right to scrutinize their actions and inquire as to what the facts of a particular incident are. Police officers are role models for society and society has every right to judge their performance. Anyone who enters the field of public service should know that the public is alway watching and has a right to comment when the standard is violated. That standard is set not by the agency, not by the officers but by the citizens.

[idlewind]

Not to answer for idle, who I disagreed with earlier but generally respect, but most of us use the emoticons simply because they are available. :wave::confused::shock::clap::biggrin::razz:
Santiago: I am old enough to know better and too young to care. My A.D.D. enjoys constant visual breaks.

Shallows: We are not required to agree but must respect each other's right to their opinion. I certainly respect yours and generally agree.:clap::clap::clap:

[The Watcher]

If I could ask you to spare a minute and come down from your high horse, let me ask you a question. Why is this "negative campaigning" and all the opportunities all of us have taken to point out the shortcomings of Johnson's administration not? :idontno: What is the difference? :idontno: What I said/quoted did not mention any race or any candidate but did point out a serious public safety issue with the DFSPD. One is not required to ride in an unmarked car "chasing perps" to know that running full speed through a crowded interchange with a civilian in tow is not good public policy. Protecting and serving is not accomplished by placing the driving public in unneccessary danger. Would you feel the same way if the city car struck and killed your wife/husband/child? :yikes:

For the record, I do not question the courage or dedication of these officers and fully support our officers, as I fully support our troops. Calling into question the policies and procedures that either group operate under is just that, questioning public policy, not using our officers or troops as "cannon fodder." :clap:


OK, I have climed down now, took me a while...

The difference is that all of the R.J. & Staff comments I have made is from first hand knowledge, based on FACT. If you go back and review my posts, I have NEVER used an officers accident or unfortunate situation against anyone or against the administration. All the supervisors and Ralph have something these officers did not have "choice". RJ chooses to be negligent with the budget, others choose to remain loyal, the list goes on...

The three involved did not CHOOSE to get into an accident. They were doing their jobs. Now if you want to dispute the policy and procedures, fine. Go get yourself a copy of the DFS Policy Manual and look at it. I am sure there are several interesting things listed in it, especially on page 42.:cool:

Climbing back up now, be seeing u.

[Starfish2008]

Everybody knows that if this had been two walton deputys then Adkinson and his good ole boys would have been all over it. They did not hesitate to ram it to Ms. Adams and captain Ferris when they were only doing there job and made mistakes. Things do have a way of coming around don't thye?

[idlewind]

OK, I have climed down now, took me a while...

The difference is that all of the R.J. & Staff comments I have made is from first hand knowledge, based on FACT. If you go back and review my posts, I have NEVER used an officers accident or unfortunate situation against anyone or against the administration. All the supervisors and Ralph have something these officers did not have "choice". RJ chooses to be negligent with the budget, others choose to remain loyal, the list goes on...

The three involved did not CHOOSE to get into an accident. They were doing their jobs. Now if you want to dispute the policy and procedures, fine. Go get yourself a copy of the DFS Policy Manual and look at it. I am sure there are several interesting things listed in it, especially on page 42.:cool:

Climbing back up now, be seeing u.


Thanks for taking time out from your riding.:rolling: Could I trouble you further to tell me what the **** is on page 42 of the manual? I seem to have misplaced mine.:funn:I also don't ride that way very often myself in case you were thinking I could go get another one.:floor:

[The Watcher]

Thanks for taking time out from your riding.:rolling: Could I trouble you further to tell me what the **** is on page 42 of the manual? I seem to have misplaced mine.:funn:I also don't ride that way very often myself in case you were thinking I could go get another one.:floor:

There are two references to the once very obscure "Hatch Act". This Act was brought forward by Ralph Johnson in order to eliminate Bill Imfeld from the race early on. Many wonder how R.J. and his Attorney (who couldn't find dope in a crime lab) could have stumbled upon this documentation. I found it, on page 42 of the DFS Policy Manual. ;-)

[Seeker1]

The Hatch Act applies to executive branch state and local employees who are principally employed in connection with programs
financed in whole or in part by loans or grants made by the United States or a federal agency. Employees who work for educational or
research institutions which are supported in whole or in part by a State or political subdivision of the State are not covered by the
provisions of the Hatch Act.
Employees of private nonprofit organizations are covered by the Hatch Act only if the statute through which the organization receives its
federal funds contains language which states that the organization shall be considered to be a state or local agency for purposes of the
Hatch Act, e.g., Headstart and Community Service Block Grant statutes.
An employee’s conduct is also subject to the laws of the state and the regulations of the employing agency. Additionally, employees
should be aware that the prohibitions of the Hatch Act are not affected by state or local laws.
Permitted Activities
Covered state and local employees may-
• run for public office in nonpartisan elections
• campaign for and hold office in political clubs and organizations
• actively campaign for candidates for public office in partisan and nonpartisan elections
• contribute money to political organizations and attend political fundraising functions
Prohibited Activities
Covered state and local employees may not-
• be candidates for public office in a partisan election
• use official authority or influence to interfere with or affect the results of an election or nomination
• directly or indirectly coerce contributions from subordinates in support of a political party or candidate
Penalties for Violating the Hatch Act
If the Merit Systems Protection Board finds that the violation warrants dismissal from employment, the employing agency must either
remove the employee or forfeit a portion of the federal assistance equal to two years salary of the employee. If the Board finds the
violation does not warrant the employee's removal, no penalty is imposed.
Covered employees are those whose principal employment is with a state, county or
municipal executive agency, and whose job duties are “in connection with” programs financed in whole or in
part by loans or grants made by the United States or an agency thereof. 5 U.S.C.
§ 1501(4). Employees are subject to the Act if, as a normal and foreseeable incident of their principal
employment, they perform duties in connection with the federally financed activities.
In re Hutchins, 2 P.A.R. 160, 164 (1944); Special Counsel v. Gallagher, 44 M.S.P.R. 57 (1990).
Coverage is not dependent on the source of an employee’s salary, nor is it dependent upon whether the
employee actually administers the funds or has policy duties with respect to them.
Special Counsel v. Williams, 56 M.S.P.R. 277, 283-84 (1993), aff’d, Williams v. M.S.P.B.,

[NoHall]

I thought this was interesting because I just spent the last two weeks with a deputy/SWAT team member/etc. who was serving as a house parent with his wife at our camp. From the conversations I've had with this officer, I've come to understand that it isn't unusual to have an intern in a car (marked or unmarked) in a high-speed pursuit or during training for high-speed pursuits. New officers/interns/whatever are introduced to aspects of police work; car chases are unfortunately sometimes part of that work.

I'm not sure what her position as an intern specifically entails, but I think it's reasonable to assume that if she got in the car with an investigator and an officer during the course of a work day she was aware (as were the two others) that there was a possibility of doing some police work.

:idontno:

[Seeker1]

I would rather see an actual policy manual supporting that persons decision. It sounds more like someone who is just as wreckless or has no knowledge of what thier own departments policy is on the issue. Ive contacted Okaloosa, Fort Walton, Crestview, Escambia, Santa Rosa, Bay, Holmes, Jackson, FHP and Yes even talahassee. None encourage unmarked vehicles to get involved in pursuits. In fact according to them they have written policy forbidding it for the same reasons mentioned earlier on this thread.
As for training purposes, thats unrealistic and absurd. There are controlled invironments for that. The safety of the public must come first above all else. If a leader does not recognize this basic principal then he/she is questionable in the basic ability to lead.

[twincheeks]

I'm glad everyone will be okay. Cars are just things and things can be replaced, lives cant.
This is a result of poor training, judgement and maybe even current policy.
I cant think of one department that encourages unmarked cars to be involved in pursuits. Even if it were an approved method of emergency vehicle operation in the pd, the safety of the vehicles passengers, primarily an intern and the public should have been of paramount importance. Thats why its common to see riders with investigators as you mentioned. They are not approved for pursuits and are not generally the first on scene to potentially violent situations. It appears in this case it was more important to stop someone. Seems more like a case of POP, pissing off police. It never was said why the vehicle was being stopped in the first place.
I hope they capture the suspect and above all I hope it was worth it all. I hope the pd has a post pursuit investigation policy in place. If they dont, they should.
I hope the PD addresses this in a possible policy change as well.
As for the "detailed waiver" thats only good if policy was followed. It does not release anyone from liability if policy was violated or poorly written. Waivers dont instill common sense either. This was completely avoidable. As for another comment about catching criminals, would you still say that if the officers wanted to stop the vehicle only for a tail light not working or the tag was expired? A "run'em till the wheels fall off" policy sooner or later results in death. Im not sayong let them all go, im saying make better and safer traffic stops thats all.

Hope all feel better soon.


Ditto, nicely said

[idlewind]

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?

[Johnny Post]

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.

[twincheeks]

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.

[Seeker1]

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?


I agree.
To me stepping up and defending subordinates is not an act of heroism as some might think. Theres more to character and leadership than throwing yourself in front of the bus.

[DFSboy]

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.


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.

[Seeker1]

dont unbuckle yet. LOL

[eagle11rb]

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.

[idlewind]

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:bang: 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. :yikes:Why? BECAUSE THEY CAN.:floor::floor: If you don't want people commenting on what you do, move to an uninhabited island.:rolling: Meanwhile, I will state my opinion whether I am qualified to do so or not.:clap:In the cops case I represent both groups, boss and customer.:biggrin:

[Andy A.]

I would rather see an actual policy manual supporting that persons decision. It sounds more like someone who is just as wreckless or has no knowledge of what thier own departments policy is on the issue. Ive contacted Okaloosa, Fort Walton, Crestview, Escambia, Santa Rosa, Bay, Holmes, Jackson, FHP and Yes even talahassee. None encourage unmarked vehicles to get involved in pursuits. In fact according to them they have written policy forbidding it for the same reasons mentioned earlier on this thread.
As for training purposes, thats unrealistic and absurd. There are controlled invironments for that. The safety of the public must come first above all else. If a leader does not recognize this basic principal then he/she is questionable in the basic ability to lead.
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.

[idlewind]

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. :floor::floor::floor:Both sound sort of high risk to me.:bang:

[Andy A.]

I guess what is confusing everyone is when does "attempting to intercept" end and "pursuit" start. :floor::floor::floor:Both sound sort of high risk to me.:bang:
Great play on symatics.

[idlewind]

Great play on symatics.


Just what I want to acomplish on a lazy Saturday afternoon.:clap: On second thought...........:wub: ooooo never mind:floor::floor::floor:

[Seeker1]

[quote=Andy A.;440876]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.

Way after the day of the crash Mike says there was no pursuit. However, during an interview the day OF the crash the Police said they WERE in pursuit. Maybe its mike that has trouble reading.
You would think that an Investigator and a Sergeant would know what a pusruit is and when they are in one. Actually, I believe the officers at the scene. NOT the one trying to spin it.
Please allow me to repeat myself once again. These cars are just things that can be replaced. Im very happy they all survived and will be able to continue to serve not just for us but for the families as well.

By the way, its been said that all officers have been w a r n e d not to speak to the media when when the pd is involved in any future crashes.

[idlewind]

[quote]


Way after the day of the crash Mike says there was no pursuit. However, during an interview the day OF the crash the Police said they WERE in pursuit. Maybe its mike that has trouble reading.
You would think that an Investigator and a Sergeant would know what a pusruit is and when they are in one. Actually, I believe the officers at the scene. NOT the one trying to spin it.
Please allow me to repeat myself once again. These cars are just things that can be replaced. Im very happy they all survived and will be able to continue to serve not just for us but for the families as well.

By the way, its been said that all officers have been w a r n e d not to speak to the media when when the pd is involved in any future crashes.


Do you have this from a good source? If this is true, it is chilling to say the least that a public servant is told NOT to speak to the press. :angry: Even Johnson, while he does not speak to the press himself, does not restrict officers telling the press what happened at an incident. :yikes: I would love to know what the other candidates press policy would be.

[Andy A.]

[quote]


Way after the day of the crash Mike says there was no pursuit. However, during an interview the day OF the crash the Police said they WERE in pursuit. Maybe its mike that has trouble reading.
You would think that an Investigator and a Sergeant would know what a pusruit is and when they are in one. Actually, I believe the officers at the scene. NOT the one trying to spin it.
Please allow me to repeat myself once again. These cars are just things that can be replaced. Im very happy they all survived and will be able to continue to serve not just for us but for the families as well.

By the way, its been said that all officers have been w a r n e d not to speak to the media when when the pd is involved in any future crashes.
If what you have quoted is true, it can mean only one of two things, either of which is possible. With all due respect to aleonard, either the press is misinformed, misquoted the officers or is lying, anyone of which, regarding our present media, is possible. The other possibility is that Mike Adkinson Jr. is flat lying or the officers are doing the same. I don't find that plausible as far as Marshall Adkinson is concerned. Once again, I am not a Mike Adkinson supporter or voter but after reading this thread I am definitely getting closer. Also, it is probably good policy for officers to be aware of what they say to the press in regard to both crashes and controversial situations.

[idlewind]

[quote=Seeker1;441255]
If what you have quoted is true, it can mean only one of two things, either of which is possible. With all due respect to aleonard, either the press is misinformed, misquoted the officers or is lying, anyone of which, regarding our present media, is possible. The other possibility is that Mike Adkinson Jr. is flat lying or the officers are doing the same. I don't find that plausible as far as Marshall Adkinson is concerned. Once again, I am not a Mike Adkinson supporter or voter but after reading this thread I am definitely getting closer. Also, it is probably good policy for officers to be aware of what they say to the press in regard to both crashes and controversial situations.


Two thoughts for you that I came up with pretty quick, the second is a direct paste from a SoWal post:

1. I will not run for Sheriff in 2008...Mike Adkinson

2. All of my campaign signs were to have been placed on private property. This is an error on my part if they are found in the right of way. I wil personaly drive to Freeport to asses thier placement. ..... Mike Adkinson 5/11/2008

Getting more "plausible" for you Andy?:floor::floor::floor::floor:
Before you get me for the spelling in the second quote, I PASTED IT from a post, it is the authors, not mine.:rofl:

[aleonard]

[quote=Seeker1;441255]
If what you have quoted is true, it can mean only one of two things, either of which is possible. With all due respect to aleonard, either the press is misinformed, misquoted the officers or is lying, anyone of which, regarding our present media, is possible. The other possibility is that Mike Adkinson Jr. is flat lying or the officers are doing the same. I don't find that plausible as far as Marshall Adkinson is concerned. Once again, I am not a Mike Adkinson supporter or voter but after reading this thread I am definitely getting closer. Also, it is probably good policy for officers to be aware of what they say to the press in regard to both crashes and controversial situations.

We only ran a press release generated by the DFSPD, to my knowledge, Andy A.. The other article ran in the Daily News and I believe it is posted in this thread. Since the release I received has been printed by the Herald/Beach Breeze, I will post it here.:wave:


"On Thursday, July 10, 2008, officers of this agency were involved in a 2 car collision on US Hwy 331 South at the intersection of the I-10 east bound on-ramp . The unmarked police vehicle, a 2008 Chevrolet Impala, was driven by Investigator Brian Schultz, with passengers Sergeant Joseph Ward and Police Intern Laura Gainey. The officers were southbound on US Hwy 331 South when they received a request from a State Law Enforcement Officer to assist with the take down of a vehicle that was eastbound on Interstate 10 at approximately the 89 Mile Marker. The vehicle, and its driver, were reported to be the subject of an ongoing undercover operation. As the officers made the turn onto the on-ramp they failed to see a truck traveling north on US Hwy 331. That vehicle, a blue Dodge pickup driven by Elliot W. Harrah of Fort Walton Beach, struck the unmarked police vehicle in the right passenger side. The wreck was of sufficient force that Sgt Ward and Intern Gainey were left pinned in the vehicle and had to be extracted by the jaws of life. All four persons were then transported to HealthMark Regional Medical Center and at the time of this release all have been released with minor bruises and cuts except for Intern Laura Gainey. She suffered a fracture of the right shoulder and was transported to Pensacola for further evaluation and treatment. Both vehicles were removed from the scene by wrecker service and the damage to both vehicles was considered to be major. Traffic was temporarily halted in the northbound lane which was cleared and returned to normal as soon as possible. The State Officer who initiated the request departed from his suspect to assist the officers involved in the crash and the suspect was able to elude further police activity. The Florida Highway Patrol is investigating the accident and will be the responsible law enforcement agency for finding fault and completing all required reports."

Lt. Gregory K. Gandy
Commander, Patrol Division

[idlewind]

A couple of more:

1. I am not a crook......Richard Nixon
2. I did not have sexual relations with that woman......Bill Clinton

See, one from each party. Moral of the story, politicians will tell what is neccessary to get them out of trouble....they're politicians, they can't help it, it's what they do. Most all of them.

[Seeker1]

There seems to have been a quotation misplaced somwhere. The particular quote starting with "if what you have quoted is true" is not mine. I think it was passed on by mistake by Andy A.
I know it wasnt deliberate but Im not that as eloquent in my writing as A Leonard. Too bad for me too.
However, to reply as to my source and to avoid a breach of confidentiality I can only say my source is valid. The officer I spoke with was not supplying me with any secrets. It was said they were reminded and warned not to be reminded again.
Most departments have a policy that NO officer or deputy make any statements to the media. Its a good policy and should be followed.
They, the media, should be directed to a senior officer on scene or the PIO.
That was not practiced in this case.
Were the officers lying? I think not. No reason to.
Is it policy? Probably is now. Was it then? I dont know. Should it have been? Yes without a doubt.
If it was then why was it not followed? I dont know.
As for the start of this , look at the very first thread. The article was from the Daily News, July 10.
Facts there were generated from the police.
Then theres a "press release" from the pd released by Lt. Greg Gandy, commander of patrol division.
Who do I trust? The cop on the scene.

[idlewind]

There seems to have been a quotation misplaced somwhere. The particular quote starting with "if what you have quoted is true" is not mine. I think it was passed on by mistake by Andy A.
I know it wasnt deliberate but Im not that as eloquent in my writing as A Leonard. Too bad for me too.
However, to reply as to my source and to avoid a breach of confidentiality I can only say my source is valid. The officer I spoke with was not supplying me with any secrets. It was said they were reminded and warned not to be reminded again.
Most departments have a policy that NO officer or deputy make any statements to the media. Its a good policy and should be followed.
They, the media, should be directed to a senior officer on scene or the PIO.
That was not practiced in this case.
Were the officers lying? I think not. No reason to.
Is it policy? Probably is now. Was it then? I dont know. Should it have been? Yes without a doubt.
If it was then why was it not followed? I dont know.
As for the start of this , look at the very first thread. The article was from the Daily News, July 10.
Facts there were generated from the police.
Then theres a "press release" from the pd released by Lt. Greg Gandy, commander of patrol division.
Who do I trust? The cop on the scene.

Thank you for responding, this information (that apparently came from a DFS policeman) helps me towards making my voting decision. :clap:I don't see the harm in a policeman telling the press the basic details of an incident as long as it does not harm an investigation. I DO see the harm in stiffling information so that the only way we get it is to get it from "official" sources.:bang:

[drivingthru]

I am confused. Chief Adkinson says the vehicle was stopped (in his post to this thread) and Lt Gandy says the pursuing officer broke off to go to the accident. Does anyone know which, or both, are accurate? Also, who was the State Agency that was following the vehicle in the first place? I believe that to be a very crucial part of the puzzle. If they were following the vehicle because they had reason to believe it was transporting narcotics, is one thing. But if they were following the vehicle beacuse the driver was a known dealer and they were just looking for a reason to stop him that is another ball game all together. Does anyone know? Never the less, its over now and thank God everyone is OK.

[scooterbug44]

Not to derail the bashing, but it is quite common for police/sheriff's departments to require that all communication w/ the press be approved or go through a designated representative to avoid the confusion and conflicting statements that are so well demonstrated above.

It's not always a CYA sitution, it can be a way to prevent misinformation or liability issues.

[sowalgayboi]

Not to derail the bashing, but it is quite common for police/sheriff's departments to require that all communication w/ the press be approved or go through a designated representative to avoid the confusion and conflicting statements that are so well demonstrated above.

It's not always a CYA sitution, it can be a way to prevent misinformation or liability issues.

In addition it may have been an ongoing narcotics investigation. If it was it's blown now.

[The Watcher]

[quote=Andy A.;441330]

We only ran a press release generated by the DFSPD, to my knowledge, Andy A.. The other article ran in the Daily News and I believe it is posted in this thread. Since the release I received has been printed by the Herald/Beach Breeze, I will post it here.:wave:


"On Thursday, July 10, 2008, officers of this agency were involved in a 2 car collision on US Hwy 331 South at the intersection of the I-10 east bound on-ramp . The unmarked police vehicle, a 2008 Chevrolet Impala, was driven by Investigator Brian Schultz, with passengers Sergeant Joseph Ward and Police Intern Laura Gainey. The officers were southbound on US Hwy 331 South when they received a request from a State Law Enforcement Officer to assist with the take down of a vehicle that was eastbound on Interstate 10 at approximately the 89 Mile Marker. The vehicle, and its driver, were reported to be the subject of an ongoing undercover operation. As the officers made the turn onto the on-ramp they failed to see a truck traveling north on US Hwy 331. That vehicle, a blue Dodge pickup driven by Elliot W. Harrah of Fort Walton Beach, struck the unmarked police vehicle in the right passenger side. The wreck was of sufficient force that Sgt Ward and Intern Gainey were left pinned in the vehicle and had to be extracted by the jaws of life. All four persons were then transported to HealthMark Regional Medical Center and at the time of this release all have been released with minor bruises and cuts except for Intern Laura Gainey. She suffered a fracture of the right shoulder and was transported to Pensacola for further evaluation and treatment. Both vehicles were removed from the scene by wrecker service and the damage to both vehicles was considered to be major. Traffic was temporarily halted in the northbound lane which was cleared and returned to normal as soon as possible. The State Officer who initiated the request departed from his suspect to assist the officers involved in the crash and the suspect was able to elude further police activity. The Florida Highway Patrol is investigating the accident and will be the responsible law enforcement agency for finding fault and completing all required reports."

Lt. Gregory K. Gandy
Commander, Patrol Division

Is this the same guy (Lt.) who was alleged to have broken a tail light on a suspected drug car years back??? I seem to get my names mixed up...:idontno:

[The Watcher]

In addition it may have been an ongoing narcotics investigation. If it was it's blown now.

Peanut Butter Jelly Time...

I would like to know who or what agency originated this "investigation". Why are we still picking on these guys?

[sowalgayboi]

Peanut Butter Jelly Time...

I would like to know who or what agency originated this "investigation". Why are we still picking on these guys?

I have no idea. :idontno:

[The Watcher]

I have no idea. :idontno:

I'm starting to hear that DOT (Dept of Transportation) may have been involved. I thought this was a private vehicle, not a truck. What's the deal?:confused:

[southbeach]

I'm starting to hear that DOT (Dept of Transportation) may have been involved. I thought this was a private vehicle, not a truck. What's the deal?:confused:
You heard correct that is who it was

[The Watcher]

You heard correct that is who it was

Why was the Department of Transportation involved in a city police incident involving a private vehicle? This seems very odd to me. I have had DOT vehicles involved in incidents where commercial vehicles are present, not private, alleged drug transportation vehicles... does something stink here?:idontno:

w

[idlewind]

Why was the Department of Transportation involved in a city police incident involving a private vehicle? This seems very odd to me. I have had DOT vehicles involved in incidents where commercial vehicles are present, not private, alleged drug transportation vehicles... does something stink here?:idontno:

w


At the risk of being accused of passing a rumor, I heard that the DOT officer involved is a big campaign supporter of the police chief. Have you heard anything like that? :idontno:If this is true, you may be correct about the smell.:floor:

[The Watcher]

At the risk of being accused of passing a rumor, I heard that the DOT officer involved is a big campaign supporter of the police chief. Have you heard anything like that? :idontno:If this is true, you may be correct about the smell.:floor:

I guess we'll wait for the FHP Report (maybe D. Griffin can get it...he just might hold on to it until after Tuesday ;-), althought if there is anything to this, it needs to be adjudicated now).

I do see a DOT officer who donated a large sum of money to that campaign. I have been "told" he is one who is/was on the list of management coming on board should the candidate win on Tuesday. Now that is just rumor.

Has any other agency looked into this "rumor". If a State of Florida, Department Vehicle was responsible for the situation that lead to an unmarked City Vehicle crashing with injury, that might not look too good. I hope thats not the case. I guess one could pull radio traffic tapes for the cars, review the sworn statements given by all involved, review any witness statemens that may have seen the whole thing start, make public record requests through the DOT, etc., etc., etc.,

Further, if there was/is any INTENT that this incident was orchastrated and not just a coincidence, that may pose a much larger problem for those involved. Reading back through the posts, it all would seem to make much more sense with this puzzle piece in place... For the record, I still did not like the officers being used as pawns in the original post, what might be worse is that they might have been pawns on a whole other level...

w

[idlewind]

I guess we'll wait for the FHP Report (maybe D. Griffin can get it...he just might hold on to it until after Tuesday ;-), althought if there is anything to this, it needs to be adjudicated now).

I do see a DOT officer who donated a large sum of money to that campaign. I have been "told" he is one who is/was on the list of management coming on board should the candidate win on Tuesday. Now that is just rumor.

Has any other agency looked into this "rumor". If a State of Florida, Department Vehicle was responsible for the situation that lead to an unmarked City Vehicle crashing with injury, that might not look too good. I hope thats not the case. I guess one could pull radio traffic tapes for the cars, review the sworn statements given by all involved, review any witness statemens that may have seen the whole thing start, make public record requests through the DOT, etc., etc., etc.,

Further, if there was/is any INTENT that this incident was orchastrated and not just a coincidence, that may pose a much larger problem for those involved. Reading back through the posts, it all would seem to make much more sense with this puzzle piece in place... For the record, I still did not like the officers being used as pawns in the original post, what might be worse is that they might have been pawns on a whole other level...

w


Didn't Ralph and his brother and several of Ralph's top management get in trouble with the FBI for trying to manipulate a drug bust on the interstate right after Ralph took office? :yikes: Are you thinking this could be the same thing? :idontno:

[The Watcher]

Didn't Ralph and his brother and several of Ralph's top management get in trouble with the FBI for trying to manipulate a drug bust on the interstate right after Ralph took office? :yikes: Are you thinking this could be the same thing? :idontno:

There are so many tales of wrong doing by local law enforcement, it is hard to keep them all straight. But, to answer your question, this set of circumstances would bear looking into at this point.

As for the incident you reference, as I recall, I believe one of the WCSO Narcotics Officers was actually arrested and prosecuted (Federally) on the case. Further, it was rumored that a tail light of the suspect vehicle became damaged, after the stop. This would create reason to stop said vehicle. The whole thing was swept up quick quickly but many of those with direct knowledge and even involvement, still actively work in the area, in law enforcement. (I'm certain you know that). Refreshing isn't it?;-)

However, based on the numerous and multiple legal violations this current administration has been involved/suspect in, nothing surprises me anymore.
:shock:

w

[The Watcher]

DeFuniak police car crashes during pursuit





July 10, 2008 - 10:34PM
Andrew Gant (andrewg@nwfdailynews.com)
Daily News
DeFUNIAK SPRINGS - A pickup truck slammed into an unmarked police car Thursday as officers tried to help catch a suspect in an undercover state case.

DeFuniak Springs Police Investigator Brian Schultz was driving with passengers Sgt. Joseph Ward and police intern Laura Gainey when he heard a request to help catch the suspect, according to police.

Schultz turned onto U.S. Highway 331 at the intersection of the Interstate 10 eastbound on-ramp, police said. But he didn't see a northbound blue Dodge pickup, driven by Elliot W. Harrah of Fort Walton Beach.

Harrah hit the cruiser hard enough to pin Ward and Gainey inside. They were later released with the Jaws of Life.

Gainey was taken to HealthMark Regional Medical Center with a fractured shoulder and transferred to Pensacola for more treatment.

Everyone else was treated at HealthMark for cuts and bruises and released.

The suspect police were chasing got away, they said.

The Florida Highway Patrol is investigating the crash.



I do not think that allowing unmarked police cars with a civilian (intern) as a passenger is too thoughtful.:yikes: I wonder if this was allowed in policy, what does this say about the administration of the police department. :idontno: In any case, sounds like an expensive bill for the citizens of DFS.:angry:
I am glad that everyone is OK and that the young lady only has a broken shoulder.:clap:

Has there been any additional information released about this crash? Things got awfully quite fast... I hate it for the two officers, but there was a great deal of discussion on this and a possible "connection".

[Seeker1]

The last bit of information I read in the paper on the crash was an interview with the police chief on the officers returning to work.
He was glad to see the officers returning to work after a short recuperation time. I'm also very glad to see everyone recover from the crash and hope they continue to feel better each and every day.
It was very obvious the chief didnt show any concern or offer any well wishes to the driver of the other vehicle.
Yes, the article was about the officers. But it was also incumbent upon the cheif to extend his well wishes to all others involved as well. He didnt.
For me, that says enough.

[Seeker1]

I still cant find anything on the "vehicle of no description" being stopped "somewhere" in Texas driven by a suspect nodody has ever described.
Im beginning to wonder if this phantom vehicle ever existed or was it fabricated in order to excuse the severity of the crash?

[The Watcher]

I still cant find anything on the "vehicle of no description" being stopped "somewhere" in Texas driven by a suspect nodody has ever described.
Im beginning to wonder if this phantom vehicle ever existed or was it fabricated in order to excuse the severity of the crash?


I'm begining to wonder when the State will look into the possibility that one of its vehicles was involved in this and that numerous locals (topix.com) are saying it was the reason for the incident. It seems to me that DOT is not too concerned about this.

This whole thing stinks, but based on lack of fact it is mere speculation. Has anyone depo'd the officers involved? I guess that would be up to the City and we know who runs that...:wub:

Glad no one seriously injured, Sad to see officers used as pawns in a nasty chess game. (Check, Knight takes Queen...);-)

[The Watcher]

The last bit of information I read in the paper on the crash was an interview with the police chief on the officers returning to work.
He was glad to see the officers returning to work after a short recuperation time. I'm also very glad to see everyone recover from the crash and hope they continue to feel better each and every day.
It was very obvious the chief didnt show any concern or offer any well wishes to the driver of the other vehicle.
Yes, the article was about the officers. But it was also incumbent upon the cheif to extend his well wishes to all others involved as well. He didnt.
For me, that says enough.


Funny again, isn't it, how no one responds to a valid point/question when it does not benefit them... Very odd indeed.:roll:

[Seeker1]

Funny again, isn't it, how no one responds to a valid point/question when it does not benefit them... Very odd indeed.:roll:

Usually, after a candidate wins a primary they'll stand on their heads to talk to the media and keep the momentum going.

After seeing the article in the daily news that Mike never responded to several attempts to contact him the night of the primary, I feel we havent seen anything yet.

The article stated he did not return repeated calls after the final numbers were announced. Makes ya wonder.

[The Watcher]

Usually, after a candidate wins a primary they'll stand on their heads to talk to the media and keep the momentum going.

After seeing the article in the daily news that Mike never responded to several attempts to contact him the night of the primary, I feel we havent seen anything yet.

The article stated he did not return repeated calls after the final numbers were announced. Makes ya wonder.

All I can say is this;

Mike Adkinson won the primary. Now, it is time to move towards the general and support the candidate people feel best suited to represent the County. Ralph is gone and all we can do is start to heal from some wounds.

I think that if Mike fills his staff with qualified, diverse individuals; those that represent both North and South Ends of our County, he can move this department into the future and be very successful. He also needs to stick to his campaign platform and hold true to his plans. Unfortunately, there are several members of the current administration which (my opinion) should be removed. They do not represent the County, they represent Ralph and those days are gone.

We must move on and help to build the best County we can.

w

[br549]

Usually, after a candidate wins a primary they'll stand on their heads to talk to the media and keep the momentum going.

After seeing the article in the daily news that Mike never responded to several attempts to contact him the night of the primary, I feel we havent seen anything yet.

The article stated he did not return repeated calls after the final numbers were announced. Makes ya wonder.



Regardless of what some do they cant satisfy everyone, if Adkinson would of made a statement to the press,you would of called him pompus or arragant.

[Johnny Post]

Check the followup article in the Daily News -

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/johnson_10624___article.html/adkinson_sheriff.html

Remember, election results were not official until after 9:00pm. I suspect Mr. Adkinson was home with his family. No reason not to wait until the next morning.

[Seeker1]

Regardless of what some do they cant satisfy everyone, if Adkinson would of made a statement to the press,you would of called him pompus or arragant.

Quick! What number am I thinking of?

No dearie, I would have thought that we finally had someone walking the walk of the talk he talked.
But, I do think what you suggest now.

Even Mike himself criticized how unresponsive Ralph is to the citizenry.
Mike did exactly as Ralph has done.

As for "no reason not to wait till the next morning" I disagree. One of the things Mike has asked us to trust him with was his word. And that was, that he would not be like ralph. I dont think it unreasonable to have expected him to return a call and say "something". He has one foot in the door and so far has gone back on his word by acting like Ralph with "no response". What the heck, he started the campaign by breaking his word so theres no surprize.
I'm really trying to like him but he makes it so hard.
So for now Im selling my scanner and cell phones and storing rolls of red tail light tape.

[The Watcher]

Check the followup article in the Daily News -

http://www.nwfdailynews.com/news/johnson_10624___article.html/adkinson_sheriff.html

Remember, election results were not official until after 9:00pm. I suspect Mr. Adkinson was home with his family. No reason not to wait until the next morning.

I did read the article and I find it quite appropriate that Ralph would blame voter turn out for his loss. Typical of his administration, no responsibility.

[Andy A.]

Quick! What number am I thinking of?

No dearie, I would have thought that we finally had someone walking the walk of the talk he talked.
But, I do think what you suggest now.

Even Mike himself criticized how unresponsive Ralph is to the citizenry.
Mike did exactly as Ralph has done.

As for "no reason not to wait till the next morning" I disagree. One of the things Mike has asked us to trust him with was his word. And that was, that he would not be like ralph. I dont think it unreasonable to have expected him to return a call and say "something". He has one foot in the door and so far has gone back on his word by acting like Ralph with "no response". What the heck, he started the campaign by breaking his word so theres no surprize.
I'm really trying to like him but he makes it so hard.
So for now Im selling my scanner and cell phones and storing rolls of red tail light tape.
Talk about sour grapes!!! I wasn't an Atkinson supporter, but I am wondering if you're nefariously starting you Democrat candidate for sheriff campaign now. Your accusations appear to not only be pointless but also unnecessarily derogatory.

[Seeker1]

Talk about sour grapes!!! I wasn't an Atkinson supporter, but I am wondering if you're nefariously starting you Democrat candidate for sheriff campaign now. Your accusations appear to not only be pointless but also unnecessarily derogatory.

First, having words put in my mouth by br549 that I have not even thought about uttering was humerous to me.

If you would now take the time to read my previous post,
I said I thought we finally found someone that walked the walk of the talk he talked. Sour Grapes? I dont think so. It was a positive comment. I followed it with comment on br549's sarcasm.
And I find it necessary to remind you that even Mike criticized Ralph for being so unresponsive to the people.
Sour Grapes? I didnt say it, Mike did. Go see mike.

The paper said he didnt return calls after numerous attempts. Sour Grapes? I didnt say it, the paper did. Go see the paper. Or are they being derogatory and pointless in their comments based on experience as well?
bad paper, bad bad paper.

I found it personally surprizing and was a tad disappointed that Mike did not seize the opportunity to speak with the media. Instead he followed the same practice he criticized Ralph for, no response. Sour Grapes? No, it was a good observation of Ralphs behavior Mike brought to everyones attention while he campaigned, then did himself. Again, see mike, or the paper, or both.

I said I was trying to like Mike but he was making it hard to do. A positive person would think that was a nice thing to say by a person with an open mind. "trying to like"= continuos effort..... "making it hard" = still trying, not stopping.
But a negative person would see something bad in it. You sure qualified yourself on that one.

Something tells me anything I would have said would have been determined by you to be derogatory and sour grapes. WHAH!
It appears you have a predetermined perception of what people post.
I find your criticism unqualified.
Try listening to people rather than saying (anticapating) what they mean.

[seagrovegirl]

First, having words put in my mouth by br549 that I have not even thought about uttering was humerous to me.

If you would now take the time to read my previous post,
I said I thought we finally found someone that walked the walk of the talk he talked. Sour Grapes? I dont think so. It was a positive comment. I followed it with comment on br549's sarcasm.
And I find it necessary to remind you that even Mike criticized Ralph for being so unresponsive to the people.
Sour Grapes? I didnt say it, Mike did. Go see mike.

The paper said he didnt return calls after numerous attempts. Sour Grapes? I didnt say it, the paper did. Go see the paper. Or are they being derogatory and pointless in their comments based on experience as well?
bad paper, bad bad paper.

I found it personally surprizing and was a tad disappointed that Mike did not seize the opportunity to speak with the media. Instead he followed the same practice he criticized Ralph for, no response. Sour Grapes? No, it was a good observation of Ralphs behavior Mike brought to everyones attention while he campaigned, then did himself. Again, see mike, or the paper, or both.

I said I was trying to like Mike but he was making it hard to do. A positive person would think that was a nice thing to say by a person with an open mind. "trying to like"= continuos effort..... "making it hard" = still trying, not stopping.
But a negative person would see something bad in it. You sure qualified yourself on that one.

Something tells me anything I would have said would have been determined by you to be derogatory and sour grapes. WHAH!
It appears you have a predetermined perception of what people post.
I find your criticism unqualified.
Try listening to people rather than saying what they mean.

Huh????:idontno:

[Johnny Post]

Seeker,

I understand where you are coming from. But honestly, isn't the statement about a nonresponse from Adkinson a little hasty.

He responded to the article the next day. I think you are overreacting.

I am sure the Daily News phoned him repeatedly that night. But at what number? His office, his cell phone? I sure hope they weren't calling his house after 9:00 or 10:00 because I do believe he has two little girls. If he had cut the phone off at that hour who could blame him. And before it starts, I understand a person in his position being available 24/7. I am sure he was available to his officers or in case of the need for law enforcement response. But taking media calls at 10:00 just to make the late deadline is a whole separate issue.

Either way, I think this is a nonissue, unless you really want to find fault in the man.

[Seeker1]

QUOTE]
I understand where you are coming from. But honestly, isn't the statement about a nonresponse from Adkinson a little hasty.
I think you are overreacting.
ny Post;460627]Seeker

I am sure he was available to his officers or in case of the need for law enforcement response.

Either way, I think this is a nonissue, unless you really want to find fault in the man.
[/quote]
[/quote]

First and foremost, thanks for responding in such a pleasant way.
I think I may have let my personal excitement of Ralph being tossed from his throne over run my expectations.
I would have expected Mike to be available for police response. I never doubted that.
Everyone is assuming he was at home. Really? On one of the most important evenings of his professional career I would have expected him to be at the office or courthouse watching the returns. I was told thats where he was 'till late by one of his men. But Im sure it will be considered untrue based on the timing. I would too.
Either way it seems your right. Noone thinks its an issue. And again, maybe I over reacted from my excitement of ralph being defeated.
As for trying to find fault, hmm. Thats hard to answer. Noone commented on my positive statement, just the negative. Fault stands out more with some than with others. Its easy to see when a person who claims to be so experienced makes a mistake.
If Mike wins, and he probably will, he his staff need to get used to being under that microscope. Its the nature of the position they will be holding.
As for me, I will decide whether or not to like the man based on his performance as a sheriff, not ads. It starts with who he surrounds himself with.
All I expect is the courtesy of having questions answered in a reasonable amount of time and a return call from time to time.
Thank you again for the courteous reponse.

[Andy A.]

First, having words put in my mouth by br549 that I have not even thought about uttering was humerous to me.

If you would now take the time to read my previous post,
I said I thought we finally found someone that walked the walk of the talk he talked. Sour Grapes? I dont think so. It was a positive comment. I followed it with comment on br549's sarcasm.
And I find it necessary to remind you that even Mike criticized Ralph for being so unresponsive to the people.
Sour Grapes? I didnt say it, Mike did. Go see mike.

The paper said he didnt return calls after numerous attempts. Sour Grapes? I didnt say it, the paper did. Go see the paper. Or are they being derogatory and pointless in their comments based on experience as well?
bad paper, bad bad paper.

I found it personally surprizing and was a tad disappointed that Mike did not seize the opportunity to speak with the media. Instead he followed the same practice he criticized Ralph for, no response. Sour Grapes? No, it was a good observation of Ralphs behavior Mike brought to everyones attention while he campaigned, then did himself. Again, see mike, or the paper, or both.

I said I was trying to like Mike but he was making it hard to do. A positive person would think that was a nice thing to say by a person with an open mind. "trying to like"= continuos effort..... "making it hard" = still trying, not stopping.
But a negative person would see something bad in it. You sure qualified yourself on that one.

Something tells me anything I would have said would have been determined by you to be derogatory and sour grapes. WHAH!
It appears you have a predetermined perception of what people post.
I find your criticism unqualified.
Try listening to people rather than saying (anticapating) what they mean.
Like I said, "Sour Grapes". I don't need any advice on politics from the lkes of you and I really appreciate the fact I am so negative. With some of the posters on this board, like you, it is the only way you can be and get some semblence of a point across. Have a great day.

[Johnny Post]

Everyone is assuming he was at home. Really? On one of the most important evenings of his professional career I would have expected him to be at the office or courthouse watching the returns. I was told thats where he was 'till late by one of his men. But Im sure it will be considered untrue based on the timing. I would too.

Actually, I spoke with a person who was there at the courthouse in DeFuniak. They said they saw him there, and saw him give an interview to Channel 7. Both he and Larry Jones were interviewed. I saw the Jones clip, never saw Adkinson, so I don't know when or if it was run.

My only point was concerning the contact with the Daily News. Repeated phone calls could mean 4 within 2 minutes. I don't know where he was after he left the courthouse. I also don't know how or when the reporter tried to call him.

One thing we can both agree on though - we are going to have a new sheriff, and that is what truly matters. I for one will continue to support Adkinson, but as always, everyone should choose who they feel will do the job best.

[seagrovegirl]

Actually, I spoke with a person who was there at the courthouse in DeFuniak. They said they saw him there, and saw him give an interview to Channel 7. Both he and Larry Jones were interviewed. I saw the Jones clip, never saw Adkinson, so I don't know when or if it was run.

My only point was concerning the contact with the Daily News. Repeated phone calls could mean 4 within 2 minutes. I don't know where he was after he left the courthouse. I also don't know how or when the reporter tried to call him.

One thing we can both agree on though - we are going to have a new sheriff, and that is what truly matters. I for one will continue to support Adkinson, but as always, everyone should choose who they feel will do the job best.

:clap::clap::clap:

[Seeker1]

Actually, I spoke with a person who was there at the courthouse in DeFuniak. They said they saw him there, and saw him give an interview to Channel 7. Both he and Larry Jones were interviewed. I saw the Jones clip, never saw Adkinson, so I don't know when or if it was run.

My only point was concerning the contact with the Daily News. Repeated phone calls could mean 4 within 2 minutes. I don't know where he was after he left the courthouse. I also don't know how or when the reporter tried to call him.

One thing we can both agree on though - we are going to have a new sheriff, and that is what truly matters. I for one will continue to support Adkinson, but as always, everyone should choose who they feel will do the job best.


I thank you again for being so polite. You set a good example to try to follow and I appreciate that. You may be correct in the timing of the media. I should have considered that first. I let my excitement take over as I often have.
You are on the money about a new sheriff and that was at the top of the list for so many of us.
The contest is not over, officially anyway. But a new day is on the horizon. Theres nowhere to go except forward now.:D