Editorial board chides Foster, Wagman on police car chase policy

ST. PETERSBURG -- Here's what the St. Petersburg Times editorial board thinks about Bill Foster's and Scott Wagman's stance on the Police Department's car chase policy:

Two candidates for St. Petersburg mayor seem to care more about garnering the endorsement of the city's police than in the safety of motorists and pedestrians.

Former City Council member Bill Foster and businessman Scott Wagman said they would alter the current no-chase policy of the St. Petersburg Police Department that restricts officers from instigating a car chase except when pursuing violent felons. The candidates said they would allow pursuit of nonviolent suspects, even though a looser standard would undoubtedly lead to more injuries and deaths of innocents.

The city's police union has long chafed under the no-chase policy and has pressed police Chief Chuck Harmon to allow the pursuit of suspected car thieves and drug dealers. But St. Petersburg's policy is the most reasonable and responsible in the Tampa Bay area. Hot pursuits by other local law enforcement agencies with looser chase standards have resulted in dozens of deaths and injuries over the last two decades.

Harmon makes a good point when he says that granting more latitude to police pursuers would put the public at risk even though a low-level criminal like a car thief would likely be released from jail quickly.

One of the mayoral candidates, businessman Deveron Gibbons, said his sister was injured a few years ago by a fleeing suspect who crashed his car into hers.

Wagman believes that police training and proper procedures would minimize the risk to public safety, but without a clear policy ending pursuits, experience tells us that officers in the heat of the moment will chase a suspect who tries to elude their grasp. St. Petersburg's bright-line no-chase policy is the best way to protect the public safety. Foster and Wagman should rethink their positions.

*

Comments

[southside voter]

Foster does not have to pander to law enforsement. He already has their official endorsement - as published in the Times - so perhaps the ed board doesn't read its own paper.

[Alex Haak]

Like McNamara and his business approach in Government (remember???) Remember how many deads ???
"Tell it like it is by Alex Haak"

[Zen Master]

If "it" is nonsense that no one can understand then you are doing great Alex.

What the heck does Mcnamara have to do with this?

[shuturyap]

Allow them to pull next to them and put a marble through their eye and a bowling ball out the back of their head. That should stop all thoughts of fleeing.

[Nancy Glippert]

Wagman and Foster are idiots if they think training the police to chase people works. No - people will DIE (they have) when a scared criminal flees and does anything he can to get away. Wagman and Foster ONCE AGAIN SPEAK WITHOUT THINKING.

[Good 'ol Boy]

I beleive it is premature for the Editorial board to jump to the conclusion that changing the current police chase policy is a bad idea.

Neither Wagman or Foster has shared with the Times what type of changes they would consider making to the existing chase policy.

The change could be that the decision to chase or not would be made by a leutenant or that the change is that the SPPD chase policy is no longer shared with the public (yet left essentially the same).

The editorial board has accused Foster and Wagman of pandering to the law enforcement community by considering changes to the existing policy.

To whom would they be pandering if they changed their position as today's editorial suggested?

[Richard Eldridge]

I have no fantasies about getting the endorsement of the PBA, but we cannot have a “no pursuit” policy and hope to effectively fight crime. And what makes a car thief a non-violent offender? He’s stealing something that can be used as a deadly weapon from someone who will have to spend years of his life at hard work to replace it. I’m sure that most people would rather see a guy get away for kicking them in the crotch then get away for stealing something with 40 payments left.

Pursuit does not mean driving like a maniac in a 70’s cop show. Blockades can be set up. Unmarked cars can be used to box in the suspect. And we should be able to rely on the good judgment of the officers involved. Furthermore, the city should publicly encourage the use of vehicle recovery systems such as LoJack. Turning all of the traffic signals to red in a particular radius will stop traffic, making it more difficult for the suspect to maneuver. Plus any collision that may occur will be mitigated by the fact that only one vehicle is moving.

A “no pursuit” policy promotes lawlessness. Such a policy increases crime and encourages criminals to drive in a hazardous manner knowing that that’s how to avoid capture. The resulting increase in crime results in our police officers being spread out too thin over the city. This means that when violent crimes occur, it will take longer for a police officer to respond.

I refer to this as the Peter Parker Principle. How many people are killed because we let “non-violent” criminals get away? You may cite the number of people killed in police pursuits. I’ll cite the number of people killed driving to the mall. Freedom is risky.

Richard Eldridge
Candidate for Mayor

[Venetian Isle Voter]

NO TO WAGMAN & FOSTER!

I'm voting for Gibbons.

[Venetian Isle Voter]

Put cameras in every police car. Pick up non-violent offenders later at their home instead of chasing.

[VS Voter]

Right - because criminals always use their cars and license plates while committing crimes. You go right ahead and vote for Gibbons. He has no ties to special interest groups in this city. hahahahahahah

[Pelican Pete]

Venentian Isles Voter,

You should leave your Venetian Isles neghborhood more often to learn a little about what is going on in other areas of the city!

Deveron Gibbons is part of the problem and will continue to allow the most corupt elements in the SPPD to profit from selective enforcement policies.

St. Pete has become a crime "magnet city" because our no chase policy is well know in the region.

It is reasonable to review the policy.

[Concerned Voter]

I am not sure what is best. Risking your son, daughter, father, mother, etc lives by chasing bad guys like mad with innocent people being acceptable losses or letting them get away and attemping to use science and technology to fight or prevent the crime. Camera's in Parks have been mentioned. That is a deterent and non life threating. I would like to watch a good police chase or see a bad guy get arrested. But honestly, I like most people have car insurance. I would hate to see someone die and still have to make the same insurnace claim on my car? The only benefit would be someone bad guy goes to jail and then gets a murder charge on top of auto theft? Not sure if that makes a lot of sense. What if it was your family member that got killed. Is that an acceptable loss for you?

[Jean from St Pete]

Come to St Pete. Break whatever law you want, then just drive away. We won't chase you. We'll get your tag and see you at home later. Oh yeah! The car's stolen. Get real. Changing a "no chase" policy does NOT have to mean crashes at every corner. There are ways to control the situation and any "chase" can be called off at any time.