With all due respect, I think you have a grave misunderstanding about the role of an agency officer and the responsibilities of an agency member. It also seems that you view "professional courtesy" as an entitlement. Let me address your comments one at a time...
First off how do you know the police agencies and/or officers involved in this situation haven't gone to the offending agency in the past? Perhaps this is a pattern of behavior that needs to be resolved officially in the courts.
The defendant in this case committed 21 violations (or perhaps more) and received 21 summonses. The number of violations is what should be viewed as excessive, not the number of charges filed against him. These summonses were issued in lieu of a custodial arrest so the officers did exercise discretion.
Agency administrators, be they Chief, Captain, Commissioner, or whatever, are not parents and their members are not children (at least chronologically). There is definitely a time and a place for bringing a wayward child home to mommy or daddy but this is the case of an adult being held responsible for his actions. There's simply no reason for law enforcement to take an offender to his employer to resolve criminal acts (and reckless driving is a crime). That's like saying the State Police should take their findings in the fatal I-95 bus crash to the bus company for resolution. Where's the logic in that?
I understand where you're coming from about dealing with an agency directly and sometimes that is the right thing to do. I once stopped a vehicle operating at an excessive speed with a blue light and learned that there was no fire, the driver was late for work. He got his speeding ticket and his chief (three towns over) got a phone call about the blue light. Had the guy been running people off the road the chief would have read about the arrest in the newspaper.
It doesn't matter if it is a chief or member or civilian driving recklessly. They should be and are held responsible for their own actions. This case is noteworthy because it occurred while the offender was exercising the privilege of using red lights and siren. As the driver of any vehicle you're held responsible for the operation of that vehicle.
It isn't the lights and siren that make the risk greater; it is the driver's tendency to go faster and take more chances while using them. Psychologically it may be a false sense of security or it may be just plain adrenaline. And, highlighting points from other threads, there is a lack of supervision in many volunteer agencies that exacerbates this problem.
Finally, to receive professional courtesy one must be professional and courteous. This driver was neither. To expect preferential treatment or even infer that it is deserved in a case like this is why we hear stories of people getting tickets despite their membership in a fire or EMS agency. People get courtesy when they deserve it, not when they demand it.
I hear what you're saying, you're right "it doesn’t give you the excuse to drive like a maniac", but I think "21" tickets is an overkill.
in Operations (Fire-EMS-Police-911)
Posted
I hear what you're saying, you're right "it doesn’t give you the excuse to drive like a maniac", but I think "21" tickets is an overkill.