After internal dustup stemming from a Cleveland police sergeant terminating the pursuit of a suspect vehicle whose occupant opened fire upon a police supervisor on patrol, the fallout was sure to snowball. Cleveland police Chief Calvin D. Williams publicized a written statement pertaining to two sergeants operating on different pages. One is in violation of his agency’s pursuit policy while the other is fortunate to be alive. To-date, that would-be cop-killer is not in custody…thanks to the former.
In his concise and pointedly-worded statement, Chief Williams started by putting to bed the impression that Cleveland cops are expendable, saying, “Recently, it has come to my attention there are those who believe the safety of our officers is not paramount to the Cleveland Division of Police and to the City of Cleveland, and this could not be further from the truth.” Respectfully, I am sure the street sergeant who was fired upon and ordered to about-face begs to differ.
Like a conciliatory poke, perhaps the chief’s words were directed at the district supervisor who called-off the chase. From the facts as reported in an OpsLens article, any punitive, disciplinary measures are wholly deserved.
To recap, a police chase ensued on April 10, 2018 after a Cleveland police sergeant was almost murdered by a gunman operating a Honda Clarity which was believed to have been stolen from a dealership lot. It also had a stolen license plate attached, exacerbating the can of worms. Moreover, police intelligence also had a BOLO (be on the lookout) issued after that same automobile rammed a different police cruiser a few days prior. After being fired upon, the sergeant initiated a pursuit and was oddly called off by the supervisor overseeing the police district through which the chase traversed.
His reasoning for shutting down the chase? He didn’t have information and he couldn’t get on the police radio, even though the audio transmissions are crystal-clear as to what happened and why the pursuit was engaged. The sergeant v. sergeant contention on the radio is palpable.
Chief Williams telegraphed further: “I want to make it clear that Cleveland police officers are authorized to and will pursue suspects wanted for crimes of violence and for OVI related offenses.” Attempted murder of a law enforcement officer—unmistakably a crime of violence—happened on the day in question. Apparently, a certain supervisor either didn’t submit to policy stipulations or had his cranky pants on and opted out of good ole fashioned police work by pulling rank.
In my experienced view, this particular police pursuit could not have gone any smoother and was as close to a unicorn as it gets. The suspect vehicle evidently game for felonious crimes against justice was permitted to flee unimpeded. I wonder how stewed police Chief Williams was when he listened to the official recording you just heard.
It also struck me as bizarre when the district supervisor (presumably inside the district HQ, returned to the radio and asked the pursuing sergeant “What was the location where you were allegedly fired at? So we can send cars over there and try and locate a crime scene.” Allegedly fired at? is an ascerbic implication a planet away from redemption and one inch close to dissension. Wait, you think he made it up?
Of course the actual shooting location is a crime scene. Asking for the exact intersection so as to respond forthwith and string yellow tape and collect any shell casing(s), a street officer piped-up on the radio before the district sergeant did. For sure, something is amiss pertaining to acute ability to communicate (listen). There remains a gaping torpedo hole as to why this chase was severed.
As Chief Williams elucidated in his post-chase press release, “Officers are authorized to conduct vehicle pursuits in order to take violent suspects or intoxicated drivers into custody. This most certainly includes suspects who have committed violence, including attempting to harm our police officers.” I can imagine the sting sustained by the butt-chewing of a Fifth District police sergeant. So be it.
The closing of the press release entailed the following: “The pursuit policies of the Cleveland Division of Police are detailed and follow best practice. The policies are in effect to protect the lives of officers and citizens alike. Taking violent offenders off of our streets is equally important and our officers shall conduct vehicle pursuits when this action is appropriate.” It did not have a closing salutation. I’d be somewhat embarrassed if I were the Cleveland police chief. But I’d surely be hella mad about the chase that should’ve been but wasn’t.
Incidentally, the police chief’s initial comment to Cleveland-area media inquiring why this chase was denied? “It is the supervisor’s call,” was his initial assessment. After further investigation (the above audio tape and other pertinent records such as police officer reports), he re-processed and exhaled his tune through a trumpet instead of the tuba.
This type of instance is a brick in the assembling wall of anarchy. I render such a statement not only in support of cops but more-so for police who protect the public from violent thuggery. As a segment of the post-chase radio recordings emphasized emphatically: “Just hope no cops get shot tonight, that’s all!” Yet that is not all; discipline is unequivocally in order. Can you guess for whom?
