I remember a thread on this subject but I couldn't find it. What was the outcome on out of town use of official vehicles?
http://www.kotv.com/news/local/story/?id=135304
An off-duty Tulsa Police officer is involved in an accident in his patrol car on U.S. Highway 75 late Monday. The accident happened in Glenpool around 9:30 p.m. Monday on U.S. Highway 75 near 196th Street South.
Investigators say the police officer's patrol car collided with another vehicle headed southbound on U.S. Highway 75. Both drivers were taken to the hospital as a precaution.
"Both are not critical condition, they were up walking around, talking, just to be checked out," says Tulsa Police Captain Karen Ford.
Since Glenpool Police only had two police officers on duty at the time of the accident, Tulsa Police are investigating the accident.
Police officers are allowed to take their vehicles home up to 25 miles from 41st and Yale.
That location is about 21 miles from that starting point.
Channel 2 is reporting witnesses said it was the cop's fault.
quote:
Since Glenpool Police only had two police officers on duty at the time of the accident, Tulsa Police are investigating the accident.
Seems odd. Backup for a State/Federal Highway accident (if Glenpool can't handle it) would be the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. Actually, wouldn't they be first jurisdiction?
I smell a rat.
Besides, Glenpool never has more than two officers on duty.
quote:
Police officers are allowed to take their vehicles home up to 25 miles from 41st and Yale.
That pretty much covers the entire metro area.
I don't believe that was the intent of the recent activity. The idea being Tulsa cop cars in other cities serve no useful purpose for Tulsa. The concept of take-home cars is a crime deterrent, not an officer convenience.
(http://img255.imageshack.us/img255/996/25milesjm4.png)
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Police officers are allowed to take their vehicles home up to 25 miles from 41st and Yale.
That pretty much covers the entire metro area.
I don't believe that was the intent of the recent activity. The idea being Tulsa cop cars in other cities serve no useful purpose for Tulsa. The concept of take-home cars is a crime deterrent, not an officer convenience.
It also saves the City on overtime.
They need to drive these cars home so they can drive back to Tulsa and buy their groceries and other merchandize to help out the sales taxes budget.
Then in case of emergencies and someone sticks a gun in your face, you can tell the person that a off duty policeman is on his way and has to only come 25 miles so put the gun down and be patient.
They need to decrease speed and it must be investigated especially if the one's who's involved were cops. And they must help the civilian.
____________________________________
the way you think.......it's just the way you are
discount dodge parts (//%22http://www.replacementdoparts.com/%22)
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Police officers are allowed to take their vehicles home up to 25 miles from 41st and Yale.
That location is about 21 miles from that starting point.
So is it driving distance, or straight line distance? Looks like Wrinkle's straight line radius map goes a bit further than Glenpool.
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
Police officers are allowed to take their vehicles home up to 25 miles from 41st and Yale.
That location is about 21 miles from that starting point.
So is it driving distance, or straight line distance? Looks like Wrinkle's straight line radius map goes a bit further than Glenpool.
It's "how the crow flies"
Another thought comes to mind here.
I presume, as with TFD, City of Tulsa has opted to Self-Insure TPD assets (i.e., typical auto-type liability insurance).
So, IF (and, I mean IF) this officer is determined to be at fault (reduced chances since TPD became investigating authority in the case), it's going to cost Tulsa Taxpayers out of pocket to cover all liabilities as well as officer down/recovery time, plus vehicle(s) repair and/or replacement. I understand the officer hit the other car from behind, which, in Tulsa, represents a pretty open/shut case.
And, he wasn't even on duty.
I'm searching for the justification, and can't seem to find the benefit.
The 25-mile radius from 41st & Yale represents an area of which less than 50% is even in Tulsa County, much less the City of Tulsa.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Police officers are allowed to take their vehicles home up to 25 miles from 41st and Yale.
That pretty much covers the entire metro area.
I don't believe that was the intent of the recent activity. The idea being Tulsa cop cars in other cities serve no useful purpose for Tulsa. The concept of take-home cars is a crime deterrent, not an officer convenience.
It also saves the City on overtime.
I'd be interested in the support for this statement. Don't police work shifts. Or, are you saying they're on the clock during travel to-from home?
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
Another thought comes to mind here.
I presume, as with TFD, City of Tulsa has opted to Self-Insure TPD assets (i.e., typical auto-type liability insurance).
So, IF (and, I mean IF) this officer is determined to be at fault (reduced chances since TPD became investigating authority in the case), it's going to cost Tulsa Taxpayers out of pocket to cover all liabilities as well as officer down/recovery time, plus vehicle(s) repair and/or replacement. I understand the officer hit the other car from behind, which, in Tulsa, represents a pretty open/shut case.
And, he wasn't even on duty.
I'm searching for the justification, and can't seem to find the benefit.
The 25-mile radius from 41st & Yale represents an area of which less than 50% is even in Tulsa County, much less the City of Tulsa.
The Bone-Headed, intensely wasteful City Police-Car Take-home policy started under Mayor Silly-Susan Savage. It was her way of ingratiating herself with her personal Praetorian Guard, and of also burning up additional Third-Penny Sales tax with the local car dealers with whom the Police Car order were place.
We now have approximately 800 police cars for 800 police.
NO OTHER MAJOR CITY in the U.S. has such a blanket policy. NONE.
It was promoted as aiding "public safety".
There is NO U.S. Dept. of Injustice Crime Statistic that a city with a police car TAKE HOME policy has one iota affect on crime. NONE.
Under Silly-Susan Savage, police could take their assigned police car home or to moonlighting jobs WITHIN the city of Tulsa, burning up our cars and our gasoline hiring out their gun.
If the police officer lived outside of Tulsa, they parked the car on their way home at a city-owned facility, like a city fire station.
Then, Mayor Major MisFortune expanded on a bad policy to the 25-mile Limit, again trying to ingratiate himself with HIS Praetorian Guard.
Uh excuse me, just how does a Tulsa Police car sitting in a driveway in Mannford reduce crime in Tulsa?
Tell me a new lie about the benefits of our bone-headed, wasteful Police Car Take-Home policy.
I thought the policy did not allow the police officer to use the city-owned vehicle for personal use.
According to the Tulsa World...this accident happened at 9pm and his passengers included his 15 year-old son and an unnamed Glenpool woman.
What possible police business could be happening right after dinner time?
Maybe he was arresting his son and the woman?
The city started the take-home car policy inside the city limits for several reasons. The first is a public safety measure. Police officers going to work, coming home from work, going to court, going to in-service, going to the range, going to a specialty assignment ect. are visible and can respond to high priority calls if they are close. It simply puts more officers on the street. Secondly, people in neighborhoods like to see the police cars. I know my neighbors love it. It gives a visible presence in neighborhoods. Third, businesses like having police cars outside their buildings when police work extra jobs. There is a reason why no banks have been robbed in Tulsa when a uniformed car is out front. Businesses argue that they spend enough in taxes to warrant the police car if they want it. Fourth, it cuts down on overtime for the city. I usually get called in to work about 10-12 times a month. It saves the city about 30 to 45 minutes for me to leave from home and get to where I am supposed to be instead of stopping off at a uniformed division to get my police car. Lastly, officers get to work 15 minutes before their shift for squad meeting. They are not paid for this time. Unpaid squad meetings were also a trade off for the take-home cars.
As far as the out of the city take-home cars, Mayor LaFortune administration gave that to the officers one year instead of a raise. They stated that officers deserved a raise to get them up to market value but did not have the money. As a result, they gave us the 25-mile radius as compensation.
Additionaly, the take-home cars eliminate the argument of "donning and doffing" the uniform. The union has said that they will not pursue the "donning and doffing" argument.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
The city started the take-home car policy inside the city limits for several reasons. The first is a public safety measure. Police officers going to work, coming home from work, going to court, going to in-service, going to the range, going to a specialty assignment ect. are visible and can respond to high priority calls if they are close. It simply puts more officers on the street. Secondly, people in neighborhoods like to see the police cars. I know my neighbors love it. It gives a visible presence in neighborhoods. Third, businesses like having police cars outside their buildings when police work extra jobs. There is a reason why no banks have been robbed in Tulsa when a uniformed car is out front. Businesses argue that they spend enough in taxes to warrant the police car if they want it. Fourth, it cuts down on overtime for the city. I usually get called in to work about 10-12 times a month. It saves the city about 30 to 45 minutes for me to leave from home and get to where I am supposed to be instead of stopping off at a uniformed division to get my police car. Lastly, officers get to work 15 minutes before their shift for squad meeting. They are not paid for this time. Unpaid squad meetings were also a trade off for the take-home cars.
As far as the out of the city take-home cars, Mayor LaFortune administration gave that to the officers one year instead of a raise. They stated that officers deserved a raise to get them up to market value but did not have the money. As a result, they gave us the 25-mile radius as compensation.
Additionaly, the take-home cars eliminate the argument of "donning and doffing" the uniform. The union has said that they will not pursue the "donning and doffing" argument.
9-11 should have eliminated this foolish, ultra-expensive city policy.
Reason:
A Tulsa Police car parked in front of a house in a suburban neighborhood would make an excellent terrorist vehicle.
Once the policeman's donkey got owned by the terrorist assault team, then they would have leisurely, unimpeded access to both a police uniform PLUS an official Tulsa Police vehicle.
Allah Akbar, anyone?
[xx(]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
The city started the take-home car policy inside the city limits for several reasons. The first is a public safety measure. Police officers going to work, coming home from work, going to court, going to in-service, going to the range, going to a specialty assignment ect. are visible and can respond to high priority calls if they are close. It simply puts more officers on the street. Secondly, people in neighborhoods like to see the police cars. I know my neighbors love it. It gives a visible presence in neighborhoods. Third, businesses like having police cars outside their buildings when police work extra jobs. There is a reason why no banks have been robbed in Tulsa when a uniformed car is out front. Businesses argue that they spend enough in taxes to warrant the police car if they want it. Fourth, it cuts down on overtime for the city. I usually get called in to work about 10-12 times a month. It saves the city about 30 to 45 minutes for me to leave from home and get to where I am supposed to be instead of stopping off at a uniformed division to get my police car. Lastly, officers get to work 15 minutes before their shift for squad meeting. They are not paid for this time. Unpaid squad meetings were also a trade off for the take-home cars.
As far as the out of the city take-home cars, Mayor LaFortune administration gave that to the officers one year instead of a raise. They stated that officers deserved a raise to get them up to market value but did not have the money. As a result, they gave us the 25-mile radius as compensation.
Additionaly, the take-home cars eliminate the argument of "donning and doffing" the uniform. The union has said that they will not pursue the "donning and doffing" argument.
9-11 should have eliminated this foolish, ultra-expensive city policy.
Reason:
A Tulsa Police car parked in front of a house in a suburban neighborhood would make an excellent terrorist vehicle.
Once the policeman's donkey got owned by the terrorist assault team, then they would have leisurely, unimpeded access to both a police uniform PLUS an official Tulsa Police vehicle.
Allah Akbar, anyone?
[xx(]
TADAAAAAAA
Limit the vehicles to the City of Tulsa. When it comes to critical assets of the community such as the Police, they should be encouraged to live in the City. In addition to having the vehicle benefit, they should also make it more financially viable to hold a residence in the City of Tulsa. Pay a bonus to cops who reside in the City to make it worth their while. Good for the economy to keep 800 good-paying jobs in Tulsa. Good for Tulsa to have police ready to mobilize when urgent attention is needed to a situation. Whether you take your car home or not, you are much less able to spring to action if you live in the sticks as a cop. If you live in Beggs or Oolagah you are straight up less valuable due to your hugely increased mobilization time. Sure, police are free to live where they please, but when you are counted on for public safety, your proximity to urgent matters should be a directly tied in to your VALUE to the city. You could be the most skilled and experienced cop in all the land, but you aren't catching a North Tulsa shooter on the run when you are in Leonard.
Why do more than half of the Tulsa Police officers live outside the city limits?
Doesn't that seem odd?
Do they not want to support the city that employs them?
I'm also concerned with the trips home made during shift.
At least if they go home for lunch et al, they'd still be in town if they lived in town.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
I'm also concerned with the trips home made during shift.
At least if they go home for lunch et al, they'd still be in town if they lived in town.
It's really all about appearances.
By APPEARING to have a lot of police ON DUTY driving around, the local population have a feel good reaction.
Actually, this is a total ruse.
The police driving around Tulsa are picking up their dry cleaning, going out to breakfast/lunch/supper, going by to pick up their moonlighting check from the after-hours employers, driving to/from home for work, driving to/from home to their second job, etc., etc. etc.
And, I wouldn't be surprised in the least that while it is police procedure that their police radio be ON while in operation, when they don't want to be bothered, like when they are headed off duty, that they simply turn it OFF.
I see a fair number of police driving our police cars while talking on a cell phone. How can they be listening to the police radio with one ear when the other ear is glued to a cell phone??
It is a total waste of the city's limited and strained operating budget, as well as an unnecessary diversion of Third Penny Sales Tax to finance a vast fleet of 800 police cars.
Proper RESPONSE: Do NOT vote for approval of any more city tax increases or renewals until the City Government provides better financial management of our hard-earned tax dollars.
Friendlybear, The Department of Homeland security suggests that police department DO NOT park large numbers of police vehicles in areas. They suggest take-home cars are one of the safest ways to insure that in an emergency (terrorist attack, natural disaster ect) officers will be able to effectively get to and operate their vehicles.
Youngtulsan has a great point. Officers have been for that for years but the city won't do anything about it.
Recyclemichael, we've talked about this at length in previous threads. Officers would love to support Tulsa but officers want to support their families more. Officers can get more house for less money in the surrounding areas. Also officers feel like they are less likely to run into someone they arrested when they are with their family when they are outside the city. If the city were to reward officers for living in the city then I'm sure more would move back in.
What kind of reward would be necessary to entice officers to live in Tulsa?
Maybe allowing them a take-home vehicle?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
What kind of reward would be necessary to entice officers to live in Tulsa?
Maybe allowing them a take-home vehicle?
We're so auto oriented here that even a police officer with full reign over his take home vehicle likely owns his own vehicle as well. So it is a perk, but not some sort of prohibitive reason not to live in Broken Arrow.
Frankly they should just be PAID more (in ADDITION to getting a take home vehicle that out of towners should be denied) for living in the city limits. There are plenty of nice places to live in the City of Tulsa, and those sworn to protect the citizens should have enough pride in this city to deem it liveable for themselves. We don't need officers just coming here to collect a paycheck, then fleeing town declaring it a place unfit to live in. It also encourages them to fight crime when it is their own neighborhoods they are policing.
Extra money would be nice but it could also just be a discount on city services (trash, water ect.).
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Friendlybear, The Department of Homeland security suggests that police department DO NOT park large numbers of police vehicles in areas. They suggest take-home cars are one of the safest ways to insure that in an emergency (terrorist attack, natural disaster ect) officers will be able to effectively get to and operate their vehicles.
Youngtulsan has a great point. Officers have been for that for years but the city won't do anything about it.
Recyclemichael, we've talked about this at length in previous threads. Officers would love to support Tulsa but officers want to support their families more. Officers can get more house for less money in the surrounding areas. Also officers feel like they are less likely to run into someone they arrested when they are with their family when they are outside the city. If the city were to reward officers for living in the city then I'm sure more would move back in.
The Heimat Sicherheitdienst (Homeland Security Department) may or may not have given that advice.
The REAL answer is:
IT DEPENDS.
If the cars are concentrated in one location, then they can be guarded. Cars scattered all over Tulsa are subject to vandalism or theft.
Tulsa is unlikely to suffer a Pearl Harbor type attack.
The Police Car Take-Home Policy has been justified by a ever changing pretext:
It's about Public Safety within the city limits of Tulsa.
Then, moving the boundary 25 miles from 41st and Yale:
It's now about TERRORISM.
True Answer: It's about
FREE-LOADERS.Tulsa should have no more than about 200 police cars. That would save 4-fold our Capital Expenditures for new police cars, and reduce significantly our fuel expenditures incurred by the City operating budget by eliminating commuting expense.
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Friendlybear, The Department of Homeland security suggests that police department DO NOT park large numbers of police vehicles in areas. They suggest take-home cars are one of the safest ways to insure that in an emergency (terrorist attack, natural disaster ect) officers will be able to effectively get to and operate their vehicles.
Youngtulsan has a great point. Officers have been for that for years but the city won't do anything about it.
Recyclemichael, we've talked about this at length in previous threads. Officers would love to support Tulsa but officers want to support their families more. Officers can get more house for less money in the surrounding areas. Also officers feel like they are less likely to run into someone they arrested when they are with their family when they are outside the city. If the city were to reward officers for living in the city then I'm sure more would move back in.
The Heimat Sicherheitdienst (Homeland Security Department) may or may not have given that advice.
The REAL answer is: IT DEPENDS.
If the cars are concentrated in one location, then they can be guarded. Cars scattered all over Tulsa are subject to vandalism or theft.
Tulsa is unlikely to suffer a Pearl Harbor type attack.
The Police Car Take-Home Policy has been justified by a ever changing pretext:
It's about Public Safety within the city limits of Tulsa.
Then, moving the boundary 25 miles from 41st and Yale:
It's now about TERRORISM.
True Answer: It's about FREE-LOADERS.
Tulsa should have no more than about 200 police cars. That would save 4-fold our Capital Expenditures for new police cars, and reduce significantly our fuel expenditures incurred by the City operating budget by eliminating commuting expense.
[}:)]
Thank you for showing that you are completely uninformed. [:D]
It seems that when this "out of city residence" was first established the conditions was that the employee would not be at a residence greater in distance from his station than 25 minutes in case he was needed and called back. There is a difference "as the crow flies" and the time by road.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Friendlybear, The Department of Homeland security suggests that police department DO NOT park large numbers of police vehicles in areas. They suggest take-home cars are one of the safest ways to insure that in an emergency (terrorist attack, natural disaster ect) officers will be able to effectively get to and operate their vehicles.
Youngtulsan has a great point. Officers have been for that for years but the city won't do anything about it.
Recyclemichael, we've talked about this at length in previous threads. Officers would love to support Tulsa but officers want to support their families more. Officers can get more house for less money in the surrounding areas. Also officers feel like they are less likely to run into someone they arrested when they are with their family when they are outside the city. If the city were to reward officers for living in the city then I'm sure more would move back in.
The Heimat Sicherheitdienst (Homeland Security Department) may or may not have given that advice.
The REAL answer is: IT DEPENDS.
If the cars are concentrated in one location, then they can be guarded. Cars scattered all over Tulsa are subject to vandalism or theft.
Tulsa is unlikely to suffer a Pearl Harbor type attack.
The Police Car Take-Home Policy has been justified by a ever changing pretext:
It's about Public Safety within the city limits of Tulsa.
Then, moving the boundary 25 miles from 41st and Yale:
It's now about TERRORISM.
True Answer: It's about FREE-LOADERS.
Tulsa should have no more than about 200 police cars. That would save 4-fold our Capital Expenditures for new police cars, and reduce significantly our fuel expenditures incurred by the City operating budget by eliminating commuting expense.
[}:)]
I'm not aware of any concern over the Japanese attaching Tulsa in the near future, but those little pesky tornadoes are a problem, and Tulsa's history of flooding is also a problem.
During the floods of '84 and '86, the City lost who-knows how many cars because one of the repair facilities (and the surrounding neighborhood) flooded. Ask New Orleans who many police cars they lost due to flooding (nearly 500).
And if you cut the police car fleet by more then half, you simply end up buying more then twice as many cars because the cars end up being driven 24 hours a day instead of 10, thus they don't last as long.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Friendlybear, The Department of Homeland security suggests that police department DO NOT park large numbers of police vehicles in areas. They suggest take-home cars are one of the safest ways to insure that in an emergency (terrorist attack, natural disaster ect) officers will be able to effectively get to and operate their vehicles.
Youngtulsan has a great point. Officers have been for that for years but the city won't do anything about it.
Recyclemichael, we've talked about this at length in previous threads. Officers would love to support Tulsa but officers want to support their families more. Officers can get more house for less money in the surrounding areas. Also officers feel like they are less likely to run into someone they arrested when they are with their family when they are outside the city. If the city were to reward officers for living in the city then I'm sure more would move back in.
The Heimat Sicherheitdienst (Homeland Security Department) may or may not have given that advice.
The REAL answer is: IT DEPENDS.
If the cars are concentrated in one location, then they can be guarded. Cars scattered all over Tulsa are subject to vandalism or theft.
Tulsa is unlikely to suffer a Pearl Harbor type attack.
The Police Car Take-Home Policy has been justified by a ever changing pretext:
It's about Public Safety within the city limits of Tulsa.
Then, moving the boundary 25 miles from 41st and Yale:
It's now about TERRORISM.
True Answer: It's about FREE-LOADERS.
Tulsa should have no more than about 200 police cars. That would save 4-fold our Capital Expenditures for new police cars, and reduce significantly our fuel expenditures incurred by the City operating budget by eliminating commuting expense.
[}:)]
Thank you for showing that you are completely uninformed. [:D]
My repeated questions has not been answered concerning which other major cities have a similar liberal police car take-home policy?
Of the 100 largest cities in the U.S., besides Tulsa, which ones allow ALL city police to take home their assigned police cars?
Next, which ones allow ALL city police to take home their assigned cars within a 25 mile radius of their employment city?
Answer:
None.Why: It's the
TULSA PREMIUM!
It seems a valid point that we don't want all the police cars parked in one spot. The parking lots at the stations are not big enough to handle hundreds of additional cars.
But the Tulsa World said that 392 vehicles were taken home by officers to residences outside of Tulsa. That could be divided by officers who work at the three stations and also downtown would mean that on average each would be a hundred cars. Divide that by three shifts and you are probably only seeing 40 new cars in each parking lot.
Can each of the police station parking lots handle 40 extra cars and would that denote too big a risk out of a fleet of 777 cars?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
It seems a valid point that we don't want all the police cars parked in one spot. The parking lots at the stations are not big enough to handle hundreds of additional cars.
But the Tulsa World said that 392 vehicles were taken home by officers to residences outside of Tulsa. That could be divided by officers who work at the three stations and also downtown would mean that on average each would be a hundred cars. Divide that by three shifts and you are probably only seeing 40 new cars in each parking lot.
Can each of the police station parking lots handle 40 extra cars and would that denote too big a risk out of a fleet of 777 cars?
Just recind the Police Car Take-Home Policy in the interests of Public Safety, i.e. it is
TOO dangerous for the police to take the car home because a nasty old terrorist
MIGHT steal it to turn into a nasty old car bomb....
Ka-Boom!!!
Then, Park 'em.
You won't have to buy ANY new cars for YEARS....
[}:)]
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Friendlybear, The Department of Homeland security suggests that police department DO NOT park large numbers of police vehicles in areas. They suggest take-home cars are one of the safest ways to insure that in an emergency (terrorist attack, natural disaster ect) officers will be able to effectively get to and operate their vehicles.
Youngtulsan has a great point. Officers have been for that for years but the city won't do anything about it.
Recyclemichael, we've talked about this at length in previous threads. Officers would love to support Tulsa but officers want to support their families more. Officers can get more house for less money in the surrounding areas. Also officers feel like they are less likely to run into someone they arrested when they are with their family when they are outside the city. If the city were to reward officers for living in the city then I'm sure more would move back in.
The Heimat Sicherheitdienst (Homeland Security Department) may or may not have given that advice.
The REAL answer is: IT DEPENDS.
If the cars are concentrated in one location, then they can be guarded. Cars scattered all over Tulsa are subject to vandalism or theft.
Tulsa is unlikely to suffer a Pearl Harbor type attack.
The Police Car Take-Home Policy has been justified by a ever changing pretext:
It's about Public Safety within the city limits of Tulsa.
Then, moving the boundary 25 miles from 41st and Yale:
It's now about TERRORISM.
True Answer: It's about FREE-LOADERS.
Tulsa should have no more than about 200 police cars. That would save 4-fold our Capital Expenditures for new police cars, and reduce significantly our fuel expenditures incurred by the City operating budget by eliminating commuting expense.
[}:)]
Thank you for showing that you are completely uninformed. [:D]
My repeated questions has not been answered concerning which other major cities have a similar liberal police car take-home policy?
Of the 100 largest cities in the U.S., besides Tulsa, which ones allow ALL city police to take home their assigned police cars?
Next, which ones allow ALL city police to take home their assigned cars within a 25 mile radius of their employment city?
Answer: None.
Why: It's the TULSA PREMIUM!
You mean other then the Oklahoma Highway Patrol? Third largest police force in this state?
When you say none of the top 100 largest cities in the US allow take home cars for police, where does that statistic come from? What is the source of NONE?
I think that many other city police departments have take home vehicles for a portion of it's force. I am not sure how many of them allow over 90% of their sworn force to have their own vehicle.
When the price of fuel was relatively low, the policy was probably sound, especially for officers living within the city limits. The advantages are many...the officers can be mobilized quicker in a crisis, you don't need to build large parking areas, and probably most importantly, an officer is probably more likely to take care of a car that they are the only one driving. The maintenence savings from proper care is likely huge.
But when the fuel budget for police cars goes into the millions of dollars, the city has to look at what this policy is costing the taxpayers. It is only prudent for city officials to ask these questions. Other city departments have responded and dozens of public works and fire department employees have lost their take home vehicles this past year.
It is time to ask the police department to make the same sacrifice for some of their vehicles. I think it makes sense to start with vehicles that are going the furthest away each night. Do any of you officers have any other suggested places to start?
quote:
Originally posted by recyclemichael
I think that many other city police departments have take home vehicles for a portion of it's force. I am not sure how many of them allow over 90% of their sworn force to have their own vehicle.
When the price of fuel was relatively low, the policy was probably sound, especially for officers living within the city limits. The advantages are many...the officers can be mobilized quicker in a crisis, you don't need to build large parking areas, and probably most importantly, an officer is probably more likely to take care of a car that they are the only one driving. The maintenence savings from proper care is likely huge.
But when the fuel budget for police cars goes into the millions of dollars, the city has to look at what this policy is costing the taxpayers. It is only prudent for city officials to ask these questions. Other city departments have responded and dozens of public works and fire department employees have lost their take home vehicles this past year.
It is time to ask the police department to make the same sacrifice for some of their vehicles. I think it makes sense to start with vehicles that are going the furthest away each night. Do any of you officers have any other suggested places to start?
First off, most of this won't effect me because I live in Tulsa but here are some issues I see...
The city will have to make some decisions. If the city decides to take away all police vehicles starting with the people the farthest out, then they will pay more overtime when the people get called in. Will this extra overtime pay negate the savings the city made in gas?
What about response times for calls for service? Now, when officers arrive for work they are ready to go. Their cars have gas and their stuff is inside and ready. In fact, many times officers will take calls for service on their way into squad meeting. If officers no longer have their take-home cars, they will no longer take these calls on their way into work,which will have them holding longer. Another thing to think about is if officers leave their vehicles at the divisions, they will have to take their stuff out after each shift. That means at the beginning of each shift, they will have to put their stuff back in. That means less time the officers are on the street.
I think the case for letting officers take the cars home is well founded....No one has made a decent point for not letting them take them home other than fuel cost....Which to me is just cheap insurance.....
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I think the case for letting officers take the cars home is well founded....No one has made a decent point for not letting them take them home other than fuel cost....Which to me is just cheap insurance.....
That is exactly correct. Plus, it puts more police cars on the street. Those officers driving to and from work are in uniform, have police radios on, enforce laws to and from work and are seen by the public, which gives the appearance to criminals of more police.
Does everyone not think this has been studied (by the city) in the past? Take-home cars have not been around forever. The police used to drive cars 24-hours a day and it was a disaster. Needless to say, police work is hard on a car. It is not the same and you and me driving to grandma's house on Sunday.
The cars last longer. You don't have officers who are starting their shift waiting on the officer who is finishing his shift so they can swap police cars.
And when we talk about officers who live outside the city, not all are driving 25-miles home. Many live just across the city boundary/on the other side of the street that divides Tulsa from Bixby/Broken Arrow/.... They still have a Tulsa mailing address. Do some drive further? Yes. Are there some officers who could drive a car home but choose not to? You bet. Some don't want a police car in their driveway (the burglar always knows when the cop is gone).
And remember, other cities around Tulsa let their officers drive their police car home too. Some of those are parked in Tulsa.
We have to face the fact that this benefit was provided as a perk in lieu of a pay raise.
IF there were any studies done, they were internal to the Mayor's office and not made public, evaluated for criteria of value (just cost), or attempted to be justified using good police protocol as evaluation.
If ever there were a study in need of being done, this would be it.
What does it really cost, and what are the benefits, along with both pros and cons. Then, a presentation and a judgement by our City Council.
The current policy was based soley on politics of the time.
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I think the case for letting officers take the cars home is well founded....No one has made a decent point for not letting them take them home other than fuel cost....Which to me is just cheap insurance.....
Cheap? It costs you $32,000,000 for police vehicles, per the May 2006 renewal of the "Temporary" Itty-Bitty Third Penny Sales Tax.
PLUS, operating costs of fuel, tires, and maintenance, burned up commuting to Mannford, Broken Arrow, Owasso, Jenks, Sapulpa, etc., and also driving to Moonlighting jobs.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
We have to face the fact that this benefit was provided as a perk in lieu of a pay raise.
IF there were any studies done, they were internal to the Mayor's office and not made public, evaluated for criteria of value (just cost), or attempted to be justified using good police protocol as evaluation.
If ever there were a study in need of being done, this would be it.
What does it really cost, and what are the benefits, along with both pros and cons. Then, a presentation and a judgement by our City Council.
The current policy was based soley on politics of the time.
I wouldn't trust the TPD independence and objectivity to conduct a "study" of the cost-effectiveness of the Tulsa Police Car Take-Home Policy, any more than I trust to the TPD to conduct an investigation of themselves as to whether the use of deadly force was justified.
The police are not independent to investigate themselves. Period.
Nothing to see here; just move along.
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
We have to face the fact that this benefit was provided as a perk in lieu of a pay raise.
IF there were any studies done, they were internal to the Mayor's office and not made public, evaluated for criteria of value (just cost), or attempted to be justified using good police protocol as evaluation.
If ever there were a study in need of being done, this would be it.
What does it really cost, and what are the benefits, along with both pros and cons. Then, a presentation and a judgement by our City Council.
The current policy was based soley on politics of the time.
I wouldn't trust the TPD independence and objectivity to conduct a "study" of the cost-effectiveness of the Tulsa Police Car Take-Home Policy, any more than I trust to the TPD to conduct an investigation of themselves as to whether the use of deadly force was justified.
The police are not independent to investigate themselves. Period.
Nothing to see here; just move along.
I don't believe the studies were conducted by the police. I believe the studies were conducted by the City's Equipment Management Division, which is the City's department that takes care of the City's fleet. Many items go into the studies, such as how long do the cars last, what is the cost of maintenance (And not just maintenance, but how long the car sits waiting for maintenance/repair. If you have more cars waiting on repair, you then have to consider hiring more mechanics, ...), fuel, .....
There has also been discussion on replacing cars more often. I've heard (rumor only) the City is looking at a three-year replacement, which always keeps the cars under warranty, you have less down time (the cars are newer) plus they sell for a higher price at auction.
Is there a distance limit for other city departments? I live about 2 miles east of Inola, and there is a woman in animal control driving a city of Tulsa truck that lives about 1/2 a mile away.
I know the pickup with a special bed cannot get the gas mileage the police cars do so this is costing even more. Why should animal control be able to take their trucks home is homeland security worried about terrorist blowing something up with dogs?
quote:
Originally posted by moosedaddy
Is there a distance limit for other city departments? I live about 2 miles east of Inola, and there is a woman in animal control driving a city of Tulsa truck that lives about 1/2 a mile away.
I know the pickup with a special bed cannot get the gas mileage the police cars do so this is costing even more. Why should animal control be able to take their trucks home is homeland security worried about terrorist blowing something up with dogs?
I'm guessing the oversite committee is probably missing that one.
Moose... I can almost see the animal control officer having an even greater need to have their vehicle at all times. I suspect that they are on call basically 24/7 as there are far fewer of them than TPD officers. I know many calls for animal control are not particularly dangerous but the ones that are require a quick response....
Thanks bokworker I had not thought of the fewer number.
quote:
Originally posted by moosedaddy
Is there a distance limit for other city departments? I live about 2 miles east of Inola, and there is a woman in animal control driving a city of Tulsa truck that lives about 1/2 a mile away.
I know the pickup with a special bed cannot get the gas mileage the police cars do so this is costing even more. Why should animal control be able to take their trucks home is homeland security worried about terrorist blowing something up with dogs?
Everyone needs to get rid of the idea that Homeland Security is only about terrorists. Homeland Security has to do with securing the homeland from everything, many of which include natural disasters.
Many people complained about how the Homeland Security Department responded to the hurricane that hit New Orleans. But what most people don't understand is, your local government is your first responder, not the Feds. Those first 48-72 hours are going to be local people only. If a third or a half of your local car/truck fleet is eliminated because of the natural disaster (like what happened in New Orleans) then your first responders can't respond. Park all your police cars at one place, and that one place gets hit by a tornado, how do you expect those first responders to respond?
Not sure about Animal Control officers being allowed to take trucks home. I know if they were on call, they could. Then that went away during LaFortune. Not sure if it came back or not, but may have.
And, haven't we beat this topic like a dead horse several times in the past?
quote:
Originally posted by Friendly Bear
quote:
Originally posted by Breadburner
I think the case for letting officers take the cars home is well founded....No one has made a decent point for not letting them take them home other than fuel cost....Which to me is just cheap insurance.....
Cheap? It costs you $32,000,000 for police vehicles, per the May 2006 renewal of the "Temporary" Itty-Bitty Third Penny Sales Tax.
PLUS, operating costs of fuel, tires, and maintenance, burned up commuting to Mannford, Broken Arrow, Owasso, Jenks, Sapulpa, etc., and also driving to Moonlighting jobs.
"It cost money to do things".....
It is a HUGE benefit to have a FREE take home vehicle and it is clearly being abused by cops who are racking up miles for there own ends and some completely disrespecting traffic laws as they do so. That said. It seems like a sound policy to have take home cars. Driving the same car will encourage better care of the vehicles. The presence of those police cars parked in neighborhoods and driving to and from work is a crime deterrent, and response times are enhanced. So how do you address the $ bleed? There clearly needs to be an incentive plan to live in Tulsa and serve Tulsa by providing a presence with your cruiser. Those folks who are commuting from the suburbs ought to be willing to accept that their take home vehicle is claiming a little more share of the fringe than someone who lives in midtown. Next pay increase ought to reward officers for living in Tulsa and step back a reasonable fee for anyone who doesn't. Those folks living in the suburbs are saving big cash on the home they get for the money and commuting costs. Why live in town with such an incentive to live outside?
quote:
Originally posted by Wilbur
quote:
Originally posted by moosedaddy
Is there a distance limit for other city departments? I live about 2 miles east of Inola, and there is a woman in animal control driving a city of Tulsa truck that lives about 1/2 a mile away.
I know the pickup with a special bed cannot get the gas mileage the police cars do so this is costing even more. Why should animal control be able to take their trucks home is homeland security worried about terrorist blowing something up with dogs?
Everyone needs to get rid of the idea that Homeland Security is only about terrorists. Homeland Security has to do with securing the homeland from everything, many of which include natural disasters.
Many people complained about how the Homeland Security Department responded to the hurricane that hit New Orleans. But what most people don't understand is, your local government is your first responder, not the Feds. Those first 48-72 hours are going to be local people only. If a third or a half of your local car/truck fleet is eliminated because of the natural disaster (like what happened in New Orleans) then your first responders can't respond. Park all your police cars at one place, and that one place gets hit by a tornado, how do you expect those first responders to respond?
Not sure about Animal Control officers being allowed to take trucks home. I know if they were on call, they could. Then that went away during LaFortune. Not sure if it came back or not, but may have.
And, haven't we beat this topic like a dead horse several times in the past?
Well, comparing apples to oranges doesn't aid any Cost-Benefit analysis of whether police cars should be sent home with a policeman.
Rather than just THROWING away money on the pretext it MIGHT be included under the aegis of Heimat Sicherheitdienst (Homeland Security), maybe just maybe, our preparedness should be governed by a
Risk Assessment.New Orleans, Houston and Miami have completely different risk profiles than Tulsa. They have chosen to build their metropolises in areas subject to perpetually recurrent WIDE-AREA DISASTERS.
In Tulsa, our greatest risks are extremely short-duration tornados, and longer-duration ice-storms.
Secondarily, our risk of a major refinery fire with two occupying the central core of our city, should be part of our risk profile.
Assigning a risk to a terrorist attack is virtually unquantifiable, having two instances of actual attacks in the U.S. by Islamic Fundamentalists in the past 14 years, both in NYC, unless you also count the downing of TWA Flight 800......also in NYC..........which would make three instances.
And, the impact of ice-storms could be substantially defrayed if the city simply required that major electrical trunk lines be
BURIED, and thus immune to wind or ice storms. Recurrent bad weather repeatedly causes predictable power disruptions that cause a major impact on the citizenry.
But, of course this isn't a requirement of AEP/PSO.
Wonder why??
Oh, is it because they donate so generously to pass the Kaiser River Tax (expected) Vision 2025, Third-Penny Sales Tax, It's Tulsa Time, the Tulsa Project, and that gives them a
PASS on basic infrastructure hardening.....................??
Wilbur - when I hear the term Homeland Security the first thing that comes to my mind is security not first responders. Yes I lnow animal control is important however I do not see how it fits under Homeland Security/First Responders. I try to keep an open mind about most things, I know this is a little off topic but would you please explain how animal control falls under homeland security.
quote:
Originally posted by moosedaddy
Wilbur - when I hear the term Homeland Security the first thing that comes to my mind is security not first responders. Yes I lnow animal control is important however I do not see how it fits under Homeland Security/First Responders. I try to keep an open mind about most things, I know this is a little off topic but would you please explain how animal control falls under homeland security.
I agree Homeland Security is about security, not just response to an incident. Security covers a large area, which was my point. Homeland Security recommends large governments don't put all their people under one roof (like Tulsa's new city hall), they recommend against parking all your emergency vehicles in one place (like a lot of Tulsa Now Forum members want to do), they are actively involved in major events, such as the Superbowl, Olympics, Republican and Democrat National Conventions, ..... the list goes on and on. Homeland Security also buys lots of emergency equipment for local and state governments, of which Tulsa and Oklahoma has done very well.
And I'm not making the argument that animal control officers might fall under Homeland Security (they might argue differently, I don't know). Most of Tulsa's Animal Control officers respond, after hours, to police requests, which probably happens nearly every day. Police are not equipped to deal with dangerous animals. Police arrest a drunk driver with an animal in the car, the animal has to go someplace. You have a dead person in a home with an animal present, that animal has to go someplace. You have an animal in a car in a car crash and the driver goes to the hospital, that animal has to go someplace. You have a cow/horse roaming the expressway, those animals have to be dealt with by someone with some expertise. Animal Control officers respond to those types of things on a regular basis, 24-7.
Thanks for the clarification.
Channel eight has this story...
http://www.ktul.com/news/stories/0907/453649.html
Take Home Vehicle Policy For Tulsa Police In Jeopardy
Friday September 07, 2007
Abby Ross Tulsa - Before long, some Tulsa police officers may not be able to take home their patrol cars. They have had a take-home vehicle policy for three years, but a new ordinance is putting that in jeopardy.
The new policy means if you live outside the Tulsa city limits, you won't see any patrol cars parked in your neighborhood. Right now, it's written in their contract that police officers can take home their cars wherever they live. But, that contract expires June 30th.
You don't always need an officer to cut down crime. A police car may be enough, or at least Carter Bates thinks so.
"That police car is parked across the street."
"What do you think about that?"
"Fine. I have no problem whatsoever."
"Feel safer?"
"Oh yeah."
Last Christmas, a teenager, going way over the speed limit, drove into Carter's seven-thousand dollar fence -- a disaster Carter says, may have not have happened if a police car was sitting nearby.
"Just the presence of a police car, you can meet one coming down the road and you slow down."
Tulsa police want to continue taking their cars home. But, starting July first, it may not be possible. The city passed an ordinance that won't let employees take home their city cars if they live outside of Tulsa. Right now, police are exempt. But, if the Fraternal Order of Police can't get a new contract by June 30th, they say they'll lose their car privilege.
"We'd like to preserve that police presence not only in this community but in other communities," says former FOP President Bob Jackson.
Police say their take home cars allow them to respond to emergencies faster. And, like Carter says, they make the public feel safer. But, Carter doesn't live in Tulsa. His tax dollars aren't paying for the gas. So we asked a Tulsan if it's worth her money.
"Sure," says Sheila Harris. "I don't see why not. They're putting their lives on the line for us, so why not?"
City officials won't comment on any negotiation issue. The FOP wrote a memo to the city, threatening legal action. The latest figures show the city spends about 1-point-1 million dollars in gas and maintenance for police take-home cars. But, that was when gasoline averaged around two dollars a gallon.
Gee! I never thought of the hundreds of police cars that were damaged in the flooding in New Orleans. Lets see they had a weeks warning of the approaching storm but those who were responsible for the city cars just let them set instead of moving them out of harms way. Like the 86 flood on the Keystone everyone, even after being warned,
just waited to see how deep the waters would get.
The city quit letting outsiders make surveys over 15 years ago when they paid $50,000 for a report that pointed out the city was over staffed with duplicating positions.
quote:
Originally posted by MH2010
Friendlybear, The Department of Homeland security suggests that police department DO NOT park large numbers of police vehicles in areas. They suggest take-home cars are one of the safest ways to insure that in an emergency (terrorist attack, natural disaster ect) officers will be able to effectively get to and operate their vehicles.
Youngtulsan has a great point. Officers have been for that for years but the city won't do anything about it.
Recyclemichael, we've talked about this at length in previous threads. Officers would love to support Tulsa but officers want to support their families more. Officers can get more house for less money in the surrounding areas. Also officers feel like they are less likely to run into someone they arrested when they are with their family when they are outside the city. If the city were to reward officers for living in the city then I'm sure more would move back in.
The Heimat Sicherheitdienst SAYS oh please take your city-owned police car home to reduce the concentration of police cars??
How
CONVENIENT......Pure Bunk.If the police cars are concentrated, then they can be easily GUARDED.
And, what was your previous lame excuse when Mayor Silly-Susan Savage promoted this bone-headed, wasteful expenditure for police care Take-Home policy during her Regime:
It's a matter of
PUBLIC SAFETY.Public Safety in
MANNFORD??
In Bixby?
In Sapulpa?
Sorry, their problems are NOT my problem.....
Let those suburban city residents pay for their own police protection....
quote:
The Bone-Headed, intensely wasteful City Police-Car Take-home policy started under Mayor Silly-Susan Savage. It was her way of ingratiating herself with her personal Praetorian Guard, and of also burning up additional Third-Penny Sales tax with the local car dealers with whom the Police Car order were place.
I am confused on this one... Who pays that third penny sales tax on a municipal vehicle?
quote:
We now have approximately 800 police cars for 800 police.
Actually you may have more. Reserve cars, special service vehicles, etc.
quote:
NO OTHER MAJOR CITY in the U.S. has such a blanket policy. NONE.
Source please. Without even the first DDP of the morning, Nashville TN does.
quote:
It was promoted as aiding "public safety".
There is NO U.S. Dept. of Injustice Crime Statistic that a city with a police car TAKE HOME policy has one iota affect on crime. NONE.
You know what? You are right! There are none!
Of course, there is also no U. S. Dept. of Injustice Crime Statistic that says that an
officer wearing black socks has one iota effect
on crime either. NONE.
Possibly because there is no category in the crime reports for such a reporting item, and that the Justice Department has never done a study on it.
If you don't study it, you ain't going to report on it.
quote:
If the police officer lived outside of Tulsa, they parked the car on their way home at a city-owned facility, like a city fire station.
Sort of shoots the security arguement that is being offered here. Fire Departments often respond to FIRES and other emergencies, which would leave those cars unguarded. Of course,
we could then require that the Fire Department leave one person at the fire station when they respond to guard everything....
quote:
Tell me a new lie about the benefits of our bone-headed, wasteful Police Car Take-Home policy.
Not going to lie to you - I would rather tell you about the things that take home cars DO that are good, like officer moral, length of service for the vehicles, (The take home cars are taken better care of, making them last longer) and yes, more marked vehicles on the street.
Finally, if you have 1 car that gets to 100,000 miles in a year, working three shifts, or three cars that take three years to get to 100,000 miles - and has a better resale value because they have been better taken care of, what is the difference?
This could be a new way to commit armed robberies.
It may come to where the citizen when he does his yard work should take a gun with him.
Not wanting to bring up a past discussion but if a police car had been parked on the street in the area of the recent murder, instead of one of the suburb cities, would there have been a chance these yard robberies and murder would not have accrued?
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
This could be a new way to commit armed robberies.
It may come to where the citizen when he does his yard work should take a gun with him.
Not wanting to bring up a past discussion but if a police car had been parked on the street in the area of the recent murder, instead of one of the suburb cities, would there have been a chance these yard robberies and murder would not have accrued?
objection...speculation
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
This could be a new way to commit armed robberies.
It may come to where the citizen when he does his yard work should take a gun with him.
Not wanting to bring up a past discussion but if a police car had been parked on the street in the area of the recent murder, instead of one of the suburb cities, would there have been a chance these yard robberies and murder would not have accrued?
objection...speculation
Exception-assumption it would happen under written testimony herein as a deterrent in burbs.
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
quote:
Originally posted by shadows
This could be a new way to commit armed robberies.
It may come to where the citizen when he does his yard work should take a gun with him.
Not wanting to bring up a past discussion but if a police car had been parked on the street in the area of the recent murder, instead of one of the suburb cities, would there have been a chance these yard robberies and murder would not have accrued?
objection...speculation
Exception-assumption it would happen under written testimony herein as a deterrent in burbs.
i spotted one today headed west out past Westport Rd past Keystone Lake. 25 miles or not, that is too far!
Naw! This could have been his fishing day off and he needed to take the car so he could listen to the radio just in case???????.
When Homeland Security and the Defense Department can't keep track of their money why should we worry about a local half billion dollar expense account?.
Maybe the officer was on offical business. We do drive the vehicles out of the city alot for offical business.
This is frustrating. If I said I was "cut off" I'd be ticketed.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070916_1_A23_spanc00052
An off-duty Tulsa police officer was involved in a traffic accident Saturday night after losing control of his police vehicle and crashing into a concrete barrier.
Police officials said Cpl. Phil Snow had just left a second job and was driving westbound on Interstate 44 when another driver cut him off.
"Someone entered his lane and almost hit him," said Sgt. Mark Watson.
Snow performed evasive action in an attempt to avoid an automobile accident but lost control of the police car and collided with a truck on the highway, officials said.
At 8:45 p.m. Snow called police asking for assistance.
Snow and the driver of the truck were taken to St. John Medical Center with non-lifethreatening injuries, police said.
"Both were banged up," Watson said of the two drivers.
The accident caused short traffic delays on Interstate 44.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
This is frustrating. If I said I was "cut off" I'd be ticketed.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070916_1_A23_spanc00052
An off-duty Tulsa police officer was involved in a traffic accident Saturday night after losing control of his police vehicle and crashing into a concrete barrier.
Police officials said Cpl. Phil Snow had just left a second job and was driving westbound on Interstate 44 when another driver cut him off.
"Someone entered his lane and almost hit him," said Sgt. Mark Watson.
Snow performed evasive action in an attempt to avoid an automobile accident but lost control of the police car and collided with a truck on the highway, officials said.
At 8:45 p.m. Snow called police asking for assistance.
Snow and the driver of the truck were taken to St. John Medical Center with non-lifethreatening injuries, police said.
"Both were banged up," Watson said of the two drivers.
The accident caused short traffic delays on Interstate 44.
Not if you had witnesses.
In the comments regarding the TW story posted above, Jay's comment raises some interesting questions:
14. 9/16/2007 7:04:57 PM, Jay, Tulsa
"OK now City of Tulsa legal department . . that's you City Attorney; do your job and protect the taxpayers on this!
I heard the officer suffered a broken leg, so Cpl. Snow will likely be off for quite sometime, which begs the question of who's workers compensation will support him during his convalescents? Surely not the City's since he was off-duty. Don't suppose his 2nd employer at his extra job will step-up and assume liability do you? The bottom line is the citizens will be on the hook for replacing the vehicle and paying him while he recuperates! I found "the accident caused short traffic delays on Interstate 44" laughable as well, in that my wife was caught in the traffic back-up for for well over an hour. Just can't believe what the cops say or the Whirl reports."
Unfortunate but often true.
quote:
Originally posted by Townsend
This is frustrating. If I said I was "cut off" I'd be ticketed.
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?articleID=070916_1_A23_spanc00052
An off-duty Tulsa police officer was involved in a traffic accident Saturday night after losing control of his police vehicle and crashing into a concrete barrier.
Police officials said Cpl. Phil Snow had just left a second job and was driving westbound on Interstate 44 when another driver cut him off.
"Someone entered his lane and almost hit him," said Sgt. Mark Watson.
Snow performed evasive action in an attempt to avoid an automobile accident but lost control of the police car and collided with a truck on the highway, officials said.
At 8:45 p.m. Snow called police asking for assistance.
Snow and the driver of the truck were taken to St. John Medical Center with non-lifethreatening injuries, police said.
"Both were banged up," Watson said of the two drivers.
The accident caused short traffic delays on Interstate 44.
Wrong! The burden is upon the police/city to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed a traffic violation. Short of the officer having independent witnesses, the officer would not be able to cite you for losing control of your car. Or, if the officer does cite you, you would have an easy win in court.
quote:
Originally posted by Copperhead
In the comments regarding the TW story posted above, Jay's comment raises some interesting questions:
14. 9/16/2007 7:04:57 PM, Jay, Tulsa
"OK now City of Tulsa legal department . . that's you City Attorney; do your job and protect the taxpayers on this!
I heard the officer suffered a broken leg, so Cpl. Snow will likely be off for quite sometime, which begs the question of who's workers compensation will support him during his convalescents? Surely not the City's since he was off-duty. Don't suppose his 2nd employer at his extra job will step-up and assume liability do you? The bottom line is the citizens will be on the hook for replacing the vehicle and paying him while he recuperates! I found "the accident caused short traffic delays on Interstate 44" laughable as well, in that my wife was caught in the traffic back-up for for well over an hour. Just can't believe what the cops say or the Whirl reports."
Unfortunate but often true.
Short of the officer getting workers' comp from his other employer, he would be required to burn his own sick time. Just the same as if he'd had a heart attack while mowing the lawn.
Did the FOP end up winning this argument?
Police officers are allowed to take their vehicles home up to 25 miles from 41st and Yale.
Nothing has changed, although, I'm confident police will have to negotiate to continue this practice in the upcoming contract negotiations.
It's back in the news again. What will this mean for the TPD?
http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectID=11&articleID=20080311_1_A7_hRonJ58072
Officer involved in crash quits
By CLIFTON ADCOCK World Staff Writer
3/11/2008
Ron Jordan was off duty when he wrecked his police car in September.
A Tulsa police officer who was involved in an off-duty traffic accident in a police cruiser in September resigned Monday.
Officer Ron Jordan, a veteran of the department for more than 10 years, submitted his resignation to Chief Ron Palmer just before a pretermination hearing was set to begin, police said.
Jordan, who lives in Glenpool, was driving his patrol car in the 19300 block of South U.S. 75 in Glenpool when the crash occurred on the night of Sept. 3, police said.
Witnesses told investigating officers that the car was speeding, and Jordan, who was not in uniform, had his 15-year-old son and a Glenpool woman with him in the 2003 Ford Crown Victoria, investigators said.
Other motorists told police that the police car was traveling at a high speed and trying to change lanes in an unsuc cessful attempt to avoid hitting a Honda Civic, police said.
The impact knocked the Honda across the median and into the northbound lanes of traffic. The police car left the road, crossed a grassy embankment, hit a fence and came to rest in a pasture, investigators said.
Jordan was taken to St. Francis Hospital in Tulsa with a sore neck and headache, and the driver of the Honda was taken to St. John Medical Center in Tulsa with a concussion, police said.
Jordan's two passengers were not injured.
The day after the crash, the Tulsa Police Department's Office of Integrity and Compliance initiated an investigation into Jordan's actions and determined that he had violated four department rules and regulations.
The violations relate to officers' duty to know and obey department rules, regulations, policies and procedures; duty to know, enforce and obey laws and ordinances; conduct unbecoming of an officer; and use of department vehicles, a news release from the Tulsa Police Department states.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Clifton Adcock 581-8367
clifton.adcock@tulsaworld.com
quote:
Originally posted by YoungTulsan
Limit the vehicles to the City of Tulsa. When it comes to critical assets of the community such as the Police, they should be encouraged to live in the City. In addition to having the vehicle benefit, they should also make it more financially viable to hold a residence in the City of Tulsa. Pay a bonus to cops who reside in the City to make it worth their while. Good for the economy to keep 800 good-paying jobs in Tulsa. Good for Tulsa to have police ready to mobilize when urgent attention is needed to a situation. Whether you take your car home or not, you are much less able to spring to action if you live in the sticks as a cop. If you live in Beggs or Oolagah you are straight up less valuable due to your hugely increased mobilization time. Sure, police are free to live where they please, but when you are counted on for public safety, your proximity to urgent matters should be a directly tied in to your VALUE to the city. You could be the most skilled and experienced cop in all the land, but you aren't catching a North Tulsa shooter on the run when you are in Leonard.
wow you have this all wrong. So just because a person is a cop, he shouldn't have the choice of where to reside? you think he is on duty and on call 24/7 365? He isn't on duty taking calls from leonard and driving to 81st and memorial.
quote:
Originally posted by Wrinkle
quote:
Since Glenpool Police only had two police officers on duty at the time of the accident, Tulsa Police are investigating the accident.
Seems odd. Backup for a State/Federal Highway accident (if Glenpool can't handle it) would be the Oklahoma Highway Patrol. Actually, wouldn't they be first jurisdiction?
I smell a rat.
Besides, Glenpool never has more than two officers on duty.
Beg to differ. I've seen more than two on duty many times!!