Comment

Comment by XLFD on January 10, 2013 at 10:28am

Why exactly does deputizing officers make sense, Sean?  To whit, what benefit does it give the community that would not be there if the sheriff didn't do so?  And, what is Oceana County missing out on because they do not have such an arrangement with their local mounties swearing subservience to their sheriff?

You may be surprised to learn, Sean, that as a Ludington citizen, I am all in favor of the deputizing procedure that was administered.  Do you know why?

Comment by XLFD on January 10, 2013 at 10:04am

Sean, the record is out there underneath this picture, and the only person who hasn't offered any reasons for his position is yourself.  If I could be said to take a left-handed dig to any police officer it would have been Chief Barney in my title, I have only questioned the long-standing policy of deputizing the LPD.  Have you ever bothered to question why things are the way they are, Sean?

Comment by AQUAMAN on January 10, 2013 at 12:11am

Ever notice how when anyone on this forum asks why Cole does this or that, or doesn't do this or that, out from the woodwork come adamant blind supporters that post insinuations, accusations, and mindless insults to defend Cole, irregardless the circumstances and realities to the situation? Sean, no one posted anything about any Sheriff here 4-5 years ago, because the Torch wasn't in existence yet, ok? Btw, what connection do you have will Cole that is so important and makes you and Chucky defend him to the mat all the time? Just curious about the fervor temperament.

Comment by XLFD on January 9, 2013 at 4:59pm

As stated  "I was only made aware of the longstanding practice by the COLDNews article" on 1-2-2013.  It was not only useless and liability-creating this year, but all through Jeff Fiers term and a long while before.  It may have been a good policy at one time, but having some common sense mutual aid agreement between police agencies fits in better with the almost universally accepted Incident Command System which emergency workers are trained in.   

Comment by XLFD on January 9, 2013 at 4:10pm

Placing a picture in the photo area, and offering a rationale as to why deputizing city officers may add liability to the County (which I agree with the Oceana Sheriff and his insurance company's reasoning) does not mean I think it's a big deal.  I was only made aware of the longstanding practice by the COLDNews article, and found the Oceana County article in trying to figure out what benefits or negatives the use of deputizing local peace officers would lead to.  Like area fire departments, mutual aid between police departments does not require deputizing one with another and vice versa.  Deputizing creates confusion and added liability to the County operations, along with what I've already placed on the table. 

Instead of calling me anti-law enforcement (which I am not, although, I heretically believe LEO's need to follow the laws they enforce and respect the rights in that Constitution [which includes the Bill of Rights] they are sworn to uphold), offer a counter-argument as to why any Mason County Sheriff needs to deputize LPD officers. 

Comment by XLFD on January 8, 2013 at 6:56pm

I didn't rule that out, Chuck, but the reasoning goes that the County would be more susceptible to either being liable in tandem with the local police or totally liable because the local was acting strictly as a deputy for the sheriff at the point the liability happened.  

Other things one should consider is that a local officer's training, background, equipment, and limitations usually would not be known to those on the sheriff's department-- and so any injury or death that may have been avoided if they knew these facts may quickly become one of these liabilities as well.   

Comment by Chuck Finley on January 8, 2013 at 6:29pm

I would think that even if they would mess up it would still fall back on their own boss not the sheriff don't ya think?

Comment by XLFD on January 7, 2013 at 10:07am

To support my claim, that one article I posted in the second response says that:  "The Oceana County Sheriff's Department -- on the advice of its insurance company -- has decided to cease deputizing local police officers.

Sheriff Bob Farber, who was elected in November, said he decided to no longer deputize officers "based on the recommendation of our insurance provider."

"It's a liability because you're deputizing officers (whom) you didn't have full control over training," Farber said."

If insurance adjusters say there is increased liability (and raise rates accordingly) then I will accept that as good proof there is.  This is a debatable point, however, just like the issue of liability and lifeguards-- but I would side on the Oceana sheriff's move since it does seem to expose the County to more instances of liability (and alleviates the cities and townships of Oceana County of some). 

If, for example, a Hart police officer messes up while acting as a deputy for the sheriff, claims of damages against the City of Hart or HPD would likely not come into play, but claims against the County would.  If they were not deputized, that potential liability would not exist for the County except in extreme circumstances.

Comment by Chuck Finley on January 7, 2013 at 2:54am

The liability part. I would think there would be less liability being deputized then not being deputized

Comment by XLFD on January 6, 2013 at 5:48pm

That's always possible on matters of legal interpretation.  What aspect do you refer to, Chuck?

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page