TexasCHLforum.com

http://www.click2houston.com/news/19667 ... t-10540260" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Sgt. Edwin Lacourt Gets Supervisory Intervention Counseling

HOUSTON -- An officer has been disciplined after he took action to put an end to a chase last month, KPRC Local 2 reported Thursday.

The Houston police officer rammed the fleeing driver's car. The move ended the chase, which lasted nearly 30 minutes and had several close calls with other vehicles.

Sgt. Edwin Lacourt hit the car before the driver could reach a school zone, where children had just been let out of school.

Lacourt was counseled by HPD because the maneuver is not part of the department's policy.

The Houston Police Officers' Union said it should be.

"Our hats are off to the sergeant who made the decision," President Gary Blankinship said. "We think he did the right thing."

Lacourt received supervisory intervention counseling for his decision. It will be put in his file for six months and if he is involved in any similar incidents during that time, any punishment he receives would be enhanced.

Tom Nixon, Part Deux...

stevie_d_64 wrote:http://www.click2houston.com/news/19667 ... 260Lacourt was counseled by HPD because the maneuver is not part of the department's policy.

Sounds like HPD needs a new set of higher-ups who can understand the value of improvisation when "policy" fails and lives are in danger.

KD5NRH wrote:

stevie_d_64 wrote:http://www.click2houston.com/news/19667 ... 260Lacourt was counseled by HPD because the maneuver is not part of the department's policy.

Sounds like HPD needs a new set of higher-ups who can understand the value of improvisation when "policy" fails and lives are in danger.

Harumph!!!

Somehow I believe the city of Houston would still survive...

"Our hats are off to the sergeant who made the decision," President Gary Blankinship said. "We think he did the right thing."

I do too! HPD should change their policy, IMO.

My hat is off to the Houston police officer, too.

-geo

He was thinking way ahead of the fleeing suspect, thought outside the box and took the action needed to prevent potential loss of life.

I see no negatives here at all.

The only negatives are his superiors. They need to be fired immediately!

That could be their "on the record" statement and the letter necessary for the public and defense attorney for the guy whose car he rammed. They could be patting him on the back behind closed doors for saving them millions of $$$ in lawsuits for not stopping them soon enough and several children were injured or killed. Kind of like when Israel bombed Iraq back when Ronald Reagan was President. We've since learned that his initial reaction to the news was a chuckle and "Boys will be boys" statement, but the official response was condemnation.

Possible?

I guess anything is possible and that is the problem with our society and way of living these days. Nothing said means what was said. Does that make sense? It certainly does in my mind.

Great times for Lawyers!

AEA wrote:I guess anything is possible and that is the problem with our society and way of living these days. Nothing said means what was said. Does that make sense? It certainly does in my mind.

Great times for Lawyers!

nothing means what is said and what is said does not mean what was meant.

That is exactly what is the matter with our country today, we have politicians talking out of both sides of their mouth they look you in the eye and lie when they are caught red handed. You can't trust or believe anything you hear....or see.

There use to be a time when a mans word was as good as gold, and you could take it to the bank.

-geo

bryang wrote: There use to be a time when a mans word was as good as gold, and you could take it to the bank.

How true.

Nowaways, I'm pretty sure you'd get a returned check/NSF on that.

I'd really love to see some news reporters who is interviewing some of these idiots we have in Govt. these days force the issue.......

When the politician spews his/her spiel, the reporter asks point blank "and what exactly does that mean, if anything?"

The problem is that no one is willing to stop them from their canned responses and make them say something that actually means something. This has come into being slowly, but surely. Now days, no one is willing to hold them to what they say and it is common practice to just look the other way when it is found that they lied.

They need to be brought to the responsibility of what they say.
Let them know that "I'm MAD AND I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE IT ANYMORE!

Not saying I dont agree with the Officer, because I do!!!!! but he may have violated Department Policy if this is specifically prohibited..... Doesnt that in and of itself make the Officer liable. I think the higher ups are protecting themselves from possible litigation. I completely disagree with this and think that any method an officer can use to minimize risk to innocent bystanders should be available in policy and I hope nothing comes of this for the officer.

Bryan

Get on it Mel!