Decision Making Case Study - Essay Example

This has led to the training of all officers with regards to the new policy. In addition, the department has also introduced another policy that prohibits officers from firing warning shots unless the situation warrants. The case explains a scenario in which, an officer Raymond Ripley on his usual daily patrols, spots a packed car, which he believes is not supposed to be packed in that area because it looked like a private car, and had its brake lights on and flashing its lights on and off. Officer Ripley tries to approach and stop the car, but when he fails, fires warning shots and decides to pursue the vehicle while calling for back up.

It worth noting that, Officer Ripley was 6 months fresh from college and engages in foot and vehicle pursuit, uses his own German shepherd dog and a Taser stun devices; all of which, he has never been trained in, nor has he been authorized to use. Neither his supervisor nor the Sherriff is aware of his actions. The central issues in this case are, (1) Pineville County Sherriff Department and individuals involved in a car chase that resulted in the death of a juvenile has a pending case in court, (2) Pineville County Sherriff Department has been criticized by the public (3) Pineville County Sherriff Department has changed its policies regarding car pursuits and firing of warning shots, (4) the unknown use of shepherd dog and a Taser stun device without the departments training and knowledge of neither his supervisor nor the Sherriff, and (5) Involved of officer Ripley in unsanctioned or authorized car pursuits.

Deputy officer Ripley is not in compliance with the use-of-force policy. This is because, according to the policy, supervisors are required to cancel any pursuits that do not involve any violent felony or situations that are worth the potential liability and danger (Peak, 2010). The situation in which Deputy Officer Ripley is faced with, does not seem to be a violent felony or crime, as such, it is not worth the potential liability or danger, thus, not worth a pursuit. The lieutenant should end Deputy Officer Ripley’s pursuit because in all senses, it is in violation with the new enacted pursuit police that requires supervisors to cancel any pursuits that do not involve any violent felony or situations that are worth the potential liability and danger.

The situation Ripley is facing is neither a violent crime nor a felony, and definitely not worth the potential risks or dangers involved. In addition, Deputy Officer Ripley is just 6 months old in the job and is considered a rooky, as such; his inexperience can render the pursuit dangerous and risky. Under the circumstances described in the case, Deputy Ripley should have not fired the warning shots. This is because there were no reasons for firing the shots; the situation did not warrant. Firing the warning shots then meant that the Deputy was breaking the law.

This is to say; the people in the car that he was firing warning shots at had not shown in sign of violence or intent to cause harm. Normally, Ripley’s actions in relation to the warning shot, Taser and the dog are covered by polices such as the one that prohibits firing warning shots unless necessary and the policy for use of force (excessive). The Internal Affairs at Pineville County Sherriff Department would find out that, Ripley was at fault with the policy regarding firing of warning