Your police department has recently adopted a community-oriented policing philosophy. You’ve already heard from several of the officers under your command that they feel the philosophy is too soft on crime. As a sergeant, you’ve been asked by the Chief of Police to address this issue with the seven officers assigned to your beat. Explain what you would say. It is but normal for the other officers to have negative impressions about the policies implemented. However, as their sergeant, it is my duty to explain that these policies were implemented for a reason.
Months, if not years of research were allotted for this policy so that both ends would be carefully evaluated, taking into consideration the pro’s and con’s of the policy. I would start off the meeting by giving my officers a brief background of the new policies implemented. Giving them insights would back up the conversation, and at the same time help me open the issue to the other officers. Afterwards, I would reiterate to them the goals of the policies, which is to resolve the problems encountered with the policing, and the responses made to the incidents (City of Sta.
Ana, 2007). In addition to this, I would also explain to my officers that fighting crime does not always have to resolve to cruelty. As defenders of the people, it is also our duty to protect what is best for majority of the people. Crimes may not be totally eliminated, but through cooperation and teamwork, it is possible to lessen these rates. It is important for the officers under my care to always have a positive outlook in life. Although the philosophy may seem negative to them, they are still expected to find something positive out of what has been decided upon by the unit.
Moreover, handing out a copy of the recently passed philosophy would also help these gentlemen understand further what has been imposed by the unit. When properly explained, these policemen would learn to accept the facts that have been raised on them. In addition to this, the communication lines between officers and their superiors would be opened, which would lead to better working relationships. With this kind of set up, the officers would not be hesitant in running to their superiors for help and assistance.
Negative implications about certain rules and policies implemented by the higher authority would be avoided, and the officers would be given the chance to air their side. Furthermore, they would also be given the opportunity to give their ideas suggestions on how to improve the safety and security of their city. 2. You are a sergeant on the evening shift, and after roll call you hear two male officers telling sexually explicit jokes in the hallway.
As you exit the roll call room you notice one of your female dispatchers is standing within a few feet of the two officers. Explain what, if anything, you would do. First thing I would do is ask the three individuals what is going on. When none of them would speak, I would try to assess the situation further by analyzing their body languages. If, at some point, I feel and see that the female dispatcher is harassed, I would ask her directly if she was feeling uncomfortable with the two officers nearby.
Denying would be expected out of the two male officers. It would also be evident that these two officers would try to get away with their actions by pointing their fingers at the female dispatcher. However, I would tell them that I heard everything that they have said to the female dispatcher. If possible, I would reiterate the explicit jokes made on the female dispatcher. This would not only put them on the spot, but also be grounds for me to give the appropriate sanctions.