While expressing her reservations about a public unveiling of the GPD consultant review, Greensboro City Council member Dianne Bellamy noted that the “general public includes criminals and people with criminal minds” and it would unfair to inform the general public of any weaknesses noted in the review before the police department had time to remedy those weaknesses.
My gut reaction is criminals are relatively uninformed about the details of city government. But it gives me the angle I’d been looking for regarding the N&R’s Sunday editorial on the uh, untimely demise of Emile Williams.
If you remember, Williams was shot by an off-duty GPD officer after leading him on a high-speed chase after he stole rings from a store in Four Seasons mall. The editorial, which we now know was written by Doug Clark, starts off cautiously before making the case for a review of police pursuit policy:
Fault originates with the suspect. Williams started everything with an alleged theft at the mall. He foolishly tried to get away, and he drove recklessly in the attempt. Had he stopped and surrendered, he’d be alive today.
But a fair and thorough investigation must ask whether the original crime, in which no one was hurt, justified a risky pursuit. It must assess whether Williams presented a great enough danger to the public that he could not be left at large, making a chase imperative.
It’s easy to second-guess with the benefit of hindsight. Officers on the street make split-second decisions under tremendous pressure. But, if Symmes made mistakes, police can and should learn from them.
So how would the general public become aware of a change in police policy regarding high-speed chases, since the general public includes “criminals and people with criminal minds?” Does the law-abiding public need to know, or do they just figure it out themselves when criminals grow bolder, knowing they won’t be chased?
