Most lawyers representing government entities require that police agencies not comment beyond the facts which legitimately belong in the public arena. Especially, they usually require that public apologies not be offerred when civil litigation may be pending or may follow. Often times, the police agency's "hands" are tied.
With that said, I am reminded of Southwest Airlines. In the recent past, Southwest Airlines had an incident at Chicago Midway Airport. During a snow storm, one of their jets left the runway, went through a fence, and truck an occupied vehicle. Southwest Airlines responded immediately, accepting responsibility and assisting the families of the victims, which included fatalities. It is my understanding that there has been no law suits filed against the Airline. Although, I do not live in Chicago, and it is possible that litigation is pending that I'm unaware of.
It has been my experience, from studying the history of SWA, that this response was predicitable and within the business phylosophy of the company. I expected them to stand up and be counted immediately following the incident, and they lived up to my expectations. It can be argued, as one of the only profitable airlines operating in the United States, that SWA can afford to be generous. However, I believe it is their standard, character, and genuine caring for others that prompts them to do the right thing.
Police Departments don't have their own money to back up their actions. Often times, Government agencies will settle a claim for less money than defending the claim, even when the police acted properly and a reasonable expectation of a successful defense is available. The public image of the police is one of the last considerations in these cases. Therefore, apologies are few and far between, and the police are hamstrung by the policies and processes of oversight from within the parent agency.
In the last fifteen years, there has been some movement by these parent agencies to defend, rather than settle, wrongful death suits with the expectation that by spending money up front to defend and win cases, plantiffs are less likely to file suits. Some agencies have enjoyed success with this strategy. The unintended benefit is that the officer involved feels like he/she has the support of the police department and the parent agency. Where officers who work for agencies that settle for pennies on the dollar, feel as if they were abandoned by their agencies when the officer has done no wrong.
I say all of this to illustrate the lack of latitude afforded to police executives in responding to incidents where an apology is clearly indicated. In the legal world, and minds of juries, apologies equal admissions of wrong doing by the police. While it may be noble to apologize, those responsible for the fiscal management of public money are preferentially concerned with limiting the financial loss, not protecting the police image.
While that doesn't make it right, it does describe the realty of public service.
Topic Options
It is a mark of real maturity and decency to issue an apology when one is warranted....irrespective of the legal fallout. This, apart from anything else, is a great example to set by those in our community who are supposed to be encouraging the rest of us to do the right thing. Additionally, it is very much within the human spirit to be much more forgiving of a person or an agency who (that) has done us wrong if that wrong is acknowledged. Why should the same principles not apply to police services?
