Jackson Free Press

"Imagine yourself in the dead of night looking for a dangerous escaped inmate," a new promotional brochure from SafeCity Watch, which helps fund the privately owned Metro One helicopter, begins. "Witnesses saw the escapee flee to a heavily wooded area. Shots had been heard … and it's YOUR job to find him." (Caps in original.)

The SafeCity story, which purports to demonstrate the benefits of the helicopter, says that law enforcement officers faced such a situation on Jan. 12, 2007. The helicopter's "tactical flight officer" then describes how the helicopter observed the area from a position "beyond the flying bullets," using its infrared camera to search for the suspect. "We picked up a weak heat signature from under a rock pile. We directed the deputy to search the area and a tracking dog was released and proceeded directly to the spot of the heat source. The K9 dog had found our armed and dangerous suspect and deputies moved in for the arrest," the story continues.

Dubious grammar aside, the story states that the tracking dog "proceeded directly" to the suspect, which raises the question: Why is this a Metro One success story? Was the "tactical flight officer" whispering directions to the dog through a specialized doggie headset? Or is it that Metro One is a "cool" (to quote the officer's description of his infrared camera) but expensive crime-fighting tool made redundant by a well-trained dog?

Try harder, SafeCity. Oh, and good doggie!

Previous Commentsshow

Brian, that does sound convoluted. Maybe they're trying to say that because of Metro One, they knew where to take the dog?

LatashaWillis

May 9 2007

I am familiar with the details, and the Metro One helicopter pinpointed the location that enabled the dog to home in on the suspect. What might have taken hours (or longer, or for that matter, been unsuccessful) was accomplished much quicker, which, with fugitives, is obviously very important. The work Metro One does is in no way redundant. To be successful, law enforcement should be complex and multi-layered. This effort is a lot more substantive than the "destroy-a-home" method Frank espouses.

Jc40

May 11 2007

Oh, and what is the dubious grammar to which you refer? i'm missing it.

Jc40

May 11 2007

I am familiar with the details, and the Metro One helicopter pinpointed the location that enabled the dog to home in on the suspect. What might have taken hours (or longer, or for that matter, been unsuccessful) was accomplished much quicker, which, with fugitives, is obviously very important. Thanks for clearing that up, Jc40. Maybe they can revise the brochure and reprint it with a better explanation of what happened.

LatashaWillis

May 11 2007

I figured it was something like that, Jc40, but the fact that this was their promotional piece struck me as pathetic. I have seen nothing so far that convinces me the Metro One helicopter will make any substantial contribution to fighting crime. If they can't come up with better examples, they're not going to convince anyone. As for grammatical problems, "Shots had been heard" in the first paragraph is passive, which lends itself to this melodrama in the third full paragraph: "We ... could tell that they were getting close to moving in when we heard the words 'SHOTS FIRED.' We immediately took up on observation position beyond the flying bullets." So the flight officer heard shots were fired, and this then mutates into there being flying bullets? It sounds very Vietnam. Otherwise, the unnamed author neglected to punctuate any of his compound sentences. For instance: "We directed the deputy to search the area and a tracking dog was released and proceeded directly to the spot of the heat source." There must be a comma before the first "and," especially considering the one that follows. Note that he used the passive voice once more, too.

Brian C Johnson

May 11 2007

Well, Brian, bad grammar aside (which I'm inclined to call less than "dubious", but, ooof, I put it aside...sorry) i think we may have to agree to disagree on whether or not Metro One can help fight crime. From surveillance (covert and overt) to pursuit and apprehension of suspects, as well as response time, I believe the Metro One helicopter will help. I also belive that like other good, valuable equipment, it shows the officers a level of municipal support that the forces have lacked in recent years.

Jc40

May 11 2007

Jc, it's gramatically sloppy and stylistically dubious. Take, for instance, this sentence: "Metro One began working with law enforcement officers this past December and it has already documented in only 120 days significant crime-fighting work already!" Again, there's no comma for this compound sentence. Notice the redundant use of the word "already" and the gratuitous exclamation point. We're just so excited! Is anyone looking this over before they print it?

Brian C Johnson

May 11 2007

But as you write, bad grammar aside, I am not convinced Metro One is useless in our crime-fighting efforts. I am not convinced either way. In other words, I am ready to see evidence of how the helicopter helps, but I haven't seen it yet. What gets me is how breathless and transparently inadequate the proclamations of Metro One's successes have been so far. When Mark McCreery was trying to sell the idea, he talked about how useful the helicopter would be in finding drug houses. He mentioned meth labs, if I'm not mistaken. Why are we seeing nothing about drugs now? Is it because a FLIR is useless for detecting meth labs because the heat signature is too small? That's what law enforcement officers tell me. Instead, we get stuff like this (from SafeCity): "FLIR Searches: 42 ... Captures: 31 .... Stolen vehicles located: 7." If the helicopter is so useful, surely SafeCity can produce more compelling successes. The county is paying for only a small part of the helicopter's costs, but it's still tens of thousands of dollars. My other concern is that this is privatized law enforcement. If law enforcement officers are turning on their FLIR and peering through the walls of my bedroom, at least they are public officers subject to public checks and balances. That isn't true of Metro One.

Brian C Johnson

May 11 2007