User Panel
Posted: 7/2/2010 9:57:39 PM EST
It was then as it is now. This is even more important in the current age. American law enforcement will exist only as long as the people allow it too.
If we keep shooting their dogs and deploying Tasers on their Grannys we are going to create a huge problem that we can already see starting. Stop it. Get over yourselves. Understand that when the people choose not to comply in large numbers there is nothing we are going to do about it. We are supposed to be serving the community. Understand that the reset on the Constitution folks like to talk about here will be applied to us if we are assholes. We are out numbered and out gunned. We are supposed to part of the community and they are supposed to support us. We are intended to work together against criminals. Get back to the basics. 1.The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. 2.The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions. 3.Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public. 4.The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. 5.Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. 6.Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient. 7.Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 8.Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary. 9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it |
|
I wrote a paper about this in one of my upper level CJ classes last term. It is amazing how far astray some departments have gone.
|
|
I can agree with most of it except #9
"9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it " It is too easy for this one to be used the wrong way, to be misinterpreted, vigilance, or used against us. Politics might be used to say whether there is an absence of crime and disorder even if one does exist. There is the example of one trying to investigate prostitute murders and not getting any cooperation from another jurisdiction because "we don't have a prostitute problem here." One must always be on the active; just because one does not have evidence of a crime in operation does not necessarily mean that there is no crime. The criminal may have found a way to hide his crime or there may be indicators out there that we do not recognize as that of a crime. For example, if one is getting reports of wildfires in a battle memorial area, do they recognize that as a possible theft operation going on with someone clearing the grasses to make recovery easier? Vigilance could be seen as part of anti operation. The criminal looks, he sees active marking of bicycles, and he decides to try to steal bikes elsewhere because he knows that any bike he steals in the active area will not be pawnable because it is marked. Just because no bike thefts are occurring in the area does not mean that the police should not be active. Finally, if one can't show their efficiency by what they do and not by the absence of incident, odds are, their budget will be cut. It seems like an insane way of doing things, but it is reality and in tight budgets, if one can only show a possibility and nothing firm, the people making the budgets will take the money elsewhere. ________________________________________________________________________________ ("Oh, Mayor! Yeah, I know things look good now, but trust me, they're out there, waiting. One has to keep alert....and you've got to keep us funded and build more police stations!"––Chief of Police John P. Ferguson, caught in the locker room, (w,stte), "SimCity Classic") |
|
The whole ethos of Robert Peel's (damn limey you know) policing principles rest on the idea of 'policing by consent', ie the public take an active part in policing themselves leaving the police to deal with the process of law. We've now come so far away from that, that most of the public truly believe they have no part to play in law enforcement. Hence, we are screwed...
|
|
Best post I have read in a very long time. I will be printing this out and posting it in the office for my platoon to read. Too many new guys act like the public is the enemy. In truth, at 22 years in I sometimes feel that way myself. It is nice to be reminded of the basic truth sometimes. Thanks.
|
|
Robert Peel was a very wise man.... Twice the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and the founder of the London Metropolitain Police. Actually the reason British cops are called "Bobbies" is after Peel. In certain areas of Britain, I am told, cops are also called "Peelers" but I think the other, North American connotation to that name is um, well. Yeah, never mind.
I have had Peel's Nine Principles posted near my desk for a few years now. Best advice that any cop on the streets could ever get. |
|
Quoted: The whole ethos of Robert Peel's (damn limey you know ) policing principles rest on the idea of 'policing by consent', ie the public take an active part in policing themselves leaving the police to deal with the process of law. We've now come so far away from that, that most of the public truly believe they have no part to play in law enforcement. Hence, we are screwed... A point that is conspicuously absent from every argument I've ever had with those bringing up Peel's rules. However, we also are done a disservice by administrators who actively encourage the public to take this role. |
|
I just finished taking a class that suggestes that the very premise of Community Oriented Policing is based off of Sir Robert Peels principle that "the public are the police and the police are the public". For me I see the COPPS philosophy changing the communitees prospective on police, thus reducing over all crime and the fear of crime. However it is going to take a long time to erase what the professional era of policing has done to the reputation of officers. I am extermely exsited to see that these discussions are taking place amongst LEO's, when the class first started I was not sure if I agreed with the COPPS philosiphy as it seemed to take away alot of what I thought polcing was. After finishing the class I feel like the direction that COPPS is taking policing is the right way. Making people feel like they are apart of a commuity is key to preventing crime before it starts.
|
|
Not sure if your COPPS is the same as our COPPS, but essentialy it's about exercising common sense and discretion in consultation with the victim. It's how we used to do it when I started 26 years ago, before the bean counters decided that we should not be allowed such discretion as the only way to show efficiency is by producing endless mountains of paper and statistics, the results were unimportant. Not surprisingly the police no longer exercising common sense and discretion but becoming automatons severely damaged public/community relations. It's taken this long for those in authority to think actually it worked quite well after all.....................................
|
|
Quoted:
Not sure if your COPPS is the same as our COPPS, but essentialy it's about exercising common sense and discretion in consultation with the victim. It's how we used to do it when I started 26 years ago, before the bean counters decided that we should not be allowed such discretion as the only way to show efficiency is by producing endless mountains of paper and statistics, the results were unimportant. Not surprisingly the police no longer exercising common sense and discretion but becoming automatons severely damaged public/community relations. It's taken this long for those in authority to think actually it worked quite well after all..................................... Icarus, I am not currently an LEO so I can not comment on how the philosophy of COPPS actually works in the real world. COPPS as I understood it is a philosophy that encourages departments to get away from the typical reactive mentality in exchange for a more proactive crime prevention mentality. Crime prevention would come through the use of community awareness and cooperation as there are far more community memebers then there are police officers. Community interaction could come through many various forms such as the DARE program, more community service sentences for non violent crimes, neighborhood watch programs, as well as facilitating events such as community clean up days, or anti graphitti campaigns that will help to improve upon declining neighborhoods. These types of proactive programs would help give the community a sense of pride and ownership. With this new sense of pride the public will be more inclined to make earlier CFS. This would eventually provide crime reduction as well as create a bond between the police and the comminty. Other areas were public relations can be increased is through consistent beat routes. The theory here is an officer is in the same neighborhood day in and day out, and that he or she will build a working relationship with community members, and also feel a sense of ownership to that beat creating yet another bond between the community. I really can not say for sure if this philosophy works, I can say that for the past twenty years more departments have made a change torward the COPPS philosophy so something must be working. For someone like myself who is interested in becoming an LEO I really like the community oriented approach. |
|
Quoted:
Icarus, I am not currently an LEO so I can not comment on how the philosophy of COPPS actually works in the real world. COPPS as I understood it is a philosophy that encourages departments to get away from the typical reactive mentality in exchange for a more proactive crime prevention mentality. Crime prevention would come through the use of community awareness and cooperation as there are far more community memebers then there are police officers. Community interaction could come through many various forms such as the DARE program, more community service sentences for non violent crimes, neighborhood watch programs, as well as facilitating events such as community clean up days, or anti graphitti campaigns that will help to improve upon declining neighborhoods. These types of proactive programs would help give the community a sense of pride and ownership. With this new sense of pride the public will be more inclined to make earlier CFS. This would eventually provide crime reduction as well as create a bond between the police and the comminty. Other areas were public relations can be increased is through consistent beat routes. The theory here is an officer is in the same neighborhood day in and day out, and that he or she will build a working relationship with community members, and also feel a sense of ownership to that beat creating yet another bond between the community. I really can not say for sure if this philosophy works, I can say that for the past twenty years more departments have made a change torward the COPPS philosophy so something must be working. For someone like myself who is interested in becoming an LEO I really like the community oriented approach. I suppose that any program could work in some area........but this one above would have a tough time working in my area. There were probably three main reasons why we did gate searches regularly. To stop contraband from entering the base, to stop materials from leaving the base, and it was a visual deterrent against terrorism and other "attacks" against the base. Here's the problem: people hate to be inconvenienced. Plain and simple. They hate being stopped, they hate being told that their car will be inspected, and they hate someone even thinking that they might be a criminal. And hate does not make for good community relations. Even if we say that with a cooperative community program, contraband won't be brought on the base, that equipment would not leave the base, there is still that visual deterrent that tells a prospective enemy observing, "We are not an easy target, go elsewhere.".......and a lot of those enemies prefer easy targets. (gate searches aren't the only measure) COPPS may work to some degrees........but I don't think one should expect it to be a total program. _________________________________________________ ("This is not a request, it is an order! STOP YOUR ENGINES!".––-a USCG demo, (wtte), that they are not a helping service but the law of the sea) |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Not sure if your COPPS is the same as our COPPS, but essentialy it's about exercising common sense and discretion in consultation with the victim. It's how we used to do it when I started 26 years ago, before the bean counters decided that we should not be allowed such discretion as the only way to show efficiency is by producing endless mountains of paper and statistics, the results were unimportant. Not surprisingly the police no longer exercising common sense and discretion but becoming automatons severely damaged public/community relations. It's taken this long for those in authority to think actually it worked quite well after all..................................... Icarus, I am not currently an LEO so I can not comment on how the philosophy of COPPS actually works in the real world. COPPS as I understood it is a philosophy that encourages departments to get away from the typical reactive mentality in exchange for a more proactive crime prevention mentality. Crime prevention would come through the use of community awareness and cooperation as there are far more community memebers then there are police officers. Community interaction could come through many various forms such as the DARE program, more community service sentences for non violent crimes, neighborhood watch programs, as well as facilitating events such as community clean up days, or anti graphitti campaigns that will help to improve upon declining neighborhoods. These types of proactive programs would help give the community a sense of pride and ownership. With this new sense of pride the public will be more inclined to make earlier CFS. This would eventually provide crime reduction as well as create a bond between the police and the comminty. Other areas were public relations can be increased is through consistent beat routes. The theory here is an officer is in the same neighborhood day in and day out, and that he or she will build a working relationship with community members, and also feel a sense of ownership to that beat creating yet another bond between the community. I really can not say for sure if this philosophy works, I can say that for the past twenty years more departments have made a change torward the COPPS philosophy so something must be working. For someone like myself who is interested in becoming an LEO I really like the community oriented approach. Not like ours then................... |
|
Quoted:
1.The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. 2.The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions. 3.Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public. 4.The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. 5.Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. 6.Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient. 7.Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 8.Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary. 9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it Ok, I'll bite. I am not involved in law enforcement, just an engaged citizen. First, I want to make this very clear - I have a great deal of respect and gratitude toward those put their own lives in danger in the hope that doing so will help others avoid those same dangers. My problems are not with police officers, but rather with policing as an institution and practice. The problem I have is with the very first line: "The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder." My problem isn't with the idea per se, but rather the insidious effect it has had on how the public perceives law enforcement and how the institutions of law enforcement view themselves. First, consider how radical a notion he had - this is the first time, as far as I can tell, where the idea of "preventing" crime comes into the public debate. Prior to this, the faces of the law were the sheriffs, who were officers of the court. They showed up after a crime was committed. But now there is a body of persons whose job it is to take action prior to a crime. On the face of it, this sounds great; everyone would agree that preventing pain and injustice before it starts is preferable to enduring it then getting recompense. But... Once the idea of prevention, of prior restraint, get's it's nose under the tent, the whole camel follows. For instance, how does one "prevent" assault with a deadly weapon? One way would be for the police to be so efficient and effective that they create an environment where committing an assault would be a 100%, one way ticket to rapid and decisive justice. But that only applies to rational actors - what about irrational ones? People who don't know, or don't care, or are drunk or stoned - how does one prevent an irrational actor from committing an assault? 2 ways - deprive him of the means to commit the assault, and/or deprive him of the choices that might lead to an assault. So how did we decide to remove the means? Well, if the crime involves a "deadly weapon", make sure Joe Irrational doesn't have one. That way, if he gets drunk or finds his wife horizontal without him, he won't be able to do too much damage. How does that get accomplished? By allowing police to detain those who carry a "deadly weapon". So now, the "crime" and detention is based, not on the actual performance of an assault, but on being ABLE to perform the assault. Also note, it's not the likelihood of the weapon's use, but it's availability for use period. It pulls the power of law enforcement both forward in time and wider in breadth. And then it repeats itself - look at the NFA and the interpretations of it. Murder is a crime, so in order to "prevent" it the possession of fully automatic weapons was effectively banned, but for tight prior restraint. But since that didn't have the effect desired, up the chain it goes - now, it's not the possession of a machine gun that is illegal, but the possession of something that COULD be made into a machine gun. And this is all unrelated to the original crime of interest. My second point regards how the people view their roles in law enforcement. I think he knew about this risk, and says so in #3 and #7. His idea of a police department was basically a group of men whose full time job was to do things we are ALL supposed to be doing part time. "Preventing" crime and maintaining personal security was, until this point, solely the responsibility of an individual or group of individuals acting for themselves. But now there is a group of people that I can pay to do the job FOR me. This idea, while always known to royalty and the upper classes, was a revelation to the rapidly expanding middle class - they could pay, via taxes, etc. other people to protect them. It wasn't the best protection available, but it was a damned sight better than the protection the lower classes got, which was zero (and largely still is). Orwell knew the consequences: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. And I think he also knew what would happen when the people forgot that, and started taking it for granted. I don't think the case of Kitty Genovese would have surprised him at all. So now we've come full circle - instead of assisting the citizenry in enforcing laws and protecting themselves, the police have the whole job. People are told specifically NOT to defend themselves, and holding or using a means of defense is illegal. This is NOT the way it was intended to be, and the resultant is that no one is getting what they want - citizens feel bitter and helpless, because they feel that they''ve been cheated out of their freedom for little if any safety. Police feel vulnerable to a public that has abdicated it's responsibility and is often hostile. Scumbags enter into the cracks on both sides of this divide and take advantage of the stress for their own profit. And legislators, having neither brain nor spine, continue to enact laws to appease all, but solve nothing. Now add to this the unique situation in the US - posse comitatus. The US is the only nation in the world where the military is strictly forbidden from getting involved with internal law enforcement. The.Only.Place. While I think this is a good idea in general, it has had the unintended effect of propelling the militarization of police forces. In other places, crimes are dealt with by police; but other problems are dealt with by military - large scale violence, insurrection, etc. To be sure, these are crimes, but they have greater consequences to the nation and the society than "man shot wife's lover". But because in the US the military is not allowed to use their different resources and methods to deal with these different problems, a vacuum got created. Before the 60's and 70's, the National Guard served to fill that void - called in to a situation, deal with it, then withdraw. But after Kent State and the School Steps, that's gone. So the police departments began creating special paramilitary units to fill the void - police officers that looked, acted, and were armed like a military unit. But they were still theoretically performing a "policing" job. There's just one problem with that - it ignores thousands of years of human nature. Specifically, if a person dresses like a soldier, trains like one, speaks like one, uses a soldiers weapons and equipment, that person will inevitably ACT like a soldier. In many ways, posse comitatus is a sham - while it keeps military command structure, controls, and tradition out of law enforcement, we still have soldiers trying to do a soldier's job against targets appropriate for soldiers, but with civilian rules, systems, and "accountability." Dogs don't get shot because someone with an M4 wants to shoot them; they get shot because civilians have no clue what they're doing and create a military mission, send soldiers to do it, and are shocked to get the result. I'm not sure I have an answer, but I don't envy LEO who are in service right now - I simply cannot see an easy resolution to these issues. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
1.The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder. 2.The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions. 3.Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public. 4.The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force. 5.Police seek and preserve public favor not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law. 6.Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient. 7.Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence. 8.Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary. 9.The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it Ok, I'll bite. I am not involved in law enforcement, just an engaged citizen. First, I want to make this very clear - I have a great deal of respect and gratitude toward those put their own lives in danger in the hope that doing so will help others avoid those same dangers. My problems are not with police officers, but rather with policing as an institution and practice. The problem I have is with the very first line: "The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder." My problem isn't with the idea per se, but rather the insidious effect it has had on how the public perceives law enforcement and how the institutions of law enforcement view themselves. First, consider how radical a notion he had - this is the first time, as far as I can tell, where the idea of "preventing" crime comes into the public debate. Prior to this, the faces of the law were the sheriffs, who were officers of the court. They showed up after a crime was committed. But now there is a body of persons whose job it is to take action prior to a crime. On the face of it, this sounds great; everyone would agree that preventing pain and injustice before it starts is preferable to enduring it then getting recompense. But... Once the idea of prevention, of prior restraint, get's it's nose under the tent, the whole camel follows. For instance, how does one "prevent" assault with a deadly weapon? One way would be for the police to be so efficient and effective that they create an environment where committing an assault would be a 100%, one way ticket to rapid and decisive justice. But that only applies to rational actors - what about irrational ones? People who don't know, or don't care, or are drunk or stoned - how does one prevent an irrational actor from committing an assault? 2 ways - deprive him of the means to commit the assault, and/or deprive him of the choices that might lead to an assault. So how did we decide to remove the means? Well, if the crime involves a "deadly weapon", make sure Joe Irrational doesn't have one. That way, if he gets drunk or finds his wife horizontal without him, he won't be able to do too much damage. How does that get accomplished? By allowing police to detain those who carry a "deadly weapon". So now, the "crime" and detention is based, not on the actual performance of an assault, but on being ABLE to perform the assault. Also note, it's not the likelihood of the weapon's use, but it's availability for use period. It pulls the power of law enforcement both forward in time and wider in breadth. And then it repeats itself - look at the NFA and the interpretations of it. Murder is a crime, so in order to "prevent" it the possession of fully automatic weapons was effectively banned, but for tight prior restraint. But since that didn't have the effect desired, up the chain it goes - now, it's not the possession of a machine gun that is illegal, but the possession of something that COULD be made into a machine gun. And this is all unrelated to the original crime of interest. My second point regards how the people view their roles in law enforcement. I think he knew about this risk, and says so in #3 and #7. His idea of a police department was basically a group of men whose full time job was to do things we are ALL supposed to be doing part time. "Preventing" crime and maintaining personal security was, until this point, solely the responsibility of an individual or group of individuals acting for themselves. But now there is a group of people that I can pay to do the job FOR me. This idea, while always known to royalty and the upper classes, was a revelation to the rapidly expanding middle class - they could pay, via taxes, etc. other people to protect them. It wasn't the best protection available, but it was a damned sight better than the protection the lower classes got, which was zero (and largely still is). Orwell knew the consequences: "People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf. And I think he also knew what would happen when the people forgot that, and started taking it for granted. I don't think the case of Kitty Genovese would have surprised him at all. So now we've come full circle - instead of assisting the citizenry in enforcing laws and protecting themselves, the police have the whole job. People are told specifically NOT to defend themselves, and holding or using a means of defense is illegal. This is NOT the way it was intended to be, and the resultant is that no one is getting what they want - citizens feel bitter and helpless, because they feel that they''ve been cheated out of their freedom for little if any safety. Police feel vulnerable to a public that has abdicated it's responsibility and is often hostile. Scumbags enter into the cracks on both sides of this divide and take advantage of the stress for their own profit. And legislators, having neither brain nor spine, continue to enact laws to appease all, but solve nothing. Now add to this the unique situation in the US - posse comitatus. The US is the only nation in the world where the military is strictly forbidden from getting involved with internal law enforcement. The.Only.Place. While I think this is a good idea in general, it has had the unintended effect of propelling the militarization of police forces. In other places, crimes are dealt with by police; but other problems are dealt with by military - large scale violence, insurrection, etc. To be sure, these are crimes, but they have greater consequences to the nation and the society than "man shot wife's lover". But because in the US the military is not allowed to use their different resources and methods to deal with these different problems, a vacuum got created. Before the 60's and 70's, the National Guard served to fill that void - called in to a situation, deal with it, then withdraw. But after Kent State and the School Steps, that's gone. So the police departments began creating special paramilitary units to fill the void - police officers that looked, acted, and were armed like a military unit. But they were still theoretically performing a "policing" job. There's just one problem with that - it ignores thousands of years of human nature. Specifically, if a person dresses like a soldier, trains like one, speaks like one, uses a soldiers weapons and equipment, that person will inevitably ACT like a soldier. In many ways, posse comitatus is a sham - while it keeps military command structure, controls, and tradition out of law enforcement, we still have soldiers trying to do a soldier's job against targets appropriate for soldiers, but with civilian rules, systems, and "accountability." Dogs don't get shot because someone with an M4 wants to shoot them; they get shot because civilians have no clue what they're doing and create a military mission, send soldiers to do it, and are shocked to get the result. I'm not sure I have an answer, but I don't envy LEO who are in service right now - I simply cannot see an easy resolution to these issues. R2point0, thanks for weighing in. While I don't necessarily agree with all your conclusions it is obvious you have put thought into your reponse. When it comes to preventive policing I agree that overly restrictive laws are not the answer. That is, of course, a legislative issue more than a policing issue but the rubber meets the road where Officers apply the law so I see your point. While the example you presented is one that is near and dear to most on this board (as it is a gun board) there are several others. When it comes to arms, which I believe to be an essential element to a truly free country, I agree with you 100% on this particular issue but I think it applies a bit differently with some other issues. Drugs is the most obvious example and is often cited as having excessive and overly harsh legislation as it is a "victimless" crime. Most of the major time I see in my area is over drug cases so on the surface, if you believe drugs to be "victimless crimes" that would seem unreasonable. I submit to you that most major drug cases involve bad people, usually the worst in society. Those I would call predators as they feed off of society rather than being a contributing member. Also, the vast majority of other major crime we see revolves around drugs. Either to pay drug debts, retribution for unpaid drug debts, stealing drugs or drug profits, or drug profits fuelling other criminal activity like gangs. So while this type of legislation and policing may be preventive, it is effective and reasonable from my perspective. When it comes to folks taking protection from the Police for granted, we are in 100% agreement. It never ceases to amaze me how so many people embrace helplessness and refuse to take any responsibility for their own safety. This is, unfortunately, a cultural shift in this country and will be difficult to undo. People take quite a few of life's essentials for granted, security being just one of them. People in this country assume that food, water, electricity, transportation, etc. are granted and will always be abundant and available. The entitlement policies of the government (even more so with this administration) promote this thinking and I fear may be our ultimate downfall. One of the best (or worst) examples of this thinking is when witnesses are unwilling to provide information or testify in court. People don't seem to get that even though that specific incident didn't victimize them it is in society's best interest to remove criminals from society. Letting criminals get away with criminal activity because it is inconvenient to act merely fosters an environment for that activity to flourish and hurts everyone except criminals. I'm not sure I know your position on posse comitatus from reading your post. I'll say this, I think it is a good thing. While you are correct and circumstances arise that Police are required to deal with that require "military" type tools (I assume you mean rifles and heavy body armor) I don't want military rules of engagement to be used on the citizens of this country. The other problem is that many small situations that require these types of equipment unfold too quickly and end too quickly for any military organization to get involved. The national guard will not mobilize fast enough for an active shooter in a school or mall to be of any use, it has to be the first responder if you want an effective response. Effective weapons will always be necessary in a society that allows citizens to keep and bear arms. It is not reasonable to expect Police to respond with handguns to a situation where criminals are armed with rifles, though it has happened often enough. The most obvious example is the North Hollywood shootout. One last point. Police don't receive military training and only limited military weaponry. You don't see Officers using belt fed machine guns or explosive ordnance so I don't think calling well armed Police Officers "soldiers" is really fair. While I will grant you it is difficult to work calls that vary from neighbor disputes to a shooting within a single shift, I don't see how we can do it any other way. I, like you, don't have a good alternative. Much is asked of us. An Officer must be a councelor, mediator, ground fighter, expert marksman, and be able to bounce back and forth and apply those skills in an evironment where a single bad decision can cost him his career, a huge lawsuit, or even his life or the life of an innocent. I look forward to your response as I'm sure it will be as well articulated as your last post. |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.