Tag: taxpayers

Real Community Policing

Posted by – March 24, 2009

I was having a discussion the other day with Mostly Genius regarding the controversial statements made by Brian Stratton, the Mayor of Schenectady, New York, and that led to a more general discussion of how to fix a lot of the problems regarding law enforcement in the US today. The solutions proposed by the Mayor are misguided, but in any case, they are intended only as temporary measures until they can terminate the problem officers and hire new ones. They would not make any fundamental changes to how they operate.

Other options might include outsourcing policing to private companies. Private contractors could easily fill the gaps or even replace the entire department. Some gated communities already have what amounts to a private police force, but this only works because the community is actually private property and their “police” are technically security guards. There are numerous reasons why privatizing law enforcement duties would not be a wildly popular option, one of which, as MG pointed out, is that there would be problems with the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

My proposal is hardly original or new but I think it could help address several problems simultaneously. I suggest rejuvenating the office of Sheriff and revive the idea of deputizing responsible, capable citizens under Posse Comitatus. This would be the ultimate form of “community policing”. It would encourage active participation in the community, not only for deterring regular street crime, but also in an emergency like an active shooter situation or in a civil defense (natural disaster, nuclear attack, etc.) context as well. The office of Sheriff is an ancient one that predates modern policing and has many advantages. In the United States, it is an elected office, which adds to its appeal as far as accountability to the community.

I envision it as something like a vetted, trained neighborhood watch program on steroids, supervised and trained by the local Sheriff’s Office. It could organized in a similar fashion to the military reserves:

  • an initial training program
  • a small number of full time cadre
  • a much larger number of part-time, on-call members
  • mandatory monthly duty and continuing education/refresher training
  • a comprehensive annual training seminar
  • the duty (and vested interest) to respond to emergencies

This program could work really well when you consider that in any given community, there are often retired or discharged people with law enforcement, firefighter/paramedic and/or military backgrounds that already have a lot of relevant training and experience. This could create a much larger pool of people to call on in the event that an officer is sick, injured, suspended, terminated, killed in the line of duty, etc. Some of the part timers may have relevant areas of expertise and could be a great help in training academies or seminars and so forth.

In the event of an unusual emergency that is beyond the capabilities of a small number of full time deputies (active shooter, escaped convict, search and rescue, AMBER Alert, etc) a large group of trained volunteers could be quickly mobilized to address the problem. When the problem is resolved, the volunteers go back to their normal lives. This is not only more economical and more responsive to specific problems, but it also builds a sense of camaraderie and reinforces bonds of community.

The overall goals of such a program would be to reduce the burden on law enforcement, make it more accountable and encourage the citizenry to take an active interest in the safety of their own communities instead of abrogating those responsibilities to some faceless agency.

Even Barack Obama recognizes the need for a different approach:

“We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we’ve set. We’ve got to have a civilian national security force that’s just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded.”

While I am not sure it would be a “… just as strong, just as well funded” as the military, it could be a significant improvement over the current situation in several ways. I don’t believe that merely throwing money at a problem leads to successful solutions. This idea would not require a lot of money to implement, to the contrary, I think it would make maximum use of already existing resources.

There are indications that Americans would embrace a program like this. People are already doing citizen patrols.

Against his wife’s loud protestations, the young steamfitter joined a dozen other neighborhood men and set up the Rosewood night patrol.

Armed with nothing but flashlights and cellphones, the group followed suspicious cars and even set up an impromptu sting when a neighbor left town and forgot to close his garage door. They called in police to arrest the suspects after a brief chase.

High foreclosure rates, a spike in brazen break-ins, and slashed police budgets are causing turmoil in America’s transitioning urban communities, auguring what Atlanta anticrime activist Larry Ely calls an “urban war.”

Why not organize, train and deputize them? No doubt many people, who are quite comfortable with the idea of an almighty state and a dependent, helpless citizenry squealing for the federal government to “do something!”, will decry this idea as promoting “vigilante” justice. I am sure they will invoke the images of Billy the Kid, the Lincoln County Wars and the Lattimer Massacre. I would counter by pointing out that significant numbers of innocent people are already being killed by allegedly professional SWAT teams. Many people made dire predictions of rampant duels and blood running in the streets if concealed weapons permits became commonplace and that has proven to be completely inaccurate.

Obviously, there could be nepotism, corruption and incompetence in a program like this, but I don’t think that those problems would be any worse than in any currently existing situations, and actually, they would probably be less frequent. Widespread, active citizen involvement in the program makes it more likely that a whistleblower could draw attention to problems within the office. Also, I think that active involvement by local citizens makes it less likely that deputies will kick down the wrong door when serving a warrant, unlike what we see today with SWAT teams frequently raiding the wrong home (and often killing innocent people in the process). After all, many of them could be your friends and neighbors.

(HT: Walls of the City )

Who benefits from a high crime rate?

Posted by – November 21, 2008

L.A. Bank RobberyThe politicians benefit. As the crime rate goes up the politicians get more of a mandate from the people to pass more laws, levy more taxes, and spend more money. The passage of a new law is equated as being “tough on crime” come election time, regardless of if a new has any effect on crime at all.

Here is a prime example:

…Democratic leaders said they will continue to build on a foundation of strong sex-crime policies, including involuntary civil commitments and tough criminal sentences.

…Lawmakers also pledged to put money behind their demands for increased police emphasis on sex offenders — something that hasn’t always been done in the past.

…The largest piece of sex-offender spending discussed Thursday is Gregoire’s request for a $5 million grant program to pay police to conduct in-person visits with sex offenders. Low-risk offenders would get annual checkups under the plan, with the highest-risk sex criminals being seen four times a year.

Instead of a jury trial for a crime, sex offenses can be reclassified as mental illness and the involentary civil commitment process can be used. Additionally I am not sure what an annual (or quarterly) police visit to a registered sex offenders home is going to do to prevent further offenses, but Washington state was considering spending $5 million on it.

If we look at the “war on drugs” we see a massive expansion of government control, imprisonment, asset forfeiture, and government spending. I do not know any other crimes where if convicted the government can seize your home, car, and financial assets and you are forced to sue to get them back.

The question is do any of these laws and policies make the citizens safer? No rational citizen wants sex offenders or drug dealers walking the streets, but if we allow the expansion of government control and continue to hand them a blank check to “do something” we rarely get what we were hoping for.

My prediction for the next round of gun control is that the crime rate will go up because of citizen disarmament and the cycle will continue. We know this is a failed policy. Look across the Atlantic you can see where this expansion of state power will ultimately lead.

Tax-free shopping for guns!

Posted by – November 14, 2008

You don't see this every day. A state legislature suspends the sales tax on firearms for 24 hours and had to override the gov. veto to do it. Way to go.

Source: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/business/story/669484.html

Unintentional Revolutionary

Posted by – November 10, 2008

This is an interesting read. It argues that one of the best things you can do for out freedoms is get and stay out of financial debt, thinking that this will allow for greater activism. Regardless of your political stripe the fact is that being financially secure is a necessary component of self-defense and protecting our rights.

Source: http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2008/11/guest-column-unintentional.html