Before Modern Police Forces. America in 1922.

[NotNow]

Vigilante Justice would be horrible dog walker.  It really would.  But is it any worse than two guys getting shot to death in two months because of suspicion of unknown hanky panky?

Pull your skirt down, your ignorance is showing!

[Overstreet]

Comparing early 1900s and 2009 is an academic discussion with little practical application.

Around 1900 in Florida the population was a little over half a million people. In 2008 it was 18.3 million. I suspect with the mobility and population growth many things are different now than then.  One county sherrif and one deputy might have been enough in the early 1900s but that manning will not cover that population.  (pop. ref, Wikipedia, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida)

Mobility of war has increased such that if there is no standing national military the war would be over before a trained force could be assembled.

[NotNow]

Overstreet gave two very valid reasons:

1. Population growth
2. Advances in mobility & other technologies

VERY few professions operate as they did 100 years ago.

[buckethead]

This might be an entirely different subject, but anyhoo, Exactly how corrupt are Jacksonville Police?

On another forum there was a lawyer would insist that they are highly corrupt as a whole. He always had citations and news articles to back his claims. I could never counter his assertions, as I don't have the knowledge of the inner workings of the dept.

This is by no means meant to disparage any police officer, rather an attempt to clear the air within my own head. (there is too much air in my head to begin with)

Is JSO a clean outfit?

[NotNow]

I would be the first to agree that "mission creep" has infected modern policing.  Social programs such as PAL, DARE, and much of the School Resource function would be better served in other departments.  I also agree that this generation will redefine the role of "law enforcement" in our society.  I do not agree that that redefinition will necessarily be for the better.  As violent criminals continue to become more brash, and the spectre of crime is moved out into the suburbs, I see more of what has happened in the last ten years.  People will demand more Police presence.  As foreign and domestic terrorists plot and attempt attacks in our most vulnerable institutions, the public will demand action.  Police will be armed to meet the threat and will continue to professionalize.  I fear the familiar "progressive" call for "help" from Washington DC will completely transform policing in this country as the Federal government would do what it always does, take completely over and pay no attention to what is actually happening as the written word from faceless and irresponsible "Czars".  The danger StephenDare!, is the public VOLUNTEERING away their rights and the control of Policing passing off to the State or, much worse, the Fed.

The central mission of law enforcement remains..prevent loss of life and property, apprehend suspected criminals, and assist citizens in preparing themselves and their property to resist evil doers.

What methods used by other societies would you suggest we adopt here?

The technology of monitoring, immobilizing, and controlling will not stop.  The unprecedented violence of criminals today will only grow as our society becomes more coarse, and terrorist in various forms will continue to destroy our way of life and kill Americans.  We can't go back in time.  Today's threats must be met as precisely and as efficiently as possible with today's technology and today's weapons.  I believe that this can be done while preserving liberties and personal rights that we have enjoyed in this country since it's inception.  This will require innovation and experimentation.  It will require embracing tech and holding an open and ardent ethics debate when we need to.  The Town Marshall and Andy and Barney are not coming back.  To rage against the profession without a valid definition of a problem or at least a somewhat thought out answer just wastes time and electrons.  

[redglittercoffin]

Great post, Stephen.  I agree with the sentiment that there simply has NOT been a discussion on the role of law enforcement expectations and responsibilities -- especially as law enforcement agencies across the country have essentially become paramilitary organizations.  Every Mayberry between here and Maine has a SWAT team, often times being used to serve search warrants for drug possession. 

I think it is important in this discussion to note the effect of the deterioration of the spirit of federalism and how it has played into the mindset of law enforcement agencies.  Too many federal dollars are being awarded and withheld based on "productivity" numbers within law enforcement agencies.  Add into that the boondoggle of "anti-terrorism" expenditures that are being used for nothing more than purchasing a tank for a town of 15,000 -- and we are left with what we have today. 

Lastly, I think that the job requirements for law enforcement and politicians should be the same.  The folks that WANT to be politicians and police officers should be the first to be turned away.

[NotNow]

Believe me when I say that the discussion of law enforcement's expectations and responsibilities has gone on ad nauseum.  It just may be happening where you haven't seen it.  Law enforcement agencies have ALWAYS been paramilitary organizations.  And they are Representative of the times and locations they are in.  The Chicago PD of 1935 was much better armed and much more forceful than the Chicago PD of 1975.  Modern law enforcement is simply reacting to the threats against them and the public they serve. 

I don't believe that you nave a good picture of how federal grants are awarded to State and local law enforcement agencies  They are not awarded based on "productivity", but on a large number of factors mostly relying on threat and risk.  For instance, NYC has had many threats against it, and is vulnerable in many ways.  Many people and important infrastructure are at risk there.  Therefore, they get a large amount of federal money every year.  Witchi a, KS does not.  We don't need or use "tanks" in law enforcement, but we do use and need armored vehicles.  It is very difficult for a town to justify such a grant request, and mostly they are in larger cities.

As for your last statement, put your money where your mouth is.  PM me and I will put you in touch with a recruiter.  I can't say I completely disagree with you, but someone has to step up.

[NotNow]

Nope, I mean always.  Much "policing" was done by actual military units in the past.  Policing has used a rank structure since the first departments were formed.  Again, if anyone wants to know what I mean here, just ask. 

StephenDare! is referring to one reference in a paper from the era.  I am not sure we can define the Sheriff's job at the time based on this.  It would be like reading one of StephenDare!'s post 100 years from now and thinking that the opinions were representative of facts, or even the majority view from now.  Law enforcement, even small towns, has a chain of command and some sort of manual of arms.  While it is true that a one or two man show is hardly "paramilitary", when needed or combined in force, the military structure has always been used and therefore was a necessary part of law enforcement.

This is a subject where you and I often disagree StephenDare!.  I do not wish to get into some kind of tit for tat.  Your idea of "historical proof" and mine are quite different.  Perhaps it would be more useful, and more productive, if we limited the debate to the "modern" era.  Say, the 60's or 70's and later.  Again, I would ask you to go to the Gateway substation and complete two or three ride a longs before getting too involved in such a discussion.  See the experience of one man:

http://www.jacksonville.com/lifestyles/2009-09-13/story/professor_turned_police_officer_went_from_fsu_to_jacksonvilles_mean_stre

The actual experience does make a difference.

[NotNow]

I know it is a shock, but I have been out in civilian clothes.  I have gone all over Jax dressed as a (gulp) civilian.  To be honest, I don't wear a uniform these days much.  But Cops actually do go around as civilians, StephenDare!  We go out with our spouses and our children.  We go to our churches and local groceries.  I'm sure I don't hang out with the same crowd you do, but I have been to your former eating establishment downtown.  And of course, I always carry a gun and I encourage every citizen who feels a responsibility for their own safety and that of their family to do the same.  You see, StephenDare!, in this country being armed is not limited to the Police.


Who did you ride with?  I have got some questions for those guys!

[NotNow]

I'll bet that is quite true!

[Dog Walker]

"The central mission of law enforcement remains..prevent loss of life and property, apprehend suspected criminals, and assist citizens in preparing themselves and their property to resist evil doers."

Then why does it seem as if the "real" central mission is the enforcement of our insane drug laws?  We hear a lot more about the Coast Guard seizing multi-tons of cocaine and the local police wiping up the blood after the dealers shoot each other than we do about rescues at sea.  We even have an entire Federal law enforcement agency, the DEA, that does nothing else and every other Federal law enforcement agency spends most of its time on drug law enforcement.

At the end of Prohibition, Elliot Ness of the Untouchables was asked what he was going to do now.  He replied, "I'm going to go home and have a drink."

You and I have had this discussion before.  It's time to stop the madness!

[NotNow]

DW, I am afraid that your opinion is in the minority.  Most Americans approve of the banning of most recreational drugs.  MJ has been essentially decriminalized ( I think we should go ahead and legalize MJ, and tax the snot out of it).  Other drugs are still not acceptable to the public.  I must admit that my Libertarian side agrees with you, but I have seen many, many lives lost to such drugs.  And yes, before you say it, I have seen just as many lost to alcohol as well.  So we have some common ground here.

Where I don't agree is that drug enforcement is "the central mission" of local Police.  It may seem that way at times, but the majority investment of time and money is not on the anti-narcotic mission.  The DEA and much of the Federal effort in law enforcement is not Constitutional and those agencies should be wrapped onto the FBI and/or Customs IMHO. 

[buckethead]

War on drugs = Sham

[NotNow]

Bucket,

I think we can all agree that we want to steer our children away from the use of drugs.  We can all probably agree that drug dependancy and all that goes with it is a problem for all of us. 

Do you think that the complete legalization of all drugs would make our society better?  What would your solution be? 

[buckethead]

Bucket,

I think we can all agree that we want to steer our children away from the use of drugs.  We can all probably agree that drug dependancy and all that goes with it is a problem for all of us. 

Do you think that the complete legalization of all drugs would make our society better?  What would your solution be? 

As a veteran of alcohol and drug abuse, I think that both will likely deccrease the quality of one's life. I am absolutly against using drugs. Alcohol and pot are the lesser evils, but as one who abused both, I abstain from all.

To legalize drugs would remove power from drug cartels, smugglers and nickle/dime dealers.

If crack was free and legal, I'd bet we would see less crackheads. You cannot legislate abstinence. You can criminalize an act, but it does not eliminate it, nor reduce it's occurence. It does fill jails, and offer more work for Police and other enforcement agencies.