http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:v-3ttiQWSrgJ:www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/commp.pdf+Community+Policing&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&client=firefox-a
Community policing is, in essence, a collaboration between the police and
the community that identifies and solves community problems. With the
police no longer the sole guardians of law and order, all members of the
community become active allies in the effort to enhance the safety and
quality of neighborhoods. Community policing has far-reaching implica-
tions. The expanded outlook on crime control and prevention, the new em-
phasis on making community members active participants in the process of
problem solving, and the patrol officers’ pivotal role in community policing
require profound changes within the police organization. The neighbor-
hood patrol officer, backed by the police organization, helps community
members mobilize support and resources to solve problems and enhance
their quality of life. Community members voice their concerns, contribute
advice, and take action to address these concerns. Creating a constructive
partnership will require the energy, creativity, understanding, and patience
of all involved.
Reinvigorating communities is essential if we are to deter crime and create
more vital neighborhoods. In some communities, it will take time to break
down barriers of apathy and mistrust so that meaningful partnerships can
be forged. Trust is the value that underlies and links the components of
community partnership and problem solving. A foundation of trust will
allow police to form close relationships with the community that will
produce solid achievements. Without trust between police and citizens,
effective policing is impossible
My wife and I lived in San Antonio for about 20 years before coming to Callahan and Florida. I'd like to suggest a program which has been around in that city for many years and one which has proven very effective. It's called Cellular On Patrol (COP) and you might compare it to a neighborhood watch on wheels. To get an idea of how it works, please go to this website: http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapd/cop3.asp?res=1024&ver=true (http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapd/cop3.asp?res=1024&ver=true).
I know the program works because I was a part of it. One of my favorite stories is about the time a person working his shift on COP noticed a strange car in his area. He called it in and the police immediately sent a patrol car. The police in the car recognized the people in the other car right away. They were undercover police on a stakeout. The undercover police were quite vocal in the patrol car's blowing their cover. Apparently the stakeout was legitimate but the word hadn't gotten to the dispatchers.
I think this is something which should happen in Jacksonville. You can find just about anything you might want to know on the website above. Good Luck and May Irish Blessings Be Upon You and Yours. MAC
A trend that I have noticed is its not the duty of local law enforcement to stop crime but to solve crimes once they have occurred. But if you are an extremely proactive citizen trying to stop crime in your community you are looked at as a vigilante.
It seems that a program such as COP could be part of the solution. Not only can COP members help stop crime by being observant and reporting the unusual event when it happens but also they can help provide information and testimony, as needed, should the crime come to trial. COP members normally can not be accused of being vigilantes since they do not attempt to stop something from happening. They are not armed -- at least not with weapons -- but carry cell phones, usually donated by one of the carriers -- and can also carry still or video cameras. If they use telephoto lenses, they don't even have to get close enough to be seen. They can also report license plate numbers, provide descriptions of vehicles and sometimes people. One of the most important parts of the program is that the members know their areas and work them. They might just work at night but could maintain 24-hour surveillance. The program works in San Antonio -- I can't see any reason it wouldn't work here.
If this philosophy is being adopted then it should be legal for communities to form there own volunteer police force that has arrest authority and carry weapons and there philosophy would be to protect and serve there community.
Quote from: samiam on July 11, 2009, 04:14:51 PM
If this philosophy is being adopted then it should be legal for communities to form there own volunteer police force that has arrest authority and carry weapons and there philosophy would be to protect and serve there community.
A number of countries have this sort of system. You hear about them on the news as "armed militias."
Back in the day it use to be considered an honor to be in the local militia but now militia is synonyms with domestic terrorism
Every citizen currently has the right to carry a concealed firearm (with qualification and proper licensing) and to make citizen's arrest in the case of felonies. You and your neighbors can patrol as you want. The problem lies in who is responsible for your actions. That would be YOU. If you are confident in what you and your neighbors are doing, go for it. I am on your side. I believe that active participation either through programs such as macbeth and StephenDare! are describing, or active action such as samiam advocates will be required to solve this problem nationwide. Citizens shoud get the leeway to act when necessary. This is the idea behind the "castle doctrine" here in Florida. Citizens are empowered to protect themselves.
...of course, a new set of questions arise as well.
Quote from: samiam on July 11, 2009, 02:03:40 PM
A trend that I have noticed is its not the duty of local law enforcement to stop crime but to solve crimes once they have occurred. But if you are an extremely proactive citizen trying to stop crime in your community you are looked at as a vigilante.
as is exactly what happened in Springfield when some residents became fed up with the lack of police response and went out at night to shine a light on what was going on. They became the target of police and were told to get off the streets. I guess it was easier for JSO to target the law abiders than it was the law breakers.
I am not aware of this event. Tell me about it. What exactly does "told to get off the streets" mean? If they were not breaking the law, they should continue doing what they want. If some individual Officer is wrongly targeting them, talk to a Sgt. or a Lt., or even the Asst. Chief the next day. If you are not sure if laws are being broken, then you shouldn't be out there. But if you are sure of what you are doing....
Remember that you have no "special right or authority" just because you live in the neighborhood. If you approach what you believe is a criminal, civilians cannot detain misdemeanor suspects. And just standing in the street yelling is not an effective strategy. Residents don't get to decide who walks through their neighborhood. You can follow someone through your 'hood. You can talk to them and just let them know why you are out there. You have to know the rules and play within them. Welcome to modern Policing!
A possible solution would be satellite police precincts that work directly with a citizen patrol. A portion could have arrest authority and carry weapons if they have prior law enforcement or military experience, we could call them community constables CC's and the rest would report to the police and the CC's.
The city of Mobile Alabama instituted the satellite police precinct portion of this suggestion in down town mobile and dauphin street went went from nothing but a bunch of vacant building to a major entertainment district in less than 2 years.
The city will not accept the legal liability of sanctioning such groups IMHO. The first "honor student/turning his life around" guy you hurt or kill while legally defending yourself would result in lawsuits against JSO and COJ. There are not enough Officers here to man any satellite stations. Perhaps a state law deliniating a civilian patrol groups rights, authority, responsibility, and training while granting some limited immunity would work.
So here is the problem. It is no longer the responsibility of the police to prevent crime. Civilian patrol groups cant do it do to legal liability. The criminals have rights but the law abiding citizen have none
Police have a responsibility to prevent crime, but through a combination of professionalization and complexity, costs have risen and numbers of Officers does not meet demand. What used to be handled by other professions now requires cops due to percieved liability and the victimology of misbehaviour. (Teachers cant paddle, private businesses cant just kick people out for fear of race/sex/age/whatever discrimination suits). Policing has become very complicated, and Officers must apply reams of rules to uncontrolled situations almost instantaneously and accuratly. College degrees and advances studies are required. The rise of the litigious society results in massive documentation and CYA by law enforcement agencies, further removing Officers from street work. Officers who meet these standards are higher paid employees, resulting in budgets with reduced numbers of Officers. These fewer Officers are placed everywhere form schools to critical infrastructure.
On the streets, a rising criminal class that is egged on by popular culture and self serving organizers, ignores education, resists "conforming" for a job, and ends up predictibly in direct confrontation with both Police and citizens. Honest citizens generally have much to lose in any physical confrontation, and can not afford to lose a job or be arrested over "small time" criminality, so they ignore it or move away from it. Police face more and more violence as they are emascualted by the legal and political systems. And your right, the "rights" of criminals are well defined but the rights of honest citizens is not well defined by a "criminal justice" system. And we have all seemed to have forgottenthat this is OUR society, and that we have the power to reverse the craziness of the last fifty years of "criminal justice" reform.
So let's let Cops be Cops and give them the authority to use force when it is needed and the benefit of a doubt in application of law. Let's do the same for honest citizens and spend more time and money on protecting them and not the criminals. Give citizens even more slack in defending both their lives and their property from criminality. Offer rehabilitation, but make incarceration "suck" again. Prisoners don't need cable and gyms. Go back to prison work concepts and enforce it.
NotNow A very well thought out post. The comment "the rights of honest citizens is not well defined" was the most important. The rights of honest citizens need to be defined, If criminal X does this to victim Y, Victim Y can do A, B or C to criminal X.
OK, here we go. Modern policing is about as experimental as the automobile. To postulate whether law enforcement "has been around long enough" to evaluate is just laughable. How long is "long enough"? What standard would you use to judge? What model of enforcing the power of government would you suggest?
When did "victimization" of criminals become right wing? Anybody else here noticed that criminals always blame someone else for their problems? And it is not limited to criminality. Anybody know someone who always blames "someone" else for what happens to them, or forces their behaviour which results in bad things? This isn't right wing, it is reality. (This is where I point out that it isn't someone elses fault, StephenDare!) Personal responsibility IS lacking, on both sides of the political aisle.
And while there are many more criminal laws now, many things which used to be criminal are not any longer. If we take drugs off the table, what onerous laws are you talking about? (that are enforced by street officers?)
What you meant by your last two paragraphs completely escapes me. Identify potential law breakers? How do you do that? Prevent crime is a normal police duty, as is bringing the accused to court for trial. Isn't that what we have? Your bias bares itself with the last statement. Officers spend hours and hours of training on response and use of force. What is your reasoning for cloaking the profession with your "judge, jury, and executioner" slander when you know that is not reality? What exactly does your vast knowledge of criminal justice lead you to believe that law enforcement was "meant" to be? What major metropolis does not use police?
Good, don't post false information. Or back up what you say with facts. Or don't post. Or just ignore me. :D
That is a good plan for you.
OK, so stop engaging.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
OK, here we go. Modern policing is about as experimental as the automobile. To postulate whether law enforcement "has been around long enough" to evaluate is just laughable. How long is "long enough"? What standard would you use to judge? What model of enforcing the power of government would you suggest?
When did "victimization" of criminals become right wing? Anybody else here noticed that criminals always blame someone else for their problems? And it is not limited to criminality. Anybody know someone who always blames "someone" else for what happens to them, or forces their behaviour which results in bad things? This isn't right wing, it is reality. (This is where I point out that it isn't someone elses fault, StephenDare!) Personal responsibility IS lacking, on both sides of the political aisle.
And while there are many more criminal laws now, many things which used to be criminal are not any longer. If we take drugs off the table, what onerous laws are you talking about? (that are enforced by street officers?)
What you meant by your last two paragraphs completely escapes me. Identify potential law breakers? How do you do that? Prevent crime is a normal police duty, as is bringing the accused to court for trial. Isn't that what we have? Your bias bares itself with the last statement. Officers spend hours and hours of training on response and use of force. What is your reasoning for cloaking the profession with your "judge, jury, and executioner" slander when you know that is not reality? What exactly does your vast knowledge of criminal justice lead you to believe that law enforcement was "meant" to be? What major metropolis does not use police?
Quote from: stephendare on July 12, 2009, 02:36:05 AM
Thanks for your observation, but as i said, I will not engage or discuss any matter with you.
Your CUT off!
;D :D
Stephen, I have now read this entire thread and have not seen any "abusive" posts from anyone. Were they removed? Did they occur on another thread? Is you definition of abusive different from mine?
Quote from: NotNow on July 11, 2009, 10:06:38 PM
I am not aware of this event. Tell me about it. What exactly does "told to get off the streets" mean? If they were not breaking the law, they should continue doing what they want. If some individual Officer is wrongly targeting them, talk to a Sgt. or a Lt., or even the Asst. Chief the next day. If you are not sure if laws are being broken, then you shouldn't be out there. But if you are sure of what you are doing....
well when the concerned citizens were threatened with violence by the criminal element on one fine evening, JSO was contacted and responded. When they showed up they targeted the citizens and advised them to stay home and basically said it was the citizens/residents who were causing the problems by being out on the streets at that time of night. A seargent was asked for and responded. Unfortunately this seargent only backed up the patrol officers and then went on a diatribe against what the citizens/residents were doing. This seargent was also woefully misinformed about the law regarding stops and consensual encounters. When the seargent realized the whole thing was being videotaped and was confronted by a couple of the citizens/residents one who was an attorney (who happened to be very well versed in criminal law) and another was a Fed this Sergeant took off. So yeah, this type of thing has happened and unfortunately for the citizens/residents who tried (in vain) to do something about it, law enforcement was less than supportive. I'm glad to hear that you would be though.
On the other hand... NotNow has a long history of great and thoughtful posts. There is no doubt that there is friction between Stephen and him but most will observe that both parties are responsible for the "devolution" in certain instances when simply ignoring each other would work much better.
Quote from: stephendare on July 12, 2009, 09:43:23 AM
Generally the conversations with him devolve into personal attacks and pointless negativity, and end up in lots of administrative time.
Never underestimate a liberal's ability for projection...
Quote from: stephendare on July 12, 2009, 10:09:19 AM
actually, bridgetroll, i really don't need to be clarified. But thanks for the validation. He frequently has valuable insight, and the disagreements we have are simply conflicts of opinion. Which is what makes the world go round.
;)
You're correct... after adding 4 paragraphs to the post I was responding to... No clarification is needed.
I think it is a great idea. I am sure most people would think so also. I believe the police are receptive to this also.
QuoteCops are simply meant to be able to identify potential law breakers, maybe prevent opportunity crime from happening, and bring them in front of a court to be judged by a jury of their peers and sentenced or exonerated by a duly seated Judge.
I think police used to I.D. "potential lawbreakers"... this practice has been determined to be "profiling" and seems to be discouraged. To the extent that they cannot be everywhere they do prevent some crimes of opportunity... though not enough in my opinion. They also bring people to the court for judging by peers. In fact this is probably what they do the most.
You do bring up an interesting point though. The whole idea of a jury by your peers has changed over the years. Juries are picked from far and wide. Often times it seems our system picks the lowest common denominator for juries. People who follow the news and read the paper are excused from juries because they are too informed. Certain trials are even moved out of the community because the trial is too publicized. This move ensures that this will not be a jury of peers. A defendant arrested in Springfield should be judged by those in Springfield. Names of people who have been convicted of certain crimes should be displayed weekly in a special section of the newspaper.
That is what they do... this is why there is a court. The "suspect is arrested(stopped) read the suspected their rights and handed over to the judicial system.
The distinction I am trying to make is that juries used to be true peers... neighbors, people from your own section of town, people who probably knew the family... people who might care about the defendent... and people the defendent could actually feel humiliation and sorrow for the crime he committed against THEM.
I have not seen a knight or count in ages... :)
Here is San Antonio's Community policing website...
http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapd/copps.asp?res=1440&ver=true
Here is L.A.
http://www.lacp.org/
http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/jury_peers.html
QuoteThe phrase "a jury of one's peers" is a part of the American lexicon, yet surprisingly it nowhere appears in the Constitution. The Sixth Amendment simply guarantees the right to "a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed."
My point... which I have proven unable to convey... Is that if a defendant were tried by true peers...i.e. people from the hood, neighbors, the people actually affected by the defendants actions... the defendant is much more likely to feel remorse and shame for his actions. Remorse and shame are great deterrents to crime.
Our judicial system now seems to be defendant vs "the state"... a nameless, faceless, party which the defendant is disdains and cares nothing about. Societies have used shame very effectively as a deterrent to actions society has deemed unacceptable.
Check out this website, too: http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapd/cop3.asp for info on the Cellular On Patrol program.
Quote from: Dog Walker on July 12, 2009, 08:21:27 AM
Stephen, I have now read this entire thread and have not seen any "abusive" posts from anyone. Were they removed? Did they occur on another thread? Is you definition of abusive different from mine?
DW, StephenDare! and I do have a history on several forums. I accept responsibility for allowing myself to let some of the debates devolve into just arguments between him and I. I will try not to let that happen again. But, I will answer falsehoods with the truth when I am familiar with the subject. I don't pretend to be an expert on everything, and I would ask those of you with expertise in other areas to inform me and let me know when I am off base.
Like any public forum, statements made here should be taken with a grain of salt. Anything I say or anybody else says should be verified by others. I try to back up my arguments with references to Florida State Statute or other written references.
I will not comment on StephenDare! other than to say his history speaks for itself. I will not delve into all of the stuff StephenDare! put into his reply to you other that to say that my version is quite different.
I hope to treat all in the same manner that I expect to be treated. Nuff said about that.
Now, returning to the theme....I'll just say that I am with BT on this one. I am not sure how StephenDare! asked Thomas Jefferson about the meaning of the words in the US Constitution, but I will rely on the federal court system for my explanations.
Cases are simply titled The State of XXX vs. Suspect because the prosecutors of the state bring the case. It is the State government enforcing their laws. In federal court, cases are titled The United States vs. Suspect. It is not meant to be a philisophical statement.
"
And our system is not The Individual vs. The State, it is supposed to be The Individual judged against the Laws of the Land, subject to the higher laws of Reason and Compassion, and administered by people committed to the philosophy of justice.
"
This statement has no basis in law. It is just the opinion of the author.
Police Officers, or Sheriff's, have a long history in this country and others. The duties, rights and authority of such Officers is well documented in every country in the world. You can call them Security Guards, PoPo, Barney, Constables, whatever...the job is essentially the same. I am not sure what alternative StephenDare! is proposing.
Actually, Police Officers do study law. As well as court and criminal procedure. Of course, my legal opinions carry the same weight as yours, StephenDare!.
And, am I correct in reading that you are proposing replacing sworn Law Enforcement Officers with Citizen Militia?
OK, I am not sure where we are going with this. So I will just say that modern American law enforcement Officers are the best trained in the world. JSO require a four year degree, then six months to a year of academy, and five months of field training for the priviledge of being a rookie. Police Officers are not lawyers. It is a different profession. Officers take their charge of protecting the peace and apprehending criminals in as safe and professional manner as possible very seriously. And we are used to insults. Just part of the job.
I do not see any replacement system in our future.
QuoteBut its analagous to a salesperson at the Mac store vs the actual Design Team for Apple.
I dont think it is analogous to that at all...
QuoteJSO require a four year degree, then six months to a year of academy, and five months of field training for the priviledge of being a rookie.
That is a pretty impressive resume for a rookie cop... :)
I am not really sure what the educational and training requirements are at the Apple store, but JSO Officers also are required to attend in-service training once a year. This training varies according to the needs of the State and the agency, but often includes diversity training, tactics and judgement, and legal updates. Most Officers will attend other training during the year as well over a variety of subjects. Many Officers are members of specialized units and recieve further training. Also, many (if not most) Officers personally pay for training on their own.
Of course, none of this is a substitute for experience. And JSO does recognize the value of military experience upon hiring. Younger Officers should be mentored by more experienced Officers.
The actual requirements read pretty much as I stated. Bachelors Degree or the combination of college and law enforcement or military experience. Officers without the four year degree must still obtain it for advancement purposes. The educational stipend was recently ammended and is only paid for Masters Degrees, not Bachelors or Associates anymore. Here is a short paragraph on history:
History
In 1626, the New York City Sheriff's Office was founded. In 1631, the Town of Boston started its first "Night Watch". The first local modern police department established in the United States was the Boston Police Department in 1838, followed by the New York City Police Department in 1844. Early on, police were not respected by the community, as corruption was rampant. In the late 19th and early 20th century, there were few specialized units in police departments.[1]
The advent of the police car, two-way radio, and telephone in the early 20th century transformed policing into a reactive strategy that focused on responding to calls for service.[1] In the 1920s, led by Berkeley, California police chief, August Vollmer, police began to professionalize, adopt new technologies, and place emphasis on training.[2] With this transformation, police command and control became more centralized. O.W. Wilson, a student of Vollmer, helped reduce corruption and introduce professionalism in Wichita, Kansas, and later in the Chicago Police Department.[3] Strategies employed by O.W. Wilson included rotating officers from community to community to reduce their vulnerability to corruption, establishing of a non-partisan police board to help govern the police force, a strict merit system for promotions within the department, and an aggressive, recruiting drive with higher police salaries to attract professionally qualified officers.[4] Despite such reforms, police agencies were led by highly autocratic leaders, and there remained a lack of respect between police and minority communities. During the professionalism era of policing, law enforcement agencies concentrated on dealing with felonies and other serious crime.[5]
Following urban unrest in the 1960s, police placed more emphasis on community relations, and enacted reforms such as increased diversity in hiring. The Kansas City Preventive Patrol study in the 1970s found the reactive approach to policing to be ineffective.[6] In the 1990s, many law enforcement agencies began to adopt community policing strategies, and others adopted problem-oriented policing. In the 1990s, CompStat was developed by the New York Police Department as an information-based system for tracking and mapping crime patterns and trends, and holding police accountable for dealing with crime problems. CompStat, and other forms of information-led policing, have since been replicated in police departments across the United States and around the world.
In 1905, the Pennsylvania State Police became the first state police agency established, as recommended by Theodore Roosevelt's Anthracite Strike Commission and Governor Samuel Pennypacker.[7]. See also Coal Strike of 1902.
California municipalities were among the first to hire women as officers. The first female police officer was Alice Stebbins Wells, who was hired by the Los Angeles Police Department in 1910. The LAPD also hired the first African-American police officer, Georgia Ann Robinson, in 1916. The first female deputy sheriff, Margaret Q. Adams, was hired by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department in 1912.
This can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States
I am not the smartest person in the world. I am sure that I am ignorant about a lot of things. But not in this case.
What has all of this got to do with community policing? Let's avoid the tit for tat thing.
I will disregard your accusation of dishonesty against me. Let's try to be civil please.
What the article points out is that the New York City Sheriff's Office was established in the 1620's and other law enforcement organizations were formed at the same time.
The Boston Police Department was formed in 1838.
My point is that to state that law enforcement in America is "experimental" would be incorrect. I would say that law enforcement world wide is "evolving" or changing as is society.
I would agree with the article and say that the "modern" incarnation of policing came about in the 1920's and 30's with the introduction of automobiles and radios. The dispatching and rapid response of law enforcement officers lessened the need for individuals to defend themselves and developed the modern reliance on the "state" in the form of Officers to come and settle disputes.
Quote from: NotNow on July 12, 2009, 10:10:00 PM
I would agree with the article and say that the "modern" incarnation of policing came about in the 1920's and 30's with the introduction of automobiles and radios. The dispatching and rapid response of law enforcement officers lessened the need for individuals to defend themselves and developed the modern reliance on the "state" in the form of Officers to come and settle disputes.
I am concerned that you believe the officers settle disputes. I don't think they do. I believe disputes are settled in court. I believe the officers try to defuse problems and give people a chance -- and a reason -- to sit back and think what they are doing. Hopefully, officers can prevent disputes from becoming dangerous to the disputants (if that's a word) and others. They sometimes are successful in preventing a crime or apprehending those who commit them. They need all the help they can get.
I think that Officers settle most disputes that they are called to. Usually, partys can be counseled with possible solutions, or one party may be warned to cease some behaviour. It is my experience that this is what occurs in most cases. I would bet that 90% or more of all disputes that Officers are called to never go beyond that level of the system. Of course, as you stated, civil disputes must be referred to and settled by a court.
Macbeth, NN is correct about officers settling disputes. Do the ride along and watch. They are frequently the only calm, sober, and "adult" presence at these disputes. I've been involved in one of these adrenalin loaded, neighborhood disturbances and was greatly impressed how a uniformed authority figure (or more) could separate the parties and sort out the problem and resolve the dispute. I think our uniformed officers prefer to be and are more frequently "peace" officers than they are "law enforcement officers".
The "cop swagger" and authoritarian manner that frequently rubs us the wrong way is a necessary part of what they do and how they project intimidation to get control of a situation. Do some of them take this "power trip" to far? Sure they do. They are human too, but that is why they are trained and supervised to the level they are to put a check on being carried away with their authority.
Quote from: Dog Walker on July 13, 2009, 09:53:33 AM
Macbeth, NN is correct about officers settling disputes. Do the ride along and watch.
This is a point which is really not worth debating. I think it is all in the eyes of the beholder since at least
some disputes do end up in court. I, too, have participated in ride-alongs, both in my county (Nassau) and in San Antonio where I was also part of the COP program and was a block captain in the Neighborhood Watch. I've also written at least one article for the
Westside Journal on the subject after I did a ride-along so I do know a little about it. I can be part of neither COP nor neighborhood watch in your area but I'm talking to the people in my area regarding them. I know both COP and Neighborhood Watch can be effective because I've been there and I've done that. I wish Jacksonville residents success. I'll be watching MetroJacksonville to see what happens.
Without going back through this thread again, I seem to remember some reference to police officers anticipating crime and taking care of it before it happens -- Anyone remember the movie Minority Report? Here's one reference to it: http://www.geocities.com/smvgrey/minority.html (http://www.geocities.com/smvgrey/minority.html). I sure wouldn't want to run afoul of that bunch.
StephenDare!, shouldn't you quote your source for the opinions expressed above? And of course, it should be identified as opinion only.
I think it extremely important that citizens who are not part of law enforcement avoid confrontational activity. Should someone attempt to break into a home, especially one in which there are women and/or children, the owner has the right, according to Florida Law, to use deadly force to protect his home and his family. I think this right may have been extended to the person's vehicle -- but I'm not sure about that. The average citizen, I think, and no matter how "tough" they think they are, will find it difficult to live with the knowledge they've killed or injured another human being. Our military, who, like me, were trained to fight -- and possibly to kill, especially those who were forced to take a life -- have much trouble reconciling that decision. I remember an old rule -- never point a weapon at someone unless you're prepared to use it and never shoot unless you plan to kill. Life isn't the movies and the victim seldom gets up with a big smile on his face and walks away. Not only that, but what if you miss and hit someone dear to you or an innocent bystander. Working together to prevent crime by working with authorized police is a much better idea. Save protecting your family -- or even the stranger who you see being attacked -- don't use a weapon. Property can always be replaced but people can't. Neighborhood Watch, Cellular on Patrol, "Sheriff's Possee" or whatever you might call it, are all ways to cut back on crime. Should you see a crime in progress or even have good reason to suspect a crime is happening, notify the authorities -- get the best information you can without endangering yourself or your family and then testify against the perpetrators in court. Help police get back to policing. There's a lot we citizens can do without being confrontational. Check the Nassau County Sheriff's Website or the websites in your area for details. God Be With You.