What is Community Policing?

[samiam]

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.

[NotNow]

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?

[NotNow]

Good, don't post false information.  Or back up what you say with facts.  Or don't post.  Or just ignore me.   

[NotNow]

That is a good plan for you.

[NotNow]

OK, so stop engaging. 

[NotNow]

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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?

[civil42806]

Thanks for your observation, but as i said, I will not engage or discuss any matter with you.

Your CUT off!

[NotNow]

 

[Dog Walker]

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?

[Karl_Pilkington]

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.

[BridgeTroll]

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.

[Clem1029]

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...

[BridgeTroll]

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.

[BridgeTroll]

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.

Cops 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. 

[BridgeTroll]

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...