What is Community Policing?

[BridgeTroll]

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/

[BridgeTroll]

http://www.crfc.org/americanjury/jury_peers.html

The 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.

[macbeth25]

Check out this website, too: http://www.sanantonio.gov/sapd/cop3.asp for info on the Cellular On Patrol program.

[NotNow]

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.

[NotNow]

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. 

[NotNow]

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? 

[NotNow]

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.

[BridgeTroll]

But 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...

[BridgeTroll]

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.

That is a pretty impressive resume for a rookie cop...

[NotNow]

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. 

[NotNow]

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.

[NotNow]

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.

[macbeth25]

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.

[NotNow]

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.

[Dog Walker]

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.