Care to comment on "Law Enforcement?" Let Us Know!
Boy - where to start here?
First, let me say that there are a lot of good cops out there. Most of them are
people who joined the force thinking they could do some good and, less than a
year out of the academy become completely disenchanted.
Frustrated. Disgusted. Probably conflicted - yet still so totally convinced that
they should be making a difference that they
refuse to quit trying. Those are the good cops.
Once upon a time in the smaller towns and villages and in the American West, the
local people and their local government (whom everybody knew and could approach)
would hire a town marshal or sheriff to keep the peace.
This meant that their PRIMARY focus was on the prevention and interdiction of
criminal activity before
it affected the people, and to apprehend those who made it
past this first line of defense. That's where the term "Peace Office" came from.
That's where the phrase "To Protect and Serve" originated.
Neither is applicable any longer. In fact, most police vehicles and departments
have removed these terms from their vehicles and job descriptions. The courts
agree:
Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone
By LINDA GREENHOUSE. Published: June 28, 2005, NY Times:
WASHINGTON, June 27 - The Supreme Court ruled on Monday that the police did not have a constitutional duty to protect a person from harm, even a woman who had obtained a court-issued protective order against a violent husband making an arrest mandatory for a violation.
Antique Arts Corp. v. City of Torrence, 39 Cal.App.3d 588, 114 Cal.Rptr. 332 (1974) The Court of Appeal held that Govt. Code section 846 provides for immunity if no police protection is provided; or, if police protection is provided, but that protection is not sufficient.. "The statutory scheme makes it clear that failure to provide adequate police protection will not result in governmental liability, nor will a public entity be liable for failure to arrest a person who is violating the law. The statutory scheme shows legislative intent to immunize the police function from tort liability from the inception of its exercise to the point of arrest, regardless of whether the action be labeled ‘discretionary' or ‘ministerial.'")
Susman v. City of Los Angeles, et al., 269 Cal.App.2d 803, 75 Cal.Rptr. 240 (1969 re:Watts Riot) The Court of Appeal held that none of the allegations presented was sufficient to show any duty owed by any of the officials named as defendants to act to prevent or avoid the harm suffered by the plaintiffs.
Davidson v. City of Westminister, 32 Cal.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252 (1982) (assault by person UNDER SURVEILLANCE of police)The Supreme Court held that: (1) the mere fact that the officers had previously recognized the assailant from a distance as a potential assailant because of his resemblance to a person suspected of perpetrating a prior assault did not establish a "special relationship" between officers and assailant under which a duty would be imposed on officers to control assailant's conduct; (2) factors consisting of officer's prior recognition of assailant as likely perpetrator of previous assault and officer's surveillance of assailant in laundromat in which victim was present did not give rise to special relationship between officers and victim so as to impose duty on officers to protect victim from assailant; and (3) victim could not maintain cause of action for intentional or reckless infliction of emotional distress, in view of fact that it was not alleged that officers failed to act for the purpose of causing emotional injury, and that in the absence of such an intent to injure, officer's inaction was not extreme or outrageous conduct.
Warren v. District of Columbia (444 A.2d 1, 1981) (O)fficial police personnel and the government employing them are not generally liable to victims of criminal acts for failure to provide adequate police protection ... this uniformly accepted rule rests upon the fundamental principle that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular citizen ... a publicly maintained police force constitutes a basic governmental service provided to benefit the community at large by promoting public peace, safety and good order.
Bowers v. Devito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982) (There is no constitutional right to be protected by the state against being murdered by criminals or madmen. It is monstrous if the state fails to protect its residents against such predators but it does not violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, or, we suppose, any other provision of the Constitution. The Constitution is a charter of negative liberties; it tells the state to let the people alone; it does not require the federal government or the state to provide services, even so elementary a service as maintaining law and order.); (No duty to protect) = Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss;Cf. Reciprocial obligations
South v. Maryland, 59 U.S. (How.) 396, 15 L.Ed.433 (1856) (the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that local law-enforcement had no duty to protect individuals, but only a general duty to enforce the laws.);
DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189, 109 S. Ct. 998, 1989 (1989) (There is no merit to petitioner's contention that the State's knowledge of his danger and expressions of willingness to protect him against that danger established a "special relationship" giving rise to an affirmative constitutional duty to protect. While certain "special relationships" created or assumed by the State with respect to particular individuals may give rise to an affirmative duty, enforceable through the Due Process [489 U.S. 189, 190] Clause, to provide adequate protection, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97; Youngberg v. Romeo, 457 U.S. 307, the affirmative duty to protect arises not from the State's knowledge of the individual's predicament or from its expressions of intent to help him, but from the limitations which it has imposed on his freedom to act on his own behalf, through imprisonment, institutionalization, or other similar restraint of personal liberty.
Now, don't get me wrong - I don't believe the police should
be blamed for our inability to protect and defend ourselves either. The way
things are, these days, it would be almost impossible for the police to do
so. The police can only do so much. NORMALLY, when they see a crime
occurring, they are inclined to intercede - but sometimes they can't,
sometimes they won't, and sometimes they just don't. Sometimes they just
make a mistake.
One thing that gets me is when the courts say the police don't have to do their
job when they see a crime in progress, regardless of the reason.
Another thing that gets me is these very same courts then go on to tell the people that they are not allowed
to intercede for themselves. (I really don't get the logic behind that.)
And the final thing that gets me are the people who live in bad
neighborhoods who refuse to take steps to fix it themselves. Sometimes I
wonder if it wasn't better when you had to pay "the Mob" protection money to
run a business. At least then, provided you paid cheerfully and on time, you
had someone to go to who would protect their interest in your business.
Of course there are bad cops - but this page is not about them. This page is
about bad LAW ENFORCEMENT. And if the Law Enforcement community won't
protect the civilian and business community, then it's high time we, the
people, stand up
and do something about it.
First, we have all seen the effectiveness of government monopoly over the
law enforcement issue. The government makes all these laws - many of which
are in response to the demands of the people - and many of which a right and
proper. But they do not enforce these laws, and prohibit the people from
enforcing them through anti-vigilante and anti-self defense laws.
I get that the whole "lynch mob" mentality is probably not a good idea. I
understand that the police are "trained professionals" and most private
citizens are not. But what if we had our own trained professionals? What if
we became trained professionals?
Since, when it comes down to government, it is always about the money, I
have an idea that will make the government money, reduce the demand on local
police forces and provide a trained cadre for neighborhood law enforcement.
But if that doesn't work, I have a couple of other ideas - one that won't
make the government a penny and yet will virtually guarantee that levels of
crime will go down no matter where you live. It would be "illegal" but
effective. The other may be quasi-legal, and the government may get taxes
from them.
The first idea is for neighborhoods to organize their own protective force
on three levels. The first level would involve all citizens. Their role
would be to simply keep their eyes, ears, and video recording devices open
and ready - and to call in to the Neighborhood Squad whenever they witness
something shady going on. The second level is for a neighborhood watch
committee to be formed with regular patrols. These would be unpaid
conscientious Citizens, armed with GPS radios, flashlights, zip-strips, mace
and stun guns and/or batons. Their primary role will not be in hostile
confrontation, however - but to act as a visible deterrent, to spread the
word to any and all that there is a local presence available, and to act as
a blocking/delaying force when they witness illicit activity occurring. The
third and final level are the enforcers.
These are people who live in the community they patrol. They know the
Citizens and are paid by the Citizens to PROTECT them. Half the benefits of
joining will be the respect they get from the community - which is a good
thing, because they probably won't be paid all that much.
The Neighborhood Enforcement Squad
This idea would require participation by the whole (or at least most of the)
community and a few select volunteers - at least 4 per neighborhood. These
four (or more) volunteers would eventually become "Policemen/women"
dedicated to their neighborhood. They would live
there and work there, unlike government police who have to cover incidents
wherever they are sent, these Enforcement Officers could not be dispatched
outside their neighborhood.
The volunteers would be required to sign a contract guaranteeing that they
would serve the neighborhood for at least two years at minimum wage.
Their salary would be the equivalent of 12 hours paid per day ($6.55 x 12 x
7 = $550/wk x 4 = $2200/week, minimum) though they would be "on call"
24/7. That's why they would need to be dedicated volunteers. They might also
get "perks" like a guaranteed life insurance policy and free medical care
while they are in service, as well as equipment (which will belong to the
neighborhood).
The volunteers would be put through the local police academy (which would
mean they would have to meet certain legal and health requirements) and the
community would pay the academy for this training. The volunteers would not
get paid until they successfully graduated the academy and began actual
neighborhood enforcement duties. Upon graduation, they would be "Licensed
Law Enforcement Professionals" with all the authority and responsibility
granted and required of regular police force members, except they would not
be a part of any government precinct or district. Their sole duty would be
to the neighborhood that sponsors them.
The neighborhood would erect signs clearly stating that it is being
patrolled by armed local police forces, and boundary markers showing the
limit of their authority. (This might encourage those outside the boundaries
to start their own service or join their neighbors.)Participating Citizens
and businesses would display an identifying sign showing they are current
with their dues and announcing to potential perpetrators that it is a
protected residence or business. Only these residences and businesses
would receive direct intervention services (though even the unpaid
"citizens" would benefit to some degree). The best the rest of them could
hope for would be monitoring and a 911 call to the regular police. Good luck
with that.
How to pay for it:
The residents of the neighborhood would have to pay
for it, of course. But what price is too much to be able to let your kids
play outside without fear of drive-by shootings? What price is too much to
be able to walk down to the local Quickie-Mart at midnight and not worry
about being mugged? You get only what you pay for or make do for yourself.
I would propose that the fee for protection be 1 penny for each person and 1
penny for each square foot of covered space per week. For instance:
- a family of four, living in a 1200 square foot apartment
would pay 4 cents plus 1200 cents - $12.04 per week
- a business with 12 employees and 7200 square feet of space
filled with merchandise would pay 12 cents plus 7200 cents - $72.12 per week
(and be able to write it off of taxes).
- a landlord with twelve 600 square foot units, 1500 square
feet of open/utility space, and a 24 car parking lot (3000 sq.ft.) would pay
7200 cents plus 1500 cents plus 3000 cents - $117.00 per week, which he
could not only write off, but might also add to the rent (117x4 divided by
12 units = $39 per month). After all, it's a safer neighborhood to live in.
To cover the services of a 4 person force would require about $10k/month
when you add in all the gear and gas and maintenance and perks. Each
additional member of the force would require another $2500/month. That's
alot of money. In poorer neighborhoods, you might have to go with the
quasi-legal method #2, or the probably illegal method #3.
#2: Hiring a "Protection" Company:
The problem here is quality of service. First, there are the relatively
ineffective, though highly visible, geek squads - you know, unarmed or even
armed "Security Guards" with about four hours of training, staffed by guys
who probably couldn't get any other job. This will probably cost at least as
much as the previous solution, for more mediocre results.
#3: DIY or Going Underground Solutions:
Still working on it ...
Purchase Links:
Food & Seeds
Gear
Medical
Tools
Weapons & Ammo
Computer/Internet
US Military Gear:
Air Force
Army
Marines
Navy
Also: Coast Guard Law
Enforcement (Working on it)
(Purchasable Item links based on bug-out/preparation lists)
Please Read The Website Disclaimer!
Copyright 1986-2012, The Survival & Self-Reliance Studies Institute (SSRsi), All
Rights Reserved
Site conceptualized, designed, created & maintained by MEG Raven
Snail Mail: SSRsi, PO Box 2572 Dillon, CO. 80435-2572