posted
It seems to me we don't. I'd expect only the most selfless people to be qualified for the job, and then who decides who qualifies? Instead, why not a civil police force? Training and education for whoever wants it on the most local level, and a standing military would do me just fine. It would save money both in taxes, as well as in fines/demerits for going 5km/h over the speed limit.
Another part of it would be some sort of criminal record cover to apply for the police school. The main difference would be that it wouldn't be anyones day job, except I guess in emergency situations. Yes we need a standing military, but do we really need a standing police force?
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't understand your idea of a "civil police force". If you mean anyone gets to play cop on their neighbors, I think that would be utter chaos. The only thing worse would be no one filling the role of police at all.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do you really believe that the only function police serve is to hassle you with speeding tickets?
Posts: 1681 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You'd still retain the Police Stations, the civil court system, all the equipment the police may need to use, they just wouldn't get paid. The benefits for the "volunteer" police themselves:
Fully trained to protect their friends and families.
Correctly trained in how to use guns and other weapons.
Respect from their community for their role and the position automatically means they're an upstanding citizen.
Less in taxes for civil denfence. Also applies to everyone else.
Chance for medals and other certificates for protecting the public and upholding the law well.
We all know how easy it is to be a corrupt cop, and get paid for a job you don't have to do to the best of your ability, with the potential for extra income in the form of bribes.
And there'd no doubt be way more police around under a voluntary system than there is now. Far too many for every crime group to bribe them all. And always with more to come.
Posts: 1138 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are nearly 700,000 police officers in the United States (where I am, hence why I'm using it as an example), not counting the roughly 300,000 civilian support personnel. I suspect the numbers are roughly population proportional in Australia.
How do you expect to get an equivalent number of people to serve as police officers? Especially as no volunteer officer could commit more than a few hours a week to what, for the officers now employed, is a full time job. In the US that would entail at least 1.5 million volunteer police officers (20 hours/wk per volunteer, a quite high estimate); in other words, .5% of the entire population. This is neglecting that such a force would be less effective, subject to easier infiltration and exposure, et cetera.
And imagine if there was even a slight economic downturn! Suddenly a goodly proportion of those volunteers decide they need a part time job, instead, and the number of police in the nation plummets, just as the number of people without work increases (a common cause of increase in crime).
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
I think you are neglecting the serious difficulty involved in a police job, and the serious standards that have to be upheld. Yes, there are corrupt police and bad police, but there are corrupt and bad everything so this argument is worthless.
If the police force were voluntary, the standards would automatically lower. If a police officer doesn't follow proper criminal procedure, they are held accountable for it. If they continue, they may lose their job and livelihood. If a volunteer police officer is no longer allowed to volunteer, what is the difference to him? Prestige? That wouldn't be enough to keep them following strict standards.
One of the problems we have with police as it is is a lack of quality people in certain jurisdictions. This comes from several things, including low pay and low education requirements. The more progressive departments require a college degree and pay more to attract better candidates. I suppose the argument could be made that making police a volunteer position would weed out the high school dropouts who end up doing police work because they need a way to support themselves, but would it really attract highly educated people in the numbers you are projecting? I think not. Compare it to volunteer fire departments, which are almost always understaffed and almost always undertrained.
In addition, policing needs to be a full time occupation. The skills required to be a good police officer take years to hone. Do you know what to do when entering a potentially violent house on a domestic violence call? How much can training truly prepare you to watch every possible situation? There is a major learning curve that must be taken into account before you can be adequately prepared for these situations. Domestic violence calls are one of the most difficult and frequent calls a young officer can expect.
The rules of police procedure are strict and flexible at the same time, allowing for discretion and yet forcing protocol to be followed. Without being fully immersed in the language and day-to-day activities of police work, I would posit that any voluntary, part time police force would be inherently less knowledgable and prepared than a full-time, paid police force.
Do you really want to trust Jimmy the lawyer who comes in for 15 hours a week to protect you should a situation arise? Do you want Michael the pet store owner who works 12 hours a week as a police officer to investigate the scene for clues as to who mugged you? My guess is that you don't. If you do, then you have a lot more faith (misplaced faith, I would say) in your neighbors than I do.
I work with a federal law enforcement agency. We have to oversee the work of local law enforcement constantly. There are enough mistakes made as it is that nobody would ever want the hassle of a part-time, volunteer police officer attempting to do the job right, especially when there are little to no possible repercussions for him messing up. If a cop writes on his incident form that he found a gun in the trunk of a car in a search incident to arrest, despite the fact that the car was 50 yards away from where the subject was arrested (a problem we just recently dealt with), he will face a possible suspension of pay that affects his family because by not writing the gun was found during inventory of the car he cost us the case. I think that is a much better reason to get your procedures right than that you might lose some community prestige from no longer being a volunteer cop.
quote:We all know how easy it is to be a corrupt cop, and get paid for a job you don't have to do to the best of your ability, with the potential for extra income in the form of bribes.
And you think this would improve with the elimination of salary and benifits?
No, what would happen is that the "volunteer" police force would more likely attract the very people we need to be protected from. Every yahoo with a power trip would be on the force and now they'd have a legitimate (to them) excuse to be scrutinizing their neighbors.
Sounds like a recipe for a thugocracy, to me.
Posts: 6394 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
We permit and sometimes compel police officers to protect our interests so long as we are law-abiding citizens, and sometimes even when we're not. Thus you cannot have a diluted system like the one you're describing. The responsibilities are too serious, and the consequences too severe for failure.
Oh, and don't speed, and you won't get 'hassled'. Those big white signs with the black numbers on them? Limit, not suggestion is what it says.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
this sounds like a terrible idea. I don't want all the people the police force rejects because of power issues, mental instability, gun fetishes, vendettas, or other shady behavior to suddenly become a volunteer police officer. I even imagine the havoc this proposal would cause. I'd just love to have members of various gangs issued guns and badges to protect my streets... not! How would any citizen be able to trust a police officer when there are no safeguards. Trust is already becoming an issue with lots of safeguards in place. This will only exacerbate the problem a 1000 fold.
Posts: 416 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Many communities have a police auxilary to do ride alongs, and some of the community based activities that CdE describes. They often do a lot of good, and the price is right. But, it is still an auxilary. The participants need lots of screening, as the function tends to attract the "bully" types that also can give professional police a bad name unless they are screened by a proper selection process.
Posts: 1167 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Check around the world. The lower paid the police are, the more likely they are to succumb to corruption.
They have such things now in parts of Iraq--they are called MILITIAS.
How long would it be before some political group or religious group would volunteer there biggest and toughest members to be policemen? Then they would virutally grab control of the area--harrasing those of different parties/religions, and enforcing their own view.
See the cop gaurding the voting booth. He enters with you and says.
"Yep, you can vote Labor if you want, but me, I've got a gun and a ticket book, and I suggest you vote Torri."
You say, "Hey, its illegal to be in here?" He responds, "Where's a cop when you need one?" as he begins to break your voting hand.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:We all know how easy it is to be a corrupt cop, and get paid for a job you don't have to do to the best of your ability, with the potential for extra income in the form of bribes.
I don't know that at all.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, a good number of libertarians. There are also libertarians who hold out that a free market of security providers would naturally emerge and result in better policing than is currently available. I prefer to refer to them as "those who have never opened a history book".
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Zeugma: Do you really believe that the only function police serve is to hassle you with speeding tickets?
Either fortunately or unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what the police are there to do in certain parts of the country. They talk about how this is a source of revenue for the city or town... And I wonder how many salaries need to be justified by a handful of parking tickets every month, I'm guessing its ALOT more than is needed to enforce parking. Once again a beaurocracy proves to be the most adaptable species on Earth, "Our job is obsolete? Don't worry! We'll FIND something to do!"
Then there is the whole issue of a big police department like NYC with thousands of cops and the culture that can arise from a certain group "in-breeding" policy and political views until you get the kind of injustices that have led to rioting in American cities over the last 60 years.
Just consider this: A good amount of what the DEA and ATF do is investigate grow and smuggling operations for marijuana, but if marijuana trade was legalized tommorrow, no-one in those organizations would lose his job; there would just be a "sudden outbreak," of a new danger to our society... and thank God we have these Feds sitting around looking for something to do.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can tell you as a matter of fact from firsthand experience working with the ATF that "a good amount" of our time is most definately not spent on anything related to marijuana in the least. 99% of ATFs time is spent in pursuit of other problems.
posted
i have a simple solution to all our problems.
Declare a blanket Martial Law across the entire country and have the army play bad cop, crime would drop like a rock, you steal a tv set, *BAM^ M16 round to the head, torso and left arm.
This would allow you to shrink the police force by about 2/3's using the remaining to investigate disturbers of the peace, arrest underground extremists hell bent on disturbing order and critizing government policy.
They're work would be secret as to prevent the targets from knowing their being watched, but the result is that soon no one will question the job of the military protecting our citizens.
posted
I don't know where you live cheiros, but around here *we need the cops*. I don't know if you've heard of MS13 but we got it pretty bad in Manassas. That and all the armed robbery going on in my neighborhood, I'm glad we have cops. A civil police force? If you ask me it wouldn't get very far. It would be more like a Tupperware Party and less actual enforcing. There was this thing called the Gaurdian Angels. I read about it once. All these dudes up in Fairfax would just go around at night and talk to thugs, clean up graffitti, and monitor police frequencies. They would talk to kids about drugs and stuff like that. They were pretty cool, but they couldn't really arrest anybody I don't think. That and no one took them seriously.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
maybe I am, maybe I'm not, Maybe I'm being satirical.
quote:Well, a good number of libertarians. There are also libertarians who hold out that a free market of security providers would naturally emerge and result in better policing than is currently available. I prefer to refer to them as "those who have never opened a history book".
Michael Badnarik, the last libertarian presidential candidate, believed in privatizing the police force. It worries me that he was able to win the bid given this belief. As a libertarian, I would like to believe that the majority of the party is well educated and rational. His candidacy inspires doubt.
And privitizing police in the manner you suggest is a horrible idea. I like having an organized police force that I can rely on. Volunteerism may be cheap, but it is in no way reliable.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think what cheiros is really upset about, if I am understanding his arguments, is that traffic cops are a waste of time and money. I tend to agree. They either need to improve methods and be more consistant, or look at new ways to enforce laws that are less than serious. They are never there when you need them and always there when you don't.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Either fortunately or unfortunately, that is EXACTLY what the police are there to do in certain parts of the country.
How many cops do you know? Done many ride-alongs? Sat and listened to a police scanner for more than five minutes?
Cops do a lot more than just write tickets. Even cops that work exclusively traffic do a lot more, one of the most important functions they have is to work wrecks - many are also trained EMS first responders who save lives of people injured in traffic accidents. And you may be annoyed when you get a speeding ticket but there's an easy way to avoid that - don't speed. Not only do you no longer have the worry of getting pulled over but you'll save gas and money.
My stepfather was a cop and I know many cops now - cops and firefighters tend to be buddies. Even in our small town, with very little crime, our police officers are busy. Domestic calls (which are very dangerous for the officer), investigating the occasional theft or other non-violent crime, and yes directing traffic at the school and writing tickets for people who don't obey traffic laws.
Traffic laws may seem an annoyance to you but they save lives. The reason the speed limit is 20 mph in a school zone is to protect children. And traffic laws need to be enforced and that's one of the functions of a police department. Just one though - they do much, much more than that and I frankly believe they are seriously underpaid.
You hear a lot of noise about how teachers are underpaid in our society (and I agree with that) but what you often don't hear is that in many places in the country a school teacher starts out at pay much higher than does a new police officer or a firefighter. And that's a real, real shame. In Birmingham a beginning teacher starts at $32,000. Police and fire start at around $20,000.
Posts: 14428 | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I won't go into it (much) but what Belle says is true. Firefighters (particularly entry-level small town firefighters) aren't paid much at all. That's one reason my husband enlisted in the Army rather than continue his pursuit of firefighting (he has an Associate's Degree in Fire Technology, which is kind of cool to bring up at parties *grin*).
And the Army doesn't want to be the police, Blayne Bradley, that's what we have police for.
Even on Military Bases, the Military Police are a highly specialized, highly trained force. You would think, living in a fenced community, we'd have less crime , but crime happens here, too.
A police force cannot be solely staffed by volunteers, no matter how many weekends of training they participate in.
(I know I dangled participles all over the place, but I'm supposed to be paying bills and I'm trying to type fast so I can get back to it--mea culpa *grin*)
Posts: 1545 | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by prolixshore: I can tell you as a matter of fact from firsthand experience working with the ATF that "a good amount" of our time is most definately not spent on anything related to marijuana in the least. 99% of ATFs time is spent in pursuit of other problems.
--ApostleRadio
How many people in your organization? They don't all have your job. What is 1% of a million man hours... how much does that cost?
Edit: I am not extremely familiar with what the ATF does all told... other than the obvious words in the achronym, but how much time do the DEA and FBI spend on this?
How much of the trade in illegal fire-arms is fueled by the black market drug trade? How many of your operations are connected to that problem?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
In the end, the law serves only those who follow it. I can see the merit and understand the ideas behind this debate. The police force is flawed in many ways, and millions of dollars are wasted. However, the police force is the only thing available to us that would work. Therefore, more time and money needs to be spent on cleaning up and fixing the system, and tying up some loose ends. Traffic police occasionaly cross the line, but their job is safety, for all who drive. If this means ticketing someone for speeding slightly, maybe this should send a message to those who speed. Just some thoughts.
Posts: 1594 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
ATFs main function these days is to deal with Firearms(obviously), arson, and explosives. In fact the acronym is misleading as the actual title is Bureau of Alcohol, Tobbaco, Firearms, and Explosives. You are correct, many people do not have my job. About half the ATFs manpower is spent on Investigators. The name is misleading though, investigators do little to no investigating. Their main function is to serve as liasons to Federal Firearms Licensees. They audit the books for firearms manufacturers and sellers, as well as process applications for these licenses. This half of ATF comes into zero contact with anything related to drugs.
Each office has one Special Agent assigned to arson investigation. Remember the church fires a couple months ago? That was an ATF case. In my experience and to my knowledge, most arsons are unrelated to marijuana.
The other Special Agents spend most of their time in pursuit of one of three categories of criminal activity: illegal arms trafficking, picking up local cases of felons in possession of firearms, and dealing with manufacturors who illegally modify firearms as per ATF policy. I would estimate that 80% of all ATF cases come from felon in possession charges. These cases may involve drugs, but only in the sense that the felon may have been convicted of drug crimes in the past, which is why he is a felon, or because the local police picked him up in a drug related crime, but felt it was easier to pass him along to the Feds for the gun charge. Obviously the firearms manufacturing cases have little to do with marijuana.
As far as arms trafficking goes, the general pattern looks like this: guns are purchased by straw purchasers in an area where guns are cheap. They are then delivered to areas where guns can be sold for more money, such as NYC or LA. The guns are sold, and some of the time the money is used to purchase drugs which are cheaper in big drug cities than in other areas. These drugs can then be shipped back and sold before purchasing more weapons. Now, sometimes the drug is marijuana, sometimes it is something else. I would not say, however, that the ATF is targeting these people for their drug crimes. We aren't even charging them with drug crimes unless the gun case is weak. Then we may pass the case on to DEA. As far as the agents are concerned, the case is about guns, not drugs.
Here's where the confusion and misconception comes in about ATF being involved with drug crimes. When a big or dangerous operation goes down, ATF and DEA will help each other out to provide manpower for backup. In my office, there are 6 agents. These six agents cover a jurisdiction containing over 3 million people. That's a difficult job. When, as happened a couple months back, you need to go out and arrest 75 members of a gun smuggling ring on one day, you need a little help. So we call in the guys from the DEA office and we call in whatever local police we can get. In return, the DEA can call us in for large or dangerous drug busts, such as the one they had a few weeks back where 40 people were arrested in one day (meth, not marijuana. Sorry to dissapoint).
This gives the impression that ATF is out working drug cases, but I assure you that we are not. It isn't our purpose, our mission, or our jurisdiction. When we come across a case that involves mainly drugs, we give it to DEA.
As far as DEA is concerned, obviously they deal with drugs. That is their purpose. I do not have firsthand experience of how their organization operates, but I do have family that work for DEA, so I could ask for some general numbers if you like. From my vantage point working alongside DEA personnel, I would say that in most areas they are not particularly concentrating on marijuana unless it is very large quantities. I say in most areas because I know there are several offices in places like Kentucky that have a major focus on marijuana cultivation because there are large fields of it being grown in their area. Like I said, when I next talk to my family I can get you a rough estimate of how much time a large, urban DEA office spends on marijuana crimes. I imagine it will be much less than you think.
As to your comment that if marijuana were legalized, nobody at ATF or DEA would lose their job, I imagine that you are 100% correct. This is simply because ATF does not deal with marijuana crimes in the first place, so there would be no reason for ATF Agents to be fired. In the case of DEA, I suspect that nobody would be fired because there are still a number of other drugs that would remain illegal. Drugs that have a vast market in the United States and would require the same manpower in order to investigate and prosecute. In case you hadn't noticed, there are a lot of people using and selling drugs that have not been stopped by the DEA, so I see no reason to fire people if just one of those drugs became legal.
--ApostleRadio
EDIT: Blast. When talking about positions within ATF I left out management, who is never out in the field doing anything. I also left out the Technical Branch, who test and approve new firearms designs, as well as classify parts to determine what does and does not constitute a firearm. I also left out legal council, who handles legal issues during important trials. Secretaries, recruiters, and trainers also exist, and their job descriptions are pretty self-explanatory.
EDIT PART 2: Just so you know, I left out the FBI on purpose. This is for two reasons: 1. Those guys are a bunch of losers. 2. The FBI has jurisdiction over so many types of crimes that I could not begin to estimate how much time is spent on marijuana in comparison to bank robbing, terrorism, kidnapping, fraud, and all the other things they investigate. As I understand it, however, the FBI is having trouble in the last couple years keeping up with all its other cases because so many hours are spent on terrorism. I suspect, though I cannot say for certain, that marijuana related crimes is one of the first areas to be neglected in favor of terrorism. Don't quote me on that, though.
Very thorough, I think I begin to understand better. It would seem I was correct in my assertion that you do work to stop illegal drugs, as you ARE paid to help the DEA and that is at least a part of your job. Though it seems for the ATF, this would not be something that justifies your salary or your position.
Despite this, I do notice that you say gun trafficking does have to do with the drug trade, yet you ignore this part of the investigation. Though you may ignore it and it may not effect YOU, obviously the drug trade does encourage and support the crimes you DO investigate, so they are causelly connected. Therefore if drug policies were ammended to somehow reduce the likelihood of violence (I don't know how exactly to do that, but I suspect its possible), then your job might indeed change.
You seem to agree with my overall premise, but obviously I am not clear on the heirarchy of federal agencies (who can be these days?). Would you say that ammending the federal drug policies to better reflect the known realities of drug addiction and the drug culture would change the way the Feds work, and spend the tax-payers resources? I say this assuming you agree that even if the current policies are born of good intentions, they do foster a multi-billion dollar illegal trade in this country. I think that this could and would change even your job.
My uncle actually works for DHS, as a consultant on urban bio-terrorism. Though he obviously doesn't discuss his job in detail, he has said the same thing as you say, that the feds generally spend more and more time to often less effect on terrorism these days. He sites the complexity of the intelligence networks, and the incompleteness of any one group's understanding of a large situation.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think you mischaracterize what I said about gun trade. I said that SOMETIMES gun traffickers are or are involved with drug traffickers. I would characterize it as more of a business model than a relationship between violence and drugs. This is not to say that there is no relationship between violence and drugs, just to say that the people who are in it for profit generally engage in trafficking both items to increase profit. Perhaps other people do not see it that way, but I know that most ATF auditors look at it like a business model. From the ATF perspective, however, it is the guns that are important, not the drugs.
It isn't neccessarily a hierarchy problem. Since the restructuring after 911, ATF is under the umbrella of DHS, while DEA remains under DOJ. ATF prior to 911 was a part of the Treasury Department, since its origins stem from the prohibition era. The whole thing is complicated, but basically every agency fights exhaustively for its jurisdiction, refusing to give an inch to other agencies who may or may not have equal claim to a particular case. Some organizations work better than others, which is why I make disparaging comments about the FBI. Most agents I know, regardless of agency or hierarchy, believe the FBI does not have its act together in terms of information sharing and organization. There are problems.
As far as federal drug policies go, obviously there are problems. Some of these policies do foster the underground market, and some of them (from my perspective) serve to increase the violence we see related to drug trade. Personally, I would have little problem if marijuana were made legal. That doesn't go for many/most other drugs though. I would be against, for example, the legalization of heroin or cocaine or methamphetamines. The legalization of marijuana doesn't bother me, although I would continue to stay away from the stuff myself. In the meantime, I say as long as the stuff is illegal, that's that. Don't do it. If you want it legalized, work in every capacity to change the minds of your lawmakers from the local to state to federal levels. That's the beauty of democracy. My guess is that marijuana will be either legal or the laws will no longer be enforced within a relatively short span of time.
I am always in favor of amending policies to make them work better. The river of public policy is slow to change, and there are many times I wish it would become more adaptable. My current job would not be affected by this, as my duties do not include firearms even remotely related to drugs, but my (hopefully) future job would be tangentially affected by changes within these policies, hopefully for the better.
NOTE: I left out my job in the above list of positions and responsibilities. You don't get to know what I do. Suffice it to say that what I do is very low on the totem of priorities, although if I had my way it would move its way up the ladder. I'm working on that. In the future I hope to move up to a different position.
--ApostleRadio
EDIT: I'm not quite sure I am reading your comment correctly about justifying our position and salary. Do you believe the ATF is overpaid or has too much priority? If so, I will gladly list you numerous reasons I believe this agency is neccessary and and justly compensated. We are able to do a lot of things that no other agency can. The expertise present and required in the ATF is something that other agencies would be hard pressed to match without spending a great deal of money on special training and hiring whole new classes of agents to meet the increased workload. We have a lot of guns in this country.
posted
Plorixshore- Thanks for the info, its interesting to hear from someone in the ATF.
"Though it seems for the ATF, this would not be something that justifies your salary or your position." - is meant to read: this isn't your main job, or the main reason you are employed, so your job doesn't depend on it.
"From the ATF perspective, however, it is the guns that are important, not the drugs."- Prolixshore
As it did before, this statment seems a bit odd to me. You look at the drug/guns connection as part of a big bussiness in which people do both, but what about the customers who buy the guns? Aren't those people likely to be involved in the drug trade? If there was no market for the drugs, seems to me there would be a smaller market for the guns. Though I know this connection may be unimportant in the effort to stop large-scale gun importation, it still seems an important factor to be aware of. I'm sure you are aware of it of course, I just wonder if there is somewhere else especially that these guns are going in the end-market. Who buys them if not gangs, terrorists and mobsters? (all of whom can be involved in the drug trade as well).
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's my fault, I suppose. I was not making my point clear last night. Sorry.
Yes, many, many, many times the people who are purchasing these guns are also involved in the drug trade. That much is obvious to anyone, whether within or without the system. This is why I said our jobs would be tangentially affected by drug policy changes. I guess the disconnect comes from two areas. First, I am not convinced that any policy short of legalizing all drugs (a policy I would not support) would put an end to the connection between guns and drugs in terms of urban gangs. Gangs have been associated with violence and have existed long before the illegal drug trade was a part of the equation. This is not to say that enrollment in gangs has not gone seriously up in recent decades because of drugs, just to point out that they have been around and doing business long before drugs or prohibition were the problem. Second, not all gun rings are involved with drugs. Some are simply about people who want illegal weapons. The case I mentioned before where we arrested 75 people was definately a drug case. These folks were buying cheap HiPoints and selling them in NYC to drug organizations. On the other hand, the biggest and most important case we have sent to trial in my time at ATF involved illegal guns, some from the former Soviet Union and some that were illegally modified American weapons, being sent across the country to buyers. The buyers in this case were anything from college professors to stock market experts to other gun manufacturers who wanted to copy the designs. This had nothing to do with drugs and everything to do with ATF and Congressional regulation policy.
There is a third type of arms trade, which is the oft feared international arms dealers. This can, and often does (especially if we are talking about arms trade from certain sections of the globe) involve drugs. There is, however, an equally dangerous type of trade which unfortunately I cannot discuss here. I know that seems like a cop out. Honestly though, I know a few examples of this type of case, but I can't discuss them because they are classified above even my level. In other words, I'm not supposed to know about them, so I could get in trouble for letting you know about them. All the other information I have discussed here is readily available to the public in the form of press releases.
posted
Prolix- How do you feel about British-style strong gun control? What would that do to the gun trade? What would it do to terrorism, the drug trade, street violence, and domestic violence, IYO?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I can't say that I know all the ins and outs of the British system, but I can say that I am very much in favor of stronger gun control. We have too many guns to deal with in this country. I don't think it will ever happen, but I think that really cracking down on guns with serious gun control policies would go a long way to seriously help out with drug related violence, street violence, and domestic violence.
People say that stronger gun control would be meaningless, as it would just create a black market for guns. I say that if you look around us we already have a vast black market for guns based on the existing gun laws, so this is a non-argument for me. Yes, we would continue to have illegal arms traders, but we would at least be making it more difficult by taking away the very simple practice of finding straw purchasers. Some idiot buys a gun with money from a trafficker and makes 50 bucks, and two weeks later that gun is used in a robbery 12 states away. It's too easy.
It's an unpopular position to take in this country, but I wouldn't really mind incredibly strong gun control laws that would pretty much make all guns illegal. It wouldn't bother me one bit, but I know that few other people see it that way, including those within my own organization. Besides that, depending on the way you read it, it may be unconstitutional. I say may be because there are interpretations that would allow for such laws.
How would you feel about it, Orin? I'm interested to know what you think could be done to help out with the gun problem. And thank you for mentioning domestic violence in your question. I think we overlook that area far too often and with disastrous consequences. One of the 9 conditions that can make you ineligible to posses firearms according to federal firearms laws is to be convicted of a misdemeanor domestic violence charge. It is the least popular and least enforced of the 9 laws. It is something that my office is trying to make a priority right now, and we are attempting to convince other offices in the region to adopt our programs.
posted
See, I think at this point, stronger gun control is useless. I think had we begun as a country with very strict gun control, it might be different.
But that's not the only reason I'm against gun control.
posted
A lot of the illegal guns in this country are coming from across the border. So it's useless if we step up on gun control because most of the people doing the shooting are getting their guns elsewhere. Once guns get into the streets its almost impossible to trace them. If you ask me, gun control is just a waste of time and money.
Posts: 1158 | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Some of the guns are coming from across the border. Most guns used in commission of a crime were bought right here in the USA.
pH, you are correct. Had we started with stricter gun control, we would be in better shape. But I don't think it is too late to start. It may, and probably will, take a few generations for the difference to be made, but I believe it would eventually make a difference.
posted
There weren't any police anywhere until around 1830-something, so it's obvious human society can exist without them. Whether *our* society can, I don't know. Anonymity is so much easier now.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think anyone was saying that society cannot exist without police, merely that it cannot exist with the same state of security. Police history is relatively new, to be sure. The first paid security officers came into existence in 1663, with the first professional police department appearing in Scotland in 1800. Many people consider the true beginning to be in 1829 with Sir Robert Peel and the Metropolitan Police Act.
The point is, these new systems are better than the old Hue and Cry of yore. Policing is getting better even now, with some really great policies being seen in the more progressive police forces. We are just now starting to see the great ideas of the Chicago School of Sociology being truly applied to police work in order to actually take a proactive approach to crime. Give it a few decades and I think you will see the value of policing rise dramatically across the country.
posted
Prolix- I have been long in favor of very strong gun control. I have heard the constitutional arguments, and I can understand the interpretation which allows for incredible freedom in gun ownership, but I think very often people forget that that constitution needs to change in order to face new realities.
The 2nd ammendment was written in the time of the cap and ball, the powder horn and the revolutionary minute-man. You simply can't ignore that change: What is a gun today? Does it bear any resemblence to what the framers of the constitution envisioned? The utility and vital nature of the cap and ball musket was clear: you had to be able to hunt for food, to form a militia and fight the red-coats, or the Mexican army, or the French. We simply don't live that way anymore, and yet we continue to manufacture more and more powerful guns. The result obviously being that your more likely to shoot a family member than a British oppressor, FAR more likely.
I believe in the constitution because it has an incredible track record of ultimately doing what is right for our society. Part of that versatility is its openness to reinterpretation and modification when times change. Times have REALLY changed since the 2nd ammendment, and so have guns. I would be in favor of a very powerful restriction on guns, which allowed for the ownership of guns for legitimate purposes only, but NOT for home security or personal protection. What those legitamite purposes are would be quite limited: a rifle for hunting, a single shot handgun for shooting contests, if you must have them at all. These legitimate uses would need to be closely run.
The oft heard argument is that you wouldn't allow someone to own a vile full of ebola virus to fling on their attackers, because the effect would be out of proportion to the situation at hand. I am for people being able to defend themselves reasonably, and mace or pepper-spray, even stunners seem viable alternatives. If the industry which builds guns were forced to turn their attention to viable and useful non-lethal defenses, there would already be many more alternatives to the 9mm as a way of defending your family.
About Cop-culture Prolix- I have so often heard that cops are criminals who went legit. You always hear that a good cop understands the side of people that makes them criminal, but for whatever reason the cop is on the side of the law. Perhaps it is the allure of authority which attracts the would be thug into a life of policing. Maybe its none of that, but I would like to know the number of cops who are would-be criminals. I wonder if the number of cops who turn into criminals is higher than the number of civilians who do. Something tells me it is the vicinity to crime and corruption which alters the corrupt cop's perception, making petty corruption seem ok, even necessary.
I was watching the commentary to "Goodfellas," a few months back, with the real Henry Hill and the real FBI agent talking about the movie. Hill said that he did everything in his whole life, socialized only with mobsters, so that eventually what they did seem so normal to him, it was hard to believe that the world didn't work that way after all. It took him many years before he stopped thinking and scheming like a criminal. I wonder if the cop culture can be like this, where eventually the "rules" of behavior get re-written so many times, and the culture gets so complex that moral perspectives are different for cops.
I don't know, I'd like to hear from a real cop about these things.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, in the interest of full disclosure, I am not currently nor have I ever been a "real cop," though I will be in the future and I'll be sure to let you know if my opinions change on the matter. As it stands, I have long associated with cops of all breeds and levels, and so I feel that I can speak on behalf of at least some of them, based on what they have told me.
It cannot be denied that spending your life immersed in the nasty part of society will affect your view of things. This is true even of me, and I haven't spent so long involved in all of it. Perhaps for some cops, spending all their time with criminals causes them to think of criminal behavior to be normal. Hmmm. I would say it this way. I have seen a tendency to start thinking one of two ways. Some cops end up viewing everyone as a potential criminal, because their worldview becomes skewed that everyone is a problem and everyone is against them. This can negatively affect their jobs, but I would say it has a greater negative effect on their personal lives. Viewing everyone as innately bad is not good for making friends. The other way it can go is the way you described above, where the cop begins to see criminal behavior as normal and eventually acceptable behavior. I don't think this happens as often though. There really aren't that many truly corrupt officers out there, although there are still way more than there should be in an ideal world. Keep in mind that there are literally hundreds of thousands of police officers in this country. Most of them are doing their jobs correctly.
As for what drives a person to become a cop, it varies. Just as people are driven to become businessmen, actors, astronauts, and politicians for different reasons, so it goes for people in law enforcement. I know folks who are in it because of specific events in their lives that make them want to protect others from that occurence. Some people do it because they are drawn to power and want the authority to legally bully people. For myself, I found that I was drawn to the legal profession from the time I was about 11 years old. I have a great respect for the law of this country, and I want to do all that I can to uphold and respect it. I also have a need for public service to this country, driven by patriotism and a core sense of right and wrong that I have never been able to put aside.
As far as those who are drawn to police work because they are power junkies and enjoy bully tactics, there is good news. A few departments around the country have instituted and are working out the kinks in systems designed to weed these people out. It isn't perfect, obviously, but there are new programs that use computer statistical analysis of an officers conduct during stops, searches, arrests, or any other function to determine what his or her biases or problems may be. These systems are being used as early warning detectors for problem cops, so that they may be given extra training on their specific problem, or be reprimanded. A couple of these departments are taking it seriously enough that people have lost their jobs after a certain number of warnings when they refuse to change their patterns. This is a good thing, to me.
I have no respect for cops who choose to break the law, especially in their official duties. A man who is like a brother to me is a DEA agent who recently made an arrest with two of his partners. One of the subjects ran and when his two partners caught him, resisted arrest, throwing punches and kicks their way. They subdued him, but then continued hitting him after he was down and stopped. My dear friend did his duty, however unpopular and horrible it may have been, and reported their behavior. I do not know what will come of it, but I am proud of him in the extreme. Cops who break the law should be punished to the utmost of the law. We wouldn't respect a doctor who made people sick instead of helping them, or a mechanic who broke your car instead of fixing it, so we shouldn't respect officers who break the law instead of enforcing it.
It colors your reality, that is for sure. It takes something special to be able to seperate police work from the rest of your life, and many officers don't have what it takes. Some end up beating their wives, others turn to drinking. I pray that I never end up like them.
But simply because there are some in the law enforcement business who turn into bad apples doesn't mean we should abandon the endeavor altogether. As I said, new policies are being tested in terms of training, hiring, and monitoring police officers. At the same time, new policies are in effect at various departments across the nation that are doing true good for their communities. As Will pointed out, professional policing is a very new concept, and we are still working toward perfecting the art. Things will continue to improve as time goes on. We need all the fresh new faces we are seeing in leadership positions to shake things up. This is happening, and hopefully it will continue to happen. I am proud to be a part of all that. It isn't perfect, but what system is?
posted
That's very interesting, what you say about altering patterns in behavior. Its really interesting to me to hear that in fact this obvious personality problem isn't going to be completely buried by a beaurocracy that protects its own.
This is the main reason I've never really liked cops in my own life. I've only known a few, but each was very much the type of person I didn't want to associate with long term. Whether their world view is sour and dim, or their attitudes and egos have turned them into officious blow-hards, I've actually never met a cop who I really liked.
Its something very closely connected with public service that I've observed in my short years. I worked for my teen years as a camp councelor for a small city, so I was thrown into some training and education situations with the local cops, firemen, city employees, etc. I always noticed that people who worked for the city seemed to fall into a few categories. Some of them were blow-hardy and full of pep about how important their work was. This was sometimes fine, and sometimes annoying. The other group had a dismall outlook, constantly sighting problems with money, time, or the unchangeable vagaries of life. Either way, very few seemed particularly well adjusted individuals.
There was always something about working for a city that bugged me: it felt like every single employee was carrying the crushing burden of their duty and an inability to affect change, while at the same time everybody was seized with a restless urgency to change things. So you have people who think they can't do anything, who sit around all jittery and nervous about their own innaction.
This is a normal little town outside of San Francisco, and it just felt like all these people thought they were getting ready for the end of the world. Change was scary, but keeping things the same sucked too, everybody was pretty negative. I'm glad I moved now, that town wasn't right for me; and while I love to go and visit with my parents there, I'll never move back.
edit: I also recall that this was all going on in the few years after 9/11. Why this event would so acutely affect a small municipality in California I have no idea, but I do think it was a national pall we were dealing with, especially in those few years afterward. I don't know how things might have been, say, in the 80s or 90s.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thats ironic you said you lived in a little city outside of San Fransico because I believe I remember some of those cities names. Let's see Richmond, Vallejo, and i might as well throw Oakland in there too. These little towns outside San Fransico have had 3 of the last 10 years most murders per capita in the United States. Since I kind of live in one of these neighborhoods I might see how some city workers might get stressed out. I mean if a police officer doesnt want to tell me jokes after he gets done with a shootout with some drug dealers down the street I think I'll forgive him, but hey I live the sheltered life. I just hope I dont get a ticket
Posts: 29 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You misunderstand. I am talking about one of the VERY small municipalities on the peninsula, no murders, very little crime. Populations less than 6,000.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
Once again a beaurocracy proves to be the most adaptable species on Earth, "Our job is obsolete? Don't worry! We'll FIND something to do!"
