How would you respond to this statement?

[DaveInOroValley]

sounds pretty accurate to me

[nickvig]

I thought that statement was in reference to a court case (Cal Supreme maybe??) where the police had been sued for not responding in a timely manner and the outcome of that. I'm sure someone else can respond better, my google-fu is not working today.

[lugar]

I agree that "Police protection is an oxymoron." is a ridiculous statement. Police provide protection merely by existing. They keep honest people honest and BGs nervous. Thank you all.
I also agree with "Free citizens must protect themselves." I think most of us do including meangreen.
This statement "Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess." oversimplifies and demeans without purpose.

[Samuelx]

This might wander a little bit but there is an overall point.

There is no arguing that having patrol officers around town deter a lot of crime,

It's more than just "having patrol officers around town" (although mere presence can and does make a little difference). Me and my partners are ACTIVELY targeting pieces of work and impacting their daily routines. E.g. If we can take a car away from a criminal, it makes it a little more difficult for them to get around - and/or their radius of criminal behavior can be drastically lessened. E.g. Every POS that we detain/arrest for 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days, 5 weeks, 5 years means 5 more minutes, hours, days, weeks, years that he/she ISN'T out there committing crimes, victimizing people/society. ETC.

but the punishment part of the justice system serves as a strong deterrent as well.

IMO, punishment for doing wrong is not nearly Swift enough Nor SEVERE enough. There is barely any deterrent for lawbreakers, especially the hardcore or worst of the worst ones, NOT to do bad things.

So does having a strong community and neighborhood watch programs. However we see in California the community is fractured, in many places even non-existent, to make matters worse there are whole groups of law-abiding folks who don't trust the police.

Lots of reasons for not trusting - media portrayal, bad apples on the force, lack of responsibility by many law-abiding folks, a lack of knowledge and/or understanding by law-abiding folks, etc. That being said, I NEVER had a negative opinion of LE - even when I was being detained or ticketed.

Somehow we need to get back to the way it was, when police officers were part of the community, I think in many cities they are not viewed as such, they are different.

People forget that LEOs are people too. People forget that LEOs were not always sworn. Some LEOs have forgotten that they were once "regular" people too. It can be tough to be a part of a community when we barely have time to chat a bit with the community.

I love how police refer to non-police persons as "civilians" when they are in fact civilians themselves. The only people who are not civilians are members of the armed forces.

I just say "non-LEOs".

But when it comes to violent crime, if you can't protect yourself, then you have to wait until someone can arrive that can.

I am all for people being able to protect themselves and their loved ones.

I believe that regular folks and LEOs should work together to keep things safe,

Agree. My understanding is that's what Sir Robert Peel had in mind.

the cops can't do it on their own, the more they try the more it violates our rights.

Strongly disagree. Examples please.

Without a law enforcement mechanism you end up with vigilantism. Neither concept is conducive to a free society.

IMO, without LE, you end up with Anarchy.

LEOs are part of the community, they need to be treated as such. As equals.

LE/community relations is a two way street. That being said, the public needs to understand that LEOs have jobs to do and that sometimes they (the public) may be inconvenienced during the performance of our duties.

[POLICESTATE]

LE/community relations is a two way street. That being said, the public needs to understand that LEOs have jobs to do and that sometimes they (the public) may be inconvenienced during the performance of our duties

Originally Posted by POLICESTATE View Post
This might wander a little bit but there is an overall point.

There is no arguing that having patrol officers around town deter a lot of crime,

It's more than just "having patrol officers around town" (although mere presence can and does make a little difference). Me and my partners are ACTIVELY targeting pieces of work and impacting their daily routines. E.g. If we can take a car away from a criminal, it makes it a little more difficult for them to get around - and/or their radius of criminal behavior can be drastically lessened. E.g. Every POS that we detain/arrest for 5 minutes, 5 hours, 5 days, 5 weeks, 5 years means 5 more minutes, hours, days, weeks, years that he/she ISN'T out there committing crimes, victimizing people/society. ETC.
All good points

but the punishment part of the justice system serves as a strong deterrent as well.

IMO, punishment for doing wrong is not nearly Swift enough Nor SEVERE enough. There is barely any deterrent for lawbreakers, especially the hardcore or worst of the worst ones, NOT to do bad things.

Yeah, I'm all for swift and effective punishment. I also think we should apply the death penalty to a bit more than what we do now. However I think we should clear out the prisons/jails for victimless crimes, and decriminalize victimless BS


So does having a strong community and neighborhood watch programs. However we see in California the community is fractured, in many places even non-existent, to make matters worse there are whole groups of law-abiding folks who don't trust the police.

Lots of reasons for not trusting - media portrayal, bad apples on the force, lack of responsibility by many law-abiding folks, a lack of knowledge and/or understanding by law-abiding folks, etc. That being said, I NEVER had a negative opinion of LE - even when I was being detained or ticketed.
Most of my LEO contacts have been just fine, I know others who have been subjects to fishing expedition just for walking a dog at 2am, but Fremont PD are kind of... Police Statish?

Somehow we need to get back to the way it was, when police officers were part of the community, I think in many cities they are not viewed as such, they are different.

People forget that LEOs are people too. People forget that LEOs were not always sworn. Some LEOs have forgotten that they were once "regular" people too. It can be tough to be a part of a community when we barely have time to chat a bit with the community.
I don't, however I also recognize that some LEOs seem to think of themselves as more equal than the rest of us?

I love how police refer to non-police persons as "civilians" when they are in fact civilians themselves. The only people who are not civilians are members of the armed forces.

I just say "non-LEOs".

But when it comes to violent crime, if you can't protect yourself, then you have to wait until someone can arrive that can.

I am all for people being able to protect themselves and their loved ones.
I think most LEOs would feel this way, however the DA's, courts and legislatures (at least in CA) seem to disagree with this, sure they say this or that but their actions speak otherwise.

I believe that regular folks and LEOs should work together to keep things safe,

Agree. My understanding is that's what Sir Robert Peel had in mind.

the cops can't do it on their own, the more they try the more it violates our rights.

Strongly disagree. Examples please.
Oops, I meant they can't do it ALL on their own, I need to correct my post.

Without a law enforcement mechanism you end up with vigilantism. Neither concept is conducive to a free society.

IMO, without LE, you end up with Anarchy.
Not entirely, anarchy is only a temporary state, however my point it you need both a LE mechanism AND a strong community to effectively combat crime.

LEOs are part of the community, they need to be treated as such. As equals.

.

Responses in italics. I think perceptions on both sides of the argument need to be worked on. This is the main thrust of my point. To correct false perceptions. The media sure doesn't help, neither do hot-heads and neither do bad apples on the force.

[PsychGuy274]

This was found in another thread. I'm not trying to start a battle....just trying to gauge why I took it offensively and other posters are saying that it's not a big deal.

"Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the mess."

I agree with the other posters that the use of the term 'oxymoron' is a little too much, but it isn't a false statement just because the author had poor word choice.

Police do not have a legal obligation to protect individuals. Courts have ruled that way many times. See Warren v. District of Columbia, Riss v. City of New York, 22 N.Y.2d 579, 293 NYS2d 897, 240 N.E.2d 860 (N.Y. Ct. of Ap. 1958); Keane v. City of Chicago, 98 Ill. App.2d 460, 240 N.E.2d 321 (1968); Morgan v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 1306 (D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1983); Calogrides v. City of Mobile, 475 So.2d 560 (S.Ct. A;a. 1985); Morris v. Musser, 478 A.2d 937 (1984); Davidson v. City of Westminster, 32 C.3d 197, 185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894 (S.Ct. Cal. 1982); Chapman v. City of Philadelphia, 434 A.2d 753 (Sup.Ct. Penn. 1981); Weutrich v. Delia, 155 N.J. Super 324, 326, 382 A.2d 929, 930 (1978); Sapp v. City of Tallahassee, 348 So.2d 363 (Fla.Ct. of Ap. 1977); Simpson's Food Fair v. Evansville, 272 N.E. 2d 871 (Ind.Ct. of Ap.); Silver v. City of Minneapolis, 170 N.W.2d 206 (S.Ct. Minn. 1969) and Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 61 (7th Cir. 1982).

Please do not take my disagreement with you as 'cop bashing.' I work for a law enforcement agency as an unsworn officer and am moving to Houston, TX to pursue a career as a sworn LEO.

Working for a law enforcement agency and going on countless ride-alongs has shown me this...

Most cops go out of their way and throw themselves into dangerous situations to protect other people, even instances where no crime was being committed. I will also do that every chance I get.

I have also seen (rare, but still present) cops that refuse to inject themselves into life threatening situations. Legally, they are in the clear. Morality is a different thing all together and is a topic for a different discussion.

Even for officers who do go out of their way to protect people, in most instances there just aren't enough of them on the street. Obviously this is usually due to state budgets and not directly the fault of any LEA.

One night we had a massive concert in our area. All officers (sworn and unsworn) were working, all dispatchers were working and we had aid from four other counties. We were still back-logged with a three hour response time.

I personally feel that all law-abiding, consenting adults are "the police." I feel that the "real police" are just the ones who choose to make a career out of it. But then again, that would be a world filled with bunnies and rainbows and we, unfortunately, live in reality.

Just my .02