Posted on Jul 26, 2016
A Practical Solution: Run Police Departments Like Fire Departments
10.1K
63
56
1
1
0
I wish I could build a poll with a link in it. Do you think this is a practical solution the" right and left" can both agree on? LTC Yinon Weiss SSG James J. Palmer IV aka "JP4" Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS SSG Carlos Madden 1LT William Clardy MAJ Charles Blake
A Practical Solution: Run Police Departments Like Fire Departments
Posted from huffingtonpost.com
Police
Pistol Shooting
Crime
Law Enforcement
Law
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
6
6
0
3
3
0
Initial Thoughts.
Traffic Enforcement. We have largely turned this into a Civil matter (Civil Fines as opposed to Criminal), which means that our Police are being used in a Predatory fashion on the Citizenry. On top of that, we have linked Financial Punishment to Traffic Enforcement, which means that Police have become a Revenue Source.
This is wrong.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have beat cops or patrolling cops. But I can definitely argue that cops should not be a source of revenue for the State. That is a clear conflict of interest to the People.
The issue with Traffic Enforcement is the inherent danger involved, therefore we use cops to do it. This makes it an Escalation of Force issue.
Could a "stationary" police service work? Sure. We do it with our military. We do it with retail. We do it with the service industry. You preposition locations based on high threat areas, and place smaller outposts in less populated areas. You give the cops a vehicle for calls as they come in.
Traffic Enforcement. We have largely turned this into a Civil matter (Civil Fines as opposed to Criminal), which means that our Police are being used in a Predatory fashion on the Citizenry. On top of that, we have linked Financial Punishment to Traffic Enforcement, which means that Police have become a Revenue Source.
This is wrong.
I'm not saying we shouldn't have beat cops or patrolling cops. But I can definitely argue that cops should not be a source of revenue for the State. That is a clear conflict of interest to the People.
The issue with Traffic Enforcement is the inherent danger involved, therefore we use cops to do it. This makes it an Escalation of Force issue.
Could a "stationary" police service work? Sure. We do it with our military. We do it with retail. We do it with the service industry. You preposition locations based on high threat areas, and place smaller outposts in less populated areas. You give the cops a vehicle for calls as they come in.
(3)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Capt Richard I P. - Started reading up on the stats after you posted this. Still in the "too ignorant to speak" phase regarding it, however....
Police aren't designed to PREVENT crime. They are REACTIONARY. They clean up (police) after a crime has already occurred.
The idea of "police deterrent" is somewhat at odds for me, as that is a direct parallel to the military's "show of force" concept. It leans towards the escalation of force, which we should actively avoid, and it further leans towards the militarization of the police.
Are people not committing crimes because of a worry that they will be caught, or because "most" people are good, and it is only a small portion of the population which is socio-economically motivated to commit said crimes... As we elevate our socio-economic "platform" (make living conditions better), doesn't crime go down? As proven by 40+ years of crime data?
I like "foot patrols" because they make police "part of the community." It makes them Brand Recognition. Less of a deterrent and more of a face that can be recognized. Us & Us as opposed to Us v. Them. Just my initial thoughts.
Police aren't designed to PREVENT crime. They are REACTIONARY. They clean up (police) after a crime has already occurred.
The idea of "police deterrent" is somewhat at odds for me, as that is a direct parallel to the military's "show of force" concept. It leans towards the escalation of force, which we should actively avoid, and it further leans towards the militarization of the police.
Are people not committing crimes because of a worry that they will be caught, or because "most" people are good, and it is only a small portion of the population which is socio-economically motivated to commit said crimes... As we elevate our socio-economic "platform" (make living conditions better), doesn't crime go down? As proven by 40+ years of crime data?
I like "foot patrols" because they make police "part of the community." It makes them Brand Recognition. Less of a deterrent and more of a face that can be recognized. Us & Us as opposed to Us v. Them. Just my initial thoughts.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS I like your points. When are you running for chief of police/sheriff?
(1)
(0)
Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS
Capt Richard I P. - I've thought about it actually. It would have to be a small out of the way place. I'm not sure a city could handle me. My rules are simple:
1) Don't screw with the Citizenry. They're why we're here.
2) We're not metermaids. We're either funded properly or we're not. We'll use enforcement discretion based on the funding we have. If something is really an issue, I'm sure someone can come up with a "bear tax" (youtube simpsons bear tax) for it. If another department/agency needs Revenue.. the legislature needs to figure it out.
3) 100% pro-visibility. Cops should be seen. I grew up where the cops would stop at the diner, get a cup of coffee and do their paperwork. They were part of the community. I have 0 issue with patrolling. It's a good mechanism when philosophically used correctly.
1) Don't screw with the Citizenry. They're why we're here.
2) We're not metermaids. We're either funded properly or we're not. We'll use enforcement discretion based on the funding we have. If something is really an issue, I'm sure someone can come up with a "bear tax" (youtube simpsons bear tax) for it. If another department/agency needs Revenue.. the legislature needs to figure it out.
3) 100% pro-visibility. Cops should be seen. I grew up where the cops would stop at the diner, get a cup of coffee and do their paperwork. They were part of the community. I have 0 issue with patrolling. It's a good mechanism when philosophically used correctly.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
Law enforcement, unlike the fire department, isn't only in the business of responding after receiving a call though. One of the key traits with law enforcement being uniformed and patrolling in easily identifiable patrol vehicles (usually) is to deter crime and help people in their communities feel safer by seeing that there is officers out watching the streets. As much as people hate being pulled over traffic stops in and of themselves serve to educate people on dangerous driving habits to hopefully prevent an accident from happening rather than just have a cop respond to an accident after the fact. The same goes for crimes ranging from muggings and armed robberies to break ins and vandalism. Officers need to keep up visible patrols to do their best to deter crime and respond far quicker to crimes in progress so they can actually catch a criminal before the criminal disappears.
TLDR: Running a police department like a fire department will never work because much of their jobs is totally different.
TLDR: Running a police department like a fire department will never work because much of their jobs is totally different.
(2)
(0)
Capt Richard I P.
SrA Matthew Knight True. They are different, but as I've called on in other posts below I'm not so sure crime prevention is effective...further, how does such an idea jive with 'innocent until proven guilty?'
(1)
(0)
Deborah Gregson
Capt Richard I P. - Preventing crime doesn't interfere with the idea of innocent until proven guilty, as that's what you are until tried for a crime and found guilty by the courts (or admitting some amount of guilt and paying a fine). So you can deter, prevent, and mitigate crime, as well as respond to calls and arrest, and still not violate the innocent til proven guilty thingy. When you are arrested you are still innocent, when arraigned you are innocent, but they have the right to hold you until trial, where you will either be found innocent and let go, or guilty and something happens to you (or not). So the two aren't in opposition. Furthermore, fire departments don't just sit at the station and wait for calls, they also ride around doing inspections, road studies, training and can in some cases, depending on the area, give citations or report to the police on people breaking the law (such as building code violations, illegal burning, tampering with fire hydrants). They do prevention (although not well enough) that possibly reduces fire events and loss of life and property with educational programs, detector programs, following up on code violations. I see the police doing the same thing when patrolling, they ARE looking for people who are possibly in the process of committing a crime, or who are wanted for the commission of a crime and haven't yet been located. Honestly if there was an issue with patrols and deterrent v. innocent until guilty, you would have seen that case go to the Supreme Court already - which actually it kind of has, and we now have Miranda Warnings, but they are still able to arrest and detain you.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google