So Much for "Police Protection"

Olivia said:
Okay, I'm not a fool. I keep my doors locked all the time. I don't park in isolated areas in the parking lot. I wear an across-the body purse (even though that could be dangerous), I stay aware of my surroundings, a lot of things like that. But if I have to start telling a hostess that no I can't sit at a certain table because I'm more apt to get killed in a mass shooting there, I give up!
Click to expand...


OK, ya give up..then what ?
 
There is a common thread in all the mass shootings. The type of gun used and the stock piling of ammo.


Well duh! No mystery or surprise there right.


The question that comes to mind for me is why parents, significant others dont know that this is taking place. Then social media posting go un noticed. Doesn't it seem strange that those that are closest to a person with guns & a stock pile of ammo, socially mal adapted aren't being pro active in prevention of tragedy?


The expectation for police to do something beforehand is insane. When police were being pro active like stop & frisk in NYC & numerous media stories about police pro active approach to crime reduction there was a $hit storm of stories about civil rights being abused. Unless and until those closest to the source of this madness begin to be proactive, the police will have to do the only thing they can which is react to what is happening.
 
Knight said:
The expectation for police to do something beforehand is insane. When police were being pro active like stop & frisk in NYC & numerous media stories about police pro active approach to crime reduction there was a $hit storm of stories about civil rights being abused. Unless and until those closest to the source of this madness begin to be proactive, the police will have to do the only thing they can which is react to what is happening.
Click to expand...
The stop & frisk in NYC worked well as best I recall from news stories. What is interesting about the proactive issue is that in some cases it seems to be okay and in others not so much. We put up with it at airports, government buildings, etc and it is often a pia... a pia that seems acceptable after certain incidents show our vulnerability. There are tradeoffs between freedom and security.
 
They banned this from here just a out a year ago. It wasn't a stop and frisk, it was just a stop to find out who you were and what you were doing in a high crime area at 2am.

We used to call it "street checks" and it was a vital part of pro active policing, collecting intelligence, linking crimes to people, preventing crime in the first place.

It was apparently interfering with rights.
 
James said:
They banned this from here just a out a year ago. It wasn't a stop and frisk, it was just a stop to find out who you were and what you were doing in a high crime area at 2am.

We used to call it "street checks" and it was a vital part of pro active policing, collecting intelligence, linking crimes to people, preventing crime in the first place.

It was apparently interfering with rights.
Click to expand...

I don't know Canadas Constitution. In the United States we have the right to move about freely, the right to congregrate and associate, We are assumed innocent at all times,before a conviction. We also have a right against unreasonable serch and seizure and the right not to self incriminate.

In a perfect world an officer would see three hooligans stop frisk them,intimidate them enough that whatever nefarious act they were planning would be forgotten,crime would be averted and the world would be a wonderful place.


In practice an officer would see three black guys stop them and start questioning. No violation, no suspicion, no cause.
Next the disingenuous excuse,"FOR MY SAFETY", the three black guy are asked if the have any weapons or drugs and ordered to empty their pockets. Not knowing any better, or more likely not wanting to be roughed up or even worse they comply. This forces the guys to incriminate themselves voluntarily when a pocket knife or some pot is exposed.

The policy was probably conceived with nothing but good thoughts, but as with any thing else it was perverted mainly became a way to harass and intimidates minorities.

Was it effective in lowering crime? Probably yes, but it was a shortcut, that was and is ripe with abuse and needed to be reigned in.
 
There was always the potential for abuse and misuse however instead of addressing those actual and confirmed cases of abuse (which were found to be few and far between) we had, imho, a knee jerk reaction.

It was a great tool.

Its funny that when a police officer is alleged to have breached a duty or someone's rights then we are all branded as being of like mind and guilty of doing the same and are the recipients of knee jerk reactions.

When a doctor, lawyer, teacher, politician has done the same, then it's a one off or an "isolated" case.
 
My final word on this subject is that upon arrival to the site of a sniper or an unknown shooter, the job of a policeman is to locate and eliminate the threat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top