NationStates Jolt Archive

...that was funded privately from donations, fundraisers, etc. I mean they work in urban areas, sort of like the Guardian Angels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_angels), but they have guns and go into more dangerous situations. They would be able to act where police can't because they are not subject to police regulations requiring warrants and such. I think all they should do is arrest criminals until police can take formal custody. Meaning they can't be used to bring someone to court, but they can stop the criminal in the act when police can't always get there on time and are often understaffed. The main pro is that they really have to be good or they'll lose all their funding. If they slack off or get corrupt, they're out of funding. I've been thinking of this for quite some time and it seems like an interesting idea...

EDIT: I knew I should have mentioned something about extensive background checks and recruiting of high-school students in the form of a sort of apprenticeship/training thingy. OR just plain community service...

Another random idiotic post brought to you by Option 9!
Comes with free poll!

Provided they don't cross the line and go vigilante outside of the legal system and they have a full knowledge of the laws and rights in regard to law enforcement, I have no problem with it.

It might enable communities to deal with problems that police are unable to touch, especially in troubled urban communities where the police force is overworked and unable to keep up with the crime.

*sigh!*

Yes and no.

"Yes" in that I wouldn't mind seeing certain kinds of independent militias... "no" because the kind of people who would probably end up running and controlling private militias would not be to my liking.

And if you think private funding ensures non-corruption, you're crazy.

Absolutely not. The very notion itself is preposterous.

god no.

the last thing we need is a police force that isnt constrained by law and the constitution.

Sorry. I don't have much trust in anything which is privately funded. I'd rather see less restrictions on the government police than an independent police force. I mean, the independent police force would arrest people "guilty" of crimes towards the person who runs the police force...

Sorry. I don't have much trust in anything which is privately funded. I'd rather see less restrictions on the government police than an independent police force.

Like the Volkspolizei in East Germany? They were pretty damn effective, if brutal.

...that was funded privately from donations, fundraisers, etc. I mean they work in urban areas, sort of like the Guardian Angels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_angels), but they have guns and go into more dangerous situations. They would be able to act where police can't because they are not subject to police regulations requiring warrants and such. I think all they should do is arrest criminals until police can take formal custody. Meaning they can't be used to bring someone to court, but they can stop the criminal in the act when police can't always get there on time and are often understaffed. The main pro is that they really have to be good or they'll lose all their funding. If they slack off or get corrupt, they're out of funding. I've been thinking of this for quite some time and it seems like an interesting idea...

EDIT: I knew I should have mentioned something about extensive background checks and recruiting of high-school students in the form of a sort of apprenticeship/training thingy. OR just plain community service...

Another random idiotic post brought to you by Option 9!
Comes with free poll!

nope. too much power with no limitations. Cops at least are held accountable for their actions and will be investigated. not these people... even with background checks and what not.

now you remove the Guns from their hands... then maybe.

oh and any citizen in the US can make an arrest. it's called the Citizen's Arrest.

I think all policing should be done by major corporations like O.C.P. or Umbrella Corp.

Like the Volkspolizei in East Germany? They were pretty damn effective, if brutal.

I like effectiveness, but if they have to be brutal to THAT point, no thank you. I like my police at least semi-controlled, thank you very much.

You just scared the shit out of me there. You're not serious are you? Who controls the funding? What would stop them from lynching or accusing suspected "criminals" who's only crime was to hold a grudge with one of these "do gooders"? Historical example, Klu Klux Klan. The community supported them and thought they were completely uncorrupt and fair. Values change. Vigilantes suck. Of course my first thought when I saw this thread was to say hell yes, because a supplementary military force to the national guard wouldn't be so bad, as long as they were not allowed military jurisdiction, or in fact any jurisdiction unless under open invasion. Basically a group of gun lovers who get together occasionally to organize other meetings and wait until judgement day or Russian invasion, whichever comes first. ;) The right to bear arms.

Unlike Fass, I don;'t think it's necessarily a bad idea, but the way you've described it it's open to rampant abuse.

You say they'd lose their funding if they became corrupt, but they might not lose all their funding. Some people might enjoy subjugating others. A businessman could fund a militia to harass his competition.

No, this a a disaster waiting to happen.

...that was funded privately from donations, fundraisers, etc. I mean they work in urban areas, sort of like the Guardian Angels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_angels), but they have guns and go into more dangerous situations. They would be able to act where police can't because they are not subject to police regulations requiring warrants and such. I think all they should do is arrest criminals until police can take formal custody. Meaning they can't be used to bring someone to court, but they can stop the criminal in the act when police can't always get there on time and are often understaffed. The main pro is that they really have to be good or they'll lose all their funding. If they slack off or get corrupt, they're out of funding. I've been thinking of this for quite some time and it seems like an interesting idea...

EDIT: I knew I should have mentioned something about extensive background checks and recruiting of high-school students in the form of a sort of apprenticeship/training thingy. OR just plain community service...

Another random idiotic post brought to you by Option 9!
Comes with free poll!

Your poll fails due to lack of a no option.

Your poll fails due to lack of a no option.

Option nine?Or is that still something about mancakes?

...that was funded privately from donations, fundraisers, etc. I mean they work in urban areas, sort of like the Guardian Angels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_angels), but they have guns and go into more dangerous situations. They would be able to act where police can't because they are not subject to police regulations requiring warrants and such. I think all they should do is arrest criminals until police can take formal custody. Meaning they can't be used to bring someone to court, but they can stop the criminal in the act when police can't always get there on time and are often understaffed. The main pro is that they really have to be good or they'll lose all their funding. If they slack off or get corrupt, they're out of funding. I've been thinking of this for quite some time and it seems like an interesting idea...

EDIT: I knew I should have mentioned something about extensive background checks and recruiting of high-school students in the form of a sort of apprenticeship/training thingy. OR just plain community service...

Another random idiotic post brought to you by Option 9!
Comes with free poll!

Sort of like "neighborhood watch", except with lead pipes and boards with rusty nails in them...

The idea of a citizens police-militia is fine, but I can't see it working out right for the reasons that others have said.

Your poll fails due to lack of a no option.

Sorry?

I don't see any "No" option.

...that was funded privately from donations, fundraisers, etc. I mean they work in urban areas, sort of like the Guardian Angels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_angels), but they have guns and go into more dangerous situations. They would be able to act where police can't because they are not subject to police regulations requiring warrants and such. I think all they should do is arrest criminals until police can take formal custody. Meaning they can't be used to bring someone to court, but they can stop the criminal in the act when police can't always get there on time and are often understaffed. The main pro is that they really have to be good or they'll lose all their funding. If they slack off or get corrupt, they're out of funding. I've been thinking of this for quite some time and it seems like an interesting idea...

EDIT: I knew I should have mentioned something about extensive background checks and recruiting of high-school students in the form of a sort of apprenticeship/training thingy. OR just plain community service...

Another random idiotic post brought to you by Option 9!
Comes with free poll!


http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B000190762.01._SCLZZZZZZZ_.jpg

They would be able to act where police can't because they are not subject to police regulations requiring warrants and such.

So basically a bunch of vigilantes that can bust into your house, point a gun at you and arrest you.

No thanks.

That is the worst idea I have heard in a very long time. I can't even find words to describe it.

...that was funded privately from donations, fundraisers, etc. I mean they work in urban areas, sort of like the Guardian Angels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_angels), but they have guns and go into more dangerous situations.

Private funding ensures that these militias will only target the "criminals" they are told to target.

As for guns and dangerous situations...no, no, no, no, and NO. Giving them guns is stupid enough...having them involve themselves in situations where they are more likely to be killed themselves than have any positive impact on the situation is even worse.

They would be able to act where police can't because they are not subject to police regulations requiring warrants and such.

Um...yeah, I happen to like legal restraints on what law-enforcement can do.

Giving a vigilante group (which is all this proposal amounts to) a blank check for abuse of power is about the silliest thing I have ever heard.

Worst idea ever.

Worst idea ever.

My post was originally going to say 'That is the worst idea I've ever heard,' but I changed it, just in case someone came back at me with an even dumber one.

I'm not sure what that idea might be, though. A worse idea than giving people guns and telling them they're answerable to no-one but whoever waves money under their noses... tricky.

Private funding ensures that these militias will only target the "criminals" they are told to target.


And that would be different from the ordinary police exactly how?

I think the idea of armed citizens doing the policing is a good one. Or at least no worse than the clownish system in place now. At least they could probably tell the difference between mooninites and bombs.

So basically a bunch of vigilantes that can bust into your house, point a gun at you and arrest you.

No thanks.
QFT

And that would be different from the ordinary police exactly how?

Because politicians make the laws the police enforce...and voters select politicians.

Doesn't always work perfectly...but it's a damn sight better than the OP's proposal.

No...

Because politicians make the laws the police enforce...and voters select politicians.

Doesn't always work perfectly...but it's a damn sight better than the OP's proposal.

The police don't enforce all the laws at present. They only enforce the ones the municipality tells them to. (Unless they have a personal grudge against someone). It has nothing to do with voters and everything to do with money.

I really don't see how a volunteer corp of citizens enforcing public safety within the legal framework could be any worse.

no, rather not, i think there would be to many people who do that for fun, rather than to protect their houses/families.
although i did here some good words news about a group of people in problem-neighborhoods, they helped to solve problems, but couldn't use violence. i would support that.

...that was funded privately from donations, fundraisers, etc.

They would be able to act where police can't because they are not subject to police regulations requiring warrants and such.



WHAAT? Are you bananas? People not subject to police regulation, carrying guns and blocking people around without any warrant? Plus, funded privately - this means any political party can arm its own militia.

Sounds like having the SS around to me. Scheiße!

...that was funded privately from donations, fundraisers, etc. I mean they work in urban areas, sort of like the Guardian Angels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_angels), but they have guns and go into more dangerous situations. They would be able to act where police can't because they are not subject to police regulations requiring warrants and such. I think all they should do is arrest criminals until police can take formal custody. Meaning they can't be used to bring someone to court, but they can stop the criminal in the act when police can't always get there on time and are often understaffed. The main pro is that they really have to be good or they'll lose all their funding. If they slack off or get corrupt, they're out of funding. I've been thinking of this for quite some time and it seems like an interesting idea...

EDIT: I knew I should have mentioned something about extensive background checks and recruiting of high-school students in the form of a sort of apprenticeship/training thingy. OR just plain community service...

Another random idiotic post brought to you by Option 9!
Comes with free poll!
http://www.libreopinion.com/members/uniformesreich/imagenes/SS-Allgemeine_detalle.jpg

If that pic doesn't tell you how much I'm in favor of your crazy idea, let me spell it out for you:
H E L L__N O !!!

This idea and the poll accompanying it is made of fail.

Heck, no. It would be a disaster, for reasons already pointed out (and which should be obvious to all).

...that was funded privately from donations, fundraisers, etc. I mean they work in urban areas, sort of like the Guardian Angels (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guardian_angels), but they have guns and go into more dangerous situations. They would be able to act where police can't because they are not subject to police regulations requiring warrants and such. <SNIP>.As good a reason for a 'Hell No!' as any...

As a former police officer in the US, I do agree with the citizens being involved. You will never have a cop on every corner, and even living in the city, it takes the cops anywhere from 3 to 5 minutes to respond to an emergency once they have been notified that a crime has occurred

Police agencies love to preach the community watch concept, telling the citizens that they do not have enough officers to cover every area of the city at the same time, and that they can be a great help by getting involved in reporting crimes early, and sort of looking out after their neighborhood.

However, when the citizens organize themselves like the Guardian Angels, the police shits the proverbial brick. Police departments have never, and never will support organizations like that, because that is making a public statement that the police is not controlling the crime. The police will be the first ones screaming that citizens should not get involved, to report it to them and let them take care of the problem. Did they just not ask us to get involved in some way with the community watch?

In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that a person is not entitled to police protection. The police can only enforce the law when they see a crime committed in front of them, or if they have a warrant for an arrest.

Anyhow, just my two cents worth. Y'all take care.

Vic

The police will be the first ones screaming that citizens should not get involved, to report it to them and let them take care of the problem. Did they just not ask us to get involved in some way with the community watch?

Are you really an ex-policeman? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I'd expect a former policeman to understand the most basic concepts of law and order.

There's nothing wrong with ordinary people keeping an eye out for each other and reporting crime.
On the other hand, there is a great deal wrong with what the OP suggests, which is an armed vigilante gang rounding up anyone they don't like the look of.

In the US, the Supreme Court has ruled that a person is not entitled to police protection.
And another reason why I'm glad I live here, because we are entitled to police protection.

I'd much prefer a much larger police force. However this would also be linked to the people being better off and relaxed (no unnecessary harassment).

Are you really an ex-policeman? Perhaps I'm being naive, but I'd expect a former policeman to understand the most basic concepts of law and order.

There's nothing wrong with ordinary people keeping an eye out for each other and reporting crime.
On the other hand, there is a great deal wrong with what the OP suggests, which is an armed vigilante gang rounding up anyone they don't like the look of.

Yes, I served as a police officer for 8 years, then switched to the fire service. Maybe I sound like this because I still take my oath of office very seriously, "to protect and defend the constitution". I was never one of those cops that yelled for more stricter regulations on the citizens for the sake of officer safety. In the US, and I am sure in every country, 90-95 percent of the population are law abiding, and would support the police in a heartbeat. The other 5-10 percent of the people are the criminals, which officers get to know, since they deal with the same suspects on a daily basis.

I do have a concept of what law and order, as do a great majority of the people (especially the criminals). What I was referring to was the oxymoron of the way that police administrators are pushing the "get the citizen involved", but can't afford to have them involved. Having to publicly say that you rely on the citizens that you serve is like saying that the police department is not capable of doing its job. And, what are you going to do for those 2-5 minutes in the city, when you are being assaulted, waiting for the officers to arrive? Understand that I am not calling for vigilantes at all. All I am saying is that we have to be prepared to take care of ourselves and our families until help arrives.

I live in a large city, with the main police station/hq is within a 2 minute drive from my house. However, like most police stations throughout out the world, most of the cops are out of the station on patrol. The only time police stations are full of cops is twice a day (or however they do their shift change) for briefing.

I would, and I would join as well. Our right to bear arms are is very important, and we should always be ready.

Having to publicly say that you rely on the citizens that you serve is like saying that the police department is not capable of doing its job. And, what are you going to do for those 2-5 minutes in the city, when you are being assaulted, waiting for the officers to arrive?

You are seriously telling us that you worked as a police officer, yet you can't see what's wrong with that reasoning?
It's that 2-5 minute gap (much much longer for people in many areas) that makes it blindingly obvious that a police force has to rely on its citizens to be sensible and aware of what's happening around them. In a sense, admitting this is like saying they can't do their job, but it is unavoidable. Even if there was a policeman in every room of every building, you would still have to physically defend yourself for the few seconds it took them to get to you.


Understand that I am not calling for vigilantes at all. All I am saying is that we have to be prepared to take care of ourselves and our families until help arrives.

Good for you. Naturally, people should and do have the right to defend themselves from violence. However, that's a million miles away from what the OP describes.