From: bill@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk
Date: Sat Sep 14 2002 - 15:10:59 MDT
>> In a message dated 9/14/2002 10:06:42 AM Central Standard Time,
>> bill@wkidston.freeserve.co.uk writes: Recent research has indicated
>> that better street lighting reduces street crime more than
>> surveillance cameras and is much cheaper.
> In a message dated Sat Sep 14, 2002 09:19 am
> Dehede011@aol.com writes
>
> I see the police equipment being installed in my community and I do
> have questions. I see nothing that disturbs my standards of civil
> liberties although I have heard of such things. In addition, I
> obviously have no problem with improved law enforcement. But, still I
> have a nagging question.
> Are all the squad cars, radios, etc., that we are seeing necessary or
> are they bought because the funds are available?
> The other thing that is bothering me is the increasing militarization
> of our police department. I am referring to the helmets, flak jackets,
> etc., but also to the tactics used in ordinary arrests or even traffic
> stops. In our area if a driver is stopped on a non moving charge he is
> ordered to stop his engine, remain seated and put his hands on the
> dashboard -- is this anyway for the police to treat ordinary
> citizenry.
> My biggest problem with these tactics has to do with the effect the
> tactics have on our relationships with the police department. Every
> police department I ever heard of say they require the good will and
> support of the citizenry to get their job done. My question is what
> damage are they doing to that relationship with those tactics.
> One more and it is a purely personal gripe. I hate to see a policeman
> in uniform jumping the line at the check out counter at the local
> grocery store.
> Ron h.
>
Hmmm. You are obviously talking about the USA situation. If I was a
policeman in USA, then given the prevalence of weaponry in USA I would
also order drivers to keep their hands in clear view. And if I was a
driver in USA I would happily keep my hands in view, in case the
policeman was having a bad day and had an itchy trigger finger.
In UK, the police claim to be underfunded so that they are unable to
recruit enough police. The surveillance cameras are not funded by the
police. The funding comes from government, local councils and
businesses.
I agree with your point about losing the goodwill of the public though.
For many years the UK police have been allocating their resources
towards responding to crime and completely ignoring crime prevention.
This is probably because prevention is boring and undramatic. Rushing
around with sirens on is spectacular, and the public can see that
'something is being done'. Years ago, local police knew their patch, and
who the likely troublemakers were before crimes were committed. Nowadays
police are centralised to save money and don't know what is going down
on the street. Responding to crime is too late to stop the crime. And
poor detection rates don't stop future crimes either.
(As an aside, I notice the same in the business environment. If you get
your department well organised so that you never have a huge crisis
which involves meetings with senior management, then they will think you
just sit around doing nothing all day. Whereas if you can arrange to
have a crisis once or twice a year and run around like a headless
chicken, going from crisis meeting to crisis meeting, then you get a
reputation as a great man for sorting out problems - and all the rewards
flow to you. In the publicity stakes, firefighting wins out over
prevention every time.)
Re your final point about queue jumping - that would NEVER happen in UK.
Queue jumping is still liable to the death penalty in UK! ;-)
BillK
_______________________________________________________________________
Freeserve AnyTime, only £13.99 per month with one month's FREE trial!
For more information visit http://www.freeserve.com/time/ or call free on 0800 970 8890
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:17:02 MST