Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 36 of 36

Thread: What is the legitimate role of police?

  1. #31
    Educator
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    over yonder
    Last Seen
    06-22-18 @ 07:45 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    941

    Re: What is the legitimate role of police?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    This thread (Who in government is responsible for the safety of you and your loved ones?) prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

    So... What is the legitimate role of police?

    Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

    If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

    If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

    Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.
    http://harvardlawreview.org/wp-conte...and-Profit.pdf

  2. #32
    Educator
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    over yonder
    Last Seen
    06-22-18 @ 07:45 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    941

    Re: What is the legitimate role of police?

    there has never been a time in U.S. history , when the people have had a greater need to arm themselves . than today.

  3. #33
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2017
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    488

    Re: What is the legitimate role of police?

    The police slogan is to protect and to serve. Protecting and serving can be both reactive and/or preemptive. If there is a crime spree in an area, the police will protect and serve, by reacting in force, to the phone call. They may then protect and serve, preemptively, by creating a long term presence in that neighborhood to get ahead of future problems.

    Reactive protect and serve is much easier to get one's head around. If I have a car accident, the police office called to the scene will protect and serve, in reaction to a real time situation, so the truth can be served. Preemptive is more abstract, since the creative and anticipatory tactics needed to get ahead of the problem, may not appear obvious, to short term thinking. They may place a stop sign there, that nobody wants.

    As another example, say a large inner city neighborhood has a lot of assaults. The obvious reactive service and protection would be react to the latest 911 call and arrest a suspect. A preemptive solution to protect and serve, that may be easy to see, would be increased patrols. However, in other times, the preemptive may not make sense. For example, say an officer is sent to forge a friendly relationship with the gang of thugs, as a way to leverage their behavior for the future. It may look too soft for some, and not reactive enough to the crime that was committed. It is looking long term.

    Alternately, what may appear to be an over reaction in terms of preemptive protect and serve, such as rounding up all the criminals, for one assault. It may seem too harsh and intrusive. However, it may have a long term reactive and preemptive foundation for service and protection. If a criminal has a rap sheet, with say two convicted assaults, this does not mean he only hurt two people. It means he could have hurt dozens of people, but there was only enough evidence to get two convictions. Criminals are not able to earn a living by getting caught and convicted for every single crime. They earn a living, in this high risk job, because they get away with most of their crimes. There are many people who suffer in silence.

    Most crimes never get solved. Sometimes what appears to be overreactive preemptive, in terms of protect and serve, is retribution for the all the people who suffer in silence, and have no voice for their final justice. They are not on the rap sheet as a case that is resolved. This can lead to a unique form of reactive serve and protect, connected to the past and the lingering hurts, which has not yet been resolved in terms of truth and justice.

    For example, say a husband abuses his wife over serval years. He is caught for the bruises reported on a particular day. If we convict him for the evidence of that one day, does the wife feel justice for the other 100 beatings? Justice has only been served for one day but not for two years. Protect and serve, for the wife who cries 99 tears in silence, may be a good beating for the husband, before he goes to trial. The left will think this is mean, since they have a soft spot for criminals. But it adds up terms of the larger picture of a reactive avenging angel, protecting and serving those who cry alone so they have closure.
    Last edited by wellwisher; 03-25-18 at 09:31 AM.

  4. #34
    Professor
    Evilroddy's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2017
    Location
    Canada
    Last Seen
    Today @ 01:22 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Centrist
    Posts
    1,859

    Re: What is the legitimate role of police?

    Quote Originally Posted by hado117 View Post
    there has never been a time in U.S. history , when the people have had a greater need to arm themselves . than today.
    Hado117:

    Yes, about the first 125 years of US history when private citizen possession/ownership of guns was essential as America conquered the continent and eliminated, sequestered or marginalised competing populations in North America. From that point on firearms possession/ownership by private citizens diminished in importance until today it may even be seen by some as a net disadvantage to American society.

    Cheers.
    Evilroddy.

  5. #35
    Educator
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Location
    over yonder
    Last Seen
    06-22-18 @ 07:45 PM
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    941

    Re: What is the legitimate role of police?

    Quote Originally Posted by Evilroddy View Post
    Hado117:

    Yes, about the first 125 years of US history when private citizen possession/ownership of guns was essential as America conquered the continent and eliminated, sequestered or marginalised competing populations in North America. From that point on firearms possession/ownership by private citizens diminished in importance until today it may even be seen by some as a net disadvantage to American society.

    Cheers.
    Evilroddy.
    the marginalization of the continent began before the u.s. was a country... if not , Canada wouldn't exist

  6. #36
    Banned
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Last Seen
    05-05-18 @ 04:22 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    1,074

    Re: What is the legitimate role of police?

    Quote Originally Posted by radcen View Post
    This thread (Who in government is responsible for the safety of you and your loved ones?) prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

    So... What is the legitimate role of police?

    Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

    If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

    If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

    Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.
    To enforce the law and order within their jurisdiction. Hence, they have no obligation to protect individuals unless a special relationship has been established (custody, investigation, etc.)
    Do you you understand that there is a difference between enforcing the law and protecting someone? Obviously not. Ignorance is bliss.

Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •