Will violence in the UK get so bad that all police officers must be armed? Or will the police simply be ordered to avoid confronting violent offenders and doing their duty? We who live in the United States know only armed police officers, and it is unlikely that things will ever be different here.
How many police officers were killed in the line of duty in the U.K. during the 19th century? If the numbers were very low, what stopped criminals from taking the lives of police offers? Deterrence and the fear of a serious punishment? (What was the penalty for killing a police officer then?) In general, did murder happen less, on a per-capita basis? Can we say that the British 'criminals' of the 19th century were more restrained than those of today? That they at least still had some access to the 'moral capital of the past,' plus the grace of baptism? (Assuming that ratio of baptized to non-baptized was higher in the 19th century than in the 20th.) As a result, it was possible for unarmed police officer to apprehend criminals without a serious risk of grave injury or death for themselves.
With the rise of gangs in major urban areas and the loss of fathers who would act as moral guides, tempering the spiritedness of their sons and show them "how to be a man," should we expect more violence directed at police officers in the future? What about a nightmare domestic 4GW scenario, as things get worse socially and economically? The problems of gangs and violence is predominantly male, but violence committed by girls and young women seems to be increasing as well... Murdering LEOs as a form of gang initiation--how common is this in countries where 'narcoterrorism' has taken hold? (Where you already have assassinations of high-ranking police officials, judges, and politicians.)
4GW may exist already in certain Latin American countries, but it is not here in the U.S.--yet. What happens if things destabilize? Could we see a rise in drug use if we hit a major economic depression? Would it be financially possible during a depression for the poor to buy drugs?
How many malefactors feel emboldened enough to use weapons against the police, especially guns or knives? We see on TV shows and in movies ex-cons proclaiming that they will not get caught and go back to prison. So they resist with deadly means in order to avoid returning to jail. Apparently prison is not a deterrent from crime; it merely escalates the behavior of the hardened criminal. Does this reflect reality?
In a "multicultural" society where traditional mores are being undermined and respect for law and authority are on the wane, I would expect crime rates to get worse--even if politicians and the news media deny this, in order to advance their ideological worldviews. And if criminals are becoming more likely to use violence to escape arrest or for some other purpose, the police do need to be able to defend themselves.
Unarmed foot patrols by themselves may be able to help foster communication between the community and the police in Anglo communities, or at least help the police observe what is happening. (Has it become easier for criminals to conceal themselves and their activities as urban environments change, and cities have become megapolises?) But what of insular ethnic communities where distrust or resentment of authority is high? The strategy (at least here in the U.S.) has been to recruit more officers of that ethnicity, to establish a rapport with the community, but how successful has that been? The use of unarmed foot patrols, by itself, will not stem the moral decline of a community, or address the root causes of increasing violent behavior by criminals, or prevent criminals from using violence. If violence is to be deterred, then what needs to be reformed is legal system, punishments, and sentencing. Without these changes, unarmed police officers remain easy targets. (And I am not sure if one can use the coercive effect of law to deter those accustomed to using violence. What do the numbers in the U.S. reveal about the effectiveness of punishments employed against those who injure or kill police officers?)
Police stand guard ahead of US President George W. Bush's visit to Windsor Castle. US President George W. Bush has arrived in Britain for talks with Prime Minister Gordon Brown on Iran and other issues, as both sides vigorously denied any rift over troop levels in Iraq.
(AFP/Geoff Caddick)
An anti-war protester is prevented by police officers from entering Whitehall which leads to Downing Street, as thousands gathered at Parliament Square in London to demonstrate against the visit of U.S. President George W. Bush, Sunday, June 15, 2008. Bush is due to meet the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown at 10 Downing Street later this evening. Police say up to 2,000 demonstrators have gathered in London's Parliament Square to greet U.S. President George W. Bush. Police have barred the protesters from marching to Downing Street, where Bush is due to have dinner with British Prime Minister Gordon Brown Sunday night.
(AP Photo/Sang Tan)
A stand-off takes place between police and anti-war protestors during a protest, organised by the Stop The War Coalition, in Parliament Square, central London, demonstrating against the current visit to the United Kingdom of US President George Bush on Sunday June 15, 2008.
(AP Photo / Johnny Green)
Hey Sarge, check out who is in front.
Which reminds me--it is not wrong for Christian boys to have as heroes soldiers and statesmen or even intellectuals, but we must impress upon them that the doing of great and noble deeds must always be centered in and flow from the love of God, and so we should include among paragons of virtue those whom the world belittles as "useless" or "fools"--the hermits, the contemplatives, as well as those who are engaged in the active life.
As for using up moral capital--would it be possible for radical feminism and misandry to flourish if the male citizenry were not already emasculated to some extent? Republican virtue has long been gone, replaced by servile obedience to a central authority. It seems that the sexual revolution only radicalized feminism even more, and by then "chivalry" was already dead among the males who participated. Members of both sexes rebelled against social mores, not just sexual mores, but mores governing marriage, family, and so on? Iirc, divorce laws had already been liberalized before the sexual revolution, and this change too contributed to the breakdown of marriage and family.
While Southern culture and music seems to still foster the ideal of a husband and father, the divorce rates there do not seem to be much better, and the 'Christian' churches are not doing their job. (See these two posts by Dr. Fleming, Sex and Marriage in the Early Church and Sex and Marriage in San Francisco.)
Post begun on June 18.
Some links:
Blues And Twos - Police Officer's Blog
The Policeman's Blog
World Weary Detective
Chief Constable's Blog
Blog of the blogs
PC Bloggs - a Twenty-first Century Police Officer
The Philosophical Cop Police Blog
LAPD Blog
Dalton Police Blog
BPDNews.com - News Updates from the Boston Police Department
The Graveyard Shift » Blog Archive » Police Officer Hiring Process
No comments:
Post a Comment