“Martial Law” Declared in Arkansas Town

[Juan_Bottom]

http://www.infowars.com/?p=3905


I would not tolerate this BS. How could anyone?

V!

[pimpdave]

I can see your perspective.

That would suck if I were a criminal and still trying to commit crimes out in the open.

[pimpdave]

(come on, dude, how about all of the people who have been trapped in their homes from the violence, gunfire, and constant thread of home invasion?)

[Juan_Bottom]

What? If you get a Guy mask in the mail, I'd better see you down there.


I don't see what you are saying. Perhaps it is the crazy talking?

[pimpdave]

What? If you get a Guy mask in the mail, I'd better see you down there.


I don't see what you are saying. Perhaps it is the crazy talking?

Maybe if their crime rate wasn't so horrible I would be outraged, but think of the woman who was interviewed who was happy with the idea.

She was talking about having to sleep on the floor of her own home.

How is that for a complete loss of liberty?

So, a temporary enactment of something close to martial law in the high crime areas of the city are a justifiable suspension of public liberty to demonstrate how a healthy and law abiding society functions.

Make it incredibly difficult to earn a living from criminal behavior, and law enforcement will see the crime rate drop, either because the crooks get desperate and get caught in the larger dragnets, or they go straight and leave the criminal life behind.

The smart ones would have continued operating regardless of the martial law initiative and will continue in spite of it. But the prevalence of the crime and the height of violence will fall. Follow this story and see where it leads.

Six months from now, find out, in detail, what has happened with that town. Has the crime just spread to areas that weren't a part of the focused deployment of law enforcement? Have crime levels fallen city wide?

Then, find out how many people were truly charged with unjust crimes or chickenshit abuses.

[Juan_Bottom]

I don't see it excuseable to excuse the Constitution. It's the governments job to protect the people. They aren't doing that.
Now the citizens should definitly take some responsibility into their own hands too, but come one...

[Nikolai]

I don't see it excuseable to excuse the Constitution. It's the governments job to protect the people.

Actually... not so much. The Constitution says in Section 8 that the Congress is responsible for providing for the common defense, but given that criminals are Americans too, this section is properly read to be about protection from outside threats. It's up to the states to worry about crime rates. And since the Constitution only spells out in what areas Congress may or may not have authority, this action doesn't violate the Constitution. It may conceivably violate some of the rights which are protected from Congress by the Constitution, but contrary to popular thinking, just because the Constitution says you should have a certain right doesn't prevent anybody except the federal government from infringing upon that right.

In this case, the action was taken at the level of city government... and no action taken by a city government, unless it infringes upon authority specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, can be unconstitutional. The only possible exception is anything happening in Washington, D.C., where the city government is Congress.


Yeah, I love it when people whine about their Constitutional rights. Actually, people whining about any rights are funny.

[Juan_Bottom]

I didn't say what level of government, you turkey. Each of them have their duty. I think you got an idea in your head and ran with it.

just because the Constitution says you should have a certain right doesn't prevent anybody except the federal government from infringing upon that right.

It's their job to make sure that doesn't happen.

And since the Constitution only spells out in what areas Congress may or may not have authority, this action doesn't violate the Constitution.

How about right of travel?
You cannot be locked up at all, without having commited a crime, no?

In this case, the action was taken at the level of city government... and no action taken by a city government, unless it infringes upon authority specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, can be unconstitutional.

What kinda crack are you smoking? That is a horrid defense.

Yeah, I love it when people whine about their Constitutional rights. Actually, people whining about any rights are funny.

I actually no mine, and have read the Constitution. The federal government has no juristiction outside of the capital, yes. But when the city government infringes upon your American rights, they cease to be an American government. The city is now run by citizens(and depending now on what they are doing, criminals), not mayors and councilmen and cops. They are all detainable/arrestable/the Feds can interviene.

[Visaoni]

I think Nikolai is losing sight of the bigger picture. Usually I'm all for arguing the technical legal aspects of a situation, but in this case I don't think it should be the main focus. I suspect Juan is right about it being unconstitutional, but as I said, in this case I don't think it matters very much.

Since the Civil War the Federal government has enjoyed continually increasing power. In these days of telecommunications I'm hesitant to say that the increased power of the Federal government is a bad thing through and through. However, the President's power has been increasing as well, and recently we have seen some of the largest increases of Executive power. In other words, one person is gaining more and more power over the entire nation. This is a huge problem. Civil liberties have quietly been going down the drain. The average American doesn't care because they don't even realize it. How many Americans truly think that they could be held indefinitely and tortured without a trial, a lawyer, any contact with anybody, or the government even admitting they were holding them? Very few, but the Patriot Act grants the Executive branch that ability. In fact, it is believed that such a thing has already happened to a number of illegal immigrants.

So no, this near martial law is not a matter of what the Constitution directly says. I'm inclined to say it doesn't even matter what the Constitution intended. The people have rights, and I don't mean rights granted by a document of a governing body. We have these rights because we are able to demand them. Unless our armies are activated against us (and willing to fire on the people they joined the army to protect), the government is unable to govern us without our consent.

Don't get me wrong, I am a very strong supporter of the Constitution and believe in it fully. I agree with the rights granted to us in it, including the right to overthrow the government if it is not what we want any longer. Well, I'm not sure how I feel about the second amendment. The guns we are allowed to own won't help us overthrow a government defended by our army as they wound have back when the Constitution was written, and we have a lot more problems with shootings than the UK. Plus, in the time since the ratification of the Constitution non-violent civil disobedience has been shown to be perhaps more effective than a violent overthrow. But that is a topic for another time.

As far as this specific issue, I don't think it is anything but a total abuse of power. Sure, there are problems with crime there that need to be addressed, nobody is disputing that. I'm sure this will cut down on crime, but that doesn't excuse the action. With all the police on those streets (that one video shows 2 or 3 police cars 20 feet from each other) they could easily catch criminals without locking down all the citizens. That one lady may have been happy, but I suspect she would be happier if crime was reduced and she was allowed to go to the store without a huge hassle. There was no need to declare martial law. If they have the man power to enforce, more or less, martial law with a 24 hour curfew, they certainly have the man power to catch anybody committing a crime on those streets.

I've been in the car for over 7 hours today, so excuse me if I don't make perfect sense.

[Hologram]

I don't see it excuseable to excuse the Constitution. It's the governments job to protect the people.

Actually... not so much. The Constitution says in Section 8 that the Congress is responsible for providing for the common defense, but given that criminals are Americans too, this section is properly read to be about protection from outside threats. It's up to the states to worry about crime rates. And since the Constitution only spells out in what areas Congress may or may not have authority, this action doesn't violate the Constitution. It may conceivably violate some of the rights which are protected from Congress by the Constitution, but contrary to popular thinking, just because the Constitution says you should have a certain right doesn't prevent anybody except the federal government from infringing upon that right.

In this case, the action was taken at the level of city government... and no action taken by a city government, unless it infringes upon authority specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, can be unconstitutional. The only possible exception is anything happening in Washington, D.C., where the city government is Congress.


Yeah, I love it when people whine about their Constitutional rights. Actually, people whining about any rights are funny.

Well, kinda. If there's a specific right guaranteed to the people, such as a writ of habeus corpus, no government entity, city, county, state, or federal may infringe upon that. But other than that, you're spot on.

[Hologram]

I think Nikolai is losing sight of the bigger picture. Usually I'm all for arguing the technical legal aspects of a situation, but in this case I don't think it should be the main focus. I suspect Juan is right about it being unconstitutional, but as I said, in this case I don't think it matters very much.

Since the Civil War the Federal government has enjoyed continually increasing power. In these days of telecommunications I'm hesitant to say that the increased power of the Federal government is a bad thing through and through. However, the President's power has been increasing as well, and recently we have seen some of the largest increases of Executive power. In other words, one person is gaining more and more power over the entire nation. This is a huge problem. Civil liberties have quietly been going down the drain. The average American doesn't care because they don't even realize it. How many Americans truly think that they could be held indefinitely and tortured without a trial, a lawyer, any contact with anybody, or the government even admitting they were holding them? Very few, but the Patriot Act grants the Executive branch that ability. In fact, it is believed that such a thing has already happened to a number of illegal immigrants.

So no, this near martial law is not a matter of what the Constitution directly says. I'm inclined to say it doesn't even matter what the Constitution intended. The people have rights, and I don't mean rights granted by a document of a governing body. We have these rights because we are able to demand them. Unless our armies are activated against us (and willing to fire on the people they joined the army to protect), the government is unable to govern us without our consent.

Don't get me wrong, I am a very strong supporter of the Constitution and believe in it fully. I agree with the rights granted to us in it, including the right to overthrow the government if it is not what we want any longer. Well, I'm not sure how I feel about the second amendment. The guns we are allowed to own won't help us overthrow a government defended by our army as they wound have back when the Constitution was written, and we have a lot more problems with shootings than the UK. Plus, in the time since the ratification of the Constitution non-violent civil disobedience has been shown to be perhaps more effective than a violent overthrow. But that is a topic for another time.

As far as this specific issue, I don't think it is anything but a total abuse of power. Sure, there are problems with crime there that need to be addressed, nobody is disputing that. I'm sure this will cut down on crime, but that doesn't excuse the action. With all the police on those streets (that one video shows 2 or 3 police cars 20 feet from each other) they could easily catch criminals without locking down all the citizens. That one lady may have been happy, but I suspect she would be happier if crime was reduced and she was allowed to go to the store without a huge hassle. There was no need to declare martial law. If they have the man power to enforce, more or less, martial law with a 24 hour curfew, they certainly have the man power to catch anybody committing a crime on those streets.

I've been in the car for over 7 hours today, so excuse me if I don't make perfect sense.

I think you're right and wrong on this one. It is a matter of what rights our governments have, and the Constitution does spell those rights out. However, you're right that this matter goes beyond the Constitution, as most Constitutional issues do. In fact, it's events such as these that make people realize how many so called "rights" aren't protected by the Constitution, and as such, they should take action through the correct channels to fix it (i.e. amendments).

[Nikolai]

I didn't say what level of government, you turkey. Each of them have their duty. I think you got an idea in your head and ran with it.

Actually, by saying it was a violation of the Constitution, you did say that it was a matter of the federal government, as that is the only level governed by the Constitution.

just because the Constitution says you should have a certain right doesn't prevent anybody except the federal government from infringing upon that right.

It's their job to make sure that doesn't happen.

No, it isn't. The Constitution explicitly restricts the federal government from actions that violate certain rights - it doesn't make any blanket statements about the rights each citizen is guaranteed and instruct the federal government to protect those rights. Perhaps you're thinking of the Declaration of the Rights of Man?

And since the Constitution only spells out in what areas Congress may or may not have authority, this action doesn't violate the Constitution.

How about right of travel?
You cannot be locked up at all, without having commited a crime, no?

Not by the federal government, no. But if I set up a town where the charter doesn't prohibit the city government from locking you up without having committed a crime, and you go live in that town... yes. The Constitution is inapplicable in that situation.

In this case, the action was taken at the level of city government... and no action taken by a city government, unless it infringes upon authority specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, can be unconstitutional.

What kinda crack are you smoking? That is a horrid defense.

No, it's a legal defense, accepted for over 200 years. It's called "separation of powers", and it is designed to keep the federal government from pushing in where it isn't wanted. Granted, over the last 30-50 years or so, the courts are having a hard time with this - hence all the whining about judicial legislation - but it is undeniable that the Constitution is very clear about how city governments cannot take unconstitutional actions unless they are attempting to usurp the authority of the federal government.

Yeah, I love it when people whine about their Constitutional rights. Actually, people whining about any rights are funny.

I actually no mine, and have read the Constitution. The federal government has no juristiction outside of the capital, yes. But when the city government infringes upon your American rights, they cease to be an American government. The city is now run by citizens(and depending now on what they are doing, criminals), not mayors and councilmen and cops. They are all detainable/arrestable/the Feds can interviene.

I'm pleased to hear you've read it. Have you studied it, or any of the documentation of what it was intended to mean (Federalist papers, letters by anti-federalists, convention notes, etc.) or documentation regarding how it has been interpreted since establishment (Supreme and lower court cases with accompanying friend of the court briefs, etc.)? Because the reason it's funny when people whine about Constitutional rights is that they don't exist.

It's a common mistake, but the Constitution doesn't guarantee any rights... because of its structure, the best it can do is state that certain rights may not be infringed upon by the federal government. That's it. So the right to bear arms? Yeah, if you live in a homeowner's association that says no firearms, you don't get to own a gun, Constitution or not. The federal government can't prohibit you from owning and carrying a weapon... but the state government and any level further down can. The NRA invented the "right" to bear arms. Likewise, Planned Parenthood invented the "right" to abortion. There are other examples, but those are some easy ones. Slightly more complicated are issues like writs of habeus corpus... but in that same way, only the federal government is prohibited from issuing these writs. State governments can if they damn well feel like it... according to the Constitution. It just so happens that people are intelligent enough to realize that what's good for the goose is good for the gander and put prohibitions about those writs into the state constitutions as well.

Now, the Declaration of Independence outlines some basic rights that everyone has... but the Declaration is not considered a binding legal document. You're right, it's not very American to violate those rights... but it's not unconstitutional, and therefore not illegal. And the feds can't... and shouldn't be able to... do anything about it.

[black elk speaks]

and no action taken by a city government, unless it infringes upon authority specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, can be unconstitutional. The only possible exception is anything happening in Washington, D.C., where the city government is Congress.

sorry to burst your bubble on this, but take into consideration the supreme court ruling that recently overturned the ban on handguns (legally owned) in the dc area. this was deemed unconstitutional against the second amendment. local dc government was overruled and now citizens are free to carry hand guns again. thank god. now the criminals arent the only ones that are armed.

as for the declaration of martial law, i believe that is constitutional. to declare that it is not is to take away a governments ability to provide security to its citizens. if you don't like it, move

[Visaoni]

and no action taken by a city government, unless it infringes upon authority specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, can be unconstitutional. The only possible exception is anything happening in Washington, D.C., where the city government is Congress.

sorry to burst your bubble on this, but take into consideration the supreme court ruling that recently overturned the ban on handguns (legally owned) in the dc area. this was deemed unconstitutional against the second amendment. local dc government was overruled and now citizens are free to carry hand guns again. thank god. now the criminals arent the only ones that are armed.

as for the declaration of martial law, i believe that is constitutional. to declare that it is not is to take away a governments ability to provide security to its citizens. if you don't like it, move

Oh boy... just... please, never become a politician. The average citizen owning a gun does nothing. In fact, it is often turned against them and used in their own murder. The intent of the Second Amendment was to allow the people to actually have a means of overthrowing the government if it was indeed required. These days however, it is useless. A hand gun won't fare well going head to head (or any other way actually) against a tank. Allowing guns to be so prolific has actually caused our criminals to be even more dangerous. Look how rare it is for shootings in the UK vs the US. The results are pretty telling.

How is martial law security for the citizens? That is like saying the SS provided security for the citizens of Nazi Germany. They kept people in line alright, but in line is very different from safe. Martial law is just a way to control citizens unwilling to rise against the forces raised against them.

And how do you propose to move away from martial law? I don't think whatever force is imposing martial law is likely to let you move.

[GabonX]

I'm very mixed on this. On one hand it violates our constitutional right to peacefully assemble but on the other it may be necessary to ensure security in certain places. If people were better educated on how to defend themselves and it were not so difficult to defend one's position legally this situation may have been avoided.

Regardless of whether or not this is a good or bad thing, there's next to no chance of this holding up if and when it is challenged as it clearly violates the US Constitution.

[black elk speaks]

and no action taken by a city government, unless it infringes upon authority specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, can be unconstitutional. The only possible exception is anything happening in Washington, D.C., where the city government is Congress.

sorry to burst your bubble on this, but take into consideration the supreme court ruling that recently overturned the ban on handguns (legally owned) in the dc area. this was deemed unconstitutional against the second amendment. local dc government was overruled and now citizens are free to carry hand guns again. thank god. now the criminals arent the only ones that are armed.

as for the declaration of martial law, i believe that is constitutional. to declare that it is not is to take away a governments ability to provide security to its citizens. if you don't like it, move

Oh boy... just... please, never become a politician. The average citizen owning a gun does nothing. In fact, it is often turned against them and used in their own murder. The intent of the Second Amendment was to allow the people to actually have a means of overthrowing the government if it was indeed required. These days however, it is useless. A hand gun won't fare well going head to head (or any other way actually) against a tank. Allowing guns to be so prolific has actually caused our criminals to be even more dangerous. Look how rare it is for shootings in the UK vs the US. The results are pretty telling.

How is martial law security for the citizens? That is like saying the SS provided security for the citizens of Nazi Germany. They kept people in line alright, but in line is very different from safe. Martial law is just a way to control citizens unwilling to rise against the forces raised against them.

And how do you propose to move away from martial law? I don't think whatever force is imposing martial law is likely to let you move.

true, some people should not have guns. if i were afraid to shot a person even if they intended me or another bodily harm then i should not have a gun. it is not for you, however, to make that decision (thankfully). whatever the intent, the second amendment is there and you or any one else does not maintain the right to take away my pistola, ty berry much. that said i have to assert that if someone were to invade my home there would be a 911 call for the rescue of the invaders. it may be the responsibility for the government to provide security but they cannot do it all the time. the case of this ark. town is a loud and clear signal that this town is in dire need of a better and more permanent solution, yes, but for the short term, there needs to be a period of martial control. if someone is complaining about being subject to this situation then i suggest one of 2 reasons.

1. they are criminals and their bottom line is being impacted
2. they are citizens that want an expensive and immediate solution that doesn't impede their liberty.

while the second is the more ideal situation it is not something that i am willing to pay for since i live in a mostly safe and thriving productive community. you made an assessment on a picture about cop cars every 20 feet or so. you should not do such things. you should know that they are likely pulling in all resourced, taxing city coffers and man hours in an attempt to quell an out of control system fife with lawlessness and crime. these are the people taking the heat for the our of control crime rate and now they are taking a drastic measure to rectify it. you and the aclu should, quickly run down to the nearest lowes, purchase a lot of duct tape and apply several layers of it to your mouths (in your case, fingers) as you neither live there or have any real understanding of the situation that is there other than the liberally slanted media reports that you subject yourself to.

[Visaoni]

and no action taken by a city government, unless it infringes upon authority specifically granted to the federal government by the Constitution, can be unconstitutional. The only possible exception is anything happening in Washington, D.C., where the city government is Congress.

sorry to burst your bubble on this, but take into consideration the supreme court ruling that recently overturned the ban on handguns (legally owned) in the dc area. this was deemed unconstitutional against the second amendment. local dc government was overruled and now citizens are free to carry hand guns again. thank god. now the criminals arent the only ones that are armed.

as for the declaration of martial law, i believe that is constitutional. to declare that it is not is to take away a governments ability to provide security to its citizens. if you don't like it, move

Oh boy... just... please, never become a politician. The average citizen owning a gun does nothing. In fact, it is often turned against them and used in their own murder. The intent of the Second Amendment was to allow the people to actually have a means of overthrowing the government if it was indeed required. These days however, it is useless. A hand gun won't fare well going head to head (or any other way actually) against a tank. Allowing guns to be so prolific has actually caused our criminals to be even more dangerous. Look how rare it is for shootings in the UK vs the US. The results are pretty telling.

How is martial law security for the citizens? That is like saying the SS provided security for the citizens of Nazi Germany. They kept people in line alright, but in line is very different from safe. Martial law is just a way to control citizens unwilling to rise against the forces raised against them.

And how do you propose to move away from martial law? I don't think whatever force is imposing martial law is likely to let you move.

true, some people should not have guns. if i were afraid to shot a person even if they intended me or another bodily harm then i should not have a gun. it is not for you, however, to make that decision (thankfully). whatever the intent, the second amendment is there and you or any one else does not maintain the right to take away my pistola, ty berry much. that said i have to assert that if someone were to invade my home there would be a 911 call for the rescue of the invaders. it may be the responsibility for the government to provide security but they cannot do it all the time. the case of this ark. town is a loud and clear signal that this town is in dire need of a better and more permanent solution, yes, but for the short term, there needs to be a period of martial control. if someone is complaining about being subject to this situation then i suggest one of 2 reasons.

1. they are criminals and their bottom line is being impacted
2. they are citizens that want an expensive and immediate solution that doesn't impede their liberty.

while the second is the more ideal situation it is not something that i am willing to pay for since i live in a mostly safe and thriving productive community. you made an assessment on a picture about cop cars every 20 feet or so. you should not do such things. you should know that they are likely pulling in all resourced, taxing city coffers and man hours in an attempt to quell an out of control system fife with lawlessness and crime. these are the people taking the heat for the our of control crime rate and now they are taking a drastic measure to rectify it. you and the aclu should, quickly run down to the nearest lowes, purchase a lot of duct tape and apply several layers of it to your mouths (in your case, fingers) as you neither live there or have any real understanding of the situation that is there other than the liberally slanted media reports that you subject yourself to.

You do realize that home invasions are the major case for citizens not owning guns correct? Home invasions are the time when you should hope you don't own a gun, because owning a gun during a home invasion actually increases your chances of being murdered. You can talk all you want about 911 needing to save the criminals if they break into your house, but the statistics don't lie. If you leave your gun locked up, you might just get some unwanted attention before you are armed. If you don't leave it locked up, perhaps you won't wake up until after the intruders have already taken your gun, or perhaps you just plain won't wake up. Not to mention if you have kids they may just shoot themselves or their friend...

And how is the amount of police irrelevant? I agree that every police officer was probably called in for duty during those days or martial law, and that it was very expensive for the city. I have no doubt about that. What I'm saying is that if they are willing to designate that kind of man power to a few streets, there is no need for martial law! Send in those officers for the same amount of time as the martial law lasted and you have the same effect without impeding the average citizen. There was no need for martial law.

Actually, if you really wanted to use a little imagination, you could say that martial law may have increased the amount of criminals after they leave. The criminals will probably lay low and not get caught, but usually neighborhoods that have such extreme problems with crime aren't those of people will great jobs. All the people that could not go to work may have been at risk of losing their job, increasing unemployment and therefor, crime.

[Snorri1234]

Guns are ridiculously easy to handle.

[black elk speaks]

You do realize that home invasions are the major case for citizens not owning guns correct? Home invasions are the time when you should hope you don't own a gun, because owning a gun during a home invasion actually increases your chances of being murdered. You can talk all you want about 911 needing to save the criminals if they break into your house, but the statistics don't lie. If you leave your gun locked up, you might just get some unwanted attention before you are armed. If you don't leave it locked up, perhaps you won't wake up until after the intruders have already taken your gun, or perhaps you just plain won't wake up. Not to mention if you have kids they may just shoot themselves or their friend...

And how is the amount of police irrelevant? I agree that every police officer was probably called in for duty during those days or martial law, and that it was very expensive for the city. I have no doubt about that. What I'm saying is that if they are willing to designate that kind of man power to a few streets, there is no need for martial law! Send in those officers for the same amount of time as the martial law lasted and you have the same effect without impeding the average citizen. There was no need for martial law.

Actually, if you really wanted to use a little imagination, you could say that martial law may have increased the amount of criminals after they leave. The criminals will probably lay low and not get caught, but usually neighborhoods that have such extreme problems with crime aren't those of people will great jobs. All the people that could not go to work may have been at risk of losing their job, increasing unemployment and therefor, crime.

you have to know your self. there is a gun range where i target shoot. when i asked them what the minimum age limit was to use their facility they said that is up to you. i told them that my boy was nine. they said that he is your responsibility. turns out that my son is a good shot

before he ever took a gun into his hands, he was made fully aware of what the responsibilities are when taking a firearm into his possession. i am certain that he will neither shoot himself or a friend. my pistol is always on my person or within immediate reach. it is the responsibility of the gun owner to make sure that he/she is trained and capable in using the weapon and being responsible for its use, whether by them or another party. honestly though, my mention of the overturning of the liberal clamp down on gun laws in dc was only meant to be an example of how the constitution cannot be trampled on by local governments. but that said, martial law ans states of emergency are perfectly legitimate tools for local governments to use. perhaps you would consider it more legal if the governor called in the national guard?

i never said that the number of police were irrelevant and i don't see your point to the entire second paragraph. sorry. i think that the same number of police on "a few streets" as you put it are futile if the streets are packed with unemployed and criminally minded people. i don't pretend to know the situation there, but if there were say 800 or 1000 people on the street at any given time then 60 or so officers over a few streets would be pretty useless, i think.

and your last paragraph makes me think that you are a criminologist. you seem to imagine a lot on the behavior of criminals, believing that they know the economics of crime. i think they would more likely leave the area and set up operations in other areas. anyway, just wait and see i suppose. its obvious to me that you are more liberal minded than me so this will probably sink into a political debate of leftist and right wing arguments. i decline to engage.

[Snorri1234]

i never said that the number of police were irrelevant and i don't see your point to the entire second paragraph. sorry. i think that the same number of police on "a few streets" as you put it are futile if the streets are packed with unemployed and criminally minded people. i don't pretend to know the situation there, but if there were say 800 or 1000 people on the street at any given time then 60 or so officers over a few streets would be pretty useless, i think.

The key lies in making those people afraid of the police anyway. Criminals are rarely an organized group, so they can't get together with the others and ignore the police. The uniform evokes fear into people, while rationally seeing they could easily beat them with the size of their army.

[black elk speaks]

i never said that the number of police were irrelevant and i don't see your point to the entire second paragraph. sorry. i think that the same number of police on "a few streets" as you put it are futile if the streets are packed with unemployed and criminally minded people. i don't pretend to know the situation there, but if there were say 800 or 1000 people on the street at any given time then 60 or so officers over a few streets would be pretty useless, i think.

The key lies in making those people afraid of the police anyway. Criminals are rarely an organized group, so they can't get together with the others and ignore the police. The uniform evokes fear into people, while rationally seeing they could easily beat them with the size of their army.

i am not sure what your point is.

[Snorri1234]

i never said that the number of police were irrelevant and i don't see your point to the entire second paragraph. sorry. i think that the same number of police on "a few streets" as you put it are futile if the streets are packed with unemployed and criminally minded people. i don't pretend to know the situation there, but if there were say 800 or 1000 people on the street at any given time then 60 or so officers over a few streets would be pretty useless, i think.

The key lies in making those people afraid of the police anyway. Criminals are rarely an organized group, so they can't get together with the others and ignore the police. The uniform evokes fear into people, while rationally seeing they could easily beat them with the size of their army.

i am not sure what your point is.

That more police can influence things regardless of whether actual numbers match up.

[black elk speaks]

That more police can influence things regardless of whether actual numbers match up.

what do you mean by "regardless of whether actual numbers match up?"
are you saying that by simply hiring more cops that the crime could be reduced. before you can make that kind of statement, you have to understand 2 things. before more police can be hired, the people have to vote for the number of police to be increased. it impacts local treasuries therefor budget allowances have to made to afford the police. second, you have to understand that this is not likely to be a district with a high tax base to even allow for such a thing to be considered. i would bet that the roads and schools are terrible there too. so what has to happen. well, for starters the people that live there have to care enough about their community to stop looking for someone else to come up with a solution and they have to start making their own solutions. they have to raise their own property values and attract healthy businesses that can generate tax dollars for their community. but so long as people are not willing or capable to do that work they will never have liberty or happiness.

[Snorri1234]

That more police can influence things regardless of whether actual numbers match up.

what do you mean by "regardless of whether actual numbers match up?"
are you saying that by simply hiring more cops that the crime could be reduced. before you can make that kind of statement, you have to understand 2 things. before more police can be hired, the people have to vote for the number of police to be increased. it impacts local treasuries therefor budget allowances have to made to afford the police. second, you have to understand that this is not likely to be a district with a high tax base to even allow for such a thing to be considered. i would bet that the roads and schools are terrible there too. so what has to happen. well, for starters the people that live there have to care enough about their community to stop looking for someone else to come up with a solution and they have to start making their own solutions. they have to raise their own property values and attract healthy businesses that can generate tax dollars for their community. but so long as people are not willing or capable to do that work they will never have liberty or happiness.

Hiring more cops will reduce crime, yes.


Whether or not hiring more cops is an option is up for consideration. I wasn't actually trying to say that this issue can be easily dealt with, but merely taking beef with your statement that cops don't affect the crime-rate. I didn't really read this debate, I just chimed in on your seemingly faulty idea of how the police works. Ten more police-officers can make a world of difference.

[MeDeFe]

That more police can influence things regardless of whether actual numbers match up.

what do you mean by "regardless of whether actual numbers match up?"
are you saying that by simply hiring more cops that the crime could be reduced.

no bes, I think he's saying that the police relies on shock and awe as well as on being accepted (or at least feared), no country in the world has enough police to actually control the rest of the population. What they do is keep up an appearance of being in control, and it works because most people don't mind them. In this case they concentrate their forces to a problematic area to calm the situation down in the hopes that it will remain calm, at least for a while, after they leave.