reply to post by ExPostFacto
At the founding of America, there was no police force. What happened is that the rich people all had security and the poor had no defense. So
when the poor started rioting, the small security force of the rich people could not coordinate well enough between their employers. As one security
group owed no loyalty to another person's property. A compromise was arranged and began the modern day police force and this was started in NYC. So
everyone paid to get a more responsive security force.
Wow you put your own little spin on that didnt you?
We have always had some form of law enforcement capacity whether it was a militia, constable, sheriff or police force. ALWAYS. There are many
reasons why a single constable or sheriff is no longer sufficient in modern times.
In "days gone by," we had less urban sprawl, less advanced and less available means of transportation, smaller towns with less population and less
of a transient population to deal with. In "day's gone by," a town's constable or small local police or sheriff's department was sufficient to
maintain crime and bring criminals to justice with ease.
In "days gone by," all of the residents of a small town knew each other. That makes it very easy when a resident was to witness "Billy Bob's"
son, who is the local troublemaker, commit a crime. That resident could then either take the issue up with "Billy Bob" who would discipline his son
or, if not satisfied, could go to the local sheriff or constable and report the crime knowing exactly who was responsible.
The problem is we no longer live in "days gone by." Now a days urban sprawl has made many small towns a suburb of a larger city. Going from small
town to suburb brings with it a larger population, public transportation, more and larger roads, a transient population and public housing. When a
small town becomes a suburb, the population is not likely to know each other anylonger. Larger population tends to bring the crime rate up. Combine
that with methods of transportation that allow a criminal from one part of town to move efficiently and rapidly to another part of town, commit a
crime anonymously and then move efficiently and rapidly out of that part of town and you have crime that a local sheriff or constable is no longer
effiective at dealing with.
Experience has shown that to deal with the more suburban type environment that we live in today, it requires a larger police force that has to employ
different tactics when trying to curtail crime. The ability for one to commit crimes anonymously makes the police department focus more on tactics
such as deterrance through "omnipresence," or the appearance of being everywhere at the same time. Also tactics such as using an intelligence
section to keep track of certain crime trends and focus patrols accordingly or tactics on the patrol level such as a patrol officer stopping someone
who is acting suspiciously and identifying them.
All of this combined requires more personnel and different tactics in policing that a constable, sheriff or small department simply can not offer.
All of this severly limits, but not removes, a single police officer's ability to get to know everyone in the area and fine tailor their methods of
policing to every member of that population. In fact, in this environment, the police probably only know, by first name, the people who are giving
them a constant problem and they have to deal with on a consistent basis and do not know the good family that lives right down the street that they
never have to deal with.
Today, though it appears corporations own the police force. I used to work for some big corporations and we hired police all the time. We paid
them $25 an hour or more sometimes, and they were allowed to use all their power as a police officer. That means if I wanted someone off our corporate
property all I had to do was give the order and the police did the rest, called backup and made an arrest.
Exactly. They were protecting the private property rights of the property owner. Police officers do that through the tresspass laws whether on duty
or working part time.
What are you arguing for? The dissolution of private property? I happen to enjoy private property rights along with the countless other homeowners
in the United States.