One of most dangerous cities in US plans to ditch police force, page 1

Pages: << 1 2 >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 8 times

Topic started on 30-8-2012 @ 10:00 AM by totallackey

One of most dangerous cities in US plans to ditch police force

usnews.nbcnews.com< br />

Amid what they call a “public safety crisis,” officials in Camden, N.J., plan to disband the city's 141-year-old police department and replace it with a non-union division of the Camden County Police.

Camden city officials have touted the move as necessary to combat the city’s growing financial and safety problems. The entire 267-member police department will be laid off and replaced with a newly reformatted metro division, which is projected to have some 400 members. It will serve only the city of Camden starting in early 2013.

(visit the link for the full news article)

Related News Links:
www.youtube.com
www.governing.com

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:00 AM by totallackey

I believe the removal of the police from our cities is simply paving the way for outsiders who do not care one whit for the neighbors we cherish. Removal of the police from walking beats and placing them in roving autos was the first step towards criminalizing our neighborhoods. This is the logical consequence.
The only legitimate reason for government to exist is to enforce the law and protect the citizenry from all threats, foreign and domestic. Government is abdicating its responsibility.

usnews.nbcnews.com< br /> (visit the link for the full news article)

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:10 AM by randomname

the land of the free, the "richest" country in the world, can't afford a police force.

sad.

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:10 AM by randomname

edit on 30-8-2012 by randomname because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:11 AM by -W1LL

The entire 267-member police department will be laid off and replaced with a newly reformatted metro division, which is projected to have some 400 members

my maths may be off but how can they expect to save money when they will be hiring more people

sounds like they are upping the police force and using private security just like the military.

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:12 AM by TXRabbit

Seems like a viable attempt to get rid of the entrenched union presence in a public-service operation.
Good luck Camden. I'm sure other municipalities are watching with great interest

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:15 AM by hawkiye

It is a bit misleading since they are replacing it with county sheriffs. Having said that I am all for disbanding police forces and moving to private protection. Police have just become highway men and collections agents for government extortion rackets.

Perhaps this is just a slow burn slide into chaos. When we all think of the SHTF we think some overnight incident will cause chaos however maybe it will just be slow with things like this as more and more towns cities counties states and the country go bankrupt. They keep printing and creating more money but when will inflation reach the tipping point crashing the dollar and causing the money to be worthless.

Reminds of the old Foghat tune Slow Ride...

YouTube Link

www.youtube.com...

edit on 30-8-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:18 AM by camaro68ss

Originally posted by -W1LL

The entire 267-member police department will be laid off and replaced with a newly reformatted metro division, which is projected to have some 400 members

my maths may be off but how can they expect to save money when they will be hiring more people

sounds like they are upping the police force and using private security just like the military.

You kick the union out and it frees up wage costs. Under union rules you have to pay a wage negotiated under contract. Now they can cut salery by half and double the force.

edit on 30-8-2012 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:19 AM by Destinyone

reply to post by -W1LL

I would think the savings on those Union pensions alone, would more than pay for the extra personnel in the revamped police force.

Unions have had a stranglehold on cities for far too long. They/cities, just don't have the funds to keep the bubble going.

Des

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:26 AM by totallackey

reply to post by hawkiye

It is a bit misleading since they are replacing it with county sheriffs. Having said that I am all for disbanding police forces and moving to private protection. Police have just become highway men and collections agents for government extortion rackets.

I do not believe private firms should engage in any aspect of law enforcement. I believe the only legitimate reason for government to exist is to enforce the law. In this country, we have the concept of self-government. If I govern myself accordingly, then government has no reason to interfere. Private firms could easily do so without hesitation.
reply to post by Destinyone

I think the spending on activities other than law enforcement has painted us into a corner. We need to stop spending money on fruitless issues (war on drugs, foreing wars, etc.) and simply focus on maintaining lawful conduct within our own society.

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:28 AM by grey580

Require every citizen to openly carry a firearm.

Watch the crime rate go down to 0.

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:30 AM by TXRabbit

reply to post by Destinyone

Not only that, but now they can Fire/punish people that screw up (hard to do in a Union)

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:32 AM by MikeNice81

Originally posted by Destinyone
reply to post by -W1LL

I would think the savings on those Union pensions alone, would more than pay for the extra personnel in the revamped police force.

Unions have had a stranglehold on cities for far too long. They/cities, just don't have the funds to keep the bubble going.

Des

I believe you may be right on this one.

From the article:

“It’s not a money-saver, it’s living within the budget you’ve got to get more boots on the ground,” Camden County spokesperson Joyce Gabriel told NBC News. “There has been an uptick in violence this year, and the city decided to go with the county’s police department.”

In other words, the current union system was breaking them. They couldn't afford to address the problem with unionized officers, so they merged to avoid the union. Many of the current officers will probably come back at a lower pay scale in the new Metro division.

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:33 AM by Destinyone

reply to post by totallackey

I disagree with you on your thinking that the only purpose for government is to police us, the citizens of different States. I feel it's the responsibility of individual cities to determine the extent, and scope, of their own policing needs. I don't like the government having absolute power over my freedoms. Nor, having absolute power of taxing me to pay for their universal police force.

What you are suggesting, seems more like a military force instead of a police force. jmoho...

Des

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:45 AM by hawkiye

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by hawkiye

It is a bit misleading since they are replacing it with county sheriffs. Having said that I am all for disbanding police forces and moving to private protection. Police have just become highway men and collections agents for government extortion rackets.

I do not believe private firms should engage in any aspect of law enforcement. I believe the only legitimate reason for government to exist is to enforce the law. In this country, we have the concept of self-government. If I govern myself accordingly, then government has no reason to interfere. Private firms could easily do so without hesitation.
reply to post by Destinyone

I think the spending on activities other than law enforcement has painted us into a corner. We need to stop spending money on fruitless issues (war on drugs, foreing wars, etc.) and simply focus on maintaining lawful conduct within our own society.

You have got it all wrong private firms would be for protection only they would not be enforcing laws except t protect who hired them from criminals. They would not be cruising the streets extorting people for so called victimless crimes. You do not need to be a police officer to enforce "real" laws if someone is harming you or others.

Technically police forces are private corporate enterprises anyways but people think they have more power then they really do according to actual law so they get away with all kinds of BS. If people knew security was private they would not be able to over step their bounds as easy as they would be limited in scope and everyone knows it as opposed to police who we tolerate all ther BS because of their supposed god like powers in the minds of the people.

Anyone can bring a claim against anyone else of they were harmed in any way. However no harm no crime. That is the way this country was built and we need to get back to that! Private security would be a big step in that direction.

People will say what about those ho can't afford it. It would be really cheap if we got government out of it so instead of paying the ever increasing taxes you could spend that money on contracting with a security company. Or just get together with your neighbors and form your own for the neighborhood and then you could have people you know looking out for your area or hire a few security personal pay for it like association dues. It really is simple and not so complicated as people think.

Don't worry I doubt anything like I propose will happen anytime soon. People are too steeped in their "beliefs" of "how things should be" and nothing like this will happen until it becomes an absolute necessity if it isn't too late.

edit on 30-8-2012 by hawkiye because: (no reason given)

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:53 AM by totallackey

reply to post by Destinyone

I disagree with you on your thinking that the only purpose for government is to police us, the citizens of different States. I feel it's the responsibility of individual cities to determine the extent, and scope, of their own policing needs. I don't like the government having absolute power over my freedoms. Nor, having absolute power of taxing me to pay for their universal police force. What you are suggesting, seems more like a military force instead of a police force. jmoho... Des

Not at all...It would be localized. Each town, municipality, etc...no money coming from the fed...taxes collected locally...just for the purpose of enforcing the law...the laws could be shared across boundaries, much the way they are now...

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 10:56 AM by totallackey

reply to post by hawkiye

You have got it all wrong private firms would be for protection only they would not be enforcing laws except t protect who hired them from criminals. They would not be cruising the streets extorting people for so called victimless crimes. You do not need to be a police officer to enforce "real" laws. if someone is harming you or others.

True. However, the government is still necessary to determine whether you are acting lawfully in enforcing the law, correct?

Anyone can bring a claim against anyone else of they were harmed in any way. However no harm no crime. That is the way this country was built and we need to get back to that! Private security would be a big step in that direction.

My idea of localized and locally funded police departments is exactly like this. Everyone who needs (i.e., all members of that community) protection would have the protection. No federal funding necessary nor wanted...

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 11:18 AM by Common Good

Personally, with all the cop abuse videos I have been seeing I think there might be a dramatic drop in battery charges.
They wont be able to afford those kinds of mistakes. They hardly can now. Which is the way it should be.

I say we let the people police themselves and see how it turns out. People are too dependant on foreign help in times of crisis anyways. They should learn a new way of fending for themselves and taking care of thy neighbor instead of spying on thy neighbor with the fingers touching the buttons 9 and 1. its also never a bad idea to learn how to take care of yourself and those you love. You going to trust all of that to somebody else to whom you dont even know? People walk around thinking they are safe because they have police. Its foolish.

Police cant stop people from being psycho and doing psycho things. All they can do, is to try and catch them.
How much good does that do you when you are dead? You are still the screwed one.
They provide a presense, but criminals try not to commit crimes right in front of them.
They look like Lego warriors these days. Equipped with everything to take you down if they see fit.
If you know the law better than they do, they introduce your forehead to the pavement.

...but in a place where crime runs rampant everyday, I can see how it can make most cops psycho.

..good luck peeps.

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 11:28 AM by totallackey

reply to post by Common Good

I agree with your ideas of self government, but I believe this concept worked best when police were walking the beat rather than riding the beat. The police had the opportunity to directly interact with the persons they are charged to protect. The citizenry had the opportunity to get to know them on a human level.

reply posted on 30-8-2012 @ 11:33 AM by Common Good

Originally posted by totallackey
reply to post by Common Good

I agree with your ideas of self government, but I believe this concept worked best when police were walking the beat rather than riding the beat. The police had the opportunity to directly interact with the persons they are charged to protect. The citizenry had the opportunity to get to know them on a human level.

Ill take a peace officer/beat cop over what we have now anyday- for sure.