posted on Dec, 24 2012 @ 11:51 AM
Originally posted by michael1983l
reply to post by Skywatcher2011
In the US my understanding is that the Police are to "Protect and Serve" with protect being the key word. It is the detectives role to investigate
the after effects of a crime. I think the difference here clearly is that of culture, Yanks feel that they need a gun to protect themselves wheras the
Brits do not. It is as simple as that really, but that psudo protection comes at a price for you as has been seen time and time again in the News over
in the USA.
Michael, I have not logged in for a while, but rest assured, I have now logged in to whoop that a**. Slogans are catchy and easy to regurgitate, yet
they often do not reflect reality. Cops are there to protect and serve? I disagree….. check out this bad boy,
Warren v. District of Columbia
In my town of 30,000, we have a total of police force of 29 sworn officers, 16 of which are patrol officers and 7 are sergeants...this means that only
23 are available for actual community policing. Now, on average, we will have 2-3 officers patrolling per shift....again, 2-3 patrolling per shift.
That is only 2-3 "protectors" for every 10-12 hours. Obviously with budget cuts,law enforcement must become more of a reactive institution than they
alreay are as they cut staffing, have less availability, and less resources.This should not make anyone feel safe. Now for a comparison, the
metropolitan city of San Jose, CA has a population of 971,372 and a patrolling police force of less than 1200. Feel safe?
When taken in a logical context, it would be absurd to suggest that these institutions have the power, resources, and ability to protect the
citizenry, not even taking into account that the police do not have a duty to protect. All of this suggests that it is more logical, intelligent, and
effective to empower the citizenry and those that have the ability to be proactive, rather than reactive.
I am now done with you, please, enjoy your day.