A Practical Solution- Run Police Departments Like Fire Departments

This sounds like a good idea to me; a return to the way we used to be policed.

Do you lie awake at night in constant fear a fire will break out and nothing will be done to put it out?

For the 99% of the population not suffering from pyrophobia or a similar neurosis, the answer to that question is “no,” even though firefighters aren’t patrolling the streets in their big red trucks. They still manage to arrive at the scene of a fire within minutes of an emergency call.

I’m going to suggest a solution that will sound radical, even in a country that styles itself “the land of free.” Let’s get cops off the streets, unless responding to a 911 call or serving a warrant issued by a judge. Everyone would be freer and safer, including the police officers themselves.

Here’s the catch: you can’t have a free society where this “protection” occurs in advance. The federal and every state constitution assumes the government can’t and shouldn’t do anything to prevent a crime. The Fourth and Fifth amendments were written to keep the government from even trying. They assume the government is powerless until a crime has already occurred, the Fourth in particular providing further restraint on how the government investigates after the fact. Defending oneself while a crime is occurring is left to the citizen. It’s not a responsibility of the police. Even the Supreme Court agrees. Protecting oneself is what the Second Amendment is all about.

It hasn’t always been this way. The modern police department as we know it is a product of the 20th century. Prior to that, peace officers were generally dispatched in response to a complaint by the victim of a real crime, usually with a warrant. Contrary to legend, this did not lead to chaos, even in the inappropriately named “Wild West.” We don’t need police officers out patrolling the streets. Fire Departments have proven we can achieve emergency response in minutes without that. There is no reason police departments can’t operate the same way.

Source

What say you ATS? Should police have less of a presence on the street and be more available for true emergency calls?

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

It really is the truth.

We need less police, not more.

People in bad neighborhoods need to embrace the 2A (despite what the NAACP tells them) and stand their ground vs the thugs and criminals.

Bad guys need to learn that ordinary citizens can and will fight back.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

A reason police patrol the streets is to deter crime, and it usually works to a point. Long ago, people were more able to police themselves, to a point. Fires usually happen on accident, while crime is intentional. There is a big difference. The way I see it anyway.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Terrible comparison.

Patrolling firetrucks don't deter fires from starting.

Regular police coverage in appropriate areas will deter crime.

Stupid.

originally posted by: Urantia1111
a reply to: WeDemBoyz

Terrible comparison.

Patrolling firetrucks don't deter fires from starting.

Regular police coverage in appropriate areas will deter crime.

Stupid.

So big cities with more police officers in a smaller area should have lower crime rates than a similar sized area in the suburbs that has less police coverage?

Heres what we need

1) is this your personal property?
A)Yes-carry on
B)No-don't touch it

If the government and individuals respected private property right, most of the shootings would never happen.

This would never happen, we all know the main reason police are out "patrolling" at this point is for taxation purposes. Without the revenues from all the tickets they write, most of the police infrastructure would collapse. It has gotten too big, by way of revenue enforcement, that it's really just a runaway train at this point.

What say you ATS? Should police have less of a presence on the street and be more available for true emergency calls?

Dead people can't dial 911.

Great... I think of 'firemen' from Fahrenheit 451... or worse, police with axes and high pressure water cannon ... if so, then the old term "hosed" will take on a horrible, pressurized enema-esque new meaning.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I think it's a great idea. For the maybe 2 times I had to call actual police in my life, they took a long time to show up. 20 minutes, about. Maybe because they were wandering around trying to 'deter' crime, no idea why.

The times I have called 911 for a medical emergency for myself and once for my mother, in 3 different cities, paramedics, firefighters and volunteer firefighters arrived in under 5 minutes. In all 3 cities, it is required that police respond as well. They straggle in at the end of the call or when someone is being placed in an ambulance, to ask for a name and address and act as if their time is being wasted.

Fire departments seem to be more numerous and more strategically located than police departments. They focus on fire and paramedic services. Police stations, in the city and suburbs here are massive complexes that house or are connected to courts, local jails, animal control and about 5 other things. It can take them 10 minutes to get out of the parking lot.

Good thread

Or close the police departments and just arm the firefighters!!! Wouldnt that be wild. Around my parts we have citizen patrol in sheriff cars, volunteer police if you will. It seems to work and their presence is seen out on the roads a few times a day. But we are rural and what works here might not in a big city.

Get them off the streets and bring back volunteer minutemen- with monetary incentives to pull your weight.

I seem to recall a wave of neighborhood community mobile phone apps a few years ago which encouraged people to help eachother out by giving them the option to call for help- not to the jackboot thugs, but to anyone else signed up who happened to be nearby.

Modern minutemen- I don't know how much I trust the citizens to do what's right when the time comes, but I know I can't trust the police.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

This is a pretty terrible idea, and here are a few reasons off the top of my head:

- Keeping police at the precinct instead of out patrolling around could dramatically increase what is already (generally) a long response time. Nine minutes is the average response time of a police officer to a 911 call. If you understand anything, you know that a LOT of deadly scenarios can play out in nine minutes, and many have while waiting for officers to respond.

- We would need to increase the amounts of police stations in order to limit the effect mentioned above. Sure, keeping police in-station would be great for those in the immediate area, but think about the additional time it would take to go from waiting, to getting one's gear, to getting into the patrol car, and getting out on the road. Hell, even if you only lived one mile from the police station, that could still make the total time more than 9 minutes. That doesn't sound like a "practical solution."

- According to the LA Times, the average response time by a fire department in LA is 6'32" from the time the 911 call is received. That's actually pretty good, but keep in mind that there are 106 fire departments in the city of Los Angeles versus 21 police stations covering the same area. Considering the vast difference in the amount of stations between the two, it's impressive to note that the LAPD boasts a faster response time than the LAFD, but keep in mind, much of this is probably because of having people actively out on patrol, not in spite of it.

- The 911 system is a failure in many parts of the nation as it stands right now (see John Oliver's video at the bottom of this response), and your proposal would increase the deman on that system, even if only by 5-10%. In many places, that could overload the system, especially in larger cities where there is already a high demand.

There are a few other things that I could mention, but that's good for now.

I do, however, agree that officers absolutely should do less policing of mundane things like jaywalking or riding bikes on a sidewalk or even speeding down the interstate, and should only be out patrolling looking for people who need help (or are dangerously doing any of the mundane things that I mentioned)--you know, actually serving instead of constantly inspecting the public with a semi-jaundiced eye.

But we all know that this can't happen, because the police need the revenue from mundane tickets in order to "survive" as an entity, so none of that can change in the current system. There would need to be a MASSIVE overhaul of the system to make this happen.

I would, however, like to see more on-foot patrolling in lieu of vehicle patrolling--I think that police were a much more effective presence when that was a norm than they are now driving around in their vehicles that are full of distractions, and that also helped with the face-to-face interactions with the neighborhoods that they patrolled and gave them a more human face other than people just seeing a badge.

More human-to-human interaction would be a great step in changing the public's relationship with police, and keeping them canned up in a station until needed would do exactly the opposite.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

Maybe if they'd stop spending their funding on riot gear and surplus military equipment, they'd not need to write so many tickets for doing essentially nothing wrong.

Long gone are the days of the officer walking down the street saying hello to the townsfolks, with a service revolver at his side.

Oooh! The cops will get to slide down a long brass pole just like the nozzle heads! Yippee!

Does this count towards highway patrols too? Because I will speed the eff out of the Interstate System.

a reply to: WeDemBoyz

I have to wonder: Does the person that came up with this live anywhere near a city where there is a lot of crime? While this might work in a city where the worst crime is a kid making graffiti on a wall, I don't agree with this idea at all.

Here's my main points of why this would be a bad idea:

1. Comparing firefighters to police is comparing apples to potatoes: A fire will still spark regardless of whether the firefighter is there or not. At least with police around, people will be less inclined to do something they normally would. For example, if you knew where a given speed trap was - would you still continue to blow past where the cop was hiding? Would you still try to mug that guy ahead of you if you saw a cop staring you down? ("You" doesn't mean you; rather, I mean you the reader).

2. Having more cops on the street increases the chances you might get help quicker. Imagine this: You're driving on some lonely interstate in Northern Michigan; no houses for miles. Pop! you get a flat tire, and wind up on the side of the road. You check your phone, and realize not only was the charger left at the hotel, but it's almost dead with no service.

At this point, you can hope that someone will be kind enough to stop - it's been my experience that a cop will stop if it looks like you need assistance; many drivers will pass you by. I've driven those roads before, and usually, there is at least one cop that drives the route not to make money, but to make sure people like you or me aren't stranded.

3. Cops are there to help maintain the peace - It's fine and all to tell people to fight back, but what happens when the person you are fighting back against has a gun in your face? Unless you were in some branch of the armed forces or a martial arts graduate, most people would either comply or attempt to flee. Can't exactly call for help from police in that situation.

In closing - I do agree that the police shouldn't be doing the mundane tasks such as going after jaywalkers, cyclists on the sidewalk, witnessing someone flicking another person off, and should put more focus on the "real" crimes. But take them off the streets? Bad, Bad, Bad!

-fossilera

a reply to: lordcomac

True, but if you review the history of the "why" behind the militarization of police forces, it was in reaction to criminals outgunning and out-armoring them. Yes, it quickly evolved into an overreaction, and now it borders on being comically ridiculous concerning their militarization, but it's not like they woke up one day and all the police forces said, "You know, we should really buy a bunch of crap that we'll rarely need, and then start using it more often than is necessary, just so that we can write more tickets."

I agree that they are over-equipped in many aspects of what policing should be, and that they would do well to sell off much of it, but when we have the federal government offering them military-grade vehicles and other things at a steal, it makes total sense as to why they would jump at the chance to have it at their disposal.

The problem is that they either over-use these things once they have them, or don't use them at all and it was a waste of local taxpayer dollars. In both scenarios, it's not in the best interest of the general public, and it should be stopped.

Honestly, I think the gangster-rap era of the late-80s through the early-90s ushered in the era of no more foot patrols. All the rhetoric about "F**k the Police" and "Cop Killer" and the like really made police forces think twice about sending their LEOs out on foot, out in the open, unprotected, into atmospheres like that. And now we're back with a similar attitude sweeping areas of the country, and it's no wonder that the LEOs are again nervous and paranoid and skeptical.

Can't really blame them, honestly, but it puts them in a catch-22; they can't (well, shouldn't) renew foot patrols right now, even if they really wanted to, so this divide between officers and civilians persists. But I think that we're sliding off-topic, at this point.