Community based policing, vigilantes and spies

Is community based policing turning our societies into vigilantee societies and spy socieities?

I have just been reading up on this and it's really interesting, citizens becoming the eyes and ears of the community. Patroling and keeping watch and signalling to each other when they see an odd occurance, basically running your neighbourhood the way you see fit.

One set of rules that might apply in one neighbourhood might not apply in another neibourhood. Eg. In the gay community Toronto police will be turning a blind eye to sex that is happening in some of the clubs, because that's how that community wants things run.

Now if you have another community that is a little bit more focused on let's say instand justice, I have read where you sometimes run into vigalantee elements taking the law into their own hands.

I am not well versed on this, so I am wondering if anyone can lend some feedback?

I also understand that as part of this initiative, members are sometimes taught a one handed sign language, so they can communitcate with each other while out in public and the suspects will not become aware.

My question is, what is to stop an average citizen and a group of their friends from putting someone on one of these community hit lists?

Eg. Let's just say you don't like that person, you are jealous of that person, or you just want revenge on that person?

With many elements of various cities around the world taking part in these programs we have governments, corporations, private foundations, citizens, snitches, the police and other agencies in this new found relationship to help reduce crime and get citizens more involved in monitoring, keeping survellence, and patrolling their communities, and sometimes citizens in those communities.

So what has been your experience with community based policing, is it creating vigilantees or turning our societies into spy societies?

The closest thing I have seen to community based policing in the USA are home owner associations (HOA's). In some neighborhoods HOA's enforce rules that are supposedly made for the benefit of the properties bound by the HOA's covenants. Most neighbors do not go around snitching on their neighbors and are reasonable, but there is always one person that feels the need to go around and make sure that everyone is complying with the HOA's rules to the letter. These people are unreasonable zealous and nit picking.

I would imagine with community policing all it takes is one person to be particularly zealous and nit picking to ruin in. That one person can go around citing everyone for minor infractions, and do so unfairly.

Question to the OP: can you expand upon your definition of "community policing"? We're all aware of Neighborhood Watches, etc., but it seems like you're implying taking it to another level, i.e, the residents playing judge, jury, and executioner. Is that what you mean?

Although, there are neighborhoods where that is done, or was done at one time. Boston's North End, for example, did their own policing at one time.

Hi hotpinkurinalmint.

I am aware of neighbourhood associations, but this goes way beyond that.

Hi jsobecky.

This is more in line with what I mean. We have people that are activily patroling neighbourhoods, keeping an eye on things, and using signals to communicate. I also mean that yes, some do seem to be playing judge, jury and slow executioner.

I have been reading up on a lot of articles, and I wanted to know if anyone was familiar with this concept or principle, I understand it's happeing in the US, UK, Canada, etc.

Using the community to police and to patrol society.

Here is one article that gave me the link that I was looking for.

www.kersplebedeb.com...

[ext]CARESSING THE COMMUNITY WITH AN IRON FIST
“Savvy law enforcement types realized that under the community policing rubric,
cops, community groups, local companies, private foundations, citizen informants
and federal agencies could form alliances without causing public outcry.” Covert
Action Quarterly, summer 1997.[/ext]

It talks about the aliances of companies, police, business, informants and others to help with community policing.


This article has some information about structure.

www.cops.usdoj.gov...


This article talks about people going out and policing their communities, and each community is essentially run the way each community sees fit.

The police from what I understand can also give people the power to monitor or put someone under suvellence?


Empowering community supervision or stalking?
www.popcenter.org...

[ext]Although easy solutions may not be available, it is nevertheless productive to target those people responsible for repeat or chronic disturbances. In San Diego, for example, police received an average of four calls per month about a man who was disruptive and threatening in his neighborhood.[57] Previous responses were found to have been ad hoc and ineffective. When police targeted him, they were able to meet with him, gather his history, and then use criminal charges and probation conditions to exercise greater control over him. At the same time, the police organized and empowered the community to apply more supervision over the man and gather better evidence in case additional charges or probation revocation became necessary. The end result was a 75 percent decrease in calls and a community that was more satisfied that the police department had helped them address a chronic problem.[/ext]

Then there is the community following people around and communicating with each other when they see someone who they think it a suspect?

It's a free 8 hour course offered to the general public, but I think specifically people helping with community policing, so I was just wondering if people were familiar with this? I also wanted to know more about how it was working?
I am having trouble understanding the full scope of it.

[ext]Description: This course will provide students with the ability to communicate with each other non verbally using one-handed signals in police environments and without the suspects hearing anything. This training, based upon the same signs used by the hearing impaired public, will cover basic nonverbal communication techniques using single-hand sign language for use in police environments or situations where verbal communication is not desirable. As part of the course, students will also demonstrate the use of these hand signals through practical exercises, scenarios, and final assessment.
[/ext]

I understand in the UK they are now handing out tickets for anti-social behaviour?

www.neighbourhoodpolicing.co.uk...

[ext]Anti-social behaviour and thuggishness can also
fuel people’s fears. And it is just this type of
disorder that dedicated neighbourhood policing
teams can help deal with more effectively – as
the Metropolitan Police Service’s ‘Safer
Neighbourhoods’ teams have proved.[/ext]

Well, imo, there certainly is some benefit in being aware of what's going on in your neighborhood. I haven't heard of any one-handed signals, but certain whistles and other sounds are used for alerts.

This happens the world over, btw. Walk down the street of many small towns in Asia or the mideast and people may disappear behind their doors. But you are constantly being watched.

Nothing wrong with that that I can see, except when it goes overboard. Like where German citizens were encouraged to spy on each other. Or, if citizens decide to become the executioner. Even then, there have been cases where frustrated townspeople have taken matters into their own hands, and I can sometimes empathize with them.

Hi jsobecky.

I can understand that, and I am all for this to a degree, but what I see in my city is many stores taking part, librarians, civil servants, snitches, citizens, and others.

The thing is it seems to be at Stasi level or above, I mean I just see so much participation in this, and it's not just one or two neighbourhoods, it's all over the place, and I can't seem to understand how long the whole thing has been happening. I thought maybe it was just a 9-11 thing, but this has been ongoing for longer than that.

Then I read about community policing in that article about business, citizens, snitches, etc all comming together and doing these patrols, and spying for the city and then it made sense.

Yes this does happen all over the world from what I have read, but there is a vigilante element and I am not sure how that is working, that is what I am trying to get a handle on.

America, until just recently, has had a long and sometimes gruesome history of community policing. Neighbors watching out for neighbors is all very well and good, until those neighbors try to become jury and executioner. I left out judge, because we all must judge what proper behaviour is, or isn't. Jury...can all too often turn to mob justice. Executioner...lynchings.

Neighborhood watches do far more good than bad. But as someone said, there is always someone who is over zealous, and follows the letter of the law, rather than the spirit in which it was intended. Too many and you get a culture of one half of the population informing on the other half, and no one trusting anyone, and the very thing we try to prevent, criminal behaviour, thrives. The old soviet union comes immediately to mind.

Originally posted by Harassment101
Hi jsobecky.

I can understand that, and I am all for this to a degree, but what I see in my city is many stores taking part, librarians, civil servants, snitches, citizens, and others.

Do you see this yourself, personally? Can I ask you a couple of personal questions? I'll understand and respect your privacy if you choose not to answer.

1. What is your nationality and ethnicity?
2. Which area of the country do you live in?

Edit to add: What age group are you in, given a range of, for example, 18-25, 25-35, etc.





[edit on 16-1-2007 by jsobecky]

I have an opinion on neighborhood patrolling. First, the patrolman or patrolwoman must reside in the neighborhood he or she patrols. Next, the patrolperson must be vetted by the people who live in the neighborhood. Higher education and a clean criminal record are not needed for a good neighborhood patrolperson. What is needed is a general consensus the person is mature, is responsible and is trustworthy, in the judgment of the neighbors.

Each person so chosen should receive formal training under the PD, in the particular laws they will be enforcing and in ways to avoid fatal confrontations. I'm thinking of 2 months. Equally important one PD should be assigned to each neighborhood as an extra duty for him, but available 24/7 to offer advice via radio or to respond in saturations that require professional police intervention.

The neighborhood patrolpersons would be paid $8 or $10 an hour when working. There should be a general meeting open to all residents of the neighborhood quarterly, and a 3-4 member committee designated to be liaison between the neighborhood and the patrolpersons.

The point of it all is to provide knowledgeable people on the street at a price affordable to the community. By limiting the scope of both the duties and responsibilities, less well trained people can perform the essential tasks assigned. By designating one PD to be exclusively “responsible” for the overall policing of the neighborhood, the good people who live in the neighborhood can take back their streets. And the taxpayers will not go broke in the doing of it.


Foot Note: Consider. A city hires a 20 year old to be a policeman. He works 20 years and retires at half pay. He is 40. The city hires another person to be a policeman. He works 20 years and he retires at half pay. Now the first man is 60, the second man is 40, and the city must hire a third man to be a policeman. At full pay. It is entirely possible this man can work 20 years and retire at half pay. The first man is now 80, not impossible, the second man is 60 and the third man is 40. The city must now hire a 4th man to be a policeman. This was ok when cops got paid chicken feed, but now cops are in the upper half of public employees.

Jacksonville, where I live, allots 47% of its city’s $900 million budget for the JSO - Jacksonville Sheriff’s Office. The police. 2,300 sworn officers. Serving 800,000 people. We must begin to think smart and stop acting dumb.


[edit on 1/16/2007 by donwhite]

Hmm... DW, that's not a bad notion at all.

Living in the neighborhood is a must, otherwise how is it different from your average cop? A vested interest if you will.

Way above, dude.

See? We can agree on something .

[edit on 16-1-2007 by seagull]

yep, i always remember years ago reading how some person just did not like there neighbour in the usa, and they rang someone or did something and the neighbour ending up being commited and having there life ruined because of the neighbour not liking them or something.

i see on the internet they sell weapons that are directed energy weapons to use against your neighbours, titled drive your neighbour up the wall, with weird sounds and directed energy that would make them sick etc...

you just do not know who you may upset in this world, because 1)people would do anything for money if they get paid to destroy your life, 2)people always have this revenge mentality, and always like to attack people that are in a weaker position to them.,

you said it all in your first sentence, when you said, whats to stop people just making stuff up about a person they do not like for some reason, and having there lifes ruined.

Originally posted by donwhite

I have an opinion on neighborhood patrolling. First, the patrolman or patrolwoman must reside in the neighborhood he or she patrols. Next, the patrolperson must be vetted by the people who live in the neighborhood. Higher education and a clean criminal record are not needed for a good neighborhood patrolperson. What is needed is a general consensus the person is mature, is responsible and is trustworthy, in the judgment of the neighbors.

I don't agree with these criteria. Why the residency requirement? I know it would be nice to have the officer live on the next street, but it shouldn't be a requirement.

As far as trustworthiness, I think we have to assume that of all officers. As far as vetting, unless the HOA is privately hiring and paying the officer, they have no right to vet them. Once again, we must assume that all officers have been vetted equally.

Each person so chosen should receive formal training under the PD, in the particular laws they will be enforcing and in ways to avoid fatal confrontations. I'm thinking of 2 months. Equally important one PD should be assigned to each neighborhood as an extra duty for him, but available 24/7 to offer advice via radio or to respond in saturations that require professional police intervention.

In my city, the officers do receive training for this task, and I'm sure my city is not unique. Part of his/her duties are to meet with the neighborhood, and educate them on what role they should play.

The neighborhood patrolpersons would be paid $8 or $10 an hour when working. There should be a general meeting open to all residents of the neighborhood quarterly, and a 3-4 member committee designated to be liaison between the neighborhood and the patrolpersons.

At whose expense? If the city pays them, that opens up a whole slew of financial and legal responsibilities.

The point of it all is to provide knowledgeable people on the street at a price affordable to the community. By limiting the scope of both the duties and responsibilities, less well trained people can perform the essential tasks assigned. By designating one PD to be exclusively “responsible” for the overall policing of the neighborhood, the good people who live in the neighborhood can take back their streets. And the taxpayers will not go broke in the doing of it.

Neighborhood watch programs are not a new or radical concept. It pretty much emphasizes community involvement and a focal point within the PD.

Also, I wanted to mention that even though I used the term HOA several times, it was not meant to exclude people who are not homeowners. It was just used as a catch-all term.

I'm all for getting police out of their cars and onto the sidewalks where they can actually meet the people they are supposed to serve and protect. Community involvement is a good thing where justice is served and people work together with police to create a safer healthier environment for all.

Unfortunately we live in a culture of blame and punishment. Justice is not served by emulating massive wealth and having one set of laws for the rich and another for the poor. The Patriot act insures that there are no legal safe-guards in place to protect the individual against abuses of power.

So really - it's like staring down the barrel of communist USSR - he who throws # first will win. Without the bill of rights and amendments - we can expect a decay in the moral character of the nation. Similar to the backbiting, deceptions and slander that determined who was successful as communist block leader.

posted by jsobecky

I don't agree with these criteria. Why the residency requirement? I know it would be nice to have the officer live on the next street, but it shouldn't be a requirement. [Edited by Don W]

OK, I did not make that clean. Here are my reasons, 1) To have a person who is knowledgeable of the neighborhood. 2) To empower the people who are living in the neighborhood. 3) To give employment to residents of the neighborhood. 4) To keep down costs. Pay $8 -$10 an hour when working. No fringes.

As far as vetting, unless the HOA [Household Occupants Association?] is privately hiring and paying the officer, they have no right to vet them . .

The city owes the residents of every neighborhood a safe place to live and raise their children. Residents have more at stake than any outsider. Residents know their neighborhoods better than a non resident. Would it not be more economical for any city to furnish an $8 an hour person than a $50-$60,000 a year man or woman, for 40 hours a week leaving 128 hours unmanned?

In my city, the officers do receive training for this task, and I'm sure my city is not unique. Part of his/her duties are to meet with the neighborhood, and educate them on what role they should play.

This approach has been tried for many years, and does not work. This is what I meant when I said this approach must be from bottom up, and not from top down. Aside from suffering from arrogance, it is the essence of that approach to policing that a network of informants must be developed for th outriders to learn of the goings-on in the neighborhood, which itself destroys the cohesiveness every neighborhood needs. Experience hints the informants are smarter than their “handlers” Street smarter.

At whose expense? If the city pays them, that opens up a whole slew of financial and legal responsibilities.

No new legal responsibilities. See above for financial.

Neighborhood watch programs are not a new or radical concept. It pretty much emphasizes community involvement and a focal point within the PD.

At the risk of repealing myself, this top down approach is the problem, not the solution.


Foot Note: Consider. A city hires a 20 year old to be a policeman. He works 20 years and retires at half pay. He is 40. The city hires another person to be a policeman. He works 20 years and he retires at half pay. Now the first man is 60, the second man is 40, and the city must hire a third man to be a policeman. At full pay. This 3rd man can work 20 years and retire at half pay. The first man is now 80, not impossible, the second man is 60 and the third man is 40. The city must now hire a 4th man to be a policeman. This was ok when cops got chicken feed for pay but now cops are paid in the upper half of public employees.



[edit on 1/16/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

Originally posted by jsobecky
As far as vetting, unless the HOA [Household Occupants Association?] is privately hiring and paying the officer, they have no right to vet them . .

The city owes the residents of every neighborhood a safe place to live and raise their children. Residents have more at stake than any outsider. Residents know their neighborhoods better than a non resident. Would it not be more economical for any city to furnish an $8 an hour person than a $50-$60,000 a year man or woman, for 40 hours a week leaving 128 hours unmanned?

I don't think I understand. Are you suggesting that the residents be given full police duties, including arrest?

In my city, the officers do receive training for this task, and I'm sure my city is not unique. Part of his/her duties are to meet with the neighborhood, and educate them on what role they should play.

This approach has been tried for many years, and does not work. This is what I meant when I said this approach must be from bottom up, and not from top down. Aside from suffering from arrogance, it is the essence of that approach to policing that a network of informants must be developed for th outriders to learn of the goings-on in the neighborhood, which itself destroys the cohesiveness every neighborhood needs. Experience hints the informants are smarter than their “handlers” Street smarter.

It is not a "top down" approach. An officer is assigned to be a focal point for a neighborhood. The residents are taught what to look for, how to protect themselves and their property, and other useful information.

Arrogance? How does paying someone $8/hour eliminate that? And instead of destroying cohesiveness, forming a group actually increases it. As for being street smarter, that's wishful thinking. They are just average people. Police are much more experienced with the street than the average person, if only because of the fact that the police do it for a living.

At whose expense? If the city pays them, that opens up a whole slew of financial and legal responsibilities.

No new legal responsibilities. See above for financial.

That may be your intent, but it won't reflect the reality the first time a suspicious person is injured or illegally detained by residents. The lawsuits will sprout up like dandelions.

It sounds like you are proposing a sort of paid vigilante force that would give some people a source of extra income. That is not what neighborhood watch groups are about.

posted by jsobecky

I don't think I understand. Are you suggesting that the residents be given full police duties, including arrest? [Edited by Don W]

No. I’ve suggested training the NP - neighborhood patrols - in how to avoid lethal confrontations. I’ve said the NP should be able to contact by radio, a particular policeman designated to serve their neighborhood and always on call, 24/7, and able to respond in minutes to do those tasks best left to professional police.

The underlying impetus for me is to make a plan that avoids the adverse and disruptive impact constructing and running a network of police informers has on a neighborhood and the culture of the people living there. I have heard people who ought to know say 90% of police arrests are based on informants. Those same informants - unintentionally - also cause distrust on a large scale of the system and its “outsider enforcers.” People caught in neglected neighborhoods assume a sedge attitude that feeds inversely on itself. A catch-22.

A neighborhood shares its space, but to be viable, it must share both trust and responsibility. And to the extent we are talking black versus white, that cannot happen in today’s America.

In my city, the officers do receive training for this task, and I'm sure my city is not unique. Part of his/her duties are to meet with the neighborhood, and educate them on what role they should play.

The people who live every day all day in the neighborhoods I’m speaking about - not a gated community with 5,000 square foot homes and private police - do not need to be “educated” by young college grad white cops. Or city planners. Or “experts” in law enforcement. That is insulting. They are experts in law un-enforcement all their lives. Those people do not need anyone to tell them what “role” to play. They need on-the-ground help. There is no city in America that can afford to have the number of police required for the city officials to “control” the whole city. For budgetary reasons, large parts of most American cities have been surrendered to crime and criminals.

Arrogance? How does paying someone $8 hour eliminate that?

It depends entirely on who is paid and for what purpose. The arrogance is that of the white-mentality ruling structure which relies on “experts” who have very little to none experience living in those places where law and order was abandoned a generation ago. It’s the places where most of us “know” to go to if we want to buy crack or a prostitute or make a bet. It’s the place of drive by shootings, of drug wars. Where people live in worn out housing, with disrespectful even dangerous neighbors. Where people who have no respect for the property of others. Places where the cops do not respond to “disturbance” or “loud noise” calls.

They are just average people. Police are much more experienced with the street than the average person, if only because of the fact that the police do it for a living.

Right. And I’m not knocking the police. It is simple. Society cannot hire enough police to accomplish a mission that has been neglected for so long we have forgotten it. The right to have a decent place to live. Even if you don’t have a pool and tennis courts.

My idea is to make the forgotten neighborhoods more civil. Quieter. Less favorable to drug dealers. Fewer break-ins of cars and homes. Going to bed at 11 PM and not sleeping all day then rampaging all night. Garbage and trash everywhere. This is what I want of the NP. As residents, they “know” who is “dealing” and who is not. They “know” what to discourage, what to encourage. It is their neighborhood and that makes them best equipped to protect it and to return it to a level of civility none of us on this board would accept as normal.

It sounds like you are proposing a sort of paid vigilante force that would give some people a source of extra income. That is not what neighborhood watch groups are about.

No. This is not what I’m proposing. But we have to empower the people who live in the places no one here wants to even drive through. My sister got lost in Atlanta - driving up from Jax to visit her son - taking the wrong exit off the interstate, she called him on her cell and asked for directions to his house. He said, “Mom, that’s a bad neighborhood, I’d get out of there as quick as you can. Call me back then.” Thanks a lot!


[edit on 1/17/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by jsobecky

I don't think I understand. Are you suggesting that the residents be given full police duties, including arrest? [Edited by Don W]

No. I’ve suggested training the NP - neighborhood patrols - in how to avoid lethal confrontations. I’ve said the NP should be able to contact by radio, a particular policeman designated to serve their neighborhood and always on call, 24/7, and able to respond in minutes to do those tasks best left to professional police.

You've spoken about financial costs in previous posts. It is much more efficient to dedicate one officer per neighborhood or an entire police force to a city?

The underlying impetus for me is to make a plan that avoids the adverse and disruptive impact constructing and running a network of police informers has on a neighborhood and the culture of the people living there. I have heard people who ought to know say 90% of police arrests are based on informants. Those same informants - unintentionally - also cause distrust on a large scale of the system and its “outsider enforcers.” People caught in neglected neighborhoods assume a sedge attitude that feeds inversely on itself. A catch-22.

This is where we diverge in our philosophies. I say that forming community groups fosters positive interaction and cohesiveness; you say it does the opposite. Yet you advocate forming these groups as long as they get "paid".

A neighborhood shares its space, but to be viable, it must share both trust and responsibility. And to the extent we are talking black versus white, that cannot happen in today’s America.

Don, don, don. I should have known better. There is always that underlying racial element with you.

I don't know if it is prudent to continue with this discussion with you, given your bias.

In my city, the officers do receive training for this task, and I'm sure my city is not unique. Part of his/her duties are to meet with the neighborhood, and educate them on what role they should play.

The people who live every day all day in the neighborhoods I’m speaking about - not a gated community with 5,000 square foot homes and private police - do not need to be “educated” by young college grad white cops. Or city planners. Or “experts” in law enforcement. That is insulting.

Obviously you missed, or chose to overlook, this part of what I said earlier:

Also, I wanted to mention that even though I used the term HOA several times, it was not meant to exclude people who are not homeowners. It was just used as a catch-all term.

My idea is to make the forgotten neighborhoods more civil. Quieter. Less favorable to drug dealers. Fewer break-ins of cars and homes. Going to bed at 11 PM and not sleeping all day then rampaging all night. Garbage and trash everywhere. This is what I want of the NP. As residents, they “know” who is “dealing” and who is not. They “know” what to discourage, what to encourage. It is their neighborhood and that makes them best equipped to protect it and to return it to a level of civility none of us on this board would accept as normal.

And may I ask, why are these people not doing those things today? Why aren't they pro-actively forming their own NP's and cleaning up their neighborhoods?

HI seagull.

I could not agree with you more. Too much of a good thing soils the whole batch. I agree that neighbourhood watch has it's place and does a lot of good, but what I am seeing here is beyond that.

I can't tell you how far spread this program is, I mean everywhere you go, all the major stores, banks, mall stores, have people who are doing this signing thing. I see it all the time on the train, and I believe I have seen abuses of this, and that is my concern, is that it's a little too free governance and people are playing jury and executioner, and this brings to mind more Germany just before WWII, it also does bring images of the former East Germany and the Stasi.

People had emotional problems because they did not know who they could trust. I think we are very much seeing the same thing happening again. Community policing where I live has been rolled out to every division.


HI jsobecky.

To answer your question without beating around the bush, I do not believe I am under terrorist watch or anything like that, it's just I was researching a phenomenon and realised this is more than likely what is at the core of what I am seeing. In doing the research I noticed the signing and was able to pick up on some of it, till I finally read about the one handed signing that the police used, called talking hands.

I also learnt about these groups which have been ongoing for some time. I get the patrolling and keeping the city safe, but what I was seeing was something else.


HI donwhite.

The problem is depending on the neighbourhood, who they choose might be something quite different than this description that you gave.

What is needed is a general consensus the person is mature, is responsible and is trustworthy, in the judgment of the neighbors.

How many pedophiles fit this bill? My point is that corrupt people often aspire to positions of power and are often very good at convincing people that they have merit, when in reality they don't.

The problem with the good people taking back their streets is that it changes from community to community, what would be acceptable in one community would never be allowed in another community. Eg. I just learnt that some police supervisors were allowing the gay community to have sex in public bars, where this would never happen in another community. The Sargent thought that this was community policing at it's best, by allowing this. His lower officers did not agree.
www.walnet.org...

Another community might decide that they don't like single people in their communities, or gay people, or minorities, and use this as a way to say, this person does not belong, or that their is something not right. Then you have the good like minded people finding a way to get rid of the undesirable, who in another area would be a perfectly likable person. Some cops thing this is the way to go, and to just let people act how they see fit, unfortunately this is a slippery slop, that is going to cause many innocent people a lot of problems.
Eg. In the UK, they have just approved sin bins for adults with chaotic lives. Making people live in these housing spaces if they feel they are anti-social or something similar. This is where we start seeing the slippery slop. Single woman are going to be huge targets of these programs.
www.informationliberation.com...


This is the reason they are now getting citizens to help out, because budget wise and resource wise, the police can not do this on their own, however just like with corruption in the police force which is rampant, you are also going to get corruption in these programs.




Hi andy1033.

they rang someone or did something and the neighbour ending up being committed and having there life ruined because of the neighbour not liking them or something.

i see on the Internet they sell weapons that are directed energy weapons to use against your neighbours, titled drive your neighbour up the wall, with weird sounds and directed energy that would make them sick etc...

Do you have a link for any of the above? I believe it would be quite useful reading. I would appreciate it if you would let me know. Thanks.


Hi clearwater.

The scary part is I get the feeling that this is already happening in many regards. There is a decay in moral character and backbiting, deceptions, and slander does abound. We are also in many regards with these community spying (watching) initiatives moving towards a system that was very similar to what they had in the USSR. In fact I was surprised to learn that the US had hired a former head of the Stasi and chief of the KGB to help with homeland security and the id cards. I think that is very telling in addition to the planed North American Union.
www.prisonplanet.com...


Hi jsobecky.

It sounds like you are proposing a sort of paid vigilante force that would give some people a source of extra income. That is not what neighborhood watch groups are about.

The thing is they don't need an income to police their neighbourhoods, many are willing to put in the time and to do it for free to keep their communities safe. The problem with the vigilante element comes in if you get someone lying and saying someone is a drug dealer, terrorist, crazy, pedophile, then those good people without thinking become the law, and even if they can't find proof, they will find a way to drive that person out of the community. A cohesive force for the good of the community in their minds, a nightmare for the innocent target of their unjust vigilance and speculation.

Neighbourhood watch I agree, should just be neighbours helping out and looking out for each other, the problem starts when they see, think or perceive that someone does not fit in.


HI jsobecky.

Some are trying to clean up their communities, it's just there are a lot of problems, more so than in other areas, and when you have lived a certain way for a while it takes a long time to effect change and to empower people, who are so use to being down trodden and not empowered, to take control of their own situations.

posted by seagull

America has had a long and sometimes gruesome history of community policing. Neighbors watching out for neighbors is all very well and good, until those neighbors try to become jury and executioner. Neighborhood watches do far more good than bad. The old soviet union comes immediately to mind. [Edited by Don W]

That’s right, there are risks of empowering someone to evaluate another’s conduct. I have ideas how to avoid this hazard. The neighborhood watch program is worth its weight in gold. But whatever we have tried to date, it is not producing what I regard as the desired result.

The desired result: A tidy place, where residents relax outdoors, where children play, where it becomes quiet at bedtime. Where your car is safe, you apartment is secure. This is my objective.

As relates back to the Soviet Union and other totalitarian societies, while you had no political freedom, you were absolutely safe and secure in your person from criminals. Yes, there were criminals in the USSR and Eastern Europe, but when they were caught, you did not see them again. One strike and you’re out. I’m not advocating that type of criminal justice in the US of A, but I’m restating my understanding about what life on the street was like for ordinary people under despots. Hitler, Saddam, Mao, provided this same kind of security in return for you, the ordinary citizen, staying out of politics.

posted by Harassment101

HI seagull.

“ . . everywhere you go, the major stores, banks, malls, have people who are doing this signing thing. I see it on the train, and I believe I have seen abuses of this, and that is my concern . . people are playing jury and executioner and this brings to mind Germany just before WWII, it also does bring images of East Germany and the Stasi. People did not know who they could trust. I think we are seeing the same thing happening again. Community policing where I live has been rolled out to every division . . “ [Edited by Don W]

Germany under the Nazis. 1933-1945. A study why good people do bad things. “Signing” is new to me. One of my family members studied ASL - American Sign Language - for 1 year, to facilitate communicating with deaf people, but when she changed jobs, she forgot 99% of what she had learned very quickly. I can see advantages to Law Enforcement people to have this capability, especially when so many people now speak Spanish, Vietnamese, Arabic and other languages foreign to most Americans.

HI donwhite.

The problem is who they choose might be something quite different than this description that you gave. How many pedophiles fit this bill? My point is that corrupt people often aspire to positions of power and are often very good at convincing people that they have merit, when in reality they don't. [Edited by Don W]

Like most things in our 2007 world, choosing employees or workers is a sophisticated process in which field a person may obtain advanced degrees from our institutions of higher learning. Human Resources, it is called. To my best knowledge, there is no empirical proof HR does any better than old fashioned interviewing and checking references, at least in as getting honest, reliable and sociable employees goes. I’m admitting there is room for error but I’m claiming there is no fool-proof system.

When you find a dishonest person, you’d fire him or her, and replace them with the next person on the waiting list. It is my belief, however, that by arranging it so the people being “helped” are the same ones doing the vetting of prospective ‘helpers” that will tend to be self limiting. If a dozen people have watched you for several years, I doubt you could be doing much without someone knowing about it.

Their prior criminal record is mostly irrelevant, especially if we are dealing with African Americans. 25% of black males under 50 have criminal records. I believe studies point to 20% of them were innocent and perhaps 50% of the remaining were very likely to have been pushed by crooked or incompetent lawyers to plead to a crime where there was insufficient evidence to go to trial not to say to convict. In my mind, a black man's conviction of a crime in white America may be more a badge of honor than a signal to watch him closely. Experience shows many young men who commit property crimes grow out of that by their 30s or 40s.

The problem with the good people taking back their streets is that it changes from community to community, what would be acceptable in one community would never be allowed in another community.

This is why I suggested each neighborhood makes its own list of concerns and chooses its own NP - neighborhood police - and monitors them monthly and quarterly. My plan calls for no supervising by outsiders. City Hall, stay out. The professional police on call will assist them in doing the “heavy lifting” such as busting drug dealers, stopping large brawls, and so on. Your “ordinary” crimes - rape, armed robbery, murder - would still be dealt with as usual. OTOH, issues such as serving warrants, repossessions, evictions, bill collecting, would be done by the same outriders that have always done the dirty work against the poor and the dispossessed. Those are different issues.

Some are trying to clean up their communities, it's just there are a lot of problems, more so than in other areas, and when you have lived a certain way for a while it takes a long time to effect change and to empower people, who are so use to being down trodden and not empowered, to take control of their own situations.

Exactly, Mr H-101. My vision of the NP is not that they are to make arrests or to prosecute cases, but that by there very presence, drug dealers will move on, not wanting to do their dirty work in “public” so to speak. The scofflaws who park where they want, will be warned and then towed. Litterbugs will be chastised and if repealing, then moved out of the neighborhood. To repeat, the idea is to make the neighborhood a decent place where anyone, albeit a poor person, would be happy to live. A civil place. The Establishment Types cannot accomplish this. Only the people who live there can do it. They need help, not instructions, they need a little money, but do not need to be told what “role” they are to play. That is insulting. And arrogant. And blissfully ignorant.

[edit on 1/19/2007 by donwhite]

All we need to do it say, we live in A TABLOID NEWSPAPER WORLD, where if the wrong people dislike you, it can mean your life is destroyed.