Community based policing, vigilantes and spies

Hi donwhite.

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.

See this is what works for you, however another person who works odd shifts, might like having people over later and this does not work for another, and some other communities would be ok with the loud noise a little later into the evening.

That's why I think you had the case of the police supervisor who let people in the gay bar have sex in public. I think he went too far with the concept, but in some communities this would not be too out there.

So this is when police start letting communities do what they like, unfortunately this is not good for some individuals in those communities, and that's where things can and do get tricky.

The security sounds good on the one hand, but then dissidence in those societies was squashed in just horrible ways. The Soviet Union if I recall correctly, would regularly jail dissidents, or have them committed for being insane? It's a really thin line between security and freedom. Something about those who would trade liberty for security, shall have neither, comes to mind.


I don't know if the signing is being used in all cities, but it sure is in mine. Cops if they are being covert would not want others to know. It's the same for the citizens that are taking part in some of these programs, so they use the one handed signalling or signing.

If a dozen people have watched you for several years, I doubt you could be doing much without someone knowing about it.

The problem in these corruption cases is not that no one was aware of it, people are aware, but they don't do anything because the person is seen as an authority figure, or they themselves are taking part. It's then this big dirty open secret that no one does anything about. Especially if your neighbours who you have known for years start to do things wrong in a group format, you might know, but because you want to stay part of the community, you keep your mouth shut.

How many times have we heard political scandals, police scandals, where almost everyone knew, but was taking part or was keeping quite? This is where you run into real problems, because then they all lie for each other.

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.

It's nice that you have this philosophy and these stats, but most people don't and say if said person moved to some of these places and a record was discovered, in some communities this would be enough to have the person judged, tried, and executed out of town, and don't think someone would not be going, do you want your homes broken into? Do you want your daughters to not be safe? This guy has a criminal record, he need to leave our community, and they would then employ any means necessary to accomplish this. So it's great that you are this liberal, and aware, but most people are not.

and monitors them monthly and quarterly. My plan calls for no supervising by outsiders. City Hall, stay out.

Slippery slope, then you get that mentality this is out town we will do what we want, and you get the Neighbourhood police officer going along with whatever these people come up with. This can get dangerous very quickly.

The city where I live we had 12 members of a drug squad, selling drugs and dipping into illegal activities. They pretty much for years were not properly monitored, and complains never taken seriously. There needs to be some sort of complaint process or monitoring.

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.

See on paper, neighbourhood policing works very well, and as a concept it can work, but just like with anything else that's starts off really well it can quickly get out of hand, and then you have some really corrupt things happening. When people feel like they are a force unto themselves, that can not be reckoned with, then that power can get out of hand really quickly, and I think in some cases that is what I am seeing right now.


HI andy1033.

we live in A TABLOID NEWSPAPER WORLD, where if the wrong people dislike you, it can mean your life is destroyed

Too well said. All you need is a few of the wrong people spreading some lies or rumours here and there, and your life can be irrevocably damaged.

posted by Harassment101

“ . . however another person who works odd shifts, might like having people over later and this does not work for another, and some other communities would be ok with the loud noise a little later into the evening. “
[Edited by Don W]

I’m talking about apartments in poor neighborhoods. More affluent people can move out but this option is not usually available to people who live in the neighborhoods I’m concerned about. When you are an apartment dweller, “Loud noise” is any noise you make that your next door or upstairs or downstairs neighbor can hear. Obviously, that works both ways. I managed a 64 unit apartment complex, about equally divided between 2 br 2 bath, and 2 br 1 bath and 1 br 1 bath. Two floors.

Landlords only care about 3 things, in no particular order: Rent to be paid on time; not to damage or destroy the unit; and not to run off good tenants. Even in the South we really don’t care about race, religion or national origins. But we do care if one neighbor disturbs others so much they do not renew their lease. We make no money on vacancies. Rule of thumb is a vacancy costs landlords 2 months rent; clean-up, advertizing, etc. If it is important to anyone to be able to “do their own thing” regardless of others, then they need to rent a house in the woods. Or rent an apartment in a complex with party room facilities. Modified somewhat, “Your freedom to make noise ends at my eardrum.”

So this is when police start letting communities do what they like, unfortunately this is not good for some individuals in those communities, and that's where things can and do get tricky.

I’m talking about neighborhoods (all over America) where the powers that be have given up on providing even minimal services. Where garbage is allowed to stay long enough the rats know where the best meal is served. Where disabled cars are allowed to stand until they rust out. Where good people are afraid to leave their homes. Apartments. Places where drug dealers often have more firepower than the local police. My city, Jax, had 130 homicides last year, and 8 in the first 12 days of this year. From San Marco - restored 1920s art decco neighborhood - to Mandarin, a ritzy area along the St. Johns River, where the Jaguar’s owner lives in a house valued at $7.5 million. His is not the most expensive. Not one homicide in that neighborhood all year! And if you make a noise loud enough to get the police called, I’ll bet you 2 things: 1) the police will respond promptly, and 2) the noise will be silenced. And no dope dealers on the street corner. No pimps hushing their sting of prostitutes, either. What’s happening here?

The security sounds good on the one hand, but The Soviet Union if I recall correctly, would regularly jail dissidents, or have them committed for being insane? It's a really thin line between security and freedom. Something about those who would trade liberty for security, shall have neither, comes to mind.

I can’t resist being cute, but “insanity” is a legal definition, not a medical term, so I would say anyone bad mouthing Stalin when he was alive and well was definitely “insane.” But I accept the point you made. I would only refer you to my earlier responses.

I don't know if the signing is being used in all cities, but it sure is in mine. Cops if they are being covert would not want others to know so they use the one handed signalling or signing.

Not meaning to be vulgar, but the only one handed “sign” I’d recognize would be what you (Brits) call the bird, and I call “the finger.”

The problem . . you might know, but because you want to stay part of the community, you keep your mouth shut. How many times have we heard police scandals, where everyone knew, but was keeping quite?

I’m not offering NP - neighborhood patrols - as a panacea for ancient problems we’ll never stop - greed and its consequences - but I’m trying to deal with a problem that is off everyone’s radar. For a long time. And, in a way that is affordable to the community at large, and that sounds sufficiently plausible to be worthy or deserving of a test run or trial.

It's nice that you have this philosophy . . do you want your homes broken into? Do you want your daughters to not be safe? This guy has a criminal record, he need to leave our community . .

Thanks. I’m talking about the places where those guys moved into.

The city where I live we had 12 members of a drug squad, selling drugs and dipping into illegal activities. They pretty much for years were not properly monitored, and complains never taken seriously.

Miami? No matter. Police whose assignments make them especially vulnerable to corruption and who by necessity are required to deal one-on-one with criminals, sometimes violent criminals, need to be 20 hours at work, and 20 hours on the psychiatrists couch. Cops need to be rotated out of the “hot spots” every three years at most, more often if possible, and get a nice bonus - $10K a year? - if they stay honest. It’s like sending our men (and women) to Iraq. We should not send anyone too often into that danger zone. Recall from history the 8th Air Force rotated aircrew back to the ZI afer 30 missions. Also recall the 8th Air Force lost more men KIA than any comparably sized US unit in War 2.

The underlying cause of this very real problem is we want to do law enforcement on the cheap.


[edit on 1/20/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite

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.

Neighborhood Watch programs as currently implemented work quite well in many neighborhoods. It's not perfect, but then, nothing is.

And your desired result is the same bit of peace and quiet that most everyone wants, so nothing new there.

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.

Absolutely safe? Bollocks. Anyone could falsely accuse you of being a criminal. And even if this fairy tale world existed, who would want to live without political freedom? What other kind matters? There is only one kind of freedom worth fighting for - total freedom.

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.

If life were so easy, there would be no crime-ridden neighborhoods, donwhite.

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.

Well, they had better be parked illegally, and not just in your favorite spot, otherwise you will end up paying for the tow and a whole lot more.

As far as litterbugs, just exactly who is going to move them out of the neighborhood? On what legal grounds?

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.

I suspect that the bolded portion of your statement was in reference to what I said in an earlier post. That's fine. But I suggest that it is you who are blissfully ignorant, donwhite. People who are part of a neighborhood watch need to be acutely aware of how far they may go in policing their neighborhoods. Otherwise, it is open to individual interpretation, and much worse. One person may decide that it is OK to detain another, or to attack a suspect. These are the roles that I speak of; they must be clearly defined. For you to think that there is some vague, undefined esoteric knowledge of boundaries that is bestowed upon someone when they become a part of your NP is naive. And who has the knowledge of what these roles should be? Certainly not you. It must be the police.

posted by jsobecky

People who are part of a neighborhood watch need to be acutely aware of how far they may go in policing their neighborhoods. For you to think that there is some undefined knowledge of boundaries bestowed upon someone when they become a part of your NP is naive. And who has the knowledge of what these roles should be? Certainly not you. It must be the police. [Edited by Don W]

Neighborhood watches have indeed been around for a long time, maybe 30 years. I heard a lot more about the program when it was new. The “Neighborhood Watch” participation seems to me to be confined to those neighborhoods that have a bond, a favorable relationship, with the establishment and feel comfortable around the police. Those people want to alert police to “outsiders” prowling or reconnoitering the neighborhood. I’m satisfied it is a good value for money spent in crime control.

NPs - Neighborhood Patrol - OTOH, are aimed at neighborhoods where the police are not welcome. Mainly predominately black but more and more Hispanic and some Asian populations that have had more bad experiences with the police and authorities then good ones. Immigration enforcers, bill collectors, warrant servers, evictions and that horror of horrors, set-outs. Coupled with legitimate intrusions into the neighborhood investigating serious crimes. Investigations that in the past have sent as many as 20% innocent men to prison for crimes they did not commit.

Rampant racism. Coupled with economic discrimination. The people I’m speaking about will get no sympathetic ear from City Hall. City services usually based the tax revenues. Street cleaning. Street light repairs. Pothole filling. Garbage collectors who pick up loose garbage.

City governments are overly influenced by Realtors, bankers, developers and contractors. The inhabitants - poor and lower middle class - are rarely consulted. Running a big city is a top down operation, relying on so-called experts who have “studied” the conditions endlessly and from afar, written PhDs and books about it. But for the most part, have never lived there. I see no need to repeat my goals and objectives for those neighborhoods as well as the means to reach those objectives. You’ll find them writen out just above.



[edit on 1/20/2007 by donwhite]

Taking an active interest in your community, being willing to partake in organised, legally answerable schemes is all to the good. There is though a fine line that treads between this and self appointed people enforcing there ideas of what constitutes 'good behaviour' on the rest of the community.

On the other hand, at least here in the UK, we have estates, areas and communities that have been so eroded by criminal and anti social behaviour and a lack of judicial and political will to deal with these problems, that residents are activelly talking about taking the law into their own hands. I can't agree that vigilanteeism is ever a viable or permanent solution but such is the burden that some residents have been placed under it's understandable they feel this way and I wouldn't be surprised if sometime we see a spate of incidents occuring. No doubt that would be followed by finger wagging condemnation by some but the fact is it is only a reflection and by product of the powers that be's complete failure to maintain order on the streets.

posted by signature
We have a lot of trouble with these oldies. Pension day's the worst - they go mad. As soon as they get their hands on their money they blow it all on milk, bread, tea, tin of meat for the cat.

A tin of meat for the CAT? Yeah, you wish. Cat food over here is subtly advertised as fit for humans. Hey, this is America. Did you know that even in the depths of the Great Depression, death certificates (almost) never showed starvation as the cause of death? You won’t find that 1 time in 100,000. I wonder if they teach that in medical school? How to avoid antagonizing the R&Fs - rich and famous - who are the movers and shakers of any community.

I’m a “pensioner” as you describe us, but around 1999, the Social Security Administration changed the monthly payday from the 3rd day of each month to the Wednesday of the week in which you were born. Four paydays per month, the 5th Wednesday being paid on the 4th Wednesday. Like so often done in America, the prior payday was “grand-fathered” and remains unchanged for old payees. The SSA also requires us new payees to utilize electronic bank deposit unless on written application we can show “undue” hardship, in which case, paper checks will be issued and mailed.

Cat food? Not for me, I'm a dog person.


[edit on 1/21/2007 by donwhite]

Hi donwhite.

If it is important to anyone to be able to “do their own thing” regardless of others, then they need to rent a house in the woods. Or rent an apartment in a complex with party room facilities. Modified somewhat, “Your freedom to make noise ends at my eardrum.”

There is an inequality in some areas I do agree with that.



I had fun neighbours recently where I lived. I lived there for about 2 years. I have had the neighbour above me making noise for most of that time, till recently in summer I realised it was being done with deliberate intent. I then made a complaint to the landlord. Then this got the neighbour beside me in on it. So for the whole day and most of the night I had 2 apartments making noise, compared to the landlord again and again nothing getting done.

So I starting making noise, and playing my stereo so I could try to sleep, that is the only time they would not make noise, but the moment it was quite the harassment would start again. I finally had to file a complaint with the tribunal, only to have them start to suddenly complain that I was making noise, and playing music. Only in relationship to what was being done to me.

Finally after being in a no win harassing situation, with purposefully harassing neighbors, I am the one who is moving, because they are not only harassing but dangerous.

1) the police will respond promptly, and 2) the noise will be silenced. And no dope dealers on the street corner. No pimps hushing their sting of prostitutes, either. What’s happening here?

If you have the right connections they will.

And, in a way that is affordable to the community at large, and that sounds sufficiently plausible to be worthy or deserving of a test run or trial.

This is being tried in some areas with a great deal of failure.


Hi jsobecky.

As far as litterbugs, just exactly who is going to move them out of the neighborhood? On what legal grounds?

In the UK, You can get a ticket now for anti social behaviour, and if it continues, they can take other action. This would fall under that if it was disruptive to the neighbourhood. So you see it can be done.

People who are part of a neighborhood watch need to be acutely aware of how far they may go in policing their neighborhoods. Otherwise, it is open to individual interpretation, and much worse. One person may decide that it is OK to detain another, or to attack a suspect. These are the roles that I speak of; they must be clearly defined. For you to think that there is some vague, undefined esoteric knowledge of boundaries that is bestowed upon someone when they become a part of your NP is naive. And who has the knowledge of what these roles should be?

So very true. People are part of these initiatives currently in many areas and many are going above and beyond what they should be doing, but they are getting away with it. You have enough of them saying this is ok and acceptable, and some of the things they are doing are just vigilantism, but since there are no proper checks in place, who is going to stop them? The police who they are reporting to, and giving information? Who's job they are making easier?


Hi donwhite.

NPs - Neighborhood Patrol - OTOH, are aimed at neighborhoods where the police are not welcome. Mainly predominately black but more and more Hispanic and some Asian populations that have had more bad experiences with the police and authorities then good ones.

Patrols are happening in many areas, and not just minority neighbourhoods.

The new form of policing is doing some really different things.


Hi ubermunche.

There is though a fine line that treads between this and self appointed people enforcing there ideas of what constitutes 'good behaviour' on the rest of the community.

Unfortunately this is happening, more than we think or realise.

On the other hand, at least here in the UK, we have estates, areas and communities that have been so eroded by criminal and anti social behaviour and a lack of judicial and political will to deal with these problems, that residents are activelly talking about taking the law into their own hands. I can't agree that vigilanteeism is ever a viable or permanent solution but such is the burden that some residents have been placed under it's understandable they feel this way and I wouldn't be surprised if sometime we see a spate of incidents occuring.

See again people take things into their own hands, and then it goes too far. Have you read about the sin bins for adults with "chaotic lifestyles"? I think it's starting to go too far. www.informationliberation.com...

See again people take things into their own hands, and then it goes too far. Have you read about the sin bins for adults with "chaotic lifestyles"? I think it's starting to go too far. www.informationliberation.com...

Yes I have read about this proposed scheme and while I understand your concerns about it I have to say that in some instances I think it may be a useful tool. Before anyone leaps on me let me explain.

I have myself lived on what might loosely be described as sink estates in the past, I’ve also lived on better estates where one problem family has muscled in and made life hell for everyone else. There seems to be a certain mind set becoming more and more prevalent whereby certain people, groups or families have grown to have such a mutated sense of their own self entitlement and such an atrophied sense of community or responsability that they move to an area simply to create their own ‘kingdom’ for want of a better word, whereby they can do as they please regardless of the detrimental effects on their neighbours. They have no respect, no fear of consequences-understandably because there are none-and more often than not if challenged by those living around them about their behaviour they resort to intimidation, harassment and violence, at the very least they just continue in the behaviour that is creating problems for those around them. I’ve experienced it, have one family member who was forced to move because of it and have friends on a nearby estate that although brand new only five years ago and much sought after is now avoided by potential homebuyers and renters because of just two families who have made the place a nightmare. Very often there is a tribal element whereby if you annoy one, you make an enemy of all and your life is made a misery and yet no body, police, council authorities, social workers etc do anything to challenge it. There are some people in society who so lack any moral or ethical compass that I’m sorry to say something like the above scheme is probably the only answer. At some point society has to draw a line and say enough. I know many people worry about this being a threat to personal freedom but ironically as it stands thousands of peoples personal freedoms are being infringed everyday because we are all too scared to deal with this situation. I’m fed up with seeing victims of anti social behaviour having the burden placed on them to be patient, understanding and accepting of these types and I’m fed up with people making excuses for these types as well, there is no excuse, there is though a reason, they have very little fear of being brought to task over their actions.

I get families can cause trouble, but when do we get to start telling grown adults how to live and how to be and who get's to decide this? I just think about workplace mobbing, where many gang up on one person and then make the person look like the problem.

Or where a minority moves into a neighbourhood and they are forced out and made to look like the problem.

With these vigilante groups I really can see very bad senarios happening.

I can agree that one bad apple can spoil the whole bunch, but we kind of need to understand what might be causing it, and if social mobbing is part of the problem. Eg. Like harassing someone cause you don't approve, till they lash out and start acting bad, and then a bunch of like minded people say, I told you so.

My mistake, thought it was adressing both individuals and groups.

I still can't see the need to raise any red flags though, firstly because with some kind of legally sanctioned, accountable scheme in place to deal with persistant anti social behaviour, it does away with the urge for people to go vigilante and/or set people up, other than that the only danger would be neighbours colluding and conflating some kind of false accusations against the person but, having known what it's like dealing with noisy neighbours the burden of proof should-and I imagine would in this case too-be on the accuser to provide concrete evidence before any drastic steps are taken.

Granted there may be ways to get around this but quite honestly I can't see whole communities devising complex, roundabout plots to oust someone simply because they just don't like him. You may find the odd psychotic busy body who is tolerated maybe but never supported by the rest of the neighbourhood but they would soon be exposed as having a skewed agenda with the minimum amount of investigation by any police or officials. I can't seriously see this kind of worst case scenario unfolding.

The everyday reality is that many decent, innocent people are suffering abuse and having there rights infringed every day in the UK because of the criminal and/or anti social element, if someone can think of a better way to deal with this that completely precludes the possibility of error fair enough but until then we have to decide whether to try and make our society a better place for all or stay with the status quo because of the remote danger of mistakes.

posted by Harassment101

Hi donwhite.
I had fun neighbours recently where I lived. I lived there for about 2 years. I have had the neighbour above me making noise for most of that time, till recently in summer I realised it was being done with deliberate intent. I then made a complaint to the landlord. Then this got the neighbour beside me in on it. So for the whole day and most of the night I had 2 apartments making noise, compared to the landlord again and again nothing getting done. So I starting making noise, I finally had to file a complaint with the tribunal, only to have them start to suddenly complain that I was making noise, Finally after being in a no win harassing situation, with purposefully harassing neighbors, I am the one who is moving, because they are not only harassing but dangerous. [Edited by Don W]

I mentioned earlier I had experience managing a 64 unit complex. The lease we had specified “No Disturbing Noise” after 10 PM weekdays, and 11 PM on Friday and Saturday nights. I have pointed this out to offending tenants but usually to no avail. All we would do then is to give them written notice 90 days prior to the expiration of the lease that we would not be re-newing. In Ky, where I did this work, landlords had a website which we subscribed to, and we’d put in each tenant by name, with a notation “Would you like this tenant back?” Yes or No. That was about all the protection we could manage. Privacy laws and all. I suppose in up-scale rental units, we could begin to build in decibel meters with flashing lights and etc.

And, [neighborhood patrols] in a way that is affordable to the community at large, and that sounds sufficiently plausible to be worthy or deserving of a test run or trial.

This is being tried in some areas with a great deal of failure.

I’m disappointed, but not too surprised. This kind of volunteer effort takes a special kind of person to pull it off. Just to have a framework will not in itself assure success. Once people become so demoralized, it is very hard to bring them back into community-oriented status. But it is such deeply disenchanted people who give unintended “cover” to many illicit activities and I suspect, the same kind of civil disillusionment provides cover for much of the violence in Iraq. (Note I hesitate to use “insurgents” and “terrorists” because our propaganda machine over here has made those into cliches to cover the real motives behind violence there.)

Hi donwhite.
NPs - Neighborhood Patrol - OTOH, are aimed at neighborhoods where the police are not welcome. Mainly predominately black but more and more Hispanic and some Asian populations that have had more bad experiences with the police and authorities then good ones.

Patrols are happening in many areas, and not just minority neighborhoods.
The new form of policing is doing some really different things.

It is obvious to all but the police - hey, I’m not knocking the guy on the street - and City Hall, that current methods do not work in every case. In fact there is a ceratin scenario where this kind of educated, respectful and worthy of respect person is exactly what the community can use, but it is disconnected to those of minorities who have very different problems and experiences.

One of the cruelest things the law can do to people is what I mentioned earlier, a “set-out.” This is an experience the R&Fs are not familiar with, unless they should have got lost and drive by one when it is happening. The landlord sends in 2 or 3 burly fellows along with a sheriff to keep order - he watches but he does not help - and all the tenant’s property is set out of the apartment or house into the street or public way. As soon as they finish, they leave. Sometimes this happens when the tenant is not home. You can image how the “neighbors” pick over the property. But here is a poor person, not enough money to pay the rent, and now, all he or she has managed to accumulate is subject to pilfering and the weather. What a way to go! You’d think this was practiced only in sub-Saharan Africa, but no, it is a regular provision of American justice. World’s richest country. World’s most boastful “Christian” country?


[edit on 1/22/2007 by donwhite]

posted by ubermunche

My mistake, I thought it was addressing both individuals and groups. I still can't see the need to raise any red flags though, firstly because with some kind of legally sanctioned, accountable scheme in place to deal with persistent anti social behavior . . “ [Edited by Don W]

It was not my idea to make everyone into a conforming automaton. Or is that redundant? I have noticed over time, that in some “run down” neighborhoods, several things have gone wrong at once. It invariably begins with absentee landlords and non-ownership by residents. I have also seen this in transitional neighborhoods where the transition is going the wrong way.

Many of the people I am concerned about are either on welfare or just got off or are about to go on. You could call these neighborhoods economic dumping grounds for the poor. But that would be impolitic. Comminutes are often well-intended in wanting to improve general living conditions. But I also notice it never occurs to the mover and shakers - community leaders - to ask those people who live there, what they want, what they need, what hopes and aspirations those people have. Instead, consultants - someone with a PhD in Urban Planning and another with PhD in Community Policing - are called in, along with the usual leeches of contractors (say grafters) who can smell money a mile away - renovating an redoing what ought to be torn down - and off we go into another cycle of millions spent, and not much to show for it. Disappointment to the taxpayers, disillusion and futility to the residents.

Meanwhile, drug dealers, drive-by shooters, pimps, gamblers and loan sharks continue unabated. It is this group of wrong-doers I want the NP to drive out of the neighborhood. And therein lies the major part of the problem. The R&Fs do not want those low-life types in their neighborhoods. But they tare willing to tolerate them in the poor neighborhood. This is the crux of this problem.

Look at post-Katrina NO. Not one agency has turned over the rebuilding money to the people who lived there to put back the kind of city they want. Instead, high priced architects and maybe well intended local “leaders” are doing the planning for the inhabitants. Only the rich get to handle the taxpayer’s furnished re-build money. No wonder many don’t want to come back. It’s not their city anymore. And all that vacant land to “steal!” Maybe if you are smart and connected, you can get the FEMA people to “pay” you for stealing it? Say Hello Neil Bush! [He’s Mama Bush’s “missing” son of Silverado S&L fame.]

The everyday reality is that many decent, innocent people are suffering abuse and having their rights infringed in the UK because of the criminal and anti social elements, if someone can think of a better way to deal with this that completely precludes the possibility of error fair enough . .

If society waits until it has a fool-proof or error-free approach, then we will do what we are doing now, wringing our hands, struggling to figure a way out of a situation that took years to reach its current level of disconnect, and wanting to fix it quick and at modest capital outlay by the taxpayers.

Challenge. I lay many of the social problems afflicting America to the 2 year election cycle constitutionally imposed on our Congress. Brits have a 5 year cycle which is at least twice as good as ours! In the guise of protecting the right of "free speech" we have self-inflicted - by Republican appointees who dominate our Supreme Court - with a ruinous limitation on our collective ability to regulate our own elections. "Money is speech" so saith our Supreme Court. Hey, flag burning is also “speech.” Our Representatives are always running for office or collecting money to run for office. We have dug for ourselves a hole out of which we may not be able to climb?


[edit on 1/22/2007 by donwhite]

Originally posted by donwhite
One of the cruelest things the law can do to people is what I mentioned earlier, a “set-out.” This is an experience the R&Fs are not familiar with, unless they should have got lost and drive by one when it is happening. The landlord sends in 2 or 3 burly fellows along with a sheriff to keep order - he watches but he does not help - and all the tenant’s property is set out of the apartment or house into the street or public way. As soon as they finish, they leave. Sometimes this happens when the tenant is not home. You can image how the “neighbors” pick over the property. But here is a poor person, not enough money to pay the rent, and now, all he or she has managed to accumulate is subject to pilfering and the weather. What a way to go! You’d think this was practiced only in sub-Saharan Africa, but no, it is a regular provision of American justice. World’s richest country. World’s most boastful “Christian” country?

I have seen this in action in a documentary that Michael Moore made about Flint, Michigan. It is one of the most degrading acts that I have ever witnessed. Sad to say that there are such laws in the US.

Challenge. I lay many of the social problems afflicting America to the 2 year election cycle constitutionally imposed on our Congress. Brits have a 5 year cycle which is at least twice as good as ours! In the guise of protecting the right of "free speech" we have self-inflicted - by Republican appointees who dominate our Supreme Court - with a ruinous limitation on our collective ability to regulate our own elections. "Money is speech" so saith our Supreme Court. Hey, flag burning is also “speech.” Our Representatives are always running for office or collecting money to run for office. We have dug for ourselves a hole out of which we may not be able to climb?

I think that we need term limits for Congress. Stagnation and pork-barrel politics result from the current system. I would suggest two 5 year terms, max.

Speaking of which, where are our representatives when it comes to fixing these neighborhoods? I would be interested in party affiliation of reps who cover these blighted neighborhoods.

And of course, I totally disagree with your conclusion that a Republican Supreme Court is at fault.

Originally posted by donwhite

posted by signature
We have a lot of trouble with these oldies. Pension day's the worst - they go mad. As soon as they get their hands on their money they blow it all on milk, bread, tea, tin of meat for the cat.

A tin of meat for the CAT? Yeah, you wish. Cat food over here is subtly advertised as fit for humans. Hey, this is America. Did you know that even in the depths of the Great Depression, death certificates (almost) never showed starvation as the cause of death? You won’t find that 1 time in 100,000. I wonder if they teach that in medical school? How to avoid antagonizing the R&Fs - rich and famous - who are the movers and shakers of any community.

I’m a “pensioner” as you describe us, but around 1999, the Social Security Administration changed the monthly payday from the 3rd day of each month to the Wednesday of the week in which you were born. Four paydays per month, the 5th Wednesday being paid on the 4th Wednesday. Like so often done in America, the prior payday was “grand-fathered” and remains unchanged for old payees. The SSA also requires us new payees to utilize electronic bank deposit unless on written application we can show “undue” hardship, in which case, paper checks will be issued and mailed.

Cat food? Not for me, I'm a dog person.


[edit on 1/21/2007 by donwhite]

That sig is a Monty Python quote, and quite funny if you get it. Still, your points are well taken.

To me this all boils down to basic morality. If you're willing to do illegal things to people because you think they 'deserve' it, then you are a vigilante, and a sociopath. It matters not what your motives are. Whether you've been lied to about them, and so are a 'usefull idiot' doing the dirtywork of others, or if you just don't like them for personal reasons and so rationalize your actions, you have still made yourself a criminal. Becoming a criminal to fight crime is like the depressed mom killing her baby because she fears being a bad mother. When we abandon the legal system we have abandoned society and embraced anarchy. Don't forget that there is always someone more influental in the community than you who might decide that YOU need to be run out of town.

BTW, hope my spelling's OK.

posted by resistor

posted by donwhite
A tin of meat for the CAT? Cat food over here is subtly advertised as fit for humans . . even in the depths of the Great Depression, death certificates (almost) never showed starvation as the cause of death . . You won’t find that 1 time in 100,000. Cat food? Not for me, I'm a dog person.

That sig is a Monty Python quote . . Still, your points are well taken. To me this all boils down to basic morality. Becoming a criminal to fight crime is like the depressed mom killing her baby because she fears being a bad mother. When we abandon the legal system we have abandoned society and embraced anarchy. Don't forget that there is always someone more influential in the community than you who might decide that YOU need to be run out of town. BTW, hope my spelling's OK. [Edited by Don W]

Uh, my spell checker clicked on “influential” Mr R. My idea does not put people out to enforce the law. It is to be there to watch the goings-on in the community. Almost all the things we don’t like as being un-civil is done under cover of dark. If those people know the NP are watching, they will tend to go elsewhere. Very few people will litter if people are watching. Sound is different. It may mean to use decibel meters. That takes out the subjectivity. I also do not want to see people “on their own” even if they are selected by a group that is not properly constituted.


[edit on 1/23/2007 by donwhite]

To me this all boils down to basic morality. If you're willing to do illegal things to people because you think they 'deserve' it, then you are a vigilante, and a sociopath. It matters not what your motives are. Whether you've been lied to about them, and so are a 'usefull idiot' doing the dirtywork of others, or if you just don't like them for personal reasons and so rationalize your actions, you have still made yourself a criminal.

Whereas I agree with you broadly I can’t agree that all instances, theoretical or real, of someone taking the law into their own hands confers on them the status of sociopath, criminals yes by definition because they take the law into their own hands and by so doing begin operating outside of it but that then brings up the question of WHY they felt the need to do this and the WHY can cover a multiple set of circumstances. If a man rapes and murders a child then gets off on a technicality do you really regard the childs family as sociopathic because they then go out and kill that man. If members of a community attack a gang who have been terrorising and brutalising their community for years because the law cannot or will not deal with the matter, are they really sociopathic. To me that just seems like the eventual outcome, the urge in our nature for some kind of justice and self protection.

Becoming a criminal to fight crime is like the depressed mom killing her baby because she fears being a bad mother. When we abandon the legal system we have abandoned society and embraced anarchy. Don't forget that there is always someone more influental in the community than you who might decide that YOU need to be run out of town.

This is the question though, vigilante-ism is at heart a symptom that shows the legal process and forces of law and order are failing to do the job they were intended for.
There is though a world of difference between self appointed autocratic individuals or groups who decide who or what is acceptable in their neighbourhoods and basically law abiding people pushed to their limits of tolerance and endurance, again this is not to excuse vigilante-ism but it’s a cautionary lesson that the forces of law and order need to be seen to be serving society not making excuses for inactivity.

Some of you aren't getting his point at all. Don White's first post seemed incredibly Pollyanna-ish, (no offense) buying the community policing billboard verbatim- your next posrt reveals you are not so naive, but you touched on the worst of it when you said "informant".
I recently found out the level of this "snitch" culture in my neighborhood as a TI, and it is disgusting. In a word, SECRECY is the problem. Most neighbors had no idea that a minority faction meets, keeps files on everyone else, (I assume, they are well organized so of course log their activities) and have a steering committee of business owners, politicians and individuals who decide if someone is "undesirable" and harrass you to drive you away. I have been defiant and am not just moving out, and imagine the irony of neighborhood watch- formed partly in response to gangs that used to drive around in numbers, intimidating people who didn't look like they did or flash their gang symbols- with a half dozen cars driving around in circles at 2 am in the parking lot behind my backyard, purposelty shining their brights in my window, to intimidate me? With a couple of foot soldier lookouts flashing hand signals?
They became the new gang.