John Stossel And Dog The Bounty Hunter Make The Case For Privatizing Law Enforcement

[Brass Magnet]

Yale: that is why you couldn't pay me to live in a metro again!

However, outside of the artificially created prey zones (metros/innercities) you will find more people less tolerant of the admittedly dangerous situations you describe. Neighborhood watchs have helped to 'take back the night' in a lot of areas and as more and more people start carrying, these watches will become more and more effective.

Slofiveoh: You hit the nail on the head once again: responsibility for one's actions has been so undermined and replaced with brainwashing that the police are the answer to all problems that our society is litterally held hostage in their own homes after dark and sometimes/some places 24/7.

Now, I do not say that folks should be the 'neighborhood watch dog,' but you will find that in smaller towns and more rural areas, folks look out after each other. My 70+ neighbors cannot go out at zero-dark-thirty to check their property, but my guard dog that starts barking because he heard something over on their property gets me out to do a quick looksee. And, now that the other neighbor (at the other end of the block) has FINALLY gotten his new dog trained, we have both ends of both blocks under guard LOL

Still, how many of you can say that you can leave your doors unlocked at night, even open all night long without fear of someone invading? I can. But I am still armed or gun on nightstand 24/7.

This is so true.
There is a huge geographic/demographic difference between the rural an urban areas. This is one of the reasons that the closer to the people a government is, the better. We in rural areas are so completely sick and tired of having laws passed by those in urban areas forced on us with no real understanding how their areas and mentality differ from ours.

My closest neighbor is about a quarter mile away and most of them are over a half mile away. We pretty much all stay out of each others business unless someone needs something and we like it that way. We're kind to one another but respect each others privacy. If someday the SHTF, I wouldn't want to be anywhere else.

As to the OP, a lot fewer LEO's along with an empowered citizenry would work just fine around here. In the urban areas, the mentality would probably need to change but it could be done in time. We are NOT a true armed populace until the 2A is respected as much as the 1A. When guns are no longer demonized but upheld as the true liberty-defending tools they are, we will have an armed and polite society. Yes, there will always be asshats, but they will be "in the closet" asshats.

 

[Fisherman]

You really should clarify your response.

This purported "natural desire for liberty" can result in the utilization of violence. The means is violence. The end is Liberty (whatever Liberty might mean in the particular individual or social context). I should mention that you are merely asserting that Liberty is a Natural Desire of human, sorry, an "innate natural desire."

By purported, do you mean that the natural desire for liberty doesn't exist and that liberty wouldn't be a good thing?

 

[slowfiveoh]

Slow, let me take a moment to thank you for taking the time to reply to my post. I want ot make it clear that I'm not argueing with you but simply disagree with some of your points based on my 43 years of experiance and world view. If I may, I have a few short moments and can't address everything but do want to touch on a couple of things and return later when I have time to continue our discussion.
This mentality has been building for nearly 100 years as more social programs were intrduced and more government services offered. I don't see a major cultural shift occuring in the near future. The majority of people are "programmed" to accept it as part of modern life. They pay taxes and expect that certain things will be taken care of by their public employees.

Well, for one, you aren't a whole lot older than me. Just thought that should be cleared up.

For two, a little bit of argument is really good now and then, at least when you can articulate your responses.


Noticing that there is a "programming" that has pervaded our society, should be the first inkling that something isn't quite right. Throwing an unreliable solution at said problem, is also not the solution. Directly treating the problem, is the solution.

And I respect that but for many people that is not a safe action or option. They default to the paid proffessionals to come out and look around. The guys and gals who are trained with firearms as well as less than lethal alternatives (Tasers, OC spray, etc) and who are wearing kevlar and have backup coming with just a press of the radio mic.

Think about what you just acquiesced too.

You are underscoring the reality that some people are so detached from their mortality and individuality, that they would rather place a call, die, and have the police bring them a bodybag. That's the reality of the scenario.

Also, "paid professionals"?

The training LEO goes through is a joke.

I truly and honestly can't fathom the corruption that has slipped by without being noticed since the advent of the pocket recorder in all of its forms.


In the mid 1970's, a Pinole PD car stopped my grandmother for an unspecified reason. The officer and his partner both exited their vehicle, and proceeded to harass her, including an unauthorized, unsubstantiated search. One of the officers slipped a bag of marijuana out of his pocket, and into her trunk, picking it up and saying, "Is this yours mam?" My grandmother was outraged as she was charged with possession of a controlled substance.

She won her defense (Not Guilty plea). Know how?

The cops partner came forward and admitted to knowing this officer was corrupt, and liked to plant evidence in peoples cars. He claimed to have seen his partner slip the bag of marijuana into her vehicles trunk (An old Rambler).

Where the hell have cops like this dirtbags partner gone? It seems like this uniquely honorable species has met extinction.

Or she brings a firearm into the situation resulting in the death or injury of the Ex or herself if he gets control of it. It's a civil situation which has turned criminal. The police can show up, take the report and her insurance can repair the car and nobody dies. If the Ex is still on scene he can be arrested for various laws he broke while acting a fool. It's not cool and a restraining order won't be an invisible force field around her but it is a legal step and should she need to use deadly force, is evidence that she took the steps to protect herself.

Your argument is irritatingly irrational here.

#1. The police showing up is no different, on ANY fundamental level, from her simply being present with a firearm. This is the "He is gonna grab it and use it on her" argument that anti's chant over and over with no substantiation.

#2. "If" the ex is on the scene, which is never how these things work.

#3. A vehicle is one of many possessions a person owns. Many are irreplaceable, and 99% of the time, insurance does not pay full value, but a highly divisional value of the vehicle damaged. You are literally telling somebody to take the $2,000 dollars they earned last week, and let this thug shove it up their posterior. Remember, the national average wage for women is also lower than men, so she likely worked longer for the same earnings.

#4. Touching on the property issue. Property is the accumulated items of purpose that individuals trade the days of their life, and labor of the body for. It is as sacred as their physical body. Every individual should have the right to defend it without being told to "stand by", and watch it get destroyed and/or devalued.

I'm aware that many handicaped people carry firearms but there are plenty who don't and while we may be progun here on this board many people aren't or don't live where they are able to legally carry.

The problem is with the laws restricting carry. I think most handicapped people would prefer to have equitable self defense readily available. Your initial commentary was vague in asserting that those with handicaps are "incapable" of self defense and therefore must rely on the police. This is obviously untrue, and not a good statement to try and substantiate the existence of law enforcement with.

As I mentioned before, I beleive that several factors ahve been shpeing our society for decades and I don't see a significant "societal Change" taking place anytime soon.

Acknowledging the degradation of society, and throwing your hands up about it truly is the definition of "self-fulfilling prophecy".

More later. So much to discuss, so little time.
To be continued......

I know what you mean.

Look forward to responding later!

By purported, do you mean that the natural desire for liberty doesn't exist and that liberty wouldn't be a good thing?

Beretta believes firmly that most people need to be controlled. I can find the exact citation for you if you would like.

 

[Daylen]

Only if you buy into the Hollywood version where the good guy/hero always wins. :uhoh:

Seriously though, even jokingly, this suggests use of deadly force to settle personal grievances or perceived slights - not something to which I could subscribe.

I dont buy into any Hollywood version. I know the good guy would not always win. I do know that when there is a significant bodily threat to both parties in an altercation manners become important. Such was the case since time immemorial until dueling was outlawed. The answer to why is easy but I'll spell it out. Even if one survives an engagement with deadly weapons significant injury is high punishment; those who engage in too many fights with deadly weapons will not live as long or as healthy of lives. So the "bad guys" who constantly duel and have bad manners, the reason for their dueling, will usually live short lives.

 

[sraacke]

I'm back for a bit..... OK where did we leave off?

Like cops? They are people too.

In response to the multiple "like cops", I understand that cops are people to but I'm not singleing them or any other profession out here. I 'm pointing out that there are mulitple freaks, geeks, creeps and assorted headcases walking free in our socitey. They are a good reason to have your guard up at all times and an example of some of the dangers out there. They also represent a segment of society we don't want armed if at all possible for our sake.

I can't help but wonder how your assessment of the quantity of mental ill transients has any bearing whatsoever on the ability to individually defend ones self, home, and family?

Are you saying that since there is an enormity of mentally ill transients in a given locale, that one should be less prepared to defend ones self?

Please clarify whatever point, if you can, that you were trying to make by saying there is an abundance of mentally ill people. Thanks.

Glad to clarify. It doesn't have any bearing on an individuals ability to defend himself, home or family. In fact the precense of these type of people should be included in your specific threat assessment. I'm pointing out that there are plenty of people walking the streets who, based on their mental capacity and criminal histories or a combination of both, who are dangerous to themselves and others and are most likly armed with atleast a cheap folding knife or other instrument. I'm saying that we need to be aware these peopel are out there and that our vision of a utopia where everyone is armed and able to responsiby handle everything that comes along is just not realistic.

"Control" is primarily an illusion when it comes to law enforcement. The dynamics of which are so staggeringly broad and diverse, that the chaotic nature of "right and wrong" cannot ever be contained by any law enforcement agency, of any number, ever.

Actually control is very real and a proven part of law enforcement as well as the private security field. A major part of my job is being seen. Seen by the general public who are going about their daily business in my area of responsibility and by the ones who are up to no good. When we are walking around checking doors on our buildings or making mobile patrols of our parking areas we are there to be seen. Our light bar is always flashing on our patrol vehicles because we want people to know we are watching. Visit any mall and you will see this in action. It's known as 'visible deterence' and has been shown to lower criminal mischef. Same with police who are performing 'sateration patrols'. The bad guys see that an area is being activly monitored and don't want to risk being caught so they move on to areas with less patrols. To think otherwise is turning a blind eye to evidence of the effectiveness of this tactic.

One thing can remain a constant however. The right of every individual to defend their life.

Criminals as they are now know a few common things:

#1.) Most people are not armed due to;

a. Extensive efforts to demonize the greatest tool ever devised for equitable self defense.
b. Legislation complicating, or flat out denying the ownership of said tool. Even in the face of our Constitution recognizing a reality known so long ago by the veteran escapees of tyrannical dictatorship.

#2.) The police take time to respond. This creates the window the criminal/s needs. They can only wish and hope that #1 has successfully corrupted this targets mentality, and thanks to senseless, non-factual, dramatized, inappropriate campaigning, there is a numerically acceptable chance that they will face unarmed opposition.

Good points. People do have the rights to defend themselvels. I'm not saying that when someone is kicking in your door or punching your face in or trying to rape you that you do not defend yourself. Certainly you should. But not everyone is going to be able to and many people will not carry firearms anymore than many people won't learn how to use a chainsaw or how to repair a toilet. <shrugs>
Point 1 was a good point. Guns have been demonized. I work in a hospital in a dangerous part of town. Owr own hosptial has been the scene of a shooting when a visitor showed up to a room and opened fire on his exwife and her new boyfriend. Still we have people working here who, when told that they should consider purchasing a firearm for safety will bristle at the thought. I've actually been told by a nurse, "I'm a healer not a killer. Guns have no place in my life." People like this are not going to buy a gun, take it to a instructor and learn how to use it nor are they going to paractice with it. They simply don't have the mindset to do this. They most certainly no the type of people who, when they see something out of the ordinary, will go investigate it on their own or run toward the danger. There are many people like this out there in ou community and we can't forget or dismiss them when discussing how we wish things to be.
Point 2 regarding police response is varable and relative. If you, like many who have posted in this thread, live in a very rural area your police response time may be quite a bit longer than reasonable. Where I live it is considerably faster. When we have an incident in our hospital that security can't handle we make a call and have a half dozen police on scene within 5 minutes. We also contract with the city for an Extra Duty police officer who is stationed at our Emergency Room entrance at all times, 24/7/365. Last week we had a disturbance with a crowd of family members after the death of a loved one. We had 5 security officers there and when we felt we needed more help we called for Baton Rouge PD. Our Extra Duty cop from the ER showed up and 2 minutes later 2 more BRPD cops arrived. We escorted the crowd out to the parking lot and monitored them until they dispersed. We have no problem with long response times.
Your milage may vary.

That's right. Convince those "citizens" that they can't or shouldn't do it "on their own". Making a neighborhood safe one responsible firearm owning adult at a time is a whole lot more senseless than calling the badge wearing tooth fairy to come to your rescue while some druggie kicks your door in, knocks you around your living room and kitchen, steals your belongings, and shames you for life, all in half the time of the average police response.

I'm not here to knock the cops. Calling them tooth fairies or other discriptions is not productive to the conversation. Sure, as I said earlier, defend yourself when the druggie is kicking in your door. ALSO, call the police so should he run off when he realizes you are armed or begin shooting, the police have a chance of catching him as he flees the scene.
Having a firearm is all well and good but doesn't replace the need for police to make patrols and respond to calls and investigate crimes. While you are sitting in yoru living room with your gun your neighbor 2 doors down is at work and his house is being broken into. The methheads are stealing his Air Conditioning unit to sell the copper. You may or may not see them. If not, the police on patrols may see hem and arrest them on the spot or they will take the homeowners report and followup with calls to local scrap metal dealers. That's not something your armed neighbor idea is going to do.
I'm not so quick as some on this board to dismiss the need for police patrols and the other tasks they do. I understand the job because I've done it. My current job as a security officer takes into account the lowlifes who roam our streets. We spend a majority of our time making it so difficult for them that they choose to go elsewhere to commit their crimes.
Our hospital doors lock from 10pm to 4:30am to keep people from roaming in. The only way in at night (after normal visition hours) is to check in with security at the Emergency room. We will get your name, the name of the person you are here to visit and then call the nurse on that ward to get approval for you to come up. IF the nurse approves the after hour visit we will have to escort you through several locked doors and to the elevator going to the floor you are visiting on. We don't do this because we want to. We do it because there are too many people who will walk into our buildings, take anything not bolted down, pee or crap in the stairwells and then pass out drunk in a linen closet. Sad but that is life.

There are certain people who present a hilarious conundrum. They are like living paradox's. The living, breathing testaments to self fulfilling prophecy. Let me know when you understand the implication of the preceding comment..

Yeah, I get it. Still doesn't solve the basic problems we are discussing in this thread.

 

[101st Airborne Combat Vet]

Dog the bounty hunter is a liberal scumbag. That is all.

 

[SFCRetired]

Would any of you agree with this statement: "The problem is not with law enforcement as such, but with the continuing militarization of law enforcement agencies and the misuse of those agencies."

Because there is a sub-species of homo sapiens who feel it is their right to prey on other people, we, as a society, need some laws and some agency to assure those laws are followed. That in no way removes responsibility from the individual to protect self and family. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that there are too many laws and far too many laws that are vague or poorly written.

What I would like to see is the use of military ranks forbidden to law enforcement and the use of military weaponry severely restricted. Not to mention that I would dearly love to see the use of SWAT teams to serve warrants forbidden except in extreme cases. There are also some law enforcement agencies that need to be completely eliminated.

The ideal would be a citizenry that takes responsibility for its own safety by being armed and, as an armed society, also becomes a much more polite society. Were that to happen, we would have far less need of the numbers of law enforcement personnel we now have.

As to the comment from 101st Airborne Combat Vet; I would remove the word "liberal". I have no use for Dog or his fellow-travelers. It is interesting when a bounty hunter shows up on your doorstep asking about someone you've never heard of and then starts cursing and threatening you when you tell them you don't know the person.

 

[101st Airborne Combat Vet]

Liberal is staying up because that is what he is. He can come to my doorstep with his paintball gun any time he wants. Wearing his puffy shirt all unbuttoned in the front showing his old guy wrinkles. Like anyone wants to see his chest?

 

[sraacke]

Sorry for any typos in my above posts. Not much time to get my post in and sometimes the fingers are flying but the words get a bit mangled. I'll go back and edit for spelling when I'm able. Just got home from work and my morning chores await.
Hey Slow, to give you an idea what BRPD is dealing with on the streets of Baton Rouge do this. Tonight, go to Radio Reference. It's a website/forum for hams and scanner hobbyists like me. There's a database of live audio links where you can choose streaming audio of the dispatch channels for the 4 BRPD districts. Here is the link to take you to the page-> http://www.radioreference.com/apps/audio/?stid=22 . Go there, choose the Baton Rouge Police feed and listen for a few hours on your computer tonight. That's just the main dispatch channels. That doesn't include tactical or investigations or narcotics or other stuff. Those 4 channels will show you a bit of what we live with all the time. It's not as simple as "everyone should have a gun and take care of stuff themselves".
Now that I bring that up, one of the misconceptions I see here a lot is the idea that arming everyone will somehow solve a bunch of the problems. I'm reminded of that old saying, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail".
Guns are a tool and nothing more. They aren't the answer to everything and not everyone will be willing or able to handle a gun or the responsibility that comes with owning one.

 

[Aknazer]

I'm back for a bit..... [SNIP]

It's a long post and I'm not sure if I'll have time to reply to everything in it, but I figured I'd quote the beginning just so you know I was responding to it. To me there are a LOT of issues with your post. For example you say that your response times for calling the police are considerably faster but then proceed to list them at around 2-5 minutes. In a truely dangerous situation that is a long time (the whole thing about "when seconds count the cops are minutes away"). Also you're talking about a hospital. While things "can" be that fast for a regular citizen they can also be far longer, assuming they even show up (see the previous discussions about how cops don't have to protect anyone).

You also talk about people like the nurse. While we can't force anyone to change their mind, when they are the victim of a crime they will have theirself and the perp to blame and will hopefully re-evaluate their outlook on things. Also part of fixing this issue is working towards a shift in societal thinking. And while there will always be a few people out there like this, that doesn't mean we should keep the police force at the size it's at.

Overall most of your responses come across as "well that's how things are now, so we can't ever go back to how things were or a smaller force." As slow said it's like throwing up your hands and having a self-fulfilling prophecy. Can we just shrink the police force overnight? No, we can't. But if more people arm theirselves and start to get off of the governmental teet (and relying on the local PD for all of your security needs is a part of that) and start to take more responsibility for what goes on around them (which includes potentially helping to watch out for your neighbor if they can't do it theirself for some reason), then we can start to shrink the police force. But in order to do that we need to change both the public view towards these things and the legislature to allow people to reasonibly do so (and these things go hand-in-hand before we can really move forward). It took generations for us to get where we are currently, so it might take a generation or two to get us back on the right track, but it's 100% possible.

And once the laws are fixed it just might take a slight reduction in the PD to force the more urban citizens to wake up and step up and start taking responsiblity for things again.

 

[slowfiveoh]

Sorry for any typos in my above posts. Not much time to get my post in and sometimes the fingers are flying but the words get a bit mangled. I'll go back and edit for spelling when I'm able. Just got home from work and my morning chores await.
Hey Slow, to give you an idea what BRPD is dealing with on the streets of Baton Rouge do this. Tonight, go to Radio Reference. It's a website/forum for hams and scanner hobbyists like me. There's a database of live audio links where you can choose streaming audio of the dispatch channels for the 4 BRPD districts. Here is the link to take you to the page-> http://www.radioreference.com/apps/audio/?stid=22 . Go there, choose the Baton Rouge Police feed and listen for a few hours on your computer tonight. That's just the main dispatch channels. That doesn't include tactical or investigations or narcotics or other stuff. Those 4 channels will show you a bit of what we live with all the time. It's not as simple as "everyone should have a gun and take care of stuff themselves".

I read police blotters all the time, as well as listening to radioreference on occasion. In fact, I have posted a link to radioreference before on this forum, roughly 2 years ago, when I still lived in California.

Now I know you aren't going to like this, but here's the absolute truth about listening to the scanner most of the time: Nearly nothing happens all night.

Read your local blotters and you will see a pattern emerging.



Furthermore, you are completely denying a rather direct reality, in that the presence of firearms will 99% of the time quell most situations. Also, once the criminal base learns that even 60% of the populace is walking around armed, you will have a paradigm shift in the volume of criminal activity.

Asked directly what they fear most, most criminals respond with, "The person I am assaulting might be armed!". Change "might" to "most likely" and the chance of mortal threat to said criminal skyrockets.

Now that I bring that up, one of the misconceptions I see here a lot is the idea that arming everyone will somehow solve a bunch of the problems. I'm reminded of that old saying, "When the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a nail".

You are not capable of looking at the problem of modern crime and an unarmed populace abstractly, if you cling to the fallacy that arming the populace is a "misconception".

#1. You list a firearm as a "tool", then use that terrible old (ignorant really) saying completely out of context. People have mace, pepper spray, batons, knives, brass knuckles, daggers, personal body guards etc.

#2. You clearly view the police (LEO) as a "tool" in the "tool-kit". Fact is, any device/individual with even a 4 minute delay is a complete and utterly useless tool to me in a self-defense scenario. I am thinking you clearly have not ever been in any sort of encounter where your mortality was on the line, and you tried to call the police.

I have news for you. If you "had time" to call the police, it's likely your life was not in danger. Either way, good luck waiting for them for 4 minutes (an absurdly low, unrealiastic response time by the way)

Guns are a tool and nothing more. They aren't the answer to everything and not everyone will be willing or able to handle a gun or the responsibility that comes with owning one.

An overwhelming percentage of people drive cars. Society breeds us to look forward to this moment during our teenage years.

The reality of this moment though, is actually quite dark.

You are putting a laundry list of responsibility and complicated vehicle operations in the hands of a complete rookie, filled with testosterone, who is likely to succumb to peer pressure whilst driving said vehicle, many times over.

You train said teen to:

-Operate the steering wheel.
-Apply the brakes
-Smoothly, and deliberately apply the accelerator
-Operate the turn signals, AND where it is mandatory to do so
-Parallel park
-Merge
-Position their body while reversing
-Proper alignment of the vehicles mirrors

All of this, in a short series of lessons, in a vehicle weighing 1+ ton, moving at rates that can, and do, easily injure/kill people every year. In numbers FAR exceeding firearms. Yet we, in ignorance, write off vehicles lethality because they can get us to Burger King in less than 10 minutes. I agree vehicles are a "tool", and the normalized presence of them makes them accepted in society (It was NOT always so!), but this is a cultural acceptance that used to apply to firearms as well.



All compared to 2, yes only 2 rules to be safe with a firearm.

#1. Do not point it at anything you do not intend to kill/destroy, at any time, ever.
#2. Do not handle or let others handle your firearm unless it is being fired, or is being serviced.



Yet Hollywood, politicians, and the corrupt, have done their best over the last 40 years to demonize firearms. So you see a cultural shift.


The reality is, that the people have slowly been weaned off of being responsible for themselves. Thus creates the good old psychological term, "co-dependence". It really is a psychological problem, and it is pervading our society.

We have gone from a society of independent, free-thinking individuals, to a society of blame-shifting apologist consumers.


Lets get back to the independent, free-thinking individuality that we need, and away from the collective numbness that we have succumbed to. Being responsible for our mortality is a major step in the right direction. The wolves prey on the lamb friend.

Your mentality is clearly "lamb".

 

[ccwinstructor]

Perhaps Police Chiefs should be elected, like the Sheriff

Social order/justice is often a matter of perspective or even selective memory.

Very early on the church provided some of the control and punishment. Some problems were settled with duels; others became family feuds. Then there were Cattlemen's Associations and vigilantes who meted out on the spot justice - not always to the correct person.

Coupling "Might makes Right" with "Dead men tell no tales" was not infrequently how extreme social justice was dispensed. I'm not really interested in returning to those standards.

My limited experience is that Sheriff departments seem to be more responsive to the people because the Sherriff is directly elected. Perhaps if we made police chiefs a directly elected position, they would be more responsive as well.

Clearly, there are corrupt sheriffs, but it seems to me that there are less of them than of corrupt police chiefs.

 

[since9]

Clearly, there are corrupt sheriffs, but it seems to me that there are less of them than of corrupt police chiefs.

My observations corroborate your seemings.

 

[sraacke]

Perhaps if we made police chiefs a directly elected position, they would be more responsive as well.

In my city the Police Chief is an elected position. Same as the Sherriff. In fact the only difference between the two agencies is the PD is under Civil Service and the SO isn't . Both do full spectrum Law Enforcement with the PD working within the City Limits and the SO covering the unincorporated areas.

 

[ccwinstructor]

Worth knowing. May I ask what city it is?

In my city the Police Chief is an elected position. Same as the Sherriff. In fact the only difference between the two agencies is the PD is under Civil Service and the SO isn't . Both do full spectrum Law Enforcement with the PD working within the City Limits and the SO covering the unincorporated areas.

I think this could be a big step forward for limiting government powers in large urban areas. Making the Police chief a center of power that could stand up to city government, and vice versa could improve citizen liberty and police responsiveness to citizens.

 

[tcmech]

Now that is an opinion of (gray) matter.

A fairly common opinion though

 

[Fisherman]

My limited experience is that Sheriff departments seem to be more responsive to the people because the Sherriff is directly elected. Perhaps if we made police chiefs a directly elected position, they would be more responsive as well.

Clearly, there are corrupt sheriffs, but it seems to me that there are less of them than of corrupt police chiefs.

I think this is why I have always liked sheriff's and their deputies more than anyone with the city PD's. Not that there aren't bad deputies. Just less of them because their boss has to think of re-election. I visited with our sheriff about Constitutional Carry before the last session in TX and he said, "Everybody ought to be packing. That would make our job a lot easier."

 

[since9]

I visited with our sheriff about Constitutional Carry before the last session in TX and he said, "Everybody ought to be packing. That would make our job a lot easier."

I suspicion our founding fathers thought much the same.

 

[6L6GC]

And this is exactly why people like you accept tyranny.

I don't know who you hang out with, but if "law enforcement" went away tomorrow, 99.99% of the people I know would behave in exactly the same manner as they do now, with the possible exception of driving maybe 4-5 mph faster. The whole notion that, if not for thin blue line of "law enforcement," the barbarians would break through the city gates and society would descend into chaos is purely an illusion foisted upon us by the government caste, statists, and degenerates like Thomas Hobbes.

EDIT: I hasten to add that the .01% that are criminals would also continue to behave in the same fashion, but that is why I carry a gun.

VERY WELL SAID SIR 100% concurrence
roN

 

[6L6GC]

another statement

Dog the Bounty hunter is a complete idiot.

with which I concur 100%

ron