Times have changed and so have police uniforms. People know that the cops are up against some real bad actors and need more protection than in the old days. If this is done right, the cops will get to know the people who live on their beat, win their confidence and get feedback on the criminals in the neighborhood. There are mainly law abiding citizens who live in slum areas who would like to have the criminals removed from their streets. It was done successfully on the streets of Baghdad, why not also in Paragould?
I certainly agree...
"If you're out walking, we're going to stop you, ask why you're out walking, check for your ID."
Here is my problem...
Innocent until proven guilty is still a concept in this land...Any law abiding citizen should be able to walk down the street unmolested without being presumed guilty ..
The cops know who the bad "actors" are...break down their doors, arrest their asses and clean up the streets...
Much easier and safer to harass granny toting her groceries home...
Thanks for that reality check. Still walking a beat, just looks paramilitary since that's the world we live in.
Seems extreme, but that's reality as we've created it. Life imitating art?
who live on their beat, win their confidence
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
Yes, that is a great goal and should work.
First, the citizens have to work with the police in getting these criminals off the streets BUT why would one cooperate with the Police when the bad guy gets booked, is back on the street before the Police have all their reports filled out and terrorizing the neighborhood BEFORE the ‘local Policeman’ gets back on his beat.
I, for one, do not see the need for a beat cop or one that is in everyday contact with the public, being dressed in para military garb, with rifles slung over their shoulders.
If that makes one comfortable or feel ‘safe’ one is fooling oneself.
Two recent ‘related’ events...”Cops in NYC surround single (suspected) gunman, open fire, wounded several bystanders”.
22 year old CIVILIAN in OR has the drop on shooter and doesn’t shoot because he knew others were in his potential line of fire.
When the shooter ‘noticed’ the ARMED CIVILIAN, the crisis came to a halt with the ‘next shot’ taking himself out.
Now who showed greater restraint and common sense?
And the 22 yo was correct, you don’t wildly open fire just because you have a weapon. If the situation is right you shoot - NOW how would he have acted if the shooter was just shooting everyone in sight? More than likely he would have taken him out BUT we will never know those kind of answers till confronted.
I carry and I carry where I am not ‘supposed’ to, but whether it be ‘false security’ or not I feel ‘safe’ and in my 73+ years have never been mugged, held up, attemped car jack etc despite the fact that my ‘work’ has me in some of the seedier parts of towns and cities, at all hours of the day or night, an attempt on occasion, but never the full act.
I don’t ‘push’ the issue, but I don’t back down and, thankfully, have never deemed it necessary to open fire, and saw fit to draw only on a couple of occasions but the ‘punks’ usually turn tail if you are able to somewhat defend yourself.
Somebody wearing body armor and combat boots (and maybe a helmet), with an assault rifle around his neck, is a soldier. Sorry, but I remember cops wearing white or blue shirts and carrying revolvers.
And if that “soldier” earns a paycheck from a government entity, that makes him a “government soldier” by most definitions.
In other words ... a Redcoat.
Of course, the State needs more protection against the Gun-Wielding Peasants, Comrade!
(Do I really need a sarc tag?)
“Times have changed” provides an excellent excuse for government overreach and producing an outright test case for a police state, doesn’t it?
“They may not be doing anything but walking their dog,” he said. “But they’re going to have to prove it.””
Innocent men and women have to prove they have not violated the law?
Is that the country you want to live in?