Issue 627 Police order of Battle July 6, 2015

Here we talk about how police may look like if it followed a more traditional, more conservative line up.  Let us discuss.

Local PD:  Local Police would consist of two groups.  The first group is a community watch group that looks out for signs of trouble and reports in any suspicious activities to the authorities.  The second group is the professionals who investigate and do the arrests.  Simple right.  Also, all involved must take an exam that demonstrates they know the Constitution with an emphasis on the laws regarding property and free speech rights and knowledge of civil law like theft, and similar crimes indicative to their area they will serve. The second group would obviously have formal training to investigate and perform arrests as well.   Also, in both cases the members of these two groups must have at least 50% membership from the town or community they live in, and another 25% may be allowed from up to two towns away. 

 Members will be responsible to the community itself, thus once training is complete, the community will decide if the person is good enough to become a police officer with their pay done in a similar manner to schools or fire departments.  So the community will put in a specified amount of money per year and maybe donate goods and vehicles toward the police so that they can maintain themselves and their lives.  A board of citizens (elected by the community) that are not members of the police/watch and have no family relations to them will govern the donations and aid in procuring equipment.  This same board will also deal with all criminal law with respect to introducing laws to the community that are proposed by the police and watch groups, with the community holding referendums to enact those laws or amend already existing laws. Thus, murder, assault, sexual assault, theft, traffic, reckless endangerment, involuntary manslaughter and property law, will be dealt with at the community level exclusively and in a community court house (all other laws and oversight will be governed at higher levels of government).  In order to maintain harmony with neighboring towns, the community boards will gather together to look to harmonize laws as much as possible.

 For both these groups it will also be encouraged that they interact with the people of the community as much as possible.  So if there is a football game, the cops may be allowed to participate if they so choose while on patrol.  As such it will require the use of more foot patrols. A reconnection with the community is key to maintain relations and ensure that people recognize that the police are members of the community too.

SWAT:  This category is the specialists.  They are recruited from the professionals in the second group to do specialist jobs and serve entire geographic areas, with their equipment and training specialized to match.  These jobs including police divers, dog handlers, professional instructors, and the like.  A special group within this one will handle hostage rescue, and dealing with criminals whose weapons and lethality exceed that of the regular police. So aside from these special roles, they will have no further function. (Note: in case of riots, police and watch members, under the direction of SWAT leadership will gather from multiple communities to handle the situation if the situation calls for it).

Conclusion:  This is a hypothetical organization if we were to redo our police departments.  In fact, in the past, the same community watch members would also serve as fire fighters or other unique roles in the community.  So this is, to say the least, not out of the realm of possibility.  So before we talk about nationalizing police, or other reforms, let us talk about bringing the police and community back together and remove the government's involvement as much as possible so that police no longer have politicians breathing down their backs and forcing them to do things that they are constitutionally not allowed to do (like militarizing).  

Issue 626 The police I know July 3, 2015

I just want to write this to let everyone know that it is not the cops that are the problem.  It is the system that is the problem.  As such I have a few things to say.

The two key problems hurting police:  The first problem is that when the police are not taught the actual Constitution in the United States, but are instead taught case law.  This means that even if a law or action is unconstitutional, the police will not know it for they have never read the actual Constitution as part of their training.  If they did, then they could refuse that order or not enforce a law as it could be considered unlawful. 

As to the other key problem.  Police used to be able to interact with the community more.  They could stop in the middle of their patrols on foot and then play a game of football with the kids in the community.  In short they were more a part of the community as opposed to now where many are not allowed to interact in this manner anymore or it is discouraged in favor of patrol cars.  Thankfully in my community, off duty police try and do participate in community activities which does help, but my community seems to be the exception and not the rule if we are to believe the media.

Who are the police:  The police are people like everyone else who have taken a special job within the community to protect us from elements that would seek to do people harm.  Police make every attempt to be a part of the community and are generally good people.  Sure we get a few arrogant people in this fraternity, but they deserve our respect regardless.  So please remember, they really don't want to bother anyone, or have to arrest anyone, as they would prefer everyone respecting each other and getting along.

Conclusion:  So there you have it.  Two key areas I believe are hurting police and who I see the police as.  Believe me or not, that is up to you.  However, I will always say God Bless the police.

Issue 625 The Bubba Effect July 2, 2015

So there seems to be a reaction by people to the military equipment used by police.  Allow me to explain.

What is apparently occurring:  According to Glenn Beck and some conservative commentators, there is something called the bubba effect.  This "effect is the idea in people’s heads that if they will not or cannot protect me, then I will protect myself."  So this is being spurred by the fact that the police are militarizing with heavy weapons and equipment, and on the opposing side is the protestors with everyday people stuck in the middle.  As such, people in the middle which include the fearful and open carry people amongst others want to now protect themselves from both.  However, what is possibly more worrisome is the fact that as police guns get bigger, some people who want to protect themselves also try to get their hands on bigger and better guns.  And then to compound the issue, it is possible that criminals will now do the same to possibly take on the police as well, which compounds the idea that the middle people are not safe spurring to arm themselves even more.   If the bubba effect continues it could result in a fatal shooting at some point (Beck's biggest fear) which in turn would lead to larger riots, and violence.

Conclusion:  This is very frightful as if it is true, we are looking at a potential powder cage in the making.  People feeling unsafe with two powerful opposing groups’ leads to irrational thought.  So, with this as my warning as I am leaning on believing in this, look out, take the right steps to protect yourself if you feel it is necessary, but do not become the person that causes the chaos.

Issue 624 Do we need SWAT? July 1, 2015

So, do we really need SWAT (special weapon and tactics) teams?  Let us discuss.

SWAT:  SWAT teams are the teams who are the ones conducting the thousands of raids per year.  They go in by breaking down doors and accomplish their mission.  But, does the EPA, or the department of education need SWAT teams?  You are like, they don't have teams!  But alas, they do.  In fact in addition to the 88,000 raids in 2014 and the number rising this year in 2015, SWAT teams are being deployed everywhere including nowhere towns with populations of 300 or less.  As such, they are being used to issue arrest warrants, and other jobs that are frankly in this commentator's opinion very silly and the force used is excessive.

Teams like SWAT are supposed to be used in hostage rescue situations and where criminals are armed in such a way that normal police are out matched.  However, people want a false sense of security, and thus the SWAT teams expansion into areas that regular police normally do.  Issuing of warrants, daylight searches against non-violent offenders, visiting a witnesses or a suspect's homes when retaliation is not expected in the slightest, which are all general officer duties, have been turned over to SWAT.  Frankly, these duties should be returned to regular officers, and SWAT should be reserved for hostage rescue, riots, special teams for bomb disposal, and where their military equipment is needed to take on heavily armed criminals like a gang, the mob or even terrorists.  So we need SWAT, but not in the way they are being used now.

Conclusion:  SWAT teams if used correctly are an asset that protects other police and civilians from being harmed.  But, our desire for security has caused them to be used to do things beyond the scope of their job description and thus place them, other officers and regular people in danger.  The department of education, the EPA and similar do not need SWAT teams, and small towns do not need them unless it is one team serving an entire geographical area.  As such, we need SWAT, but they just need to be used in the right capacity again.

Issue 623 Impact of A national Police Force June 30, 2015

There were approximately 88,000 police raids in 2014.  This is an outstanding number that mostly revolves around raids against non-violent offenders who own small quantities of pot.  These raids are conducted in full riot gear, and place many people in danger including the officers.  Now, with the possibility of police becoming militarized, can you imagine them in full gear all the time?  Are you able to see them as a member of your community if they carry an M-16 assault rifle on their back as part of a routine patrol?  These are a symptom of a militarized and partially nationalized police force.  But what would it look like if they were fully nationalized?  Let's discuss.

What it would look like:

1) Military style:  For one, there will be no traditional uniforms we are used to.  A nationalized/militarized police force would be outfitted with nothing but military equipment.  They would drive light tanks and armored vehicles around and pack heavy weapons reminiscent of what they looked like during the manhunt for the Boston Marathon Bombers with machine guns locked and ready.

2) They follow Federal, not local laws:  Whatever local laws are enforced by your police, kiss them goodbye.  The federal government would decide what to enforce, and how to enforce it rather than localities and States making their own laws anymore.  As such, bureaucrats in the federal government decide law and thus determines your innocence by default.  You essentially lose all control over what laws are followed.

3) Subject to political pressures:  The advantage of local control is that you have a multitude of police departments enforcing the law and thus our ability to compare the effectiveness of each department which protects them from political pressures of local politicians.  Once nationalized, we lose that and this results in politicians putting pressure on those who govern the police at the federal level to perform actions that may in fact violate the law or even ignore it, thus creating a hodgepodge of enforcement of laws and people either escaping justice or being unfairly arrested (think Watergate on steroids).

4) Becoming thuggish:  If nationalized, the police lose all checks and balances as cops can then do whatever they deem necessary to accomplish the job of policing.  So this means more illegal search and seizure, more illegal arrests with police writing warrants and not judges as per the Constitution.  They would be able to use any amount of force they deem necessary to do the job even if it is excessive.

Conclusion:  I do not want a national police force.  My Dad, and many of my family have served as police, and I do not want their service dishonored by turning our police into a bunch of government thugs (this is how I unfortunately see it turning out after a generation or two).  While it is for you to decide if there is merit in a central authority overseeing thousands of officers each and every day, I would still prefer the local patrol whom are my neighbors and friends any day of the week.

Issue 622 Nationalizing Police June 29, 2015

There seems to possibly be an effort to nationalize America's police force.  At the moment it sounds remarkably like a conspiracy theory, but it is a topic that can be and should be discussed.  Let us begin.

Where this theory comes from:  

1) Free military surplus:  The police are getting free military surplus with the expectation that they use it within the first year that they get it.  This is the reason why we have been seeing our police with heavy armor vehicles including bomb resistant MRAPs which are being used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

2) Police raids:  Laws on the books have police conducting raids on homes for even the most minor of drug offense, this including small bags of "pot".  However, with thousands of raids being conducted, there have been mistakes with the wrong houses being raided and people being killed.  This at the same time endangers the officers as now the person being raided (whether guilty or not) may retaliate due to the amount of force being used thinking that they are under attack.  As such, this will lead to more injuries and even deaths as the American population questions police tactics.

3) Rising racial tensions: The flame of racism is ignited once more as riots break out in Ferguson, in Baltimore with respect to the death of Freddie Gray, amongst others.  However, racism may not have been involved, the fact that it was typically a white officer conducting the arrest allowed for race baiters to make their move.  As such the media harped on these stories, and thus police tactics and fears of police brutality have caused every officer of the law to be put under the microscope.

4) Politicians and activists:  During the Ferguson riots, President Obama said for the rioters to stay the course, thus showing support for the lawless criminals destroying the city rather than police.  In Baltimore, police were held back while in riot gear as if they were meant to look menacing rather than break up the looting mob.  And finally, we have powerful activists like Al Sharpton calling for the nationalization of police.  It no longer matters if the cops are white like in the case of the death of Freddie Gray in Baltimore as three of the officers including the ones driving where black police officers.  As such, the narrative is shifting to a police versus black person story as opposed to a white versus black one.

Conclusion:  Taken together, and if these trends continue, we may see an actual true movement to nationalize the police in some shape or form.  As to whether this is good or bad will be for you to decide (and I'll be discussing it in tomorrow's issue).  But just these trends alone do not bode well with our sensationalist media, and Americans now feeling it is ok to riot to get their point across rather than follow Dr. King's nonviolent principles.

Issue 621 Ransomware June 26, 2015

Ransomware is a new term to describe a new type of crime.  Let us discuss.

What is Ransomware?:  Ransomware is when you get hacked by a hacker such as through email, advertisements or visiting infected websites.  At that point, your data/secrets get stolen or in most cases encrypted so you cannot access it.  From there, you either pay up, or you can never get the files back.  In the case of encryption, the now typical form of ransomware, your files, or a business's files become inaccessible costing the individual money and distress.  Hence, the hackers create a need for the individual to get the information back.  

Hackers vs. people:  Hackers have used ransomware to make hundreds of dollars.  Some hackers do not give the information back though or they refuse to unlock it.  Additionally some victims refuse to pay as well.  So hackers have been developing a sweat spot moneywise, where the money is payable to increase the chances of people paying up despite the fear that victims may not get their data back.  As such, typical ransoms are $800 or less.  

They want your money, and they are not afraid to spread the technology around.  Apparently these hackers now invest time into tweaking their code to defeat anti-virus software, and then they may sell or give this software as a kit to other hackers.  To make sure that they keep themselves safe, the kits even include transaction software that allows the victim to pay the hacker in untraceable currencies like Bitcoins.  In short, they are getting rich while keeping themselves safe.

Conclusion:  We exist in a technological age where we are dependent on computers.  As such, ransomware is a smart move by criminals seeking to get rich with minimal risk to themselves.  Governments are getting wise to this method of crime and beginning to act, but the only sure thing to defeat them is for the government to share their information with anti-virus software companies and for companies to share information as well.  From there the shared data can be used to better counteract a hackers virus program all that much faster to minimize the victims of this crime.  Additionally, finding ways to encrypt the information encrypted by the hacker so that they do not have to pay will potentially make ransomware unprofitable which seems to be in my opinion the only way to stop this criminal act.  This is now a popular crime (though it is preferable to actual kidnappings) and we got to work on a way to stop it.