TexasCHLforum.com

RoyGBiv wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:I'm not sure that I agree. We are currently in a small area of a busy town and police sightings here are rare - but they do happen from time to time.

In PA, we lived in an un-incorporated part of the State and the only police unit that covered our section was the State Police. Many of the roads were very remote and the level of crime and teenage mischief had risen to almost a rampant level. Pleading for occasional patrols by the State Police got us nowhere. So we formed a citizen group and started patrolling. We concentrated on the late evening and morning hours but had groups out in the daylight occasionally, too. We were able to identify problems and our presence was noticed. Problem rates dropped off rapidly and significantly. There were other areas just like ours and the BGs and teen beer parties found other places to do their thing. For a few hour investment once about every six weeks, a core of about 40 people put a big dent in the original problem.

While I agree that resources need to focus on where the largest problems are, I think that there is a prevention element to police work. Only working the hot spots, sooner or later, just leads to more hot spots.

The article was a leading question on whether people "feel cheated" because they don't see the police patrolling past their house regularly. If there's a real problem, like you describe, it's a different story entirely. But this article was saying... "If you don't see a cop, aren't you being cheated?", as if not seeing a regular patrol past your door and actually having a real problem were the same thing.

I lived in the country for 10 years. My nearest neighbor was more than a half mile away. The land we lived on was at the end of a lovers lane and our pasture was an excellent place to jack-light deer, apparently. It was impossible for the local Sheriff to drive by the house, because the only place to turn around was in my gravel parking lot. I'm very familiar with the problems you describe, but the article was really not about that, IMO, YMMV.

Sorry that I wasn't more clear. Yes, we did feel cheated in my story because, like many others, we were paying very high property taxes and ended up having to solve some of our own security problems. I really don't care if I personally see a cop every now and again but I want someone in my area to see one.

If I'm paying the same tax rate as everyone else, I expect the same services. If the county isn't going to provide any police coverage in my area except on emergencies, that I shouldn't have the same tax burden. Yes, I know that my argument could be carried to extremes like if I don't have kids in school, I shouldn't be paying school taxes. But that isn't my point and I don't think it was the point of the article.

Crime prevention in my area is important. Not all of the deputy sheriffs in the story were responding to calls. Some were just cruising. There is no reason that an occasion cruise couldn't happen on other than a major artery. Just my $.02.

RoyGBiv wrote:The entire premise of the article is wrong. It's a "media" piece designed to create a response.
Sitting in my living room, I hear LEO's doing traffic stops all the time. I live maybe 100 yards from a busy street. But I rarely see a unit patrolling past my front door. I'd venture to guess that I've never seen one roll past my door that wasn't on a call or errand that required them to pass my house. Do I feel "cheated"? Of course not. Why?

1. Because I realize that although I might not see them every day, they are there doing their job. I don't need to be falsely placated by laying eyes on "the cop that I'm paying". I know they are out there doing their job because the crime rates in my area are tolerable and trending downward (mostly).

2. If I required a visit from every person my tax money sponsors, none of us would ever get anything done... I'd spend my days shaking hands with everyone form the POTUS and SCOTUS to the Mayor and the dog catcher.

3. If citizens demanded to have police sightings on a regular basis, we'd need to hire so many more police that we couldn't afford it... For what? to "feel good"?
It's a media piece...

I'm not sure that I agree. We are currently in a small area of a busy town and police sightings here are rare - but they do happen from time to time.

In PA, we lived in an un-incorporated part of the State and the only police unit that covered our section was the State Police. Many of the roads were very remote and the level of crime and teenage mischief had risen to almost a rampant level. Pleading for occasional patrols by the State Police got us nowhere. So we formed a citizen group and started patrolling. We concentrated on the late evening and morning hours but had groups out in the daylight occasionally, too. We were able to identify problems and our presence was noticed. Problem rates dropped off rapidly and significantly. There were other areas just like ours and the BGs and teen beer parties found other places to do their thing. For a few hour investment once about every six weeks, a core of about 40 people put a big dent in the original problem.

While I agree that resources need to focus on where the largest problems are, I think that there is a prevention element to police work. Only working the hot spots, sooner or later, just leads to more hot spots.