How to Secure Our Safety, 2023 and Forward in the USA

MODS: I put this in IMHO, rather than Great Debates, as I didn’t feel it was narrow enough to qualify. If you feel it would be better moderated elsewhere, you have my permission to move it.

DISCLAIMER: This is a thread to discuss how to secure yourself, steps you feel we/others should take politically, or legislative changes you think would be best, but should be at least plausible. This topic will of course touch on various Gun Control issues, but any such should be viewed in light of that need. In other words, yes, the situation could be vastly improved by adopting rules such as those seen in Canada, but are unlikely in the extreme to pass the legislature, much less the SCOTUS within the next decade.

With that out of the way, I’ve been pondering the horrible state of the United States these days, especially in term of all of those who Serve and Protect fail us. Our police forces are verifiably corrupt, willing to use unjustified violence, and have no legal duty to protect the citizens at all. In fact, our laws, their unions, and the Code of Silence they adopt are predominantly designed to protect them from retribution.

At the same time, we have an overwhelming violence problem. It is absolutely made worse by the hodge-podge of federal and state permissiveness on firearm access, concealment, and proliferation, and that’s leaving out the illegal users of such. Our failures are manifold, and often those at greatest risk are made targets, especially schools.

The Republican party has made the assumption for years that by arming more individuals, we can protect everyone. That heroic individuals will stand up and stop those perceived and actual threats, at risk of their own lives, and that by adding layers of security, such things will be rare indeed.

In response, we have armed guards at schools, multiple levels of local, state, and federal response forces.

And they all fail. Uvalde proved that. There is no coherency, no responsibility, no unity of purpose or training. It was all a shift-the-blame game while people died. In today’s news, the security officer at Parkland was cleared of all charges, at least in part (or whole) because they did not meet the state’s legal requirement of being a caregiver or otherwise responsible for the students.

On the Democrat side, we have a large, well-meaning group who feel that with the legal will, we can and will legislate firearms away. And despite being a gun owner myself, I do feel that this is going to be the only long-term fix - violence won’t go away, but it will reduce the scale of such events. Will people kill, and attempt mass killings? Sure, I foresee many more “drive my car/truck into masses of people I hate” killings, but those are increasing anyway and it’s a bit harder at least to drive a F-150 into a school.

Back to the disclaimer though, I see NO way this will happen soon. Decades probably at best. So what do we do right now?

The economic and political elite are largely insulated from the problem, as they can expect protection via private or dedicated governmental security. You and I (well I at least) are not going to be able to afford full time security that will be held accountable if they fail to do their jobs.

Some fellow gun owners use the inherent insecurity of the situation to justify more deadly, and more proactive use of firearms. Each event increases demand for weapons, for ammunition, and the willingness to see everyone else as a threat. To the point that someone in your driveway is a valid target for lethal force. I see this as part of the problem, not the solution.

So, at the end of all this gloom and doom, do I have any solutions to share, before I ask you to do the same?

Well, yes, but it won’t be easy, but far less likely to run aground on the shoals of the SCOTUS.

And that’s police reform. While “Defund the Police” was a slogan that did more harm than good, it brought the concept of police accountability into sharp relief. And yet, years down the line, very little has actually occurred. Sure, body cams have reduced the abuses, and made a few cops sweat, but too many recent events have shown how the Blue Team will deflect, excuse, and lie. Or will suddenly go “OMFG, is your camera still on?”

So in terms of specifics I’d like to see, is that we get some federally (!) mandated training and oversight of all the flavors of local police, sheriffs, state patrol, etc. Just as we’ve repeatedly seen in the financial/banking world, self-reporting and discipline does NOT work.

Second, and related, is that crimes of omission need to be judged, and harshly, if we’re going to break the silence that protects the worst of the bunch. If you lie on behalf of another officer, verbally, via paperwork, or simply remaining silent when you know that party is committing crimes or concealing them - you need to share the responsibility. No more ‘notes in the file’ that never reach the parties hurt, the civilian authorities, or have any consequences.

Third, and finally, as has been discussed in multiple threads, we need to once again have a federally controlled registry of all persons who are authorized with police powers. No more conviction of crimes or uncontrolled negligence in one jurisdiction, who jumps into a new area/state and repeats the same abuses.

Again - this will not FIX our problems. We have systemic issues with race, inequality, firearms, hatred, distrust, and a near rabid hatred of the ‘other’. Our politicians and media fan the above, whether unwittingly or with great gusto, sadly enough. We’re not going to fix ANY of those problems fast. But we can fix the cops.

Or if you have a better idea, and one that just may work, let me know.

If you actually believe this is true on a universal basis (and the line about "no legal duty to protect the citizens at all (italics added) suggests that’s the case), the only way to secure your safety is to find another country to live in.

That’s not his political opinion, that’s simple legal fact.

Look up Warren v District of Columbia, DeShaney v Winnebago County Department of Social Services, or Castle Rock v Gonzales.

Our courts have ruled, again and again, that there IS no legal duty to protect, whatsoever.

Your very first case demonstrates that the claim “there IS no legal duty to protect, whatsoever” is false.

An appeals court decision in that case (which involved a lawsuit over a negligent police response) stated that “the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists”." Sounds like a technical decision to benefit a municipality rather than a rejection of the idea that police must protect the public.

Starting from a premise that police are uniformly corrupt, vicious and ignore citizen safety makes it very difficult to take the OP seriously.

Your quote confirms that there is no duty to protect any specific individual. So in practice, it is 100% true that police do not have to protect you, and will face no consequences if they choose not to do so.

Not asking much, are you, OP? :slight_smile:

Although I share many of your concerns, I also think some perspective is in order. We are not quite yet living in The Parable of the Sower, Octavia Butler’s dystopian novel. Is gun violence a big problem? Yes. Do I fear being shot when I walk around in public? Generally, no. Are there many deep problems with law enforcement? Definitely. Are we at Pinochet levels of corruption? No.

Although I acknowledge that I speak from a position of privilege, I just don’t agree with all the doom and gloom. There are problems to be solved, but that’s all they are. I’m not sure if these are causal or merely symptoms, but it seems to me there has been a big uptick in fear and belief in nonsense.

Me personally? I choose to not participate in firearm ownership, and neither do I go around in fear. I don’t yet have any reason to be afraid of my neighbors, and until I do I will extend them benefit of the doubt. I always use my turn signals, try not to be rude to people working at public-facing jobs and utilize rational skepticism when presented with information.

All that to say, I feel I’m doing my part to not increase fear, irrationality or anger. It’s a start, and it may be all I can meaningfully do.

So in practical terms, do you believe that police never respond to any calls, no matter what the emergency, unless they decide to beat the complainants senseless on a whim?

Do we? I thought that most measures of violent crime are down quite a bit from the highs a few decades ago.

We certainly have more high-profile violence, but some of that is just awareness and the proliferation of news sources. I believe the rise in mass shootings is dwarfed by the reduction in other forms of violent crime.

Some data here: What the public thinks – and data shows – about violent crime in U.S. | Pew Research Center

What a strange non-sequitor.

Like Jas09, I don’t want to fight the hypothetical, but the premise doesn’t seem grounded in reality. In 2023, violent crime remains primarily a problem for those involved in criminal activity; secondarily, for those unfortunate Americans who can’t afford to move from areas inundated with criminal activity.

For must of us, especially the people on this board, it’s simply not a concern. Random crime, such that it exists, is more likely to be perpetrated by people we know – friends, family members, etc. Mass shootings, school shootings, random violence – these are all still exceedingly rare in the grand scheme of things. Yes, this is my privilege talking, but it’s not exactly an unusual privilege.

From a personal safety perspective, I’m much more concerned about long-term issues. Like, will climate change effect the collapse of either the US government or the financial institutions I’m relying on for my security in my elder years. Will my children be able to afford a life in this country, and if not, how will that affect me? Things like that.

In practical terms, from a logistical point of view, the police simply cannot respond to every emergency quickly enough. The few times I’ve had to call 911 for a violent felony in progress, the police always arrived in a reasonable amount of time, but in only one instance did they arrive quickly enough to prevent/mitigate the risk of violence against anyone. For most the part, I think police departments make a good faith effort to respond to emergencies as best they can. But there are nearly 18,000 separate police departments in the United States with approximately 924,000 police officers, and there are times when the police fail to respond out of incompetance or cowardice. And when that happens, individuals who are members of the public have no recourse because the police had no obligation to protect them.

I’m a male in my late 40s who doesn’t engage in illegal activities. Even though I live near a high crime city (Little Rock), I’m not particularly worried about violence.

Edit: I say that. After January 6, I started becoming a little more worried about political violence. Would wearing a mask mark me as one of those woke liberal Biden supporters and piss off those MAGA jerks who want to own the libs? I wasn’t sure.

“No recourse” is, again, an exaggeration. Officers have faced charges in such situations, though obviously a jury can decide to acquit.

You’re pointing to a case where the prosecution overreached by trying to classify a police officer as a caregiver, and the officer isn’t guilty. I’m sorry, nothing happened to the officer, so I don’t accept this as recourse. Can the parents sue the police department for failing to protect their children? If I call 911, and in the 15 minutes it takes for the police to arrive I’m stabbed to death, what recourse does my family have? Nothing. The courts have established that the police have no responsibility to protect an individual save for in some fairly narrow circumstances.

I’m not sure what you’re saying. Are you suggesting that anytime anyone is a victim of crime, the police should be liable to lawsuit or prosecution for failing to prevent that crime?

You’ve cut out an important part of my post. But no, I’m not suggesting that, because the police do not have a legal obligation to protect an individual. Why would I suggest anyone be held liable for something they’re not responsible for?

Even if the police did have a legal obligation to protect individuals, practically speaking, they would be unable to meet that obligation at all times.

Yeah, sorry, I think I was getting confused between your position and that of the OP and/or other posters.

Previously you said “For most the part, I think police departments make a good faith effort to respond to emergencies as best they can”. So I gather that you do not agree with the dystopian fantasy claims presented in the OP, but are instead narrowly defining legal precedent when it comes to suing police departments for alleged inadequate responses.

Fair enough.

*see also post #3 regarding the appeals court ruling that “the duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large”.

You are correct, I do not agree with the dystopian fantasy claims that the police are lazy and corrupt and are more likely to watch us burn than they are to throw a bucket of water on us.

I am not the public at large I am an individual. The police failed to protect kids are Parkland and the officer who refused to engage the gunman is guilty of nothing. So I don’t think having an obligation to protect the public means they have any obligation to protect me.

One potential problem with imposing liability on the police (individual officers or departments) for failing to prevent crime is that it would seem to incentivize police departments to focus their resources on areas populated with people who have the time, resources, and savvy to pursue litigation. Even more than they already do.

First two apologies:

One, I didn’t mean to abandon the thread all day, I was at work and busy due to the quasi-holiday and then was called over to spend a bunch of time working on my in-laws computer, so I’m back to it later.

Second, I was somewhat overdramatic in my OP, mea culpa, in part due to Monday-itis and a decent nightcap to help me sleep with all the popping going off for the upcoming holiday.

Still, I think the mail points stand, even if I am looking at the more pessimistic side of the bell-curve in terms of the future of the USA (although looking at the ‘Failed Experiment’ thread, I’m not the only one).

So, to quickly address the points brought up by others in the thread.

No, we’re not in a dystopian hell-hole. Nor are we at the level of street violence, often attributed to drug-based cash infusion and infighting of the 80s, but we are absolutely backsliding. Worse, from a certain POV (and don’t get me started on apologists about black-on-black or brown-on-brown violence) we are moving towards additional violence of the “Natural Born Killers” type. Do it for the lulz and the fame. Sure, we have plenty of old fashioned anti-semitic, or apparently rando crazy type actions, but the number of live-streaming psychos are telling.

Secondly, I think the trends are pointing towards increased polarization of society, which is going to push the trends towards violence of the last few years up. How many threads do we have that document various conspiracy theories and news sources postulating the same, with the talking heads all but demanding (and sometimes not even taking that step back) violence as the only possible solution? I was pleasantly surprised that we’ve not had more organized violence, especially after 1/6 opened the doors, but to expect the previous trends of reduced violence to resume is not an expectation I share.

Third, while I will say that not every LEO is a violent, neo-fascist hate monger, that they have a large number within their ranks, and that their co-workers significantly support them by their frequent omissions. It is likely a combination of the job attracting the type of person who wants to exercise power over others, along with the crippling cultural (and occasionally justified) paranoia that everyone else is really out to get you. But leaving it to each macro/micro-LEO organization to self-police has not worked to date. A federally funded program, which would admittedly be a hard sell, is at least not likely to fall afoul of the SCOTUS, and have the possibility to reign in the various excesses, especially in areas where local LEO is expressly bigoted, with the full support of local government.

So, TL;DR again, because I know I’m long winded: the problems as they exist (both for law enforcement and our society) are chronic, but perhaps not yet critical, but if things continue as they are, I expect it to get worse, not better. Rather than play wait and see while hoping for the best, or doubling down as The Last Man On Earth in their shelter gunning down anyone who approaches, I want us to consider actual steps to fix the problems before we end up in MegaCity One.

As I said in the OP, if you have better options, lets hear them. Yes, the majority of us have admitted that we are shielded by race, class, wealth or the like from the worst scenarios, but your kids, nieces, nephews, grandkids or friends and family may not be.