To elaborate on the title:
Your town has a functioning police department. Self appointed people have began to patrol the streets in cars/on foot. They have (legally) armed themselves with semi-automatic pistols and rifles. There is no law against what they are doing. If something suspicious is found they will call the police; they may also confront the person (s) if they feel time is critical.
Do you feel safer?
It would depend on the level of training required for a carry permit.
For the purposes of this discussion we can use Missouri’s rules: an 8 to 12 hour course.
http://www.missouricarry.com/apply-for-permit/training-syllabus/
Typical in CCW states:
Training course (8-12 hours, renewal every few years)
Shooting test
Written test vis-a-vis the pertinent laws
No felonies
No misdemeanors within the previous 5 years
Fingerprints sent to state and FBI for checks
Age 21 or over
Based on the limited hours, no. Knowing the laws pertaining to using lethal force should take up several hours at least.
I voted safer without, but ultimately it would depend on the circumstances.
If the functioning police department is effective and responds quickly, then I’d think that the people organizing to patrol are probably some strange combination of crazy, racist and paranoid, and I’d think we’re better off without them.
However, if there is a persistent pattern of home invasions and violent crime in my neighborhood and the police, while “functioning” are slow and ineffective in dealing with this, then I’d think the armed patrols are probably warranted and likely not crazy, racist or paranoid.
In other words, I’d think that armed citizen patrols in Preston Hollow (where George W. Bush, Mark Cuban and Jerry Jones live) is insane, but if some neighborhood in South Oak Cliff set up armed citizen patrols, I probably would think it’s a sensible thing to do.
It’s literally one page, tops.
Absolutely not. The ‘lethal force’ they carry on their hip or snugged under their windbreaker is the least part of the equation. A civilian has no gradations of control in a situation; he can wave his arms helplessly or shoot someone - which is exactly what happened in Florida.
A uniform, badge and other trappings of authority give the “guard” a range of options, including an immediate presumed authority to challenge someone’s activities. If Martin had been able to recognize Zimmerman as someone with authority, even the weak, largely self-designated authority he had, it’s likely we never would have heard of the encounter.
I don’t object to a “civilian” patrol, even an armed one, per se; I object to self-appointed, unmarked, unbadged pompous assholes who take it on themselves to play cop when a very likely reaction is that their challenges will be taken as threats or baseless hassling.
ETA: Probably unnecessary illustration: You’re having a big family picnic party in a public park. You and the other two adult males are drinking beer, in mild violation of the park rules.
Scenario 1: A uniformed cop, ranger, or guard comes up to you and challenges you on the beer. You pour them out, put the rest in your trunk, and maybe get a ticket or a warning.
Scenario 2: A guy in a windbreaker walks up and challenges you on the beer. I can’t think of too many outcomes that don’t end with real cops being called, arrests for anything between assault and homicide, and tragedy all around.
“Florida… chose poooorly.” It’s NOT about the technicality of carry laws.
And understanding how the law applies in different situations would easily fill years of discussion.
Maybe in addition to the poll, we should at least add whether or not the voter believes civilians should be able to get a concealed carry license, period.
My vote: Who cares, I’m going to bed.
My position of CHL: Pro-carry.
Fuck. No.
This volunteer police force is going to self-select for people with delusions of grandeur who think they’re personally responsible for ridding the streets of undesirables. As a 30something white woman, I’m not real likely to fit someone’s prejudiced idea of “undesirable,” but I’d rather not take that chance, thanks.
I also find the idea of patrolling the streets for “suspicious behavior” to be abhorrent and Orwellian, even outside any practical concerns. The whole idea sounds incredibly shitty and like a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Edit: I’m not voting in the poll, because my vote is “nay” for reasons beyond just “it’s safer without.”
Given the rather basic premise of the OP, I’d say no.
Not in the least. Historically, Black people did not have s good time when patrols of people walked around handing out their brand of “justice.”
I totally agree with MsWhatsit. The Citizen Patrol around here is composed of paranoid geezers with delusions of adequacy who like to throw their weight around when they put on a uniform. Not unlike a lot of cops I know, come to think of it. Give them guns and there will be a few killings within a week. Some of innocent people, some of volunteers.
Hell to the no!
Fa chrissakes, the one clumsy sentence behind it is approaching its 250th year of debate with no real resolution in sight!
This has nothing to do with the right to own(which I support), it has to do with the responsibilities and limits of legal carry(which I also support).
Agreed.
Hell no.
How do you “fire” a self-appointed patrolman? With cops, you can report them. They can be punished if they act improperly. If they screw up, they can be re-trained or counseled. Random dude with a gun and delusions of authority reports to no one. If they screw up, there is no one who is responsible for teaching them a lesson.
The potential for abuse is too high.
Nitpick: The syllabus is one page. That doesn’t tell anything about how long and detailed the course might be. An intensive course at Yale Law School might have a single-page syllabus.