Public Saftey & LEO

[RLTW 3]

So our Attorney General feels that protection of the public is NJ responsibility and feel that allowing shall issue would increase danger to the permit holders and the public. At the same time cities & towns are laying off police. Now I know we all know this & we all can dedicate a thread just to that discussion, but it made me take a look at LE ratios.

 

So the standard know a days is about 2.3 LEO for 1K citizens (It could be higher in larger cities) & I took a look at NJ cities as well as cities in anti gun states as well as pro gun states. I am sure my # are slightly off on how they figure it out, but you will see the trend...

 

Newark (Post layoffs) 4 per 1k

Camden (post Layoffs & Rehires) 3.8 per 1k

Jersey City 3.6 per 1k

Irvington 3.3 per 1k

Plainfield 3.22 per 1k

Lowest NJ city was Elizabeth with 2.7 per 1k

Boston 3.49 per 1k

DC 6.76 per 1k

 

Gun friendly states.

 

Dallas 2.77 per 1k

Atlanta 2.7 per 1k

Austin 2.0 per 1k

Phoenix 2.0 per 1k

Provo .84 per 1k

 

So this data shows that we are a police state after the layoffs and we are seeing a rise in violence. So NJ was keeping itself in control by acting like NJ was a prison and keeping the population in check. Now their less guards the prisoners will get worse while we don't have Shall issue CCW & Castle Doctrine.... Which I believe is my point of my post.

[Mr.Shoot_It_All 13]

Agreed more couple does not decrease crime period mutual respect for.person and property whether from congeniality or fear of recourse is the solution and has been shown to be true in many states

[Babaganoosh 192]

Police rarely prevent violent crime or crime in general. They take reports afterwards and hopefully catch the person or persons.

[RLTW 3]

Police rarely prevent violent crime or crime in general. They take reports afterwards and hopefully catch the person or persons.

 

 

I would say they don't do as much as some people believe they do. If you can increase your closing % of cases and make arrest that will help prevent future crime. What city or state can afford large police forces? We can't and I think the idea of reduction of police forces has more of an impact on crime than an increase. Look at the crime in Newark after layoffs it has spiked in 2011. Some of that is due to perception of a smaller police force & some of that is what the community has become. "Snitches get stitches" "don't talk to the police".... The community is being lead by the criminal element and even the citizens have to align with them somewhat or face reprisals. The people don't have a leg to stand on because they do have to go to the grocery store, work, etc. They are defenseless while the Gangs are armed with "Machine Guns" (Per the Star Ledger). How can unarmed citizens stand up to a bunch of armed gangs? They can't, so in order to survive they must look the other way for the most part.

[Babaganoosh 192]

I would say they don't do as much as some people believe they do. If you can increase your closing % of cases and make arrest that will help prevent future crime.

 

That sounds great in theory. Right up until they get released early due to overcrowding or because they copped a plea deal. Then right back onto the streets they go. Now they have a record and can't get a real job even if they wanted to. Now what? Oh that's right, the cycle continues. Right back to a life of crime.

 

 

What city or state can afford large police forces?

 

The cities and states that can afford large police forces are the ones who are financially responsible. The ones who don't allow double and triple dipping of jobs and pensions. The ones that aren't corrupt.

 

 

We can't and I think the idea of reduction of police forces has more of an impact on crime than an increase. Look at the crime in Newark after layoffs it has spiked in 2011.

 

I would bet that some of this spike you speak of is due to the police now reporting EVERYTHING that happens. This way they can say "Look what happens when you lay us off. Crime goes thru the roof."

 

 

 

 

 

Just my 2 cents

[oneshot 45]

LE has very little to do with stopping crime.As stated above they generally take reports and do their best to track down the perp and

bring them to justice.The problem is justice does not continue when they get to court. Suspended sentences,short time incarcerated,plea bargains etc.

The police (by law)are in no way shape or form obligated to even respond.They are not obligated to put their lives in danger to protect yours.Nor can they be everywhere all the time.

The fact is and by no fault of their own that they arrive after the crime has been committed .Although there is an occasional case when they interrupt a crime in

progress.

Im sure as is apparent in states with Shall issue that if NJ were to allow law abiding citizens to protect themselves with no fear of being criminally or civilly charged ,we would see a great reduction in all crimes across the board. Thats my 3 cents.

[Anselmo 87]

If we had carry and castle would we see a reduction in crime? Carry and castle would allow the law-abiding citizen a better chance to defend themselves and achieve a better outcome when faced with a violent threat. Fear of arrest and incarceration does not deter the criminal. Fear of death at the hands of their victim will not deter them either.

[Babaganoosh 192]

If we had carry and castle would we see a reduction in crime? Carry and castle would allow the law-abiding citizen a better chance to defend themselves and achieve a better outcome when faced with a violent threat. Fear of arrest and incarceration does not deter the criminal. Fear of death at the hands of their victim will not deter them either.

 

 

I don't think we would see a reduction in crime right away. There will be a bit of a learning curve for the criminals before they realize it's not such a wise idea to be committing crimes anymore. After a bunch of them get shot by the very people they used to rob they may smarten up a bit. Maybe they won't but hey, a few more dead scumbags never really hurt anyone.

[RLTW 3]

Just my 2 cents

 

I agree with all your points.

[JackDaWack 2,895]

If we had carry and castle would we see a reduction in crime? Carry and castle would allow the law-abiding citizen a better chance to defend themselves and achieve a better outcome when faced with a violent threat. Fear of arrest and incarceration does not deter the criminal. Fear of death at the hands of their victim will not deter them either.

nah nah nah, carry and stand your ground!!! Now were talking about progress.

[matty 810]

Most places in dem controlled areas are overcopped. Pds are another graft opportunity as are public schools

[GRIZ 3,369]

Most places in dem controlled areas are overcopped.

 

I don't see that of some master plan of the Democrats to create a police state. It's more Democrat adminstrations are more likely to initiate the types of programs that don't punish criminals. Look at our NJ cities and places like DC, Chicago, Detroit, etc.

 

Police departments are as big as their crime rate. Comparing Newark, Camden, or Elizabeth to a national average is meaningless.

 

Police presence does nothing to eliminate crime. An experiment was conducted in Kansas City about 40 years ago. They literally put a cop on each corner in a high crime area. They found the criminals jusrt moved to adjacent areas and committed their crimes there. Crime wasn't eliminated is was just moved.

[PK90 3,573]

The more police that are put on the street equals more crime found, therefore it looks like that more police = more crime.

 

Also, don't forget that the ratio of residents to law enforcement is greater in resort and business areas.

 

The statistics can be skewed anyway one likes.

[GRIZ 3,369]

The more police that are put on the street equals more crime found, therefore it looks like that more police = more crime.

 

"Found" crime and reported crimes are two different things. In high crime areas many police are going from one call to another and they don't have a lot of time to "find" crime. If you're talking about a not so high crime area and the police are agressive, yes they will find more crime. Reported crime is a better way to determine crime rates and clearance rates. There will always be unreported crime however.

 

Although he had many faults, Giuliani reduced serious crime in NY. He consolidated NYPD, Housing, and Transit which should have been done long ago. Initially, there was more crime as NYPD was not letting anyone get away with anything, arrests were made for any petty crime. When the players saw they couldn't get away with the small stuff few graduated to the big stuff and the crime rate went down.

 

Also, don't forget that the ratio of residents to law enforcement is greater in resort and business areas.

 

This is a gimme in any resort area be it NJ, Las Vegas, or anywhere else. You need a police department to take care of how many people are in your town on a regular basis. Crime rates in resort areas are skewed toward certain types of crime as in Seaside Heights the rate for assault skyrockets in the summer compared to say January.

 

The statistics can be skewed anyway one likes.

 

True but reported crimes seem like a more logical place to start.

[EX Carnival man 223]

Personal safety starts with the person not with LEO's. LEO's are not much help after the fact if I'm laying dead.

[TacGuy911 25]

Most places in dem controlled areas are overcopped.

 

I don't see that of some master plan of the Democrats to create a police state. It's more Democrat adminstrations are more likely to initiate the types of programs that don't punish criminals. Look at our NJ cities and places like DC, Chicago, Detroit, etc.

 

Police departments are as big as their crime rate. Comparing Newark, Camden, or Elizabeth to a national average is meaningless.

 

Police presence does nothing to eliminate crime. An experiment was conducted in Kansas City about 40 years ago. They literally put a cop on each corner in a high crime area. They found the criminals jusrt moved to adjacent areas and committed their crimes there. Crime wasn't eliminated is was just moved.

 

 

Im kinda confused on the study... Based on what you say the police presence did eliminate crime in the area.. Yes it moved but that is the point. I am a little upset that a lot feel that cops just take reports. Sure. Crimes will occur that will not get stopped while in progress but there are an abundance of crimes that do get stopped in progress or shortly after.. But what about the crimes that don't occur because of police presence?? It is impossible to document but think about all the crimes that may have happened or could have happened but didn't because a cop passed by a location. How many times you get a large group where a fight is about to break out and someone says "yo the cops are here" or such and the group disperses.. Or how about the criminals that were thinking of breaking into a house in Town X but don't because as they rolled through they saw that cops were patrolling the area and decided to leave.. Again I know this doesn't apply to all crimes but the major function of police is to be a deterrent.. If criminals see cops patrolling or know that a town is pro active then they might think twice before doing something in that area. That's not the say that the crime is completely eliminated but will not occur there.. So yes. Presence alone is a huge deterrent. If what you say is what the study says then police presence worked. The criminals moved to where the police were not being put on every corner hence eliminating crime in that area.

[heaterbob 53]

i agree about the presence being a deterent, how many times have you let off the gas when you see a police car, the problem is the jails are to comfortable and the stay is to short. they should build pow type camps for them, and bring back real chain gangs. jmo

[oneshot 45]

"The criminals moved to where the police were not being put on every corner hence eliminating crime in that area".

 

Here in lies the problem. Since the Police cannot be everywhere at once, crime in itself is not lessened but rather

moved to a new location. I think the police ,like our military have their hands tied to some degree by politicians.

Yes police presence helps deter crime for the moment. These moments are fleeting at best unfortunately. I have family

who are LEO and i respect the job they do.I also would hope that they(LEO) in turn would respect my right regardless of where

i am to protect myself,family and property by deadly force if necessary. I hope that i never have to use deadly force ,but i will

if need be.All i want is my second amendment rights restored and to not be looked upon as a nut job because i carry a tool

for self preservation. I'm sure there will be no wild west in NJ. Only 4% of all the people in this country that can carry

concealed do so. Police are not the end all be all, never were never will be.

[AntZ 1]

Should you still call 911 if the bad guys run away after you point a gun at them without firing a shot? Or should you not call so you can keep your guns to continue to protect you?

[hd2000fxdl 422]

Should you still call 911 if the bad guys run away after you point a gun at them without firing a shot? Or should you not call so you can keep your guns to continue to protect you?

 

Sorry man, I know it's a legit question but after reading it I was thinking to myself, What's he doing running to the Police station to report you pointed a gun at him while he was trying to break in and rob you.

 

Seriously, report the attempted robbery and that's it, no need to disclose that you had a gun or you pointed it at them, for all you know you startled them and they left.

 

Harry

[AntZ 1]

Seriously, report the attempted robbery and that's it, no need to disclose that you had a gun or you pointed it at them, for all you know you startled them and they left.

 

Harry

First of all, is the report of attempted robbery going to anybody any good? Secondly, what are you going to say? The the bad guys gave up on their own?

[hd2000fxdl 422]

First of all, is the report of attempted robbery going to anybody any good? Secondly, what are you going to say? The the bad guys gave up on their own?

 

OK, First, yes I would report someone tried to break in, why would you not do anything. It will do something, make it known there is some sort of activity in the area and maybe there would be a better awareness of this by the LEO's.

 

What would I say, Someone was trying to break in, they saw me decided it leave, no need to speculate that maybe they were looking for an unoccupied home or what not, just say they tried and saw you were home and left.

 

Who cares why they left, they left and that's it, gave up, decided it's better to not hit a home with someone there, whatever, no need to go into that either.

 

I have to ask, why would you not report it?

 

Harry

[TacGuy911 25]

Not sure where you guys live but if you are in your house and a guy tries to break in and you have a gun you are allowed to arm yourself.. I am sure the Officer may ask for you to place it down or something but your gun is not going to be taken.. You are in your house.. Its not like you decided to run after the guy in the middle of the street (which even then I wouldn't be taking your gun).. If you are in your house and someone tries to break in and you pull a gun there is no problem.. That is your right as a legal gun owner.. Now if something doesn't look right maybe I might ask for paperwork for the gun but it would have to a seriously messed up situation.. There would be no legal reason to take the gun.. Its your and you were using it in your house in a legal manner.. Also you should report the crime.. It allows Police to generate a stat that there was an attempted burglary.. You may be able to give a good description that we can give out to all neighboring towns.. For example: White male, 20's, wearing orange jacket, black jeans, red shoes.. An officer may spot the guy in the area and nail him.. People don't realize but reporting is the best thing you can do.. It aids us in the areas that are being hit and we can get more plain clothes guys to that area.. Or maybe you saw the guys face and he is a local repeat offender.. So it is always best to report..

[Mr.Shoot_It_All 13]

Yes but tac guy your on this forum your most likely pro 2a (not assuming) and support legal gun ownership. I would say a majority of cops in this state and in general are not like you.

 

***Based upon your statement I'm assuming your an leo***

[AntZ 1]

if you are in your house and a guy tries to break in and you have a gun you are allowed to arm yourself.. I am sure the Officer may ask for you to place it down or something but your gun is not going to be taken

 

Hopefully that would be the case, but...

The following is in the first paragraph of the home page of http://www.houseguns.com/

 

"Don't spend too much money for your home security guns. If you ever fire your weapon at a bad guy or hold a burglar at gunpoint for the cops, there is a chance all of the firearms in your house will be confiscated. For this reason, it is best to not spend too much money. The focus of this website is low cost firearms for home defense"