Comments on: Do America’s Inner Cities Need a “Surge?”

By: links for 2009-03-29 « The United States of Jamerica

links for 2009-03-29 « The United States of Jamerica — Mon, 30 Mar 2009 01:02:43 +0000

[...] The Agitator » Blog Archive » Do America’s Inner Cities Need a “Surge?” [...]

By: Do America’s Inner Cities Need a “Surge?” | Chicago Copwatch

Do America’s Inner Cities Need a “Surge?” | Chicago Copwatch — Wed, 25 Mar 2009 18:04:24 +0000

[...] By Radley Balko | The Agitator [...]

By: Surge-like strategy for violent U.S. inner cities? « de re militari

Surge-like strategy for violent U.S. inner cities? « de re militari — Sat, 21 Mar 2009 23:07:54 +0000

[...] The Agitator blog argues that Chicago isn’t Baghdad. U.S. cities aren’t battlefields, and the cops who patrol city streets aren’t soldiers. Residents of high-crime areas aren’t potential insurgents or enemy combatants. They’re American citizens with constitutional rights. Cops and soldiers have decidedly different missions, and it’s dangerous to conflate them. [...]

By: Oatwhore

Oatwhore — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 22:36:18 +0000

Since the surge was really just paying off the Sunnis so they would stop fighting, then sure, I’ll take that sort of surge.

By: John-David

John-David — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 21:48:38 +0000

I don’t know if you’ll see this Radley, but what I’d really like to see is updates on successful lawsuits against the departments or cities in these raid situations. It would be fulfilling to know that at least occasionally the system works out in the end.

By: Cynical in CA

Cynical in CA — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 18:08:19 +0000

“They’re American citizens with constitutional rights. Cops and soldiers have decidedly different missions, and it’s dangerous to conflate them.”

I believe words are important and that definitions matter.

American citizens (human individuals really) have human rights or natural rights. The Constitution (ostensibly) limits the powers of government officials.

This is an important distinction because it establishes that human or natural rights start out unlimited, and then are only limited by (ostensible) consent.

Rather than write that citizens have constitutional rights, I believe it is more accurate to write that government officials (ostensibly) have strict limits on their conduct. That keeps the focus where it belongs, on potentially very dangerous and misguided individuals who have awesome power over the average citizen.

By: pris

pris — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:08:06 +0000

I sent this column on to a friend who is concerned about what would happen to her community if drugs are legalized. Her neighborhood is soley supported with drug money and ignored by the local police.

By: Rhayader

Rhayader — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 14:28:32 +0000

@Dave: Absolutely. In a system where more crime means more arrests means better performance, adding cops only exacerbates the underlying problems.

The mindless statistics game is a real travesty.

By: Dave Krueger

Dave Krueger — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:59:31 +0000

Just what we need, more thugs on the ground.

That’s like the old saying: We’re losing money on each sale, but we’ll make it up in volume. Increasing the number of incompetents assigned to the problem doesn’t increase the likelihood of a solution.

If they add more cops, they’re just going to expect more arrests. It’s all about numbers.

By: parse

parse — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 12:45:55 +0000

I want to the ability to strap my gun to my hip and to take care of myself. I want the men of the community to take some responsibility for policing the streets with a knowledge and appreciation of due process. I want real self-governance, not the fake kind where we delegate our security to tax munching, trough-feeding minions

“The men” of the community?

Why just the men?

By: HTownGuy

HTownGuy — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:18:57 +0000

Orlando Russell, said he “used to be an upstanding citizen,” but now “any cop walking in without an invitation better have a body bag.”

I’ve come to realize through some encounters (traffic stops) with aggressive cops that my life, liberty and property are far more at risk when encountering a cop than any criminal. How crazy is that? I own my own business, employ people, give to charity, etc, and have legitimate concern that my public servants can fuck me up with near impunity, for their safety. So fuck them.

And if anyone kicks my door in they’ll get a face full of 00 buckshot.

By: JS

JS — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:50:44 +0000

chance-”Iraq circa the surge & current inner cities – not a valid comparison.”

Well put and pretty much sums it up. The whole thing is built upon a false analogy.

By: TGGP

TGGP — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 02:50:15 +0000

Bruce Benson notes in The Enterprise of Law that increases in police manpower result in NO increase in man-hours worked. Extra vacation and time-off cancel out the increase in employees. Few government bureaucracies will argue against their own expansion though.

By: chance

chance — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:55:31 +0000

Iraq circa the surge & current inner cities – not a valid comparison. US gangs at their most violent aren’t killing several thousand Americans per month per city. There is no effective organized campaign of violence against the police (how many precincts were overrun and held last year in the US?), there is little to no attempt by gangs or organized crime to replace existing government structures with their own. Even the worst case scenarios don’t put the unemployment levels in the US at 50%, as it was in Iraq at the time (maybe in some neighborhoods, but not city or countrywide), and cynical as many are about politics, most of us aren’t cynical enough to actually start assassinating politicians before their chairs even get warm because they aren’t in our ethnic or political group. Then there was the near total loss of infrastructure and basic services from the sanctions and the war itself, which I suspect even our worst slums would not compare to.

Other than that though, I guess I see the comparison.

Also, a few posts back I wondered if there might be a point about staffing levels relating to police problems. You’ve rebutted that issue pretty well above.

By: Lloyd

Lloyd — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:31:19 +0000

When I read this story — http://www.mcclatchydc.com/world/story/64001.html — this morning I wondered aloud to my dog, “I wonder how long it will be before Predator drones are firing Hellfire missiles into ‘suspected’ Zeta safehouses in Juarez.” Now I wonder how long before Hellfire(s) start raining down on US cities.

By: SusanK

SusanK — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:28:42 +0000

I would agree that more police are needed to the extent that law enforcement officers need to be familiar with members of the community, to the point that (before they stomp on someone’s head) they realize that the suspect has a momma and they know her.

By: Unlikely Convergence « Upturned Earth

Unlikely Convergence « Upturned Earth — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:30:32 +0000

[...] from a lengthy post by Radley Balko, which as always is well worth reading in its entirety: if we’re going to put more cops on the [...]

By: Boyd Durkin

Boyd Durkin — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:52:44 +0000

Quick trend analysis:

1. We “need” more cops.
2. We “need” higher taxes.
3. We “need” more government and more regulation.
4. We “need” government SS, health care, and bailouts.
5. We “need” a larger military (mission accomplished here!).
6. We “need” a larger (evidently…judging by Congressional voting) budget debt and deficit.
7. We “need” a devalued currency (check printing presses).
8. We “need” more trade protectionism.
9. We “need” tougher drug war tactics.
10. We “need” to be the World Police.
11. We “need” more PUBLIC school funding (think of the chillren).

And, we still have a class war against anyone who isn’t a tough-as-nails, hard-working, heroic manual laborer.

Good thing we’ve had such an active libertarian movement the last 30 years.
/sarcasm

By: MacK

MacK — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:49:32 +0000

This quote is the most telling to me.

“And the errors that remain are less costly when the police force is sufficiently well staffed that an ordinary house search does not resemble a military action.”

There should not be an ordinary house search!
House searches should be rare. The 4th Amendment was designed to keep that castle private, and away from searches without incredible evidence that a search is needed.

By: Eric

Eric — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:00:19 +0000

If we push for an Iraq-like police force, what would stop the “bad guys” from pushing back with IEDs just like the insurgency? What effect would a string if IEDs have on our inner cities?