Changing Patrol Operations

As a Certified Anti-Terrorism Specialist by the Anti-Terrorism Accreditation Board (linked above) I have to agree 110% with Keith on this. If we train and deploy our officers to defeat terrorism then defeating crime is an easy side-effect. Just like if we train our officers to deal with a terrorist seige at a school then responding to one or two school shooters will be far easier. If we train for the HARD task, responding to the lesser threat is EASIER.

So this guy thinks we should all train for terrorist attacks but otherwise it we should sit at the station and save gas. My community would not want us to wait on them to call they like to see us out and believe they are getting their money's worth. The fastest way to to turn a reader against you is to tell them that what they do and have been trained to do is wrong.

As stated in the article, this is OLD news. Police deployment in large agencies is generally poor. Beats and beat teams are outdated, and far too many specialized units exist. This is exhaustive on staffing, unnecessarily costly and defeats the purpose of basic policing concepts. Police unions are either weak or strong. Unfortunately, many strong unions don't pick the right battles to fight and afford officers unnecessary and sometimes ridiculous benefits. I strongly disagree with a labeled and focused anti-terrorism effort. Basic policing and tactics (ie: criminal interdiction) has LONG proved to be the aggressive arm of the law. Remember how Timothy McVeigh was apprehended? An alert Oklahoma trooper stopped him for a simple tag violation. It's no different on the streets when you're trying to locate, identify and arrest a common street thug or a global terrorist. Another related critical issue is illegal immigration. It is federal law that should be handled in cooperation of federal, state and local law enforcement agencies. A state like Maryland is routinely in contempt and violation of federal immigration laws (ie: tax funded support of illegal immigrants). Additionally, some agencies have ordered their officers to NOT enforce immigration laws. Hmm. Kinda contradicts the basics of policing, not to mention a violation of federal laws.
It's all about common sense and good police work.

I agree that more anti-terror training is needed and I welcome it, but I disagree with the rest of this article.

I don't care if the community sees me or not. I agree thousands of crimes occur while I'm on patrol that I never see, but a handful I do see. I arrest people every night that are committing crimes, people that I would not arrest if I was sitting at the station waiting for a call. I may not stop a robbery in progress but if I'm on my beat I have a far greater chance on finding the suspects vs a 10min drive from the station. And the quote that an officer only encounters a robbery in progress every 14 years... If that officer prevents the murder of the store clerk, I'd say his 14 years of patrol were worth it.

Don't get me wrong. I'm aware that the threat of terrorism is everywhere and I agree that first responders should train for the day that it invades our community. But the idea of erradicating police patrols is wrong. It won't take long for the bad guys to realize that they can get away with anything they want and have time to get away, so long as they don't do it across the street from the police station. I put a lot of miles on my car every night checking businesses and rolling through neighborhoods looking for things that go bump in the night. And most nights I find something. Sometimes its a DWI, sometimes it's a burglar.

And like it or not the public will go nuts when they find out there is no police patrol. They may not notice us but if you told them we were all sitting at the station waiting for a call the chief and mayor would be out of office the next day. A fuel budget would be nothing compared to the severe budget cut that would follow. The public is not going to support a police department that it does not use. And since a large number of the public has never had a single positive encounter with police they will see no need to fund them. I agree with some of your points. We do respond to the same address and deal with the same people over and over. And we do respond to a lot fo calls that are not law enforcement related. But what are you suggesting we do? If we don't respond when someone calls the police we are neglecting our duty. What if "3-calls-a-week-Joe" calls because there is a strange car across the street? Ignore him? What if it turns out that this time that car is full of gangbangers about to do a drive-by? And as for non-police calls... It is well established that we as local law enforcement are the "catch all" department. If we don't respond, who will?

I'm having trouble understanding what this article wants us to do and how it will work. I think you are saying that we should save money by only sending officers to respond to crimes that have alerady occured. The result being that we could use the saved money to train and equip for terrorist related events.

It would be great if we had a bunch of well trained, well armed coppers that could be pro-active and strike the bad guys before they stike us. But if we use your method our cities and towns will be rampant with domestic crime while were all getting ready for the "big one".

The "Big Game Hunter" article comes to mind.

What do you suppose we do with our time if we don't patrol our beats? riding around and busting drug dealers and getting guns off the street on traffic stops sounds a heck of a lot better than sitting at the station playing solitaire and waiting for a call.

The fuel is a necessary expense, but the public pays for our services, not to idle around at the station. What we need is more accountability on production so that we make sure that we are using our time wisely.

Maybe you should talk to some citizens...I have never heard an average citizen say we should patrol less, or not at all. They all are angry that they do not see us more! The only ones that don't want us patroling are the criminals...
Not only would the average citizens like more patrol, but more patrol equals more arrests/citations, which equals more income to the city. This makes up for some of the extra fuel costs. Then again, the old saying is: 'those who can't do...teach!'

Absolutely, your average street cop needs more anti-terrorism training but SERIOUSLY? A 17-year veteran? Where the hell did you work? Proactive policing=more arrests...and provides a great deterrent against those planning evil deeds on our soil because they never know when a cruiser might roll by...sit at the station-give me a break...

I have to respectfully disagree. True the average law abiding citizen may not know how many times I have patrolled the neighborhood but I bet the average criminal does!!! Preventative patrol is mostly a mindset but it is certainly psychological when I walk out of the darkness to collar some unsuspecting crook. I lived overseas for several years with this type of sit in the station police force and trust me the money they saved on gas was not worth it. I respect your years of service but if you had ever stopped a robbery or been the victim of one stopped I think this article would read differently.

I was waiting for "April Fools" to be at the end of this article then realized that the author was serious.

Where did this crap come from?????

I've re-read the article and it has nothing to do with implying street cops to stop doing what we already do. The way I interpret this article is that it suggests we need to modify our basic efforts to meet the modern threat. Most local law enforcement are trained to do basic policing and service calls. What Mr. Lavery I believe is trying to convey is that this training is inadequate.

Look at the gang situation in our country alone. The major league gangs are a threat to each and every community because the local level policing did not react accordingly due to lack of proper knowledge or training. Imagine what will happen once the international or homegrown terrorists get a foothold.

We need to train our local level law enforcement (i.e. patrol/beat cops) to the level of all those various special teams and federal agencies that are utilized to react after the threat has been identified. Training our basic level officers to a higher standard will enhance our ability to identify the threat from the street to an international level. This is not difficult to obtain if we all get on-board and stop the jurisdictional rivalry. We (Law Enforcement) all swore the oath to defend America and it's laws. Why should we care if Federal law enforcement enforces State/Local level laws and vice a versa. As long as we all have the same training at a basic level (I'm referring to information and enforcement as stated above) it should not matter.

Mr. Lavery has pointed out the painfully obviuos. If we continue to not provide MODERN/Futuristic policing, the threat will hit us sooner rather than later.