Fewer Cops, More Vigilantes, Bad Idea
With our state's budget rapidly shrinking, public spending cuts are on our doorstep. And as the budget gets closer to completion, lawmakers are getting creative on how to spin the news to their constituents.
Krist Novoselic's column runs every Tuesday on the Daily Weekly. Hear Krist and Reverb columnist Duff McKagan fill in as hosts of the Ron & Don Show on KIRO 97.3 FM, Thursday, April 16 from 5 to 7 p.m.
State Senator and Mason County Commissioner Tim Sheldon, for example, has suggested cutting local law enforcement because his rural constituents would be more inclined to reach for their own guns and give burglars a "hot lead enema" instead of calling the local cops.
With the current economy, we have to accept cuts in state programs, but I don't think basic law enforcement should be one of them. There are networks of criminals who operate on the back roads of rural Washington. They're cooking meth and dealing in identity theft and other stolen goods. Some tweakers are skilled hunters, and regularly poach wildlife. In the absence of law enforcement, this dark world will only flourish.
The sheriff of our small county had to lay off deputies because our commissioners cut his budget. One officer was specially trained for domestic-violence situations. A female deputy, battered women were more comfortable speaking with her and more willing to show bruises and other injuries.
On television and film, police are about gunfights, standoffs, and heroic strutting. In reality, cops mostly respond to domestic violence and dysfunctional behavior. So a battered woman in rural Washington will have less public resources to help her. Instead, according to the macho strutting that's being offered as public policy, she'll have to obtain a firearm, learn how to use it - if she doesn't already, and hope she doesn't miss. Inevitably, the county will have to clean the mess up. There will be an investigation and likely a prosecution. In other words, it will cost taxpayers more in the long run. Of course when crime rises, there will be calls to do something about it. And you'll see what will happen--the politicians who called for the cuts will target their opponents as "soft on crime" and call for tougher laws during an election.
We should not take our system of rule under the law for granted. The "hot lead enema" sounds like the necktie and necklacing--vicious methods of summary execution used in places where police and judges are weak, corrupt, or nonexistent.
I am a rural dweller that owns guns and sees them as valuable tools. I would use one if I had to defend myself. But if you're going to pull a gun, you better bloody well be willing to use it! I'd rather first call the police. They're trained to deal with the problem. In addition, they'll help recover any property I've lost if they can. This is a good service.
Are things so bad in Washington that people will have to take the law into their own hands? From the safe perch of stability provided by our system of rule under law, the good old boys are struttin' for a fight--just as Wall Street insiders and politicians looked to remove New Deal reforms regulating lending and banking. Sure, it looks good on paper, especially while you're being protected by the reforms you seek to torpedo. But the reality is chaos, collapse, and, ultimately, calls to fix the mess.
24 comment(s)
milos jefferson III says:
Krist,
I couldn't agree with you more. During hard times, law enforcement is one of the last things you want to cut! Without the 'Presumption of Innocence' and 'Due Process' the United States would be some other country.
Posted On: Tuesday, Apr. 14 2009 @ 8:07AM
Chris says:
Jeez! I always figured Law Enforcement, Paramedics, Fire Fighters, would be the LAST thing brought up in the event of 'budget cuts'.
I'm just going to use a specific example (I'm from Illinois but still)
My friend has 15 brothers and sisters. (Including himself), and of course his parents all living under one roof. His dad is a police officer. Somehow he's able to help put bread on the table...but can you imagine if he lost his job because the State was looking to cut Law Enforcement?
Posted On: Tuesday, Apr. 14 2009 @ 9:14AM
Paul Robert Allen says:
yes, things are bad not just here, but everywhere...the time is ripe for the American people to take back their goverment....but was there a time when we even had it????
http://www.myspace.com/thewhitestripes003....
Posted On: Tuesday, Apr. 14 2009 @ 11:31AM
lorax says:
where should they cut? i think you will find if you look at the state budget that there's very little in there that can be cut without doing very serious harm to vulnerable groups of people, whether it's the elderly, children, the developmentally disabled, or prisoners.
Posted On: Tuesday, Apr. 14 2009 @ 2:05PM
Chris K says:
A 1 percent income tax on the state's top earners to pay for essential services sounds pretty good to me.
Posted On: Tuesday, Apr. 14 2009 @ 2:36PM
Jeffrey says:
How much government is too much government though? Do you remember what caused the 1994 republican revolution? That revolution was caused by the peoples disgust with Clinton and the democrats. The 1993 Waco seige was the tipping point. Before that people were in favor of the ATF. People like you said that we needed that organization to help people. In truth, organizations like that just hurt the people. Be carefull what you wish for. 1984 isn't really in the past!!
Posted On: Tuesday, Apr. 14 2009 @ 3:23PM
T.G. says:
What to do about budget cuts to cops?
I have no problem with utilizing my constitutional right to "bare arms"...I personally think we should all understand how to use a weapon and when it is appropriate to "go to it". I grew up with a father who was a hunter (I used firearms as soon as I was able to aim and shunt the recoil ...about 11 years old), I was in the army for a short stint as well. I learned to respect my "weapon" and was educated about when and why to use it. I think it is important for people to know. We are not in a society yet that can be without this "decentralized" ability to defend/or gain food if need be. However, that being said...I think we should have rules about the level of "weaponry" individual citizens are allowed to possess.
As far as budgets and cops...I agree if you can call them let them take care of the problem but if need be it is well within the right and law of individuals to protect themselves from fatal harm.
That being said we are also allowed to form our own "militias" but that as well needs to be regulated. If the people of our nation ever needed to rise up with "arms" it would be a blood bath anyway unless the state/federal militias were sympathetic...not to mention the secret control of the serious weapons (nuclear, biological, chemical) that are controlled by the $ elite.
This is why it is important to fight first with the "word"...there is much power in the "word" if it can reach the right ears and be supported by enough people (be it with their own forms of vigilance).
my 2 cents.
Posted On: Wednesday, Apr. 15 2009 @ 1:12AM
Curt S says:
Krist I totally agree with you %100.
This is seems dangerous.
What makes us actually believe it's a wise economic move?? As you said, mishapps with such "hot lead enama" could be disastrous, as it now puts a previous police officer's job in the hands of a sevillian who is not trained to bear arms in such a situation.
This is potentially much worse in the long run.
I'm not buying it.
Posted On: Wednesday, Apr. 15 2009 @ 8:18AM
Krist Novoselic says:
Taryn - You're back!!!
Posted On: Wednesday, Apr. 15 2009 @ 9:24AM
John Hays says:
I read the original news report in the Seattle Times and then heard a brief interview of the Senator, conducted by one of the KUOW staffers. The original report mis-characterized the Senator's statement. KUOW picked that up and carried it illogically forward and now you have done the same.
It was plain from the original article and from the interview that the Senator was referring to self defense, not to vigilante action. He might be guilty of hyperbole; but he was not fomenting civil disorder.
If you conflate self defense with vigilantism you are engaging in spreading your ignorance or propagandizing.
Of course we should support basic public safety services. However, those services are reactionary; they almost always show up after the crime occurs. Citizens have a right to defend themselves when the threat is imminent and the police are not on the scene.
Posted On: Wednesday, Apr. 15 2009 @ 2:42PM
Krist Novoselic says:
I heard this same rhetoric in my county justifying law enforcement budget cuts - people could take care of themselves with their own firearms. That's why I was compelled to write about it. Even if there were no cuts to law enforcement, an individual could still protect themselves with firearms in their own home - absolutely. And basic public safety services are not necessarily reactionary. Like I stated, the dark world of criminality will only flourish in the vacuum resulting from cuts. The "hot lead enema" plays well to the good old boys. The cuts are coming regardless.
Posted On: Wednesday, Apr. 15 2009 @ 9:09PM
andrew wildes says:
There's a copy of the New York Times, from April 15th 2009, sitting near this computer. While I can't say for certain, I'm pretty sure it wasn't sitting here 5 minutes ago. The headline reads, "U.S. Stymied as Guns Flow to Mexican Cartels."
Another headline reads, "Transparency Effort". What's drawn me towards your columns has been both your interest in the political process and your involvement with music, I've enjoyed through many years. There's very much a lineage of thought that extends from your observations.
Regarding budget cuts,... clearly this extends not only from the current economy, however also from budget deficits incurred by government administrations, on a regional and national level. A 1.5 billion dollar budget deficit in Washington State, nearly a 1 trillion dollar deficit on a national level. These budget deficits exist as aspects of government spending on behalf of socialistic ideals within our culture...
As I've read your columns it occurs to me that thoughts offered aren't so much guidance, necessarily, as those are intended to give rise to thought. Social democracy means placing trust in the spending of government, however when living in society that's over run with governmental budget deficits it's difficult to place trust in what appears to be perhaps largely unaccountable spending. 1.5 billion dollars, 1 trillion dollars in the negative. That's a lot of money.
As near I personally understand the situation, consolidation leads towards an opening for social and economic domination, whether by corporate oligarchy or military concerns. The opening in advance of social and economic consolidation leads towards the option of military coop. How is it that within the country of North Korea, there exists the largest per capita global military. It brings to mind a comment from Senator Kerry during on the debates in 2004, something to the effect of, "If Michigan were a country, they would have the third largest contribution to the collation forces in Iraq and Afghanistan." There's a certain correlation there between economic prosperity and military service.
I wrote an earlier message that got deleted, like a half and hour ago, sorry about that.
Posted On: Wednesday, Apr. 15 2009 @ 10:04PM
Chris C says:
Rural counties do have their special problems. I waited on Mount Hull in Okanogan County, for over an hour for a deputy to arrive. The area is riffe with crime and violence, poverty and remoteness. My neighbor had (by his claim) 200 rifles. Of all my neighbors he was probably the most dangerous.
Law enforcement, as you pointed out, extends far beyond carrying a firearm. Domestic violence, as i learned in criminal investigation, is one of the most common calls (as you pointed out)there are often drug and or alcohol involved and they are highly risky. It is certainly not a situation where you would want the local fellows at the bar to rush down in responce to.
Nor would a prosecuter want a team of local, well intention, homestyle investigators called to a felony crime scene. Watching Law and Order, or CSI, does not qualify one as an investigator. Even fresh cadets and patrolmen are instructed to simply stay and keep others out of the way.
I know that at one time Ocean Shores used "reserve officers," but even that is highly risky. At the end of criminal justice are the courts and this is where at least some of what is dealt with at the community level, will eventually face. No untrained person can simply handle a case, evidence, statements and keep the chain as clean as it needs to be to be properly dealt with in court.
So, it really is far more than who gets to go shooting, it is about justice. 1>100 people who are executed for death-penalty crimes are later found to have been not guilty of those crimes. Those are the numbers with trained personel--they will certainly not drop if citizens engage in home-style law enforcement. It really does help to know the law first.
You are right on the nail-head Krist
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 16 2009 @ 2:10AM
Dbrown says:
F-in' A! But this argument makes too much sense, doesn't sound as zippy and makes you pay attention for more than 10 seconds to understand it.
How's about we save a few bucks by eliminating pensions for public employees? I mean, nobody else gets one. Welcome to our world.
Posted On: Thursday, Apr. 16 2009 @ 9:43AM
Lewis says:
Krist,
Although I've had a few unpleasant run in's with the boys and girls in blue (who hasn't). I have to support your arguement. Without the threat of police jumping to the scene - crime would skyrocket. Everyone knows this, so I don't know why people would disagree. The whole "I was raised on a farm...my Pa was a hunter...bla bla bla" arguements are pointless and here's why. We pay for protection so why not use it. Instead of cutting the police force - how about we letting some victimless crime offenders like say people locked up for smoking pot - let them out. It costs a lot of money to keep those people locked up - run through the courts and then followed up on by probation officers, its silly, people. Common Sense tells us we should cut loose area's of spending that are stupid, ridiculous and more importantly beneficial to us by cutting them - and cutting the police force down is the total opposite of this.
Posted On: Friday, Apr. 17 2009 @ 12:38PM
LoLo says:
Bravo Krist! We live in Mason County and my husband agreed with what Tim said on this issue to some extent. He leans a little more right than I do. But he really agreed with what you had to say here, as did I. Thank you for helping to open up that mind and look at it from a different angle!
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 18 2009 @ 9:40AM
milos jefferson III says:
I have a hard time believing that we can’t do a better job in reallocating and streamlining resources during this temporary economic ‘lean time.’ In my opinion, cutting law enforcement, emergency and other essential services can only add to the stress Washington residents are already experiencing.
If there is a magic solution, I admit it escapes me. Perhaps, a slew of remedies are needed. Perhaps, this is time for our elected leadership to get creative, step-up, innovate, and institute some of that progressive government-stuff we’ve heard so much about.
Leading when times are bountiful is easy. Making the tough times less rough is the mark of true public leadership. These are times when coordination between public and private interests should be reflected in more that just facility naming rights. I can’t help but believe that perhaps there are solutions somewhere between local governments, private enterprise and public organizations where everyone might not get exactly what they want but what they need.
Personally, I’m not for creating an income tax directed largely at the state’s top wagers. Those who achieve legitimate success should not be punished for being successful. They should be lauded, and people should stop key scratching their Jaguars. And those who can do good – should. That said, not everything can be solved by ‘private enterprise’ procedure and protocol. Capitalism is a great economic system but it is not a cure-all. There will always be those who cannot contribute in a conventional manner. It’s not necessarily laziness or indifference – it’s the nature of nature…
Reducing the quality of existence of the poor and disabled is not the answer. Ineffective administration costs and profit-margin abuses are another matter. Although, not well understood, the quality and quantity of life of the upper and middle economic tiers is dependent on the humanity and compassion afforded to those pain-in-the-ass poor and crazy people.
Anyway, that’s it. Now I need to refresh my moronic ideology with a hearty Cup of Noodles.
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 18 2009 @ 11:19AM
Wilum Pugmire says:
I have an intense horror of guns and violence, so I need to rely on law enforcement. A system of neighborhood vigilante groups seems like it might work if there is organization and communication. Neighbor awareness is a asset. Surely we can do things as a community that will increase safety, although nothing can or should replace police protection. In my humble opinion.
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 18 2009 @ 3:21PM
Brian Bouck says:
Thank you for an article you wrote 2 years ago on William Morley Bouck. It was family history for me as I have his pocket watch "Just a Farmer" on the inside. Great article.
Posted On: Saturday, Apr. 18 2009 @ 11:32PM
wyatt says:
cops on wall street dammit
Posted On: Sunday, Apr. 19 2009 @ 1:06AM
jonas says:
OMG christ ur a loser i love nirvirna but now you are talking about poletics and stuf its boreing im 13 and i love nirvana not poletics
Posted On: Monday, Apr. 20 2009 @ 9:10AM
Dim Whineman says:
Once again, the folks in Olympia want the citizens of Washington State to pay for the services that they use. When will these guys learn that we have had enough!
We only need enough law enforcement to keep the ‘less desirables’ in their part of town. We all know they’re the ones who do most of the law breaking. So long as law enforcement keeps them out of sight, I’m happy.
The homeless can find shelter in doorways, parks, public restrooms, and in the many underutilized jails in our state. The poor can panhandle for food, shoplift, or eat those imaginary flies buzzing around their heads – I hear they are high in protein.
Healthcare is a concoction created by tax-and-spend liberals to give their doctor and nurse friends something to do. Listen, when it’s the poor and disadvantaged time to go – it’s their time to go.
Educations is important, but let’s face it, society needs an uneducated, easily controlled underclass that we can readily exploit at our pleasure. Why, the practice is nearly patriotic.
Dim Whineman
President and a consummate user
The Dorks Of Pork, Inc.
dimwhineman@hotmail.com
Posted On: Monday, Apr. 20 2009 @ 1:39PM
Scott Lindsley says:
Of course each individual the right to self defense. The issue is shall we protect the time tested method of using local police instead of random neighbour vigilantes (spelling) to keep things calm.
From spousal abuse to petty thefts there is a good chance that one persons or idea of justice will be greatly more drastic than another, which would lead to the inevitable retribution offenses or family feuds (disharmony).
Additionally, domestic abuse is often ignored by neighbours instead of responding to it as the police are compelled to do.
In time regions would get reputations. If you beat your wife, go move to Lynnwood, noone does shit. Like to steal cars, move to Beacon Hill or Tacoma. The lack of uniformity would make the fabric of society much less tenable.
If we ended drug prohibition and stopped trying to micro manage peoples personal lives, the police force could focus on crimes that involve victims and we would have room in the prisons for corporate and violent offenders.
We NEED a reasonable police force, judges, and local laws to deal with, and only with, actual crime.
Thanks Krist,
Scott ~
Posted On: Wednesday, May. 13 2009 @ 10:27PM
Scott Lindsley says:
Scott Wrote, "From spousal abuse to petty thefts there is a good chance that one persons or idea of justice will be greatly more drastic than another, which would lead to the inevitable retribution offenses or family feuds (disharmony)."
Scott meant, "From spousal abuse to petty thefts there is a good chance that one persons idea of justice will be more drastic than another, which would lead to the inevitable retribution offenses or family feuds (disharmony)."
It was a cut and paste error.
Posted On: Wednesday, May. 13 2009 @ 10:30PM