There are definitely pros and cons for individual(s) being able to have a concealed weapon but in this case I am for people being able to carry a concealed weapon. Criminals are less likely to target a person if they know that person is armed. Second I don’t feel the government can 100 guarantees the safety of all of its citizens. Third reason why is criminals are going to carry a concealed weapon legal or not. So why shouldn’t law abiding citizens be able to do the same and be able to protect themselves.
Crime will always be committed as police are not always looking over people’s shoulders to ensure people will not break the law. With the help of citizens who see crime happening and reporting it helps the justice system ensure citizen’s safety. “The justice system does not respond to most crime because so much crime is not discovered or reported to the police. Law enforcement agencies learn about crime from the reports of victims or other citizens, from discovery by a police officer in the field, from informants, or from investigative and intelligence work. Once a law enforcement agency has established that a crime has been committed, a suspect must be identified and apprehended for the case to proceed through the system.
If the fault is not on the police, Slager has to be punished. For now the outcome is unknown, but he will not get away. There more important question here is: “What, if there were not any video, which confirms his fault?” Close to nobody could prove that the shots were fired without any reason. The conclusion of this is: To prevent such shootings from happening more video cameras for police officers are needed. Body-mounted cameras enable the police to police themselves better.
Could be considered the conservative approach to the crime prevention module. Supporters prefer the “assembly line” (Worral p.14) method to expedite alleged criminals through the means of plea bargains to not clog up the courtrooms, which can be tied with quantity over quality. For example, meeting citation quotas or setting up DUI check points, which in essence is for the benefit of public safety; but can also be seeing as a way to increase revenue. One issue at the current moment would be the need for cameras on the uniforms of officers policing the street. The Due Process model would say that it is needed to make sure that officers properly follow procedures while questioning or detaining suspect on the street, in the case that something gets out of hand, a jury can see what actually happened.
I feel as if the US needs to be more careful with their way of getting such law enforcement officers. Not that their way of selecting officers in today’s world isn’t enough there just needs to be more added to it. In conclusion the movie “US Marshals” conveys multiple levels of criminal behavior. Not only from a criminal running away from law enforcement but rogue cops also committing criminal acts. Before anyone is sent to jail and there is suspicion about the case their needs to be detective work done so that the system doesn’t make the wrong
The use of bait cars in our community have been a problem. Criminals want to say that it is entrapment. I feel that if you brake the law, you’ve done wrong. The time, day, or even the situation should not be looked at, but the crime that was committed. It should not matter if I left my keys in the car, or if the police left their keys in a bait car, if stolen it is wrong.
They go to work alive and they want to come back the same way.”(Tim Delaney). This goes to show that police officers need protection so that they can provide the same protection to you. Using the stop and frisk techniques the local police can go into that high crime area and stop and frisk suspicious people, which would reduce the number of guns in that area also reduce the chance that the police officer would be ambushed before he gets to your door. While this could still happen with or without stop and frisk, the chance is more likely without this tactic. I for one feel safer if the police can reduce the crime rate and number of guns in any area, especially high crime
Sitz has to do with the police having the right to have checkpoints to catch people drinking and driving. The court reasoned that checkpoints are designed to eliminate immediate hazards posed by intoxicated drivers. This ruling may not seem substantially important to policing at first glance, but I feel keeping the public safe is a top priority for the police. These checkpoints enable the police to temporarily detain people who are, at that moment, a very serious threat to the public. The checkpoints have probably saved thousands of lives and this would not be possible if the police could only check for intoxication after someone has violated the law.
We need to implement better public safety, for example; arming mall cops, hiring more resource officers in schools and better equipping those officers to react. We also have poor measures in place in terms of background checks. It is too easy to purchase a firearm since it only requires a basic criminal background check, and the status quo even allows the purchase of firearms at gun shows without one. Closing this gap could ensure that guns don’t fall into the wrong hands. We also need to broaden background checks and analyze more than just criminal history.
This law would minimize the number of accidents that occur, I do believe. If cell phone use while operating a motor vehicle was against the law, I do believe it would only be far if the computers in a cop car should also be illegal. I say this because most of the time cops are focused on the computer and if they weren’t distracted by the computer they would also be able to prevent accidents that occur because of speeding. Another reason to adopt the law of cell phone usage while operating a motor vehicle would be because texting is against the law and we as citizens are required to follow the laws. It is overall dangerous to talk on the phone, and or text while operating a motor