If you believe a crime is about to be committed, you cannot make a citizen’s arrest; only if there has or is a crime being committed. Only the police have the power to arrest if they believe a crime is about to be committed. 2. You can only make a citizen’s arrest for an arrest able offence; the police can make any arrest. Most of UK citizens today don't make an arrest, however they should if there is violence involved, but the safest thing to do is to call for the police.
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.
However, the 2007 FBI report also indicates that there were nearly as many strong-armed robberies and unarmed assaults as there were with guns. It could be argued, based upon this data, that a person is just as likely to commit or engage in violent crimes whether they possess a firearm or not. Wamp (2006) states “Guns do not commit crimes, people do.” Perhaps if we appropriately punish individuals who act irresponsibly with a firearm and commit violent acts against society while armed, criminals may be deterred of committing such activity a second time and many would-be criminals would be deterred from even considering the commission of a violent crime (Lizotte and Zatz, 1986). People must be held accountable for their actions, rather then trying to shift the blame to other factors. Some ways to assure consistent punishment would be to establish legislation that specifies minimum mandatory sentencing for crimes committed while in possession of a gun, and allow the addition of “sentence enhancers” for gun-specific crimes.
The good, law abiding citizen doesn't have drugs, but bad citizens still do. So if we take guns away from the public the good citizens won't have guns, but the bad citizens, the criminals will still have them. This will make it easier for the criminals to commit crimes. When these criminals are committing crimes the good citizens won't be able to defend themselves. This would give an advantage to the criminal since he's the only one with a firearm.
Just a handful of local police or community agencies are not equipped to handle certain issues. Some agencies like the Department of Homeland Security handle issues with terrorism. Local agencies work on issues with domestic terrorism, just not on a scale that the Department of Homeland Security does. If they take all of the cases of possible threats to be investigated out of the local jurisdictions, then the opportunity to commit domestic terrorism is easier. By taking certain things out of local agencies, other things like crime rates, because things like gang task forces could be handled by FBI,
Every second your back is turned is an opportunity to be taken advantage of. There are a higher number of criminals in the bigger cities compared to towns like Ellijay. A sense of security is well-known in the town and there are more people looking to help you with something than to take advantage of you. Around every corner in Jacksonville, there seems to be a police car looking to bust someone for something, but small towns’ crime rates are significantly lower not only because there are fewer people, but because the sense of security is higher and no one feels the need to commit a crime. Stealing is almost unheard of in Ellijay, the townspeople know that growth only happens when everyone plays their part.
Premise Statement Society must understand that increasing gun control is not the answer to prevent mass shootings. Most shootings happen occur most often in establishments where citizens are likely to be unarmed such as schools, federal or state buildings and other various places where firearms are not permitted. A simple remedy to the situations is providing more lenient gun laws but requiring more training and firearm education to the common citizen. Educating and arming the American citizens is an excellent strategy to decreasing the crime rate and eliminating the probability of mass shootings across the nation by having a readily available peacekeeping citizen around every corner. Definitions 1.
Source 46 does it by also showing that police states were powerless to act while the federal government’s authority in interstate crime enforcement was restricted. As a result of this police were investigating crimes which caused no harm to other people, rather than investigating crimes which did cause harm to others, and that meant that real criminals were more likely to go freely and avoid being bothered/arrested by the police. The fact that most of the secondary sources support this view makes me think that Law enforcement in America is a valid and trustworthy point behind the rise in crime because all but one of the sources shown suggests that it did lead to lot of crime. The odd secondary source out is 47. It explains that when John
Other factors such as the exclusion of corporate crime in the United Crime Reports (UCR) published by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) that are based on data from local police agencies contribute to the less focus of corporate crime by Americans. As stated earlier, there are significant differences power differences between culprits of corporate crime and street crime. The majority of street criminals come from communities or families with few social and economic resources. An examination of crime in 125 U.S. cities illustrated how high rates of criminal violence are apparently linked to racial and economic inequalities (Feagin 275). With the majority of street criminals with not much resources or power to conceal or distort the extent of the illegal actions, as corporate criminals have in their disposal, they are more prone to public attention and focus.
They all have a substantial amount of a rebellious side to their personalities, which makes the entry process into illegal groups easy because all a person really needs to do is listen to his or her superiors and be willing to commit criminal acts no matter the circumstances. That’s seems pretty easy right? If the drug trade were to become a legitimate business ran by the government, the application process would be much more rigorous and professional. This would result in a legal taxing drug industry with respectable human beings as employees, not violent