I've had friends who worked as police volunteers, and have seen police cars around Oceanside with "volunteer" printed on the side of the cars. I've also seen older folks in police uniforms sauntering up and down the strand sidewalk and the beach on busy days. Sometimes, I've seen them cruising the beach in City of Oceanside "dune buggies" which sort of looked like fun. I imagined they could work to enforce the rules about no smoking, drinking or dogs on the beach, if nothing else. It seemed like a very selfless volunteer public service job! I really admire people willing to put in so much volunteer time and effort -- particularly in retirement.
After reading about the accidental Tulsa shooting by Bates, a volunteer, I researched information about the City of Oceanside's "Senior Volunteer" program: --Pretty impressive! 100 volunteers over the age of 50! It does say that volunteers are not put in "confrontational situations" --apparently not like Tulsa's program. I also discovered the "Volunteers In Police Service" or VIPS program sponsored by the US Department of Justice actually promotes the concept of putting volunteers in local police forces. On the surface, this sounds like a great idea! Expanded police force with little cost to Government. Brilliant!
I've often thought it was probably useful to have additional, visible, police presence around the community to help citizens, and provide "eyes and ears" for the professional police whom the volunteers could call if needed. I wondered a little about the cost to the City for maintaining the volunteer forces. After all, they would need uniforms, radios, and vehicles, but volunteers probably would only be working a few days per week. A good staff of well-trained volunteers could supplement the force, and also serve as a "reserve surge" if and when a crisis occurred. During fires, earthquakes, or floods, we need all of the trained help we can get! I wondered if the volunteers were compensated at all. This article amazed me!
150 cops, population 300: pay-to-play policing, from Tulsa to Kid Rock's town | US news | The Guardian
Who knew that citizens would actually pay money (or bribes to campaign funds) in order to be a member of the "volunteer" police force? Is it really that much fun that people would pay money to be able to walk around in uniform and annoy their neighbors? Is it really possible that Oakley Michigan, a town of 300 could have 150 cops (albeit part-time, and many are non-resident)? Is it hard to imagine an America where half of the population are "volunteer police officers?" -- What about an America where half of the population "pays to play?" -- If half of our citizens had to contribute "donations" to politicians campaigns in order to be appointed as a volunteer police officer, what would those volunteers expect to receive in return? Would they be allowed to shake down their enemies or assist their friends? It really sounds crazy when taken to extreme! If they are carrying cameras and license plate readers, they would be able to collect even more real time "street view" data. There are other concerns as well. TPM News article points out that the volunteers may be doing it so they can do open carry of firearms. This Business Insider article points out that police forces like to use the volunteers as undercover cops, because they might not be as easily recognized. That seems even more frightening! Gun-carrying, undercover, volunteer police paying (with donations) to be able to do so, being assigned to spy on their neighbors in plain clothes!
There have been many science-fiction books written that have focused upon the notion of a surveillance society with everyone spying on their neighbors. Some books have added the concept of electronic tracking and video surveillance with chips inserted into citizen's bodies and pervasive video camera tracking systems. The book 1984 by George Orwell is one of the most notable. Quite a few of those books were made into movies. Those stories seemed hard to believe! First of all, the electronics seemed far to0 difficult and expensive for a society to install. The data collected would be much too much for anyone to ever be able to track a single individual, and where would a community every get a force of volunteers to spy on their neighbors? Wow! It came true! We now have pervasive electronic systems that can track our every move continuously, as well as almost everything we do. Our cellphones are tracked, our license plates are read and tracked, our debit and credit cards track what we buy, and internet tracks products we buy, facts we research, movies we watch, music we listen to, and friends we connect with using email or text. Big Data analysis software can now sort through that massive amount of information and produce maps of where we've been, what we've done, and generate large charts showing all connections to our friends and relatives. That analysis is getting cheaper and cheaper as computers and software get better. Now, to top off all of that, the Federal Government is building a huge network of volunteers in all levels of police forces to serve as additional eyes and ears "on the ground" to track individuals. I believe President Bush implemented this system as a response to the 9/11 attacks. With the excuses of a "war on drugs" and a "war on terrorism" our nation has given up most of what we stood for to the "right wingers"... So we have lost our war for freedom.
I would like to know how much of our Federal, State, and local police efforts and expenditures are in support of the "war on drugs." We know that most of our Homeland Security efforts (including Coast Guard, FBI, CIA, NSA, Border Patrol, Customs and Coast Guard are involved in drug interdiction. However, even at the local level, our volunteers are apparently involved in DUI checkpoints, sniffing out marijuana smokers, and ticketing people drinking beer or smoking on the beach -- all aspects of the "war on drugs."
My bottom line: It appears that the use of volunteers is worthwhile in many situations. However there needs to be VERY strict controls on what kind of training they need and what they are permitted to do. Pay to play should not be permitted, and maybe should be considered a criminal act.
After reading about the accidental Tulsa shooting by Bates, a volunteer, I researched information about the City of Oceanside's "Senior Volunteer" program: --Pretty impressive! 100 volunteers over the age of 50! It does say that volunteers are not put in "confrontational situations" --apparently not like Tulsa's program. I also discovered the "Volunteers In Police Service" or VIPS program sponsored by the US Department of Justice actually promotes the concept of putting volunteers in local police forces. On the surface, this sounds like a great idea! Expanded police force with little cost to Government. Brilliant!
I've often thought it was probably useful to have additional, visible, police presence around the community to help citizens, and provide "eyes and ears" for the professional police whom the volunteers could call if needed. I wondered a little about the cost to the City for maintaining the volunteer forces. After all, they would need uniforms, radios, and vehicles, but volunteers probably would only be working a few days per week. A good staff of well-trained volunteers could supplement the force, and also serve as a "reserve surge" if and when a crisis occurred. During fires, earthquakes, or floods, we need all of the trained help we can get! I wondered if the volunteers were compensated at all. This article amazed me!
150 cops, population 300: pay-to-play policing, from Tulsa to Kid Rock's town | US news | The Guardian
Who knew that citizens would actually pay money (or bribes to campaign funds) in order to be a member of the "volunteer" police force? Is it really that much fun that people would pay money to be able to walk around in uniform and annoy their neighbors? Is it really possible that Oakley Michigan, a town of 300 could have 150 cops (albeit part-time, and many are non-resident)? Is it hard to imagine an America where half of the population are "volunteer police officers?" -- What about an America where half of the population "pays to play?" -- If half of our citizens had to contribute "donations" to politicians campaigns in order to be appointed as a volunteer police officer, what would those volunteers expect to receive in return? Would they be allowed to shake down their enemies or assist their friends? It really sounds crazy when taken to extreme! If they are carrying cameras and license plate readers, they would be able to collect even more real time "street view" data. There are other concerns as well. TPM News article points out that the volunteers may be doing it so they can do open carry of firearms. This Business Insider article points out that police forces like to use the volunteers as undercover cops, because they might not be as easily recognized. That seems even more frightening! Gun-carrying, undercover, volunteer police paying (with donations) to be able to do so, being assigned to spy on their neighbors in plain clothes!
There have been many science-fiction books written that have focused upon the notion of a surveillance society with everyone spying on their neighbors. Some books have added the concept of electronic tracking and video surveillance with chips inserted into citizen's bodies and pervasive video camera tracking systems. The book 1984 by George Orwell is one of the most notable. Quite a few of those books were made into movies. Those stories seemed hard to believe! First of all, the electronics seemed far to0 difficult and expensive for a society to install. The data collected would be much too much for anyone to ever be able to track a single individual, and where would a community every get a force of volunteers to spy on their neighbors? Wow! It came true! We now have pervasive electronic systems that can track our every move continuously, as well as almost everything we do. Our cellphones are tracked, our license plates are read and tracked, our debit and credit cards track what we buy, and internet tracks products we buy, facts we research, movies we watch, music we listen to, and friends we connect with using email or text. Big Data analysis software can now sort through that massive amount of information and produce maps of where we've been, what we've done, and generate large charts showing all connections to our friends and relatives. That analysis is getting cheaper and cheaper as computers and software get better. Now, to top off all of that, the Federal Government is building a huge network of volunteers in all levels of police forces to serve as additional eyes and ears "on the ground" to track individuals. I believe President Bush implemented this system as a response to the 9/11 attacks. With the excuses of a "war on drugs" and a "war on terrorism" our nation has given up most of what we stood for to the "right wingers"... So we have lost our war for freedom.
I would like to know how much of our Federal, State, and local police efforts and expenditures are in support of the "war on drugs." We know that most of our Homeland Security efforts (including Coast Guard, FBI, CIA, NSA, Border Patrol, Customs and Coast Guard are involved in drug interdiction. However, even at the local level, our volunteers are apparently involved in DUI checkpoints, sniffing out marijuana smokers, and ticketing people drinking beer or smoking on the beach -- all aspects of the "war on drugs."
My bottom line: It appears that the use of volunteers is worthwhile in many situations. However there needs to be VERY strict controls on what kind of training they need and what they are permitted to do. Pay to play should not be permitted, and maybe should be considered a criminal act.
