McCain's Urban Surge

[Trajan12]

A Surge on the Homefront?

August 01, 2008 12:48 PM

ABC News' David Wright reports: Answering a question at the Urban League about his approach to combating crime, John McCain suggested that military strategies currently employed by US troops in Iraq could be applied to high crime neighborhoods here in the US.

McCain at first praised the crime-fighting efforts of Rudolph Giuliani when he was mayor of New York City. Then he down-shifted into an approach that sounded considerably harsher.

McCain called them tactics "somewhat like we use in the military."

"You go into neighborhoods, you clamp down, you provide a secure environment for the people that live there, and you make sure that the known criminals are kept under control," he said. "And you provide them with a stable environment and then they cooperate with law enforcement."

The way he described it, his approach sounded an awful lot like the surge.

Urban League president Marc Morial countered that while New York did experience a drop in crime under Giuliani, there were several major instances of police misconduct.

In response, McCain promised aggressive prosecution of civil rights violations and a Justice Department free from political cronyism.

"U.S. attorneys will be appointed strictly on the basis of qualifications and not political connections," McCain said, a swipe at the Bush Administration Justice Department under Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.

ABC News' Bret Hovell contributed to this report.

Link

I have to admit it sounds...interesting?

So McCain wants to invade Detroit and put the mayor on trial in the hands of white suburbanites.

Next, we pay off some of the gang members so that they won't bother the cops until the military leaves.

Finally, we threaten Canada to stop supporting the gangs.

Posted by: Mr. Coffee | Aug 1, 2008 1:08:29 PM

 

[illram]

I spent a summer working at this place called the OCC in San Francisco, which is basically this city's version of any other Police Department's "Internal Affairs" unit. I read a crapload of police "Industry Magazines" full of articles on police work while doing a variety of research projects there. One of the articles I ran across was by an old retired cop who did consulting for a variety of police department academies across the country. I can't find the article right now, but basically this guy talked about there being a "trust gap" (or some similar term) in poor or crime riddled neighborhoods.

Basically, the people that live there don't trust the police and thus won't help them, and the police don't trust the people that live there and see most if not everyone as potentially working against them. In this gap, criminals thrive because no one is going to work with the police or be witnesses for them. The police cannot adequately protect those who do decide to rat out gang members or serious criminals in the area, and no one trusts them anyway. The area essentially turns into a war zone where the people in uniform think that everyone is a potential enemy, and their attitude reinforces the level of mistrust amongst the community such that things continue in their usual miserable dysfunctional manner.

One small solution he talks about is to teach cops out of the verbal judo they usually use and to try and adopt more community based policing, more walking beats, and in general flip their presumption that everyone is a suspect. Try and be friends to the majority of innocent civilians that live there instead of thinking all of them are suspects. Try and develop a dialog with people they talk to on the street instead of trying to completely control every situation they are in. (Which is difficult in a high crime area because as a cop you have to be on your toes in these places, but if the community trusted them more maybe they wouldn't have to be so nervous... but the community doesn't trust them, so it's kind of like a vicious circle.)

His examples are simple and use common sense. For instance instead of saying "get over here" or "come here" ask the person if they could speak to them for a minute. Instead of telling someone to "calm down" which implies that this is somehow their fault, tell them they are trying to assist and how can they help them relax. Little things that are SOP for many police officers to establish "command presence" that actually wind up making the people that deal with them less likely to try and assist, and instead make them react more defensively. One effective cop that people trust is worth more than ten guys in uniform driving around that cannot get anything out of anyone.

It was an interesting read and the job in general gave me a healthy respect for the insane amount of things a police officer has to deal with on any given day, while at the same time recognizing the importance of doing things right and how terribly things can go wrong (for a lot of people) when cops and citizens don't mix well.

McCain's suggestion of going in military style just sounds like more of an already bad idea, and only acting to increase the misguided notion that high crime areas need to be looked at as war zones, where the good guys are the cops and the bad guys are potentially anyone else. Instead they need to be seen as areas where a small cadre of very bad people can be rooted out by the majority of upstanding citizens if the cops and the people that lived there could actually trust one another and work together, which currently isn't really how things go down in these places.

 

[FriendlyFire]

Where are you going to find another Gen Pertraues you gonna pull him from Iraq now?

 

[AngryZealot]

This is a dangerous suggestion. High crime is usually a symptom of a larger problem. We want diplomatic and economic strategies to solve the underlying condition, not military strategies to silence the symptoms.

 

[Spitefire]

Sounds like unofficial marshal law.

 

[Azale]

I spent a summer working at this place called the OCC in San Francisco, which is basically this city's version of any other Police Department's "Internal Affairs" unit. I read a crapload of police "Industry Magazines" full of articles on police work while doing a variety of research projects there. One of the articles I ran across was by an old retired cop who did consulting for a variety of police department academies across the country. I can't find the article right now, but basically this guy talked about there being a "trust gap" (or some similar term) in poor or crime riddled neighborhoods.

Basically, the people that live there don't trust the police and thus won't help them, and the police don't trust the people that live there and see most if not everyone as potentially working against them. In this gap, criminals thrive because no one is going to work with the police or be witnesses for them. The police cannot adequately protect those who do decide to rat out gang members or serious criminals in the area, and no one trusts them anyway. The area essentially turns into a war zone where the people in uniform think that everyone is a potential enemy, and their attitude reinforces the level of mistrust amongst the community such that things continue in their usual miserable dysfunctional manner.

One small solution he talks about is to teach cops out of the verbal judo they usually use and to try and adopt more community based policing, more walking beats, and in general flip their presumption that everyone is a suspect. Try and be friends to the majority of innocent civilians that live there instead of thinking all of them are suspects. Try and develop a dialog with people they talk to on the street instead of trying to completely control every situation they are in. (Which is difficult in a high crime area because as a cop you have to be on your toes in these places, but if the community trusted them more maybe they wouldn't have to be so nervous... but the community doesn't trust them, so it's kind of like a vicious circle.)

His examples are simple and use common sense. For instance instead of saying "get over here" or "come here" ask the person if they could speak to them for a minute. Instead of telling someone to "calm down" which implies that this is somehow their fault, tell them they are trying to assist and how can they help them relax. Little things that are SOP for many police officers to establish "command presence" that actually wind up making the people that deal with them less likely to try and assist, and instead make them react more defensively. One effective cop that people trust is worth more than ten guys in uniform driving around that cannot get anything out of anyone.

It was an interesting read and the job in general gave me a healthy respect for the insane amount of things a police officer has to deal with on any given day, while at the same time recognizing the importance of doing things right and how terribly things can go wrong (for a lot of people) when cops and citizens don't mix well.

McCain's suggestion of going in military style just sounds like more of an already bad idea, and only acting to increase the misguided notion that high crime areas need to be looked at as war zones, where the good guys are the cops and the bad guys are potentially anyone else. Instead they need to be seen as areas where a small cadre of very bad people can be rooted out by the majority of upstanding citizens if the cops and the people that lived there could actually trust one another and work together, which currently isn't really how things go down in these places.

I'm a McCainiac, but yea, this is exactly right and well spoken (written?).

 

[Cutlass]

I spent a summer working at this place called the OCC in San Francisco, which is basically this city's version of any other Police Department's "Internal Affairs" unit. I read a crapload of police "Industry Magazines" full of articles on police work while doing a variety of research projects there. One of the articles I ran across was by an old retired cop who did consulting for a variety of police department academies across the country. I can't find the article right now, but basically this guy talked about there being a "trust gap" (or some similar term) in poor or crime riddled neighborhoods.

Basically, the people that live there don't trust the police and thus won't help them, and the police don't trust the people that live there and see most if not everyone as potentially working against them. In this gap, criminals thrive because no one is going to work with the police or be witnesses for them. The police cannot adequately protect those who do decide to rat out gang members or serious criminals in the area, and no one trusts them anyway. The area essentially turns into a war zone where the people in uniform think that everyone is a potential enemy, and their attitude reinforces the level of mistrust amongst the community such that things continue in their usual miserable dysfunctional manner.

One small solution he talks about is to teach cops out of the verbal judo they usually use and to try and adopt more community based policing, more walking beats, and in general flip their presumption that everyone is a suspect. Try and be friends to the majority of innocent civilians that live there instead of thinking all of them are suspects. Try and develop a dialog with people they talk to on the street instead of trying to completely control every situation they are in. (Which is difficult in a high crime area because as a cop you have to be on your toes in these places, but if the community trusted them more maybe they wouldn't have to be so nervous... but the community doesn't trust them, so it's kind of like a vicious circle.)

His examples are simple and use common sense. For instance instead of saying "get over here" or "come here" ask the person if they could speak to them for a minute. Instead of telling someone to "calm down" which implies that this is somehow their fault, tell them they are trying to assist and how can they help them relax. Little things that are SOP for many police officers to establish "command presence" that actually wind up making the people that deal with them less likely to try and assist, and instead make them react more defensively. One effective cop that people trust is worth more than ten guys in uniform driving around that cannot get anything out of anyone.

It was an interesting read and the job in general gave me a healthy respect for the insane amount of things a police officer has to deal with on any given day, while at the same time recognizing the importance of doing things right and how terribly things can go wrong (for a lot of people) when cops and citizens don't mix well.

McCain's suggestion of going in military style just sounds like more of an already bad idea, and only acting to increase the misguided notion that high crime areas need to be looked at as war zones, where the good guys are the cops and the bad guys are potentially anyone else. Instead they need to be seen as areas where a small cadre of very bad people can be rooted out by the majority of upstanding citizens if the cops and the people that lived there could actually trust one another and work together, which currently isn't really how things go down in these places.

That's a good post.

The conservative mindset in America today is all about power and crushing and keeping the boot on the throat. It really isn't a good way to do all that many things.

 

[JollyRoger]

Maybe John Sidney the 3rd can talk his second wife into refraining from shipping intoxicants into the urban combat zones. Either that or ship her to Gitmo.

 

[Berzerker]

Basically, the people that live there don't trust the police and thus won't help them, and the police don't trust the people that live there and see most if not everyone as potentially working against them. In this gap, criminals thrive because no one is going to work with the police or be witnesses for them. The police cannot adequately protect those who do decide to rat out gang members or serious criminals in the area, and no one trusts them anyway. The area essentially turns into a war zone where the people in uniform think that everyone is a potential enemy, and their attitude reinforces the level of mistrust amongst the community such that things continue in their usual miserable dysfunctional manner.

A product of the drug war

Maybe John Sidney the 3rd can talk his second wife into refraining from shipping intoxicants into the urban combat zones.

 

[GenMarshall]

Sounds like unofficial marshal law.

My thoughts exactly.

 

[QuoVadisNation]

huh. I could swear the government has already been doing this when it's obvious the local law isn't doing an 'adequate' job. The plan of course isn't ubiquitous, but it's definitely a seen practice. I believe it happened in a city near New York once in the 90's when the gangs (wars) were too out of control. I'm not sure about it's effectiveness unfortunately.

 

[emzie]

Without addressing the underlying cause of crime in poor urban areas, all such a surge would be is indefinite suppression. If a city were bad enough, I'd support a crime crack down as so long as other, pro-active measures were happening at the same time.

 

[Bast]

I spent a summer working at this place called the OCC in San Francisco, which is basically this city's version of any other Police Department's "Internal Affairs" unit. I read a crapload of police "Industry Magazines" full of articles on police work while doing a variety of research projects there. One of the articles I ran across was by an old retired cop who did consulting for a variety of police department academies across the country. I can't find the article right now, but basically this guy talked about there being a "trust gap" (or some similar term) in poor or crime riddled neighborhoods.

Basically, the people that live there don't trust the police and thus won't help them, and the police don't trust the people that live there and see most if not everyone as potentially working against them. In this gap, criminals thrive because no one is going to work with the police or be witnesses for them. The police cannot adequately protect those who do decide to rat out gang members or serious criminals in the area, and no one trusts them anyway. The area essentially turns into a war zone where the people in uniform think that everyone is a potential enemy, and their attitude reinforces the level of mistrust amongst the community such that things continue in their usual miserable dysfunctional manner.

One small solution he talks about is to teach cops out of the verbal judo they usually use and to try and adopt more community based policing, more walking beats, and in general flip their presumption that everyone is a suspect. Try and be friends to the majority of innocent civilians that live there instead of thinking all of them are suspects. Try and develop a dialog with people they talk to on the street instead of trying to completely control every situation they are in. (Which is difficult in a high crime area because as a cop you have to be on your toes in these places, but if the community trusted them more maybe they wouldn't have to be so nervous... but the community doesn't trust them, so it's kind of like a vicious circle.)

His examples are simple and use common sense. For instance instead of saying "get over here" or "come here" ask the person if they could speak to them for a minute. Instead of telling someone to "calm down" which implies that this is somehow their fault, tell them they are trying to assist and how can they help them relax. Little things that are SOP for many police officers to establish "command presence" that actually wind up making the people that deal with them less likely to try and assist, and instead make them react more defensively. One effective cop that people trust is worth more than ten guys in uniform driving around that cannot get anything out of anyone.

It was an interesting read and the job in general gave me a healthy respect for the insane amount of things a police officer has to deal with on any given day, while at the same time recognizing the importance of doing things right and how terribly things can go wrong (for a lot of people) when cops and citizens don't mix well.

McCain's suggestion of going in military style just sounds like more of an already bad idea, and only acting to increase the misguided notion that high crime areas need to be looked at as war zones, where the good guys are the cops and the bad guys are potentially anyone else. Instead they need to be seen as areas where a small cadre of very bad people can be rooted out by the majority of upstanding citizens if the cops and the people that lived there could actually trust one another and work together, which currently isn't really how things go down in these places.

I see what you're trying to say here but here's my question. What if the majority of people aren't innocent and really are turning a blind eye to the criminals?

 

[Trajan12]

I see what you're trying to say here but here's my question. What if the majority of people aren't innocent and really are turning a blind eye to the criminals?

Are you speculating that the majority of people are criminals or that their status as innocent is gone when they give a blind eye to criminals?

 

[El_Machinae]

You can drop crimes by putting police on every corner, but it's certainly not the cost efficient route. It's not easy being a cop. Shift work sucks. And 90% of your 'clientelle' don't want you there. I wish there were better ways of getting cops viable continuing education, because sometimes the courses are of the right mindset, the organisation itself is not.

 

[Cutlass]

I see what you're trying to say here but here's my question. What if the majority of people aren't innocent and really are turning a blind eye to the criminals?

In some places a large, if not majority of the population are turning a blind eye. Or at least keeping their mouths shut about what they do see. Why? Because the cops can't protect them and they have to go on living there. Also, the cops have made themselves the enemies of many innocent people. So helping the cops is a pointless and dangerous exercise.

But that doesn't mean that those people are also criminals. Just ordinary people in a terrible situation trying to get through one say at a time best they can figure out how.

 

[El_Machinae]

If a person really wanted to help, they could move there and be honorable and upright citizens. What's really needed in those neighbourhoods is a certain density of good people.

It's probably cheap to live there, but it would make sense to not own too many portable assets. Move in, fix up the joint, and joint any community organisations.

 

[Cutlass]

There are places that that happens. But many places the Samaritans are just too outnumbered. Those people with enough income to leave do so, and what's left behind are those who either don't care or have no options.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

I spent a summer working at this place called the OCC in San Francisco, which is basically this city's version of any other Police Department's "Internal Affairs" unit. I read a crapload of police "Industry Magazines" full of articles on police work while doing a variety of research projects there. One of the articles I ran across was by an old retired cop who did consulting for a variety of police department academies across the country. I can't find the article right now, but basically this guy talked about there being a "trust gap" (or some similar term) in poor or crime riddled neighborhoods.

Basically, the people that live there don't trust the police and thus won't help them, and the police don't trust the people that live there and see most if not everyone as potentially working against them. In this gap, criminals thrive because no one is going to work with the police or be witnesses for them. The police cannot adequately protect those who do decide to rat out gang members or serious criminals in the area, and no one trusts them anyway. The area essentially turns into a war zone where the people in uniform think that everyone is a potential enemy, and their attitude reinforces the level of mistrust amongst the community such that things continue in their usual miserable dysfunctional manner.

One small solution he talks about is to teach cops out of the verbal judo they usually use and to try and adopt more community based policing, more walking beats, and in general flip their presumption that everyone is a suspect. Try and be friends to the majority of innocent civilians that live there instead of thinking all of them are suspects. Try and develop a dialog with people they talk to on the street instead of trying to completely control every situation they are in. (Which is difficult in a high crime area because as a cop you have to be on your toes in these places, but if the community trusted them more maybe they wouldn't have to be so nervous... but the community doesn't trust them, so it's kind of like a vicious circle.)

His examples are simple and use common sense. For instance instead of saying "get over here" or "come here" ask the person if they could speak to them for a minute. Instead of telling someone to "calm down" which implies that this is somehow their fault, tell them they are trying to assist and how can they help them relax. Little things that are SOP for many police officers to establish "command presence" that actually wind up making the people that deal with them less likely to try and assist, and instead make them react more defensively. One effective cop that people trust is worth more than ten guys in uniform driving around that cannot get anything out of anyone.

It was an interesting read and the job in general gave me a healthy respect for the insane amount of things a police officer has to deal with on any given day, while at the same time recognizing the importance of doing things right and how terribly things can go wrong (for a lot of people) when cops and citizens don't mix well.

McCain's suggestion of going in military style just sounds like more of an already bad idea, and only acting to increase the misguided notion that high crime areas need to be looked at as war zones, where the good guys are the cops and the bad guys are potentially anyone else. Instead they need to be seen as areas where a small cadre of very bad people can be rooted out by the majority of upstanding citizens if the cops and the people that lived there could actually trust one another and work together, which currently isn't really how things go down in these places.

The wisdom in this post goes far beyond the situation in question. It's heartwarming that there are voices coming from within what is at the end of the day a pretty corrupt fascist institution that understand what we would have to do to solve the ills in our societies rather than just lashing out at those we blame for them.

 

[Enkidu Warrior]

If a person really wanted to help, they could move there and be honorable and upright citizens. What's really needed in those neighbourhoods is a certain density of good people.

Then I'm sure it will delight you to no end that there is a sufficiently high density of good people in every populated place on the planet. Or do you seriously think that the majority of the people living in certain cities are dishonourable criminals? The problems in these cities will not budge, whatever the character of the people inhabiting them, unless the community as a whole and all of the various groups that constitute it are made to feel a part of society. This is of course a two-way-street, but when presidential candidates are talking about your community in intentionally similar tones to a foreign insurgency, it's hard to feel like the authorities are looking out for you.

Or then again, maybe you're right, maybe an influx of self-righteous people seeking to make up for the deficiencies of the existing community will make everyone feel much more integrated. Personally though, I think steps along the lines of the suggestions made by illram's retired cop would do more good.