# I don't like the sound of this!



## Archangel M (Jan 3, 2011)

http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/3139476-The-federalization-of-local-law-enforcement/



> The United States has more than 18,000 police departments  far more than any other nation. Each of the 50 states has its own Peace Officer Standards and Training board and officer / deputy certification criteria for more than 700,000 officers nationwide. Over the next several decades its likely that a more federalized policing model will replace this decentralized approach.



Is the idea of individual STATES really that dead???? Im beginning to wonder if the right side really did win the Civil War.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

Perhaps they mean that police training would be standardised, perhaps training in only one or two places, it would save money and you'd have the same standard of training throughout the country. You wouldn't necessarily have to lose your individual forces. 

We still have our individual forces, each county apart from Devon and Cornwall who amalgamated plus four other forces, Railway ,Parks, Nuclear and the MOD police.


----------



## Archangel M (Jan 4, 2011)

This wouldn't be like a UK model. This would be like an EU wide standardization. And don't kid yourself. Under the sheep skin of "this is for the general good" is the wolf of a federal power grab.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> Is the idea of individual STATES really that dead???? Im beginning to wonder if the right side really did win the Civil War.



The right side ALWAYS wins the war. Read the history books if you don't believe me. 

You're right about states rights though. Not just from an idelogical pov, but also because each state has their own problem topics, priorities and peculiarities. Federalizing such things will make them jack of all trades, master of none.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

That's a shame. High quality standardised training would be good for everyone but if you lose your individual forces not so good.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Perhaps they mean that police training would be standardised, perhaps training in only one or two places, it would save money and you'd have the same standard of training throughout the country. You wouldn't necessarily have to lose your individual forces.
> 
> We still have our individual forces, each county apart from Devon and Cornwall who amalgamated plus four other forces, Railway ,Parks, Nuclear and the MOD police.



I would seriously disagree with an EU centralized LEO training center, for several reasons.
First of all, it would be hugely expensive to commute all those people for extensive training.
Second there would be language issues.
And third: the police would not be trained specifically for the laws of the country they are supposed to look after.

For example, what I have in my pockets right now would get me locked up in the UK (I am carrying a 3" spyderco with a locking blade and a swiss army knife) whereas most police here would think it was no big deal if I was not carrying it in a soccer stadium or court house. Carrying marihuana here for personal use is condoned. In the Netherlands it is perfectly legal, and in the UK it would be a serious offense.

You'd have cops that have no training at all that prepares them for their job. Of course you could argue that you have some local training and some centralized training, but you'd still have the first 2 problems and still needed the local training centra.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> I would seriously disagree with an EU centralized LEO training center, for several reasons.
> First of all, it would be hugely expensive to commute all those people for extensive training.
> Second there would be language issues.
> And third: the police would not be trained specifically for the laws of the country they are supposed to look after.
> ...


 

I wasn't thinking of an EU one at all, just central ones in a country probably more in the States.

Actually your carrying a knife wouldn't get you locked up here. You don't need a reason for carrying a blade that doesn't exceed 3ins, though the locking bit isn't legal but unless you go waving it around in public or something similiarly stupid no one is going to bother you. Loads of people carry Swiss Army knives here perfectly legally. Other knives over 3in can be carried legally if you have a good reason to and again don't wave them around in public. People going about their business don't get stopped by the police.
Going to a football match here is dicey at the best of times and also very expensive, it costs an average of 50 eu a match ticket and the violence even without knives means it's an unforgettable experience.

Carrying marijuana here for your own use isn't considered a serious offence. If you are stopped and caught with a 'personal use' amount, it will be taken from you and you will be issued a street warning. Carrying enough to sell which means you are dealing is a serious offence however.

Our police here are trained differently as we have different laws in Scotland to England, so we have different training establishments.


----------



## Carol (Jan 4, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> The right side ALWAYS wins the war. Read the history books if you don't believe me.
> 
> You're right about states rights though. Not just from an idelogical pov, but also because each state has their own problem topics, priorities and peculiarities. Federalizing such things will make them jack of all trades, master of none.



Not only that, it likely takes something important away from the officers, and that is the networking opportunities.  Education isn't just about what you know, it is also about who you know. 

I'm assuming police training isn't done in a vacuum; the officers interact with their fellow trainees and instructors alike, and these people are folks that the officers will see again either in their own PD, or in their area.  I think a corporate analogy would be training people from the same business unit.  Especially for newer folks, these are opportunities to build stronger relationships, and get more effective at doing your job.  That is true for keyboard warriors like myself, I don't see why it would be any different for a LEO.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 4, 2011)

A federal model for state and local police seems to me to be a very bad idea.

On the surface, it may seem worthwhile to have a uniform set of rules and training.

However, this ignores the fact that each state has its own laws and police procedures.

Unlike the UK, the USA is a collection of independent states; laws are largely similar but vary by state, county, and city.

A long time ago, President Clinton attempted to put an end to the authority of the US states by signing a simple Executive Order, entitled 'Federalism'.  It was the scariest thing I had ever seen.  It was ignored by the press; but the conservatives made a huge issue of it and President Clinton just as quietly 'suspended' it.

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13083

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Executive_Order_13095

This is a traditional conservative issue; the restriction of the ever-growing authority of the federal government and usurpation of the authority delegated to the states.

Training of police officers to enforce STATE laws is a role that belongs to the STATE.

Attempt to 'standardize' that are, and should be seen as, attempts to override the authority of the states and strip the states of their power.

This is particularly onerous; in some ways, it can be seen as one sovereign government taking control over the training of the army of another government.  Imagine if Iran had the authority to train all of Iraq's armed forces.  Do you imagine that Iran might be able to establish some level of control over Iraq in this way?  I do.  While that may seem an extreme example, it has some applicability.  The states have no standing armies; even the 'national guard' of each state is under the control of the federal government anytime they wish to exercise it (which they do and have in recent times).  The state, county, and local police forces are the only analog to an 'army' that the states have.

In fact, in Michigan, the state police are one component of the state self-defense forces; Michigan even has a voluntary, uniformed, para-military 'guard force' which is not the national guard or the reserves, strictly under the control of the state and not the federal government.  This is not uncommon; many states consider the state police to be the equivalent of a standing army for the states themselves.  To give control over their training to the federal government would be like Iraq turning over their armed forces to Iran for training.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

Actually the United States is exactly like the UK! We have different countries with different laws, we even have the Isle of Man which is a British Protectorate not part of the UK, we have the Channel Islands with quite a different system of law and justice. Scotland as I said has also a different justice system as does Northern Ireland. In Wales it's not just different laws it's a different language as well.

There's a lot of police training that doesn't actually involve the law though, and that could certainly be standardised. Driver training and riot control training for example could be done in one place saving money, it's hard times you know and saving money is always good


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Actually your carrying a knife wouldn't get you locked up here. You don't need a reason for carrying a blade that doesn't exceed 3ins, though the locking bit isn't legal but unless you go waving it around in public or something similiarly stupid no one is going to bother you. Loads of people carry Swiss Army knives here perfectly legally. Other knives over 3in can be carried legally if you have a good reason to and again don't wave them around in public. People going about their business don't get stopped by the police.



That is a very rose colored glasses post, considering that multiple UK coppers on britishblades have told me the exact opposite. According to them (and the legal stuff they linked to), carrying a locking blade will get you arrested. Sure, I may not be sentenced to prison time, but they would detain me while everything is sorted out. Ditto for my swiss army knife. It has a locking blade.

I was also told that 'having a good reason to carry' is subjective, and there are many who would not accept it since according to them, there is no pressing need to carry a folder knife. Especially if it locks.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> That is a very rose colored glasses post, considering that multiple UK coppers on britishblades have told me the exact opposite. According to them (and the legal stuff they linked to), carrying a locking blade will get you arrested. Sure, I may not be sentenced to prison time, but they would detain me while everything is sorted out. Ditto for my swiss army knife. It has a locking blade.
> 
> I was also told that 'having a good reason to carry' is subjective, and there are many who would not accept it since according to them, there is no pressing need to carry a folder knife. Especially if it locks.


 

Coppers who may or may not be coppers who post online like the right wingers on this one like to make things sound worse than they are. How would anyone know that you were carrying a knife in your pocket? 

Well you can believe this copper or not, doesn't bother me. Shrug.


----------



## punisher73 (Jan 4, 2011)

One step closer to turning the US into a socialist police state.  Not for it at all.

I think that the states should determine what their police officers need and design their training around that.  For example, in Michigan, you are going to have different driving issues than someone from Arizona.  You are driving a car designed for performance and high speed on snowy and icy roads, your training should reflect that.  Also, different states have different elements of crimes etc.  your training in criminal law and procedures should reflect that.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

It's not so much socialist but it would certainly suit a government of any ilk that wanted a police service to control a whole county. Many countries that you consider socialist have a federal police force because the size of the country doesn't warrant having separate forces, the cost would be prohibitive, it's nothing to do with politics. 
One of the things here that is looked at often is merging the forces in England at least, the high cost of policing is proving hard to sustain, to have separate training facilites, vehicles etc is becoming hard to justify. it is not always about politics but money.


----------



## MJS (Jan 4, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/3139476-The-federalization-of-local-law-enforcement/
> 
> 
> 
> Is the idea of individual STATES really that dead???? Im beginning to wonder if the right side really did win the Civil War.


 
Sounds to me, like a bunch of people, who have no idea what the day to day life of a cop is like, are trying to make the rules.  Typical.  IMO, this is a bad idea for a number of reasons.  Given the fact that each state, town, city, will vary from one another, how can you possibly dictate what a small town does, vs. a large city?


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Coppers who may or may not be coppers who post online like the right wingers on this one like to make things sound worse than they are. How would anyone know that you were carrying a knife in your pocket?
> 
> Well you can believe this copper or not, doesn't bother me. Shrug.



www.britishblades.com

They have a whole subforum dedicated to that topic, with links to the appropriate legislative documents. To me it seemed to be perfectly genuine.
Here is the link
http://www.britishblades.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?39-Blades-Britain-amp-the-Law...

And here is a thread specific about the topic of carrying a locking folder in the UK.
http://www.britishblades.com/forums/showthread.php?114855-Lock-knife-am-I-allowed-to-carry-it
About the 'good reason' thing you mentioned, one poster has this to say:
*using it as a pocket knife is not a reason, it is a description of the product*

What you say is indeed correct for sub 3-inch non-locking folding pocketknives. Not for any kind of locking knife.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 4, 2011)

Here is a product page on spyderco of a folding knife specifically created for the UK market: The UK penkife.
http://www.spyderco.com/catalog/details.php?product=243



> The knife may be mans oldest tool but today it is governed by different carry restrictions in nearly every country in the world. It seems: if man makes it, he must legislate it. This is particularly true regarding pocketknives in the *United Kingdom *where legal guidelines govern the size and function of all pocketknives carried in public. One of these parameters is that folding knives *not have blades that lock open*. Spyderco addressed this by developing a non-locking folder expressly for the UK called the UK Penknife.


----------



## Bill Mattocks (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Actually the United States is exactly like the UK! We have different countries with different laws, we even have the Isle of Man which is a British Protectorate not part of the UK, we have the Channel Islands with quite a different system of law and justice. Scotland as I said has also a different justice system as does Northern Ireland. In Wales it's not just different laws it's a different language as well.



I can see where that would be similar, but no, it's not the same.  It's backwards to what we have here.  For example, our Constitution states that all powers not specifically granted to the federal government resides with the states or the citizens themselves.  The Welsh Assembly (for example) has only the powers specifically devolved upon it by the central government of the United Kingdom, all other powers reside with the UK.  Your 'federal' government grants rights to the 'states'.  Our is the reverse.  Wales is not a sovereign state; Michigan is.  For example.



> There's a lot of police training that doesn't actually involve the law though, and that could certainly be standardised. Driver training and riot control training for example could be done in one place saving money, it's hard times you know and saving money is always good



The federal government does not have a federal police department, per se.  With the exception of the various departments that have police forces (USDA, FDA, Post Office, Treasury, and etc), most are investigative branches with police powers, such as the FBI, or specialized law enforcement agencies like the Secret Service, Federal Marshall Service and so on.  We don't have US cops on the beat, so to speak.

As a result, we do have extensive cross-training made available by various agencies, both inter and intra state and between state and federal agencies, within their spheres.  It is not unusual for the FBI to offer training on specific areas to local law enforcement, or for the state to provide pursuit training to law enforcement officers from many jurisdictions inside that state, and so on.  It's a pastiche, but in general it works pretty well, IMHO.

Unlike our various intelligence agencies, in my opinion, our state, local, and federal law enforcement agencies have traditionally cooperated pretty well on the officer-to-officer level, even agency-to-agency with a few notable exceptions.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

Well I expect my 20 years as a copper means nothing really.


----------



## Bruno@MT (Jan 4, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Well I expect my 20 years as a copper means nothing really.



I don't know if this was to me or to Bill.
If it was to me, then put yourself in my position for a moment.
I find this forum full of Brits who all confirm that locking blades are banned. A Brit on another forum mentioned the same thing in a discussion. Spyderco designs and markets a blade specifically for the UK market without a lock, even though it is the only non locking blade they have, and have been making them for a long time. Not to mention the bloody thing is dangerous because it might snap shut on your fingers.

Here is a similar thread on a different website

Which contains this reference to the actual laws


> For those with an interest in the law, the locking knife 'ban' comes from case law, a misinterpretation of statute law and a cocked-up appeal; there is no parliamentary statute in the UK that mentions lock knives at all. The original case was Harris v DPP and Deegan v Regina was the appeal that failed on a technicality, causing the ban to be upheld.
> 
> Mr John Patten, The Minister of State at the Home Office, explained the Government thinking [behind section 139 of the criminal Justice Act] saying 'When the Bill was printed for the other place [House of Lords], we arrived at the original formulation of the clause mindful of the important and pressing need to ensure that Stanley knives and other knives with sliding blades which can lock open and do terrible damage, should not benefit from the exemption. We do not believe that someone should be allowed to produce from his pocket a sharp bladed instrument of 3 in or less, which has a flick effect or a gravity effect or slides out and can then be locked into place. .... In our discussions with the manufacturers with whom we have consulted widely in the interests of industry and employment in Sheffield, it emerged that we could catch those vicious sliding knives, while at the same time exempting ordinary pocket knives that lock into the open position, which is what the amendment seeks to do. Folding, locking pocket knives, which I am advised that many people carry because they are safer to use than the non-locking variety, will be excepted from the general offence, which is right, but the exception will apply only to folding pocket knives with a sharpened blade of 3 in or less. ..... We wish to keep within the law those people who carry ordinary pocket knives. When an officer finds a person in possession of a pocket knife in a public place he has only to check the length of the blade and ensure that the knife folds. If the knife does not fulfil those criteria, the possessor will have to show a good reason for having the knife with him'.
> 
> ...




So what am I else supposed to conclude from these things?


----------



## ballen0351 (Jan 4, 2011)

MJS said:


> Given the fact that each state, town, city, will vary from one another, how can you possibly dictate what a small town does, vs. a large city?


 
Could not agree more.  I started out in police work in a small rural department.  I would go on calls alone and sometimes my closest backup would be 30 min away.  So no matter what I did I had to know I was doing it alone, domestics, stolen cars, burglaries, bar fights it didnt matter I had nobody.  Ive since moved to a much larger city mainly because the pay was almost double.  Now I go on a call you have to tell cops to stop coming we get so many.  And God help the suspect when you call for help cause you will have 15 to 20 pissed off cops there in 3 min.  

You could never teach all officers under 1 set of rules it just wouldnt work.  My state laws are VERY different then say California (not picking on them but my partner came from LAPD so we talk about how things are different).  Its just not practical.


----------



## Tez3 (Jan 4, 2011)

Bruno@MT said:


> I don't know if this was to me or to Bill.
> If it was to me, then put yourself in my position for a moment.
> I find this forum full of Brits who all confirm that locking blades are banned. A Brit on another forum mentioned the same thing in a discussion. Spyderco designs and markets a blade specifically for the UK market without a lock, even though it is the only non locking blade they have, and have been making them for a long time. Not to mention the bloody thing is dangerous because it might snap shut on your fingers.
> 
> ...


 

That it's extremely old and out of date, John Patten was in the Home Office in 1980-1981. he was in Maggie Thatcher's Conservative government, we've had a few governments and laws since then.

I did tell you locking knives were illegal btw.


----------



## jks9199 (Jan 4, 2011)

Not just the states -- but the localities.  

I agree with state-level minimum training standards; they've led to increased professionalism in law enforcement.  And I don't even have a problem with national level standards, especially for interoperability reasons.  We learned in 2001 and again a few years ago with Katrina that it's vital for LEOs from around the country to be able to work together in an emergency.  I live and work in an area with three state-level (DC, MD, & VA) plus various federal jurisdictions.  Criminals and emergencies don't respect jurisdictional lines.

But each jurisdiction (down to the smallest town) needs to also be able to assess their own needs and what they want their officers to do.  Archangel, Punisher, and I all work for different jurisdictions, and I bet they're different on several levels.  The way I do things may be great for me -- but suck for one of them.  I may do something daily that they rarely do... while they do something daily that I haven't looked at since the academy.  My agency reflects the culture of our municipality, in what we focus on and in what we do.  And so will theirs.  And that's not even getting into "special" jurisdictions like Alcoholic Beverage Control agents or federal police or special agents.  (Yes, they have both.  And both do different things.  And a federal police officer or special agent has almost no local jurisdiction.)


----------



## KELLYG (Jan 4, 2011)

My first thought on this is if you have Police from say Mayberry, Los Angeles, New York, Arizona, Chicago and Fargo.  What a Police officer Knows and will use in  each of these areas will be completely different. Most of it will not translate well or be useful in their home towns.  Then  there will have to be 2 different types of training.  One Nationally and one locally and this will actually be more costly than leaving it as it is.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2011)

Archangel M said:


> http://www.policeone.com/patrol-issues/articles/3139476-The-federalization-of-local-law-enforcement/
> 
> 
> 
> Is the idea of individual STATES really that dead???? Im beginning to wonder if the right side really did win the Civil War.




Nothing new here........the Feds have been wanting to grab this kind of power for quite some time.........but doing it slow enough that everyone can still say those who predict are 'paranoid'.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Actually the United States is exactly like the UK! We have different countries with different laws, we even have the Isle of Man which is a British Protectorate not part of the UK, we have the Channel Islands with quite a different system of law and justice. Scotland as I said has also a different justice system as does Northern Ireland. In Wales it's not just different laws it's a different language as well.
> 
> There's a lot of police training that doesn't actually involve the law though, and that could certainly be standardised. Driver training and riot control training for example could be done in one place saving money, it's hard times you know and saving money is always good



How would that save money in the United States?  How would shipping trainees hundreds or thousands of miles away to a centralized federal training facility save any money in the slightest?


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It's not so much socialist but it would certainly suit a government of any ilk that wanted a police service to control a whole county. Many countries that you consider socialist have a federal police force because the size of the country doesn't warrant having separate forces, the cost would be prohibitive, it's nothing to do with politics.
> One of the things here that is looked at often is merging the forces in England at least, the high cost of policing is proving hard to sustain, to have separate training facilites, vehicles etc is becoming hard to justify. it is not always about politics but money.




You just said the magic words 'Suit a government of any ilk that wanted a police service to control a whole country.'

As the united states was founded under the notion of state sovereignty, we view Federalization of police powers as an intentional erosion of that natural sovereignty.........call that right wing if you like.

In the United States police forces answer directly to the citizens they police in a manner a federalized police force would not.


----------



## sgtmac_46 (Jan 5, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> Well I expect my 20 years as a copper means nothing really.



None of it spent policing here, which makes it entirely irrelevant.  I'll grant you expert status on policing in the UK.

The reality in the US is that decentralization allows police in the US to respond more quickly to localized situations.  Creating a vast bureaucracy doesn't serve to benefit the American people.......it does serve the benefit of growing the power of a federal bureaucracy.


----------

