The Weekly Sedition

Tuesday, 26 October 2010

J.D. Wilmeth on Local Law Enforcement

Filed under: Uncategorized — Tags: , , , , , , — weeklysedition @ 4:46 AM

Wilmeth for Sheriff banner

Will’s Solution to Local Law Enforcement
Newsletter: 5 September 2010
Our county faces a growing crisis. Every year, law enforcement agencies seek to increase their budget and their manpower. These requests are accompanied by the same argument – “with more police and more or better equipment we can cut down on crime.” Yet, consistently, the opposite is what occurs. Our communities see an increase in crime, and often a rise in more violent crimes.

The conclusion is inescapable. Present police methods DO NOT WORK. Current methods of patrol, where units work an area in a random pattern, watching for criminal activity, and police are deployed to provide a certain amount of personnel throughout a 24 hour period does not result in a decrease in crime.

Our present Sheriff is a supporter of this method of law enforcement. He points to 24 hour patrol, a new building, and a full complement of personnel as well as his personal involvement in a large number of community advisory boards as evidence of success. Unfortunately our primary goal of lowering the crime rates, arresting offenders and keeping the peace remains unimproved. The Sheriff Department may look good, but its not performing as well as it could.

My solution involves returning to a simpler, more direct method of law enforcement that is in keeping with the vision of our Founding Fathers and based in the U.S. Constitution. Consider this; the majority of citizens are law-abiding, honest, hard-working people who want safer streets, order and less crime. Further, in every community, the vast amount of criminals are known, not only by law enforcement, but by the members of the community themselves. Finally, crimes do not occur in a vacuum. In other words, multiple burglaries occur, not just one. Oilfield larcenies occur in groups, not in single events. So why do those of us in law enforcement assume random patrols and 24 hour coverage are going to catch the majority of criminals?

It may be politically incorrect to say this but the truth of the matter is that, as peace officers, our duties are not to regulate the conduct of law-abiding citizens, or force their “compliance,” rather, our duty is to seek out, properly investigate, and arrest (based on probable cause) those members of our society who prey on others. While doing this we have an over-riding duty to protect everyone’s constitutional rights.

My solution involves recognizing that the majority of crimes are committed by a limited amount of criminals, most of whom are already known to law enforcement. The records sections of local law enforcement agencies are full of information on criminals who have been handled for certain types of crimes, and the amount of unserved arrest warrants is staggering. In my proposed methodology, the Sheriff’s Department will deploy its force based on the actual threats, rather than the possibility of the presence of a threat. We will:

  1. Cease random, unfocused patrols and minimize our response to non-criminal events that do not require enforcement activities.
  2. Research local criminal trends for type, location, and method.
  3. Deploy our units in a focused response to those specific threats and make an arrest as soon as possible.
  4. Watch for and react to situations of opportunity as we investigate crimes to stop those crimes that we observe.
  5. We will expend our resources on stopping the criminal, not policing the public at large.

Links to more information about the combined role of the constitution and the sheriff:

Just a reminder to everyone, early voting is a great way to make sure your vote counts. We all get busy, and sometimes Election Day becomes a day where we are just too busy to vote. By voting early, Your Vote Counts! This is a critical election for local offices and on the national level. Let your voice be heard!

J.D. “Will” Wilmeth
Lea County Sheriff Candidate
http://wilmeth4sheriff.com
Facebook page

P.S.: Please forward this email to friends and family. Let’s all work together to put Will in office!


NOTES

  1. Original article
  2. Reposted –
    1. KCUF Media – New Mexico’s Consumer AdvocateThe Weekly SeditionPartisans of the American SouthwestTyranny Response Team of New Mexico
    2. New Mexico Liberty

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack

Thursday, 15 November 2007

A Cop Says “Legalize Drugs”

Filed under: Politics — Tags: , , , , , , , , — weeklysedition @ 2:46 AM

Case for Legalizing Drugs

Getting them where it really hurts – in the wallet!

By Matt Berger

Originally published in the November 2007 issue of Guns and Weapons for Law Enforcement

In the May issue, Dave Street made a compelling argument for maintaining the prohibition of illict drugs. Street was absolutely accurate in his depiction of the downward spiral of the drug user / addict, and the ravages of drugs upon individuals and society. Most likely, Street’s moral convictions are a large part of his desire to see drugs remain illegal, and again, I agree with him. I find recreational use of narcotics morally reprehensible, and have nothing but contempt for such behavior.

The problem, as I see it, is that we’re letting our beliefs get in the way of a pragmatic, effective solution to “the war on drugs.”

The drug trade is an extremely lucrative big business, with returns so high that legions of people are willing to risk life and imprisonment to pursue a career in the supplying of drugs. They are willing to be ruthless, to murder, and even to corrupt governments to carry out their business. On the user level, they are willing to steal, rob, burglarize, and worse, just to keep their supply flowing.

The profits fuel drug cartels at the top, filtering down to dealers and gangs, with endless capital with which to carry out their deeds. Worst of all, it breeds crime, both violent and deadly violent on the streets.

But what would happen to these cartels, dealers and gang-bangers if we were to dry up their financial infrastructure overnight? Surely, they would be reduced to petty thieves and stick-up men without the pay-off.

A quick reference to history will turn up a very close analogy, the heyday of the mobsters during the prohibition years. The mob was at its apex during these years with the money-making machine of supplying illegal booze. When the Volstead Act was repealed, the money dried up, and the Mob was never again to return to its former glory. But then came drugs.

If drugs were legalized, they could be closely regulated and taxed. Prices would be driven down, and the junkie could simply walk into his neighborhood drug store with a script, instead of burglarizing your home, dismantling your air conditioner for copper, carjacking you, or sticking up the liquor store to pay for his habit. The passing around of dirty needles be curtailed. The violent gang-banging dealers in your town would have to subsist on a meager income of low-level crime, and the guns for their drive-by shootings, and the purpose behind them, would wane. The cartels and corrupt governments that thrive on overly inflated cost of drugs brought on by illegalization would also dry up and blow away.

Think about it: The local gang-bangers you stop on a daily basis, rolling in Escalades with wheels and stereo equipment that cost more than the boat you dream of owning when you retire. How do these punks who pay no taxes and punch no clock afford such a lifestyle? It’s because of the multi-billion-dollar enterprise that is the drug trade. No intelligence, education or any other qualifications required, just a willingness to break the law, and hurt and kill people as a price of doing business.

In a perfect world, we could lock up all of the bad guys for as long as they deserved, but we all know cell space is at a premium. Because of this, rapists, pedophiles, robbers and even murderers are getting out in record time to allow for the mandatory sentences of droves upon droves of drug traffickers. We could free up that space to keep the killers, rapists, molesters and the like behind bars, where they belong.

So, would half of the population become junkies? Of course they wouldn’t. Sure, a very small percentage of people would experiment, but for the most part, those who want drugs are getting them now, and those who don’t, aren’t and won’t, just like drinkers and non-drinkers during the prohibition years. That won’t change.

In the end, we can’t stop the users. What we need is a more effective way to end the crime and violence surrounding this insidious culture. We can stop the suppliers and dealers, their guns and violence, and their killing. Perhaps we need to stop thinking in terms of “throwing in the towel” on our moral convictions, and start thinking in terms of reducing crime.

[ Yeah, I know that advocating “we can tax and regulate the stuff” as a rationale for ending Drug Prohibition is pretty piss-poor for anarchist-leaning libertarians. Still, remember that this opinion piece wasn’t published in The Libertarian Enterprise, but in a magazine generally geared to those who are on the “front lines” and actively engaged in fighting the “Drug War” — these are the people who are tasked with arresting you for “possession” and “possession with intent to distribute.” If these folks aren’t willing to continue the fight, then it falls to the admin pukes and finally the Congresscreeps who write these asinine statutes to enforce those same statutes, and we know that most of them are above getting their hands dirty and risking their lives.

For more information about cops opposed to Drug Prohibition, check out the Law Enforcement Against Prohibition (LEAP) siteMike Blessing ]


Produced by KCUF Media, a division of Extropy Enterprises. Webmaster Mike Blessing.
This blog entry created with Notepad++.

bomb gun firearm steak knife Allah Aryan airline hijack