THE LAW vs. "SECURITY"

[AlwaysRIGHT]

I welcome any who use this board to answer a theoretical question. In a law enforcement agency, what is more important; the law or security? When forced to chose one or the other, do we sacrifice security in the name of law or do we break the law in the name of "security".

When you are a member of a law enforcement agency, you don't have the luxury of making a choice. You have to follow the law or sacrifice your employment.

Security isnt a law enforcement issue, it's a personal issue. If you dont feel secure, it's your responsibility to make yourself secure. Get a concealed permit, alarm, mace, or hire personal security... better yet dont put yourself at risk in the first place.

I am a LEO and my job isnt to protect you, its to enforce the law of the state.

I agree with the poster that stated we do not have the luxery of "choosing" between the law or security. I have to disagree with Couch. Law Enforcement Officers are civil servants, we are a volunteer force, not a one of us was drafted and forced to do this job. Yes we are here to enforce the laws of this state, AND we are also here to provide security and any other assistance we reasonably can to our citizens. So if it makes a little old lady feel better to have you drive by and shine your lights, don't ***** about it just do it, that's part of the job. Sitting by at the bus stop while the kids wait in order to make the parents feel secure, yep that our job too, as well as a 100 other little things that the salty veterans with 6000 + payroll numbers think they are too good to do.

[AlwaysRIGHT]

If officials reform the entire profession of law enforcement so that security of "the community" is held supreme and the law becomes secondary, can any possible mishaps occur? Is this reform legal?

I agree with disagree to a point (I hope that makes sense). My job as a LEO makes the community safe, IF the community participates. For instance, its a hell of alot safer in East Lake than it is on Greenwood and Palmetto. Im sure you will find a larger number of the residents in East Lake would call the police if they saw a crack dealer on the corner slinging dope than you would find in Greenwood. Why? community involvement. Its not my job to make you secure in Greenwood. If you decide to go there, you take certain risks (especially if you go to buy dope). Ill be happy to pick up the pieces after your ass gets robbed or shot, but I'm certainly not there for your security.

I imagine that Couch and I do our jobs in similar fashion, but maybe for different reasons. I disagree with you, but I am not looking to slam you. East Lake is easier because of citizen involvement, however not everyone that lives in Baskins, Lealman, or Greenwood has the financial ability to pack up and move up to the gated communitys. The lower income areas of the county have more crime, more problems, and require a greater effort on our part. Don't our law abiding, lower income citizens deserve the same protection and security, as the politically active, well connected citizens of East Lake. Don't get hung up on the old "us vs. them" attitude and judge people based on where they live. Take one call at a time and give it your best no matter where you happen to be working that shift.

I see your point disagree. 8)

[AlwaysRIGHT]

I think the law must be supreme. If it wasn't for the law, the entire agency would cease to exist. Security is important but the law should never be sacrificed for the sake of security. If security was to be held above all else, what would keep me from performing a search of your home without a warrant?

Are my thoughts on this issue flawed?