These shotguns look mighty high end to me! Maybe I should go on Welfare out here! (Oh Hell No!) Grumpy
Category: Cops
- 43 Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill, and one Democrat, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., who is not running for reelection, voted against it
- Supporters of the bill said that it would allow police to alert the public of unsafe situations more quickly
- They said police typically rely on social media and news reports to get word out
- Critics said the bill was unnecessary and likely to stoke fear among the public
- ‘This bill is like yelling ‘fire’ in a movie theater, except the fire is in another movie theater across the street,’ Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., said
The House on Thursday passed a bill 260-169 that would allow law enforcement to deploy an Amber alert-like phone notification system in active shooter situations.
Forty-three Republicans joined Democrats in voting for the bill, and one Democrat, Rep. Ron Kind, D-Wis., who is not running for reelection, voted against it.
The bill, led by Reps. David Cicilline, D-R.I., and Fred Upton, R-Mich., now heads to the Senate.
Supporters of the bill said that it would allow police to alert the public of unsafe situations more quickly. They said police typically rely on social media and news reports to get the word out. Critics said that the bill was unnecessary and likely to stoke fear among the public.
‘This bill is a common sense piece of public safety legislation that police have asked for over, and over, and over again, and we are past due in delivering it to them,’ Cicilline said on the House floor.
The bill would carve out a new role in the Department of Justice known as the national coordinator of the Active Shooter Alert Communications network, and that coordinator would work with the FEMA administrator, Transportation secretary FCC chair to help state and local law enforcement set up such alert systems.
Upton, the Republican leader on the bill, pointed to the July 4 mass shooting at a parade in Highland Park, Ill., where the suspected gunman was at large for eight hours and drove across state lines to Wisconsin.
‘Wouldn’t it have been nice to have had a system that would have alerted the entire parade route to take cover, and maybe some of those folks that were killed or wounded wouldn’t have happened?’ he asked.
Police deploy after gunfire erupted at a Fourth of July parade route in the wealthy Chicago suburb of Highland Park, Illinois on July 4
A Fourth of July parade-goer runs for cover after gunfire was heard at the parade Monday morning, July 4
People’s belongings lie abandoned along the parade route after a mass shooting at a Fourth of July parade
Upton said he heard from ‘law enforcement and police chiefs that active shooter alerts can be a vital tool to provide accurate, real-time information to our communities, and one they believe will help in these dangerous situations.’
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi claimed Thursday Republicans cared more about their ‘political survival’ than children’s survival after 168 voted against the bill.
‘If your child were in a school where there was an assault, wouldn’t you want to know? How can these Republicans vote ‘no’?’ she said.
‘These people think their political survival is more important than the survival of their children.’
The Active Shooter Alert bill would allow for Amber alert-style notifications to pop up on nearby residents’ phones in the case of a mass shooting
Rep. Matt Gaetz, R-Fla., warned that such a bill could cause chaos, giving a hypothetical where a stadium full of concertgoers all get an alert if someone fired a gun several blocks away, maybe even by accident.
‘Would that make the circumstance safer? Of course not. It would lead to stampede, tragedy, hysteria, mistake, perhaps even more death,’ he said.
Gaetz said that the bill was vague about how far from an incident people would still get alerts and what types of events would warrant an alert.
‘This bill is like yelling ‘fire’ in a movie theater, except the fire is in another movie theater across the street,’ he said.
Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, described the bill as ‘Democrat fear-mongering that guns are an ever-present threat.’
Democrats, meanwhile, mocked Republicans for being ‘pro-life’ but voting against the bill.
‘The vast majority of the House Republican Conference voted against a bill to alert people of nearby active shooters,’ Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman, D-N.J., wrote on Twitter. ‘The bill doesn’t limit gun ownership. All it does is keep communities safe. In case you were wondering what the ‘pro-life’ party really stands for.’
‘Last night, 168 Republicans voted against the Active Shooter Alert Act, which would set up a system to send alerts directly to people’s phones, warning them in the case of a nearby active shooter. This could save lives. Yet most of the “pro-life” party voted to try and block it,’ Rep. Pramila Jayapal, chair of the House Progressive Caucus, wrote on Twitter.
I just received the below email from the Missouri AG:
Missouri Attorney General Condemns FBI’s Illegal Attempts to Harvest Concealed Carry Permit Information from Missouri Sheriffs
July 13, 2022 Contact: Constituent Services Office: 573-751-3321
JEFFERSON CITY, Mo. – Today, Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt sent a letter to FBI Director Christopher Wray demanding that they cease their attempts to illegally obtain information from local sheriffs on Missourians who have concealed carry permits. Missouri law specifically prohibits the sharing of information on concealed carry permit holders to any entity – local, state, federal, or otherwise.
“The FBI has absolutely no business poking around in the private information of those who have obtained a concealed carry permit in Missouri,” said Attorney General Schmitt. “The Second Amendment rights of Missourians will absolutely not be infringed on my watch. I will use the full power of my Office to stop the FBI, which has become relentlessly politicized and has virtually no credibility, from illegally prying around in the personal information of Missouri gun owners.”
The Missouri Attorney General’s Office became aware that the FBI is planning to travel to Missouri in August to do “audits” at sheriff departments across the state, which would include harvesting information on those who have legally obtained a concealed carry permit. The letter states, “It has come to my attention that the Federal Bureau of Investigation has informed several Missouri county sheriffs that they will be showing up in August to ‘audit’ CCW permit holder records. The FBI states that, ‘The audit includes an onsite review of your Concealed Carry Weapons Permits…’ Let me be perfectly clear. Allowing federal agents from the FBI to have access to records of Missourians who have a permit to carry a concealed weapon violates Missouri law and infringes on our Second Amendment rights.”
Missouri law states, “Information retained in the concealed carry permit system under this subsection shall not be distributed to any federal, state, or private entities . . . .” § 571.101.9(2), RSMo.
At the end of the letter, Attorney General Schmitt promises to use the full power of his Office to stop the FBI’s attempts to obtain information on Missouri concealed carry weapons permit holders.
The full letter can be found here: https://ago.mo.gov/docs/default-source/press-releases/2022-7-13-ltr-fbi.pdf?sfvrsn=5fbbdf7_2
Should be interesting if they and these sheriff’s attempt the audit.
Will the MO state police be waiting and once a record is presented to an FBI agent by a SO personnel, will they both be arrested under both the CCW records statute and the MO 2a Preservation statute?
Only by a court order pursuant to a criminal inquiry or investigation may Missouri CCW records be released by the county sheriff who issued it.
Mesa, AZ — As we previously reported, the Justice Department is investigating the police response to the horrifying shooting in Uvalde, Texas that left 19 4th grade children dead along with two teachers. As the world quickly learned in the days after the shooting, police were more concerned with preventing parents from saving their children than they were with stopping the mass murdering psychopath inside the school.
Unless they can find actual evidence of a crime, none of the officers involved will likely face any consequences. This is due to the fact that police officers have absolutely no legal duty to protect you.
The leading case on the topic is Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. Ct. of Ap., 1981) when the Court stated that the “fundamental principle of American law is that a government and its agents are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any individual citizen.”
Being a hero is not a requirement of a cop. In fact, case after case has shown that while there are certainly many cops willing to throw themselves into harms way and risk their lives to help others, far more of them are more than willing to take cover and save their own skin while others suffer.
We’ve seen this play out in multiple school shootings, street fights, and, as the following incident shows, in house fires. Earlier this year, a police officer from the notoriously violent and corrupt Mesa Police Department had a chance to be a hero as a fire engulfed an apartment with two children inside. But badges and guns don’t make heroes — courage does.
As the officer’s body camera shows, residents were telling the officer that two children were inside the apartment and their screams were audible. Instead of climbing inside the window to pull out the trapped toddlers, the officer throws rocks as the children suffocate inside, yelling for them to “come to the window.” He might as well have yelled, “I’m not doing a damn thing, rescue yourselves.”
Fortunately for the trapped children, however, an actual hero was nearby and ran straight into danger. Unlike the officer throwing rocks, this good Samaritan did not have on a gas mask which would have allowed him to breathe a little better in the fumes. The good Samaritan had nothing but selflessness and courage — and this is what saved the lives of the children trapped inside.
As the cop continues to throw rocks, the unidentified hero climbs up to the window, jumps inside the apartment and grabs one of the children and removes her from the apartment. By the time he gets the first child out, smoke is now billowing out of the window heavily but this does not deter the anonymous hero and he runs right back into danger.
Moments later, he emerges with the second child, saving her life as well. Had he not been there, this officer would have thrown rocks at an apartment as the children inside burned to death. Luckily, he was there and the children were taken to the hospital, treated for smoke inhalation and made a full recovery.
Rest assured that if the Mesa cop would’ve been the one who jumped into the burning building with his body camera rolling, we would’ve certainly known his name and seen multiple nightly news specials on his courage. But this good Samaritan didn’t do it for the fame and glory and after he rescued the children, he left the scene without telling anyone his name.
“According to all who were there, if it wasn’t for the citizen who assisted, the outcome of this incident may have been different,” said Richard Encinas, a spokesperson with the Mesa Police Department. “He saw the fire from a distance, jumped a wall to the apartment complex, and ran towards the fire to help.”
He added that “the citizen did not want to be identified but said he only wanted to help rescue the kids if he could.”
Below is a video that proves the notion that merely possessing a badge and a gun does not make you a hero — being heroic does.
Article posted with permission from Matt Agorist
Buffalo Police Commissioner Joseph Gramaglia conceded a few months ago that he would confiscate an individual’s firearms based upon an anonymous tip that the individual was a threat to himself or others.
Gramaglia was testifying before the House Committee on Oversight and Reform back in May when he was directly asked by Louisiana Congressman Clay Higgins (R) whether he would enforce confiscatory red flag laws, also known as extreme risk protection orders.
“Would you go to your neighbor’s home and confiscate his legally owned weapons, a man that was not under a criminal investigation nor under arrest? Would you do it?” Higgins asked.
“The red flag laws…,” Gramaglia began, when Higgins interjected, “That’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no,’ brother.”
“It’s more than a yes or no answer,” said Gramaglia.
Higgins went on to explain how red flag laws operate and how low the evidentiary bar is to trigger enforcement.
“‘Determined to be’ is defined by the letter of this law to be an anonymous tip that an American citizen is a threat to themselves or others,” noted Higgins.
“You’re a police commissioner, a thin-blue-line brother, sworn to uphold the constitution and you’re saying you’d seize those weapons,” he continued. “I see that as a problem.”
SEE ALSO: Connecticut Considers Expanding ‘Red Flag’ Law, Eliminating Expiration on Gun Confiscation
Red flag laws work like so, a citizen “determined to be a threat” is disarmed and loses his right to keep and bear arms until he can convince a judge that he is not a danger to himself or others.
Under this system, the accused is guilty until proven innocent or, more accurately, rendered disarmed and defenseless until the state decrees otherwise.
It’s worth noting that it can be weeks before the accused is allowed to go before a judge to respond to the allegations and to tell the other side of the story. As the saying goes, justice delayed is justice denied.
The National Shooting Sports Foundation, the firearms industry trade association, spoke to GunsAmerica in the past about the many issues surrounding red flag laws.
“We are talking about depriving law-abiding citizens of their fundamental civil liberties and if that is to occur, those affected parties have a right to confront witnesses and evidence before a judge renders a decision to enforce an order,” said Mark Oliva, NSSF managing director of public affairs.
“In exigent circumstances when an individual poses an immediate danger to themselves or others, those individuals still have rights and must be afforded the opportunity to come before a judge within a reasonable timeframe. When an individual is arrested, they are before a judge within 24-72 hours. There’s no reason someone should be deprived of their civil liberties without the same standard of justice,” he added.
There is no hard evidence to suggest that red flag laws “save lives” to the degree proponents tout, but there is plenty of evidence that they are just the start of a larger confiscation scheme. Case in point, states have been expanding the roster of who is allowed to petition a court for a red flag order.
Initially, it was only law enforcement and immediate family members who wielded that power. Now, many states have added to that list registered nurses, psychologists, social workers, teachers, and a wide variety of extended family members and acquaintances.
But wait, it gets worse. In at least one state, lawmakers have discussed eliminating the expiration date on red flag orders altogether. In most cases, the revocation of 2A rights is only supposed to last one year. But politicians in Connecticut have talked about imposing it indefinitely.
It also bears mentioning that red flag laws do not provide help or assistance to those deemed a public danger. The government assumes that the immediate seizure of firearms is all that is necessary to render a potentially violent person impotent. No follow-up care or mental health treatment is administered.
The sole focus is on taking guns. But sharp objects, blunt instruments, and automobiles kill thousands of people each year. However, under a red flag law, a suspect’s access to these “weapons” remains unrestricted.
Last month, Biden signed the “Safer Communities Act,” the first major federal gun control legislation in 30 years. While many saw it as a big nothing burger in terms of its immediate effect on 2A rights, contained in that law are incentives for states to adopt these confiscatory red flag schemes. Nineteen states already have them on the books. Time will tell how many others follow suit now that there’s federal aid on the table.
The hard truth about red flag laws is they weren’t crafted by the state to take guns away from criminals or the mentally deranged. We have plenty of existing laws to handle those legitimate threats. No, politicians designed red flag laws to take guns away from you. And unfortunately, it appears they have at least one police commissioner in power that is eager and willing to do their bidding.
During a trial in West Virginia earlier this year, witnesses tell The Daily Beast, a state court judge whipped out his handgun, waved it in the air, and left it on the bench with the barrel pointing directly at the corporate lawyers who had irritated him.
Circuit Judge David W. Hummel Jr., who oversees cases in the tiny city of New Martinsville, repeatedly told The Daily Beast it never happened. When reached by phone in March, he initially professed shock at the allegations. On subsequent phone calls, however, his story kept changing as he claimed to recall more details about the incident.
“I did not have my 1911 at any point during that trial,” he said then, referring to a common type of semi-automatic pistol. “It was secreted in a drawer on the bench. I never showed my 1911 at the trial whatsoever—at any point during that trial.”
That judge is now under investigation by the state’s judiciary for violating the profession’s code of conduct, according to three witnesses now sharing information with law enforcement and official communications about the investigation reviewed by The Daily Beast. The judge’s own staff has since told an investigator that the judge did, in fact, display his gun openly during an attorneys-only hearing and boasted about having it in his possession, according to two of those witnesses.
Hummel insisted to The Daily Beast that there was no recording of the incident that would back up these accusations, but two witnesses say the state investigator has acquired a videotape of the interaction.
“You don’t understand what a terrible victimization it is,” said Lauren Varnado, the attorney who was standing at the podium when the judge pulled out his gun. “It was pretty traumatic for multiple people. The whole trial was insane.”
“We have no power in this situation,” she said. “It was way scarier than even just a normal person on the sidewalk. You need more power over us than you already have right now? That’s frightening, because he could order us to do whatever. Why would you ever need to pull out a gun?”
The judge’s show of force was the culmination of months of building tension between him and Varnado’s team of corporate lawyers. The Daily Beast has reviewed hundreds of pages of court transcripts and spoken to several people involved.
As with many legal battles in West Virginia, it all started with fossil fuels.
Until the case settled recently, Hummel oversaw a dispute involving West Virginia landowners who sued over the royalty payments they get from the natural gas giant EQT for fossil fuels extracted from the earth hundreds of feet below their property.
But the gas company’s lawyers accused the judge of never disclosing that his parents get gas company royalties that may someday pass on to him—sparking questions about a glaring conflict of interest. When the gas company’s lawyers sought to disqualify him, court transcripts show he grew increasingly aggravated at Varnado and her team.
At an April 2021 court hearing in which he was asked about his family’s gas interests, the transcript shows how the judge patronized EQT’s lawyers as he detailed his family tree and dismissed their concerns, ranting about how his cousin “Christy” got mad at him for not recognizing her at a wedding. When the attempt to have higher state courts disqualify him failed, Hummel started the next court hearing in similar fashion.
“Okay. Excellent. And I’m Judge Hummel, and I have no conflicts, Supreme Court said, so here we are. And this time I don’t have to talk about my Aunt Rose’s numerals or which shoe I put on first or anything,” he said on July 19, 2021, according to another transcript.
The dispute revolved around the energy company EQT.
Photo Illustration by Rafael Henrique/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty
The eventual trial was always going to be fiercely contentious. EQT cut its royalty payments nearly a decade ago, shortly before the energy value of the state’s natural gas production began to overtake coal. While the state has relied heavily on the exports of coal and oil since the 1800s, natural gas from the fracking of the massive Marcellus Shale underground has the promise to enrich the state.
By the time the two-week trial started in February in New Martinsville, the locals were so angry at how the gas company had cut their royalties in recent years that EQT lawyers felt the need to be escorted by ex-CIA private security contractors, according to three members of that team. But when lawyers on both sides were called into the century-old sandstone courthouse for a special hearing on Saturday, March 12, bailiffs at the entrance surprised the legal teams with a new rule for the day.
“Trial counsel only today,” they said, according to three witnesses who spoke to The Daily Beast on condition of anonymity, fearing potential reprisal.
Varnado’s private security guard and a paralegal were turned away. The lawyers made their way into the courtroom on the second floor. Once there, according to a transcript, the judge castigated the gas company’s lawyers for having private guards, noting that if there were any concerns about safety, “I promise you, I’ll take care of them.”
“We were never told these folks were security until most recently,” the judge said, according to a court transcript. “I got this man here carrying a man purse, which I make fun of him every damn day for wearing such a sissy-ass contraption. And I hear he has blood coagulant. I have blood coagulant up here too, and I’ve got lots of guns. Like, bigger ones too.”
Hummel then pulled out a black handgun from an over-the-belt leather holster beneath his robe, and started waving it around the room, according to Varnado and another person in the room.
Hummel then put it down on his wooden desk, known as a judge’s bench, and left the barrel pointing at Varnado, her New York law partner David R. Dehoney, and their local West Virginia attorney Jennifer Hicks.
The gun stayed there for the rest of the hearing. When the attorneys were directed to negotiate in a private room, they found the handgun still waiting for them when they returned. When lawyers had to approach the judge, the resting gun remained pointed at their faces.
“It’s just a violation of basic gun safety, having it out like that pointing at people,” Varnado said. “It was too stunning to even process it. My brain didn’t even process it until after the hearing concluded. I was on edge. I don’t know if it was loaded.”
Indeed, pointing a firearm at anything but a target violates the National Rifle Association’s primary rule on gun safety, which is to keep a barrel pointed away from people at all times. And the judge seems to have broken a second rule of safe gun handling, which is to check whether a firearm’s chamber is empty and clear of ammunition—then say so out loud.
In the days after the hearing, Varnado reached out to the FBI to report what happened. But she decided to seek help from the feds 100 miles away in Pittsburgh, concerned that local law enforcement might be untrustworthy given the judge’s position of power and influence.
Varnado still feels confident that was the right move. When The Daily Beast reached out to Wetzel County Sheriff Michael L. Koontz, whose deputies provide security outside the courthouse, the sheriff remembered that a special hearing happened that Saturday morning—but denied any knowledge about the judge pulling out the gun.
However, two sources with direct knowledge say a sheriff’s deputy who was in the courtroom that day has since confirmed to the state investigator that the judge brandished his pistol.
When reached by phone a few weeks after the episode, Hummel first denied anything remarkable ever occurred.
“There is no incident… I absolutely, categorically deny I had a gun that day in the courtroom,” he said. “It was just me and the attorneys. I had no reason to have a firearm that day… I’ve never shown a gun in my courtroom to anybody. I don’t want them to know that I have it. I do not display my firearm at any time during trial.”
“My job is not to protect anyone with firearms,” he said. “That’s what my bailiffs and deputy sheriffs are for.”
Minutes later, the judge called back and said he now recalled having a holstered gun on him beneath his robe during the trial the previous week. But it wasn’t the 1911 pistol, he said. It was a long, classic-looking revolver that hails from the days of the Wild West.
“I wore the Colt Peacemaker,” he said. “The Peacemaker never ever came out of the holster during that trial.”
When the judge called back a third time, he acknowledged showing something to the attorneys in the courtroom that day. But he said it wasn’t a gun.
“I did pull out a small, red first aid kit. But it was casual. I did show her a foiled packet, and said this is blood coagulant. We have preparations for active shooter situations,” he said.
In April, a spokeswoman with the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia told The Daily Beast that she was not aware of the gun incident. And records showed that Hummel had not been the subject of an admonishment or formal statement of charges.
But in the weeks since, Judicial Investigation Commission of West Virginia investigator David Hudson has been gathering evidence about the incident, asking witnesses to describe the firearm and how they felt about it being displayed by the judge, according to communications reviewed by The Daily Beast.
In a signed affidavit submitted to the investigator, Varnado, who hails from Texas, described the judge’s gun as a “Colt 45,” a widely recognized pistol otherwise known as a 1911.
The judge, his court clerk, a secretary, and a court reporter have all submitted sworn affidavits describing the events that day to the investigator, court reporter Holly A. Kocher told The Daily Beast on Wednesday.
Since March, the FBI’s Pittsburgh field office has repeatedly declined to confirm that a special agent there has been assigned to look into the incident. The judge did not respond to requests for comment on Wednesday.
The state judiciary, citing policy, declined to provide details about the ongoing ethics investigation. But its staff pointed to its website, which indicates that judges who violate the rules face a one-year suspension.
Categories
The Norco Shootout, 40 Years Later
Like some dud bog-standard school, Britain’s most important law-enforcers, the Metropolitan Police, find themselves humiliatingly condemned to ‘special measures’. About time too.
Now we have also learned that one in seven police forces is in special measures. Quite frankly, I’m not surprised.
The howling, blatant failure of all Britain’s police forces to do the job for which we pay them so much has been a scandal for years. It has been at its worst in the capital.
Now, at last, even our political class has begun to notice. If we have the sense to seize it, the moment has come to replace our failed police, who have traded for decades on a reputation won by others many years ago.
Normally the liberal elite, cocooned by money and power, have little idea of what is going on in this country. They seldom visit anywhere outside their privileged enclaves, and dismiss reports from the real Britain as ‘moral panic’.
For years they have not cared, as most of us have, that the police are too politically correct, and too absent, to be any use against crime and disorder. Now, it turns out that the police are not politically correct enough, either. Everyone thinks they are useless.
Scotland Yard’s fall comes after it was subjected to the leadership of Cressida Dick – for years the liberal establishment’s favourite police officer, groomed and polished so that she could finally step into the Commissioner’s job. And then she turned out to be an utter flop on almost every measure known.
+4
View gallery
Former Metropolitan Police Commissioner Dame Cressida Dick standing with Mayor of London Sadiq Khan
What are the police for? Why do we put up with them? If your car won’t go, or your hoover stops hoovering, or your fridge no longer keeps your food cold, you get rid of them and buy new ones. So what do you do when your police stop policing?
And they have stopped. Their response to burglary and car theft is now such a national joke that even official statistics have begun to reflect it. Their interest in quelling the nasty disorder that infects so many of our streets is zero.
As Her Majesty’s Inspectorate of Constabulary said of the Metropolitan Police this week, they suffer from ‘a barely adequate standard of crime recording accuracy, with an estimated 69,000 crimes going unrecorded each year, less than half of crime recorded within 24 hours, and almost no crimes recorded when victims report antisocial behaviour against them’.
The flat phrase ‘anti-social behaviour’ does not begin to describe a huge and horrible problem. For many years, in the long-ago days when people still had some expectation of police support, I was often contacted by despairing men and women trapped in their homes by menacing louts, intolerable noise, screeching persecution or incessant thefts from their small businesses, from which they could not protect themselves.
They knew that if they dared raise a hand in their own defence, the police – protecting their monopoly of force – would come for them. They, unlike their persecutors, were easy targets, not frightening, ready to co-operate with authority.
The Metropolitan Police of Wayne Couzens who was jailed for the kidnap, rape and murder of Sarah Everard
I remember a lawyer who wrote to me in a state of shock, having had his career ruined by the police after he grabbed a young vandal and tried to march him to the police station. He was the one who ended up in court. We all recall the horrible case of Fiona Pilkington, who killed her own severely disabled daughter Francecca and herself, after enduring ten years of unimaginable persecution from cruel neighbours – in which the police were barely interested.
We all remember Garry Newlove, kicked to death outside his home, after confronting a gang of youths he suspected of vandalising his wife’s car. The area had suffered for years from uncontrolled disorder of this kind.
But these events are not unique. They are among thousands of miserable episodes that never make the headlines, but which show the failure of the police to prevent this kind of thing.
Well, that problem only affected ordinary people, so the authorities, the BBC and The Guardian newspaper paid little attention to it and learned no lesson from it.
Sarah Everard, 33, was murdered by serving Met officer Wayne Couzens after she was abducted as she walked home in south London
But the police reaction to the murder of Sarah Everard by a serving officer – pitiful, lumbering and stupid – probably turned the balance among our governing class. Here was something they could not ignore: a woman had been murdered by someone she should have been able to trust utterly.
How had he been in a position to do this? One problem is that the police, as they now are, do not always attract the right sort of recruits, or retain the kind of men and women they really need.
The killer, Wayne Couzens, was obviously totally unfit to be a police constable.
He should never have been hired in the first place. His blatant lewd behaviour should have made sure that he was got rid of very quickly.
Yet he stayed, and seems to have been too readily tolerated by some of his colleagues. Then came the lumpish, concrete-headed police treatment of a perfectly reasonable vigil in memory of Miss Everard. Once again, the questions began to form, in letters of fire, in the public mind: ‘Whose side are the police really on? What actual use are they?’
I could write a book about the crisis of the police. In fact, I have done. (It is called ‘The Abolition of Liberty’ and is still in print 19 years after it was first published.) I have pressed it into the hands of senior police officers and one Home Secretary, begging them to pay attention. Not one of them has even responded.
Former prime minister and founder of the modern police force Sir Robert Peel
The police, I have argued now for almost 20 years, are doing the wrong thing. Their problems have nothing to do with numbers (they used to do far more with many fewer officers).
Their job is not to patrol Twitter, but to patrol the streets on foot, to prevent crime, to show that order and law will be upheld, to deter the first signs of bad behaviour so that it never gets out of hand.
This method still works (it was used to great effect in New York City a few years ago) and it was what they were originally hired to do by the great Sir Robert Peel.
Constables engaged in these simple, comforting activities do not need to get involved in politics or opinions. They rapidly become the friends of the law-abiding public, get to know their neighbourhoods, see trouble coming and pick up intelligence about all kinds of problems.
This kind of policing came to an end thanks to a few decisions mainly taken by the arch-liberal Home Secretary Roy Jenkins in the 1960s. We were never asked about them. Jenkins killed off regular foot patrols, and destroyed dozens of local forces that knew their areas and were respected there, replacing them with vast distant bureaucracies.
In Scotland, even more worryingly, local policing ended entirely with the creation of a nationwide organisation, which has unsurprisingly run into grave trouble since.
It would be just as easy to reverse these decisions, to begin next week to recruit and establish new, small local constabularies dedicated to the old Peel principle of prevention above all. And once they were ready, we could close down the vast, failed, arrogant monster which our police have disastrously become.
There is no longer any point in pretending that they have not failed. And when institutions fail, the best thing to do is to replace them from top to bottom. That would be a truly special measure.