Village Bans Police Gun Carry

[Art Eatman]

From the article: "...subsistence fishing and hunting are the primary means of support." And, "Police regularly deal with such potential flashpoints as domestic violence and liquor-fueled assaults..."

Whether it's "outsider" LEOs or tribal elders, whoever's doing any peace-keeping is apparently--from time to time--gonna have to deal with an irate drunk with a gun.

"City Councilman David Green, a former village police officer, said he opposes armed officers because of the inherent risk of abuse.

"They would start showing them off. I guarantee it," he said. "I could see the officer taking it out and doing tricks and the gun accidentally discharging. Or if they arrest somebody I'm afraid the suspect would take their gun.""

This sounds to me like that old bit of "judging others by your own behavior".

I realize there are no easy and simple answers to the problems of communities of that sort.

But I sure wouldn't be an LEO, there...

Art

 

[Cosmoline]

"Cosmoline - I suspect you're not the one who would be responding to the bloody assault in progress calls, or business burglary calls, or domestic violence calls that have caused the police to request firearms."

No, and I wouldn't be making those calls either.

 

[pax]

Moderator Note!

Folks, please do remember that LEO bashing isn't allowed on THR. All cops are not shaven-headed JBTs, not any more than all gun owners are inbred rednecks.

Put the broad brushes away, and keep the thread on topic.

Thanks,

pax
Moderator

 

[Coronach]

No, and I wouldn't be making those calls either.

So, its every man for himself then, I guess. Not exactly a civilized way of living.

If the populace is armed (and in the US of A they darned well are and should be), the ones who police the populace need to be armed as well. Common sense.

"A lot of young people wouldn't hesitate -- especially if they're under the influence of alcohol -- to grab a handgun from the officers and use it against them," Simon said. "Not that we're against handguns. But accidents do happen."

First off...that is not an 'accident.' Second off, you're in AK. The kid probably doesn't need to grab the cops gun. He probably has his own. Stupid argument.

Mike

 

[Keith]

So, its every man for himself then, I guess. Not exactly a civilized way of living.

I think that cops do indeed have a role in a civilized society, but it's hardly a critical one! Police show up AFTER a crime has been committed; one step ahead of the insurance agent. The cop takes a report and goes away never to be heard from again. The insurance agent takes a report and sends you a check.
Brendan Behan once said that there was no situation in life so miserable that it couldn't be made worse by the arrival of a policeman. It's difficult to discount Behan's observation.

I think free (and armed) citizens could easily do without the police.

Keith

 

[Art Eatman]

Keith, the whole idea of police--without regard to its validity--is that by having police, the rest of the folks don't have to tote a hunk of iron around with them.

Martin Luther King had a dream, also...

You should pardon my cynicism.

The "leaders" of this little community should read this week's issue of "Fred on Everything". http://www.fredoneverything.net

, Art

 

[Coronach]

I wholeheartedly agree that the police are no substitute for self-reliance, and that you, not some bureau in federal, state, or local government, are responsible for your own safety.

That said, there is a valid role for law enforcement in protecting members of society from other members of society. There are quite a few heavily armed corners of this world, where the citizenry is indeed armed and chaos pretty much reigns. HCI and VPC would have you believe that there is a cause-effect relationship here, but there is not. However, it does disprove handily that idea that simply having an armed populace ensures tranquility. As is so often true, its a wee bit more complex than that.

Mike

 

[TheeBadOne]

As is so often true, its a wee bit more complex than that.
-Coronach

Amen

 

[JoshM]

In regards to guns and policing, Hooper Bay sounds alot like my country, New Zealand
.
That being, a generally unarmed police service and a heavily armed citizenry.

As Keith has already pointed out there is probably alot of cultural factors involved.

I know in my country the somewhat old fashioned idea [Which I admit has serious problems] of Police Officers being able to handle violent drunks by 'duking it out' or giving a 'hiding' is considered far more acceptable, then resorting to, or the threat of, armed force.

This is one of the primary reasons we still have an unarmed Police service in NZ.

Basically, when there are issues of trust in a small community, any type of shooting incident [justifiable or not] is going to create some serious fractures between the locals

 

[spacemanspiff]

you know, maybe 50 years ago, villages didnt NEED a police force. their residents were hard working, respectable, and looked out for their fellowman. that cant be said of todays generation of natives up here. they vandalize, steal, assault, rape, just like their counterparts in larger metropolitan areas.
the argument that 'relatives would come after police', well that just is ignorant. the idea that 'kids would take the guns from the police', well thats even more ignorant.

the residents of hooper bay probably all have firearms in their home. but i betcha none of them carry, open or concealed. speaking of which, why hasnt the police gone to concealed carry?

 

[JohnKSa]

But I have to wonder just what those "benefits" are? I can defend myself. Why do I need some macho shaved-head LEO threatening me with jail time?

Wow, someone has some issues--either that or a very narrow view of the world.

In all my interactions with LEOs, I have run across very few with shaved heads, and none of them (shaven or not) have threatened me with jail time.

Furthermore, I see no reason why arming an LEO would make him more likely to be either shaven-headed or more likely to threaten a person with jail time.

Care to explain just why you would make a statement like this? It seems very much like a tip-of-the-iceberg sort of comment...

 

[Cosmoline]

I haven't been to Hooper Bay, but I'd be very surprised if people didn't carry openly. Every other village I've been to in the bush out there, I've seen openly carried shotguns and rifles. It's part of subsitence.

Anyway, who needs this "civilization"? It might be nice to have an unarmed police and a very, very limited government. I'm not going to criticize Hooper Bay for making that choice.

My orginal comment was harsh because I was responding to an oft-repeated assertion that Alaska is backwards and needs to come into the modern world. I dislike a great deal of the modern world, which is why I moved here. I think the vast majority of "civilized" cities and towns in the US are horribly over-policed. There are too many laws, and far too many intrusions on what should be private matters. Many Americans actually live under regulations that tell them exactly what their lawn must look like! I find that hideous. Now we're partially disrobing at the airports. It's all part of the same thing.

I have had some good experiences with LEO's, certainly. But I"ve also had my share of idiots shining a flashlight in my eyes demanding to know my phone number over and over again.

I ask you this. If I have my firearms, why do I need a bunch of armed LEO's patrolling the streets? It's not like they're actually going to protect me or anyone else from harm. That's an impossible task. Their real job is to investigate crimes that have already taken place. That might require a sidearm, but more likely it's going to require some chalk, yellow marking tape and a crime lab.

So why not simply phase out armed patrols and let people protect themselves? The money saved could be put into investigation. Radical idea, I know. But why not?

 

[Keith]

Cos,

I'm really starting to like you!

Keith

 

[TheeBadOne]

So why not simply phase out armed patrols and let people protect themselves?

Who's rules who's laws? Jim doesn't like trespassers, so he shoots anyone who cuts the corner walking on his lawn.
Betty feels threatened when ever some man leers at her (in her mind any look is a leer) and maces every "leerer"......
That's part of what the law does, it standardizes the rules as much as can be. No system is perfect, but rules and laws are always needed. Rural areas don't need as many laws and ordinances as citys where people are stacked one upon another.

 

[Cosmoline]

Well Jim shoots trespassers whether or not there are LEO's on patrol. So what's the difference? You can't put a cop on every corner, and asking LEO's to protect everyone from harm is unfair.

An elimination of armed patrols doesn't mean an elimination of criminal law. IMHO the armed patrols are at best an illusion of security, and at worst an oppressive fist.

But I also fail to see what the laws regulating the size of yards and the type of shrubs allowed have anything to do with protecting the public. My criticism isn't with the old penal codes, but with the mass of rules imposed on us by all levels of gov'ment since the New Deal.

 

[Oracle]

Guys, it's a village. If the police need to round someone up, why not just assemble a posse and do just that? I seriously doubt that this village in the middle of nowhere Alaska needs a rapid response team.

 

[spacemanspiff]

cosmo, my experience in villages is limited (thank god), so i may be wrong, but villagers might have a rifle or shotgun in thier truck (yes they often have vehicles to drive the 5 miles of roads) or on their atv, and definitely in their boat.
but thats because they are heading out of the village for something. but if they are just going from one house to another in their village, they wouldnt carry. that sound about right?

 

[Keith]

They don't "get a posse together". Such villages are extended families and when someone does something wrong, it's handled by the family, with the elders getting the final say.
If you beat your wife, her brothers (your cousins) might come over and kick your butt. And nobody will raise a hand to protect you.
If you get in a fight with another guy, one of you will be sent off to the fish camp for the summer (or something like that) until things cool down. If you have an alcohol problem, they'll send you for treatment and deal harshly with anyone who gives you booze.

Frequently, if they can't deal with the problem (or the individual refuses to comply) they'll throw him out as a last resort. You can not live in such a place without the cooperation of those around you, so you have no choice but to leave.
This is one of the things that creates a negative stereotype for Alaska natives. If you come to Anchorage or Fairbanks and you can't help but notice a lot of drunken, often homeless, natives wandering around. And many of those are simply the "bad eggs" that have been expelled by the villages. These aren't "typical" natives - these are the banished.

And the other issue which most of you are missing is that to an Alaska Native, "the law" (even for a relatively minor offense) means sticking the offender on a plane and flying him to Anchorage to be tried and judged and jailed by a bunch of strangers. It's VERY expensive to fly from these bush villages, so no family will be able to visit or help this guy through his ordeal. And that's a very big issue to a person who has been raised in one of these close-knit extended families - a native village.
It doesn't seem fair to them. And that's a big reason they prefer to handle most matters themselves. And this explains the resistance they have to empowering the police who can only interfere in something that's already being dealt with internally with their own form of justice.

Keith

 

[Oracle]

They don't "get a posse together". Such villages are extended families and when someone does something wrong, it's handled by the family, with the elders getting the final say.

Even better.

 

[spacemanspiff]

well, in SOME villages, things like domestic violence and rape are ignored. they chalk it up to 'thats the village way'. women cant expect to be protected, and they will often just let it happen to them. theres no one they can turn to, because they will get worse delivered to them if they report it to the authorities.
keith, you're in kodiak, and i'm sure you have come across some of my family (from Ouzinkie).

 

[Roadkill Coyote]

Looking past the idyllic rural fantasies,

and back at the facts...

but more likely it's going to require some chalk, yellow marking tape and a crime lab.

So the officer that got choked could have drawn an outline around himself, yeah, that makes sense. :banghead:

If you beat your wife, her brothers (your cousins) might come over and kick your butt. And nobody will raise a hand to protect you.

If you have an alcohol problem, they'll send you for treatment and deal harshly with anyone who gives you booze.

If this system works so well, then why did the police there receive 104 alcohol related calls for service, and seven reports of domestic violence one month alone ?

 

[spacemanspiff]

hey now! that kind of logical thought process is dangerous!


j/k

 

[JohnKSa]

Firstly, my comment about coming into the twentieth century was directed very specifically at a single village, not at AK in general. I don't see how it could be taken to mean AK in general, unless someone is reading it with a serious preconception.

Secondly, "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" is invariably an indictment, not the sign of an enlightened society.

People need some basic rules to live by and everything goes much more smoothly if there is a uniform set of rules to approximate "fairness".

To set up such rules there must be some form of government.

To make the rules meaningful, that government must have some means of enforcement.

I think we (we=U.S.) have overdone all three, personally, but reform isn't the same as abolition.

Cosmoline,

I assume you're overstating your case for the sake of your rhetoric. Do you really believe that we would be better off without LE?

 

[Keith]

I didn't say the system worked well, I only described what that system was. Still, it works at least as well as the "haul them off to Anchorage for trial" system - which doesn't work either...

Alcoholism is a plague among the natives and 90% of the legal problems revolve around it. Alcoholism is a social problem and not one in which anyone would choose a cop as the cure. It's not fair to the cop or the alcoholic. Most experts would suggest the best cure is family intervention - and that's exactly what these villages attempt to do.



Keith

 

[Keith]

JohnK,

I don't think you appreciate the logistics involved in bringing any bush village "into the 20th century". How does a village of 1000 people afford to run electric lines 500 roadless miles from the nearest power grid? How about sewage - any idea how you put workable cess tanks into permafrost or frozen salt marsh in a way that is affordable?

It's easy to sit there 500 miles away and sniff at those without MTV and flush toilets, but not so easy to find a solution.

I don't recall the name of the village, but about two years ago they installed a gas generator fired power plant for one such place. The cost of the power after figuring in what it cost to fly in all the equipment and pay for installation - and then the cost of fuel brought in by Dehavilland Beaver - was so high that most people just opted to stay with Coleman lanterns and wood stoves.

Keith