Why is it up to me to end the violence on our streets when I am not listened to if I have an answer.?

As a serving police officer in a major capital city, I have to say the amount (quantity) of violence has not changed, however the ferocity of that violence has. When I was a young man and going out to pubs and clubs, there was violence - the difference between then and now is that way back when I was a young man a fight would occur and when someone hit the floor the fight ended and that was that. Today the violence doesn't stop at that point - we now have glassings on a more regular basis, kickings are more frequent and punching a prone unconcious person on the ground is far more common. In most cases alcohol seems to be the catalyst (note I do not say cause)

As a police service we can only put so many police on the street, this is unfortunately an economic reality. We take as much action as we possibly can to prevent the violence occuring, but as I say we can't be everywhere all the time.

The time has come that we need to seek the assistance of the general public in the fight against the unprecedented ferocity of the violence we face. We need to educate and seek to obtain a cultural change in order to stem some of the this violence.

Please don't read this as a cop out, it isn't. Police can investigate, pick up the pieces but we need a cultural paradigm shift to truly achieve change.

Police are seeking a partnership with the public to help us all find a way through and prevent some of these horrific crimes.

Well, he left it open-ended and open to interpretation... The way I interpret it as a police officer is as follows.

He's asking for the public to take some type of action. It's never a good idea to get involved directly with a suspicious person or situation. That's what the police are for. But if you see something/someone that looks out of place (or something going on), by all means, call the police.

There are a lot of times I'll get to an incident, only to find out that nobody called the police right away. It really amazes me when it's some type of a violent incident... There could be 50 witnesses standing around, and not one person out of those 50 called 9-1-1. Some passerby later calls the police to report something going on, and only because they see a large group of people standing around.

It's not up to you individually to end violence on the streets, just do something to at least report it so the suspects can be arrested. A lot of police officers also disagree with my position about this, but I think it's a great idea for citizens to get a CPL (concealed pistol license) and carry with them. Not so you can do anything to try to end a violent incident yourself, but so you can protect yourself in the even you're ever a victim of a violent crime.

First of all, who the heck is Mr. Brumby!?!

Second of all, what exactly should the public do against a »thug« that thinks nothing of using violence to advance his volition? I suppose that you could kill the perpetrator with a firearm or some other lethal weapon, but you would be just as bad as the criminal (if not worse!!!) in that case. It is both suicidal and foolish to solicit trouble like this. Criminal statutes are not written to define who is the good guy versus the bad. If you level/brandish a weapon, that is aggravated assault. If your attempted attack makes contact, that becomes assault and battery. It matters nothing if you do that to a »criminal« or if you get it done to you; that is a crime. What I think you are talking about is vigilantism (aka taking the law into your own hands). Vigilantism is nothing to take lightly; aside from possibly losing your life, it is very difficult to objectively explain why your actions should be seen as close to virtue as those of the »criminal« are to vice. Simply put, why is one form of street mob violence better than another?

Your best bet is to thoroughly research the political candidates that offer themselves for election and cast informed votes when the time comes. If you are unhappy with the incumbent district attorney, vote for one of his rivals that you think will do a better job. If you are called for jury duty, bear in mind that you can acquit the defendant if you do not agree with the law the prosecutor is using to frame the trial. The jurors availed for »California vs O.J. Simpson« refused to convict O.J. Simpson when he was accused of Nicole Brown's murder to signal their disdain for testimony from racist police officers. O.J.'s bad judgment eventually caught up with him and he was made to serve some jail time. NOBODY gets a free pass all of the time, compadre; just ask O.J. Simpson, Martha Stewart, and Bernie Madoff.

I would think twice about taking the law into your own hands like Mr. Brumby is suggesting if I were you.

I mean as a police officer I would t personally advise you to just go up to them, however you can watch them and see if there doing anything illegal you can call your local police dept and im sure they would be more than happy to come and handle the situation. But having a neighborhood recover from criminal activity takes time and good law enforcement.good luck to you and you neighborhood.

i think the idea behind this is, as civillains are armed, they want us to take more action in getting these people off the streets. IE learning to identify a suspitious person and call the police, rather than letting them be.

just a guess.

Misdirection. The danger is the thugs in government.