1 in 136 U.S. Residents Behind Bars

Started by Sportsdude, May 21 06 04:35

Previous topic - Next topic

Sportsdude

 [FONT color=#00482f size=+1]Consent to Search and Seize Firearms -- St. Louis, MO[/FONT]  [FONT size=-1]Program Type or Federal Program Source:
Program to deter illegal gun possession.  Program Goal:
To reduce juvenile possession and carrying of guns.  Specific Groups Targeted by the Strategy:
Juveniles engaged in gun violence.  Geographical Area Targeted by the Strategy:
St. Louis, MO.  Evaluated by:
Department of Criminology
University of Missouri
St. Louis, MO 63103
Phone: 314­516­5031  Contact Information:
Sergeant Robert Heimberger
St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department
1200 Clark Boulevard
St. Louis, MO 63103
Phone: 314­444­5681  Years of Operation:
1994­present.[/FONT]   [HR SIZE=1]  Through the late 1980's and early 1990's, St. Louis experienced a greater increase in homicides and other violent crimes than most other U.S. cities of comparable demographics. Homicides increased dramatically (68 percent) from 1988 to 1989, rising from 130 murders to 219. The percentage of homicide suspects who were juveniles also increased from 4.9 percent in the early 1980's to 15.1 percent in the early 1990's. A profile of victims and suspects revealed that the vast majority of both offenders and victims were young black males and, in nearly all cases, homicides involved the use of a handgun.  [FONT color=#00482f]Firearm Suppression Program (FSP)[/FONT]  The St. Louis Police Department implemented FSP in 1994 in an effort to reduce the level of gun violence in the community. The overall goal of this initiative was to develop a community-based, problem-solving approach that would encourage greater community input and assistance in addressing gun violence and that would involve community residents in a process of identifying and confiscating illegal guns. The specific strategy was to remove firearms from juveniles by obtaining parents' consent to search for and seize firearms from their children and others living with them.  FSP was initiated by the St. Louis Mobile Reserve Unit, a police squad that responds to pockets of crime and violence throughout the city. The search of a home by the FSP can be initiated by citizen requests for police service, reports from other police units, or by information gained from other investigations. Once the unit receives a report, two officers visit the residence in question, speak with an adult resident, and request permission to search the home for illegal weapons. An innovative feature of this program is the use of a "Consent to Search and Seize" form to secure legal access to the residence. Officers inform the adult resident (typically a mother) that the purpose of the program is to confiscate illegal firearms, particularly those belonging to juveniles, without seeking criminal prosecution. Residents are informed that they will not be charged with the illegal possession of a firearm if they sign the consent form. By agreeing not to file criminal charges, the police can focus their attention on getting guns out of the hands of juveniles and send a clear message that juvenile firearm possession is not tolerated by police or the community.  The program has been criticized as depriving citizens of the right to protect themselves against crime. Furthermore, some senior police officers have stated that they prefer to use legal search warrants as they allow them both to arrest juvenile suspects and other persons engaged in criminal activity and to seize the guns.  Despite this criticism, however, evaluation of the program indicated a favorable response by families of juveniles who had guns confiscated and by the broader community. According to anecdotal reports, one parent even wanted to presign consent forms so that the officers could return any time. Another parent wanted to give officers a key to her house so that they could come in while she was at work.  According to the officers of the Mobile Reserve Unit, the program's success depended on their scrupulous adherence to the promise not to arrest the consenting adult. Several officers reported that they were willing to ignore evidence of all but the most serious crimes in return for access to homes of juveniles with firearms. This reflected the officers' view that the community was better served by removing guns from juvenile hands than by using evidence discovered in the search as a basis for making an arrest.  Over the 3-year demonstration period from 1994 to 1997, a total of more than 1,300 guns were seized. FSP officers reported that they conducted approximately 260 searches per year, finding guns in about half the houses. An outcome evaluation of the program is being considered.  [FONT color=#00482f]Cease Fire program[/FONT]  In 1997, FSP was incorporated into a broader law enforcement initiative called Cease Fire (modeled after Operation Ceasefire in Boston -- see [A href="http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile21.html"]profile 21[/A]), which is a coordinated effort across several law enforcement agencies to reduce youth violence. This program is being spearheaded by the U.S. Attorney's Offices in the Eastern District of Missouri and the Southern District of Illinois, but includes partners from the FBI; DEA; ATF; St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department; St. Louis City Sheriff's Department; St. Louis County Police Department; Missouri Highway Patrol; St. Louis County Prosecutor's Office; Illinois State Police; U.S. Marshals' Office; Jefferson County Sheriff's Office; Regional Anti-Violence Initiative; OJJDP SafeFutures program; St. Louis Family Court; Missouri Probation and Parole; St. Louis Public Schools; University of Missouri, St. Louis; and St. Louis City Neighborhood Stabilization Team.  Cease Fire's three-part strategy includes a crackdown on illicit gun trafficking through ATF's gun-tracing program; a swift response to acts of gang violence through intensive surveillance, youth outreach streetworkers, and social service interventions (a Ten-Point Coalition of religious leaders is taking a key role in gang intervention efforts -- see [A href="http://ojjdp.ncjrs.org/pubs/gun_violence/profile46.html"]profile 46[/A]); and Operation Night Light which sends police and probation teams out together on nightly visits to the homes of youth on probation to ensure compliance with the terms of their probation.  [FONT color=#00482f]Gang Outreach[/FONT]  One Cease Fire component, the Gang Outreach program, was launched in 1998 by the St. Louis Metropolitan Police Department and targets youth from neighborhoods that have either a high level of gang violence or few social service resources. When a gang-involved youth is shot, police contact a team of counseling professionals from Central Baptist Family Services, who meet with the youth. The goal of this counseling is to prevent victims or their friends from retaliating and to encourage them to leave gangs. While the counselor is working with the victim, police make contact with the parent and, using the "consent to search and seize" protocols, obtain permission to search the youth's home for weapons and other contraband.  These initiatives have resulted in youth moving their weapons from their family homes to abandoned buildings in the neighborhood. In response, police initiated the Demolition Project. Under this program, when police identify high-profile houses that are linked to gang activity, they have the authority to secure them (board them up) or raze them. Police now find that 40 percent of the abandoned buildings they search contain firearms or other contraband.

"We can't stop here. This is bat country."

Dissident

 I  hate to wade into this water, but I think you both forget that most people's feelings lie somewhere in between your arguments.  Plus, changing circumstances may lead us to change our minds as well.  You want an example of that, look at the "Brady Bill".

I've spent most of my life being firmly pro-gun control until recently, growing up with horror stories of friends and family members who were careful and responsible gun owners who got killed or injured in freak accidents involving firearms (including one funny anecdote about a guy who accidentally blew up his TV while cleaning a hunting rifle).

I was always deathly afraid of guns ever since a neighbour borrowed his dad's pistol to use in a cops and robbers game when I was a kid.  On a ski trip to the Sierras many years ago, one of my friends tried to show me how to use his handgun because we were staying in an area known for the occasional bear attack.  I started hyperventilating just looking at the thing and said I'd take my chances with the bears.

Right out of college I moved to a city I didn't know very well and discovered how dangerous my neighbourhood was when I was robbed at gunpoint, and then waited on the street at night next to a phone booth for two hours waiting for the police.  After a few more incidents like that, my mother offered to get me a "stun gun" (they were still legal in some states at that time).  I declined, as (unbeknownst to her) as a teenager I had been stranger-raped by a guy who got a tear-gas cannister (also a present from my mother) away from me and used it as a weapon on me instead.  I figured if someone could get a stun gun away from me he'd take away my ability to run away.  Sure enough, six months later I outran a mugger and I'm glad I didn't have a weapon on me.

I'm older now and have had a few injuries that leave me slower and not as strong as I was as a cocky young kid.  I've travelled alone by car all over the US and Canada, but I'm becoming hesitant now to do so without some way of protecting myself.  Methamphetamine is making its way into rural areas in Canada now, and I've already had a few white-knuckle moments driving through deserted stretches of the rural US in broad daylight with no towns or other drivers for 100 miles or so, with some good ol' boy playing cat and mouse games on the road with me, and probably getting a big laugh out of scaring some poor woman half out of her wits.

If I didn't live in Canada, where it's next to impossible to get one, I would purchase a handgun and get extensive training in how to use it, especially from a self-defence point of view, for when I travel alone.  Most of the time when someone wants to give a person they consider vulnerable a hard time, all they have to do is see that you have a gun to leave you alone.  If that isn't sufficient deterrent, then they're probably so wacked out on meth or something that you won't have any other way to defend yourself.  I've seen people become violent while on that substance and know how volatile they are.  I also know myself well enough to know that I don't stand much of a chance unarmed.

Obviously, this is just my own subjective opinion.  But ask anyone who has been a victim of violent crime--especially if they're female and/or elderly--and you might find one very similar to mine, or at the very least not on either extreme of the debate.
     
fenec rawks!

Dissident

Oh, and just for the record (not that it makes any difference), most of the "perpetrators" of the crimes I've dealt with were white.  
fenec rawks!

Lise

I declined, as (unbeknownst to her) as a teenager I had been stranger-raped by a guy who got a tear-gas cannister (also a present from my mother) away from me and used it as a weapon on me instead.

  Oh blimey, Dissident. So sorry to hear that.... don't know what else to say.
Always end the name of your child with a vowel, so that when you yell the name will carry.
Bill Cosby.

Dissident

 Just part of growing up in the good ol' US of A.  I look at it as a learning experience.  Canadians for the most part don't know how lucky they are.  Considering my background as a white, college-educated, middle-class female, I'm lucky too.

Talk to 10 American women over 25 you'll probably find at least half of them have experienced physical and/or sexual assault at least once in their lives.

I just wanted to let these two big strong men know that there's another perspective on their debate--one that knows no class or race.  

I want to maintain an independent lifestyle.  I've learned from experience the things I have to know to look after myself--but I'm going to be damned if I can't drive from Vancouver to Montreal or from Seattle to Chicago on my own.  And if I have to carry a gun to do it, I will.

Thanks for reminding me that, in many ways, Canada rocks.
   
fenec rawks!

Lise

Dissident, you're one of the strongest lady I know. It's so nice and refreshing to see that here. I don't know I would have done had I been in your shoes.

  I'm staying out of the 'debate' here with SD and TehBorken. My life has been pretty much gun-free for the most part and I'm hoping it'll stay that way.

  And yes, Canada rocks! Ppl should appreciate her all the more.
Always end the name of your child with a vowel, so that when you yell the name will carry.
Bill Cosby.

Sportsdude

Okay to everyone on here I am not anti gun. In fact I actually technically own one (.22 rifle with a scope) granted it came into my hands through grandpa's will.  I go hunting every year with my cousins not as a hunter but just to walk around.  I don't mind hunting (as long as its real hunting and not that stupid big game hunting thats a complete joke for the rich people).  I also don't mind hand guns.  I just don't want guns landing in peoples hand that

A) Have a criminal record

B) Mentally unstable

C) Terrorist or some anarchist cook (Eric Rudolph, The Unibomber, Tim McViegh)

  But I also do not want assault weapons available to anyone. For example my cousin just bought a SG80 or some military type rifle.  I asked what are you going to do with that thing since you can't hunt deer with anything but a shotgun in Illinois. He said to use it for shits and giggles.  Some  people don't want to believe it but those type of guns trickle albeit legal or illegal on to the streets at some point.

  Last time I brought up the gun issue and Tehborken got mad at me was over an article in the Seattle PI about the Capitol Hill Massacre.  If the guy who killed all those people was a resident of Washington he would not and never have been allowed to own a gun again because he would have violated A & B on my list. But he happend to live in Montana.

  Those are the people I don't want to have guns. Crazy people and guns are a bad cocktail. If the government can take your license away because of drinking and driving because your determental to society they should be able to do the same with guns.  After all if I'm a tv host on public broadcasting and I say 'f*ck', I will get fined, suspended and fired no matter what the first admendment says.  
"We can't stop here. This is bat country."

Lise

I never understand the need for guns. Sorry, SD but I really don't. Guns are made for one purpose and one purpose only, TO KILL. It doesn't matter how you look it it, they're weapons and should be wiped out from the face of the earth.
Always end the name of your child with a vowel, so that when you yell the name will carry.
Bill Cosby.

Sportsdude

Yes I know but when something is written in the bill of rights you can't really change it.
"We can't stop here. This is bat country."

Dissident

Well, look at it this way, SD.  My family came to the US in the late 17th century and fought in the Revolution and later for the North in the Civil War.

At the time firearms were the cutting edge of technology in warfare, and controlling them was paramount to suppressing opposition to tyranny.  

These days, maybe the equivalent would be to cut off people's access to the Internet?  I dunno.  I was arrested a few times during the first Gulf War exercising my First Amendment right to assemble and to "petition the government for redress of grievances" (none of the charges stuck, btw--our Constitution in action for good, in my case).

Guns are still around and don't really serve any purpose in our society aside from hunting, for the most part.  BUT . . . how would you feel if your granny got knocked over by some trailer-park denizens looking for some easy cash to get spun?  Or if your wife or sister gets raped by a man twice her size and strength?  You can't personally look after your loved ones 24/7.  

God knows, I'm strong, I'm not stupid, and I've tried to learn street smarts in my day, but I'm not going to spend my entire life locked indoors.  I don't think you want your loved ones to have to do the same.

Even if an attacker doesn't have a gun, what chance does a woman half his size and 2-3 times his age have, without something to be an equaliser?  What do you suggest, that she call the police?

Sometimes I wish the police would make some of these boneheaded young people give their guns to their elderly relatives instead of turning them in.  Considering that there's a good chance that a lot of those handguns were stolen from retirees' homes in the wealthy suburbs, it seems only fair.
 
fenec rawks!

Sportsdude

Tasers?

Really I know where you are coming from. If you look into my earlier posts my church has been broken into twice, shot at once.  A family friends mother was shot in killed in a drive by in her car about 15 years ago. Another family friend's great grandmother got mugged by a man in North St. Louis she was 95 and she died from the mugging. Never found the guy. I've never been mugged but I've been beaten up really badly back in middle school and high school by a bunch of thugs. (it takes more then one person to take me down) but that happend on school grounds and not on the streets where I would garuntee you one of the people would have had a gun.  Its too easy for kids these days to get there hands on a weapon.  I never went to the night clubs that guys on my football team went to but I remember 5 stories of fights that escaladed into shootouts leaving people dead.
"We can't stop here. This is bat country."

TehBorken

  Sportsdude wrote:
Okay to everyone on here I am not anti gun.

Me neither. lol


In fact I actually technically own one (.22 rifle with a scope) granted it came into my hands through grandpa's will.

Where's the "technically" part? Do you own a gun or not?


I just don't want guns landing in peoples hand that [/div] [div style="font-style: italic;"]A) Have a criminal record[/div] [div style="font-style: italic;"]B) Mentally unstable[/div] [div style="font-style: italic;"]C) Terrorist or some anarchist cook (Eric Rudolph, The Unibomber, Tim McViegh)
 
No argument there. I agree completely.



But I also do not want assault weapons available to anyone. For example my cousin just bought a SG80 or some military type rifle.  I asked what are you going to do with that thing since you can't hunt deer with anything but a shotgun in Illinois. He said to use it for shits and giggles.

You know SD, incredible as it may seem, some people actually have an interest in firearms the same way other people have an interest in hot rods, computers, football, card collecting, etc etc.

You make it sound as though he needs a reason to own that rifle. He doesn't, any more than my neighbor needs to have a 1965 Mustang with the Hemi engine. Why would he need a car that can go that fast? It should be illegal, right? It's so fast that I wouldn't want that car available to just anyone.




Some  people don't want to believe it but those type of guns trickle albeit legal or illegal on to the streets at some point.

That's absolutely true, and the same is true of cars- some are stolen and end up being sold to god knows who! It should be illegal! Oh, wait...it is, and that hasn't stopped it from happening...hmmmmm....



Last time I brought up the gun issue and Tehborken got mad at me was over an article in the Seattle PI about the Capitol Hill Massacre.

I didn't get mad at you, I just told you that you were wrong about some of your statements. Like this next one....


"If the guy who killed all those people was a resident of Washington he would not and never have been allowed to own a gun again because he would have violated A & B on my list."


And of course he could never have gotten one illegally, right? He might not be "allowed to own one" but that wouldn't stop him from getting one. Just like people who aren't allowed to drive but still do. The problem is that by and large laws don't work. People who want to commit a crime aren't deterred by "laws". After all, they're committing a crime, why should anyone expect them to obey the law??


But he happend to live in Montana.

And it wouldn't have mattered if he'd lived on a Lunar Colony. People who want to get something (guns, drugs, etc) will do it. For example, just look at the drug problem in prison. I mean, it's prison, and they still can't keep drugs out! People will try to get the things they want and they won't usually give a damn about the law.



Crazy people and guns are a bad cocktail.

No argument here.


If the government can take your license away because of drinking and driving because your determental to society they should be able to do the same with guns.

And therein lies the fallacy, SD. The government can suspend or revoke your driver's license, but it won't keep you from driving if you really want to. Just like with drugs. Just like with guns. Just like with abortions. Just like with anything.

Basically my point is this: if someone hits you with a hammer, don't blame the hammer. It's not the hammer's fault. And the fault doesn't lay in the fact that hammers are available to anyone. It's the person on the other end of the hammer who's to blame, okay?

 
The real trouble with reality is that there's no background music.

Dissident

  Sportsdude wrote:
Tasers?
Really I know where you are coming from. If you look into my earlier posts my church has been broken into twice, shot at once.  A family friends mother was shot in killed in a drive by in her car about 15 years ago. Another family friend's great grandmother got mugged by a man in North St. Louis she was 95 and she died from the mugging. Never found the guy. I've never been mugged but I've been beaten up really badly back in middle school and high school by a bunch of thugs. (it takes more then one person to take me down) but that happend on school grounds and not on the streets where I would garuntee you one of the people would have had a gun.  Its too easy for kids these days to get there hands on a weapon.  I never went to the night clubs that guys on my football team went to but I remember 5 stories of fights that escaladed into shootouts leaving people dead.


God, that's awful.  It's terrible when anyone is killed, no matter how old they are, but I've got a couple of aunts in their 90s and it would break my heart if, after all they did for their family, they were killed in such a horrendous manner.

I agree with you in so many ways about how bad things are with guns in neighbourhoods.  Just a few weeks ago a guy in the witness protection program in SF slipped away from his "keepers" to visit a friend in his neighbourhood and he was killed before he could testify.  Though people in San Francisco used to call me a racist for complaining about it, I got tired of dealing with a nightclub two doors away from me (in a relatively well-off area near the downtown area) that was frequented by Korean gangsters.  Club patrons used to park in a lot across the street from my place.  There were numerous stabbings in that parking lot and occasional gunfire, and it scared the Christ out of me.

But from my point of view it doesn't matter the colour of the aggressors or the victims.  You can't defend yourself with a knife.  If the range of a taser gun allows an old or disabled person to disable an attacker without coming with striking range and gives them enough time to get away, then I'm for that, believe me.  Otherwise, I sure know you can't count on the cops showing up before your body's cold.

Like I said in previous posts--I don't like guns.  If there's an alternative, I'm all for it.  Then we can really get them out of the hands of those who--for whatever reason--care nothing for others.

 
fenec rawks!

Dissident

At the risk of being provocative:  I can see your arguments, TB, but at this time in our history I am of the opinion that Libertarianism is tantamount to playing into the hands of a truly reactionary and tyrannical government.

Mind you, like I said, it's just my opinion--but from the outside it looks like a couple of kids fighting in the sandbox while Big Daddy mows down the rest of the neighbourhood with his tank.
 
fenec rawks!

TehBorken

 Dissident wrote:
I can see your arguments, TB, but at this time in our history I am of the opinion that Libertarianism is tantamount to playing into the hands of a truly reactionary and tyrannical government.

Libertarianism? Did I miss something?
The real trouble with reality is that there's no background music.

|