Question

[lynnz05]

I'm writing a final paper for my "Policing in a free society" class and I am kind of stumped on one of the questions. Just wondering if you guys could throw out some thoughts for me that would be great! The question is:
How has September 11th, 2001 changed the LE community, resources available, and response to particular threats against our country?

So far I have that the publics view of police and their expectations have changed. I also have that there are more grants and training available. The types of grants I have are communication, equipment and training grants.

Any help would be appreciated!

[Terminator]

How has September 11th, 2001 changed the LE community, resources available, and response to particular threats against our country?

Ask Ben.

[lynnz05]

Ask Ben.

I did and he gave the the grants and training ideas. I thought it would be nice to get a wider array of answers!

[Terminator]

I did and he gave the the grants and training ideas. I thought it would be nice to get a wider array of answers!

On second thought, you're much better to get a second opinion.

[MacLean]

I think it made many of the movements already underway easier to sell to gunshy brass...

Patrol rifles, sim training, active shooter training. All things that we knew we needed already, but easier to sell and support under the banner of "terrorism."

[armsmaster270]

There are also Traffic Safety grants

[countybear]

Don't forget the direct and immediate result of 9/11; the Federal Government's creation of the "Department of Homeland Security", which shifted the command and control structure of some existing agencies and created a completely new seperate agency (Transportation Security Administration) to incorporate the functions of what was previously handled primarily by private entities. Federal Air Marshals came into being as well.

Post 9/11, The new re-structure into Homeland Security relocated the Coast Guard under its wing, merged Customs and Immigration functions (Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), shifting these agencies away from the Department of Justice. The new DHS also took control of the Secret Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

I am sure that some of our LEF members with DHS can better explain what changes were made in more detail, if you can get them off of their lazy federally-planted inflated paycheck-collecting lead-filled asses to do it.

[ex401mp]

nah, they are probably enjoying being lazy way too much to respond with any good information.

[Willowdared]

I think the whole idea of "mutual aid" is a direct result of 9/11.

While we have a specific protocol when dealing with other agencies, I think the jurisdictional walls are no longer barriers when working together. There is no more "chain of command" approval when we ask for help, or are asked for help. The officer in the field makes the decision.

We have regular training for multi-agency responses, and our emergency ops center (when activated) is made up of reps from all the agencies/departments, so there are no frantic phone calls to another part of town for an answer - they are all in the same room.

[Hannibal]

Don't forget the direct and immediate result of 9/11; the Federal Government's creation of the "Department of Homeland Security", which shifted the command and control structure of some existing agencies and created a completely new seperate agency (Transportation Security Administration) to incorporate the functions of what was previously handled primarily by private entities. Federal Air Marshals came into being as well.

Post 9/11, The new re-structure into Homeland Security relocated the Coast Guard under its wing, merged Customs and Immigration functions (Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Customs and Border Protection, U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services), shifting these agencies away from the Department of Justice. The new DHS also took control of the Secret Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency.

I am sure that some of our LEF members with DHS can better explain what changes were made in more detail, if you can get them off of their lazy federally-planted inflated paycheck-collecting lead-filled asses to do it.

No that pretty much sums it up.

[ex401mp]

See? ^^^^

[countybear]

No that pretty much sums it up.

There ya have it.

[lynnz05]

Thank you for all your help everyone! I will be taking all your answers into consideration for my paper. If anyone else has any thing else feel free to add.

[suellen446]

NIMS - national incident management system came into being as a result of 9/11; even the dispatchers got extensive training for that. the whole point was for seperate agencies to be to be able to work together without a communication barrier, or missing links in the chain of command

[countybear]

I'd add that 9/11 indirectly created an increased personel shortage in law enforcement for qualified candidates. I'll qualify this in three ways:

1. The activation of armed services to fight the war on terror, (which included large numbers of reserve units and national guardsmen, many of which were domestic police officers), meant that many departments lost personnel whose military units were activated.

2. Aggressive enlistment bonuses, increased recruiting efforts by the military, and patriotic sentiments of the people expanded recruiting into military service and removed viable candidates from ready hiring pools for domestic police service.

3. Overseas police training ventures and the need for foreign private security, (Dyncorp, etc.) gave senior domestic police officers lucritive tax-free incentives to travel away from the U.S. to train foreign police during the reconstruction processes in Iraq and Afghanistan, luring them away from domestic police service for periods of one year or more.

I don't have the statistics readily available, but I am sure they are easy to obtain.

[MacLean]

I'd add that 9/11 indirectly created an increased personel shortage in law enforcement for qualified candidates. I'll qualify this in three ways:

1. The activation of armed services to fight the war on terror, (which included large numbers of reserve units and national guardsmen, many of which were domestic police officers), meant that many departments lost personnel whose military units were activated.

2. Aggressive enlistment bonuses, increased recruiting efforts by the military, and patriotic sentiments of the people expanded recruiting into military service and removed viable candidates from ready hiring pools for domestic police service.

3. Overseas police training ventures and the need for foreign private security, (Dyncorp, etc.) gave senior domestic police officers lucritive tax-free incentives to travel away from the U.S. to train foreign police during the reconstruction processes in Iraq and Afghanistan, luring them away from domestic police service for periods of one year or more.

I don't have the statistics readily available, but I am sure they are easy to obtain.

This is an area I have to dispute your usually fine points CB.

I'll take them one by one...

1. Not much to dispute here, we have lost some cops to activations. Been there myself for Noble Eagle/Enduring Freedom.

2. I think folks who fit this profile simply do not wish to be police officers any more because of the reduced reward. We don't treasure them, we don't pay them, and we ask them to suck shit without paying them or rewarding them. The military then looks like a positive place to stay for those rewards.

3. Money... I know some very good officers who fall for this lure, but the fact remains that like in number two above we have created an environ where the desire for service is no longer treasured. I'd be happy to be solvent if I was serving a greater good and was fulfilled thusly.


I have a minor issue with the way we hire LEO's if you didn't notice, and I think this dearth of LEO's is easily blamed by administrators on the current war on terror. I think the system needs an overhaul, and we need to evaluate what it is we are looking for in the thin blue line.

/rant off

[countybear]

This is an area I have to dispute your usually fine points CB.

I'll take them one by one...

1. Not much to dispute here, we have lost some cops to activations. Been there myself for Noble Eagle/Enduring Freedom.

As you said, no dispute. Next:

2. I think folks who fit this profile simply do not wish to be police officers any more because of the reduced reward. We don't treasure them, we don't pay them, and we ask them to suck shit without paying them or rewarding them. The military then looks like a positive place to stay for those rewards.

I was speaking more of the raw recruit pool, than of previously employed officers. Sorry for not being clearer on that. Regardless of the reasoning or reward, the fact still remains that these folks are out of the LEO equation for a period of time due to military service. Extensions on enlistments by the military and re-enlistment incentives being increased also mean that the standard four-year hitch is being lengthened, after which many newly-discharged military personel often seek out law enforcement employment upon their return from service.

3. Money... I know some very good officers who fall for this lure, but the fact remains that like in number two above we have created an environ where the desire for service is no longer treasured. I'd be happy to be solvent if I was serving a greater good and was fulfilled thusly.

I still don't see where you and I differ, with perhaps the exception of motivation. Let's agree that working conditions and rewards of a law enforcement career need improvement. That, I completely agree with you on and is not in debate between us. The fact still remains that the training opportunities for foreign police have presented an option for those officers willing to pursue it, and the demand has led to some leaving domestic departments, at least temporarily.

I have a minor issue with the way we hire LEO's if you didn't notice, and I think this dearth of LEO's is easily blamed by administrators on the current war on terror. I think the system needs an overhaul, and we need to evaluate what it is we are looking for in the thin blue line.

My post indicated no shifting of blame away from current management, only that these trends have made it more possible for a domestic police officer to seek greener pastures. There was not such an open demand previously; that is, prior to 9/11 and the war against global terrorism. Whether the officers who have left domestic police employment did so as refugees or opportunists, they still left.

/rant off

/reply to /rant: off

[MacLean]

LOL, well put.

I guess I'm just getting tired of hearing my boss say we can't hire cops because of the war.

[countybear]

LOL, well put.

I guess I'm just getting tired of hearing my boss say we can't hire cops because of the war.

Bosses have always lamented the pains of recruiting qualified candidates, they simply find new pillows to cry on. I consider our current Sheriff as an exception to the rule, because he is very proactive about our conditions and compensation. He knows that there is competition for good labor here, and has fought (and continues) a good fight to bring us up the food chain to attract and retain quality in our ranks.

I have found that most administrations though, have a constant whine about there never being enough "good recruits".

In the 60's, all the young people became "friggin' spaced-out peace-nic hippie anarchists", or else they were in Viet Nam, that continued into the early 70's.

Through the latter 70's and 80's, young people became me-first self-indulgent arcade junkies, and the increase of government support for college funding made them all a bunch of "geeky, fat-fingered college kids who couldn't make it on the street without a tank to hide in, and wanted boss' pay to do a grunt's job..."

In the latter 80's/early 90's, it was crack cocaine and designer drugs turning the young people into zombie thugs... then Desert Shield/Desert Storm militarism became the thief of our hiring pools.

Late 90's: self-centered yuppiedom, home electronic gaming, computers and rap-rage thuggery, and now in the early 2000's we blame 9/11 and military service.

If we looked through clear glasses, we'd see that the declining scale for police recruiting has paralleled the decline of police public image, rampant criminal justice system failures and ridiculously and increasingly hazardous working conditions. While pay and benefits have remained squeezed between minimum wage hikes and budget cuts for all but the upper-eschelon compensation levels.

There will always be excuses, but few who really "get it"; that the police business is a profession unlike any other. It constantly challenges those compelled to serve within its realm to perform tasks far above its levels of compensation and reward, and there will always be difficulty with recruiting and retention until that, and the public's view of its ranks are elevated. The answer isn't simple, it is societal. We must elevate what we pay, how we percieve, and how we answer criticism and victimization pandering. Our justice must become precious again, and those who serve it must be recognized as worthy of society's unified best efforts in support.

We walk such a thin line between order and chaos, between a public and it's government, and between society's ever-changing concepts of right and wrong, that it has become a razor's edge. It cuts both ways, but it cuts us deepest.

Administrators who fight political battles on fields littered by our sacrifices must understand that sacrifice has its limitations, especially when we (and our families) become spent. Once we reach the point to where we can no longer financially, physically, or emotionally continue to pay the bitter prices of our devotion, our devotion then becomes the next sacrifice. We, at that time must retreat, retire, or flee, and fewer who see our plight for themselves, will themselves wade into the fight in our place.

There's the soapbox, I just jumped up and down on it. You can have it back now.

[MacLean]

That about sums it up nicely, I think.

Very well said.