Police?…Or Shomrim?
print
tell a friend
Of course they will never say they are better. But the idea of controlling surveliance cameras instead of the police is an indicator that they think it.
Neighborhood watch groups work best when they coordinate with the police. It is my understanding that this is mostly the case. In the Leiby Kletzky case, the police had publicly praised the efforts by Shomrim for their efforts – even though the police were not contacted about Leiby until a few hours after the Shomrim were. The Police said that it wouldn’t have made any difference.
The truth is that the public the Shomrim serve trusts them more than the police. They ought to be disabused of that notion. That the police were not contacted first or simultaneously in the Leiby Kletzky case speaks volumes about who is considered the first line of defense in Boro Park and similar neighborhoods. But Shomrim should be an auxiliary to the police. Not the other way around.
I would add that every volunteer should be trained in a program that is either coordinated or approved by the police – and then get certified! Their efforts together will then maximize protection of the community.
The police are better trained and more experienced to deal with crime and ought to be seen in that light. But in denying police access to these surveillance cameras Mr. Daskal feels that Shomrim are better equipped. And in the case of battered wives that could mean disaster.
tell a friendAbout the Author: Harry Maryles runs the blog "Emes Ve-Emunah" which focuses on current events and issues that effect the Jewish world in general and Orthodoxy in particular. It discuses Hashkafa and news events of the day - from a Centrist perspctive and a philosphy of Torah U'Mada. He can be reached at hmaryles@yahoo.com.
You might also be interested in:
You must log in to post a comment.
No Responses to “Police?…Or Shomrim?”
Loading ...
They camera's are paid for by us the tax payers they should be in public hands. When Shomrim buy and instal their own cameras then they can keep them private.
What, in the name of all that is holy would motivate Mr. Daskel to make a statement that at best shows a patent lack of insight in the behavior of both the abused and
the abuser and at worst is just plain dangerous. Patriarchy go this degree is, in and of ifself a form of abuse. Allowing volunteer "watch" groups to become investigator, jury and judge allows for personal alliances to get in the way of legitimate, objective investigative processes set up to protect vulnerable populations from various forms of exploitation and abuse. Someone should remind Mr. Daskel that abusers tire of their initial victims and move on to children. Abuse, whether
or not is still abuse and still a crime; vigil anti watch groups who tacitly sanction abuse by stonewalling investigations may be guilty of aiding and abetting in a felony. Privacy ends when a person is a threat to their own or another's safety. Mr. Daskel would do well by his c ommunity by partnering with police to prevent abuse rather than using his position of authority and power to further harm to victims of domestic violence. No one desrves to be abused. EVER.
Kimberly A. Phillips, APRN ACNP-BC