Up to 5,100 Cops?

Mayor Williams is calling for a full efficiency review of the MPD as part of the Crime Emergency, to see how efficiently the current police force is being used and to look at expanding the active officer corps on the street to a level as high as 5,100 police officers for the city. Is more police the answer, or is better policing the answer?

I hope that we can stop and examine current policy before it’s decided by fiat that there is significant need for an expanded police force. The better question is: if they need to expand the force, can they do it? It’s fairly difficult to find quality recruits who are willing to work in the MPD. In 2003 when DC added 175 officers, the Post points out it took more than a year to find that many qualified candidates and cope with attrition. How long will it take to add an additional 1,300 officers?

Better yet, where do we focus them? Do we bolster the current districts? Redistrict the city to create a more efficient system? There are a lot of questions we have to answer before it’s decided that we need a larger officer corps.

10 Comments so far

  1. Seen_it_all (unregistered) on July 27th, 2006 @ 9:24 am

    Isn’t this sort of exercise something that all municipalities should do periodically? Sometimes the mentality, “if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it”, is too easy to fall into and with the world the way it is, I can understand why it is easy for the crooks/terrorists to get away with what they have so far.

    But hey, again, it comes down to money, right? As bureaucracies suck the money away from potential training and recruitment programs, we are where we are now. So when an “emergency” happens, they want to throw money at it to fix it. Unfortunately, not enough proactive and too much reactive.


  2. Seen_it_all (unregistered) on July 27th, 2006 @ 9:26 am

    I forgot to mention that it would be OUR money – raise more taxes to pay for it.


  3. wayan (unregistered) on July 27th, 2006 @ 11:55 am

    5,100 officers would be a 1,300 increase over the current 3,800 force, and at an annual increase of 175 offices – what MPD says it can do now – that means… 1,300 / 175 = 7.4 years before we have 5,100 officers.


  4. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on July 27th, 2006 @ 11:58 am

    Once again, the short fix fails the plausibility test.


  5. JR Ewing (unregistered) on July 27th, 2006 @ 1:37 pm

    In typical Liberal fashion (or should I say Facism), Rep. Eleanor Holmes-Norton wants to spend more money to expand Police presence in the District.

    She was quoted as saying “… she also wants to make sure a $4.3 million budget increase for Park Police stays in place. The money could be used to hire more than two-dozen new officers to patrol the area”. (source: http://www.nbc4.com/news/9581596/detail.html).

    Sure, let’s throw more money at the problem and HOPE it fixes it. Rather than letting, oh I don’t know, COMMON SENSE prevail and let the law-abiding citizens of the District and the rest of the country that come to the District protect themselves. Yes, that’s right, let those of us that can, be responsible for our own protection and let those of us that legally can, carry our concealed handguns in the District.

    First, the police, no matter how numerous, CANNOT be everywhere ALL the time, and are therefore reactionary. Also, let us not forget what the US Supreme Court has already ruled… The Police ARE NOT REQUIRED to PROTECT individual citizens, only society as a whole. But people like Tony Williams, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, or Charles Ramsey won’t tell you that, no, they’d rather keep you under their ‘influence’ and ‘control’. What part of “…Shall not be infringed.” don’t these people understand?

    If you think about it, I mean actually think about it, who does the District extremely restrictive gun control laws actually affect? Certainly not the criminals!!! If it did, why then is there yet ANOTHER Crime Emergency in effect in the District???? That’s why that makes them CRIMINALS!!!! No folks, the only people the gun laws affect are those who actually obey the laws any way… the law-abiding citizens.

    Lastly, let’s not forget what the Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, … that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is OUR responsibility to ensure our GOD GIVEN, not government given, RIGHTS are preserved. WE ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN SAFETY! Stand up for your responsibility!

    It would cost far less to institute a Concealed Weapons Permit program for the District and to allow for reciprocity with those states that already allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons and let the police do what they tend to do best, solve crimes AFTER it’s happened.


  6. JR Ewing (unregistered) on July 27th, 2006 @ 1:57 pm

    In typical Liberal fashion (or should I say Facism), Rep. Eleanor Holmes-Norton wants to spend more money to expand Police presence in the District.

    She was quoted as saying “… she also wants to make sure a $4.3 million budget increase for Park Police stays in place. The money could be used to hire more than two-dozen new officers to patrol the area”. (source: http://www.nbc4.com/news/9581596/detail.html).

    Sure, let’s throw more money at the problem and HOPE it fixes it. Rather than letting, oh I don’t know, COMMON SENSE prevail and let the law-abiding citizens of the District and the rest of the country that come to the District protect themselves. Yes, that’s right, let those of us that can, be responsible for our own protection and let those of us that legally can, carry our concealed handguns in the District.

    First, the police, no matter how numerous, CANNOT be everywhere ALL the time, and are therefore reactionary. Also, let us not forget what the US Supreme Court has already ruled… The Police ARE NOT REQUIRED to PROTECT individual citizens, only society as a whole. But people like Tony Williams, Eleanor Holmes-Norton, or Charles Ramsey won’t tell you that, no, they’d rather keep you under their ‘influence’ and ‘control’. What part of “…Shall not be infringed.” don’t these people understand?

    If you think about it, I mean actually think about it, who does the District extremely restrictive gun control laws actually affect? Certainly not the criminals!!! If it did, why then is there yet ANOTHER Crime Emergency in effect in the District???? That’s why that makes them CRIMINALS!!!! No folks, the only people the gun laws affect are those who actually obey the laws any way… the law-abiding citizens.

    Lastly, let’s not forget what the Declaration of Independence says: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, … that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” It is OUR responsibility to ensure our GOD GIVEN, not government given, RIGHTS are preserved. WE ARE ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR OUR OWN SAFETY! Stand up for your responsibility!

    It would cost far less to institute a Concealed Weapons Permit program for the District and to allow for reciprocity with those states that already allow their citizens to carry concealed weapons and let the police do what they tend to do best, solve crimes AFTER it’s happened.


  7. wayan (unregistered) on July 27th, 2006 @ 2:16 pm

    Institute a Concealed Weapons Permit program for the District = common sense? Only in your warped world JR.


  8. Tom Bridge (unregistered) on July 27th, 2006 @ 3:12 pm

    Vigilantism isn’t the answer, JR, far from it. Good policing, community support and, yes, even some cash thrown at the problem might be a good thing.

    CCWPs aren’t the answer.


  9. Don (unregistered) on July 27th, 2006 @ 6:36 pm

    Regardless of where you fall on the handguns issue, it’s pretty simplistic to act as if it’s a one-stop fix for the crime issues in the District.


  10. Tom (unregistered) on July 31st, 2006 @ 11:55 am

    Take a look at http://www.crimeindc.org . Google Map mashup of crime in Washington.



Terms of use | Privacy Policy | Content: Creative Commons | Site and Design © 2009 | Metroblogging ® and Metblogs ® are registered trademarks of Bode Media, Inc.