Which is a more effective method of Policing?

Would it be more or less effective for patrol cars to drive around with distinctive lighting on their vehicles, so that people can see them coming from a distance?

Some people say it's a deterrent to crime (and also may help people who need assistance), while others claim it acts as a lookout for criminals involved in an act of crime in progress.

What do you think?

I went with unmarked cars. Seems to me that if you see a police car coming, you're bound to try to look innocent. This is for many things, including the normal speeding.. people tend to slow down when they see that police car.

I am undecided. Here in Philly, for the last several years, the police commissioner had the patrol cars keep a steady blue light on one side of the roof of the cars, and a steady red light on the other side.

This way, you could see them coming. I think part of the idea was higher visibility would lead to people less likely to commit crimes, if they saw the cars on a frequent basis. It would also be helpful for people who were in emergency situations.

Now, the new commissioner decided that at least some of the cars will not have the lights on all the time.

I think something else that makes a difference is whether there are actual lights on top of the car. The new cars here.... no lights on top. I think they are built in the back window, or something like that. Very hard to notice right away... at least for me they are. I sometimes think it's more of a way to catch people off guard.

The newer cars here have a light bar (at least the regular patrol cars) put it is a much more lower profile than the older cars.

I am leaning towards thinking that they should have their lights on for higher visibility, because they are supposed to be public servants, there to protect and serve the public. If that is true, they should be as visible as possible, and if they need to catch somebody in the act or observe a certain element while remaining low profile, that is what unmarked cars are for.

The lights I'm talking about are steady lights, not flashing or strobe lights, and while bright enough to be seen from a reasonable distance, are not the blinding lights you can't see past while trying to drive past.

They can be seen in this video, starting at about the 0.55 mark (and at the very beginning of the video, before it starts playing):

Well... that car is well marked and made the officer a sitting duck!
And...to top it all off, it's another excuse to demand more gun control. (does anyone believe the guy who shot the officer was doing so with a legally owned gun?!)

Actually, the gun was stolen several years ago...from a police officer. Don't ask me how he managed to have his gun stolen; I never read an explanation about that.

Tater Salad wrote:Actually, the gun was stolen several years ago...from a police officer. Don't ask me how he managed to have his gun stolen; I never read an explanation about that.

And with more gun control.. the guy would be so very honest to just hand it over instead of saving it to shoot a police officer, right?
What a crock!

Anyway... I don't think I see lights on top of police cars here.

I will have to pay closer attention... seems I may not be actually LOOKING.

Breezey, gun control doesn't have anything to do with that particular situation, but I don't see how more guns would equate to less violence. They have very strict gun control in Great Britain, and the murder rate is very low in comparison to ours.

In fact, wherever they have strict gun control laws, the murder rate is lower. It's not a coincidence.

Towards the end of the video, the mayor talks about gun control.
Tater.... I think the same statistics would apply to laws broken with cars...speeding, hit and runs, non compliant with insurance, drunk driving, etc... would all be less if we had car control too... but is it right to take away the rights of most or all?
Would a drunk driver or speeder happily admit to that anyway?
After guns... what's next? And the real question..why target those who are legally owning guns? Even the guy in your video didn't have a gun he purchased legally.

Great. People who aren't legally allowed to buy guns obtain guns from people who are legally allowed to buy guns, and then illegally sell them to the criminals. So please tell me how this is justified by the NRA, who continuously throws up the second amendment as the reason that this shouldn't be legislated against. That and the loophole that allows ANYBODY to buy guns at a gun show, or from a "private seller", who can legally sell hundreds of guns per year to ANYBODY, without any kind of background check. And the NRA also somehow justifies people buying dozens of guns at a time, month after month, when their sole purpose is to resell them to criminals. The NRA says that ANY restrictions on this  would be a violation of the second amendment.

Meanwhile, cities like Detroit, Chicago, and Philadelphia, are regularly sued by the NRA for trying to restrict straw sales, when these gun purchases routinely end up in the hands of criminals as well as 15 year old gang members, who end up shooting innocent bystanders at random whenever they are in the line of fire as they are taking (very bad) aim at rival gang members, or even just some random dude who "disrespected" them.

PLEASE, don't defend this kind of bullshit!

Oh, I almost forgot the fact that the second amendment was written to protect the right of a WELL REGULATED militia. So how does the NRA or anybody else justify claiming that we shouldn't be allowed to have reasonable regulations concerning gun sales and ownership?

I'm going with a simple approach here... once a gun is legally owned, it doesn't seem to have any laws about selling and such... nothing to track it or see if a criminal is buying it.... that should be changed. Owners should have to prove who bought it... like a car maybe.
And... laws should be tougher on those willing to use good standing to buy weapons for those who shouldn't have them. Nail their @sses right away and make examples of each and every one of them.
Many times, punishment is too easy...

I'd like to think I can own a gun to protect myself, my children, my rights... and to hunt, if I so choose.
As for militia... they may some day be exactly whom we need to be protected from.

"“Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children. This is not a way of life at all in any true sense. Under the clouds of war, it is humanity hanging on a cross of iron.”
― Dwight D. Eisenhower"

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]