[Keith]

Cops feel cuffed without firearms
Hooper Bay leaders fear guns would make village more dangerous


By RACHEL D'ORO
The Associated Press

(Published: August 11, 2003)

James Hoelscher is Hooper Bay's police chief. His officers' desire to carry firearms and the village leaders' refusal to permit them have caused a rift. Town leaders fear firearms will make the village more dangerous. Police say town leaders are being unreasonable. (Photo by AL GRILLO / The Associated Press)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Elmer Simon, tribal government administrator, said he would support properly trained officers using guns -- but only in emergency situations. (Photo by AL GRILLO / The Associated Press)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hooper Bay, among the last remaining communities in Alaska without running water or a sewer system, is the only known municipal government that forbids its officers from carrying guns. (Photo by AL GRILLO / Anchorage Daily News)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Hooper Bay police officer Harold Bell talks to children playing around a barge recently. Hooper Bay is a village of 1,100 people on the windblown Bering Sea coast, about 515 miles west of Anchorage. It is among the last communities in Alaska without running water or a sewage system. (Photo by AL GRILLO / Anchorage Daily News)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Click on photo to enlarge
HOOPER BAY -- When Hooper Bay's seven police officers go on patrol, they tend to deal with small-town peacekeeping duties, not the violent crime of their big-city cousins. And that's fortunate, for Hooper Bay is the only known municipality in the United States whose police officers are forbidden from carrying firearms.

The desire of officers to carry arms and the refusal of village leaders to permit them have caused a rift between the two. Town leaders fear firearms will just make the village more dangerous, even in the hands of cops. Police say town leaders are being unreasonable.

"Unpredictable, unexpected things don't happen here often, but they do happen," said Police Chief James Hoelscher, 27, who has lived in Hooper Bay since he was 13 and became a village police officer at 18. "A little Yup'ik Eskimo village is not immune to what can happen in Anchorage or Los Angeles or anywhere else."

Village leaders are unconvinced.

Elmer Simon, tribal government administrator, said he would support properly trained officers using guns -- but only in emergency situations. Otherwise, he said, they should keep them locked up.

"A lot of young people wouldn't hesitate -- especially if they're under the influence of alcohol -- to grab a handgun from the officers and use it against them," Simon said. "Not that we're against handguns. But accidents do happen."

Hooper Bay is a village of 1,100 on the windblown Bering Sea coast, about 515 miles west of Anchorage. It is among the last communities in Alaska without running water or a sewage system.

The village has existed for more than a century, incorporating as a city in 1966. It has steadily grown in recent years despite high unemployment and few job opportunities. Commercial fishing and subsistence fishing and hunting are the primary means of support. Well over a third of the population is unemployed and receiving public assistance.

And no one can remember a time when police carried guns.

Hooper Bay leaders cite concerns over potential mishaps or misuse of authority, even by professionally trained officers. Hoelscher and two other officers graduated last fall from the University of Alaska Fairbanks' law enforcement academy.

Both The Fraternal Order of Police and the International Association of Chiefs of Police said they were unaware of any other organized municipality in the nation whose officers don't carry guns.

But Hooper Bay police have never carried firearms, old-timers say. And until the current flap, it's never been an issue.

"We're not a big enough village to justify carrying guns," said City Administrator Raphael Murran.

The chief said there's good reason for his officers to carry firearms. In fact, he keeps his own gun locked up at the station and, policy or not, he has taken it on a few potentially risky calls. It's not always possible to wait for armed help from state troopers in Bethel, 150 miles away, he said.

"I'd rather be fired than killed," said the married father of four. "I have a family to go home to."

Police regularly deal with such potential flashpoints as domestic violence and liquor-fueled assaults in Hooper Bay, which bans the sale or importation of alcohol, Hoelscher said. In June, police logged 104 alcohol-related calls and seven domestic violence reports. They made 33 criminal arrests on charges including assault, harassment, eluding police and furnishing alcohol to a minor.

Then there was the choking incident.

In December 2001, police answering an assault call ran into a drunk and combative man who lunged at an officer and choked him until the officer blacked out, according to court documents. The officer recovered, and the man served time in jail after pleading no contest to assaulting a police officer.

Hoelscher thinks the assault might not have occurred if the officer had been wearing a sidearm, even if it was never drawn.

"It's hard to guess what would have happened if the officer was armed," Hoelscher said. "But if people know you're armed, they might think a little harder."

Or react more aggressively, opponents say.

"Knowing an officer is armed may amplify the situation," said Simon, the tribal administrator. "All areas have to be considered. It's a serious issue."

In May, Hoelscher, five officers and three dispatchers threatened to resign in protest over what they perceive as micromanagement and a lack of support by city officials.

In his May 5 resignation letter, Hoelscher said other council policies and budget cuts undermined the department. He's running the department now on an annual budget of $330,000, compared with $490,000 two years ago, when he had 10 officers.

Ten days later, city officials met with police and voted unanimously to reject the resignations, then gave the department a vote of confidence. Guns were not mentioned at the meeting, but Hoelscher and his staff agreed to stay if the city would let police do their jobs.

"It's working out great so far," Hoelscher said. The gun issue, however, "needs to be brought up eventually. But it's a political hot potato."

Hoelscher plans to address the council after he and the two other academy-trained officers are fully certified in early November after field training by Alaska State Troopers this summer.

Mayor David Bunyan said he would support trained police officers' carrying guns at all times. He praised the current police department for cutting down on crime in a village with a history of rampant lawlessness, primarily before residents voted to outlaw alcohol in 1983.

"Training is a whole package, and gun use is part of that training package," Bunyan said.

City Councilman David Green, a former village police officer, said he opposes armed officers because of the inherent risk of abuse.

"They would start showing them off. I guarantee it," he said. "I could see the officer taking it out and doing tricks and the gun accidentally discharging. Or if they arrest somebody I'm afraid the suspect would take their gun."

Trooper 1st Sgt. Duke Ballard, a 23-year state trooper veteran, said he has mixed feelings about arming Hooper Bay police.

On one hand, there's the village's unruly past. But on the other, people are used to guns being restricted to state troopers, not local police. Then there's the cost of liability insurance, training, ammunition and weapons recertification.

"It's not a simple matter of buying a box of bullets and a gun," Ballard said.

John Olson, a lifelong Hooper Bay resident who manages the village grocery store, said many locals are uncomfortable with the idea because they think it's unnecessary, even dangerous. What if the officer dropped the gun in a scuffle? What if the wrong person got it? What if someone got hurt -- or worse?

"In this town, everyone knows everyone, a lot of people are related to each other," Olson said. "If a cop accidentally shot someone, I could see a bunch of relatives going after them.

"I personally don't mind if police carry guns. But I don't see it happening here."

[Wildalaska]

Of course the cops dont need em, every house has em. Every house.

WildaktrooperswearthreatplatesontheirbacksyouknowAlaska

[Keith]

Thats right.

The article doesn't address it, but unless there is some specific law in place, anyone in town (except the cops) could carry a concealed weapon - or open carry as far as that goes!

I guess they've made their choice; they trust the citizens more than they trust the cops.

Keith

[chadintex]

A lot of young people wouldn't hesitate -- especially if they're under the influence of alcohol -- to grab a handgun from the officers and use it against them

So, they don't need guns, because someone might shoot them? That just makes my brain hurt.

[TheOtherOne]

Well over a third of the population is unemployed and receiving public assistance.I'll have to add this place to my list for when I decide to "lose" my job and get some of my tax money back.



If the citizens get guns, then I don't have a problem with the cops having them either. All gun control makes me mad, but what really puts the icing on the cake is when they let the cops have what we the people legally can't. I guess this story is a case of the opposite -- maybe the town leaders are just trying to exact some revenge for alot of those other cities in the U.S.

[veloce851]

perhaps they wouldn't have all these problems if they chose to drop prohibition and then allow their officers to carry like the rest of the population.
:rolleyes:

So I guess the middle of nowhere in Alaska is just as prone to idiot leaders, as the rest of the lower 48. :barf:

[Henry Bowman]

Sounds Like Mayberry. They got by with one unarmed Sheriff and a deputy with his one "bullet" carried in his pocket.

Why do they need 7 cops for only 1,100 citizens?

Seems like a better policy, especially in the state of AK, would be to neither prohibit nor require sidearms, no hardware (or training?) supplied at municiple expense. Risk is liability for shooting while on duty. Of course they may be liable to the cop if he/she is injured or killed while disarmed and responding to a domestic dispute, etc.

[MLH]

That's only two per shift and no off days + one for relief if someones sick. I believe they could use a few more.:scrutiny:

[spacemanspiff]

http://www.adn.com/front/story/3643250p-3676592c.html.

City Councilman David Green, a former village police officer, said he opposes armed officers because of the inherent risk of abuse.
"They would start showing them off. I guarantee it," he said. "I could see the officer taking it out and doing tricks and the gun accidentally discharging. Or if they arrest somebody I'm afraid the suspect would take their gun."
John Olson, a lifelong Hooper Bay resident who manages the village grocery store, said many locals are uncomfortable with the idea because they think it's unnecessary, even dangerous. What if the officer dropped the gun in a scuffle? What if the wrong person got it? What if someone got hurt -- or worse?

whiskey tango foxtrot???

[Jack19]

I wouldn't police there for love nor money.

Why do they need 7 cops for only 1,100 citizens?

My guess? And I could be wrong.....alcohol abuse.

[Keith]

perhaps they wouldn't have all these problems if they chose to drop prohibition and then allow their officers to carry like the rest of the population.

I think what's happening here (and remains unsaid), is that the cops are all white and the village is all Yupik Eskimo. They're not comfortable having a bunch of armed "outsiders" interfering in matters that are traditionally handled by the families, elders, etc.
You can't imagine how impossibly remote places like Hooper Bay are. There are no roads to places like this. These "unemployed" people don't consider themselves unemployed - they hunt whales, caribou, moose and put up thousands of salmon every summer.
When somebody goes off the deep end and commits a crime, they'd rather handle it themselves than have the white boys haul them off to be tried and imprisoned in Anchorage - a place many of them have never been and can't afford to fly to, even for a visit.

A couple of years back, another village had an armed confontation with State Troopers who had come in to take a prisoner away. Most of the village showed up at the airstrip with rifles and refused to let the Troopers come into town.

Just a slice of life in this big country of ours!

Keith

[Cosmoline]

I spent a few nights in Emmonak, and recall seeing virtually everyone carrying a firearm, often in combination with a game bag. Per capita, the SW bush is probably one of the most gun-rich spots on the planet. I suspect ownership rates among locals (discounting migrant school teachers and doctors) approaches 100%

But aren't these "police officers" really VPSO's? If so, they are the LAST people I'd want to see packing. Let everyone else be armed. I've heard of VPSO's bringing in the VSOP, but haven't heard too much about their crime-fighting prowess. :D

[Duncan Idaho]

I wouldn't police there for love nor money. I would. I would show up at the Police station, and as soon as roll call was done, I would drive straight home. If I got a call on my radio, I would just tell them that I'm busy watching TV. Whoever made the call would be welcome to handle the situation. They could fire me for all I would care. Then I would be unemployed, on welfare, and fishing and hunting in Alaska. How cool would that be????? :p ;) :D WAY :cool: :evil:

[LawDog]

In December 2001, police answering an assault call ran into a drunk and combative man who lunged at an officer and choked him until the officer blacked out, according to court documents. The officer recovered, and the man served time in jail after pleading no contest to assaulting a police officer.

"In this town, everyone knows everyone, a lot of people are related to each other," Olson said. "If a cop accidentally shot someone, I could see a bunch of relatives going after them.

I'll bet you a box of Krispy Kremes that "a bunch of relatives" didn't wind up "going after" the guy that choked the unarmed cop.


LawDog

[spacemanspiff]

thank you, lawdog

[LawDog]

Duplicates merged.

LawDog

[spacemanspiff]

i think these are actual LEO's, anyone can be a VPSO. but a vpso has to call in the troopers for any major crime, and when they make arrests they have to have the troopers escort the suspect out of there to the nearest court, or am i wrong? i've never lived in a village, and never intend to.

the comment earlier about 'outsiders' doing the policing, i think thats a correct assessment. native alaskans are very prejudiced against whites in particular.

[JohnKSa]

No sewer...
No electricity...

So what else would you expect from what certainly must be the most backward "city" in the U.S.

Maybe in a few more decades, they'll make it into the TWENTIETH century and realize the benefits of armed Law Enforcement.

(I agree that there is almost certainly a lot being left out/unsaid. I'll bet that Keith has it right--it's a "Native vs Outsider" battle.)

[Futo Inu]

"A lot of young people wouldn't hesitate -- especially if they're under the influence of alcohol -- to grab a handgun from the officers and use it against them,"

Hmmm, if that's the case, then there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with that community's young people - a problem which needs to be addressed mucho pronto irrespective of the gun policy. Like some gun safety, and discipline, and respect for law, and the teaching that say, I dunno, murder is wrong, and maybe even enforcement of the alcohol consumption laws. Once again, it ain't the guns that are the problem. In fact, if those are indeed the kind of kids they have there, then god help those cops - they obviously need firearms if that is the state of the morals of the "young people" in questions - particularly "a lot" of them.

"In this town, everyone knows everyone, a lot of people are related to each other," Olson said. "If a cop accidentally shot someone, I could see a bunch of relatives going after them".

So much the better - all the more reason that arming them is OK - since the cops know this fact, there's a nice, built-in containment check on behavior, making a cop much more likely to be careful, and less likely to accidentally shoot someone - unlike in big cities. :confused:

[Cosmoline]

"Maybe in a few more decades, they'll make it into the TWENTIETH century and realize the benefits of armed Law Enforcement."

But I have to wonder just what those "benefits" are? I can defend myself. Why do I need some macho shaved-head LEO threatening me with jail time? I think the folks out in the bush are onto something.

[HankB]

Hooper Bay, no sewer, no electricity, a third of the population on welfare, lots of drunks despite prohibition, topped off with City Councilman David Green, a former village police office, said he opposes armed officers because of the inherent risk of abuse. "They would start showing them off. I guarantee it," he said. "I could see the officer taking it out and doing tricks and the gun accidentally discharging.. Maybe this city council man and former local cop hit the nail on the head, and "Hooper Bay's Finest" aren't so . . . fine? :rolleyes:

[Keith]

Cos,

I tend to agree with you. These folks don't feel they need law enforcement and they didn't ask for law enforcement...
They have their own way of enforcing things and it's been tested for thousands of years. Cops are a relatively new phenomena in the world and small communities got along without them just fine.

Keith

[Wildalaska]

Hmmm, if that's the case, then there's something SERIOUSLY wrong with that community's young people - a problem which needs to be addressed mucho pronto irrespective of the gun policy. Like some gun safety, and discipline, and respect for law, and the teaching that say, I dunno, murder is wrong, and maybe even enforcement of the alcohol consumption laws

Futo you are talking about one of the most isolated and poverty stricken places in Alaska...simplistic solutions dont work....in fact rpobably nothing will work until the US provides the same bebeifts to Hooper Bay that it provides to the rest of the US...like infrastructure...

WildiliketoiletpapaersoiminAnchorageAlaska

[TheeBadOne]

Cosmoline - I suspect you're not the one who would be responding to the bloody assault in progress calls, or business burglary calls, or domestic violence calls that have caused the police to request firearms.

All the best

[Roadkill Coyote]

I fail to see the great controversy,
The village has existed for more than a century, incorporating as a city in 1966.
They incoporated as a city in '66, and chose to have a police force.
Police regularly deal with such potential flashpoints as domestic violence and liquor-fueled assaults in Hooper Bay, which bans the sale or importation of alcohol, Hoelscher said. In June, police logged 104 alcohol-related calls and seven domestic violence reports. They made 33 criminal arrests on charges including assault, harassment, eluding police and furnishing alcohol to a minor.
They obviously want a police force, because it receives frequent calls for service.
In December 2001, police answering an assault call ran into a drunk and combative man who lunged at an officer and choked him until the officer blacked out, according to court documents.
In 2001, they had good reason to reconsider the safety needs of their officers.
Police Chief James Hoelscher, 27 , who has lived in Hooper Bay since he was 13 and became a village police officer at 18. Hoelscher and two other officers graduated last fall from the University of Alaska Fairbanks' law enforcement academy.
So the Chief and two other officers get sent to an Academy a year later (not exactly rushing things), and once they complete feild training with the State Troopers, would like to carry.

As to the noise from the peanut gallery, I would point out that the Chief appears to have been doing the job without a sidearm for nine years, and doesn't appear to be a power mad psychopath. :rolleyes: The fact that the city formed a police force, and recently voted their confidence in them, would seem to indicate that they do want law enforcement. :eek: As to the councilman and former officer, how many years before they sent their first officers to the academy did he work there? :scrutiny:

[Art Eatman]

From the article: "...subsistence fishing and hunting are the primary means of support." And, "Police regularly deal with such potential flashpoints as domestic violence and liquor-fueled assaults..."

Whether it's "outsider" LEOs or tribal elders, whoever's doing any peace-keeping is apparently--from time to time--gonna have to deal with an irate drunk with a gun.

"City Councilman David Green, a former village police officer, said he opposes armed officers because of the inherent risk of abuse.

"They would start showing them off. I guarantee it," he said. "I could see the officer taking it out and doing tricks and the gun accidentally discharging. Or if they arrest somebody I'm afraid the suspect would take their gun.""

This sounds to me like that old bit of "judging others by your own behavior".

I realize there are no easy and simple answers to the problems of communities of that sort.

But I sure wouldn't be an LEO, there...

Art

[Cosmoline]

"Cosmoline - I suspect you're not the one who would be responding to the bloody assault in progress calls, or business burglary calls, or domestic violence calls that have caused the police to request firearms."

No, and I wouldn't be making those calls either.

[pax]

Folks, please do remember that LEO bashing isn't allowed on THR. All cops are not shaven-headed JBTs, not any more than all gun owners are inbred rednecks.

Put the broad brushes away, and keep the thread on topic.

Thanks,

pax
Moderator

[Coronach]

No, and I wouldn't be making those calls either.So, its every man for himself then, I guess. Not exactly a civilized way of living.

If the populace is armed (and in the US of A they darned well are and should be), the ones who police the populace need to be armed as well. Common sense.

"A lot of young people wouldn't hesitate -- especially if they're under the influence of alcohol -- to grab a handgun from the officers and use it against them," Simon said. "Not that we're against handguns. But accidents do happen."First off...that is not an 'accident.' :scrutiny: Second off, you're in AK. The kid probably doesn't need to grab the cops gun. He probably has his own. Stupid argument.

Mike

[Keith]

So, its every man for himself then, I guess. Not exactly a civilized way of living.

I think that cops do indeed have a role in a civilized society, but it's hardly a critical one! Police show up AFTER a crime has been committed; one step ahead of the insurance agent. The cop takes a report and goes away never to be heard from again. The insurance agent takes a report and sends you a check.
Brendan Behan once said that there was no situation in life so miserable that it couldn't be made worse by the arrival of a policeman. It's difficult to discount Behan's observation.

I think free (and armed) citizens could easily do without the police.

Keith

[Art Eatman]

Keith, the whole idea of police--without regard to its validity--is that by having police, the rest of the folks don't have to tote a hunk of iron around with them.

Martin Luther King had a dream, also...

You should pardon my cynicism.

The "leaders" of this little community should read this week's issue of "Fred on Everything". http://www.fredoneverything.net

:), Art

[Coronach]

I wholeheartedly agree that the police are no substitute for self-reliance, and that you, not some bureau in federal, state, or local government, are responsible for your own safety.

That said, there is a valid role for law enforcement in protecting members of society from other members of society. There are quite a few heavily armed corners of this world, where the citizenry is indeed armed and chaos pretty much reigns. HCI and VPC would have you believe that there is a cause-effect relationship here, but there is not. However, it does disprove handily that idea that simply having an armed populace ensures tranquility. As is so often true, its a wee bit more complex than that.

Mike

[TheeBadOne]

As is so often true, its a wee bit more complex than that.
-Coronach
Amen :cool:

[JoshM]

In regards to guns and policing, Hooper Bay sounds alot like my country, New Zealand
.
That being, a generally unarmed police service and a heavily armed citizenry.

As Keith has already pointed out there is probably alot of cultural factors involved.

I know in my country the somewhat old fashioned idea [Which I admit has serious problems] of Police Officers being able to handle violent drunks by 'duking it out' or giving a 'hiding' is considered far more acceptable, then resorting to, or the threat of, armed force.

This is one of the primary reasons we still have an unarmed Police service in NZ.

Basically, when there are issues of trust in a small community, any type of shooting incident [justifiable or not] is going to create some serious fractures between the locals

[spacemanspiff]

you know, maybe 50 years ago, villages didnt NEED a police force. their residents were hard working, respectable, and looked out for their fellowman. that cant be said of todays generation of natives up here. they vandalize, steal, assault, rape, just like their counterparts in larger metropolitan areas.
the argument that 'relatives would come after police', well that just is ignorant. the idea that 'kids would take the guns from the police', well thats even more ignorant.

the residents of hooper bay probably all have firearms in their home. but i betcha none of them carry, open or concealed. speaking of which, why hasnt the police gone to concealed carry?

[JohnKSa]

But I have to wonder just what those "benefits" are? I can defend myself. Why do I need some macho shaved-head LEO threatening me with jail time?
Wow, someone has some issues--either that or a very narrow view of the world. :uhoh:

In all my interactions with LEOs, I have run across very few with shaved heads, and none of them (shaven or not) have threatened me with jail time.

Furthermore, I see no reason why arming an LEO would make him more likely to be either shaven-headed or more likely to threaten a person with jail time.

Care to explain just why you would make a statement like this? It seems very much like a tip-of-the-iceberg sort of comment...

[Cosmoline]

I haven't been to Hooper Bay, but I'd be very surprised if people didn't carry openly. Every other village I've been to in the bush out there, I've seen openly carried shotguns and rifles. It's part of subsitence.

Anyway, who needs this "civilization"? It might be nice to have an unarmed police and a very, very limited government. I'm not going to criticize Hooper Bay for making that choice.

My orginal comment was harsh because I was responding to an oft-repeated assertion that Alaska is backwards and needs to come into the modern world. I dislike a great deal of the modern world, which is why I moved here. I think the vast majority of "civilized" cities and towns in the US are horribly over-policed. There are too many laws, and far too many intrusions on what should be private matters. Many Americans actually live under regulations that tell them exactly what their lawn must look like! I find that hideous. Now we're partially disrobing at the airports. It's all part of the same thing.

I have had some good experiences with LEO's, certainly. But I"ve also had my share of idiots shining a flashlight in my eyes demanding to know my phone number over and over again.

I ask you this. If I have my firearms, why do I need a bunch of armed LEO's patrolling the streets? It's not like they're actually going to protect me or anyone else from harm. That's an impossible task. Their real job is to investigate crimes that have already taken place. That might require a sidearm, but more likely it's going to require some chalk, yellow marking tape and a crime lab.

So why not simply phase out armed patrols and let people protect themselves? The money saved could be put into investigation. Radical idea, I know. But why not?

[Keith]

Cos,

I'm really starting to like you!

Keith

[TheeBadOne]

So why not simply phase out armed patrols and let people protect themselves?
Who's rules who's laws? Jim doesn't like trespassers, so he shoots anyone who cuts the corner walking on his lawn.
Betty feels threatened when ever some man leers at her (in her mind any look is a leer) and maces every "leerer"......
That's part of what the law does, it standardizes the rules as much as can be. No system is perfect, but rules and laws are always needed. Rural areas don't need as many laws and ordinances as citys where people are stacked one upon another.

[Cosmoline]

Well Jim shoots trespassers whether or not there are LEO's on patrol. So what's the difference? You can't put a cop on every corner, and asking LEO's to protect everyone from harm is unfair.

An elimination of armed patrols doesn't mean an elimination of criminal law. IMHO the armed patrols are at best an illusion of security, and at worst an oppressive fist.

But I also fail to see what the laws regulating the size of yards and the type of shrubs allowed have anything to do with protecting the public. My criticism isn't with the old penal codes, but with the mass of rules imposed on us by all levels of gov'ment since the New Deal.

[Oracle]

Guys, it's a village. If the police need to round someone up, why not just assemble a posse and do just that? I seriously doubt that this village in the middle of nowhere Alaska needs a rapid response team.

[spacemanspiff]

cosmo, my experience in villages is limited (thank god), so i may be wrong, but villagers might have a rifle or shotgun in thier truck (yes they often have vehicles to drive the 5 miles of roads) or on their atv, and definitely in their boat.
but thats because they are heading out of the village for something. but if they are just going from one house to another in their village, they wouldnt carry. that sound about right?

[Keith]

They don't "get a posse together". Such villages are extended families and when someone does something wrong, it's handled by the family, with the elders getting the final say.
If you beat your wife, her brothers (your cousins) might come over and kick your butt. And nobody will raise a hand to protect you.
If you get in a fight with another guy, one of you will be sent off to the fish camp for the summer (or something like that) until things cool down. If you have an alcohol problem, they'll send you for treatment and deal harshly with anyone who gives you booze.

Frequently, if they can't deal with the problem (or the individual refuses to comply) they'll throw him out as a last resort. You can not live in such a place without the cooperation of those around you, so you have no choice but to leave.
This is one of the things that creates a negative stereotype for Alaska natives. If you come to Anchorage or Fairbanks and you can't help but notice a lot of drunken, often homeless, natives wandering around. And many of those are simply the "bad eggs" that have been expelled by the villages. These aren't "typical" natives - these are the banished.

And the other issue which most of you are missing is that to an Alaska Native, "the law" (even for a relatively minor offense) means sticking the offender on a plane and flying him to Anchorage to be tried and judged and jailed by a bunch of strangers. It's VERY expensive to fly from these bush villages, so no family will be able to visit or help this guy through his ordeal. And that's a very big issue to a person who has been raised in one of these close-knit extended families - a native village.
It doesn't seem fair to them. And that's a big reason they prefer to handle most matters themselves. And this explains the resistance they have to empowering the police who can only interfere in something that's already being dealt with internally with their own form of justice.

Keith

[Oracle]

They don't "get a posse together". Such villages are extended families and when someone does something wrong, it's handled by the family, with the elders getting the final say.

Even better.

[spacemanspiff]

well, in SOME villages, things like domestic violence and rape are ignored. they chalk it up to 'thats the village way'. women cant expect to be protected, and they will often just let it happen to them. theres no one they can turn to, because they will get worse delivered to them if they report it to the authorities.
keith, you're in kodiak, and i'm sure you have come across some of my family (from Ouzinkie).

[Roadkill Coyote]

and back at the facts...
but more likely it's going to require some chalk, yellow marking tape and a crime lab.
So the officer that got choked could have drawn an outline around himself, yeah, that makes sense. :banghead:
If you beat your wife, her brothers (your cousins) might come over and kick your butt. And nobody will raise a hand to protect you.If you have an alcohol problem, they'll send you for treatment and deal harshly with anyone who gives you booze.
If this system works so well, then why did the police there receive 104 alcohol related calls for service, and seven reports of domestic violence one month alone ? :uhoh:

[spacemanspiff]

hey now! that kind of logical thought process is dangerous!


j/k :evil:

[JohnKSa]

Firstly, my comment about coming into the twentieth century was directed very specifically at a single village, not at AK in general. I don't see how it could be taken to mean AK in general, unless someone is reading it with a serious preconception.

Secondly, "Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" is invariably an indictment, not the sign of an enlightened society.

People need some basic rules to live by and everything goes much more smoothly if there is a uniform set of rules to approximate "fairness".

To set up such rules there must be some form of government.

To make the rules meaningful, that government must have some means of enforcement.

I think we (we=U.S.) have overdone all three, personally, but reform isn't the same as abolition.

Cosmoline,

I assume you're overstating your case for the sake of your rhetoric. Do you really believe that we would be better off without LE?

[Keith]

I didn't say the system worked well, I only described what that system was. Still, it works at least as well as the "haul them off to Anchorage for trial" system - which doesn't work either...

Alcoholism is a plague among the natives and 90% of the legal problems revolve around it. Alcoholism is a social problem and not one in which anyone would choose a cop as the cure. It's not fair to the cop or the alcoholic. Most experts would suggest the best cure is family intervention - and that's exactly what these villages attempt to do.



Keith

[Keith]

JohnK,

I don't think you appreciate the logistics involved in bringing any bush village "into the 20th century". How does a village of 1000 people afford to run electric lines 500 roadless miles from the nearest power grid? How about sewage - any idea how you put workable cess tanks into permafrost or frozen salt marsh in a way that is affordable?

It's easy to sit there 500 miles away and sniff at those without MTV and flush toilets, but not so easy to find a solution.

I don't recall the name of the village, but about two years ago they installed a gas generator fired power plant for one such place. The cost of the power after figuring in what it cost to fly in all the equipment and pay for installation - and then the cost of fuel brought in by Dehavilland Beaver - was so high that most people just opted to stay with Coleman lanterns and wood stoves.

Keith

[Roadkill Coyote]

OK, you didn't say it works well, only that it was preferred...
"that's a big reason they prefer to handle most matters themselves."
which still leaves the nagging question, if they prefer to handle it themselves, and see the police as interfering in
"something that's already being dealt with internally",
then where are these calls and reports coming from? Bears? ;) In a village without power or running water, I doubt that they get too many anonymous 911 calls. Although dealing with an alcohol related problem is
"not fair to the cop or the alcoholic",
it is fair to the person that called the police. Sometimes, that's the best you can do. :(

[spacemanspiff]

yes, the bears are organizing an underground militia. somehow they have a copy of the constitution with a significant typo that has led them to believe that they are supposed to be armed.
so they call the police and are dismayed when they discover the responding officers are unarmed and there is no firearm for the bears to steal from them while the officers showboat and spin their weapons on their trigger finger just like they do in the movies.
:neener: :evil:

[JohnKSa]

Keith,

I understand pretty well--maybe better than most. ;)

I spent around 10 years of my life alternating between a village (30 people, mud huts and canoes) in the Amazon rain forest and a small (300 people) town in Colombia. The town had a diesel generator that provided electricity when we could afford to run it and there was running water a good bit of the time. In the forest there was nothing.

Just because you don't have electricity and sewers doesn't mean you have to be backward in EVERY way.

[Tommy Gunn]

The police should have firearms. But I also think that the police baton would be a more appropiate weapon for much of their needs.