Combatantr2
I think law enforcement work should be left the government. But as I said armed civilian component is okey but check and balances mechanisms must be in place. A standard must be upheld. A time frame must be observed, that as soon threat has gone down armed civilian groups must be disbanded accordingly. Etc and etc.
This is not about policing; this is about
the populace being free from the oppression of thugs at large. Police agencies are generally an investigative and custodial arm of the government. They generally arrive
after a crime has been committed, and do not prevent things like murder and armed robbery. Thugs are deterred if there is a direct likely consequence during the commission of a crime, and those of a more covert naure by the consequences in a courtroom and prison.
The only "checks and balances" needed are of a moral nature. Murder, armed robbery etc
are already crimes - those individuals that literally do not know what these are can be guided by simple moral compass. Those that run afoul of this can expect - if police agencies and the judiciary do
their job - to be severely punished.
If bureaucratic "check and balances" on the general populace
actually worked the United Kingdom would not have a serious
growing crime problem. Take "checks and balances" to their absolute extreme; it's called a high security prison. Yet even in high security prisons there are commonly murders, rapes, other serious assaults and offenses.
Peru, nor it's people, are not unique. Human nature is universally the same the world over; the reasons people do bad things
, or restrain themselves, are likewise universally the same.
------------------------------
http://ussliberty.org
http://ssunitedstates.org