In The Absence of Bodyguards

[Swagger]

If elected officials weren't afforded armed and professionally trained bodyguards, do you think politicians would take a more accountable approach to the decisions they make or are involved in?

 

[Connery]

If elected officials weren't afforded armed and professionally trained bodyguards, do you think politicians would take a more accountable approach to the decisions they make or are involved in?

They most likely would hire their own bodyguard/support staff, perhaps some do now. No I do not believe they would change their approach to the decisions they make.

 

[Swagger]

If elected officials weren't afforded armed and professionally trained bodyguards, do you think politicians would take a more accountable approach to the decisions they make or are involved in?

They most likely would hire their own bodyguard/support staff, perhaps some do now. No I do not believe they would change their approach to the decisions they make.

Possibly. But that could pose a few problems. 1. The kind of protection politicians enjoy today is provided by professsionals who been trained at great expense. That kind of protection could run into five figures (or more) on a daily basis. 2. In the U.S. and elsewhere, close protection personnel are employees of the state and are thus cleared to follow whoever they're charged with protecting into sensitive areas, and sign agreements promising not to disclose any confidential or sensitive information they may become privy to during the course of their duties. Civilian contractors would not enjoy the same kind of security clearance and would have to be extensively vetted. And even then, some agencies may just simply prevent them from following their client on account of them not being readily accountable to confidentiality agreements. As a result, there would be large holes in thier security detail.

 

[AmyNation]

I think more of them would end up dead. However I don't think it would change how they did their jobs.

 

[Swagger]

I think more of them would end up dead. However I don't think it would change how they did their jobs.

Why not? Surely the absence of armed protection would give them greater pause for thought with regards to fulfilling their obligations and how they serve their constituents.

 

[AmyNation]

Of course it won't. Every politician has one job they do, and they mostly do it very well. Getting reelected.

Threats to their life won't change how they work, because at the end of the day what they are doing is working for them.

 

[AmyNation]

Besides which, why the hell would we want our politicans being ruled by the crazies who would kill them for decisions they didn't like?

 

[Swagger]

I'm not saying that they should be "ruled by the crazies", but like you've said: it's no secret that politicians of both stripes are usually more concerned with feathering their own nests than representing the people who elected them. Yet they have at their disposal an armed security detail if they feel their life is under threat. However, those threats often come as a result of discord/anger pertaining to the elected official's abuse of power. So, wouldn't it stand to reason that if that armed security detail was withdrawn, it would give the corrupt Congressman/politician/official more pause for thought before abusing their power to further their own interests at the expense of others?

 

[AmyNation]

Normal people don't threaten politicans, no matter how much they dislike them.

 

[tipofthespear]

If elected officials weren't afforded armed and professionally trained bodyguards, do you think politicians would take a more accountable approach to the decisions they make or are involved in?

Which Politicians are you referring to?
1) President and family? Yes.....
2) VP and family? Yes.......
3) Presidential and VP Candidates during the Election cycle? Yes......

Other than these, who receives Federally Funded Security Guards full time?

Congress has "on site" Security, as does the SCOTUS.....and SCOTUS Judges can request Security if they believe it necessary, but I am not aware that the 435 elected Congressional Members have 24/7 Security Guards.....

Just wondering........this idea is news to me......

 

[Swagger]

No, hands-up, I was working on too many assumptions. Britain's politicians can request armed protection paid for by the state whenever they want. I mistakenly assumed that American Congressmen/women enjoyed the same protection.

 

[tipofthespear]

No, hands-up, I was working on too many assumptions. Britain's politicians can request armed protection paid for by the state whenever they want. I mistakenly assumed that American Congressmen/women enjoyed the same protection.

Ok, thanks, and have a great day in the UK.........and maybe an order of fish 'n' chips doused in "wishyoursisterwashere" sauce......(old Army saying....)

Actually though, If a U.S. Congressman, Judge/whatever feels they are in danger, they can request protective security, it's just not an every day thing.......there has to be a reason, and if justified, it is provided, and since Federal Agents are employees of the Government, the cost is ultimately paid by the American Tax Payer............

But, then, every citizen who believes themselves to be in danger can go to their Local, State, or if necessary Federal Law Enforcement Agencies and request protection, and that is also paid for from Tax Revenues........

 

[PaulS1950]

The police, sheriff, and FBI will not protect a citizen unless they are a material witness and are in danger of dying before they can testify. Try going to your local police to get protection - they tell you that they can't do that - you need a court ordered protection "no contact" ruling and then (only then) they will respond to a violation of that protection order. The law has to be broken before police can act and you must have evidence that will stand up in court.

 

[tipofthespear]

The police, sheriff, and FBI will not protect a citizen unless they are a material witness and are in danger of dying before they can testify. Try going to your local police to get protection - they tell you that they can't do that - you need a court ordered protection "no contact" ruling and then (only then) they will respond to a violation of that protection order. The law has to be broken before police can act and you must have evidence that will stand up in court.

Any citizen in immediate danger can call 911 and receive police protection/response ASAP.....that being my point.......As for Peace Bonds, they can be obtained and the authorities are bound by Law to enforce them.....as well, in some States (ie. Alabama) if a citizen/business owner tells someone that they are not to return to their property in the presence of a police officer, that is the same as a Peace Bond, and should the person return, they can be arrested and charged with criminal trespass.......Law Enforcement personnel often "act" before any crime is committed, in various ways. These "acts" are designed to prevent crimes from occurring and/or reducing the level of crime in a certain area. Police officers intervene on a daily basis with the public to sort out disputes, and to prevent those disputes escalating into a more serious situation.

Don't know about the Law Enforcement personnel where you live, but ours are quite responsive to the best interest of the citizens here, and work daily to build a strong relationship with the citizens/within the community. If yours does not, sorry for you.

 

[editec]

I do not think most POLS have bodyguards.

 

[PaulS1950]

The police, sheriff, and FBI will not protect a citizen unless they are a material witness and are in danger of dying before they can testify. Try going to your local police to get protection - they tell you that they can't do that - you need a court ordered protection "no contact" ruling and then (only then) they will respond to a violation of that protection order. The law has to be broken before police can act and you must have evidence that will stand up in court.

Any citizen in immediate danger can call 911 and receive police protection/response ASAP.....that being my point.......As for Peace Bonds, they can be obtained and the authorities are bound by Law to enforce them.....as well, in some States (ie. Alabama) if a citizen/business owner tells someone that they are not to return to their property in the presence of a police officer, that is the same as a Peace Bond, and should the person return, they can be arrested and charged with criminal trespass.......Law Enforcement personnel often "act" before any crime is committed, in various ways. These "acts" are designed to prevent crimes from occurring and/or reducing the level of crime in a certain area. Police officers intervene on a daily basis with the public to sort out disputes, and to prevent those disputes escalating into a more serious situation.

Don't know about the Law Enforcement personnel where you live, but ours are quite responsive to the best interest of the citizens here, and work daily to build a strong relationship with the citizens/within the community. If yours does not, sorry for you.

You can dial 911 for any number of reasons but to get the police to respond there has to be a crime involved. Police respond to crime not to fear that a crime may happen at some time in the future. Bodyguards are for protection, police are called after the fact.

 

[Sallow]

If elected officials weren't afforded armed and professionally trained bodyguards, do you think politicians would take a more accountable approach to the decisions they make or are involved in?

No.

I think there would be alot more dead politicians.

 

[Sallow]

The police, sheriff, and FBI will not protect a citizen unless they are a material witness and are in danger of dying before they can testify. Try going to your local police to get protection - they tell you that they can't do that - you need a court ordered protection "no contact" ruling and then (only then) they will respond to a violation of that protection order. The law has to be broken before police can act and you must have evidence that will stand up in court.

Any citizen in immediate danger can call 911 and receive police protection/response ASAP.....that being my point.......As for Peace Bonds, they can be obtained and the authorities are bound by Law to enforce them.....as well, in some States (ie. Alabama) if a citizen/business owner tells someone that they are not to return to their property in the presence of a police officer, that is the same as a Peace Bond, and should the person return, they can be arrested and charged with criminal trespass.......Law Enforcement personnel often "act" before any crime is committed, in various ways. These "acts" are designed to prevent crimes from occurring and/or reducing the level of crime in a certain area. Police officers intervene on a daily basis with the public to sort out disputes, and to prevent those disputes escalating into a more serious situation.

Don't know about the Law Enforcement personnel where you live, but ours are quite responsive to the best interest of the citizens here, and work daily to build a strong relationship with the citizens/within the community. If yours does not, sorry for you.

You can dial 911 for any number of reasons but to get the police to respond there has to be a crime involved. Police respond to crime not to fear that a crime may happen at some time in the future. Bodyguards are for protection, police are called after the fact.

Not really.

Police presence definitely has an impact on crime. The more visible police are in an area, the less likely a crime will be committed.

 

[MikeK]

If elected officials weren't afforded armed and professionally trained bodyguards, do you think politicians would take a more accountable approach to the decisions they make or are involved in?

The point you're making is right on in principle. But, as I'm sure you know, even if one elected to high office were thoroughly and demonstratedly honest and altruistic there would be a number of delusional psychopaths and paid assassins lining up to kill him/her.

Although neither Queen Victoria nor Abraham Lincoln were examples of perfect purity, both were truly altruistic, and both were attacked by assassins. And then there was JFK.

So in this circumstance the bad are able to benefit from what is necessary even for the good.

 

[PaulS1950]

I thought there was a heavy presence of police in Detroit - I wonder why it is not keeping the crime there under control?
Oh! That's right, the people there aren't allowed to defend themselves, they have to rely on the police.