The author first challenges the argument that the concepts of "public" and "community" are interchangeable. The concept of a "community" is that a certain geographical area has a life, an identity of its own, that is independent of its surroundings. This concept has become obsolete under contemporary patterns of increased social and geographical mobility; the pursuit of lifestyles where people do not live, work, and eat in one area; the decreasing influence of local social institutions on people's lives; and the growing influence of mass media. The term "public" is a more appropriate contemporary concept since it can be defined as "a group of individuals living in the same area, region, or society." Institutions such as businesses, schools, etc., in the area are also part of the "public." The second argument challenged by the author is that the demands and wishes of the public can be known and therefore must be acted upon. The author argues that the police cannot accurately determine the nature, intensity, and priority of diverse public needs and wishes. The best the police can do is rely upon elected public officials to discern public need and then instruct the police accordingly. The third argument challenged by the author is that "serving the public" implies a special way of policing or rather that it excludes specific ways of policing. The author reasons that there are no police forces more public oriented than others; there are just forces that are performing well in a large number of fields and forces that are performing less well, independent of the characteristics they attribute to themselves.