The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[garbon]

I think that the shift in mindset to the police as being fundamentally different from, and apart from, the policed is dangerous to both the police and the rest of the civilians.

Agreed. That said it does appear to be a definition that both the Cambridge Dictionary and Merriam-Webster agree on with civilian defined as not being a member of the police or armed forces (with Merriam-Webster also calling firefighters non-civilians).

[Oexmelin]

WTF do you people do that you frequently get into situations where you would've called the cops on someone if not for your reluctance to proceed with the execution?

Yeah - I've called the police once when I was burgled. Short of seeing violence I can't think of when I would call them.

Same

This may (or may not) have also something to do with the areas where you live. Instances where you'd call the cops may probably not happen that often in affluent neighborhoods, suburbs where houses stand far apart, or commuter sleeptowns where one spends most of one's time in a car. In places where there are homeless people with mental illness issues; or where you live in apartment buildings where the walls are thin and you are hearing things which suggest domestic violence, or where you discover a stash of drugs in the neighborhood park... Added to that the fact that the emergency number in the US is the single 911, and you have no way of controlling who shows up - usually the cops.

I have lived in some pretty rough places in Canada and the US. (I also have lived in affluent spaces).  I do not drive. As a pedestrian, scenes of urban life are not simply infrequent decor, but just part of daily (or weekly) routine. When this is but an infrequent instance on your way to someplace else, you can ignore / runaway. Less so when this is where you live. Hence the call to have an emergency number solely dedicated to mental illness emergencies.

And, in fact, this also leads to a different facet of the same problem: people who live in affluent, manicured spaces, are scared of these things and of the "outsiders" that bring them - usually associated with black people and threat. And these people know cops are on *their* side, are helpful to them. Hence, all these calls to remove black families picnicking in municipal parks; to denounce a black jogger; to call about a robbery which turns out to be someone getting back to their own place. The Central Park lady knew this, and knew the black man she screamed at knew this. She knew the power of the threat she  wielded when she threatened to call the cops, and knew it could lead to way more tragic consequence than it ever could for her.

[Oexmelin]

Also isn't it the entire ideal (however much we might miss it) - the public are the police and the police are the public. They're not a paramilitary force.

The public are not given the powers of the police.  The reason the police are given those special powers is so they are not exercised by the public - ie vigilante justice

Except that the police is a way more recent innovation than the military, and grew out, not of the military, but of the justice system. Justice is reputed to be delivered by your peers: police officers were created either as special-duty judges or as especially empowered citizens, doing, as RH mentioned, what every citizen was expected to do - not enact justice (that was never in play), but arrest criminals and reputed criminals and bring them, literally, to justice. The rules that used to govern police work were deemed to emerge from the simple recognition that these were subjects / citizens therefore afforded the protection of the sovereign, and reputed to have been going about their business normally. The military was deployed when that presumption was broken: rebellions, insurrections. It's a major symbolic rupture. If it no longer matters, the US may as well disband its police force and have its troops patrol its cities.

The civilian / military divide is much more fundamental, than the one civilian / police. That we collectively see less and less distinction between the two should give us pause.

[Barrister]

Also isn't it the entire ideal (however much we might miss it) - the public are the police and the police are the public. They're not a paramilitary force.

I would make the same point about the military though - they are part of the public as well.  They're not some foreign occupying force - they're fellow citizens.

[Barrister]

Also isn't it the entire ideal (however much we might miss it) - the public are the police and the police are the public. They're not a paramilitary force.

The public are not given the powers of the police.  The reason the police are given those special powers is so they are not exercised by the public - ie vigilante justice

Except that the police is a way more recent innovation than the military, and grew out, not of the military, but of the justice system. Justice is reputed to be delivered by your peers: police officers were created either as special-duty judges or as especially empowered citizens, doing, as RH mentioned, what every citizen was expected to do - not enact justice (that was never in play), but arrest criminals and reputed criminals and bring them, literally, to justice. The rules that used to govern police work were deemed to emerge from the simple recognition that these were subjects / citizens therefore afforded the protection of the sovereign, and reputed to have been going about their business normally. The military was deployed when that presumption was broken: rebellions, insurrections. It's a major symbolic rupture. If it no longer matters, the US may as well disband its police force and have its troops patrol its cities.

The civilian / military divide is much more fundamental, than the one civilian / police. That we collectively see less and less distinction between the two should give us pause.

I quibble with a historian at my own peril, but you could say the same thing about the military.  The idea of a standing professional army is quite recent - for most of history soldiers were leveed when necessary and disbanded once the conflict was over.

[Tonitrus]

I tend to agree, the recent case in Virginia being an example of where those lines cross/blur. 

The distinction perhaps being when military are involved in active operations vs. driving home from work.

That said...for all of those reaching to the dictionary definitions...I would say that is just tail-wagging-the-dog kinda thinking.  I don't see any authority there.

[DGuller]

One other confusing part to this is that state police are typically called troopers, and their stations are called barracks.  Some, like New Jersey State Police, also wear a uniform that looks distinctly military in nature.

[PDH]

In California the State Police are called the Highway Patrol and they have the ability to selectively enforce speeding laws which gives them almost unlimited power.

[merithyn]

WTF do you people do that you frequently get into situations where you would've called the cops on someone if not for your reluctance to proceed with the execution?

Yeah - I've called the police once when I was burgled. Short of seeing violence I can't think of when I would call them.

Same

This may (or may not) have also something to do with the areas where you live. Instances where you'd call the cops may probably not happen that often in affluent neighborhoods, suburbs where houses stand far apart, or commuter sleeptowns where one spends most of one's time in a car. In places where there are homeless people with mental illness issues; or where you live in apartment buildings where the walls are thin and you are hearing things which suggest domestic violence, or where you discover a stash of drugs in the neighborhood park... Added to that the fact that the emergency number in the US is the single 911, and you have no way of controlling who shows up - usually the cops.

I have lived in some pretty rough places in Canada and the US. (I also have lived in affluent spaces).  I do not drive. As a pedestrian, scenes of urban life are not simply infrequent decor, but just part of daily (or weekly) routine. When this is but an infrequent instance on your way to someplace else, you can ignore / runaway. Less so when this is where you live. Hence the call to have an emergency number solely dedicated to mental illness emergencies.

And, in fact, this also leads to a different facet of the same problem: people who live in affluent, manicured spaces, are scared of these things and of the "outsiders" that bring them - usually associated with black people and threat. And these people know cops are on *their* side, are helpful to them. Hence, all these calls to remove black families picnicking in municipal parks; to denounce a black jogger; to call about a robbery which turns out to be someone getting back to their own place. The Central Park lady knew this, and knew the black man she screamed at knew this. She knew the power of the threat she  wielded when she threatened to call the cops, and knew it could lead to way more tragic consequence than it ever could for her.

[grumbler]

I think that the shift in mindset to the police as being fundamentally different from, and apart from, the policed is dangerous to both the police and the rest of the civilians.

Agreed. That said it does appear to be a definition that both the Cambridge Dictionary and Merriam-Webster agree on with civilian defined as not being a member of the police or armed forces (with Merriam-Webster also calling firefighters non-civilians).

Yes, dictionaries (slowly) reflect common usage.  Many dictionaries don't reflect that usage.  The fact that dictionaries (even ones that hold police to be "none of the above") can't agree on what a civilian is not shows how in-flux the divisions between civilians and not-civilian-but-not-military-so-something-else-not-defined is.

My argument is not that no one believes that police are apart from the civilian population.  My argument is that this concept is relatively new (last 20-25 years) and, so, vaguely defined.  Additionally, I argue that this mental separation of police from the populace is dangerous to police (because the rest of the populous thus sees them as alien) and the rest of the populace (because the police now sees them as alien).  I suppose it might be good for police morale, because some of them can now view themselves as a separate and superior group, but that advantage doesn't make up for the many disadvantages.

[crazy canuck]

The public has the power to arrest (at least in the UK) when someone is committing a crime in front of them. I don't suppose it happens that much, easier and safer to call the police; but it is still there on the statute book and reaffirmed as recently as 1984.

Yes, there are limited powers of arrest, but that is an illustration of the difference between the police and the public.  The police powers do not have the same restrictions as a "civilian".

[Sheilbh]

Also isn't it the entire ideal (however much we might miss it) - the public are the police and the police are the public. They're not a paramilitary force.

I would make the same point about the military though - they are part of the public as well.  They're not some foreign occupying force - they're fellow citizens.

I think there's possibly a cultural difference on this here - possibly as a legacy of the Troubles. I think originally because of the IRA risk, military personnel aren't allowed to wear their uniforms if they're off-duty. I think that means that society has far more less of a visible military than in the US.

So while they are volunteers and soldiers are ordinary citizens they're not really visible and are basically perceived as confined to their base.

And of course the origin of the Peelian public are the police/police are the public idea was in opposition to both the yeomanry as a policing force and continental European gendarmes or civil guards. But bringing in the yeomanry was not perceived as our fellow citizens on horses with their sabres out, but normally as local gentry farmers being brought into the city.

This may (or may not) have also something to do with the areas where you live. Instances where you'd call the cops may probably not happen that often in affluent neighborhoods, suburbs where houses stand far apart, or commuter sleeptowns where one spends most of one's time in a car. In places where there are homeless people with mental illness issues; or where you live in apartment buildings where the walls are thin and you are hearing things which suggest domestic violence, or where you discover a stash of drugs in the neighborhood park... Added to that the fact that the emergency number in the US is the single 911, and you have no way of controlling who shows up - usually the cops.

This is definitely the case - the other point is a lot of what you're talking about I wouldn't consider a police matter. So a homeless person with mental illness, or kids playing music loud are not crimes. There's nothing the police can do. You might get an anti-social behaviour order against them in the UK (which you can ask the police or council for), but you need one before the police have anything to enforce. But in general anti-social behaviour isn't criminal - it might be discouraged by "bobbies on the beat" patrolling, but it's not something you can really call the police for.

But all my time in London has been in fairly deprived areas - some of the poorest in the country - I've just never seen anything that I'd call the police for. Never found a stash of drugs - though plenty of evidence of drug use. Never heard or seen anything that makes me think there's domestic violence. The closest has been theft - so someone came into my local Co-op for example and shoved past the shop assistant to grab as many bottles of spirits as they could and then ran out. But that happened very quickly and the security guy was already calling the police by the time I'd noticed (I was in an aisle and only realised when I saw the guy running away).

[grumbler]

Also isn't it the entire ideal (however much we might miss it) - the public are the police and the police are the public. They're not a paramilitary force.

I would make the same point about the military though - they are part of the public as well.  They're not some foreign occupying force - they're fellow citizens.

Modern militaries are citizen-soldiers, yes - part of the public at large.  But they are not civilians, and the law (including international law) treats military powers (including military justice) entirely differently than it does civilian powers and civilian justice.

The fact that soldiers are citizens/part of the public but not civilians seems unrelated to the argument that police are citizens but not civilians and are not part of the public.

[DGuller]

This is definitely the case - the other point is a lot of what you're talking about I wouldn't consider a police matter. So a homeless person with mental illness, or kids playing music loud are not crimes. There's nothing the police can do. You might get an anti-social behaviour order against them in the UK (which you can ask the police or council for), but you need one before the police have anything to enforce. But in general anti-social behaviour isn't criminal - it might be discouraged by "bobbies on the beat" patrolling, but it's not something you can really call the police for.

You don't have the concept of quality of life violations?  Surely it's more than just frowned upon to blast music at 120 dB in a residential neighborhood at 4 in the morning.

[grumbler]

One other confusing part to this is that state police are typically called troopers, and their stations are called barracks.  Some, like New Jersey State Police, also wear a uniform that looks distinctly military in nature.

Trooper traditionally meant a mounted soldier.  I would assume that state police arose from mounted police, since they have to patrol a large area.  Thus, they are "troopers."