The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[crazy canuck]

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.

Well when you speak of something growing out of the justice system, rather than the military, it is a bit of an artificial distinction the further back one goes.  Our justice system can be traced back to 1066.  In fact our former Chief Justice was often fond of referring to the Courts William set up in her speeches imploring today's politicians to provide better access to justice.  The courts of the Crown were obviously backed by the power of the crown to enforce its will (the military).   

In our system justice has never been something which has been delivered by peers.  It has always been the jurisdiction of the crown and then the state.  We might be judged by our peers (where a jury is available) but it is always the state/crown - through the judiciary it appoints - that decides what it to be done once verdict is rendered.

As I already noted in response to Richard's post, the limited powers of citizens to arrest is a good illustration of the difference between the powers of the state, exercised by its agents the police, and that of a citizen.

The last thing, is your analysis ignores that fact that in Canada especially the police evolved from and served a similar role as the military.  To this day the RCMP has some interaction and duties related to the military.

[Sheilbh]

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.

But it's normally not a crime. You can get an anti-social beahviour order (asbo) which is a court order for that person not to play music at certain levels or banning youths from gathering in a certain spot. If there's an asbo then the police can go round because they're in breach of a court order. And you can get an asbo through the police or the council. But you can't just call the police because someone's doing something you don't like (and you would not be a priority v real crimes). The best you could get out of it is the police having a word.

This has been an issue - that people had issues that weren't technically crimes but affected their quality of life and the police couldn't do anything about them. It's why Blair introduced asbos in the first place.

[Oexmelin]

I quibble with a historian at my own peril,

FEAR ME MORTAL

Ahem.

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.

This is true. But the emergence of the category of "military" as an heuristic concept happens precisely at the same time when "proto-police" emerges: late 17th century. Before, you certainly had soldiers, and armies but they weren't thought as "military" - a kind of unifying term which speaks of a similar condition. In these circumstances, military draws on a much older tradition, and it becomes a lot more revealing that police isn't folded into that tradition. Quite the contrary. It is conceived, from the start, as something fundamentally different. (And they weren't armed either). To simplify a bit: armies and soliders receive their designation, and specificity, as "military" precisely at the time when other forms of social constraints are being devised.

[Oexmelin]

Well when you speak of something growing out of the justice system, rather than the military, it is a bit of an artificial distinction the further back one goes.  Our justice system can be traced back to 1066.  In fact our former Chief Justice was often fond of referring to the Courts William set up in her speeches imploring today's politicians to provide better access to justice.  The courts of the Crown were obviously backed by the power of the crown to enforce its will (the military). 

But that's not great history, to put it mildly. It's rhetorical use of history for court purposes, which is legitimate, but not good conceptual or intellectual history. The division between military and civilian meant nothing in the Middle Ages. It was not an operative distinction. But it does mean something in the 18th century, the moment of the creation of the notion of "police". Our contemporary institutions draw much more from the 18th century than they do from the 11th century.  Because the justice of the 11th century answers to a society that is organized in ways that are entirely foreign to our own, where force is exercised by armed gentry and freemen who root in such an exercise their status, where justice is constituted collectively from timeless custom rather than simply issued by royal fiat.

In our system justice has never been something which has been delivered by peers.

Peers as in, people who are united in their status as subjects of the sovereign. That status may well have been different (i.e., justice for the lords, justice for the peasants, justice for the Irish). And while it may have been conducted in the name of the king, much of the daily exercise of justice was intensely local. Again, the concept of the military was created precisely to remove certain people, certain operations, certain offenses, from the "normal" considerations - including considerations of status, or residence.

The last thing, is your analysis ignores that fact that in Canada especially the police evolved from and served a similar role as the military.  To this day the RCMP has some interaction and duties related to the military.

Yes, RCMP, French Gendarmerie, Italian Carabinieri were created as a hybrid, which may have something to do with their institution at times of intense social strife and revolutionary fervor, or to be able to deploy more lethal force against First Nations.

[The Minsky Moment]

Well when you speak of something growing out of the justice system, rather than the military, it is a bit of an artificial distinction the further back one goes.  Our justice system can be traced back to 1066.  In fact our former Chief Justice was often fond of referring to the Courts William set up in her speeches imploring today's politicians to provide better access to justice.  The courts of the Crown were obviously backed by the power of the crown to enforce its will (the military).   

The medieval precedents aren't very helpful as it is difficult to talk about our modern concept of a civilian-military distinction c. 1066.
In most of the medieval period in England, service and enforcement of process for the royal courts was under the responsibility of the county sheriff.  I don't think it makes much sense to conceptualize the sheriff as a "military" official.
The idea of a state military as an identifiable, autonomous organization really doesn't rise until pretty deep into the early modern period.

The point that I believe grumbler has been making is that there the formal distinction between military and civilian is most significant under present day concepts of international law and custom, in in particular the laws of war. His point -which I believe is correct - is that police forces of the type we are talking about are typically considered to be on the civilian side in that context and rightfully so.  There are paramilitary type organizations which can blur the line but I would the US would not reach the point where local police forces have to considered paramilitaries of that type.

Then Oex makes the different point about the historical origins of professional police forces in the 19th century in the context of the distinction between civilian justice and military operation as it existed at that time.  The medieval context is very different and thus does not refute that point.

EDIT: seems like I overlapped a bit.

[Barrister]

All I know is that for almost 20 years I've been practicing criminal law, and for that entire time witnesses have been divided into two categories: police and civilians.

On the rare occasions I would call a military officer I would have probably categorized them as a civilian - unless they were Military Police (I did occasionally get MP investigated files from CFB Cold Lake or CFB Wainwright).

[Valmy]

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.

Wait people in fancy neighborhoods hang out in municipal parks? I mean I am not questioning the idea that busybody assholes do not live in all neighborhoods but why are you using municipal parks as an example? The fancy people do not go there and mix with the peasants.

[Sheilbh]

Wait people in fancy neighborhoods hang out in municipal parks? I mean I am not questioning the idea that busybody assholes do not live in all neighborhoods but why are you using municipal parks as an example? The fancy people do not go there and mix with the peasants.

Of course they do - they normally have particularly nice parks.

[Valmy]

Wait people in fancy neighborhoods hang out in municipal parks? I mean I am not questioning the idea that busybody assholes do not live in all neighborhoods but why are you using municipal parks as an example? The fancy people do not go there and mix with the peasants.

Of course they do - they normally have particularly nice parks.

Sure. But they will be gated off and paid for by HoA fees or something. The municipal park? I mean you expect to see the unwashed masses there. Especially at a place like Central Park. If you were going to call the NYPD on every brown skinned person you would be doing nothing but.

[Oexmelin]

Wait people in fancy neighborhoods hang out in municipal parks? I mean I am not questioning the idea that busybody assholes do not live in all neighborhoods but why are you using municipal parks as an example? The fancy people do not go there and mix with the peasants.

I am using that case, as it has actually happened - and more than once. In fact, I stumbled upon these cases googling for the one I remembered more vividly, from Louisiana (and which I haven't found yet).

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/cookout-after-cops-called-over-black-bbq_n_5af86368e4b00d7e4c1b9caf

https://www.ctvnews.ca/world/white-woman-who-called-police-on-black-man-bird-watching-in-central-park-has-been-fired-1.4954755

https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ny-svitlana-from-janae-brown-park-viral-video-20200603-z3y3motmbfforb7gfk2e4yz6la-story.html

https://www.thedailybeast.com/white-man-calls-police-on-black-family-using-neighborhood-pool

[Sheilbh]

Sure. But they will be gated off and paid for by HoA fees or something. The municipal park? I mean you expect to see the unwashed masses there. Especially at a place like Central Park. If you were going to call the NYPD on every brown skinned person you would be doing nothing but.

This may just be a big US-UK difference. Poshos definitely use parks.

[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.

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.

I don't recall arguing that police were not a part of the public they serve.


I wonder if this is just a matter of context.  You tend to look at the question from a more military perspective I would assume, given your own history.  And yes if looking at a military conflict you would include police as civilians - they're clearly not combatants.  But in other situations (like my anecdote about witnesses above) members of the military might well be classified as civilians.

[The Minsky Moment]

Sure. But they will be gated off and paid for by HoA fees or something. The municipal park? I mean you expect to see the unwashed masses there. Especially at a place like Central Park. If you were going to call the NYPD on every brown skinned person you would be doing nothing but.

The only gated park in NYC IIRC is Gramercy Park - which is very small and available only to the surrounding residents. It's a very nice area with pricey apartments but most super-rich people don't live anywhere near there but rather around Central Park.

[Valmy]

Sure. But they will be gated off and paid for by HoA fees or something. The municipal park? I mean you expect to see the unwashed masses there. Especially at a place like Central Park. If you were going to call the NYPD on every brown skinned person you would be doing nothing but.

The only gated park in NYC IIRC is Gramercy Park - which is very small and available only to the surrounding residents. It's a very nice area with pricey apartments but most super-rich people don't live anywhere near there but rather around Central Park.

Sure. But they will be gated off and paid for by HoA fees or something. The municipal park? I mean you expect to see the unwashed masses there. Especially at a place like Central Park. If you were going to call the NYPD on every brown skinned person you would be doing nothing but.

This may just be a big US-UK difference. Poshos definitely use parks.

Yeah but the claim was that the rich are terrified of blacks invading their fancy spaces, which is probably true. But surely Central Park is not one of those spaces. Everybody is in central Park. The same with fancy people going to Zilker Park in Austin. Thousands of people are there every day. Black people showing up there is not going to endanger your mansion on Lady Bird Lake.

So I was confused by using that as an example of how the rich are likely to call the cops on invading poors. You expect to see poors at Central Park.

[Oexmelin]

So I was confused by using that as an example of how the rich are likely to call the cops on invading poors.

That wasn't my claim. Rather, they call the cops on people they *think* do not belong, i.e., black people. Whether or not those black people are part of the community.

I am not talking about Central Park - although clearly this has happened in Central Park. I was thinking of the smaller parks in the midst of residential neighborhoods - where you have municipal facilities, like tennis courts, pools, picnic tables, etc.