The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Admiral Yi]

Tough call that one.

So make the tough call.

[grumbler]

Which one?

Shot 13 year old.

Tough call that one.

I don't think we have nearly enough information to start reaching a judgement on that case.

[grumbler]

Tough call that one.

So make the tough call.

Why don't you go first, of you are so eager to see leaps to judgement?

[11B4V]

Which one?

Shot 13 year old.

Tough call that one.

I don't think we have nearly enough information to start reaching a judgement on that case.

Yup

[mongers]

In a war between two or more states, if one state is doing badly and some of it's territory is occupied, the police forces there are not taken prisoner by the occupying power, have protections written in international conventions and can still go about maintaining civil order amongst the civilian population. They are decidedly not military in any meaning full way.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, so that well describes a function and powers of someone appointed with police powers.  But I don't see why that precipitates a need to make those persons distinctive from others on that basis alone, again, except for what seems to be an inexplicable need to highlight that distinction in the widespread sense that we do.

I simply just don't see a need for it.  And as Grumbler has highlighted, that artificial distinction seems to have spawned plenty of downsides and maintains no real benefits (I won't count simply administrative ones).

I think it has to do with who exercises the coercive powers of the state.  The military and police are rather unique in that way.

Prison guards exercise the coercive powers of the state, as do dogcatchers and meter maids, so police and military are not, in fact, unique in that.

Your argument boils down to special pleading (you really need to look that up before you continue to ignore the First Rule of Holes).

Wow, where you live meter maids have the same powers as the police.  I mean there are a lot of stories about the militarization of the police down there.  But holy crap, I had no idea Meter maids were packing.  You sure you want to keep living there?

[Berkut]

Prison guards exercise the coercive powers of the state, as do dogcatchers and meter maids

Wow, where you live meter maids have the same powers as the police.

[Tonitrus]

Ok, so that well describes a function and powers of someone appointed with police powers.  But I don't see why that precipitates a need to make those persons distinctive from others on that basis alone, again, except for what seems to be an inexplicable need to highlight that distinction in the widespread sense that we do.

I simply just don't see a need for it.  And as Grumbler has highlighted, that artificial distinction seems to have spawned plenty of downsides and maintains no real benefits (I won't count simply administrative ones).

I think it has to do with who exercises the coercive powers of the state.  The military and police are rather unique in that way.

Prison guards exercise the coercive powers of the state, as do dogcatchers and meter maids, so police and military are not, in fact, unique in that.

Your argument boils down to special pleading (you really need to look that up before you continue to ignore the First Rule of Holes).

Wow, where you live meter maids have the same powers as the police.  I mean there are a lot of stories about the militarization of the police down there.  But holy crap, I had no idea Meter maids were packing.  You sure you want to keep living there?

I know you and Grumbler have a special antagonism between you, but I don't think he said that, or even implied it. 

As I read it, he was including those professions (even if "meter maid" is a rather outdated and sexist term I'd think these days) that exercise the authority of the state and law, albeit in a lesser degree. 

As to your point, are they unique?  In a sense, sure.  But I would counter that other professions and functions of the state (or even in the private sphere) have their own uniqueness, but don't earn a special civilian/police divide.  They may not all have the direct, literal "hands-on" contact of a police officer...but so what?  I don't see a good argument for that uniqueness necessitates an artificial divide that creates two "classes" of human beings where it is not necessary to do so.

Perhaps the argument needs to shift to "why is it necessary to have an exceptional distinction, not shared by other professions, between police officers and other people in a society?". 

At first glance, the potential answer "because they exercise the coercive power of the state", doesn't seem adequate or necessary...as we could then just as easily throw up other reasons to allocate people in certain professions from others in society.    It just seems like a form of division that we don't need.

Or we just need to agree to disagree and let this squabble die. 

[Malthus]

Ok, so that well describes a function and powers of someone appointed with police powers.  But I don't see why that precipitates a need to make those persons distinctive from others on that basis alone, again, except for what seems to be an inexplicable need to highlight that distinction in the widespread sense that we do.

I simply just don't see a need for it.  And as Grumbler has highlighted, that artificial distinction seems to have spawned plenty of downsides and maintains no real benefits (I won't count simply administrative ones).

I think it has to do with who exercises the coercive powers of the state.  The military and police are rather unique in that way.

Prison guards exercise the coercive powers of the state, as do dogcatchers and meter maids, so police and military are not, in fact, unique in that.

Your argument boils down to special pleading (you really need to look that up before you continue to ignore the First Rule of Holes).

Wow, where you live meter maids have the same powers as the police.  I mean there are a lot of stories about the militarization of the police down there.  But holy crap, I had no idea Meter maids were packing.  You sure you want to keep living there?

I know you and Grumbler have a special antagonism between you, but I don't think he said that, or even implied it. 

As I read it, he was including those professions (even if "meter maid" is a rather outdated and sexist term I'd think these days) that exercise the authority of the state and law, albeit in a lesser degree. 

As to your point, are they unique?  In a sense, sure.  But I would counter that other professions and functions of the state (or even in the private sphere) have their own uniqueness, but don't earn a special civilian/police divide.  They may not all have the direct, literal "hands-on" contact of a police officer...but so what?  I don't see a good argument for that uniqueness necessitates an artificial divide that creates two "classes" of human beings where it is not necessary to do so.

Perhaps the argument needs to shift to "why is it necessary to have an exceptional distinction, not shared by other professions, between police officers and other people in a society?". 

At first glance, the potential answer "because they exercise the coercive power of the state", doesn't seem adequate or necessary...as we could then just as easily throw up other reasons to allocate people in certain professions from others in society.    It just seems like a form of division that we don't need.

Or we just need to agree to disagree and let this squabble die. 

I think the two sides are simply arguing two different things.

Your "side" is arguing that the distinction isn't a good idea. Presumably, because using such a distinction may lead to bad attitudes on the part of the cops, contribute to a creeping militarization on the part of the cops, etc.

I may even agree with that.

However, the other "side" is basically noting that the distinction exists, is used by some, and that there is a reason why it is used - because cops have coercive powers, and that this difference is important.

No doubt other professions have coercive state powers to a degree, so maybe the definition is a bit fuzzy around the edges, but that is basically that.

Point is, both points of view can be true at the same time - the distinction may make sense, but it also may be a bad idea to make it. The fact that it may be a bad idea doesn't invalidate the fact that the distinction makes sense.

[jimmy olsen]

CdM worked in Baltimore didn't he?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/8xvzwp/baltimore-cops-carried-toy-guns-to-plant-on-people-they-shot-trial-reveals-vgtrn

Baltimore Cops Carried Toy Guns to Plant on People They Shot, Trial Reveals

One officer involved in the city's massive corruption scandal said officers kept the replicas "in case we accidentally hit somebody or got into a shootout, so we could plant them."

[The Brain]

Didn't bin Ladin carry a Super Soaker? Allegedly...

[Valmy]

CdM worked in Baltimore didn't he?

A long ass time ago. I think he was bail bonding by the time he started posting on Languish.

[crazy canuck]

Prison guards exercise the coercive powers of the state, as do dogcatchers and meter maids

Wow, where you live meter maids have the same powers as the police.

Grumbler was making an equivalency argument, I am as confused by it as you are.

[crazy canuck]

Ok, so that well describes a function and powers of someone appointed with police powers.  But I don't see why that precipitates a need to make those persons distinctive from others on that basis alone, again, except for what seems to be an inexplicable need to highlight that distinction in the widespread sense that we do.

I simply just don't see a need for it.  And as Grumbler has highlighted, that artificial distinction seems to have spawned plenty of downsides and maintains no real benefits (I won't count simply administrative ones).

I think it has to do with who exercises the coercive powers of the state.  The military and police are rather unique in that way.

Prison guards exercise the coercive powers of the state, as do dogcatchers and meter maids, so police and military are not, in fact, unique in that.

Your argument boils down to special pleading (you really need to look that up before you continue to ignore the First Rule of Holes).

Wow, where you live meter maids have the same powers as the police.  I mean there are a lot of stories about the militarization of the police down there.  But holy crap, I had no idea Meter maids were packing.  You sure you want to keep living there?

I know you and Grumbler have a special antagonism between you, but I don't think he said that, or even implied it. 

As I read it, he was including those professions (even if "meter maid" is a rather outdated and sexist term I'd think these days) that exercise the authority of the state and law, albeit in a lesser degree. 

As to your point, are they unique?  In a sense, sure.  But I would counter that other professions and functions of the state (or even in the private sphere) have their own uniqueness, but don't earn a special civilian/police divide.  They may not all have the direct, literal "hands-on" contact of a police officer...but so what?  I don't see a good argument for that uniqueness necessitates an artificial divide that creates two "classes" of human beings where it is not necessary to do so.

Perhaps the argument needs to shift to "why is it necessary to have an exceptional distinction, not shared by other professions, between police officers and other people in a society?". 

At first glance, the potential answer "because they exercise the coercive power of the state", doesn't seem adequate or necessary...as we could then just as easily throw up other reasons to allocate people in certain professions from others in society.    It just seems like a form of division that we don't need.

Or we just need to agree to disagree and let this squabble die. 

The lesser degree is the critical point.  Grumbler's argument falls apart when he tries to suggest there is an equivalency between the powers of the police and the powers of a person who gives out fines.

[merithyn]

CdM worked in Baltimore didn't he?

https://www.vice.com/en/article/8xvzwp/baltimore-cops-carried-toy-guns-to-plant-on-people-they-shot-trial-reveals-vgtrn

Baltimore Cops Carried Toy Guns to Plant on People They Shot, Trial Reveals

One officer involved in the city's massive corruption scandal said officers kept the replicas "in case we accidentally hit somebody or got into a shootout, so we could plant them."

He left the force for reasons such as this.