The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[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.

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

Ok but the claim was not that white people do this but that people in fancy neighborhoods do this because they fear people coming into their neighborhoods. The latter two links certainly apply to this claim. I don't see how the others do unless all white people, even unidentified ones, are assumed to be rich people from fancy neighborhoods.

By the way three of those people seem to have gotten pretty severe blowback from those incidents so their assumption the institutions would back them up seems pretty unfounded.

[Valmy]

That wasn't my claim.

It wasn't? But you said:

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.

So "outsiders" coming into their fancy spaces.

[Oexmelin]

Yes. They are afraid of outsiders, which they identify as black people, and thus call cops on black people using these spaces. I am not expecting white racists to conduct a thorough sociological survey of the people they denounce to cops. I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, nor why it would matter.

[Valmy]

Yes. They are afraid of outsiders, which they identify as black people, and thus call cops on black people using these spaces. I am not expecting white racists to conduct a thorough sociological survey of the people they denounce to cops. I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make, nor why it would matter.

Ok so you are making a claim. That fancy people are more likely to call the cops on black people than non-fancy people. Then to demonstrate this you don't provide data but instead you bring up a few anecdotes that do not even demonstrate the premise. Like you are just depending on the already existing prejudice of the audience. I don't like the rich as much as the next person but that seems pretty lazy.

[Oexmelin]

WTF are you talking about.

[crazy canuck]

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.

To your last point first, whatever the societal context when the RCMP was created - it remains today a hybrid force.  And a good example of the artificial boundary you are creating.  Further to that point, reflect on when the military was called in to "police" the Oka crisis.

To your first point, the development of our law goes back well before the 18th century and it is quite arbitrary to make that a cut off date for the analysis.  Especially for a common law jurisdiction.  I suspect your views are highly influenced by the development of the Napoleonic code and its antecedents.  For common law jurisdictions the story is very different.  As just one example, our notion that an employee and employer must give the other notice when terminating an employment contract dates back to the black death when workers were in short supply and were walking off the job to take on better terms.  These days it is often thought of as an employer's obligation, but the obligation of the employee still exists at common law.

Back in the time before time (the 90s) Languish had a discussion about the book Law and Revolution which is a great source for common law developments that are still with us to day which occurred in the 11th and 12th centuries.

I will forgive you your "bad history" comment as I realize your work is not related to the development of the English legal tradition.

Lasty, in relation to your comment about justice being intensely local - that again I think betrays a lack of understanding of the development of the English common law.  The point of referring back to the courts set up by William, is that for the first time in England, there was a centralized judiciary which operated on an assize system - ie the judges were not based in the community but travelled (in place of the crown).  It was through this innovation that the common law developed.  This group of judges began to develop common legal principles which they governed how they would decide the cases brought before them.  Consistency was developed.  It was no longer based on a peer system of justice where the community decided.  It was now the King's justice.  It was not long ago that we still called our highest trial courts "the Court of Kings/Queens Bench".  I think they still might do so in England?  We still refer to Queens/Kings Counsel as a high honour one can be granted.  You even get to wear special robes in court with that designation.

I could go on, but the point is, there is much that is lost if you stop at the 18th century.

[crazy canuck]

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.

Grumbler's argument creates a narrow definition and ignores the powers that are given to non military personal.  It also ignores the overlap between powers given to police and powers given to the military and particularly in the Canadian context with the RCMP.  The US may be a special case and so perhaps Grumbler's narrow definition works in your country.  But it is not universally applicable.

[Barrister]

I have CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the police / civilian divide.

My kids are building with Lego.  I just heard them say that they've built some houses for the police, so now they should build some houses for civilians.

[Admiral Yi]

I have CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the police / civilian divide.

My kids are building with Lego.  I just heard them say that they've built some houses for the police, so now they should build some houses for civilians.

Wrong thread. 

[Jacob]

I have CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the police / civilian divide.

My kids are building with Lego.  I just heard them say that they've built some houses for the police, so now they should build some houses for civilians.

Shocking that your children would take their cue from you and reflect your world view back to you at such a young age.

[Habbaku]

I have CONCLUSIVE PROOF of the police / civilian divide.

My kids are building with Lego.  I just heard them say that they've built some houses for the police, so now they should build some houses for civilians.

Shocking that your children would take their cue from you and reflect your world view back to you at such a young age.

I was going to say it wasn't surprising that Beeb holds the same positions as children, but I like yours more.

[grumbler]

CC's argument creates a narrow definition and ignores the the fact that many powers that are given to non military personal.  It also invents an overlap between powers given to police and powers given to the military and particularly in the Canadian context with the RCMP.  The RCMP can be taken into military service, just as the US Coast Guard can be taken into military service, or the National Guard, etc.  The US is not a special case and so perhaps CC's narrow definition doesn't really work in any country.  His narrow definition  is certainly not universally applicable.  It's not even narrowly applicable, except in the semantic sense that some sources claim some non-civilian-non-military status for police and some undefined other groups with "powers" not possessed by the populace at large.  CC's narrow definition of "civilian" lacks any semblance of intellectual rigor.

[jimmy olsen]

13 year old boy shot dead immediately after complying with an order for hands up.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JulianCastro/status/1382822882858860547

Chicago PD shot Adam Toledo with his hands in the air instantaneously after ordering him to do so—then lied about it.

They executed Adam, a boy who was not yet in high school.

Indict this officer, then pass a national use of force standard immediately.

Chicago police kill Black people at a rate 22x higher than white people and kill Latinx people at a rate 6x higher. This is the most extreme racial disparity in fatal police violence of any major city. The only place that comes close is Minneapolis. http://mappingpoliceviolence.org

https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1382818394508992517

[grumbler]

13 year old boy shot dead immediately after complying with an order for hands up.

https://mobile.twitter.com/JulianCastro/status/1382822882858860547

Chicago PD shot Adam Toledo with his hands in the air instantaneously after ordering him to do so—then lied about it.

They executed Adam, a boy who was not yet in high school.

Indict this officer, then pass a national use of force standard immediately.

Chicago police kill Black people at a rate 22x higher than white people and kill Latinx people at a rate 6x higher. This is the most extreme racial disparity in fatal police violence of any major city. The only place that comes close is Minneapolis. http://mappingpoliceviolence.org

https://twitter.com/samswey/status/1382818394508992517

Adam Toledo had a gun in his right hand when he turned towards the officer who shot him.  Some dude on twitter calling it an "execution" doesn't make it one.

It's a tragedy, but it's not at all clear that the police officer wasn't justified in shooting.

[jimmy olsen]

Prosecutor has walked back on that detail. And I didn't see it in the footage.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/wgntv.com/news/chicago-news/prosecutor-who-said-adam-toledo-had-gun-in-his-hand-not-fully-informed/amp/

But now, in response to a WGN Investigates inquiry, the state's attorney's office says the detail about Adam having a gun in his hand the moment he was shot was inaccurate.