The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[crazy canuck]

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.

This is conflating a lot of historical developments into a much cleaner - and anachronistic narrative.  What we understand as common law today has little to do with the kind of justice being practiced in the era of William the Conqueror.  William was no ambitious legal reformer and the Anglo-Saxon legal system was basically left in place and then supplemented by new institutions as needed. The "common law" then was just customary law. Very little was written down and no one was thinking about putting in place what we would consider a common law system of adjudication.  At some point Henry I had Anglo-Saxon "law codes" (really just compilations of customary law) translated into Latin, although it can be questioned to what extent this was actually used in dispensing justice.

Medieval kings moved around all the time and didn't stay in a fixed capital.  So the origin of royal circuit courts in England is just the King and his retainers moving about the countryside and taking care of business wherever they were.  Kings might also hold a major council assembly that was modeled after the Anglo-Saxon witan. If an issue arose that warranted royal attention arose somewhere else from where the King happened to be, then a trusted retainer could be sent to deal with it. The main purpose of a royal agent visting a location was to keep an eye out for local trouble and assert the king's interest; if that involved intervening in some local disputes that were of potential interest to the Crown, so be it.  Some counties had permanent sheriffs appointed by the King to perform these functions; that of course is another Anglo-Saxon institution that the Norman kings adopted for their use. This is all a far cry from the late medieval common law courts and institutions.

The system of "general eyres" isn't set up until Henry II reign and even then it's really just formalizing a system where royal officials travel to other regions of the country to keep an eye on royal interests and judge certain disputes (including capital crimes), usually applying some kind of customary law.  It's also probably around this time that some kind of permanent judicial body starts sitting in Westminster.

It is only gradually and over time that justices receive more formal training, that written records are kept, and that institutions develop such that by the late middle ages the common law institutions and practices of the 18th century are reasonably identifiable.  It is Whiggish historians that then project this development back in time to create a narrative of teleological, directed progress as opposed to a series of improvisations that happened to coalesce into something not originally designed.

It is trite to say that the development of the common law is a complex story.  I was responding to a claim that justice was an intensely local matter administered locally by local peers.  That is not accurate.

And yes, the original system moved in place of the king - that is exactly what I said 

The point is justice was not dispensed by a local peer in a fixed location

[grumbler]

I think the answer to the question of whether cops are "civilians" is that both sides of the debate are right.

In colloquial use, police are not "civilians" (they often wear a uniform and carry an identity that allows them certain powers and duties that non-cops lack).

However, under the Geneva Conventions, cops are "civilians". Only members of the armed forces are not. The point is that under these conventions, "civilians" have a different legal status - for the purposes of war and peace: enemy powers have certain obligations towards them, if they join in attacks on soldiers this has a particular legal impact, etc.

In other words, it depends on the context. The term implies a legal distinction, generally that the person known as a "civilian" is not authorized to use force in the same way as a non-civilian, and is consequently owed duties of good treatment and protection by non-civilians ... but the context is different. A policeman who is not a member of the armed forces is a "civilian" for purposes of war and peace, and a "non-civilian" in colloquial use in his or her own society, when going about their duties.

I would agree that there are informal contexts in which people consider that there is a distinction between police and "civilians," especially among police themselves.  I also simply note that, for every reason some people agree with the police special pleading that they are not civilians, the same standards apply to all kinds of other groups.

And what are police, if not civilians and not military?  Some third category?  If so, what category and how is it defined.  Are firefighters part of the same category, or are they a fourth category?  What about off-duty firefighters?  Rent-a-cops?  Off-duty rent-a-cops?  Dogcatchers?  Boy Scouts?  Astronauts? On and on.

Nobody wants to be a mere civilian.  They want to feel special and different.  Better.  But wanting doesn't create its own reality.  And the reality is that, if police are not civilians, then almost nobody is a civilian. Everybody has a reason to consider themselves privileged.

And caving to a groups desire to be special and privileged creates resentment from the non-privileged and contempt from the privileged.  It is best avoided.  Police are civilians, like the policed.

[Barrister]

I would agree that there are informal contexts in which people consider that there is a distinction between police and "civilians," especially among police themselves.  I also simply note that, for every reason some people agree with the police special pleading that they are not civilians, the same standards apply to all kinds of other groups.

And what are police, if not civilians and not military?  Some third category?  If so, what category and how is it defined.  Are firefighters part of the same category, or are they a fourth category?  What about off-duty firefighters?  Rent-a-cops?  Off-duty rent-a-cops?  Dogcatchers?  Boy Scouts?  Astronauts? On and on.

Nobody wants to be a mere civilian.  They want to feel special and different.  Better.  But wanting doesn't create its own reality.  And the reality is that, if police are not civilians, then almost nobody is a civilian. Everybody has a reason to consider themselves privileged.

And caving to a groups desire to be special and privileged creates resentment from the non-privileged and contempt from the privileged.  It is best avoided.  Police are civilians, like the policed.

A few different points:

-you keep trying to argue that police<> civilians is some kind of special pleading, or informal association - but most actual definitions I can find for the word "civilian" excludes police

-what are police if not civilian or military?  They're, get ready for this, "police".  We don't need another word.

-where do you draw the line?  What about my original definition: uniforms, system of rank, hierarchical command structure.  So firemen meet all three.  The others do not.  (okay Boy Scouts obviously copies such a system, but as an organization for children I would say they don't count).

-what's so special about not being a civilian?  Wearing a uniform and taking orders doesn't make one special.  I think I on the other hand am kind of special - heck while they're technically framed as "requests" I get to order cops around all day.  And I am 100% a civilian.

[The Minsky Moment]

Catholic clergy have uniforms, system of rank, hierarchical command structure.  Most professional sports are organized in the same way.  The judiciary in many places satisfies that definition.  University professors (tweed for ordinary service, robes for formal occasions). Masonic lodges.   I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of others.

[Zoupa]

There may not have been a lot of planning done during the chase of an armed suspect.

Your cops need more training and a change in their SOP/ROE if they're going t be shooting folks with their hands up.

Their union president on CNN called the shooting 100% justified and actually heroic 

[grumbler]

A few different points:

-you keep trying to argue that police<> civilians is some kind of special pleading, or informal association - but most actual definitions I can find for the word "civilian" excludes police

I don't think that what you happen to find in some google search establishes an authoritative definition of the word, especially as  (1) many sources do not distinguish between police and other civilians, and (2) neither does the law.

-what are police if not civilian or military?  They're, get ready for this, "police".  We don't need another word.

-where do you draw the line?  What about my original definition: uniforms, system of rank, hierarchical command structure.  So firemen meet all three.  The others do not.  (okay Boy Scouts obviously copies such a system, but as an organization for children I would say they don't count). 

So we have civilians, military, police (but not plainclothes policemen, who don't have uniforms?), and firefighters.  Are airline pilots police, or firemen?  What about Secret Service Agents, FBI Agents (can't be police, which would invalidate your distinguishing feature of "uniforms"), plainclothes policemen, Fedex Deliverymen, Park Rangers, football players.. I could go on and on, but the point is clear:  your simple definition doesn't work, nor does the idea that there are categories equivalent to civilian and military that are part of neither.

-what's so special about not being a civilian?  Wearing a uniform and taking orders doesn't make one special.  I think I on the other hand am kind of special - heck while they're technically framed as "requests" I get to order cops around all day.  And I am 100% a civilian.

Indeed, why don't cops accept that they are civilians?  What's so special about not being a civilian?

Do cops in, say, the UK or Spain or Germany distinguish between themselves and "civilians?"

[Malthus]

I would agree that there are informal contexts in which people consider that there is a distinction between police and "civilians," especially among police themselves.  I also simply note that, for every reason some people agree with the police special pleading that they are not civilians, the same standards apply to all kinds of other groups.

And what are police, if not civilians and not military?  Some third category?  If so, what category and how is it defined.  Are firefighters part of the same category, or are they a fourth category?  What about off-duty firefighters?  Rent-a-cops?  Off-duty rent-a-cops?  Dogcatchers?  Boy Scouts?  Astronauts? On and on.

Nobody wants to be a mere civilian.  They want to feel special and different.  Better.  But wanting doesn't create its own reality.  And the reality is that, if police are not civilians, then almost nobody is a civilian. Everybody has a reason to consider themselves privileged.

And caving to a groups desire to be special and privileged creates resentment from the non-privileged and contempt from the privileged.  It is best avoided.  Police are civilians, like the policed.

A few different points:

-you keep trying to argue that police<> civilians is some kind of special pleading, or informal association - but most actual definitions I can find for the word "civilian" excludes police

-what are police if not civilian or military?  They're, get ready for this, "police".  We don't need another word.

-where do you draw the line?  What about my original definition: uniforms, system of rank, hierarchical command structure.  So firemen meet all three.  The others do not.  (okay Boy Scouts obviously copies such a system, but as an organization for children I would say they don't count).

-what's so special about not being a civilian?  Wearing a uniform and taking orders doesn't make one special.  I think I on the other hand am kind of special - heck while they're technically framed as "requests" I get to order cops around all day.  And I am 100% a civilian.

I would say it is the ability to use force during the course of their official duties, sanctioned by the state, in ways that non-police may not, that sets police apart.

[crazy canuck]

I would agree that there are informal contexts in which people consider that there is a distinction between police and "civilians," especially among police themselves.  I also simply note that, for every reason some people agree with the police special pleading that they are not civilians, the same standards apply to all kinds of other groups.

And what are police, if not civilians and not military?  Some third category?  If so, what category and how is it defined.  Are firefighters part of the same category, or are they a fourth category?  What about off-duty firefighters?  Rent-a-cops?  Off-duty rent-a-cops?  Dogcatchers?  Boy Scouts?  Astronauts? On and on.

Nobody wants to be a mere civilian.  They want to feel special and different.  Better.  But wanting doesn't create its own reality.  And the reality is that, if police are not civilians, then almost nobody is a civilian. Everybody has a reason to consider themselves privileged.

And caving to a groups desire to be special and privileged creates resentment from the non-privileged and contempt from the privileged.  It is best avoided.  Police are civilians, like the policed.

A few different points:

-you keep trying to argue that police<> civilians is some kind of special pleading, or informal association - but most actual definitions I can find for the word "civilian" excludes police

-what are police if not civilian or military?  They're, get ready for this, "police".  We don't need another word.

-where do you draw the line?  What about my original definition: uniforms, system of rank, hierarchical command structure.  So firemen meet all three.  The others do not.  (okay Boy Scouts obviously copies such a system, but as an organization for children I would say they don't count).

-what's so special about not being a civilian?  Wearing a uniform and taking orders doesn't make one special.  I think I on the other hand am kind of special - heck while they're technically framed as "requests" I get to order cops around all day.  And I am 100% a civilian.

I would say it is the ability to use force during the course of their official duties, sanctioned by the state, in ways that non-police may not, that sets police apart.

I tried the argument that the police have special powers. This group is not biting. 

[Malthus]

Catholic clergy have uniforms, system of rank, hierarchical command structure.  Most professional sports are organized in the same way.  The judiciary in many places satisfies that definition.  University professors (tweed for ordinary service, robes for formal occasions). Masonic lodges.   I'm sure I'm missing a bunch of others.

Again, I think what distinguishes police is the sanctioned ability to use force against others under certain circumstances, in ways non-police may not, that sets them apart.

Indeed, that distinguishing feature is the very reason for this thread - the use (and abuse) of this sanction by police, the extent of the circumstances under which the use of force is actually justified (one argument being that the sanction is not subject to sufficiently stringent conditions, leading to trigger-happy cops), etc.

Catholic clergy and University Professors no doubt commit many abuses against others, but gunning people down is usually not among them - in part because they are not expected to occasionally have to use force in the course of their duties (although knowing some undergraduates ... 😉).

[grumbler]

I would say it is the ability to use force during the course of their official duties, sanctioned by the state, in ways that non-police may not, that sets police apart.

They certainly have use of force powers, as I noted when I brought up the issue.  But airline pilots have the ability to pilot commercial aircraft during the course of their official duties, sanctioned by the state, in ways that non-airline-pilots may not.  How are they not set apart from police, firefighters, civilians, military, and boy scouts?

And Secret Service agents have the ability to use force during the course of their official duties, sanctioned by the state, in ways that non-police-non-secret-service persons may not.  Are they police, civilians, firefighters, military, boy scouts, or a new category?

I fail to see either the logic or the utility of creating a category exclusively for the police and separate from civilians and military (which are part of customary international law and in US laws).  I can see how it can lead to pernicious attitudes from both police and non-police, but I see no positive effects.

[grumbler]

I tried the argument that the police have special powers. This group is not biting.

That's because lots of groups have "special powers" and no one can articulate why the police special powers are super-special.

[Eddie Teach]

FWIW, I think Secret Service agents are clearly a type of police.

[Barrister]

Yeah what's the argument that the Secret Service aren't police (and hence not civilians)?

[alfred russel]

FWIW, I think Secret Service agents are clearly a type of police.

Secret police? 

[Oexmelin]

From my reading, that whole thing was you completely missing Oex's point, focusing on a random detail and deciding that was the main point and arguing vehemently against something that mostly existed in your head.

... but I'm sure someone will be along to say you're completely right at any minute.

Pretty much, yeah.