The Shooting Gallery: Police Violence MEGATHREAD

[Valmy]

Well nobody is perfect. I can only have what is in my head and what I read on the screen, I don't have direct access to what is in other heads or what others might read into something.

He stated that these people are like this. I need more than that to think that is a fair characterization. He did not qualify that in any way. But it is a minor thing that I did not anticipate would go on for this long of a discussion.

[The Brain]

A citizen accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic, defending it with his life. A civilian does not.

[Tonitrus]

In all of these arguments about police vs. civilian, I cannot help but think that it sounds like, when one boils it all down to some kind of root cause for the existence of the distinction, is simply the desire for that distinction to exist...whether it is necessary or not.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

I agree but police are also distinct from members of the military, who are also sanctioned to use force, because the subject population for which force is authorized is the citizenry the police are supposed to be serving as opposed to a hostile foreign armed force.  Hence the concern about the militarization of police rhetoric, mentality, tactics and equipment, a trend that is exemplified by the tendency to embrace a police-"civilian" distinction.

[Sheilbh]

Yeah I think the difference is the military/non-civilian do not police their "own". So the military may be involved in policing, for example if there's widespread civil disturbances but this is almost always on the basis that they are not from the community they are policing. This also exists in certain European police forces that either technically are part of the Ministry of Defence (Carabinieri/Gendarmes model) or were deliberately posted to a different area, often staying in a barracks (Civil Guard). As well as colonial models and police forces that perhaps initially developed to police other communities.

The "public" in that line are the community that is being policed. You're not calling "in" (from somewhere else/outside) the army, or men with no families in a barracks. And I think that concept (which in the UK was created from parish constables and watchmen) was developed in contrast to the yeomanry or the army or the gendarmes, or the colonial police forces being created in bits of the British Empire.

[crazy canuck]

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.

The police can lawfully kill you.  That seems to be a superpower similar to the military.

[Barrister]

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.

The police can lawfully kill you.  That seems to be a superpower similar to the military.

I really wouldn't put it that way.

I mean - I could lawfully kill you given the right circumstances.

[grumbler]

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

No uniforms, which was an identifier you used.  Ditto for FBI.

As you are finding out, defining differences that don't exist is hard.

[grumbler]

In all of these arguments about police vs. civilian, I cannot help but think that it sounds like, when one boils it all down to some kind of root cause for the existence of the distinction, is simply the desire for that distinction to exist...whether it is necessary or not.

[crazy canuck]

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.

The police can lawfully kill you.  That seems to be a superpower similar to the military.

I really wouldn't put it that way.

I mean - I could lawfully kill you given the right circumstances.

Sure, let me expand the answer then.  The police have powers to restrain, inflict physical harm, remove your liberty and even kill you to an extent that a citizen does not.

[Barrister]

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

No uniforms, which was an identifier you used.  Ditto for FBI.

As you are finding out, defining differences that don't exist is hard.

[Razgovory]

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.

The police can lawfully kill you.  That seems to be a superpower similar to the military.

I'm a civilian, and the military can not lawfully kill me.  So that suggests they are NOT military but rather civilian.

[grumbler]

The police can lawfully kill you.  That seems to be a superpower similar to the military.

All civilians can lawfully kill you.  The police are no different in this respect (other than the circumstances that the law allows).  Airline pilots have the superpower of lawfully piloting your plane.  Dogcatchers have the superpower of detaining your dog.  Are none of these civilians because they have superpowers?

[grumbler]

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

No uniforms, which was an identifier you used.  Ditto for FBI.

As you are finding out, defining differences that don't exist is hard.

This is not an argument, and the "uniforms" are not uniform.

[crazy canuck]

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.

The police can lawfully kill you.  That seems to be a superpower similar to the military.

I really wouldn't put it that way.

I mean - I could lawfully kill you given the right circumstances.

Sure, let me expand the answer then.  The police have powers to restrain, inflict physical harm, remove your liberty and even kill you to an extent that a citizen does not.

For those who missed the expansion of the answer.

But really, Grumbler, if you need to ignore the obvious differences between the powers given to the police and those given to a citizen to apply force, you might want to reconsider the validity of your argument.