The role of police (hopefully non political)

[Ausmumof3]

I’m wondering if we can talk about what police actually do across various different cultures and countries, without it becoming political?  I have seen some more extreme views that seem to advocate for abolishing police altogether.  This seems quite impossible to me, but if I understand right the concept of a police force or service as separate to the military is a fairly modern concept.  I guess I’m also wondering if police are always the best option for various scenarios.

Things that spring to mind that seem to have a clear need and provide a clear benefit to society are - domestic violence intervention, child abuse intervention, mental health intervention.  But they don’t always have a brilliant track record with all those things and I’m willing to be persuaded that they could be handled better by a different body.  Other stuff they do here - security for large events, taking traffic accident reports, managing traffic hazards due to vehicle accidents, spills etc, managing road blocks during fires, firearms background checks and registration, working with children checks.  That’s all stuff aside from the main policing of crime - theft, murder, fraud, drugs etc.  it’s hard to see logistically how all that could be replaced in places where people are calling for the police to actually be disbanded even if it’s a temporary measure while things are rebuilt.

[Ausmumof3]

Just now, HeighHo said:

Police here are first responders too. They'll be giving first aid/CPR if they arrive on the scene and medical help is needed.  

I'll have to ask what the current PD or workplace training is for identifying that people who are agressive or violent are impaired or high. 

Yes good point.  Also coordinating searches for missing persons.

[EmilyGF]

One thing I learned in Israel and the Netherlands is that police don't need to be the hyper-authoritarians they are in the USA. In Israel, you apparently are expected to debate with police about ticketing etc, at least if you speak Hebrew. This friend said it was really weird moving to the USA and having to retrain himself to humbly submit to the police.

Emily

[Ausmumof3]

Fire brigade do assistance with falls here though I’m not sure if police would handle that when fire are busy elsewhere.

I just remembered police are sometimes called to shoot injured wildlife that have been hit by cars.  Or sometimes they call animal rescue I think. 

[Ausmumof3]

6 minutes ago, EmilyGF said:

One thing I learned in Israel and the Netherlands is that police don't need to be the hyper-authoritarians they are in the USA. In Israel, you apparently are expected to debate with police about ticketing etc, at least if you speak Hebrew. This friend said it was really weird moving to the USA and having to retrain himself to humbly submit to the police.

Emily

Here it tends to be if you’re friendly and polite you might get a warning.  If you’re argumentative they will probably check your car over to see if they can find anything to yellow sticker you for.

[marbel]

Police are public-safety officers, which entails a broad range of activities:  traffic/speed control, assistance at accidents all sorts, crime prevention/investigation.  Sometimes animal control in an emergency.  Definitely a presence at large gatherings such as protests - there have been a lot of calm, peaceful protests in my area lately, with a positive police presence. 

Regarding domestic violence, from the OP: I am wondering what other entity would be better equipped to walk into a DV situation. As far as I have always heard/read, that is the most dreaded form of call the police get, and the one most likely to get a cop killed or injured. I have heard people suggest sending social workers.... into a potentially dangerous/volatile situation. I think a team of cop/social worker might be good. But social workers are not always available 24/7 and minutes away. 

Re: child abuse - in my state, police are involved if the child's life seems to be in imminent danger. Otherwise, social workers are sent. And they are not always sent quickly.

Being a white suburban person, I have always had pleasant interactions with police, even when getting a ticket. I get it that it is because of who I am and the places I have lived/traveled in.  Where I live now, the police are a friendly presence, seen as as community helpers.  A few miles away in Philadelphia, probably not so much.  Though I have witnessed a lot of police kindness in Philly, such as interacting with homeless people around the train stations. 

Edited June 12, 2020 by marbel

[Janeway]

The police are supposed to be the ones who carry a gun and protect us. They also are the ones who mentor children at school and direct traffic to help church goers enter and exit on to main roads without accidents. They also go around to neighborhoods on special occassions to greet people and give stickers. They also give tickets. They take teens shopping at the beginning of the school year to help them have a good start to the year. They are present in the schools so if a student is struggling and needs someone to talk to, they are there as a good listening ear and mentor. That is what the police do in my community. Sometimes, they even stop to help change a tire.

[Janeway]

34 minutes ago, EmilyGF said:

One thing I learned in Israel and the Netherlands is that police don't need to be the hyper-authoritarians they are in the USA. In Israel, you apparently are expected to debate with police about ticketing etc, at least if you speak Hebrew. This friend said it was really weird moving to the USA and having to retrain himself to humbly submit to the police.

Emily

If in Israel, they debate with the officer over the ticket, then it just means the officer is also serving as a judge and jury. In the US, the officer gives the ticket, but then you go to court to sort it out. The officer can choose to give a warning, but it is the judge/jury that decides if you should or should not have the ticket. The judge also has the ability to lower the fine.

[Pen]

I currently live in a rural area without police. (Essentially without—there are potentially sheriffs, state police, FBI, or federal military police, but no police as someone in an area with a police department would think of it.  Many of the things you mentioned are not done at all, or individual citizens, or one of the other departments does it.)

I have lived in England briefly when/where police did not carry guns, which was very different than in US cities I have lived in.  I lived in South America for awhile, where police had not so good reputation, but I cannot recall police at all. 

 

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Pen

[J-rap]

They work as security in some schools/universities around here.  

Also, we have an increasing homeless population here, and I believe the police keep a pretty watchful eye on those communities.  They're looking for problems like drug, mental illness, duress, but they also help direct them (and sometimes drive them) to shelters in the winter time.

The idea of re-imagining the police force plus bringing in other types of agencies is a fascinating concept to me, and I look forward to hearing about new ways of doing things.

 

[Carrie12345]

Police do just about everything in my area, but we’re also a little different from many US regions. There’s only one “town” police department on the other end of the county, iirc. It’s regional and state troopers for the rest of us, and private developments have private security teams.
We’re all volunteer fire and mostly paid EMS. We also have officers in schools.

Abolish the police isn’t really literal to most people. Redistribution of duties would need to look different in each area.

[Ausmumof3]

58 minutes ago, Pen said:

I currently live in a rural area without police. (Essentially without—there are potentially sheriffs, state police, FBI, or federal military police, but no police as someone in an area with a police department would think of it.  Many of the things you mentioned are not done at all, or individual citizens, or one of the other departments does it.)

I have lived in England briefly when/where police did not carry guns, which was very different than in US cities I have lived in.  I lived in South America for awhile, where police had not so good reputation, but I cannot recall police at all. 

 

 

This is interesting.  It seems like historically police came about as a response to increasing urbanisation.  We are only semi rural but police are probably 20-30 mins away in the best of circumstances. 

[City Mouse]

I think that changing roles police is going to have a lot of grey.

Domestic violence-  the idea of sending a social worker sounds good, but what happens when the SW arrives and all parties deny any issues? What happens when one person wants help but the spouse becomes violent to the SW or the family members?

Child abuse - again sending a social worker, child protective services etc, sounds good, and sometimes that is what happens. However, in my state, police are the only agency that can remove a child for immediate danger. CYFD has to go to court first and get approval which can take a long time. (We have a weaker child protection agency than many states) 

Mental health - I Do think this is one area where improvements could be made. Most police get some training in crisis intervention/ mental health issues, but they are not medical professionals. I don’t understand why people want police officers intervening in mental health situations rather than EMS. If more money is spent to provide services and interventions before families resort to calling the police, then I do think some police situations could be avoided. There needs to be more access to medical professionals, medications, even residential placements when necessary. On the other hand, should EMS workers be put in the position of facing down a mentally ill person with a gun or knife?

Illegal drugs - police don’t make the laws, but are required to enforce what law makers decide. If the system of laws regarding illegal drugs are changed, then some situations might be avoided. Changes such as reducing the level of charge for position of small amounts, legalization of marijuana, stuff like that. Then law enforcement could focus on dealers, selling to minors. More money could go into drug treatment services. I don’t really know much about this topic, but I see the potential for reforms here.

I do think that the UK system of police officers not carrying guns was a great decision from the beginning, but with less access to guns overall there are trade offs. I have seen several reports of domestic violence where women are attacked with acid. I can’t say that is any better than being shot by a partner. And I don’t think that police officers not carrying guns would work in the US. There are too many guns in the general public, so I don’t know that there is an easy solution to this.

One thing that I think might help with policing in general in the US is for it not to be seen as a life-long career for most people. Maybe it should be more like serving in the military or the Peace Corps or something like that. Most people could join for 4-8 years and then move on to other careers while some people stay for their whole working lives. This would help eliminate the burn out and/or PTSD that effects some officers. If salaries are raised and policing ever becomes a desirable and admired job again, then there would be a larger pool of candidates to choose from which would allow for increased screening of the candidates to hopefully avoid hiring those people with underlying mental health issues of their own. Departments have tried raising requirements such as requiring college hours and increasing age, but in more resent years the pool of candidates has dried up so that departments ovens resort to hiring people with criminal records. I would be more specific and say with increasing severity of criminal records as some previous minor offenses being allowed has been normal.

There are no easy answers. Changing any one aspect of policing in the US means making changes or compromises in other areas of society. I think many of those changes are needed, but other people, including law makers, may not.

[Arcadia]

2 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

 This seems quite impossible to me, but if I understand right the concept of a police force or service as separate to the military is a fairly modern concept.  I guess I’m also wondering if police are always the best option for various scenarios.

When I was a kid/young adult, Singapore had lots of different “police groups”. The Gurkhas are from British colonial times and use in high security areas and for riots. They are Nepalese so no one can accuse them of racial discrimination https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_623_2005-01-09.html

Military police is more of an internal police for the army, for court martial and other internal stuff. https://www.mindef.gov.sg/oms/arc/our-formation-military-police.html

SWAT team is used similarly to other countries covering vice, narcotics, gangs.

No national guards. The army is used for distributing rations if needed. No wars so the army is mainly use for aid, domestic and SE Asia. 
 

ICE (immigration) is under immigration and CID, however Singapore rarely have overstayers. People tend to come to work in Singapore to migrate elsewhere (US, UK) or to earn enough to go back home to start a business/buy a large homestead. There is no citizenship by birth, only citizenship by parentage. No incentive to be in Singapore without a valid visa.

[Loowit]

The role of police varies a lot depending on region and the size of the city.  I grew up in the county in a small unincorporated town.  We didn't have police, we had the Sheriff's office if something went wrong.  It would usually take them at least 30 mins to respond unless they happened to be in the area.  In fact, right now we are outside of city limits, so the Sheriff's office responds if we have problems, but it can be a bit fast since we are only 3 miles from their offices.  This is only a plus if they are in the office, but often they are out on patrol.

Law enforcement is more than just city police, it is Sheriffs and their deputies, it is state police/troopers, then there are federal officers like marshals and the FBI.  All of them serve in different roles.  Within various states they also serve in different roles, so what law enforcement looks like in my neck of the woods is much different than the east coast, the southwest, or the southeast.  We have no get out of ticket stickers like was mentioned in a different thread.  That would not go over well here at all.  In fact most of the law enforcement officers I know would give a friend or relative a ticket if pulled over so that they can't be accused of favoritism.

My DH served as a reserve officer for 15 years in a small city.  He had to medically retire a couple years ago.  His department had a good reputation in the city and worked hard on community policing.  They spend a lot of time attending community events, doing traffic control at parades, breaking up bar fights, serving warrants, going on DV calls, being first on the scene for a lot of wrecks, patrolling for speeders especially in the school zone, and the list goes on.  They do training at least once a month for a variety of things.  They also are sometimes asked to backup the Sheriff's office if the nearest deputy is too far away.

I have a number of law enforcement officers in my family, and am very familiar with the various branches in our region.  My FIL started out in Seattle PD (big city policing), he then moved to a small rural county in eastern Washington which was completely different.  He tells stories about calls he had there like having to get a bull out of the road.  He also had to serve part of his time in the jail as a guard as part of his duties as a deputy.  Then he moved to a bigger county in western Washington where he served in various positions until he was later elected sheriff and served several terms.  His big thing was community policing and making sure that his deputies were following the laws, including traffic laws, thereby setting a good example.  Deputies in our county see a lot of different things for their duties depending an where they are serving.  If they are in the more rural areas it is likely doing some traffic, helping with wreck scenes, going on calls for DVs or robberies/burglaries, sometimes helping with serving warrants.  Recently when DD was home she thought she heard an intruder, so they came to investigate.  They cover any calls that are inside the county but outside of city limits where there are police.

Talking to my DH about everything going on and the idea of dividing some of the labor to different agencies.  He said most law enforcement that he knows would love to hand off mental health crises.  That is not something they have a lot of training for, and very few have a degree in mental health.  As far as DV, those are very serious situations and one of the most likely calls that officers can be injured or killed.  DH's former police chief was big on DV calls and making sure his officers were well trained for those situations.  So while it might be helpful in some situations to send in a trained non-law enforcement officer, I don't think they should go in without police backup, and it could very well turned bad very quickly with extra hostages and such.

And another thing I thought of that law enforcement do is helping EMS with calls.  My parents were volunteer EMS (we had no professionals in our rural town) and they would sometimes get calls that seemed dangerous for one reason or another and the law enforcement would go in first to ensure EMS's safety.

Right now our local law enforcement puts on classes called Citizen's Academy (well it is suspended due to Covid right now). The purpose of these classes is to allow citizens to see what law enforcement does but also as a platform for citizens to voice their opinions and get feedback.  Topics are things like court processes, crime prevention, defensive tactics, DUI investigations, firearms, gang enforcement, investigations, K-9 programs, narcotics investigations, patrol functions, property crimes, and traffic law.  Every participant has the chance to ride along with an officer on duty for 3 hours.  It has been a very successful program in our area.

[Pen]

30 minutes ago, Ausmumof3 said:

This is interesting.  It seems like historically police came about as a response to increasing urbanisation.  We are only semi rural but police are probably 20-30 mins away in the best of circumstances. 

 

France? 

 Maybe?  Like perhaps Middle Ages even? maybe even pre musketeers etc times.  Precursors to gendarmes.

[wathe]

1 hour ago, City Mouse said:

 

Mental health - I Do think this is one area where improvements could be made. Most police get some training in crisis intervention/ mental health issues, but they are not medical professionals. I don’t understand why people want police officers intervening in mental health situations rather than EMS. If more money is spent to provide services and interventions before families resort to calling the police, then I do think some police situations could be avoided. There needs to be more access to medical professionals, medications, even residential placements when necessary. On the other hand, should EMS workers be put in the position of facing down a mentally ill person with a gun or knife?

 

Under the mental health act here, only police have the authority to require a person to attend a hospital for an emergency mental health evaluation.  EMS cannot bring MH in involuntarily, only police can.   The town that I work in has a community outreach and support team for mental health calls:  a non-uniformed police officer and a mental health worker who attend  together.  It works very well.  But unfortunately not available 24/7.  If there is any concern about both medical distress and mental health distress, police and EMS attend together.

[Pam in CT]

Asha Rangappa (former FBI, now on the faculty of Yale Law School) was on one of those lawyerly podcasts (lawfare, justsecurity, Talking Feds) a week or so ago (after the protests had begun) drawing an extended distinction between "Law and Order" vs "Rule of Law," that I've been turning over in my mind ever since.

The gist of her take was that though the two concepts sound similar, and definitely do overlap, there are important differences in emphasis and in underlying values, and it behooves us as citizens to attend to the difference and to listen to how language is used to discern the difference.

"Rule of law," she argued, emphasizes the "rules" part. The ideal is that the rules apply to everyone, equally, justice for all, the lady holding the scales wearing a blindfold; with no one above the rules, even the highest leaders, even the guys in blue.  That ideal is not always met in practice, but the ideal that is emphasized, in the language and by its adherents, is justice.  And within the rules of representative democracy, there is a mechanism within the rules, to change the rules, albeit slow and imperfect and in practice unequally accessible.

Whereas, she argued, "law and order" emphasizes the "order" part. The ideal is to maintain order,  The order we have, based on existing power distribution. She riffed through the same speed-history lesson that I heard Rep Clyburn rip through this afternoon on NPR, about how the modern "police" grew out of slavecatchers to Jim Crow enforcers to enforced voter suppression to civil rights suppression to the Reagan and Clinton to today's militarized forces, all of whom used the phrase "law and order" as a clarion call, the aim of which was to protect the existing order. 

They are not mutually exclusive or on opposite "sides,"  They are interdependent. Rules can only apply equally if they are actually applied, so enforcement matters. Orders, under a democracy at least, are supposed to be based on the rules, so rules matter. But it's a difference in emphasis, and even in a week I've started to hear who leans into the language and concepts of the one, versus the other.

 

My eldest and I had a good conversation yesterday applying Rangappa's two concepts to "rules" related to safety on the road (speeding, DUI, running through traffic lights) vs "rules" related to drug possession.  It was interesting, just limiting down to those two sets of rules, how Rangappa's distinction helped bring to the surface the values of justice vs order (and brought into relief how easily overweighting the latter can undermine the former).

What functions do we need police, specifically, for?  (She and I both agreed: there are such functions. * )   What functions are police expected to fill in the US that might be better filled by professionals trained in mental health, dispute resolution or other fields?  *Why* do US police need military-grade equipment of a type that no other democracy deploys against their own citizens?  Has that militarization actually "helped"?  To what end?  All these are questions that *in a democracy the citizens have standing to demand.*

 

Clyburn, FWIW, outright rejected the term "defund the police," favoring instead "restructure the police."  It was radio so I can't quote exactly but the gist was, if you have to explain what a term means, you've already lost the argument. Pick a better term.

 

 

( * As background to Family Dynamics in CT: though on WTM I believe I present as one small step in from a communist... within my own household I am regarded as one small step in from Richard Nixon.)

 

Edited June 12, 2020 by Pam in CT

[SKL]

I agree that police have many roles, and most of them fulfill them to the best of their ability.  And no, there is not a way to replace much of what they do.  Replacing the cops with [whatever else] can invite trouble.  Some of the most famous problem cases people cite involved non-cops trying to take the law into their own hands.

And yes, the cops need guns, because a lot of the people they have encounters with are armed and dangerous.  It is uncommon for cops to draw their weapons, but that doesn't mean they shouldn't have them.

Culturally, it seems to be better to recruit and assign police where they match the community more or less.  Whether that's a racist concept is up for debate.  But it just seems that an ability to relate culturally can help defuse things that have the potential to be defused.  So, that, plus better training and more accountability, would be where I'd focus efforts to reform police.

[Laura Corin]

There was an interesting police reaction this week in the city where I grew up. A statue of a slave trader was (finally) pulled down and was dropped into the harbour, and the police decided not to intervene.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-bristol-52993995

 

[Xahm]

My husband, who is a police officer, and I have been talking a lot about reforms that are needed, even before events brought this into national attention. Here are some of the things we've discussed recently.

Police are asked to do too much with too little training. Our department gets far more than the state requires, but they still don't touch on many things the officers need to know on a daily basis, like, laws regarding custody disputes. This leads to officers using their best judgement but making many mistakes that have to be sorted out later, with very real affects on the lives of families (just one example).

The main emphasis in much of their training is "you could be shot at any moment." Readiness is important, but incidents where officers go in on too high alert and make mistakes because of it are more common among newer officers.

Training needs to be longer, with more information about laws and available resources, and then the on the job part of the training, where new officers ride with experienced officers, needs to be way, way longer as that's the most helpful part. Kind of like becoming a teacher, much of what needs to be learned can only be taught through doing. Unfortunately, right now the academies are all closed due to Corona and the last batch of recruits got graduated early. I suspect the next batch will be given an abbreviated course as well since by the time an academy can be run, the county will be desperate for officers.

There also needs to be more help for officers to deal with the stuff they see. There are some resources, but they have to be sought out. They should be automatically offered and, in some cases, required. When dh returned from serving overseas, the first day here reported to work they had him running calls on his own. As it happens, he wasn't in an especially harrowing plane while he was overseas and wasn't having to process too much, but they didn't even check that.  

Other changes need to be made, like ending the war on drugs. Also, currently in our state, when police officers arrive at a scene of domestic violence where any injury or property damage has been done, they have to label someone the primary aggressor and take that person to jail. That law was made for good reasons but has had bad unintended consequences and hasn't helped terribly much to protect domestic violence victims.

[Ausmumof3]

9 hours ago, Pen said:

 

France? 

 Maybe?  Like perhaps Middle Ages even? maybe even pre musketeers etc times.  Precursors to gendarmes.

I don’t know much about French policing.  I had in mind that the musketeers were more like the kings private army but my impressions are pretty much solely from Alexander Dumas 😆

[Ausmumof3]

10 hours ago, Arcadia said:

When I was a kid/young adult, Singapore had lots of different “police groups”. The Gurkhas are from British colonial times and use in high security areas and for riots. They are Nepalese so no one can accuse them of racial discrimination https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_623_2005-01-09.html

Military police is more of an internal police for the army, for court martial and other internal stuff. https://www.mindef.gov.sg/oms/arc/our-formation-military-police.html

SWAT team is used similarly to other countries covering vice, narcotics, gangs.

No national guards. The army is used for distributing rations if needed. No wars so the army is mainly use for aid, domestic and SE Asia. 
 

ICE (immigration) is under immigration and CID, however Singapore rarely have overstayers. People tend to come to work in Singapore to migrate elsewhere (US, UK) or to earn enough to go back home to start a business/buy a large homestead. There is no citizenship by birth, only citizenship by parentage. No incentive to be in Singapore without a valid visa.

Oh yes we have a separate border security body - the Australian border force.  I had forgotten about that.

[Ausmumof3]

5 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

Asha Rangappa (former FBI, now on the faculty of Yale Law School) was on one of those lawyerly podcasts (lawfare, justsecurity, Talking Feds) a week or so ago (after the protests had begun) drawing an extended distinction between "Law and Order" vs "Rule of Law," that I've been turning over in my mind ever since.

The gist of her take was that though the two concepts sound similar, and definitely do overlap, there are important differences in emphasis and in underlying values, and it behooves us as citizens to attend to the difference and to listen to how language is used to discern the difference.

"Rule of law," she argued, emphasizes the "rules" part. The ideal is that the rules apply to everyone, equally, justice for all, the lady holding the scales wearing a blindfold; with no one above the rules, even the highest leaders, even the guys in blue.  That ideal is not always met in practice, but the ideal that is emphasized, in the language and by its adherents, is justice.  And within the rules of representative democracy, there is a mechanism within the rules, to change the rules, albeit slow and imperfect and in practice unequally accessible.

Whereas, she argued, "law and order" emphasizes the "order" part. The ideal is to maintain order,  The order we have, based on existing power distribution. She riffed through the same speed-history lesson that I heard Rep Clyburn rip through this afternoon on NPR, about how the modern "police" grew out of slavecatchers to Jim Crow enforcers to enforced voter suppression to civil rights suppression to the Reagan and Clinton to today's militarized forces, all of whom used the phrase "law and order" as a clarion call, the aim of which was to protect the existing order. 

They are not mutually exclusive or on opposite "sides,"  They are interdependent. Rules can only apply equally if they are actually applied, so enforcement matters. Orders, under a democracy at least, are supposed to be based on the rules, so rules matter. But it's a difference in emphasis, and even in a week I've started to hear who leans into the language and concepts of the one, versus the other.

 

My eldest and I had a good conversation yesterday applying Rangappa's two concepts to "rules" related to safety on the road (speeding, DUI, running through traffic lights) vs "rules" related to drug possession.  It was interesting, just limiting down to those two sets of rules, how Rangappa's distinction helped bring to the surface the values of justice vs order (and brought into relief how easily overweighting the latter can undermine the former).

What functions do we need police, specifically, for?  (She and I both agreed: there are such functions. * )   What functions are police expected to fill in the US that might be better filled by professionals trained in mental health, dispute resolution or other fields?  *Why* do US police need military-grade equipment of a type that no other democracy deploys against their own citizens?  Has that militarization actually "helped"?  To what end?  All these are questions that *in a democracy the citizens have standing to demand.*

 

Clyburn, FWIW, outright rejected the term "defund the police," favoring instead "restructure the police."  It was radio so I can't quote exactly but the gist was, if you have to explain what a term means, you've already lost the argument. Pick a better term.

 

 

( * As background to Family Dynamics in CT: though on WTM I believe I present as one small step in from a communist... within my own household I am regarded as one small step in from Richard Nixon.)

 

Very interesting distinction thank you.  I have noticed the difference in American versus Aus police shows as to policing styles and assumed it was due to firearms etc but it seems there’s also a completely different historical background which probably makes for a different culture (not that we don’t have our own problems!).

[Ausmumof3]

This comes from the first link I found when searching on policing history.  It’s from an article about Robert Peel

Early Public Opposition to the Police Force 

The concept of a centralized, professional police force was a tough sell initially and was met with a tremendous amount of resistance. The public feared that a police force would essentially behave as another arm of the military. As a result, there was an understandable reluctance to agree to be controlled by what many assumed would be an occupying force.

To overcome this opposition, Peel is known for laying the framework for what a police force should be comprised of and how a good police officer should conduct himself. While there is debate as to whether he ever clearly enumerated his ideas in any sort of list format, it is generally agreed that he created what are to this day considered to be the primary principles of policing.

Principles of Policing: The Why and How 

The "Peelian Principles," as they are often called, insisting that:

The purpose of the police force is to prevent crime and maintain order.

Police depend on the approval and trust of the public to effectively do their jobs.

The ultimate goal of policing is to achieve voluntary compliance with the law in the community.

Police must be unwavering in their duties and adherence to the law, maintaining impartiality and avoiding the temptation to be swayed by public opinion.

The use of force and physical control is to be used as a last resort, only when other forms of persuasion have failed.

Police officers must remember that they, too, are members of the public and that their purpose is to serve and protect the public.

The true measure of the effectiveness of any police force is not the number of arrests or police actions taken, but the absence of criminal conduct and violations of the law.

[Ausmumof3]

Just wanted to say thanks to everyone.  I have really enjoyed reading the different perspective re policing in different countries and from those with family members working in the job.  I love that we can have thoughtful discussion from so many viewpoints here.

[Pen]

2 hours ago, Ausmumof3 said:

I don’t know much about French policing.  I had in mind that the musketeers were more like the kings private army but my impressions are pretty much solely from Alexander Dumas 😆

(Another local law enforcement arm are forest rangers and similar.) 

 

weren’t the musketeers in trouble with the more regular “police” of the time? Idk, don’t remember it all that well.  Anyhoo:

France-/Wikipedia  history of the gendarmerie (the surete is much more recent): 

“The Gendarmerie is the direct descendant of the Marshalcy of the ancien regime, more commonly known by its French title, the Maréchaussée.

During the Middle Ages, there were two Grand Officers of the Kingdom of France with police responsibilities: The Marshal of France and the Constable of France. The military policing responsibilities of the Marshal of France were delegated to the Marshal's provost, whose force was known as the Marshalcy because its authority ultimately derived from the Marshal. The Marshalcy dates back to the Hundred Years War, and some historians trace it back to the early twelfth century.

Another organisation, the Constabulary (French: Connétablie), was under the command of the Constable of France. The constabulary was regularised as a military body in 1337.

In 1415 the Maréchaussée fought in the Battle of Agincourt and their commander, the "Prévôt des Maréchaux" (Provost of the Marshals), Gallois de Fougières, was killed in battle.

”

 

 

[Ottakee]

One thing I read, and I don't know statistics, is that some police forces are mostly fully funded by tax dollars while others rely greatly on fees and fines to fund the department.

I could see where that would make a big difference in how the police react to things and the pressure on them to "meet a quota" of tickets/fines to pay the bills.

[sassenach]

18 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

 

Clyburn, FWIW, outright rejected the term "defund the police," favoring instead "restructure the police."  It was radio so I can't quote exactly but the gist was, if you have to explain what a term means, you've already lost the argument. Pick a better term.

 

 

( * As background to Family Dynamics in CT: though on WTM I believe I present as one small step in from a communist... within my own household I am regarded as one small step in from Richard Nixon.)

 

1000% this. It's going to take funds, and lots of them, to successfully restructure our police departments. 

 

I love your footnote.

[Pam in CT]

re LE budgets/salaries being funded out of the tickets they write: What do we expect will happen next?

4 hours ago, Ottakee said:

One thing I read, and I don't know statistics, is that some police forces are mostly fully funded by tax dollars while others rely greatly on fees and fines to fund the department.

I could see where that would make a big difference in how the police react to things and the pressure on them to "meet a quota" of tickets/fines to pay the bills.

This was the most important underlying structural factor found by the DOJ in the Ferguson report (well worth reading).

When municipal budgets are based on LE writing the tickets to fund their own salaries and budgets, a domino effect ensues. Police have incentives to write a crap-ton of tickets, generally; but especially citations for "discretionary" infractions that are near-impossible to argue (loitering, jaywalking, failure to comply) and especially to people they deem unlikely to contest a ticket (i.e. poor people with limited time to take off work to appear in court to appeal) or unlikely to win if they contest a ticket (a portion of the report tracks outcomes in having tickets dismissed prior to court, and overruled in court, and in both cases, clear differences by race); and to people they deem unlikely to be able to pay tickets on time (since the late fees rack up to hundreds of dollars on a $35 ticket, and the "payment plans" effect the same... either of which raises yet more money flowing into LE budgets.)

It is what economists call an "adverse incentive structure."

And, importantly, once the structure is in place, those adverse incentives play out organically, regardless of whether or not individuals within the system are racist, or have malice in their hearts, or evil "intent."

Once police are tasked with raising their own budgets through writing citations, they are motivated by budget imperatives to raise as much money as possible. Chiefs will (and did, in Ferguson) establish bonus plans so officers who wrote a lot of tickets would get bonuses: well, makes budget sense irregardless of any other intent. Faced with that bonus structure, individual officers will write as many tickets as they can.  There is more scope to write discretionary citations like "loitering" than other types. And etc.

 

(Much like, once those red lines were drawn, all the actors just maximized profits within that structure, whether or not there was evil in their hearts.  Commercial bankers wrote mortgages where the loans were eligible for federal insurance. House values on the wrong side of the line plummeted in value because resale was impossible because mortgages were impossible because mortgages were uninsurable. Folks who couldn't get mortgages because they lived on the wrong side of the line had no option but to turn to predatory lenders.  Even the predatory lenders were motivated by profit maximization, not (necessarily) racism per se. The structure was built on racism, but once built it proceeded on its own financial logic.

Like private prisons, and prison labor, and militarization of police equipment, and private surveillance of probation, today.  A lot of insight to be had to our current system, and current problems, in following the money.)

[Robin M]

nm

Edited June 14, 2020 by Robin M

[J-rap]

12 hours ago, Ottakee said:

One thing I read, and I don't know statistics, is that some police forces are mostly fully funded by tax dollars while others rely greatly on fees and fines to fund the department.

I could see where that would make a big difference in how the police react to things and the pressure on them to "meet a quota" of tickets/fines to pay the bills.

That's really interesting...  I just figured there were nation-wide policies on this, but obviously I know very little.

[Robin M]

@xahm  Many thanks to your husband for his service and hugs to you.   Back the Blue on facebook posted this a couple days ago which really brings home all the things police officers do for us.

 

 

 

Before you try to defund police, let’s remember a few things...

This badge ran towards certain death as the Towers collapsed on 9-11.

This badge ran into the line of fire to save the people in the Pulse Night Club.

This badge sheltered thousands as bullets rained down from the Mandalay Hotel in Las Vegas.

This badge protected a BLM rally that left five officers dead in Dallas.

This badge ran into the Sandy Hook School to stop a school shooter.

This badge killed the Oregon District mass shooter in seconds.

This badge has done CPR on your drowned child.

This badge has fist fought the wife beater who left his spouse in a coma.

This badge has run into burning buildings to save the occupants.

This badge has been shot for simply existing.

This badge has waded through flood waters to rescue the elderly trapped on the roof.

This badge has intentionally crashed into the wrong way driver to protect innocent motorists.

This badge has helped find the lost child so his mother would stop crying hysterically.

This badge has helped the injured dog off the road and rushed it to the vet.

This badge has escorted the elderly woman across the street because she couldn't see well and was afraid to cross.

This badge has bought food for hungry kids because they had been abandoned.

This badge has been soaked in blood and tears.

This badge has been covered by a mourning band to honor those who have sacrificed everything in service.

You may hate them because they wear it. But, they wear it with pride. Despite your hate and your anger, they will await the next call for help. And, they will come running without hesitation. Just like the thousands of men and women across this great nation.

This badge.

-Unknown