Ship of Fools: the origins of police

Thread: the origins of police Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030171

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

The police, we are told, are here to serve and protect. But given the amount of violence that the police serve on their fellow citizens, it makes one wonder exactly whom they serve and protect, and why, and how this situation came to be.

This article on the origins of the police is fascinating. If it's accurate, then it's the case that police body-slamming schoolteachers and shooting unarmed behavioral therapists and the like are not a bug, but a feature. It's exactly how the system was intended to work from the very beginning.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

As a troublesome adolescent, the police would turn up in a van, and suggest having three rounds with them in the back. Actually, nobody took them up on it, so I suppose it worked. But it gave me a permanent fear and resentment towards bobbies.

Posted by Gramps49 (# 16378) on :

Nothing new in the article. The primary purpose of the police is to protect the status quo. Whenever there is a need for social change you will seldom find the police on the side of change.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I get rather tired of the same memes about police from America taken as true of everywhere.

The RCMP, or rather its predecessors, the NWMP and RNWMP (Northwest and Royal Northwest Mounted Police) were created to keep Americans out. Notwithstanding that Alberta has about 20% of its population descended from dried out (i.e., drought) farmers from there, and also because land speculation was much more strictly regulated in Canada.

The "us versus them" orientation toward police probably happens everywhere to a degree, but it is parochial to consider that bad American experiences are reflected everywhere. Brief searches indicate things like American police kill in 24 days the same number of people killed in England and Wales in 24 years. Even liberally adjusting for population, the problem is clearly much much worse for Americans. Canada is not so good, though we don't have national statistics, a reported extrapolated that our police shoot about 25 people a year, about 1/3 the number shot in California which has about the same population.

[ 24. July 2016, 16:53: Message edited by: no prophet's flag is set so... ]

Posted by Stercus Tauri (# 16668) on :

The rate of killings by police in Canada may be far less than in the USA, but is nothing to be proud of, and the handling of them can be appalling. After a killing in British Columbia more than a month ago, the full explanation for it and the identity of the officer involved have not been released, even to the victim's family, and nobody expects them to be. I can't imagine that happening anywhere else. I don't think the safety of the community was in any way enhanced by this man's death, and nor were the community's respect for, and trust in, the police. (Statement of interest: I am acquainted with the man's parents).

Posted by Ricardus (# 8757) on :

Even if one accepts the premise that the foundational purpose of the British police was crowd control, the British police was never supposed to be armed - because the rich and powerful were afraid of creating a parallel private army. Therefore, the fact that some units of the British police are able to carry out shootings at all is a bug, not a feature.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
Therefore, the fact that some units of the British police are able to carry out shootings at all is a bug, not a feature.

It is the use of nonlethal violence that is the feature, at least according to the article. It says,

quote:
The new police force was designed specifically to inflict nonlethal violence upon crowds to break them up while deliberately trying to avoid creating martyrs. Now, any force that’s organized to deliver violence on a routine basis is going to kill some people. But for every police murder, there are hundreds or thousands of acts of police violence that are nonlethal — calculated and calibrated to produce intimidation while avoiding an angry collective response.

The occasional deaths, in this analysis, are an unfortunate side effect. The system, which is intended to intimidate the people, has another function as well:

quote:
The day-to-day life of patrolling gets police accustomed to using violence and the threat of violence. This gets them ready to pull off the large-scale acts of repression that are necessary when workers and the oppressed rise up in larger groups. It’s not just a question of getting practice with weapons and tactics. Routine patrol work is crucial to creating a mindset among police that their violence is for the greater good.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

I agree that the situation is getting out of hand, but how exactly should the job of policing be handled, Josephine? Personally, I don't really have a clue. Many who say that police are doing a poor job and use too much violence basically say that they knew that the job was dangerous, so they should just suck it up and stop whining that criminals with guns might kill them. So what? It's their job to die for their community. I'd never be a police officer. I wouldn't trust what direction fear would push me.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Actually, there are two models of policing in the British tradition, one that uses firearms and one that doesn't.

The Metropolitan Police is the unarmed tradition, which is definitely geared towards crowd control and suppression of political activity, but not the suppression of revolt, which is the job of the Army.

The other tradition is the Royal Irish Constabulary, which was always armed as it was aimed explicitly at the protection of sovereignty and the suppression of rebellion so that the British Army could be spared for really big incidents like the Easter Uprising.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Ontario Provincial Police, the Sûreté du Québec and the Australian state police are all armed, and all are explicitly modelled on the RIC. They were all founded with the intent to protect state sovereignty in colonies with a weak military presence, usually with the intent to promote 'our kind of settlers' and to keep out 'their' settlers.

But I do note the distinct Marxist tone of the article cited by Josephine.

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
I agree that the situation is getting out of hand, but how exactly should the job of policing be handled, Josephine? Personally, I don't really have a clue.

One major change would be getting police departments out of the business of funding the local government. That seems to be a major factor in the communities with the most abusive police departments.

Police departments should focus on de-escalation and restraint. It's making a difference in Boston. And in Philadelphia and a few other places.

Civilian review boards. Dash cams and body cams (that are treated as public records, not as personnel records).

Keep records so that you can tell when racial profiling is happening, then train or discipline as needed to make it stop.

Policing is safer now than it's ever been. Police behavior should reflect that.

Posted by Macrina (# 8807) on :

I have had a hell of a weekend which involved my first ever dealings close up with police.

I have been 100% impressed by their care, professionalism and appropriate handling of the complete pile of rubbish that they have had to deal with.

For now at least NZ Police have my vote.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

{{{{{Macrina}}}}} [Votive]

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

Once upon a time I studied criminology, including the history of crime and policing. I don't think that is an accurate outline of the history of policing in the UK.

Posted by Doublethink. (# 1984) on :

This is better - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_law_enforcement_in_the_United_Kingdom, but still misses out pre 1700s and the development on the policing of currency and the military that were very influential in the development of policing.

Posted by Joesaphat (# 18493) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Macrina:
I have had a hell of a weekend which involved my first ever dealings close up with police.

I have been 100% impressed by their care, professionalism and appropriate handling of the complete pile of rubbish that they have had to deal with.

For now at least NZ Police have my vote.

Yup, I've had my moments as a teen, and later, and frankly I would not now be able deal with people who behave like I did with half the grace and benign restraint the police showed me. Sorry, but they have to use force, sometimes, that's the whole b///y idea.

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I do note the distinct Marxist tone of the article cited by Josephine.

Indeed.

The article shows very little understanding of crime.

People of a Marxist bent tend to see the archetypal crime as the poor stealing from the rich. In other words, private action to accomplish what the Marxist seeks to accomplish by political action...

Some crime is indeed of that nature. But by no means all.

One glance at the newspapers should be enough to convince that there are a whole lot of seriously screwed-up people out there, whom the police are expected to deal with.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Very true. The Toronto Police Service, Canada's largest and oldest (1834) has a long, long history of being a defacto social welfare agency. Child welfare (now Children's Aid), animal welfare (Humane Society), among other things.

It all stemmed from the fact that the police were the only agency with significant local presence everywhere in the city, not just at City Hall.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Russ--

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

quote:
Originally posted by Sober Preacher's Kid:
I do note the distinct Marxist tone of the article cited by Josephine.
Indeed.

The article shows very little understanding of crime.

People of a Marxist bent tend to see the archetypal crime as the poor stealing from the rich. In other words, private action to accomplish what the Marxist seeks to accomplish by political action...

To a Marxist, wouldn't it be the other way around? That is, the archetypal crime would be the *rich* stealing from the *poor*?

Posted by Russ (# 120) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:

quote:
Originally posted by Russ:

People of a Marxist bent tend to see the archetypal crime as the poor stealing from the rich. In other words, private action to accomplish what the Marxist seeks to accomplish by political action...
To a Marxist, wouldn't it be the other way around? That is, the archetypal crime would be the *rich* stealing from the *poor*?

Depends on whether you use "crime" to mean "morally wrong thing" or "lawbreaking activity that the criminal justice system deals with"...

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0