Rehumanising and engaging with the police - is it possible?

[ymu]

Utter nonsense Azrael. Criminals only "need" to use what weaponry is necessary to get the job done. If more people are armed, more criminals will discover the "need" to be armed. I'm a middle-aged lady with the physical dexterity of a goldfish. How will giving me the right to carry a weapon protect me?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Utter nonsense Azrael. Criminals only "need" to use what weaponry is necessary to get the job done. If more people are armed, more criminals will discover the "need" to be armed.

Yes, I do fear this is the case. We shouldn't get too dewy-eyed about the past either. I don't know about the 19th century, but in the 15th century we in Europe were 20 – yes 20 – times more likely to be murdered than we are now.

Where Azrael and I are likely to part company is that for me, this kind of change needs to be accompanied by far greater social and economic justice, and by justice, ultimately, I mean equality.

 

[Wolveryeti]

At some point we mayl be in a situation in which the majority is in direct conflict with the State. Crucial to the outcome of the conflict is persuading the police about which side their best interests lie. It seems there are two approaches - to make it apparent to the police that protesters are not the enemy and make them appreciate the significance of the ideology they are supporting, leading to them failing to crussh dissent through sympathy.

The other is to make their job so unpleasant that they are too demoralised, understaffed, or timid to cruss dissent when it happens. Perhaps this requires another bizarro Wolveryeti thread, investigating the possibility of Taliban-style training camps for protestors to learni ancient tactics of mano-a-mano combat. (Phalanx vs. riot police, anyone?)

 

[DotCommunist]

At some point we mayl be in a situation in which the majority is in direct conflict with the State. Crucial to the outcome of the conflict is persuading the police about which side their best interests lie. It seems there are two approaches - to make it apparent to the police that protesters are not the enemy and make them appreciate the significance of the ideology they are supporting, leading to them failing to crussh dissent through sympathy.

The other is to make their job so unpleasant that they are too demoralised, understaffed, or timid to cruss dissent when it happens. Perhaps this requires another bizarro Wolveryeti thread, investigating the possibility of Taliban-style training camps for protestors to learni ancient tactics of mano-a-mano combat. (Phalanx vs. riot police, anyone?)

What do you think would happen if the police did turn on their masters?
The Army, that's what.

 

[Wolveryeti]

What do you think would happen if the police did turn on their masters?
The Army, that's what.

The Army aren't robots. There are lots of examples throughout history of the army failing to step in to save an unpopular government. It's the best way to win a revolution - basically embarrassing the government enough to step down.

 

[Azrael]

Utter nonsense Azrael. Criminals only "need" to use what weaponry is necessary to get the job done. If more people are armed, more criminals will discover the "need" to be armed. I'm a middle-aged lady with the physical dexterity of a goldfish. How will giving me the right to carry a weapon protect me?

Criminals already feel the need to be armed. With the public banned by law from carrying weapons, it gives them an over-whelming advantage.

If a man attacks you with a knife, and you have a weapon of your own, are you not in a better position than if you had nothing? The situation has already "escalated". It's brute force and cunning that'll win it. Weapons can compensate for lack of strength. Right now, the law discriminates in favour of strong, physically fit young men. I would have thought those on the left would be eager to remedy this discrimination!

But this isn't really about the right to bear arms: it's about the police having a monopoly on weapons. If they make things worse, why shouldn't the police be disarmed, and subject to the same rules as everyone else?

If the police didn't enjoy special rules, they'd be closer to the public, which is what this thread is all about.

 

[Azrael]

Yes, I do fear this is the case. We shouldn't get too dewy-eyed about the past either. I don't know about the 19th century, but in the 15th century we in Europe were 20 – yes 20 – times more likely to be murdered than we are now.

I'm not claiming the past is a golden age. There are good and bad periods. Crime in Georgian London was out of control.

It's not just about having the right to carry weapons, but a matrix of visible authority controlled by law and on the side of the law-abiding. Not just police, but conductors who throw disorderly louts off trains and busses and park wardens who kick troublemakers back into the street. Such people should be supported by the law.

Where Azrael and I are likely to part company is that for me, this kind of change needs to be accompanied by far greater social and economic justice, and by justice, ultimately, I mean equality.

Afraid so. I don't see poverty as a cause of crime. At the turn of the 20th century, when poverty we can't imagine was widespread, crime was very low.

I'm all for legal equality; economic equality, no.

 

[ymu]

If a man attacks you with a knife, and you have a weapon of your own, are you not in a better position than if you had nothing?

Well, no. As I already explained, I have the dexterity of a goldfish. I would be much more likely to end up hurting myself or an innocent bystander.

Unfortunately, I also have an explosive temper. I can think of far more occasions when I might have been tempted to draw a weapon in anger than I can think of times when I felt I needed a weapon to protect myself. The consequences don't bear thinking about.

 

[Azrael]

Well, no. As I already explained, I have the dexterity of a goldfish. I would be much more likely to end up hurting myself or an innocent bystander.

Unfortunately, I also have an explosive temper. I can think of far more occasions when I might have been tempted to draw a weapon in anger than I can think of times when I felt I needed a weapon to protect myself. The consequences don't bear thinking about.

As this rush of threads on Urban reminds us, police officers can have explosive tempers as well. Why should there be a disparity between what they can carry and what the public can carry?

When there were no restrictions on law abiding people carrying weapons in England, the use of guns in crime was vanishingly rare. The Edwardian incidents came at the hands of Eastern European terrorists unused to our customs.

If you carry a weapon, so can other people, reducing the incentive to escalate matters quite a bit. Now, things are unlikely to go beyond a fistfight in many circumstances. The effect could be the opposite of what you'd predict.

And of course, you don't need to carry a weapon for a general right to do so to protect you. You might, given your temper, decide not to. But criminals don't know who is armed. If they're deterred, how does having a right to carry defensive weapons harm you?

 

[Wolveryeti]

When there were no restrictions on law abiding people carrying weapons in England, the use of guns in crime was vanishingly rare.

That's because whacking fools for giving you disrespect was a cultural tradition and venerated.

 

[ymu]

As this rush of threads on Urban reminds us, police officers can have explosive tempers as well. Why should there be a disparity between what they can carry and what the public can carry?

When there were no restrictions on law abiding people carrying weapons in England, the use of guns in crime was vanishingly rare. The Edwardian incidents came at the hands of Eastern European terrorists unused to our customs.

If you carry a weapon, so can other people, reducing the incentive to escalate matters quite a bit. Now, things are unlikely to go beyond a fistfight in many circumstances. The effect could be the opposite of what you'd predict.

These law-abiding Edwardian types were the the upper classes who had to duel to the death if they got carried away. In those circumstances, yes, fist fights were often preferred. Can't see it applying to the typical burglary incident now though.

And of course, you don't need to carry a weapon for a general right to do so to protect you. You might, given your temper, decide not to. But criminals don't know who is armed. If they're deterred, how does having a right to carry defensive weapons harm you?

It harms me by escalating every argument in a checkout queue into a potential murder scene; by making every fist fight into a potential knifing or shoot-out. Plus they could take one look at me and know I would be useless in a fight.

And there's the problem with your system. The strong are protected, the weak are preyed upon, and screw any bystanders who get harmed in the process. No better than I'd expect from a Tory, but not my idea of utopia. Thanks all the same.

 

[DotCommunist]

The Army aren't robots. There are lots of examples throughout history of the army failing to step in to save an unpopular government. It's the best way to win a revolution - basically embarrassing the government enough to step down.

Yeah, but our army is small and 'here to do a job' in the main. The motivations aren't the same as non-pro militias.

That could well be undermined if they had to face a populace in revolt though....

 

[Azrael]

The strong are protected, the weak are preyed upon, and screw any bystanders who get harmed in the process.

You've just described our current system, where the strong can protect themselves far better than the weak, and criminals, who of course ignore the law, are free to carry weapons.

To suggest my idea is a utopia is absurd. Utopian is the idea that we can make weapons vanish. This isn't an option. I simply seek to give law-abiding people the means to defend themselves, regardless of physical strength. If you think every supermarket checkout will become a murder scene if people are allowed to carry weapons, you have a fantastically low view of human nature! Right now, if a man like this comes towards you in the supermarket, you can't defend yourself if you're not strong enough.

Is Vermont awash with supermarket shootings?

If we are passive, the police must tool up to compensate. The public gets mixed messages: they're castigated for ignoring louts, but thrown in the cells if they attempt to intervene. A police force that relies on the citizens for backup has no need to set itself apart. A police force that mistrusts the public and must treat them as potential criminals (why else ban them from carrying weapons?) becomes a gendarmerie, minus the discipline.

If we want to change the police we must also change ourselves.

 

[eoin_k]

Yeah, but our army is small and 'here to do a job' in the main. The motivations aren't the same as non-pro militias.

That could well be undermined if they had to face a populace in revolt though....

Serious question:
Are there historical examples of professional armies - rather than conscript armies 'turning'.

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Serious question:
Are there historical examples of professional armies - rather than conscript armies 'turning'.

Fully professional standing armies are a very recent phenomenon in most countries, so almost certainly not. Portugal in the 1960s is a good recent example of a conscript army turning against a regime, but I can't think of any professional ones doing so.

 

[ymu]

Pakistan?

 

[littlebabyjesus]

Pakistan?

The Pakistan army has seized power from democratic governments in coups, but that is very different. In Portugal, the conscript army stood aside and in many cases disobeyed orders to allow a dictator to be overthrown.

 

[ymu]

A progressive "turning" wasn't specified. But I get what you mean.

 

[ViolentPanda]

What do you think would happen if the police did turn on their masters?
The Army, that's what.

I'm not so sure. They've had their fingers burnt before.

 

[Fruitloop]

It's another world. If we're to return to it, some shibboleths of the left must go. How many people on the left are going to argue for the abolition of PACE and the right of law-abiding people to bear arms?

I'll go with that.

 

[Highford]

Some interesting posts here http://www.policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11474&PN=37 between a brave press photographer and police officers,until he is "suspended" for being a 'troll'(which i dont think is actually true!he uses the name "photoview"!)

 

[Wolveryeti]

Serious question:
Are there historical examples of professional armies - rather than conscript armies 'turning'.

The distinction is not vastly important IMO. Any conscript army will have a hard core of professionals tasked with being the backbone. Likewise, the kinds of people being hired at squaddie level are likely to have been the same who were historically unable to dodge the draft.

Madagascar.

 

[winjer]

Some interesting posts here http:// www. policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11474&PN=37 between a brave press photographer and police officers,until he is "suspended" for being a 'troll'(which i dont think is actually true!he uses the name "photoview"!)

This one struck me as representative of the odd, but not uncommon, view that any officer seen in a bad light has been set-up:

photoview: I wasn't there but I have colleagues who were. Not the same I concede but short of her [Nicky Fisher] about to stab or shoot him [TSG Sergeant] it's a bit like a kitten squaring up to an elephant.

Penbwlch: "That is why she was chosen for the job. The response would be the same to anyone; it is not a game or a sport. It was all part of their plan."
(my emphasis)

http:// www. policeoracle.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=11474&PN=40

 

[ymu]

Oh, that conspiracy theory has been on the go there for a few days, ever since someone pointed out that FITwatch had pictures of AB42 on their website so obviously he was targeted for provocation.

 

[ymu]

I think this is more typical.

We work a completely thankless job and it's getting to the point where the only reason I go to work is for my paycheck and to protect little old ladies (in that order)

The press have completely demoralised the British Police Service with it's one sided liberally biased and inaccurate reporting of non stories and it's becoming dangerous.

Discontent has been spreading amoungst the officers at my nick about the TSG skipper at the G20 and that dirty protester being paid £50,000 for her 'story' and being represented by that leech Max Clifford, the overall view is that we're handing in our tickets for riot training should he be charged.

Basically we're sick of being treated like punch bags by almost everyone, the only thing that has made me smile at work recently were people approaching my colleagues and I and saying things like "I think you should have hit her harder" and "Chin up, you're doing a great job" it's nice when random members of the public take time out to remind you why you do the job.

So, apologies for the rant but I think a lot of us are questioning our career choice at the moment and is it any wonder why we close ranks when we're attacked on a daily basis.

I wanted to pick up on your point here. I'm guessing (from other things you've posted on the forum) that we work for different Forces. And I'm hearing exactly the same thing from Level 2 officers here. Concerning really when you think of the potential for this to be replecated across the country. I'm not trying to sensationalise here but surely it's a possibility?

Just like with Harry Stanley.

 

[ymu]

And the polite photographer has been banned for "trolling", followed shortly after by someone else, also for "trolling" with this post:

Your understanding is plainly wrong, and it is you that shows ignorance of the law.

It's legal to organise or take part in a public assembly without notifying the police anywhere but the designated area around parliament. (cf. POA1986, SOCPA2005)

It's legal to take part in a public procession anywhere, unless it's been banned in advance, even if the organisers have not notified police. (cf. POA1986)

It's illegal to organise a public procession anywhere without notifying the police, unless it's not practical to do so (cf. POA1986, Kay vs Commissioner).

It's illegal to organise or take part in a public assembly without notifying the police in the designated area around parliament. (cf. SOCPA2005)

They're very sensitive little flowers.

 

[winjer]

And the polite photographer has been banned for "trolling", followed shortly after by someone else, also for "trolling" with this post

I'm quite proud to be banned from a police forum for explaining the law!

You carry on believing in your version of the law if you must insist on breaking it.

 

[SpookyFrank]

You carry on believing in your version of the law if you must insist on breaking it.

That doesn't even make sense. Fantastic

I love how easy it is to make that lot throw their toys out of the pram.

 

[winjer]

Just like with Harry Stanley.

Something not widely reported at the time:

Suicide bomber operations under review after suspensions
Police Review 15/12/2004

Reports Patrick Gower

Met chiefs are reviewing the legality of two force operations set up to tackle suicide bombers, after the schemes triggered unease among SO19 firearms officers.

Police Review has learned that the Met decided to 'urgently revisit the legal basis' of the anti-terror Operations Kratos and Clydesdale after members of the force's firearms unit laid down their weapons in support of two suspended officers in November.

Details of both operations are closely guarded, although it is understood that they involve senior officers ordering a police marksman to shoot suicide bombers in London. Both operations remain in place despite the review.

The review was part of an eight-point action plan Sir John Stevens, Met commissioner, personally helped to put in place last month to get the firearms officers back on duty.

They laid down their arms after Ch Insp Neil Sharman and PC Kevin Fagan were suspended following a second inquest into the fatal shooting of Harry Stanley in 1999.

Police Review understands that the SO19 officers were concerned about their legal position if they were ordered to take a 'head shot' of a suicide bomber.

Glen Smyth, chairman of the Met Police Federation, said he assumed the review of the operations was still 'with the lawyers'. It needed to be resolved at 'a very high level', he said.

A Met spokesman said: 'This contingency planning remains under constant review. It would be counter-productive [to national security] to comment further.'

It's lucky they got over those concerns by July...