What are the police for?
Should police be able to use lethal force against rioters who are threatening life or property? Amazingly, this is a question still thought worth debating in Britain.
Why? Search me. I would have thought it was a no-brainer. Given the choice between protecting the life of a scuzzball in a hoodie about to chuck a molotov cocktail and the lives of the family in the house he's about to immmolate, it seems fairly obvious to me where a policeman's responsibilities should lie.
And it seems even more of an urgent priority that the British police should acquire a set of teeth after their abject failure during last summer's riots. For chapter and verse on this, read Jonathan Foreman's devastating analysis in Commentary. Basically, those August riots happened because the police allowed them to happen. Here's Foreman:
In the collective mind of Britain’s self-consciously “modern” police services (they are no longer police “forces”), criminals are forces of nature, like earthquakes or thunderstorms. You can no more prevent their predations than you can prevent the tides. In the long term, society can perhaps decrease crime by addressing its root causes, like inequality and poverty, but that is for the politicians. What the police can do effectively, however, is preserve social peace by monitoring "racism" (meaning only white racism,) along with Islamophobia and other offensive and dangerous prejudices.
I'm all for giving the police guns, daisy cutter bombs, napalm strike facilities, tactical nukes, whatever they deem necessary to go about their job protecting the citizens who fund them via their taxes. (And yes - sigh - protecting those who don't pay their taxes too, I suppose). In return, however, I think it's important that the police only have these powers through public consent and remember what the police's purpose is.
What is the police's purpose?
These are the precepts - never improved upon - set out by the creator of the first police force, Robert Peel. (I particularly like 9) H/T Old Holborn
1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in
voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the
respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured
diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical
force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public
opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to
the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure
observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of
persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public
that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the
public and the public are the police; the police being only members of
the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are
incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and
existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their
functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it
- Comment (21)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (1)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Jun '10
Re: What are the police for?
What are police for? In my neck of the woods they collect revenue for the state by targeting the middle class. Last month our state police decided to patrol Santa Fe's historic plaza where the average speed of motor vehicles is about 5 mph. I mean, why patrol the interstates where chase speeds can reach 100 mph and the driver is likely to be drunk when you can hit up middle-class, law-abiding citizens who won't give you any trouble? Also, poaching church-goers on early Sunday mornings can be lucrative and pretty much hassle free. See also VDH this morning over at NRO. This is a trend, not an aberration.
Apr '11
Re: What are the police for?
I knew nothing of Peel until I read this. Brilliant. A free society can mitigate crime and disorder. The use of force is sometimes necessary but is always measured. The measure of police effectiveness is the absence of crime. The people are the police. The police aren't above the people.
It seems the London police failed on all accounts, during the riots. Doesn't this mean they failed long before the riots, too?
Feb '11
Re: What are the police for?
~Paules:
See also VDH this morning over at NRO. This is a trend, not an aberration. ·
Unfortunately, anyone who bothers to look can see this happening all over the country. There is nothing really new here. It is one of the most depressing articles I've read in a long time.
May '11
Re: What are the police for?
Mr. Delingpole,
I agree with your thesis. However, in this country we have, at least in parts, the opposite problem. Our police forces have been turned into para-military forces and deployed in "the war on drugs" (as stupid an idea as a "war on terrorism") I would submit that having a police force that deploys forces all out of proportion to the crimes they are trying to prevent, you end up with a situation almost as bad as having the police stand idly by while crime is committed. In both cases, the police lose legitimacy, and in doing so, impare the legitimacy of the overall government.
Sep '11
Re: What are the police for?
"Sir Robert Peel, 2nd Baronet (5 February 1788 – 2 July 1850) was a British Conservative statesman who served as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom from 10 December 1834 to 8 April 1835, and again from 30 August 1841 to 29 June 1846. While Home Secretary, Peel helped create the modern concept of the police force, leading to officers being known as "bobbies" (in England) and "Peelers" (in Ireland)." ..... "Although unpopular at first they proved very successful in cutting crime in London, and by 1857 all cities in the UK were obliged to form their own police forces. Known as the father of modern policing, Peel developed the Peelian Principles which defined the ethical requirements police officers must follow in order to be effective." (Wikipedia).
I am sure it was the inadequacy of the initial police response that allowed the situation to escalate. The profiles of offenders are being monitored as they go through the courts, and it's becoming increasingly clear that it wasn't pre-planned, and it wasn't primarily gang related; it was largely opportunist, and should have been knocked on the head (with a truncheon, of course) at the very start.
Oct '10
Re: What are the police for?
Police in the United States are trained to use deadly force to protect themselves and others from death or serious bodily harm. In your arson example, deadly force could very well be justified.
Police use of deadly force to protect property is going generally be considered unreasonable. The biggest mistake that I see cities making here in the United States when it comes to these sort of situations is not using lawful and reasonable overwhelming force early in a riot situation. That overwhelming force does not need to be deadly force considering all of the less-than-lethal options that are available these days, but it does need to happen quickly to preserve life and property.
A primary difference between police and military special operations teams, for example, is that the goal of police tactical units is the preservation of life including the lives of the people they seek to arrest. That's not necessarily the goal of a military unit whose specific objective could very well be taking of life in furtherance of the larger military mission.
Jun '10
Re: What are the police for?
Peel. Big like.
Jan '11
Re: What are the police for?
Further to Paules' comment, in my city parking services have been significantly beefed up - every few hours I see a car drive by my house tagging tires and issuing tickets. It's a great revenue stream, and I'm sure more is to come.
In Canada generally, the police seem quite sensible and willing to get situations calmed before they escalate. However, I am concerned watching the decline of the USA and Great Britain in terms of willingness to enforce laws and protect of society.
From some of the anecdotal stories I read about Jolly Old, the role of the police seems to focus on ensuring protestors don't injure themselves whilst they engage in mischief and more
Mar '11
Re: What are the police for?
Fight Traffic Tickets / Contest Traffic Tickets with the Ticket Assassin the site is specific to California but it can point you in the right direction. Don't just write checks to the state or your local municipality, if they wish to loot you make them work for it. In my own experience it turns out that if they have to deal with a citizen contesting the fine they don't bother. Here in CA it can all be settled through mail as well, it just takes a little time.
Feb '11
Re: What are the police for?
In the words of the first, great, Mayor Richard Daley: "The police aren't there to create disorder, they're there to preserve disorder."
Do the constables still have to read the Riot Act before they take action? Does this help or hinder the regulation of mobs?
Sep '10
Re: What are the police for?
Racist!!
Oct '10
Re: What are the police for?
Robert Peel is, of course, one of the greats of (British) conservatism. Here is his speech on the repeal of the Corn Laws, for example. (A characteristically un-conservative bit of conservatism.)
But James, you must know that the first thing the British Bobby will do with their licence for deadly force is execute those who contravene the PC orthodoxy they've been enforcing for the last decade.
Edited on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:00amMay '10
Re: What are the police for?
Exactly!
I wrote to Steyn about this very subject only a few days ago, after watching Harry Brown (a brutal but salient film). Government is forever seeking to solidify its monopoly on the use of force, leaving us helpless to do what only we as individuals can do.
At least we Americans have guns, even if liberal district attorneys try to put us behind bars for using them. Note that the worst riots in American history occurred in liberal cities where gun rights are restricted.
Here in America, we have a saying that cuts straight to the point: "When seconds count, the police are just minutes away." I wonder about the origin of this idiom. Do y'all have it in England?
Police simply can't be everywhere at once and omniscient. Stopping crimes in progress is primarily the responsibility of civilians (attention TSA!). Police should focus on catching criminals and punishing them to deter further crime.
Mar '11
Re: What are the police for?
Erik, I wish I could agree, but the quality of policing in this country is diminishing and approaching that of James' modern-day Peelers.
Hockey riots in Vancouver and Montreal, the outrage at Caledonia, the death-by-taser of Robert Dziekanski, the Mayerthorpe tragedy, the Robert Pickton investigation, even the cancellation of Ann Coulter's speech in Ottawa -- these are signs of incompetence, laziness, and political interference.
Individual police still do much good work and I know cops to whom I would trust my life, but the police as corporate entities are very troublesome.
And then there was the Mounties' decision to give their marketing to Disney...
Oct '10
Re: What are the police for?
Punishment in not a proper role for police. That's for people farther up the justice system to decide such as judges and juries.
Edited on Dec 21, 2011 at 11:57amApr '11
Re: What are the police for?
England. Should we be surprised about riots in a country were it is entirely legal to move into a vacant house or office and live there? If the owner shows up and tries to force his way into his own house or even stands outside making threats, the property owner may be arrested.
Jan '11
Re: What are the police for?
Canuckski, I am gratefully corrected on your points and examples. I think Caledonia is an especially relevant example - whereby the "perceived rights and sensitivities of a minority" - natives in this instance - trump commen sense. I guess I should have restricted my comments to Alberta (I don't think Mayerthorpe counts in this context).
What worries me particularly more is the sense that in some regions of the Western World we have become "bystanders" - reluctant to comment and correct the behaviours of those around us, for fear of being sued or knifed.
May '10
Re: What are the police for?
Publius
Punishment in not a proper role for police. That's for people farther up the justice system to decide such as judges and juries.
"...escort criminals to punishment" perhaps I should have said. Civilians don't normally "process" criminals through our judicial system.
And I associate prison guards more with police than with judges or lawyers. They are the ones who actually carry out the punishments.
Edited on Dec 21, 2011 at 12:54pmJul '10
Re: What are the police for?
In the era of Compstat, Peel's ninth dictum is too often forgotten by senior police management.
Not to pick on my favorite cabbie, but I'd like to point out that gunfire homicides of police officers are up 15% this year so far. Felonious murders of police officers are up 6% overall from last year, and 36% from 2008. If we're ducking danger, we're doing a poor job of it.
Nov '10
Re: What are the police for?
I didn’t have time to read all the comments so I apologize if someone already pointed this out. But if the issue is lethal force against someone about to toss a Molotov cocktail into an occupied house, I believe that in most states even citizens have the right to use deadly force to prevent such a violent and dangerous felony. There is no question the police have that authority, which could be inhibited by their department’s use of force policy but not by state law.