Onondaga, but that doesn't mean anything to the frog cops.
Cool. Not everybody gets a submarine named after them.
HMCS Wales ... That sorta works!
When politicians ban carding, what replaces it?
- Thread starter Locutus
- Start date
Onondaga, but that doesn't mean anything to the frog cops.
Cool. Not everybody gets a submarine named after them.
HMCS Wales ... That sorta works!
They weren't paramilitary, at least in English speaking countries, until fairly recently. The militarization of the police is a very troubling evolution. Most people, even in law enforcement, don't even know the history behind "Consensual" policing:
Nine Principles of Policing
The following nine principles were set out in the 'General Instructions' issued to every new police officer in the Metropolitan Police from 1829.[1][8] Although Peel discussed the spirit of some of these principles in his speeches and other communications, the historians Susan Lentz and Robert Chaires found no proof that he compiled a formal list.[9] The Home Office has suggested that the instructions were probably written, not by Peel himself, but by Charles Rowan and Richard Mayne, the joint Commissioners of the Metropolitan Police when it was founded.[1][8]
To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment
.
To recognise always that the power of the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval of their existence, actions and behaviour, and on their ability to secure and maintain public respect.
To recognise always that to secure and maintain the respect and approval of the public means also the securing of the willing co-operation of the public in the task of securing observance of laws.
To recognise always that the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives.
To seek and preserve public favour, not by pandering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws, by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of the public without regard to their wealth or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humour, and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
To use physical force only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to obtain public co-operation to an extent necessary to secure observance of law or to restore order, and to use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
To maintain at all times a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and that 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 on every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
To recognise always the need for strict adherence to police-executive functions, and to refrain from even seeming to usurp the powers of the judiciary of avenging individuals or the State, and of authoritatively judging guilt and punishing the guilty.
To recognise always that the test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, and not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.
Policing by consent
The historian Charles Reith explained in his New Study of Police History (1956)[1] that these principles constituted an approach to policing "unique in history and throughout the world, because it derived, not from fear, but almost exclusively from public co-operation with the police, induced by them designedly by behaviour which secures and maintains for them the approval, respect and affection of the public".[10]
The Home Office has explained this approach as "the power of the police coming from the common consent of the public, as opposed to the power of the state. It does not mean the consent of an individual. No individual can choose to withdraw his or her consent from the police, or from a law."[1]
An individual may, however, choose to withdraw, or limit, his active co-operation with the police in the face of police actions or policies with which he disagrees. The idea is that both the police and the public understand this and this limits potential mass fear of the police, as might be the case in countries with, for example, an armed police force with a disarmed populace.
Okay, dumb girl question. I recognize the shot gun shells and bullets for the rifle....but WTF is the other thing? Lol.
Ah, okay. Thanks.
Looks like some weird light bulb turkey drumstick monstrosity, lol.
I've earned that coffee one a hundred times over!
Too much yo type. In the joke gonnoerhea is confused with gunnery.
"I got gunnery but didn't get a badge" being the punchline.
"I got gunnery but didn't get a badge" being the punchline.
Not really, its just semantics. Look at cops in full urban combat gear. Over 20 years ago I saw regular cops patrolling the Montparnasse train station armed with MP5's, worn in front not slung over their backs where the biggest hazard was Paris drivers. SWAT teams in the US and the ETF here are well equipped for an invasion, or even start an insurrection. If that isn't militarization its pretty damn close.
Here, let me clear this up by cropping down your original challenge.
You're confusing paramilitary with militarization.
I didn't consider it as a challenge, but I think I get your point. I think, since you used the boy scouts as another example, which means the term "paramilitary" can be a bit subjective. My point is that idea of consensual policing envisaged by Sir Robert Peel, and more or less adopted in other English speaking countries, wanted to have a clear separation between anything military and the police. We have forgotten that police were paid to do the job that was already incumbent upon the public, they were unarmed whereas the public was. When I say until fairly recently I'm talking of the evolution since WW1.
The other point I was trying to make; growing up, the police were respected and not feared. I had many relatives in law enforcement. I saw one uncle's service revolver once, even got to hold it. Otherwise you never saw it, it was in a holster with a flap hiding the entire thing. Police in those days were even able to enlist the help of the public, who were even asked to arm themselves if offering assistance, which many did willingly.
Fast forward to today where armed citizens are now a potential threat and are viewed with suspicion. On the flip side of that is the view that the police are just visibly well armed goons doing the work of Big Brother.
I mentioned the "militarization" of police because it is a major concern of many folks, especially in the US, but here as well. It does widen the gap between "us and them".
The point of the thread is "carding", something that wasn't necessary when I was growing up because people were willing, even eager to help police do their job. Now even a well heeled citizen would likely not even give the steam off his or her pi$$ to help, unless it was to help themselves in some way.
Yeah, but theirs was a far different mandate and under far different circumstances. Even still, they were one of the most respected police forces in the world. What the f##k happened? Well, we pretty much know the what, the why is a little more elusive.