4 ms·

> There are plenty of people who see the police as the standing army the founding fathers warned us about. Firstly, this requires some real historical revision

> There are plenty of people who see the police as the standing army the founding fathers warned us about. Firstly, this requires some real historical revisionism as police were actually around when the founding fathers were. American law is foundationally based on British Common Law, which also employed police vigorously. But I agree with you about HN. Most of the commentators here probably supported the giant expansion of federal, militarized police: the Capitol Police. That $3B expansion funded on conspiracies of white supremacists everywhere has led to two new charters of a federal police in states not in the Capitol.

hnbear 5y ago
Sure, but then in the UK the Peelian principles were developed: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles They're the very opposite of this issue here, and explicitly call out non-violence as goal, and to ensure policing is supportive and at the will of the population, not to subjugate the population. Later codified as: - 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 fulfill 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.
- abernard1 5y ago
  Those things were developed in the 19th century, so clearly the founders didn't find police (even without those principles) problematic. But those things are not controversial. I think what happened to this lady is terrible and her case is correct. What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of the people who are ACAB but then supported tens of thousands of troops guarding the Capitol ("ol" not "al") and an expansion of a real national military police on silly, false pretexts.
tssva 5y ago
Police forces as we know them were most definitely not around when the founding fathers established the country. At that time law enforcement consisted of citizen watches and constables. Constables served writs and warrants usually paid based upon the number served and also performed other non-law enforcement duties. Police departments didn't start appearing in the US until the 1830s.
- abernard1 5y ago
  > At that time law enforcement consisted of citizen watches and constables. Sheriffs, in other words. We can debate whether or not more or less power should be given to directly elected sheriffs and deputies, or the police, but that is immaterial. Sheriffs and police are two near identical systems of power that are applied in different manners. The critics of police power are also critical of sheriffs, in many cases more so. I would personally prefer we demilitarize the police, including federal police and the FBI, but the idea that local cops is a standing army is silly.
  - tssva 5y ago
    No, constable and watch systems which existed were not similar to modern police or sheriff systems of today.

hnbear 5y ago

Sure, but then in the UK the Peelian principles were developed: https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles https://www.wikiwand.com/en/Peelian_principles They're the very opposite of this issue here, and explicitly call out non-violence as goal, and to ensure policing is supportive and at the will of the population, not to subjugate the population. Later codified as: - 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 fulfill 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.

abernard1 5y ago
Those things were developed in the 19th century, so clearly the founders didn't find police (even without those principles) problematic. But those things are not controversial. I think what happened to this lady is terrible and her case is correct. What I'm pointing out is the hypocrisy of the people who are ACAB but then supported tens of thousands of troops guarding the Capitol ("ol" not "al") and an expansion of a real national military police on silly, false pretexts.

tssva 5y ago

Police forces as we know them were most definitely not around when the founding fathers established the country. At that time law enforcement consisted of citizen watches and constables. Constables served writs and warrants usually paid based upon the number served and also performed other non-law enforcement duties. Police departments didn't start appearing in the US until the 1830s.

abernard1 5y ago
> At that time law enforcement consisted of citizen watches and constables. Sheriffs, in other words. We can debate whether or not more or less power should be given to directly elected sheriffs and deputies, or the police, but that is immaterial. Sheriffs and police are two near identical systems of power that are applied in different manners. The critics of police power are also critical of sheriffs, in many cases more so. I would personally prefer we demilitarize the police, including federal police and the FBI, but the idea that local cops is a standing army is silly.
- tssva 5y ago
  No, constable and watch systems which existed were not similar to modern police or sheriff systems of today.