4 ms·

> Several countries had armies enforce legal codes. We do that now. The division of the army responsible for that is called "the police".

gattilorenz 3y ago
No, you don’t. Police in the US is militarized but still police (which ironically is part of the problem, AFAIK. They would have better training had they been in the army in some cases). Countries like Italy have Army corps (the Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza) that do police work but are still part of the army, in addition to also having regular Police. I think this is not uncommon in countries where Napoleonic France had a strong influence, but there’s plenty of commenters here with a better knowledge of the domain, so please correct me if I misremember:) But having part of the army do police work doesn’t really fix most problems with the police, of course.
- int_19h 3y ago
  The problem is that they are equipped like the army in many cases, and certainly seem to have the mentality that they are some kind of counter-insurgency force on occupied hostile territory.
yareal 3y ago
No, the term for that is gendarmerie. If you've read my other posts you've probably been able to infer that I'm not a fan of the police, but I find that being quippy about them undermines actual meaningful conversation about their history and how they could change.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > No, the term for that is gendarmerie. That doesn't mean anything. If we renamed the police "gendarmes", what would be different?
  - gattilorenz 3y ago
    That the gendarmes wouldn't be a part of the army (but at that point the police might be).
  - yareal 3y ago
    I'm sorry, but it does have a different meaning. The gendarmerie are military units, police departments are typically civilian units. There's a clear difference in reporting, accountability, access to weaponry, training, and cultural expectations. It's not just a different word. Maybe you are from a part of the world where military operate the police force and we have different experiences? I'm from the U.S.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      > There's a clear difference in reporting, accountability, access to weaponry, training, and cultural expectations. I'm happy to stipulate this. But it doesn't mean what you think it means. > The gendarmerie are military units, police departments are typically civilian units. Because this is clearly false. Think about the Air Force. Compared to the Army, there is a clear difference in reporting, accountability, access to weaponry, training, and cultural expectations. And yet, obviously, the Air Force is a division of the army (small 'a'). There are no civilians who care about the distinction between the Army and the Air Force, because it is meaningless outside of paperwork. This is also true of the police. They have their own reporting structures, accountability procedures, weaponry, training, and internal culture, and they are very clearly a military organization. Their entire purpose is to enforce the will of the state by using violence. They do not have any function other than that. And that function is what defines the military.
      - yareal 3y ago
        Hmmmm.... on the one hand, I see and understand the argument you are making regarding the use of state violence. On the other hand, I don't think most folk use that as the only difference between military and civilian. The police are subject to civilian law, cannot, for instance, be deserters. The police lack training and aren't a national force with unified standards. The police can just quit at any time. The police, in many places, are subject to civilian oversight and review. The differences I think are still material, even though they do have the monopoly of state violence against the people of their nation.

gattilorenz 3y ago

No, you don’t. Police in the US is militarized but still police (which ironically is part of the problem, AFAIK. They would have better training had they been in the army in some cases). Countries like Italy have Army corps (the Carabinieri and Guardia di Finanza) that do police work but are still part of the army, in addition to also having regular Police. I think this is not uncommon in countries where Napoleonic France had a strong influence, but there’s plenty of commenters here with a better knowledge of the domain, so please correct me if I misremember:) But having part of the army do police work doesn’t really fix most problems with the police, of course.

int_19h 3y ago
The problem is that they are equipped like the army in many cases, and certainly seem to have the mentality that they are some kind of counter-insurgency force on occupied hostile territory.

yareal 3y ago

No, the term for that is gendarmerie. If you've read my other posts you've probably been able to infer that I'm not a fan of the police, but I find that being quippy about them undermines actual meaningful conversation about their history and how they could change.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> No, the term for that is gendarmerie. That doesn't mean anything. If we renamed the police "gendarmes", what would be different?
- gattilorenz 3y ago
  That the gendarmes wouldn't be a part of the army (but at that point the police might be).
- yareal 3y ago
  I'm sorry, but it does have a different meaning. The gendarmerie are military units, police departments are typically civilian units. There's a clear difference in reporting, accountability, access to weaponry, training, and cultural expectations. It's not just a different word. Maybe you are from a part of the world where military operate the police force and we have different experiences? I'm from the U.S.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    > There's a clear difference in reporting, accountability, access to weaponry, training, and cultural expectations. I'm happy to stipulate this. But it doesn't mean what you think it means. > The gendarmerie are military units, police departments are typically civilian units. Because this is clearly false. Think about the Air Force. Compared to the Army, there is a clear difference in reporting, accountability, access to weaponry, training, and cultural expectations. And yet, obviously, the Air Force is a division of the army (small 'a'). There are no civilians who care about the distinction between the Army and the Air Force, because it is meaningless outside of paperwork. This is also true of the police. They have their own reporting structures, accountability procedures, weaponry, training, and internal culture, and they are very clearly a military organization. Their entire purpose is to enforce the will of the state by using violence. They do not have any function other than that. And that function is what defines the military.
    - yareal 3y ago
      Hmmmm.... on the one hand, I see and understand the argument you are making regarding the use of state violence. On the other hand, I don't think most folk use that as the only difference between military and civilian. The police are subject to civilian law, cannot, for instance, be deserters. The police lack training and aren't a national force with unified standards. The police can just quit at any time. The police, in many places, are subject to civilian oversight and review. The differences I think are still material, even though they do have the monopoly of state violence against the people of their nation.