8 ms·

The militarization of law enforcement and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

by elzbardico 2y ago

bcdtttt 2y ago
[flagged]
- andrewla 2y ago
  > They evolved out of warehouse guards and slave patrols. This is not accurate. The timeframe is not wrong; it is true that the concept of the modern police, at least in the US, was largely based on the Peelian model created in London in the 1820s. But saying it evolved from "warehouse guards and slave patrols" is ahistorical. Most modern police forces modeled after London's Metropolitan Police replaced night watch systems that have been around for literally all of recorded history.
  - bcdtttt 2y ago
    While some night watches were public safety distributed among community members, they were often there to protect the goods of merchants rather than protect the ordinary citizens of an area from petty crime. As merchants grew, and their goods became more valuable targets, the merchants would hire on guards, but saw the opportunity to turn the existing night watch systems in place to their favor, essentially insisting on distributing the cost of guarding their goods across the community. I'm not saying the night watches didn't evolve into police departments, I'm saying the night watches were co-opted prior to them becoming uniformed departments. And slave patrols led directly into being police departments in some parts of the US. I do not claim that's in the history of all depts, but across the south there are many cases of patrols becoming formalized into police departments.
    - adolph 2y ago
      >>> That concept is from the mid 1800s. They evolved out of warehouse guards and slave patrols. >> This is not accurate. > I do not claim that's in the history of all depts, but across the south there are many cases of patrols becoming formalized into police departments. What percentage of current police departments were conversions from slave patrols? What is the source of this data?
      - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
        >> And slave patrols led directly into being police departments in some parts of the US. > What is the source of this data? https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=police+departments+were+conversions+from+slave+patrols&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=police+departments+were+conv...
        adolph 2y ago
        Ok, first link in results contradicts "slave patrols led directly into being police departments in some parts of the US": While it is true that slave patrols were a form of American law enforcement that existed alongside other forms of law enforcement, the claim that American policing “traces back” to, “started out” as, or “evolved directly from,” slave patrols, or that slave patrols “morphed directly into” policing, is false. This widespread pernicious myth falsely asserts a causal relationship between slave patrols and policing and intimates that modern policing carries on a legacy of gross injustice. There is no evidence for either postulate. https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-police-originate-from-slave-patrols https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-pol...
      - bcdtttt 2y ago
        And did not mean to imply exclusively. Plenty of police departments don't have roots in slave patrols.
    - andrewla 2y ago
      For the warehouse guards, to summarize, you're saying that night watchmen and city watchmen were de facto warehouse guards before the formation of professional police forces? That seems a far cry from "evolved out of warehouse guards". Police still put resources into protecting property, but this does not make them "warehouse guards" any more than resources put on petty crime make them "cutpurse chasers" unless you're just making rhetorical points. For the slave patrol point, I would appreciate a single example of this phenomenon. Is it the claim that there exists at least one professional police force that was created to replace a "slave patrol", which previously performed some subset of the civil duties of police officers? I have not been able to find an example; can you point me to one?
      - sangnoir 2y ago
        > For the slave patrol point, I would appreciate a single example of this phenomenon Potter, Gary "The History of Policing in the United States"[1] references Platt, Tony, "Crime and Punishment in the United States: Immediate and Long-Term Reforms from a Marxist Perspective, Crime and Social Justice 18" 1. https://www.academia.edu/30504361/The_History_of_Policing_in_the_United_States https://www.academia.edu/30504361/The_History_of_Policing_in...
        joemazerino 2y ago
        Marxist references are valid?
        sangnoir 2y ago
        I suppose if you dismiss an article out of hand due to the ideology of the author without even seeing what historical facts they claim or their references, they might not be valuable to you. Should progressive academics declare all CATO papers invalid because they are ideologically misaligned with the institute?
        adolph 2y ago
        Did you read Platt? Its a mistake to grant any assertion as valid, especially given what we now know about academic fraud. The Platt article is freely available and does not reference slavery in any way that I can see from searching (the bad OCR) and quickly reading through the paragraphs. Potter: The genesis of the modern police organization in the South is the “Slave Patrol” (Platt 1982). Potter: Platt, Tony, “Crime and Punishment in the United States: Immediate and Long-Term Reforms from a Marxist Perspective, Crime and Social Justice 18 (1982). "CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM REFORMS FROM A MARXIST PERSPECTIVE" Tony Platt Crime and Social Justice, No. 18, REMAKING JUSTICE (Winter 1982), pp. 38-45 (8 pages) 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29766165 https://www.jstor.org/stable/29766165
    - graemep 2y ago
      Given the origin of modern police forces in the Met, the principles set down by Peel would indicate that the aim was to have a force that was backed by the public - "policing by consent". One of their predecessor organisations was the Bow Street Runners which was set up by magistrates with the aim of providing a less corrupt system than that of "thief takers" and a more professional one than parish constables.
  - michaelt 2y ago
    > the concept of the modern police, at least in the US, was largely based on the Peelian model created in London in the 1820s. There are some pretty big differences between the UK policing model and the one used in the US. The UK model was set up against the backdrop of the Napoleonic Wars (the French police's role included monitoring dissent, suppressing political opposition [1] and even censoring books) and the Peterloo Massacre [2] (where cavalry were set on a peaceful protest campaigning for more than 2% of people to be allowed to vote) The Peelian model [3] is one of 'policing by consent' where the police focus their efforts on the sorts of crimes the average citizen wants solved - rather than on suppressing political dissent, or censoring books, or launching cavalry charges against protests. Peel's police aren't a military force, which is why very few of them have guns. If the American police are based on Peelian principles, then an awful lot of the principles have gotten lost in translation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fouch%C3%A9#In_Napoleon's_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fouch%C3%A9#In_Napoleon... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles#The_nine_principles_of_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles#The_nine_pr...
    - robertlagrant 2y ago
      The previous comments weren't specific to America. This is a global website.
      - michaelt 2y ago
        > the modern police, at least in the US,
        robertlagrant 2y ago
        Oh, how did I miss that!?
    - TeMPOraL 2y ago
      > If the American police are based on Peelian principles, then an awful lot of the principles have gotten lost in translation. "Peelian police, but with guns!" isn't that far off, I believe.
  - boppo1 2y ago
    Can you tell me more or more about where I should look? What did people do about crimes like robberies etc?
- blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - diggan 2y ago
    > This is a vague claim made by the anti policing activists Probably a conclusion people come to when they compare US police looking more like the US military every day, while their local police doesn't go in that direction at all. At least that's true for me as a person living in Spain but sometimes seeing the really crazy equipment US police seems to have.
    - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
      Having semiautomatic rifles or armored vehicles isn’t militarization. Private citizens can get those too. Police forces don’t have M1 Abrams tanks or F35s or nuclear carriers. This claim that the police are problematic is an entirely emotional activist response to a few incidents. That sentiment then led to hyperbolic claims like militarization.
      - Jugglernaut 2y ago
        [dead]
      - diggan 2y ago
        Doesn't the police in the US frequently end up with hardware the military used to use? I've seen bunch of pictures/videos of police using Humvees and similar stuff, which I thought was originally made for military use, not domestic policing. It also seems like in 2015 there was limits added that made it so "the military was restricted from transferring some weapons, such as grenade launchers, weaponized vehicles, and bayonets to police". Why was that restriction needed if the police isn't becoming more and more like the military?
        nradov 2y ago
        Humvees (HMMWV) aren't anything special. They were sold new for a while on the US civilian market. It's just another truck. The military surplus ones didn't come with weapons. Lots of other countries also sell off military surplus trucks, I've seen regular people in Europe driving comparable vehicles like a Unimog.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- diggan 2y ago
  > Cops are a relatively recent phenomena. (Cops as a uniformed, central office, patrolling force.) Not at all, Spain for example had local "brotherhoods" who were meant to protect the local communities against bandits and other unwanted people, and this was back in the 12th century. I'm sure other countries could have been even earlier with their early versions of a police force. "Santa Hermandad" is a term you can look up to find some history about it.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  > They evolved out of warehouse guards and slave patrols. Are we still spouting this nonsense? They do come from the mid 1800s. Modeled after the London Metro Police, where there were so many slaves to catch. American cities soon imitated, based on how many slaves were recovered.
  - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
    > Are we still spouting this nonsense? They do come from the mid 1800s. Modeled after the London Metro Police All of the above is true. In the US, slavery enforcement evolved into police forces and police forces were modeled after UK police. Many police forces, many origin stores. https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-police-originate-from-slave-patrols https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-pol...
    - andrewla 2y ago
      The article you point to is explicitly debunking the idea of slave patrols evolving into police forces. > The claim that modern police originated from slave patrols is a dangerous slur designed to delegitimize policing ... Bad policing must be criticized, but we should not do so by resorting to historically flimsy myths, especially myths that unfairly tarnish the reputations of those in law enforcement and cast aspersions on their motives.
      - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
        It does not matter... he believes it, so it must be true. But it does feel weird to wander among humans, listening to the nonsense being discussed so earnestly. The truth of the matter is this: if you refuse to believe that modern policing evolved directly from slave patrols, it means you are a racist and you voted for Trump. This is undeniable, and by denying it you prove it true. Nuanced and sophisticated descriptions of how historical circumstances came to be are repressive and the enemy of social justice. Thomas Jefferson ate babies and George Washington stomped on little latinx children.
- qznc 2y ago
  Accidentally, I read about the Romans recently. They had the Cohortes Vigiles, which was mostly a night time fire watch but it included night watch duties. Daytime was the responsibility of the Praetorian Guard. They were more kind of a part of the army but under the mayor's control (to some degree at least). I think they meet your definition of uniformed, central office, and patrolling.
- voxic11 2y ago
  A very interesting piece on the history and development of modern policing https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/sarah-seo-how-cars-transformed-policing/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/sarah-seo-how-cars-tra...
- janalsncm 2y ago
  This seems like a genetic fallacy. Police might have been former slave patrollers at one time in some places. That doesn’t mean all US police are the same or have anything in common with them. I’m not sure what it means for US police to have “evolved out of” slave patrols in places that never had slaves, like New York City (northern states didn’t want to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act), or even in places like Hawaii that were founded well after slavery was abolished.
  - imbnwa 2y ago
    Specifically, SWAT teams didn’t exist until the 1960s. I’d wager their escalated use against civilians in their homes likely coincided with the War on Drugs in the 1980s.
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      The story I’ve heard is the North Hollywood shootout led to increased militarization when police were outgunned by two bank robbers. https://www.policemag.com/weapons/article/15348048/how-the-north-hollywood-shootout-changed-patrol-arsenals https://www.policemag.com/weapons/article/15348048/how-the-n... Of course, there must have been many other causes. It wasn’t the first time in US history that police were outgunned.
  - bcdtttt 2y ago
    Police forces have roots in protecting capital, for example warehouse guards or for another slave patrols. They still exist for that purpose in the US. They do not exist to protect people. They are a tool of the state and capital. The years post slavery still were used to enforce Jim Crow laws, segregation, and violence against minorities. They still used dogs to attack peaceful protestors. SWAT teams are a continuation of an ethos of being warriors, willing to do violence at the behest of the government and capital at the expense of the people.
    - janalsncm 2y ago
      This is a genetic fallacy. The origins of policing don’t give you sufficient information to judge its present quality. Further, as many have also pointed out, many places didn’t even have slave patrols. Drawing a connection between contemporary Waco cops and Jim Crow is dubious but drawing that connection to e.g. LAPD is entirely unjustified. Bad police departments resemble something more akin to the Catholic Church than the KKK. Assuming you are not making the entirely reductionist argument that requires every law be tied back to capital (in other words, murder is illegal because it brings down property values or something) this is an extremely narrow view of the purpose of police. This everything-is-capital framing doesn’t explain consumer protections or environmental laws or labor laws. The purpose of police is to enforce the laws. Many of those laws have been significantly and disproportionately controlled by corporate and monied interests but again there are too many clear counterexamples to conclude as you did.
- gruez 2y ago
  >That concept is from the mid 1800s. They evolved out of warehouse guards and slave patrols. Isn't this just guilt by association? Whether police are bad or not should be judged on its merits, not what its history is. The Autobahn and VW was built by Nazi Germany, but it'd be absurd to bring that factoid up when discussing road transport or the German car industry.
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    It's guilt by association and that narrow nationalistic perspective that the US is the entirety of the world. Turns out, most of the planet managed to form similarly-operating police forces without first having slave patrols.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  > slave patrols Yeah, right. Those were distinctly US-ian things; somehow, the rest of the world managed to develop a similar form of police force at similar time, too.
  - bcdtttt 2y ago
    The and was not meant to be exclusive. It should maybe be read as or. It's not meant to imply all police forces were slave patrols. Plenty evolved to protect other capital interests.
valval 2y ago
Not at all. It’s good that law enforcement have the tools to deal with serious threats. You’re just throwing around a fear word. The big guns are hidden from sight anyway, and only brought out when need be. We don’t need any Oct 7th type attacks happening on home soil.
- LargeWu 2y ago
  If they can be summoned by just placing an anonymous phone call with an unverified claim, that might be a problem though.
  - everforward 2y ago
    This. There are valid reasons to have the big guns, though I still think we’ve overreached. It is terrifying that a damn teenager managed to trick the cops into whipping out the big guns hundreds of times. Despite that the teenager will likely be going to jail, the most damning indictment is of the police forces that were repeatedly co-opted by the teenager. It should really take something much more clever to trigger this kind of systemic response repeatedly.
  - gruez 2y ago
    What's the alternative? Waiting for New York Times to verify a home invasion has indeed taken place before sending over cops?
    - LargeWu 2y ago
      Maybe just sending out a single squad car first to get a credible assessment?
      - valval 2y ago
        I'm not sure who aided in constructing this mental representation for you that the number of cops is directly proportional with the scale of conflict that's about to happen. I'd challenge that view by claiming that if the threat is of someone holding their family hostage threatening to kill them (just a guess at what these "swatters" might say to the dispatcher to get cops to actually kick in some doors, I don't know what their state-of-the-art accusation is), then sending one cop car, poorly equipped, sounds a bit silly for multiple reasons.
karaterobot 2y ago
The military model is that they are organized into units with training, and obey a central authority. On the whole, it's been an improvement over forming ad hoc posses of farmers and shopkeepers and arming them, or the medieval hue and cry model where someone screams and then everybody in town comes over and beats a stranger to death for having a different accent after dark. I'd love to see some statistics about how much worse it is now that we have professional police, though, if you've got any to share.
- NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
  The "military model" goes so much further than that. They are "officers" and have military ranks as their position/title. They wear military-styled uniforms and headwear. They engage in military-style ceremonies. > I'd love to see some statistics about how much worse it is now that we have professional police, How fortunate that they're willing to collect statistics on their own performance for you.
  - cptskippy 2y ago
    > The "military model" goes so much further than that. Claiming that police are being militarized is a very broad statement. Depending on your perspective it can be positive or negative. You could argue that consistency and having a common operating model with accountability is a good thing. Unfortunately many would argue the adopted model is very flawed and that the level accountability is tied to public outrage or scrutiny. I think everyone would agree that adequate training is essential but we would disagree on what type of training is appropriate. Some argue that sensitivity and deescalation training are where the focus should be, while others are arguing for the warrior training. The true conservative would say that we can't do it right so we shouldn't attempt because doing it badly will be more harmful than not having done it at all.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      > You could argue that consistency and having a common operating model with accountability is a good thing. Why would that require that a "captain" has several subordinates ranked "Lieutenant" and "Sergeant"? Why do the highest ranked police have caps with brocade, and gold braid on their shoulders? Is that part of the consistency? Why does the NYPD have dress uniforms? Why do they give military style funerals for those who die, or x-gun salutes? We're often told they're out there fighting "wars", though everyone is always vague about who the other side is. I'm not making the claim that they've been militarized recently. It seems to have been the case no matter how far you go back. > I think everyone would agree that adequate training is essential but we would disagree on what type of training is appropriate. I don't think this is a training problem. When they shoot some grandma or shake down travelers for the cash in their wallets, I don't think this could ever be corrected no matter how much or what sort of training they are required to undergo. This is some baseline ethics problem, that could only be corrected with initial selection, and then only if the selection process itself were relatively uncorrupted (and it's not). Your comment doesn't just suggest you are mistaken about this or that, but that you aren't in a frame of mind where you could recognize or appreciate that there is a problem. > The true conservative would say that we can't do it right so we shouldn't attempt because What if the task were something absolutely morally abhorrent? What if the task was to efficiently and artfully carve the hearts out of newborn babies and toddlers, and to terrorize the parents with the mutilated remains of their children? But you've been doing this task for so long, that you and everyone else just assumes that it's something that needs to be done. You're sitting around arguing "ok, maybe we need to do only have as many satanic baby sacrifices, and I won't listen to the people who say we need to have more not less". And there's another guy sitting next to you saying "I don't know why we need the terror... we could kill just as many babies without being cruel, they could get anesthesia, and we could do grief counseling for the mom and dad". And you endlessly yammer about this stuff, for decades, never noticing that you're all lunatics. The concept that this just shouldn't be done at all, in any manner, it's something you can't possibly hear. Even those who can understand this like to whine that they're powerless to stop it, that they don't have the tools to put a stop to it, etc. The truth is we all have the power to stop, none of you want to.
graemep 2y ago
> The militarization of law enforcement and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Do you mean for the US, rather than the human race? Some of us live in countries where the only weapons most cops carry are truncheons and tasers.
- xkcd-sucks 2y ago
  The weapons are orthogonal to the culture; most of the police abuse volume is in beating, arrest and confinement, property destruction and confiscation, etc. The shootings make news, but lots of people don't get shot and still suffer lasting material consequences
  - graemep 2y ago
    I agree those are problems in many places (and to some extent will be with anywhere), but would not describe them as militarisation.
- chgs 2y ago
  Whats bad for the US is bad for the rest of the world. America uses its outsized influence to impact the entire world
  - MichaelZuo 2y ago
    Plenty of countries are benefiting from U.S. mistakes and ‘badness’…
- righthand 2y ago
  And yet your country may have an NYPD office.
- dowager_dan99 2y ago
  This is at best naive, and reads pretty smug and self-satisfied. You likely still have a military, and policing isn't really about the weapons a cop carries. Ironically less deadly weapons can encourage more liberal use, so maybe you can be proud of your higher rate of non-lethal beatings?
joemazerino 2y ago
How is this even related to militarization? The perp is abusing emergency response systems with a total lack of empathy for the damage it did to the victim and the department. The separation of empathy from an 18 year old online kid from his peers is the true tragedy here.
- _bkyr 2y ago
  I think they are saying in the US the SWAT team shows up ready for war, while a more measured response would be a couple cops knocking on the door to see what's going on. Obviously the cops don't have a crystal ball and there's not going to be a clean solution here, outside of catching the person earlier. It sucks this person was so angry and unfeeling to the world at a young age.
anonu 2y ago
Your comment is a bit off topic IMO. Swatting can occur regardless of how "militarized" a police force actually is.
- elzbardico 2y ago
  Can it? Do you really think that dressing in military special ops tactical clothing, with advanced and powerful weaponry, balaclavas, helmets and responding to a call in a armoured vehicle doesn't create any weird expectations on the mind of police officer of how they should behave in a call?
  - magnetowasright 2y ago
    Does playing dress up make any difference to how much murdering they do? I don't think that outcomes would be any different if they were sent in in their regular uniforms with their regular weaponry.
- smsm42 2y ago
  The whole point of swatting is to cause massive over-reaction by the police endangering victim's life. If it would just cause a regular visit by a cop nobody would do it - what would be the point of it, waste 5 minutes of person's time? The whole premise relies on the massive militarized response.
bitcharmer 2y ago
[dead]

The militarization of law enforcement and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race.

bcdtttt 2y ago

[flagged]

andrewla 2y ago
> They evolved out of warehouse guards and slave patrols. This is not accurate. The timeframe is not wrong; it is true that the concept of the modern police, at least in the US, was largely based on the Peelian model created in London in the 1820s. But saying it evolved from "warehouse guards and slave patrols" is ahistorical. Most modern police forces modeled after London's Metropolitan Police replaced night watch systems that have been around for literally all of recorded history.
- bcdtttt 2y ago
  While some night watches were public safety distributed among community members, they were often there to protect the goods of merchants rather than protect the ordinary citizens of an area from petty crime. As merchants grew, and their goods became more valuable targets, the merchants would hire on guards, but saw the opportunity to turn the existing night watch systems in place to their favor, essentially insisting on distributing the cost of guarding their goods across the community. I'm not saying the night watches didn't evolve into police departments, I'm saying the night watches were co-opted prior to them becoming uniformed departments. And slave patrols led directly into being police departments in some parts of the US. I do not claim that's in the history of all depts, but across the south there are many cases of patrols becoming formalized into police departments.
  - adolph 2y ago
    >>> That concept is from the mid 1800s. They evolved out of warehouse guards and slave patrols. >> This is not accurate. > I do not claim that's in the history of all depts, but across the south there are many cases of patrols becoming formalized into police departments. What percentage of current police departments were conversions from slave patrols? What is the source of this data?
    - WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
      >> And slave patrols led directly into being police departments in some parts of the US. > What is the source of this data? https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=police+departments+were+conversions+from+slave+patrols&ia=web https://duckduckgo.com/?hps=1&q=police+departments+were+conv...
      - adolph 2y ago
        Ok, first link in results contradicts "slave patrols led directly into being police departments in some parts of the US": While it is true that slave patrols were a form of American law enforcement that existed alongside other forms of law enforcement, the claim that American policing “traces back” to, “started out” as, or “evolved directly from,” slave patrols, or that slave patrols “morphed directly into” policing, is false. This widespread pernicious myth falsely asserts a causal relationship between slave patrols and policing and intimates that modern policing carries on a legacy of gross injustice. There is no evidence for either postulate. https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-police-originate-from-slave-patrols https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-pol...
    - bcdtttt 2y ago
      And did not mean to imply exclusively. Plenty of police departments don't have roots in slave patrols.
  - andrewla 2y ago
    For the warehouse guards, to summarize, you're saying that night watchmen and city watchmen were de facto warehouse guards before the formation of professional police forces? That seems a far cry from "evolved out of warehouse guards". Police still put resources into protecting property, but this does not make them "warehouse guards" any more than resources put on petty crime make them "cutpurse chasers" unless you're just making rhetorical points. For the slave patrol point, I would appreciate a single example of this phenomenon. Is it the claim that there exists at least one professional police force that was created to replace a "slave patrol", which previously performed some subset of the civil duties of police officers? I have not been able to find an example; can you point me to one?
    - sangnoir 2y ago
      > For the slave patrol point, I would appreciate a single example of this phenomenon Potter, Gary "The History of Policing in the United States"[1] references Platt, Tony, "Crime and Punishment in the United States: Immediate and Long-Term Reforms from a Marxist Perspective, Crime and Social Justice 18" 1. https://www.academia.edu/30504361/The_History_of_Policing_in_the_United_States https://www.academia.edu/30504361/The_History_of_Policing_in...
      - joemazerino 2y ago
        Marxist references are valid?
        sangnoir 2y ago
        I suppose if you dismiss an article out of hand due to the ideology of the author without even seeing what historical facts they claim or their references, they might not be valuable to you. Should progressive academics declare all CATO papers invalid because they are ideologically misaligned with the institute?
      - adolph 2y ago
        Did you read Platt? Its a mistake to grant any assertion as valid, especially given what we now know about academic fraud. The Platt article is freely available and does not reference slavery in any way that I can see from searching (the bad OCR) and quickly reading through the paragraphs. Potter: The genesis of the modern police organization in the South is the “Slave Patrol” (Platt 1982). Potter: Platt, Tony, “Crime and Punishment in the United States: Immediate and Long-Term Reforms from a Marxist Perspective, Crime and Social Justice 18 (1982). "CRIME AND PUNISHMENT IN THE UNITED STATES: IMMEDIATE AND LONG-TERM REFORMS FROM A MARXIST PERSPECTIVE" Tony Platt Crime and Social Justice, No. 18, REMAKING JUSTICE (Winter 1982), pp. 38-45 (8 pages) 1. https://www.jstor.org/stable/29766165 https://www.jstor.org/stable/29766165
  - graemep 2y ago
    Given the origin of modern police forces in the Met, the principles set down by Peel would indicate that the aim was to have a force that was backed by the public - "policing by consent". One of their predecessor organisations was the Bow Street Runners which was set up by magistrates with the aim of providing a less corrupt system than that of "thief takers" and a more professional one than parish constables.
- michaelt 2y ago
  > the concept of the modern police, at least in the US, was largely based on the Peelian model created in London in the 1820s. There are some pretty big differences between the UK policing model and the one used in the US. The UK model was set up against the backdrop of the Napoleonic Wars (the French police's role included monitoring dissent, suppressing political opposition [1] and even censoring books) and the Peterloo Massacre [2] (where cavalry were set on a peaceful protest campaigning for more than 2% of people to be allowed to vote) The Peelian model [3] is one of 'policing by consent' where the police focus their efforts on the sorts of crimes the average citizen wants solved - rather than on suppressing political dissent, or censoring books, or launching cavalry charges against protests. Peel's police aren't a military force, which is why very few of them have guns. If the American police are based on Peelian principles, then an awful lot of the principles have gotten lost in translation. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fouch%C3%A9#In_Napoleon's_service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Fouch%C3%A9#In_Napoleon... [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peterloo_Massacre [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles#The_nine_principles_of_policing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peelian_principles#The_nine_pr...
  - robertlagrant 2y ago
    The previous comments weren't specific to America. This is a global website.
    - michaelt 2y ago
      > the modern police, at least in the US,
      - robertlagrant 2y ago
        Oh, how did I miss that!?
  - TeMPOraL 2y ago
    > If the American police are based on Peelian principles, then an awful lot of the principles have gotten lost in translation. "Peelian police, but with guns!" isn't that far off, I believe.
- boppo1 2y ago
  Can you tell me more or more about where I should look? What did people do about crimes like robberies etc?
blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
[flagged]
- diggan 2y ago
  > This is a vague claim made by the anti policing activists Probably a conclusion people come to when they compare US police looking more like the US military every day, while their local police doesn't go in that direction at all. At least that's true for me as a person living in Spain but sometimes seeing the really crazy equipment US police seems to have.
  - blackeyeblitzar 2y ago
    Having semiautomatic rifles or armored vehicles isn’t militarization. Private citizens can get those too. Police forces don’t have M1 Abrams tanks or F35s or nuclear carriers. This claim that the police are problematic is an entirely emotional activist response to a few incidents. That sentiment then led to hyperbolic claims like militarization.
    - Jugglernaut 2y ago
      [dead]
    - diggan 2y ago
      Doesn't the police in the US frequently end up with hardware the military used to use? I've seen bunch of pictures/videos of police using Humvees and similar stuff, which I thought was originally made for military use, not domestic policing. It also seems like in 2015 there was limits added that made it so "the military was restricted from transferring some weapons, such as grenade launchers, weaponized vehicles, and bayonets to police". Why was that restriction needed if the police isn't becoming more and more like the military?
      - nradov 2y ago
        Humvees (HMMWV) aren't anything special. They were sold new for a while on the US civilian market. It's just another truck. The military surplus ones didn't come with weapons. Lots of other countries also sell off military surplus trucks, I've seen regular people in Europe driving comparable vehicles like a Unimog.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
diggan 2y ago
> Cops are a relatively recent phenomena. (Cops as a uniformed, central office, patrolling force.) Not at all, Spain for example had local "brotherhoods" who were meant to protect the local communities against bandits and other unwanted people, and this was back in the 12th century. I'm sure other countries could have been even earlier with their early versions of a police force. "Santa Hermandad" is a term you can look up to find some history about it.
NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
> They evolved out of warehouse guards and slave patrols. Are we still spouting this nonsense? They do come from the mid 1800s. Modeled after the London Metro Police, where there were so many slaves to catch. American cities soon imitated, based on how many slaves were recovered.
- WarOnPrivacy 2y ago
  > Are we still spouting this nonsense? They do come from the mid 1800s. Modeled after the London Metro Police All of the above is true. In the US, slavery enforcement evolved into police forces and police forces were modeled after UK police. Many police forces, many origin stores. https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-police-originate-from-slave-patrols https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/36/3/did-american-pol...
  - andrewla 2y ago
    The article you point to is explicitly debunking the idea of slave patrols evolving into police forces. > The claim that modern police originated from slave patrols is a dangerous slur designed to delegitimize policing ... Bad policing must be criticized, but we should not do so by resorting to historically flimsy myths, especially myths that unfairly tarnish the reputations of those in law enforcement and cast aspersions on their motives.
    - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
      It does not matter... he believes it, so it must be true. But it does feel weird to wander among humans, listening to the nonsense being discussed so earnestly. The truth of the matter is this: if you refuse to believe that modern policing evolved directly from slave patrols, it means you are a racist and you voted for Trump. This is undeniable, and by denying it you prove it true. Nuanced and sophisticated descriptions of how historical circumstances came to be are repressive and the enemy of social justice. Thomas Jefferson ate babies and George Washington stomped on little latinx children.
qznc 2y ago
Accidentally, I read about the Romans recently. They had the Cohortes Vigiles, which was mostly a night time fire watch but it included night watch duties. Daytime was the responsibility of the Praetorian Guard. They were more kind of a part of the army but under the mayor's control (to some degree at least). I think they meet your definition of uniformed, central office, and patrolling.
voxic11 2y ago
A very interesting piece on the history and development of modern policing https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/sarah-seo-how-cars-transformed-policing/ https://www.bostonreview.net/articles/sarah-seo-how-cars-tra...
janalsncm 2y ago
This seems like a genetic fallacy. Police might have been former slave patrollers at one time in some places. That doesn’t mean all US police are the same or have anything in common with them. I’m not sure what it means for US police to have “evolved out of” slave patrols in places that never had slaves, like New York City (northern states didn’t want to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act), or even in places like Hawaii that were founded well after slavery was abolished.
- imbnwa 2y ago
  Specifically, SWAT teams didn’t exist until the 1960s. I’d wager their escalated use against civilians in their homes likely coincided with the War on Drugs in the 1980s.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    The story I’ve heard is the North Hollywood shootout led to increased militarization when police were outgunned by two bank robbers. https://www.policemag.com/weapons/article/15348048/how-the-north-hollywood-shootout-changed-patrol-arsenals https://www.policemag.com/weapons/article/15348048/how-the-n... Of course, there must have been many other causes. It wasn’t the first time in US history that police were outgunned.
- bcdtttt 2y ago
  Police forces have roots in protecting capital, for example warehouse guards or for another slave patrols. They still exist for that purpose in the US. They do not exist to protect people. They are a tool of the state and capital. The years post slavery still were used to enforce Jim Crow laws, segregation, and violence against minorities. They still used dogs to attack peaceful protestors. SWAT teams are a continuation of an ethos of being warriors, willing to do violence at the behest of the government and capital at the expense of the people.
  - janalsncm 2y ago
    This is a genetic fallacy. The origins of policing don’t give you sufficient information to judge its present quality. Further, as many have also pointed out, many places didn’t even have slave patrols. Drawing a connection between contemporary Waco cops and Jim Crow is dubious but drawing that connection to e.g. LAPD is entirely unjustified. Bad police departments resemble something more akin to the Catholic Church than the KKK. Assuming you are not making the entirely reductionist argument that requires every law be tied back to capital (in other words, murder is illegal because it brings down property values or something) this is an extremely narrow view of the purpose of police. This everything-is-capital framing doesn’t explain consumer protections or environmental laws or labor laws. The purpose of police is to enforce the laws. Many of those laws have been significantly and disproportionately controlled by corporate and monied interests but again there are too many clear counterexamples to conclude as you did.
gruez 2y ago
>That concept is from the mid 1800s. They evolved out of warehouse guards and slave patrols. Isn't this just guilt by association? Whether police are bad or not should be judged on its merits, not what its history is. The Autobahn and VW was built by Nazi Germany, but it'd be absurd to bring that factoid up when discussing road transport or the German car industry.
- TeMPOraL 2y ago
  It's guilt by association and that narrow nationalistic perspective that the US is the entirety of the world. Turns out, most of the planet managed to form similarly-operating police forces without first having slave patrols.
TeMPOraL 2y ago
> slave patrols Yeah, right. Those were distinctly US-ian things; somehow, the rest of the world managed to develop a similar form of police force at similar time, too.
- bcdtttt 2y ago
  The and was not meant to be exclusive. It should maybe be read as or. It's not meant to imply all police forces were slave patrols. Plenty evolved to protect other capital interests.

valval 2y ago

Not at all. It’s good that law enforcement have the tools to deal with serious threats. You’re just throwing around a fear word. The big guns are hidden from sight anyway, and only brought out when need be. We don’t need any Oct 7th type attacks happening on home soil.

LargeWu 2y ago
If they can be summoned by just placing an anonymous phone call with an unverified claim, that might be a problem though.
- everforward 2y ago
  This. There are valid reasons to have the big guns, though I still think we’ve overreached. It is terrifying that a damn teenager managed to trick the cops into whipping out the big guns hundreds of times. Despite that the teenager will likely be going to jail, the most damning indictment is of the police forces that were repeatedly co-opted by the teenager. It should really take something much more clever to trigger this kind of systemic response repeatedly.
- gruez 2y ago
  What's the alternative? Waiting for New York Times to verify a home invasion has indeed taken place before sending over cops?
  - LargeWu 2y ago
    Maybe just sending out a single squad car first to get a credible assessment?
    - valval 2y ago
      I'm not sure who aided in constructing this mental representation for you that the number of cops is directly proportional with the scale of conflict that's about to happen. I'd challenge that view by claiming that if the threat is of someone holding their family hostage threatening to kill them (just a guess at what these "swatters" might say to the dispatcher to get cops to actually kick in some doors, I don't know what their state-of-the-art accusation is), then sending one cop car, poorly equipped, sounds a bit silly for multiple reasons.

karaterobot 2y ago

The military model is that they are organized into units with training, and obey a central authority. On the whole, it's been an improvement over forming ad hoc posses of farmers and shopkeepers and arming them, or the medieval hue and cry model where someone screams and then everybody in town comes over and beats a stranger to death for having a different accent after dark. I'd love to see some statistics about how much worse it is now that we have professional police, though, if you've got any to share.

NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
The "military model" goes so much further than that. They are "officers" and have military ranks as their position/title. They wear military-styled uniforms and headwear. They engage in military-style ceremonies. > I'd love to see some statistics about how much worse it is now that we have professional police, How fortunate that they're willing to collect statistics on their own performance for you.
- cptskippy 2y ago
  > The "military model" goes so much further than that. Claiming that police are being militarized is a very broad statement. Depending on your perspective it can be positive or negative. You could argue that consistency and having a common operating model with accountability is a good thing. Unfortunately many would argue the adopted model is very flawed and that the level accountability is tied to public outrage or scrutiny. I think everyone would agree that adequate training is essential but we would disagree on what type of training is appropriate. Some argue that sensitivity and deescalation training are where the focus should be, while others are arguing for the warrior training. The true conservative would say that we can't do it right so we shouldn't attempt because doing it badly will be more harmful than not having done it at all.
  - NoMoreNicksLeft 2y ago
    > You could argue that consistency and having a common operating model with accountability is a good thing. Why would that require that a "captain" has several subordinates ranked "Lieutenant" and "Sergeant"? Why do the highest ranked police have caps with brocade, and gold braid on their shoulders? Is that part of the consistency? Why does the NYPD have dress uniforms? Why do they give military style funerals for those who die, or x-gun salutes? We're often told they're out there fighting "wars", though everyone is always vague about who the other side is. I'm not making the claim that they've been militarized recently. It seems to have been the case no matter how far you go back. > I think everyone would agree that adequate training is essential but we would disagree on what type of training is appropriate. I don't think this is a training problem. When they shoot some grandma or shake down travelers for the cash in their wallets, I don't think this could ever be corrected no matter how much or what sort of training they are required to undergo. This is some baseline ethics problem, that could only be corrected with initial selection, and then only if the selection process itself were relatively uncorrupted (and it's not). Your comment doesn't just suggest you are mistaken about this or that, but that you aren't in a frame of mind where you could recognize or appreciate that there is a problem. > The true conservative would say that we can't do it right so we shouldn't attempt because What if the task were something absolutely morally abhorrent? What if the task was to efficiently and artfully carve the hearts out of newborn babies and toddlers, and to terrorize the parents with the mutilated remains of their children? But you've been doing this task for so long, that you and everyone else just assumes that it's something that needs to be done. You're sitting around arguing "ok, maybe we need to do only have as many satanic baby sacrifices, and I won't listen to the people who say we need to have more not less". And there's another guy sitting next to you saying "I don't know why we need the terror... we could kill just as many babies without being cruel, they could get anesthesia, and we could do grief counseling for the mom and dad". And you endlessly yammer about this stuff, for decades, never noticing that you're all lunatics. The concept that this just shouldn't be done at all, in any manner, it's something you can't possibly hear. Even those who can understand this like to whine that they're powerless to stop it, that they don't have the tools to put a stop to it, etc. The truth is we all have the power to stop, none of you want to.

graemep 2y ago

> The militarization of law enforcement and its consequences have been a disaster for the human race. Do you mean for the US, rather than the human race? Some of us live in countries where the only weapons most cops carry are truncheons and tasers.

xkcd-sucks 2y ago
The weapons are orthogonal to the culture; most of the police abuse volume is in beating, arrest and confinement, property destruction and confiscation, etc. The shootings make news, but lots of people don't get shot and still suffer lasting material consequences
- graemep 2y ago
  I agree those are problems in many places (and to some extent will be with anywhere), but would not describe them as militarisation.
chgs 2y ago
Whats bad for the US is bad for the rest of the world. America uses its outsized influence to impact the entire world
- MichaelZuo 2y ago
  Plenty of countries are benefiting from U.S. mistakes and ‘badness’…
righthand 2y ago
And yet your country may have an NYPD office.
dowager_dan99 2y ago
This is at best naive, and reads pretty smug and self-satisfied. You likely still have a military, and policing isn't really about the weapons a cop carries. Ironically less deadly weapons can encourage more liberal use, so maybe you can be proud of your higher rate of non-lethal beatings?

joemazerino 2y ago

How is this even related to militarization? The perp is abusing emergency response systems with a total lack of empathy for the damage it did to the victim and the department. The separation of empathy from an 18 year old online kid from his peers is the true tragedy here.

_bkyr 2y ago
I think they are saying in the US the SWAT team shows up ready for war, while a more measured response would be a couple cops knocking on the door to see what's going on. Obviously the cops don't have a crystal ball and there's not going to be a clean solution here, outside of catching the person earlier. It sucks this person was so angry and unfeeling to the world at a young age.

anonu 2y ago

Your comment is a bit off topic IMO. Swatting can occur regardless of how "militarized" a police force actually is.

elzbardico 2y ago
Can it? Do you really think that dressing in military special ops tactical clothing, with advanced and powerful weaponry, balaclavas, helmets and responding to a call in a armoured vehicle doesn't create any weird expectations on the mind of police officer of how they should behave in a call?
- magnetowasright 2y ago
  Does playing dress up make any difference to how much murdering they do? I don't think that outcomes would be any different if they were sent in in their regular uniforms with their regular weaponry.
smsm42 2y ago
The whole point of swatting is to cause massive over-reaction by the police endangering victim's life. If it would just cause a regular visit by a cop nobody would do it - what would be the point of it, waste 5 minutes of person's time? The whole premise relies on the massive militarized response.

bitcharmer 2y ago

[dead]