Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Yeah I came across the Peelian Principles as a result of reading the other thread and they're really pretty interesting stuff as a basis for a police force.

1) To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal punishment.

2) 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.

3) 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.

4) 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.

5) 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.

6) 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.

7) 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.

8) 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.

9) 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.

_______________

As a sidenote, there even something about the phrase "Law Enforcement" that gives me the heeby newbies.

 Desubot wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Most events tend to involve large quantities of booze, so I got to see the police enact several takedowns, and deal with a few myself. In every case, the priority is de-escalation and conflict resolution. Is there a bloke swinging a bottle around threateningly at people? Offer to take him to another location for another drink. Agree with him that the other guy was a fether first. Make soothing noises at him. Heck, if you're a woman, flirt with him slightly. Whatever it takes to get close without suspicion and lead him somewhere to cool off, or worst case, let you slap cuffs on quickly. I've lost count of the number of times I saw it done or did a variant of it myself.

Not gonna lie

a hand full of those sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

If the person is absolutely hammered, their word ain't getting them any lawsuits. We have plenty of the Po patrolling Wind Street, Swansea's main area of getting hammered, they spend most the night talking to people. They are very approachable, the police generally are here. But when the poop hits the fan, wham bang back of the the van for you. Spend a night cooling off in the cells.


It isn't that hard to get guns in the UK, it's not easy, but it is possible. My local fishing shop has a selection of hunting rifles and ammunition, my regular opponent at the FLGS has several guns, and gun licenses of his own. But no one here feels the need to go out and buy a gun, probably because of the hassle.

My I know there are a few armoured units around here, you just don't see them. And we have a mounted unit in case the peasants being to revolt again.

 Desubot wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

Most events tend to involve large quantities of booze, so I got to see the police enact several takedowns, and deal with a few myself. In every case, the priority is de-escalation and conflict resolution. Is there a bloke swinging a bottle around threateningly at people? Offer to take him to another location for another drink. Agree with him that the other guy was a fether first. Make soothing noises at him. Heck, if you're a woman, flirt with him slightly. Whatever it takes to get close without suspicion and lead him somewhere to cool off, or worst case, let you slap cuffs on quickly. I've lost count of the number of times I saw it done or did a variant of it myself.

Not gonna lie

a hand full of those sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

which is actually IIRC is a reason to not shoot to wound or be extra physical, as IIRC those lawsuits get nuts and money keep getting payed out to those injured vs one straight payoff to the family or what not (not saying its right or anything)

I can see how you think that. But what Ketara is saying doesn't come off as such visibly. Take the flirting for instance, its very light, often just a word or two and a short smile. The messageof the body language is 'we are friendly' not 'we are cruising for hot sex'.

 Desubot wrote:

Not gonna lie

a hand full of those sounds like a lawsuit waiting to happen.

which is actually IIRC is a reason to not shoot to wound or be extra physical, as IIRC those lawsuits get nuts and money keep getting payed out to those injured vs one straight payoff to the family or what not (not saying its right or anything)

If you're on your own as an SIA licensed security guard and there's no immediate physical threat (which falls under a separate section of law, namely the citizens arrest) there's actually a very specific set of things you have to say if you want to remove someone from the premises. We were always instructed to request that they leave first, and then instruct them very clearly a second time and receive a refusal before you're legally allowed to physically pick them up and remove them. At that stage, any injuries suffered from them resisting fall more or less entirely on their own head. The legal phrase for what we were permitted to do is 'reasonable force'. If someone goes up to a judge and says that the people wrestling them out the door as they're laying about on CCTV are using 'unreasonable force', they generally get laughed out the courtroom. Most wouldn't even try it.

The thing is, if you have few armed citizens your criminals also don't see much need to beef up the weaponry. The average robber can walk into a store armed with a knife or even with nothing except the threat of violence, pick up his 24-pack of beer and the measly cash in the first register, then walk out. He's already known or the police dog sniffs out his door within the hour. And since he's so incredibly smart he can't even fathom that the cops could have found him. Someone had to rat him out, if only he could figure out who. It's not the nice policeman's fault he got caught and he knows he'll be back on the streets pretty soon anyway since no one got hurt so giving up is the right thing to do.

Few armed people, I said - we do have a very high number of hunters and different sports shooters but using a legal or stolen long arm for crime is very rare. Handguns are harder to get (though there are illegal war trophies from all over the EU) and it's usually only big time crooks like bikers and drug dealers that see a need for those. Not against the cops or regular people but against rivals or customers who might attack them or rip them off. These too will generally be all too happy to not resist arrest.

Illinois State Police is notoriously hard to get into, and prefers guys that have a bit more experience in life, and they pay better than most of the competition. They seem to have a higher quality of officers. More stringent hiring criteria and the pay to back up being picky could result in better law enforcement. I'm wondering if the officers doing these bad shoots are "that guy" in their respective departments. We'll probably never know the truth. Some officer unions have provisions for removing negative things from files after so many years.

 Frozocrone wrote:


Exactly. The Armed Response unit is extremely well trained. In the case of the Lee Rigby murder, the response unit shot at the suspects (who were firing back at police), neutralized them and started giving first aid within 6 seconds.

Spoiler ed video because of content (and also Piers Morgan for those that dislike him).

Spoiler:

If the SAS have been brought in, then the situation really has hit in the fan. But those guys are one of, if not the best in the world.

If there is one thing I love about living in the UK, it's a relatively safe environment from guns.

Just a minor, quick correction but the Lee Rigby killers did not shoot at police, or indeed anyone else. The pistol they had was a non-functioning antique. Even if it had been functional, finding the correct ammunition would have been extremely difficult, if not impossible (it was chambered for 9.4mm Dutch which a quick google search seems to suggest is no longer manufactured).


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Orlanth wrote:
Those police openly carry assault rifles or other automatic long arms.

I think the majority of firearms in use by the police are actually only capable of semi-automatic fire, even the MP5s and G36s.

Well you can establish a Nation wide ROE and enforce the wearing of body armor and ACH's but then that would be misconstrued as militarization though

 Compel wrote:

As a sidenote, there even something about the phrase "Law Enforcement" that gives me the heeby newbies.

If Hot Fuzz has taught me anything, it's that your constabulary peoples prefer to be called the Police Service which, IMO does sound quite a bit better.


Also, once thing I've noticed, and in talking to a very small sample of US police, is that here in the US one of the de-escalation measures, when I heard it, tends to actually be an escalation. A couple badge wearing friends of mine tell me that their official department "de-escalation" steps does involve the drawing and pointing of their service issued pistol at an uncooperative suspect. My time in the military tells me that that is just another step on the EOF chart. This probably isn't true of all departments and jurisdictions, but it may not be all that far off.

It's worth pointing out that Australia has probably about the same number of guns in private hands as the US, but our cops are still armed. They don't shoot that many people though. So I'm not sure that the decision to arm cops automatically stems from the populace being unarmed, nor does armed police automatically lead to a higher rate of shootings.

The number of guns held by US citizens almost certainly plays a part. I know if I was a cop walking up to a car I pulled over on a lonely highway I'd probably be a little more jumpy in the US than I would be here, it's just a probability thing.

But there is certainly a cultural change as well. US policing has changed massively in a couple of generations. In the 1970s police shootings spiked, at peaked at around 240 a year. There was a lot written about how police had to face a more violent, more hostile population. SWAT tactics were developed and expanded, there were big reductions in cops 'walking the beat'. More aggression was used by police to ensure their own protection.

Thing is, the number of cops killed has steadily dropped since then. It's now down to less than half the peak, and when you account for population growth it's probably more like a quarter of the rate. But police culture hasn't recovered. Despite the reduction in threat to police the use of SWAT teams to issue warrants increases every year. The number of people shot by police remains constant.

And hey, the number of people who actually own a gun decreases every year, and yet the number of shootings is the same.

I don't know, I have a lot of sympathy for cops because it's a bloody hard job. But I also know how much culture and training can change outcomes. I think US police are long overdue for a revision of their policing.

Canadian police are all armed with pistols, and I'm sure something more substantial in the trunks of their cruisers.

It is their weapon of last resort, though. I don't think they use Tazers anymore after the death of the Polish guy at YVR, or if they do its at a much safer level.

Dutch police are armed (pistol on their hip, MP5 in their car), but it usually is mostly for show. Police officers almost never have to actually draw their weapon, let alone use it. When they do, it is special enough to get mentioned on the national news.
In Russia, it is pretty much the same. Police officers are armed (pistol on hip and AKS in car) but don't have to use their weapons much.
This is probably because the vast majority of people in the Netherlands and Russia do not have a gun, and therefore criminals also don't feel the need to carry a gun most of the time. Besides that, I also think it is a culture thing. Police here is very good at de-escaliting situations, so police officers are just less likely to shoot someone, even if that person is armed, and criminals are just far less likely to shoot at the police in return.

 sebster wrote:
It's worth pointing out that Australia has probably about the same number of guns in private hands as the US, but our cops are still armed. They don't shoot that many people though. So I'm not sure that the decision to arm cops automatically stems from the populace being unarmed, nor does armed police automatically lead to a higher rate of shootings.

The number of guns held by US citizens almost certainly plays a part. I know if I was a cop walking up to a car I pulled over on a lonely highway I'd probably be a little more jumpy in the US than I would be here, it's just a probability thing.

But there is certainly a cultural change as well. US policing has changed massively in a couple of generations. In the 1970s police shootings spiked, at peaked at around 240 a year. There was a lot written about how police had to face a more violent, more hostile population. SWAT tactics were developed and expanded, there were big reductions in cops 'walking the beat'. More aggression was used by police to ensure their own protection.

Thing is, the number of cops killed has steadily dropped since then. It's now down to less than half the peak, and when you account for population growth it's probably more like a quarter of the rate. But police culture hasn't recovered. Despite the reduction in threat to police the use of SWAT teams to issue warrants increases every year. The number of people shot by police remains constant.

And hey, the number of people who actually own a gun decreases every year, and yet the number of shootings is the same.

I don't know, I have a lot of sympathy for cops because it's a bloody hard job. But I also know how much culture and training can change outcomes. I think US police are long overdue for a revision of their policing.

I think this is a very important point. Perception and culture are strong drivers of behavior. That's why this whole "police v. blacks" narrative is very dangerous. While the media loves to see "teams", the reality is that law enforcement is very much a part of the community and everyone has a vested interest in safety. Crime, and especially violent crime, has trended downward, but the most violent areas remain problematic. Likewise, crime is disproportionally located in lower income, high population areas which also tend to be disproportionately minority. This can lead to false associations of race and causation, when it is largely economic drivers. Like most issues, it's not a simple one and requires addressing multiple fronts. Police that view themselves as separate from these communities and communities that view police as an "other" are almost guaranteed to be working against one another to tragic results that let the worst elements thrive.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
How do American police protect citizens against criminals in tanks? From my understanding, in that situation they would call the army or the national guard, but then what use is an officer in that situation if the best they can do is use their cellphone like a regular citizen?

Wait for it to get stuck or run out of gas. Approach. Shoot to kill.

I think a very good insight into British policing is the Sam Vimes discworld books.

Pratchett did his research well and really seems to understand the nature of "old-fashioned" policing, of knowing your streets and the people in it, of knowing when to speak and when to pull your truncheon. Look at the times that Sam Vimes was able to diffuse potentially deadly situations by knowing what to say and how to say it, when to use force and when to stand back and just watch. Most importantly, he understands that coppers aren't soldiers and to start to act like them (such as using swords, the obvious parallel to the should police have guns issue) is the first step to building a barrier between the people and the people who happen to be coppers.

 A Town Called Malus wrote:

 Orlanth wrote:
Those police openly carry assault rifles or other automatic long arms.

I think the majority of firearms in use by the police are actually only capable of semi-automatic fire, even the MP5s and G36s.

I cant comment on that. The weapons they use naturally have full auto settings. Perhaps they are modified, perhaps the officers are trained for semi-automatic fire only and are forbidden from using full auto. I could beleive either scenario is reasonable as predetermining each bullets path must be important consideration.

I do know the snipers are especially regulated, but that makes sense as a snipers job is very specific and not based around deterrent or de-escalation but in precision removal.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 sebster wrote:
It's worth pointing out that Australia has probably about the same number of guns in private hands as the US, but our cops are still armed. They don't shoot that many people though. So I'm not sure that the decision to arm cops automatically stems from the populace being unarmed, nor does armed police automatically lead to a higher rate of shootings.

The number of guns held by US citizens almost certainly plays a part. I know if I was a cop walking up to a car I pulled over on a lonely highway I'd probably be a little more jumpy in the US than I would be here, it's just a probability thing.

Population density is a major factor. Oz and the Uk have a similar culture with regards to gun violence and a similar progression on gun culture. However I think them ain reason austrailian cops are universally armed and Uk ones are not is due to geography. US and Oz rural policing is likely to be handeld with very limited backup and that backup might not be timely due to distances involved. Have a gun incident in the UK prettyy much anywhere and specialist persons either from special forces or the police can be there reasoanably quickly. I think it will be rather different in rural Queensland or Montana.

I do think geography plays a major part.

Yes, but we're forgetting, Aussie police aren't just armed, they are armed with mobile flying white shark launchers. Its easy to get compliance when the PoPo can fire an angry white shark at your face.


Australia, the only place more dangerous than a Texas ice house.

I hope it never happens, but out of interest, if the gak really hits the fan in the USA (100 terrorists take over an office block, hostages/suicide vests/booby traps) then who gets the call in the USA to deal with it?

Navy Seals? Delta force? Regular army or Marines?

Most French cops are armed as of now, and it's not uncommon to see some of them with automatic weapons or shotguns.

But I don't think I've ever seen someone getting arrested at gunpoint.

 Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:
I hope it never happens, but out of interest, if the gak really hits the fan in the USA (100 terrorists take over an office block, hostages/suicide vests/booby traps) then who gets the call in the USA to deal with it?

Navy Seals? Delta force? Regular army or Marines?

The FBI, local SWAT, and National Guard most likely, with maybe additional assistance from other agencies like the ATF or DEA. Deploying federal military units in a domestic situation is an extremely touchy thing, and there are civilian agencies that are generally more purpose built for something like that.

 Soladrin wrote:
Most of our cops do carry but we still see almost no fatalities. I think the real problem here is America's gun culture. Police in the USA has to work from the assumption that everyone is armed, or so it would seem to me.

I wouldn't ascribe it to the gun culture at all. The vast majority of gun crimes are committed by illegally owned firearms in the first place. As has been pointed out rather extensively, our means of cutting off the flow of illegal guns is quite different from say Britain, which is an Island nation, that doesn't share an extensive border with a nearly-failed state.

This thread has been Frazzied.

I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.

By nature, they respond to events/crimes. Where they actual prevent it is through manpower intensive presence, and I suspect armed/unarmed doesn't make much difference, the real difference I bet is 'cop here' or 'cop not here'.

 CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.

This is a pretty salient point, and, at least in the US, is codified by the courts. A police officer in the US is under no obligation to protect anyone, their obligation is to investigate and arrest, not to provide service or protection, despite whatever motto's they may have stenciled on their cars

screwed up an edit.

 CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.

By nature, they respond to events/crimes. Where they actual prevent it is through manpower intensive presence, and I suspect armed/unarmed doesn't make much difference, the real difference I bet is 'cop here' or 'cop not here'.

Of course they protect, that's the deterrent effect Police Services provide by existence and visible patrol.

You can't measure protection as it is the non-occurrence of crime.

 notprop wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.

By nature, they respond to events/crimes. Where they actual prevent it is through manpower intensive presence, and I suspect armed/unarmed doesn't make much difference, the real difference I bet is 'cop here' or 'cop not here'.

Of course they protect, that's the deterrent effect Police Services provide by existence and visible patrol.

You can't measure protection as it is the non-occurrence of crime.

I highlighted in orange the part of my post you seem to have missed.

Crime stats are pretty even in the UK and US, yes there are different types of crimes (more assaults per capita in the UK and more murders per capita in the US for example) but over all crime rates are pretty similar. Armed/Unarmed seem to offer about the same amount of 'protection' over all when you look at it. I guess the 'protection' offered by either is about the same really. The reality is, as I (poorly) stated is the cops, armed or unarmed, mostly respond. They investigate. They arrest perps who have already committed a crime. 'Protection' expands as far as the LOS of the nearest cop, not much more, regardless of the cop being armed or not.

 Vaktathi wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
I'm not sure any police force 'protects' its citizens, armed or unarmed. You don't protect an assault victim. You don't protect a robbery victim.

This is a pretty salient point, and, at least in the US, is codified by the courts. A police officer in the US is under no obligation to protect anyone, their obligation is to investigate and arrest, not to provide service or protection, despite whatever motto's they may have stenciled on their cars

It's a "keep the peace" standard in Illinois. Whatever that means.

725 ILCS 5/107-16

Apprehension of offender. It is the duty of every sheriff, coroner, and every marshal, policeman, or other officer of an incorporated city, town, or village, having the power of a sheriff, when a criminal offense or breach of the peace is committed or attempted in his or her presence, forthwith to apprehend the offender and bring him or her before a judge, to be dealt with according to law; to suppress all riots and unlawful assemblies, and to keep the peace, and without delay to serve and execute all warrants and other process to him or her lawfully directed.

Thanks a lot for the discussion - I'm mostly content to sit back and read people's thoughts, as I've more or less said my piece. It's educational, though.

Here's a picture that illustrates the modern US approach to policing.



Regrettably this heavy armed, aggressive approach, which began in the LAPD, has spread out across the world, leading to some shocking incidents at various protests and demonstrations in the UK and Italy for instance.

The police here are not protecting the public. They are protecting their authoritah.