Policing paradigm

writer wrote:

Well, it's not an exteme argument according to me. Why would I engage in your distortion?

Quote:

Not having to have police sounds like a lovely idea, but so do rainbow unicorns who shit hershey's kisses.

Why would I engage when this kind of bullshit is being slung around?

Why would I engage in a discussion where men whose politics I question once again trot out their creepy fantasies of stalkers and rapists at the doors, like cops have been so very helpful to women when it comes to domination, harassment, abuse, etc.?

Talk to streetworkers about Cherry Beach. Talk to the growing number of missing women, which once included the dozens murdered by Picton. Oh! You can't! They're dead!

And this is exactly why I won't bother trying to explain to the men here why the police are not the good option for our society. They have never experienced the shit you and I have and never will. It's highly unlikely they will be on the receiving end of any type of police violence, so it is very easy for them to state we are the extremeists. Makes them feel better.

I have a good option for you guys - how about reading some material on societies which don't have police. Here's a hint - try all history books. Here's a second hint - without police societies are quite able to function.

When we get semi-mocked for speaking of our experiences with the swines in blue I take a pass at trying to explain how it is any society can possibly live and breathe and grow without the thugs in blue "protecting" us. Any little story of how the police manage to catch a bad man stealing will be enough for them to counteract our position.

They have the power, they want the police. They win.

 writer just posted a person story of rape and police neglect you come back with this fucking bullshit?  So you got your fucking goods back - goody for you., Guess what? writer and I were denied any form of justice by the assholes you protect.

I'm through with this. I suspect this was a set up from the beginning, I never should have fallen for it.

Stargazer wrote:

 writer just posted a person story of rape and police neglect you come back with this fucking bullshit?  So you got your fucking goods back - goody for you., Guess what? writer and I were denied any form of justice by the assholes you protect.

I'm through with this. I suspect this was a set up from the beginning, I never should have fallen for it.

I haven't protected anyone.

I've suggested reform is more than in order, and that doesn't negate your experience in the least.  It's bloody necessary. 

Nobody in this discussion has said it isn't.

How about you start dealing with what people actually say?  You know, in context?  Because I talked about being burgled directly in response to writer talking about not being burgled.  You're losing your shit all over the place because I'm not agreeing with you.  It's not a very convincing argument.

Fucking hell.

The question of governing was only possible through the state (a compromise on European violence) and was then used to perpetuate even more violence while trying to sort out "how" it was to govern. The police have always been a "necessary" apparatus for the state to govern, and always one that is allowed to operate with almost impunity (especially in periods of "crises"). Whatever complacency people have with the state and its apparatuses is a consequence of their choice to believe that this particular social construction is natural or necessary. If it appears natural it is because our imaginations have been colonized, not because TINA. 

As for the examples where the officer came to the rescue, is this the best we have to justify a system? "It sometimes is useful for me, so we should just tweak it". I ask what the consequence is of upholding the violence of the state, but I don't want to rile those indifferent with and complacent to this unjust apparatus.

Is there really much of a point about talking about "changing how police are socialized" without simultaneously completely restructuring the rest of the legal system? Yes, there are steps that could be taken to ameliorate some of their worst excesses... disarming them, banning men from entering police work*, ensuring that (accepting that there was going to be no male representation) that other distinctive divisions within the community at large were reflected in the make-up of the police, that there be mandatory participation (as part of the police job description) in the activities of the communities being "policed" by members of the police (as opposed to their dabbling in pseudo-charitable work with the various groups, which I suggest is now the best way of describing "police involvement with the community") - some of these things would ameliorate some of the worst excesses. But until such time as the entire legal system moves beyond protecting "property and order" (pretty much by definition maintaining the status quo) there are going to continue be gross injustices perpetrated by any police force... because it is the system as a whole and not just its enforcement arm that needs radical change, even if it is the injustices perpetrated by the enforcement arm that generate the attention gathering headlines.

--------

* this is not intended as a flip remark, I am thinking of my experience at McGill when it was decided that security for student events would no longer be a nice little job for the football team, and almost the entire student security staff (all male originally) was replaced with women... most of whom were members of the women's rugby team. It is amazing how the whole tone of campus events changed, and the virtual absence of physical violence at the various campus drinking establishments regardless of how late it got and how much had been consumed. Student security's mandate was still the same, essentially to "maintain order" - but the way they went about it had radically different (and better) results than the way the male football players did so. I am not trying to argue for some innate differences... just observing the results of this little experiment.

Stargazer wrote:

I have a good option for you guys - how about reading some material on societies which don't have police. Here's a hint - try all history books. Here's a second hint - without police societies are quite able to function.

Okay. Can you give us some examples of modern day soceities which don't have a police force? 

How about something the size of Kingston, or Ottawa, which has no active police.  What's their trick? How do they do it?

@ Cueball#63

Sure, I could give you a couple of examples of times when I have personally been helped by cops, including at least two times which were just simple acts of assistance and kindness.  I don't really see that as relevant, because the point is not whether I think cops are my friends (I don't) or that I don't recognise the other tales of abuse that have been recounted here, or that the police have a culture of abuse, oppression and denial that needs to be changed (I think I have said pretty clearly that do).

What is important is that there are a number of times when I have needed them to do their jobs and they have done so. 

I know that our system of law enforcement (and our system of law) needs to change, and I know a lot of it has to do with more public involvement, and taking steps to solve problems without having to resort to police all the time, and acting politically to break the problems in police culture and move to a more open system.

If there is a way to do it with no police at all I am open to hearing it. I am sorry to say I am sceptical, because I have been in enough situations where I don't think anything else would have worked. But that doesn't mean I wouldn't get behind it were a way to make it work. Because I agree the less we have to have cops the better.

Cueball wrote:

 If you look at things through the reverse lens, you will begin to see that people are actually fairly self-regulating, for the most part.

I think this is a central point and may have something to do with the patriarchal, heirarchical structure of our society. We're all socialized to internalize patriarchal codes of obedience and deference to those higher on the social ladder. Canadians, I'm afraid, are particularly malleable in this regard. What's the joke? - how do you get a hundred Canadians out of a swimming pool? (Narrator cups hands around mouth like a megaphone) "Alright! Everybody out of the pool!" The joke depends on the visual cues but the point is made.

So there would have to be a transition as individual citizens begin the challenging task of tweaking behaviors internalized to the point of unconsciousness.

But I must say, the line of argument that goes 'well, that's just IMPOSSIBLE! That's silly talk! I've never heard anything so ridiculous! So EXTREME!' might as well be made by someone struggling to comprehend modern life without the Swiffer (tm). How will I get my floors to look shiny and smart? Life without Swiffer? It simply indicates the extent of internalization. Stockholm Syndrome comes to mind.

Police are a relatively modern invention aren't they, Robert Peel an' all that? How DID we manage to evolve prior to his lifesaving innovation? I suppose towns had militias or similar, to be called when shit gets crazy, or political opponents need to be taken down.

I get that there may be a role for some agency of last resort, in exceptional circumstances but that could be handled by something like volunteer firefighters. 

Indeed even the definition of 'crime' is contentious. Some might argue that the actions of a small and extremely privileged group of western bankers have thrown the entire planetary economy for a loop yet not a single member of this group has gone to prison.

I think, ultimately, to root out the need for police we have to examine the social structures of dominance on which it is predicated.

I remember mentioning a critical mass of women in a police force a few threads back, and meeting with some ridicule. Interesting that. Mind you, I also indicated that I firmly believe that the whole criminal justice system is structured to oppress. That it isn't just about the police. So this was a suggestion to minimize the kind of thuggery seen during the G20, but not a long-term answer to the problem. And I wrote that it would depend on women being at all levels of policing, not just acting as the frontline workers.

Regardless, thanks for the post, bagkitty. Glad a man was able to make the point a women seems incapable of making.

And thanks for the post, Merowe. Excellent.

Hey, does anyone have an example of a society that does not in any way routinely subjugate and oppress women? And EXACTLY how that works? No? Then I guess it's just a naive, extreme dream to fight for such a society, if there is no such wonderful modern magical unicorn state of Utopian Hershey chocolates to point to.

Jesus H. *I have* - just not in this thread, which is loaded, hostile and disrespectful. Once that was established, I saw no reason to "101".

Smith, you seem to be under the peculiar impression that each of my posts is solely directed at you. This is not the case.

@ writer #68

With respect, I think I have said a couple times I know and agree that the police have a deep strain of oppression, discrimination and denial. I have not ridiculed or belittled your position or taken your points as less than serious (despite my initial sarcastic comment at #7). And I think we all agree that more problem-solving without involving the cops is a good thing.

But as for your comment about bagkitty, and whatever implications it might be loaded with, if you had actually offered up some alternative structures, or given practical examples of how no enforcement might work then I might have had something to agree or disagree with. You did not do that, and I am not a mindreader.

@ Cueball #65

Somehow I figured asking you to just accept my word wouldn't do. No, I just don't think everyone else here wants to read a string of my personal stories all the time. Not too long ago (without my even having asked) you told me that you had personal experience with things but that it was not up to you to justify your position to me; if we're really talking about building a more cooperative society it might be nice if you gave me that same consideration. If you really want to go through this little exercise let me know, give me a day or two and I will PM you. I would prefer though, that you accept that my position is valid, and that I have on many occasions seen cops actually doing a good job, including helping me, helping others, and arresting people who have committed crimes.

And this notion that there was no enforcement before the creation of our modern police system is nonsense. It is just that in some cases it was a lot more arbitrary. I don't know anyone else, but I'd rather take my chances in a modern court than than having my guilt or innocence determined by grabbing a red hot bar and seeing how long it took the wound to heal.

And I would also prefer if we could pay more attention to the question at hand, and less to undermining and being suspicious of each other. I would like to think that we are all working toward the same thing here - as little enforcement as necessary. I think there ARE things that can be done to work toward that goal. It is not a utopian ideal that will never be realized and I don't think I was implying that.

Our anecdotal stories aside, I'm interested in how we might, without an organization that has powers of enforcement, arrest, and investigation, deal with things like drunk driving, street racing, and other dangerous behaviour in traffic, likewise cybercrime, organized crime, murder, assault, and people who cannot just be talked out of doing something.

Quote:

Hey, does anyone have an example of a society that does not in any way routinely subjugate and oppress women? And EXACTLY how that works? No? Then I guess it's just a naive, extreme dream to fight for such a society, if there is no such wonderful modern magical unicorn state of Utopian Hershey chocolates to point to.

How is your friend's sister, P4?

Read this and get back to me when you've got something progressive to say: [url=http://books.google.ca/books?id=J6n8y7GtnX8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=davi... Expanding Prison[/url] by David Cayley.

And your whole thing about women and assault? Plain creepy. Why do uninformed, reactionary straight guys fixate so? And yet do no work to change the rape culture that facilitates the oppression? And not have any notion of what they are talking about, except what they've gleaned from the tabloid press?

As most women know, cops and courts are no friends when it comes to our lived experiences of violence. And most cases don't even make it as far as the cops. They are already more often than not handled by women without involving the fucking pigs. For good reasons. Check the stats. I'm not doing your homework for you.

[url=http://www.randomhouse.ca/catalog/display.pperl?isbn=9780679312758]The story of Jane Doe[/url] by Jane Doe.

Quote:

She also had a problem with the Toronto police's cross examiner referring to her rape as "non-violent" because the assaulter did not cut her with his knife. "The man who raped us was someone who lived a block away with his wife and had a regular job," she said. She told her audience a woman is raped every 17 minutes in Canada and nine out of 10 women don't report it because they are afraid they would not be vindicated. She stressed her ordeal in court was unbearable, with her character raked over the coals and her personal life poked and prodded, and she couldn't imagine how it would be for those who have society's preconceptions working against them. She said it's no wonder people are hesitant to come forward. "I am what they (Toronto police) called a good girl rape," she said: "Not too young, not too old, middle class, white. Asleep in bed with the doors locked. Horrifying as it is, imagine for the poor woman who is raped who is black, lesbian, disabled, drunk, a prostitute. They wouldn't be treated the same."

http://www.casac.ca/content/jane-doe-book-cop-attitudes-towards-rape-vic...

That is great to hear P4, was thinking about her the other day and was going to ask you, but it slipped away.

Thank you Cue. You have no idea how much you are appreciated for sticking this out.

Cueball wrote:

No. Not our anecdotal stories aside. I am asking you to examine your personal knowledge of the effectiveness of police, and to weigh that against other social interactions that you have had. Indeed. I ask this question a lot, and when all is said and done, I find, that most people I know can only recall one incident in their lives where the police were actually helpful in resolving a serious issue. Other than that they are distinctly not helpful. In fact, in my experience, the number of times they have been distinctly unhelpful far outweigh the one incident where they were useful, by about 10 to 1.

Actually I have, and even counting border guards, with whom I have had far more bad experiences, that still does not reflect my personal experience (though I am including events in which I have stepped in to help other people, in which cops played a helpful role). I am not discounting your experience, nor that of others here.

But I think I have overstayed my welcome. Unless we have some unfinished business here I really don't see any reason to stick around, and I would rather just go.

PraetorianFour wrote:

Case in point. That Canadian Forces colonel that was breaking into womens homes and assaulting them or killing them.  Police, albeit rather slowly, connected the dots and ended up arresting him and putting him in jail.

I don't see how a psychotic using his position at the highest levels of the command of the Canadian Armed Forces as a cover for his psychotic behavior bolsters your case. Indeed, it rather shows the opposite. This is a case in point. Despite supposedly rigorous psychological testing, of a kind not to dissimilar to that used for police officers, this man used the opportunities available to him because of the position of respect in society he held to facilitate and perpetrate crimes.

The police and military are pefect places for sadists and other criminal elements to ensconce themselves in positions of power where they are free to exercise their compulsive and anti-social behaviour and be above the law, because they are the law.

In this discussion, we have to be aware that we are not talking about having no enforcement of law, but talking about the "police" as specific type of institution which is gives its members powers above and beyond those of ordinary citizens, and that formula is automatically going to result in substantial abuse.

Why should the management of the law be handed over to a seperate class of people with super-enforcement capability and rights that are superior to other citizens?

People already have the power to arrest. This law dates back to British common law. You have a problem with that?

Again the question is should there be a specific class of people with a special relationship to the law, and status within society that is an institution whose sole purpose is tracking crime. Indeed, an powerful institution whose best interests lies not in stamping out crime, but in supporting new laws that further criminalize.

Very true. And my description, by the way, also holds true for security guards who cannot touch you physically in anyway with out risking an assault charge (except for the rare security guard who is also a special constable)

That depends on what you are doing. Anyone can touch you if it is to prevent a crime. They just are not supposed to attack you if you are loitering or whatever.

But again, I was asking about the need for a specific class of people who have superior powers of arrest and rights, as well as a privileged position in the justice system.

Cueball wrote:

I find, that most people I know can only recall one incident in their lives where the police were actually helpful in resolving a serious issue.

I guess I must be the exception that proves the rule:

 1) My father-in-law's mental health declined suddenly and one night he started wandering the neighborhood looking for 50 year old locations that were on the other side of the globe.  It was the police that brought him home and contacted us.

 2) They got my bike back when I was 11.

 3) When I was president of the co-op I was between a house party of a half dozen 20 year olds and another group of 20 year olds (some with bats) who  were out to settle a score.  I was glad when the local RCMP arrived and everbody stepped it down a notch.

 4) At last years Homeless Connect Day, the RCMP bike squad came and worked in the kitchen.  We had originally slated them to help with the bike repairs but they suggested going elsewhere as they didn't think being close to the homeless bikes made sense as there may be questions of ownership.  When they noticed that the attendance was low they got on their bikes and rode around the common locations getting people to come by the event.  (Clearly they have a different relationship with the Richmond Homeless than the DTES)

 5) The Richmond Food Bank has occasionaly needed to call the police to help with disruptive people in the line.  This will happen from time to time particularly when word filters out that a perishable such as milk is running out of stock.  If the police need to take someone away to preserve the peace they have often come and asked when was a good time to bring them back to ensure they get their food.

 6) Another Food Bank story.  The RCMP arrested a youth for shoplifting bread.  Turns out the family were recent immigrants and the father had injured himself at work.  He did not know about Worker's Compensation until it was too late to qualify and instead stayed home and drained the families savings.  Instead of charging the youth the RCMP brought the family to register at the food bank and to connect with relevant social service agencies.

 7) I look at the work of Family Services of Greater Vancovuer who received funding to create a pilot program that shadowed any call that involved family violence.  People were there to help ensure that the underlying issues that caused the incident that prompted the call were addressed.

I could go on.  I don't dispute Cueballs assertion that they currently do 10 bad things for every good action (it may even be worse).  The point is not to say the Police are good (although I am sure some will do their best to put that spin on my words), but rather that there is a lot of good that could be done by people in that role.  Yes that makes me a reformist instead of a revolutionary but I doubt that surprises many. The answer for me is not to hold my breath and wait for the evil police to go away, but rather to demand that they radically change and reinvent who they are.

Without the a society organized police force, security would be a privately organized thing.  We have that already.  Ask the homeless by the RiverRock Casino how much they like the Casino security who throw their belongings into the river on a regular basis.

A few suggestions for socializing police differently,as per the original post.

Make them live where they work. In big cities, police work in the downtown and inner suburbs for eight hours a day, then escape to their suburban homes. Every shift becomes like another tour of duty abroad. I know from a friend who worked at the police credit union in Toronto that recruits were drawn disproportionately from rural backgrounds, and tended to want to live as near to them as possible. I don't know whether residence requirements would violate any human rights provisions, but they would open the eyes of police to the real life of their neighbourhoods, not just the calls requiring their presence.

When Robert Peel founded the first modern police force, foot patrols were routine and publicized. The idea was that a policeman would be at a given point on his beat every fifteen minutes. If you missed him, you didn't have long to wait. Poor urban planning has killed that method of policing. Now it's strictly reactive. We need to build so that some version of a permanent presence is possible again. Once more, the idea is for police to be part of the civic fabric, not an outside presence that swoops down to impose order.

Get rid of the defensive impersonality. I was cautioned against leaving a bag unattended at Gatwick airport during an IRA bombing wave. The policeman who did so was pleasant and personable. Contrast that with a number of times I've spoken to police here and been treated like a felon free on a technicality. And for God's sake, flip up your bloody sunglasses when you're talking to me!