If the Police are not trusted, if the Police are not appreciated, if moral in the Police service is very low, you will get the Police service that you deserve.
Since the Police have demonstrated - and this has been proven beyond reasonable doubt - that they can't be trusted owing to bias, character and self interest, then it is their fault and no one else's. Clearly the most recent reports show that the public displays of wrong are the thin end of the wedge.
Ok there are good officers - but why aren't they whistleblowing or reporting it rather than seemingly turning a blind eye and going along with it? Why is background checking so haphazard that it a school setting such laxity would provoke criminal safeguarding action?
I'm going to be very naive and raise the concept of policing by consent. This can either be the unwitting consent of a cowed population, or the conscious consent of an aware population. At the moment, we are very much between the two, with larger numbers of people refusing to be cowed but not giving informed consent because of information about the activities in which the police permit themselves to participate. Thus, policing is increasingly being imposed, as witness the increasingly authoritarian legislation they are being given to enforce. The police are relying on the state rather than the population for their authoirty, and that can only lead society as a whole in an authoritarian direction.
I'm going to be very naive and raise the concept of policing by consent. This can either be the unwitting consent of a cowed population, or the conscious consent of an aware population. At the moment, we are very much between the two, with larger numbers of people refusing to be cowed but not giving informed consent because of information about the activities in which the police permit themselves to participate. Thus, policing is increasingly being imposed, as witness the increasingly authoritarian legislation they are being given to enforce. The police are relying on the state rather than the population for their authoirty, and that can only lead society as a whole in an authoritarian direction.
Yes indeed - ISWYM, but how could this tendency be reversed?
I'm going to be very naive and raise the concept of policing by consent. This can either be the unwitting consent of a cowed population, or the conscious consent of an aware population. At the moment, we are very much between the two, with larger numbers of people refusing to be cowed but not giving informed consent because of information about the activities in which the police permit themselves to participate. Thus, policing is increasingly being imposed, as witness the increasingly authoritarian legislation they are being given to enforce. The police are relying on the state rather than the population for their authoirty, and that can only lead society as a whole in an authoritarian direction.
Yes indeed - ISWYM, but how could this tendency be reversed?
Not while you tar all officers with the same brush.
Yes @Bullfrog, a very hard-hitting biography of childhood in the final years of apartheid and many of the problems we are now dealing with can be traced back to the enormous fear and distrust poorer communities had of the police. They didn't want to risk harassment or bullying and so didn't report crimes, avoided police attention as much as possible, didn't speak up to report police corruption for fear of being targeted themselves by rogue police units and officers.
To what extent were Apartheid-era police "rogue" when harassing or bullying South Africa's non-white population? I'd argue that they were acting within the spirit of the regime they served. I might even go so far as to say that the 1985 state of emergency explicitly authorized and ordered police harassment and bullying against non-white South Africans.
This morning, I opened the local paper and saw a headline saying a police sergeant at Washington State University resigned because of sexual misconduct. Someone filed a complaint against him in March. The then police administration tried to keep it under wrap by doing an "internal investigation." The university administration was not informed of the complaint until June--this is in violation of federal and state laws. The then police administration was removed, and a new administration was installed.
The University completed a new investigation and found probable cause. The sergeant which had been on home duty since March promptly resigned. He will now face felony charges and some misdemeanor complaints as well. The University will likely face a civil lawsuit and other penalties as well.
This is a good example of how one bad officer can taint a whole police force. I knew some of the people in the old administration. They got caught up in trying to protect one of their own and got canned for it. Here is were one person, under the color of authority, abused his power.
Something which is becoming ever clearer from this thread is how comparatively safe we are as regards policing in the UK, despite the disturbing trends towards authoritarianism here.
I fully appreciate that the lived experience of many UK citizens may differ, of course, and would not presume to speak for them.
I'm going to be very naive and raise the concept of policing by consent. This can either be the unwitting consent of a cowed population, or the conscious consent of an aware population. At the moment, we are very much between the two, with larger numbers of people refusing to be cowed but not giving informed consent because of information about the activities in which the police permit themselves to participate. Thus, policing is increasingly being imposed, as witness the increasingly authoritarian legislation they are being given to enforce. The police are relying on the state rather than the population for their authoirty, and that can only lead society as a whole in an authoritarian direction.
Yes indeed - ISWYM, but how could this tendency be reversed?
Not while you tar all officers with the same brush.
I think the proof that the good officers are in the ascendant would be shown by the police forces ability to police itself. Yet picking the example of the Met we have - as I've said before - seen an inquiry roughly every twenty years that indicated a large corruption issue. In each case the report was not released for public consumption and in a number of cases the evidence used to compile the report has been destroyed. A report on the single issue of the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan came to the conclusion that the force was 'institutionally corrupt'.
Picking a more contemporaneous example; we have evidence of hundreds of officers gathering in groups online and spreading all kinds of abuse - if the force was able to police itself, these groups simply wouldn't be the size they are, nor would it be down to individual journalists to expose these things.
A report on the single issue of the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan came to the conclusion that the force was 'institutionally corrupt'.
I looked up the definition of this and after reading it a few times was still a bit confused.
I do know that they are 34,228 Police Officers in the Met Police. A very small percentage would have been involved in this enquiry so I fail to see why the whole Force should be condemned.
A report on the single issue of the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan came to the conclusion that the force was 'institutionally corrupt'.
I looked up the definition of this and after reading it a few times was still a bit confused.
I do know that they are 34,228 Police Officers in the Met Police. A very small percentage would have been involved in this enquiry so I fail to see why the whole Force should be condemned.
Specifically "as placing the protection of reputation above fidelity to the truth, especially in the context of an independent or public inquiry. "
Or "Institutional corruption is differentiated from racism or corruption by the institution's willingness to frustrate or slow the work of independent formal inquiries, even after official reports and documentation recognise that such an inquiry is necessary".
Note that the report personally censured the then commissioner for obstructing the inquiry, and occurred after 5 separate investigations had failed to yield a conviction and the Met had themselves admitted that the murder which had initially been 'probably solvable' had been fatally undermined by the conduct of the corrupt officers. The character of an institution can be judged in large part from the types of people it elevates and its sins of omission.
In my line of work, if I see someone do something wrong, I'm legally obligated to report it. And if I don't, I'm just as guilty as they are. That's how the organization handles it.
I wish police officers were held up to that kind of responsibility. But they plainly aren't.
If you're in an environment where "something wrong" is relatively rare, then it's reasonably easy to report the wrong things. If you're swimming in a soup where "something wrong" happens all the time, you can't possibly report all somethings wrong.
So there are two general approaches to this. The first is to burn the whole thing to the ground and start again; the second is to begin by dealing with the worst cases, and ignoring the less severe faults. As time progresses and you begin to clean house, you can ratchet down the threshold for reporting.
Yes @Bullfrog, a very hard-hitting biography of childhood in the final years of apartheid and many of the problems we are now dealing with can be traced back to the enormous fear and distrust poorer communities had of the police. They didn't want to risk harassment or bullying and so didn't report crimes, avoided police attention as much as possible, didn't speak up to report police corruption for fear of being targeted themselves by rogue police units and officers.
This is of course isn't a problem unique to South Africa but goes to the heart of public perceptions of the police from the perspective of those who are marginalised, racialised, disadvantaged etc. If rogue police are able to operate with impunity amid a hidden police culture of misogyny, transphobia, or toxic masculinity, it is very hard to repair that broken trust within minority communities.
Yeah, that resonates with my experience as a white guy in the US who has a lot of friends in "marginalized" communities. I've seen it through enough friends' eyes that it's hard not to see it myself.
Yes @Bullfrog, a very hard-hitting biography of childhood in the final years of apartheid and many of the problems we are now dealing with can be traced back to the enormous fear and distrust poorer communities had of the police. They didn't want to risk harassment or bullying and so didn't report crimes, avoided police attention as much as possible, didn't speak up to report police corruption for fear of being targeted themselves by rogue police units and officers.
To what extent were Apartheid-era police "rogue" when harassing or bullying South Africa's non-white population? I'd argue that they were acting within the spirit of the regime they served. I might even go so far as to say that the 1985 state of emergency explicitly authorized and ordered police harassment and bullying against non-white South Africans.
I would agree. I've also observed that in the US, the police are understood as protectors of "society," which royally sucks for people who aren't deemed members by one degree or another. I also think there are people who enjoy violence and prefer not to think too hard when they feel they've found a justification. This is not a malady unique to the police, but I think it becomes an especially ugly one when it can hide behind a badge.
In my line of work, if I see someone do something wrong, I'm legally obligated to report it. And if I don't, I'm just as guilty as they are. That's how the organization handles it.
I wish police officers were held up to that kind of responsibility. But they plainly aren't.
If you're in an environment where "something wrong" is relatively rare, then it's reasonably easy to report the wrong things. If you're swimming in a soup where "something wrong" happens all the time, you can't possibly report all somethings wrong.
So there are two general approaches to this. The first is to burn the whole thing to the ground and start again; the second is to begin by dealing with the worst cases, and ignoring the less severe faults. As time progresses and you begin to clean house, you can ratchet down the threshold for reporting.
I recognize both approaches, and that has long been a running fissure among progressives of my acquaintance. I've gone back and forth on it.
A report on the single issue of the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan came to the conclusion that the force was 'institutionally corrupt'.
I looked up the definition of this and after reading it a few times was still a bit confused.
I do know that they are 34,228 Police Officers in the Met Police. A very small percentage would have been involved in this enquiry so I fail to see why the whole Force should be condemned.
Specifically "as placing the protection of reputation above fidelity to the truth, especially in the context of an independent or public inquiry. "
Or "Institutional corruption is differentiated from racism or corruption by the institution's willingness to frustrate or slow the work of independent formal inquiries, even after official reports and documentation recognise that such an inquiry is necessary".
Note that the report personally censured the then commissioner for obstructing the inquiry, and occurred after 5 separate investigations had failed to yield a conviction and the Met had themselves admitted that the murder which had initially been 'probably solvable' had been fatally undermined by the conduct of the corrupt officers. The character of an institution can be judged in large part from the types of people it elevates and its sins of omission.
Thanks for your post. I still don't think that every front line oficer should be held responsible
In my line of work, if I see someone do something wrong, I'm legally obligated to report it. And if I don't, I'm just as guilty as they are. That's how the organization handles it.
I wish police officers were held up to that kind of responsibility. But they plainly aren't.
If you're in an environment where "something wrong" is relatively rare, then it's reasonably easy to report the wrong things. If you're swimming in a soup where "something wrong" happens all the time, you can't possibly report all somethings wrong.
So there are two general approaches to this. The first is to burn the whole thing to the ground and start again; the second is to begin by dealing with the worst cases, and ignoring the less severe faults. As time progresses and you begin to clean house, you can ratchet down the threshold for reporting.
The first is totally impractical and unnecessary. I agree with second approach.
So there are two general approaches to this. The first is to burn the whole thing to the ground and start again; the second is to begin by dealing with the worst cases, and ignoring the less severe faults. As time progresses and you begin to clean house, you can ratchet down the threshold for reporting.
The problem is staying true to the second course. Usually the reason the institution is swimming in 'something wrong' is that general culture has developed over time of turning a blind eye, with people being promoted for knowing not to ask certain questions. Introducing the idea that this is no longer fine, whereas that is okay can paradoxically strengthen a culture of lower level corruption.
The only way such an institution can possibly end up completely clean is natural attrition, and it's too easy to be co-opted. After all, "we are all grown ups here, there's no need to go too far, there's plenty of good in this department and you want to get ahead, don't you? think of all the good you could do". Only the deliberately awkward could possibly complain, and anyone who complains becomes awkward almost by definition.
So gradually unpicking something is hard, and I think the only solution is usually to burn a lot of it down, you have to punish at least the 1st and 2nd tier malefactors along with a good number of the people who looked the other way.
I think there's a tricky nuance between "being held responsible" and "bring responsible."
Again, thinking of my job, I will not be held responsible for my colleagues' malfeasance, unless I am aware of it and fail to report.
But I am in a sense responsible for the organization I choose as my employment. And I am responsible to answer for it insofar as I choose to give them my labor.
I don't think cops should be collectively punished, but I do think they should bear some responsibility to protect the integrity of their office.
And too many have failed to do that. Also, people have asked oh-so-politely for reform for literal years for serious, incremental improvement. And the resounding response we get from police unions and police supporters is open jeering, mockery, and disrespect...you start to feel like maybe we need to gut-rehab the whole institution.
When people bring up police corruption by individuals, and the defenders of the police respond as if we're attacking the entire institution, as if the entire institution is "circling the wagons" around their own worst actors, including spreading lies on their behalf...I begin to understand why people think maybe we should build a better institution.
Yes @Bullfrog, a very hard-hitting biography of childhood in the final years of apartheid and many of the problems we are now dealing with can be traced back to the enormous fear and distrust poorer communities had of the police. They didn't want to risk harassment or bullying and so didn't report crimes, avoided police attention as much as possible, didn't speak up to report police corruption for fear of being targeted themselves by rogue police units and officers.
To what extent were Apartheid-era police "rogue" when harassing or bullying South Africa's non-white population? I'd argue that they were acting within the spirit of the regime they served. I might even go so far as to say that the 1985 state of emergency explicitly authorized and ordered police harassment and bullying against non-white South Africans.
@Croesos, no that's simplistic and the history of what happened at various points under apartheid is more complicated. The two States of Emergency in 1980s South Africa were not recognised as legally justified or binding by many senior members of the armed forces, police commanders and lawyers, and detention-without-trial cases were challenged over and over again. Many white Afrikaner police officers protested the use of live ammunition in crowd control as being unethical. The South African justice system was not compromised in the same way as rightwing military groups loyal to the apartheid regime. What created extreme distrust, to give a notable example, was the establishment of the kitskonstabels on the Cape Flats where community police were given a few weeks basic training and allowed to take rifles, shotguns and pistols home with them to counter what became running battles between rival gangs on the Cape Flats. Many of these kitskonstables ("instant constables") allied with certain gangs and terrorised neighborhoods, facilitated drug trafficking into maximum security prisons. A white vs non-white bias isn't accurate especially with regard to community policing and what went wrong there for a number of reasons, not all to do with Grand Apartheid.
You also need to remember that much of the police harassment and antagonism was directed towards young white men in the End Conscription Campaign as well as white students on liberal campuses. The most severe persecution of Black activists was carried out by assassination squads (the Civil Co-operation Bureau that killed David Webster and Eugene de Kok's counter-insurgency murder and torture unit at Vlakplaas), officially nothing to do with the police or armed forces.
Of course, one could say the apartheid regime was a rogue state, but that isn't a helpful generalisation and could be applied to many other states globally who are recognised and accredited by the United Nations and Western governments.
I knew a man who had a 30-year career in law enforcement, at the local, state and federal levels. He estimated that about 20% of cops are dedicated public servants who really want to protect and serve the public, 50% are just working stiffs punching a clock and hoping nothing scary happens on their shift, and 30% are psychopathic bullies who only by chance ended up on the "good" side of the badge (and use that as a cover to perpetrate atrocities). Of course the 70% generally look the other way and are complicit.
But the problem is not individual cops. It is the mission of the police, which in the US has always been to protect the rich from the poor, white people from Black people, and capital from labor (there's a Graham Greene story from the 1930s about the British version, a cop who divides people into the ones he's supposed to help and the others--it's about class, not race in that era). Even "good" cops can't escape that, which is why such things as hiring more POC as officers doesn't change anything. If your job is to be the hired guns of the ruling class, that's what you end up doing.
AIUI, the Metropolitan Police force was set up in London in 1829 with the express purpose of protecting property - that is, the belongings of those who actually owned things...
They were supposed to protect people as well, of course.
AIUI, the Metropolitan Police force was set up in London in 1829 with the express purpose of protecting property - that is, the belongings of those who actually owned things...
They were supposed to protect people as well, of course.
Wrong. There were 3 aims.
The prevention and detection of crime
The protection of life and property
The maintenance of order
I’m not sure how he implied that protection of property was the only purpose when in the next sentence he said, “They were supposed to protect people as well, of course.” (Emphasis original.)
Well, quite - and AIUI, if you refer to an express intention or purpose, you are emphasizing that it is a deliberate and specific one that you have before you do something.
I’m not sure how he implied that protection of property was the only purpose when in the next sentence he said, “They were supposed to protect people as well, of course.” (Emphasis original.)
I disagree. He mentioned people as an afterthought.
How do you know it was an afterthought? A separate sentence does not necessarily constitute an afterthought.
I am good at recognising such things
Except, apparently, in this instance, given that your inference is contrary to the post you drew it from and given that the author of that post has told you you were wrong.
"The wide range of government tasks currently assigned to police has been given, to a great degree, without any coherent planning by state or local governments of what the overriding objectives or priorities of the police should be. Instead, what police do is determined largely on an ad hoc basis by a number of factors which influence their involvement in responding to various government or community needs."
This seems pretty accurate for my sense of the US police force, mostly for the worse.
How do you know it was an afterthought? A separate sentence does not necessarily constitute an afterthought.
I am good at recognising such things
Except, apparently, in this instance, given that your inference is contrary to the post you drew it from and given that the author of that post has told you you were wrong.
How do you know it was an afterthought? A separate sentence does not necessarily constitute an afterthought.
I am good at recognising such things
Except, apparently, in this instance, given that your inference is contrary to the post you drew it from and given that the author of that post has told you you were wrong.
"The wide range of government tasks currently assigned to police has been given, to a great degree, without any coherent planning by state or local governments of what the overriding objectives or priorities of the police should be. Instead, what police do is determined largely on an ad hoc basis by a number of factors which influence their involvement in responding to various government or community needs."
This seems pretty accurate for my sense of the US police force, mostly for the worse.
Interesting. I wonder how this fits in with the UK situation?
"The wide range of government tasks currently assigned to police has been given, to a great degree, without any coherent planning by state or local governments of what the overriding objectives or priorities of the police should be. Instead, what police do is determined largely on an ad hoc basis by a number of factors which influence their involvement in responding to various government or community needs."
This seems pretty accurate for my sense of the US police force, mostly for the worse.
Here is a rather long blog post on the development of the modern ambulance, something which would not just take you somewhere for medical treatment but which also delivered trained EMTs to the sites of medical emergencies and provided medical care before reaching fixed location medical facilities. As Clark notes, responding to medical emergencies used to be something police were tasked with, and something which was usually handled by putting the patient in the back of a squad car and taking them to the hospital without any kind of treatment on site or en route. With the advent of the modern ambulance with a crew of EMTs/paramedics this task has largely been re-assigned (defunded?) from the portfolio of expected police duties. One of the rare instances coherent planning replacing ad hoc assignment.
With the advent of the modern ambulance with a crew of EMTs/paramedics this task has largely been re-assigned (defunded?) from the portfolio of expected police duties. One of the rare instances coherent planning replacing ad hoc assignment.
It is generally easy for a random stranger to know whether someone had been injured and is in need of an ambulance. It is more difficult for a random stranger to know whether the person yelling and banging on cars in the street needs arresting, needs a mental health crisis team, needs a sit down with a cup of tea and a chat, or whatever else they might need.
The random stranger wants to be able to call a phone number, say "there's a man doing this in the street, I don't feel safe approaching him", and have "somebody" come and deal with the situation.
Comments
Since the Police have demonstrated - and this has been proven beyond reasonable doubt - that they can't be trusted owing to bias, character and self interest, then it is their fault and no one else's. Clearly the most recent reports show that the public displays of wrong are the thin end of the wedge.
Ok there are good officers - but why aren't they whistleblowing or reporting it rather than seemingly turning a blind eye and going along with it? Why is background checking so haphazard that it a school setting such laxity would provoke criminal safeguarding action?
Yes indeed - ISWYM, but how could this tendency be reversed?
Not while you tar all officers with the same brush.
Perhaps someone could come up with some concrete suggestions, as I think @ThunderBunk has raised an important point.
To what extent were Apartheid-era police "rogue" when harassing or bullying South Africa's non-white population? I'd argue that they were acting within the spirit of the regime they served. I might even go so far as to say that the 1985 state of emergency explicitly authorized and ordered police harassment and bullying against non-white South Africans.
The University completed a new investigation and found probable cause. The sergeant which had been on home duty since March promptly resigned. He will now face felony charges and some misdemeanor complaints as well. The University will likely face a civil lawsuit and other penalties as well.
This is a good example of how one bad officer can taint a whole police force. I knew some of the people in the old administration. They got caught up in trying to protect one of their own and got canned for it. Here is were one person, under the color of authority, abused his power.
Should we trust the police?
I fully appreciate that the lived experience of many UK citizens may differ, of course, and would not presume to speak for them.
I think the proof that the good officers are in the ascendant would be shown by the police forces ability to police itself. Yet picking the example of the Met we have - as I've said before - seen an inquiry roughly every twenty years that indicated a large corruption issue. In each case the report was not released for public consumption and in a number of cases the evidence used to compile the report has been destroyed. A report on the single issue of the investigation into the murder of Daniel Morgan came to the conclusion that the force was 'institutionally corrupt'.
Picking a more contemporaneous example; we have evidence of hundreds of officers gathering in groups online and spreading all kinds of abuse - if the force was able to police itself, these groups simply wouldn't be the size they are, nor would it be down to individual journalists to expose these things.
I looked up the definition of this and after reading it a few times was still a bit confused.
I do know that they are 34,228 Police Officers in the Met Police. A very small percentage would have been involved in this enquiry so I fail to see why the whole Force should be condemned.
You could start with the wikipedia entry: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_corruption
Specifically "as placing the protection of reputation above fidelity to the truth, especially in the context of an independent or public inquiry. "
Or "Institutional corruption is differentiated from racism or corruption by the institution's willingness to frustrate or slow the work of independent formal inquiries, even after official reports and documentation recognise that such an inquiry is necessary".
Note that the report personally censured the then commissioner for obstructing the inquiry, and occurred after 5 separate investigations had failed to yield a conviction and the Met had themselves admitted that the murder which had initially been 'probably solvable' had been fatally undermined by the conduct of the corrupt officers. The character of an institution can be judged in large part from the types of people it elevates and its sins of omission.
If you're in an environment where "something wrong" is relatively rare, then it's reasonably easy to report the wrong things. If you're swimming in a soup where "something wrong" happens all the time, you can't possibly report all somethings wrong.
So there are two general approaches to this. The first is to burn the whole thing to the ground and start again; the second is to begin by dealing with the worst cases, and ignoring the less severe faults. As time progresses and you begin to clean house, you can ratchet down the threshold for reporting.
Yeah, that resonates with my experience as a white guy in the US who has a lot of friends in "marginalized" communities. I've seen it through enough friends' eyes that it's hard not to see it myself.
I would agree. I've also observed that in the US, the police are understood as protectors of "society," which royally sucks for people who aren't deemed members by one degree or another. I also think there are people who enjoy violence and prefer not to think too hard when they feel they've found a justification. This is not a malady unique to the police, but I think it becomes an especially ugly one when it can hide behind a badge.
I recognize both approaches, and that has long been a running fissure among progressives of my acquaintance. I've gone back and forth on it.
Thanks for your post. I still don't think that every front line oficer should be held responsible The first is totally impractical and unnecessary. I agree with second approach.
The problem is staying true to the second course. Usually the reason the institution is swimming in 'something wrong' is that general culture has developed over time of turning a blind eye, with people being promoted for knowing not to ask certain questions. Introducing the idea that this is no longer fine, whereas that is okay can paradoxically strengthen a culture of lower level corruption.
The only way such an institution can possibly end up completely clean is natural attrition, and it's too easy to be co-opted. After all, "we are all grown ups here, there's no need to go too far, there's plenty of good in this department and you want to get ahead, don't you? think of all the good you could do". Only the deliberately awkward could possibly complain, and anyone who complains becomes awkward almost by definition.
So gradually unpicking something is hard, and I think the only solution is usually to burn a lot of it down, you have to punish at least the 1st and 2nd tier malefactors along with a good number of the people who looked the other way.
Again, thinking of my job, I will not be held responsible for my colleagues' malfeasance, unless I am aware of it and fail to report.
But I am in a sense responsible for the organization I choose as my employment. And I am responsible to answer for it insofar as I choose to give them my labor.
I don't think cops should be collectively punished, but I do think they should bear some responsibility to protect the integrity of their office.
And too many have failed to do that. Also, people have asked oh-so-politely for reform for literal years for serious, incremental improvement. And the resounding response we get from police unions and police supporters is open jeering, mockery, and disrespect...you start to feel like maybe we need to gut-rehab the whole institution.
When people bring up police corruption by individuals, and the defenders of the police respond as if we're attacking the entire institution, as if the entire institution is "circling the wagons" around their own worst actors, including spreading lies on their behalf...I begin to understand why people think maybe we should build a better institution.
@Croesos, no that's simplistic and the history of what happened at various points under apartheid is more complicated. The two States of Emergency in 1980s South Africa were not recognised as legally justified or binding by many senior members of the armed forces, police commanders and lawyers, and detention-without-trial cases were challenged over and over again. Many white Afrikaner police officers protested the use of live ammunition in crowd control as being unethical. The South African justice system was not compromised in the same way as rightwing military groups loyal to the apartheid regime. What created extreme distrust, to give a notable example, was the establishment of the kitskonstabels on the Cape Flats where community police were given a few weeks basic training and allowed to take rifles, shotguns and pistols home with them to counter what became running battles between rival gangs on the Cape Flats. Many of these kitskonstables ("instant constables") allied with certain gangs and terrorised neighborhoods, facilitated drug trafficking into maximum security prisons. A white vs non-white bias isn't accurate especially with regard to community policing and what went wrong there for a number of reasons, not all to do with Grand Apartheid.
You also need to remember that much of the police harassment and antagonism was directed towards young white men in the End Conscription Campaign as well as white students on liberal campuses. The most severe persecution of Black activists was carried out by assassination squads (the Civil Co-operation Bureau that killed David Webster and Eugene de Kok's counter-insurgency murder and torture unit at Vlakplaas), officially nothing to do with the police or armed forces.
Of course, one could say the apartheid regime was a rogue state, but that isn't a helpful generalisation and could be applied to many other states globally who are recognised and accredited by the United Nations and Western governments.
But the problem is not individual cops. It is the mission of the police, which in the US has always been to protect the rich from the poor, white people from Black people, and capital from labor (there's a Graham Greene story from the 1930s about the British version, a cop who divides people into the ones he's supposed to help and the others--it's about class, not race in that era). Even "good" cops can't escape that, which is why such things as hiring more POC as officers doesn't change anything. If your job is to be the hired guns of the ruling class, that's what you end up doing.
They were supposed to protect people as well, of course.
Wrong. There were 3 aims.
The prevention and detection of crime
The protection of life and property
The maintenance of order
I didn't say that it was the only purpose.
No you merely implied it.
How do you know it was an afterthought? A separate sentence does not necessarily constitute an afterthought.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/04/wannabes-police-vetting-serious-offences
It seems a bit odd, to say the least, to recruit abusers and criminals into the police, but maybe it's all a left-wing Hideous Fib.
Apologies to H&As for the unintended tangent, though.
"The wide range of government tasks currently assigned to police has been given, to a great degree, without any coherent planning by state or local governments of what the overriding objectives or priorities of the police should be. Instead, what police do is determined largely on an ad hoc basis by a number of factors which influence their involvement in responding to various government or community needs."
This seems pretty accurate for my sense of the US police force, mostly for the worse.
Doublethink, Temporary Hosting
Interesting. I wonder how this fits in with the UK situation?
Here is a rather long blog post on the development of the modern ambulance, something which would not just take you somewhere for medical treatment but which also delivered trained EMTs to the sites of medical emergencies and provided medical care before reaching fixed location medical facilities. As Clark notes, responding to medical emergencies used to be something police were tasked with, and something which was usually handled by putting the patient in the back of a squad car and taking them to the hospital without any kind of treatment on site or en route. With the advent of the modern ambulance with a crew of EMTs/paramedics this task has largely been re-assigned (defunded?) from the portfolio of expected police duties. One of the rare instances coherent planning replacing ad hoc assignment.
It is generally easy for a random stranger to know whether someone had been injured and is in need of an ambulance. It is more difficult for a random stranger to know whether the person yelling and banging on cars in the street needs arresting, needs a mental health crisis team, needs a sit down with a cup of tea and a chat, or whatever else they might need.
The random stranger wants to be able to call a phone number, say "there's a man doing this in the street, I don't feel safe approaching him", and have "somebody" come and deal with the situation.