Over the first eight months of
2015, American police killed 776 people, while British police killed exactly
one. American police are eight
times as likely to kill a citizen, and ten times as likely to die
on the job, as their essentially unarmed British counterparts.
It is difficult to
compare policing practices in different countries with different cultures and
populations. I respect the dangerous job
police perform no matter where they do it.
And to be fair, it does make a lot more sense for every officer to be
armed in the U.S., since so many citizens are armed. London, as a whole, had 114 homicides and
1,662 gun crimes last year, in a population of 8.63 million. It's not even fair
to compare. I just think the tactical
methods and training of most of the police in the U.S. has gone the wrong way.
For example, police in the U.S. are trained similar to the military with the sole purpose to protect the lives of the police. Yes, their slogan is to “protect and serve,” but in my opinion, their training seems more concerned with hunkering down until it is safe to proceed. When the damage has already been done, they charge in sometimes using excessive force. I am not an expert on police training in the U.S., but I think we need to have a discussion about what our response to the police should be and how the police should be trained.
For example, police in the U.S. are trained similar to the military with the sole purpose to protect the lives of the police. Yes, their slogan is to “protect and serve,” but in my opinion, their training seems more concerned with hunkering down until it is safe to proceed. When the damage has already been done, they charge in sometimes using excessive force. I am not an expert on police training in the U.S., but I think we need to have a discussion about what our response to the police should be and how the police should be trained.
My own experience with police is limited, but when I do
get stopped, it is far from a friendly experience. I was immediately given commands and barked
to by the officer without telling me what wrong I had done. It was a form of intimidation that innocent
people find offensive. All the loud
commands and aggressive behavior from the police does not induce a relaxed and
peaceful response, especially from men.
I know police are trained to treat everyone the same according to
political correctness. Just like the
Department of Homeland Security treats grandmothers and little children as
terrorists at the airport for the same reason.
Both methods are demeaning and ineffective to creating a respected police
force.
We call policemen and firefighters heroes because they risk their life to save others. But watching how their safety measures prevent them from disarming a shooter or running into a burning building seems to take away from that heroism. They are taught not to risk their life for another. I am not advocating sacrificing police and firemen and we do have too many lose their lives in the call of duty, but I am trying to provide some observations concerning how police practices have changed in my lifetime. I may be too naïve having grown up watching Andy Griffith on TV policing the fictitious town of Mayberry. I do like the fact that Andy was approachable and knew everyone in town.
Can we look at
other police training practices that may provide a better model?
Unlike the U.S. model of law enforcement, the British
police have a thing they call Policing
By Consent, based on the principles of Sir Robert Peel, who came up with
the Metropolitan Police in 1829. It states that constables are citizens in
uniform "who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are
incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and
existence." It's been the guiding principle for close to 200 years.
Here are Peel’s nine principles:
1. To prevent crime and disorder, as an
alternative to their repression by military force and severity of legal
punishment.
2. To recognize always that the power of
the police to fulfil their functions and duties is dependent on public approval
of their existence, actions and behavior, and on their ability to secure and
maintain public respect.
3. To recognize 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 recognize 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 favor, 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 humor, 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. (emphasis is mine)
8. To recognize 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 recognize 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.
Do you agree some
of these principles should be a part of police training in the U.S.?
The British police training is designed to teach police
how to disarm suspects wielding knives, guns, and foul language. Each officer is equipped with an extendable
metal stick called an asp and a can of “aggressive hairspray” laughably termed
CS as if it's tear gas. According to a
London policeman, “one lesson that everyone who ever became a half-decent
copper did take on board was that the most important piece of officer safety
equipment we ever had was talk.” Police
are generally trained to de-escalate hostile situations and use minimal
violence in response to a threat. For example, the
British police have interviews instead of interrogations. Also, they are not
allowed to lie to the suspect about the evidence they have.
In a 2004 survey, 82 percent of Britain's Police
Federation members said that they did not want to be routinely armed on duty,
according to the BBC. At least one third of British police officers have feared
for their lives while being on duty, but remained opposed to carrying firearms.
But for the most part, many British police would like to have a Taser. Basically, it comes down to the fact that their
conflicts so very rarely involve firearms that they simply don't need them. However, they would be the first to say if
every drunk or crackhead I stopped to search had a concealed carry weapon, I would
be the first to ask for a gun. In
terrorist or other situations involving a shooter, the British do have SWAT
teams with expert snipers that are deployed.
A police officer does not have to shoot to kill and, in
several countries, a police officer does not even have to carry a gun. In
Norway, Iceland, New Zealand, Britain, and Ireland, police officers generally
do not carry firearms. Richard Hill,
history professor at Victoria University of Wellington in New Zealand, explains
that New Zealand police were disarmed for routine work in 1886, following the
principle of the British police that: “Constables
are placed in authority to protect, not to oppress, the public.” For
officers to carry guns would not just be unnecessary, he says, “but also
antithetical to the values of civil society.”
You may say, “But these countries don’t allow guns!” But what about in Iceland, where there are an
estimated 90,000 guns in a population of 323,000? The country has one of the lowest global crime
rates in the world and, the BBC reports, the majority of crimes that do occur
don’t involve firearms. So it is
possible to police a population that owns guns and reduce violence too.
In these countries
where citizens don’t have access to guns, the police are rarely taken by
surprise by a firearm. There are officers trained in how to handle firearms
when necessary, and can respond to reports of a citizen with a gun by sending
out an armed police officer. But another key difference between the US and
elsewhere is training. Paul Hirschfield, an associate professor of sociology at
Rutgers University, points out that US police officers are trained for an
average of just 19 weeks. Compare that to police in Norway, who have three
years of training before they’re fully qualified. In Finland, officers have to get permission
from a superior officer before shooting. In Spain, officers should fire a
warning shot, then aim for non-vital body parts, before resorting to lethal
shooting. “In the United States, you only shoot to kill. You only use deadly
force,” says Hirschfield.
It doesn’t help that the law in the United States gives
fairly wide scope for police violence. Under the European Convention of Human
Rights, police can only shoot if it’s “absolutely necessary” in order to
achieve a legitimate law enforcement purpose. Meanwhile, in the US, police
officers can shoot if there’s “reasonable” perception of a grave and imminent
threat, which is a far more subjective standard. “What defines reasonable?,”
says Hirschfield. “We have a society where it’s often considered reasonable to
take a black person reaching into their waistband as a threat. The whole legal
framework for determining whether lethal force is legal or not is premised on a
flawed assumption that officers can determine what is reasonable.”
“If you only have 19 weeks of training, you’re going to
spend those on the most essential things. Unfortunately, in the United States,
it’s about what you need to defend yourself. How you’re going to avoid getting
hurt,” says Hirschfield. “If you have three years, you can also learn how to
protect people, how to avoid these situations from arising in the first place.
It fosters a whole different orientation and culture in law enforcement.”
Just some food for
thought, so please don’t accuse me of hating police. I don’t.
Excerpts taken from:
I Was A Cop In A Country With No Guns: 6 Startling
Truths By Charley Clark, July 12,
2016
How do police handle violence in countries where
officers don’t carry guns? By
Olivia Goldhill, July 09, 2016
