What should be the role of a police officer?

[PyramidHead]

Every time some unarmed guy gets shot and killed by a cop, we hear the same arguments go back and forth on this board by the usual suspects. Most of the time, apart from the actual details of the shooting, the difference in opinion comes down to what people think cops should be doing in general. How should they approach a situation, what are their priorities, what can they be reasonably expected to risk, etc.

Police officers are supposed to protect the general public from harm in their capacity as enforcers of the law; that much, I think, everybody agrees on. One key distinction that gets to the heart of much disagreement is whether a suspect is a member of the general public (and thus should also be protected) or whether a suspect rescinds their membership of the general public when they are suspected of a crime.

Most people who side with the victim emphasize that he is legally innocent until proven guilty, and thus the proper role of a police officer is to safely get the suspect into custody with a minimum of force. This approach treats a suspect as a member of the same group police officers swear an oath to protect with their lives; thus, the priority is to efficiently (but cautiously) apprehend the suspect, ensure they are aware of their rights under the law, and achieve this goal with the least amount of harm to everybody else (including the suspect!) FIRST, even if it means the police officer may be killed.

Most people who side with the police think that the victim is largely responsible for being considered a suspect, so the police officer's role should be to defend himself from harm and immediately neutralize the threat posed by the suspect using whatever means necessary. Under this approach, the suspect is already assumed to be a substantial danger to the general public, so he is no longer worthy of the officer's protection. Accordingly, the police officer's priority should be to eliminate the possibility of injury or death happening to the general public (not including the suspect!) FIRST, even if it means the suspect may be killed.

Is this a more-or-less accurate version of what people think?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Most people who side with the victim emphasize that he is legally innocent until proven guilty, and thus the proper role of a police officer is to safely get the suspect into custody with a minimum of force. This approach treats a suspect as a member of the same group police officers swear an oath to protect with their lives; thus, the priority is to efficiently (but cautiously) apprehend the suspect, ensure they are aware of their rights under the law, and achieve this goal with the least amount of harm to everybody else (including the suspect!) FIRST, even if it means the police officer may be killed.

Not really. The point is that the Officers should be wise in their manner of apprehending a suspect, ie... taking steps that ensure both their safety and the suspect's safety. An officer shouldn't be expected to die trying to apprehend someone. However, some officers as of late seem to be drawing the gun way too early.

 

[TSwizzle]

I think the police need to be reminded that they are there to serve the public. I know a few LAPD cops and they come into contact with the lowest of the low and I know it's difficult dealing with scumbags that are just wrong 'uns. But there are some cops that are just dumb thugs in a uniform that don't know their place. On the whole, I think the cops do a pretty good job but when there are incidents where their behavior has been questionable, I do not like the way the department rallies round and does everything to protect the cops. Kelly Thomas case was a disgusting example.

 

[PyramidHead]

Most people who side with the victim emphasize that he is legally innocent until proven guilty, and thus the proper role of a police officer is to safely get the suspect into custody with a minimum of force. This approach treats a suspect as a member of the same group police officers swear an oath to protect with their lives; thus, the priority is to efficiently (but cautiously) apprehend the suspect, ensure they are aware of their rights under the law, and achieve this goal with the least amount of harm to everybody else (including the suspect!) FIRST, even if it means the police officer may be killed.

Not really. The point is that the Officers should be wise in their manner of apprehending a suspect, ie... taking steps that ensure both their safety and the suspect's safety.

That's what I was trying to get at. It seems like the other side of the issue does not even consider the suspect's safety as worthy of concern.

An officer shouldn't be expected to die trying to apprehend someone. However, some officers as of late seem to be drawing the gun way too early.

I don't know, I think that if the suspect poses a threat to himself and others, an officer should be willing to put their well-being at risk to make sure everybody else gets out alive.

Another thing that I have heard is how if the officer doesn't shoot the suspect, he will escape. The implication being, police officers are not resourceful enough to apprehend a suspect if required to give chase, so the best option is to gun him down. Again, if the suspect's safety was part of the officer's duty to protect, that wouldn't be the first priority (assuming the suspect isn't waving a gun around).

 

[Togo]

Another thing that I have heard is how if the officer doesn't shoot the suspect, he will escape.

I see no reason why police officers should be entitled to shoot people unless they are an imminent threat.

 

[Horatio Parker]

To represent and ensure state monopoly of violence.

 

[fromderinside]

Another thing that I have heard is how if the officer doesn't shoot the suspect, he will escape.

I see no reason why police officers should be entitled to shoot people unless they are an imminent threat.

Why even then? There are alternative means, usually carried by officers, to effectively and safely bring down a threat that aren't usually lethal.

 

[dismal]

I don't know, I think that if the suspect poses a threat to himself and others, an officer should be willing to put their well-being at risk to make sure everybody else gets out alive.

This is not what we have now. Police are given a high level of discretion to protect themselves first. Suspects are expected to cooperate.

This could be changed, of course, but it is not the current default.

 

[arkirk]

To represent and ensure state monopoly of violence.

I would hope that we all at some point have known some good cops. One of the things I feel makes a good cop is one who regards his job as one of keeping the peace by as peaceable means as possible.. I can't condemn cops as a whole. Often, they don't have a lot of choice in the methods they use. When they don their riot gear and head out to tear down Occupy camps, this is not one of their finest moments. There are definitely many cops who should not be cops and many jobs cops should not be asked to do. Our government is becoming more and more authoritarian and this attracts to the force, the very people who should not be cops. The problem is that this situation fulminates periodically and that is what we have seen in Ferguson, and Madison and Oakland and South L.A.

The defining of roles for cops is perhaps the most important part of policing. They should not look like Empire storm troopers. Largely, their roles are being defined by conditions created by unjust political systems. Most of the good cops I have known wish they had chosen something else to do for a living and just do the best they can with the conditions they face. There are plenty of bad cops, but it is wrong to assume just because a guy has a cop suit on he's a bad one.

 

[Horatio Parker]

To represent and ensure state monopoly of violence.

I would hope that we all at some point have known some good cops. One of the things I feel makes a good cop is one who regards his job as one of keeping the peace by as peaceable means as possible.. I can't condemn cops as a whole. Often, they don't have a lot of choice in the methods they use. When they don their riot gear and head out to tear down Occupy camps, this is not one of their finest moments. There are definitely many cops who should not be cops and many jobs cops should not be asked to do. Our government is becoming more and more authoritarian and this attracts to the force, the very people who should not be cops. The problem is that this situation fulminates periodically and that is what we have seen in Ferguson, and Madison and Oakland and South L.A.

The defining of roles for cops is perhaps the most important part of policing. They should not look like Empire storm troopers. Largely, their roles are being defined by conditions created by unjust political systems. Most of the good cops I have known wish they had chosen something else to do for a living and just do the best they can with the conditions they face. There are plenty of bad cops, but it is wrong to assume just because a guy has a cop suit on he's a bad one.

I heard that on wbai years ago. I figured no one else would offer a definition like that, so I threw it in the mix.

I think most cops are decent, yes. I think in places like Ferguson, they've been badly led. A culture of privilege is also a problem. The authoritarians are too entitled.

 

[tupac chopra]

Peelian Principles
One of the criticisms I've seen of policing in Amercica is that sometimes the police don't even live in the community they police.
But have a look at Sir Robert Peels apparent original principles

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

 

[repoman]

OK, I think that there are a few kinds of encounters causing the most problems where the police have suspects that need fleshing out and separating.

Suspects who are one powerful psychotic drugs or who are plain crazy (temporarily) like the naked guy who was shot. Without seeing a video of the incident no one really knows if he was like a guided missile headed toward the cop. Kind of like the guy who ran right into the back of the car in the video I gave in that thread. These people are pretty rare.

Suspects who will not just run from the cops but try to tussle with them - occasionally you will see a strong suspect body slam a female or a smaller male or an over the hill cop. That is plainly a death wish. And the bigger you are the moreso. And the "but you didn't have to shoot him" mantra that comes after that is not helping. If I was a cop who had just been body slammed, I would not hesitate to shoot. Delay on that and your weapon will be used to kill you.

People who flee on foot or by car. These ones I have much, much less sympathy for the cops with. there are a lot of videos of cops either getting pissed at being dissed or freaking about about a phantom weapon and shooting.

Let me add no-knock drug raids done by DEA and local SWAT. So much goes wrong.

 

[NobleSavage]

There role should be to "protect and serve". I LOL when I see that on the cop cars in my city. I'm in a very, very, safe exurb that has just enough local flavor to not quite be "surbia". The cops here have $60k paramilitary SUVs with tactical shotguns and who knows what else. I can't go to the store and back with out seeing three of them. Seriously, I feel like I'm living in occupied territory. The slogan on their cars should be "To harrass and raise revenue for the city." One of these days I'm gonna show up at a city council meeting with crime stats and raise hell until they kick me out.

I love cops on horses; I love cops on bicycles; I love cops walking a beat. Many of the cops in England do not have a gun, they have a stick. I like that. That would be perfect for my city. It's all we really need.

 

[AthenaAwakened]

My father used to say you had to respect the person you were arresting even if that person didn't respect himself.

You don't have to take shit off him, but you have to remember that that person, even when he breaks the law, is still as much a citizen as the woman whose purse he snatched.

I think good policing starts there.