• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Militarization of Police.

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
535
Points
1,060
I hear a lot of talk about Militarization of the Police these days.

Simple really.

The politicians created the situation.  Aided and abetted by the Army. 

Trump and Cotton are getting beat up about implementing something called the Insurrection Act.  In Canada we refer to it as Aid to the Civil Power.

When things get out of hand then the government needs to be able to put a disciplined body of fit individuals into the streets to quell the crowds.  They are also necessary to guard Vital Points so as to free up police for policing.

Policing.  Polishing.  Polite.  Polity. People.  People of the community interacting with people of the community.  A policeman is a citizen with exactly the same powers as any other citizen, including the power of arrest and detention.  Only they get paid to do nothing else than police the streets.

The problem is that every now and then situations arise. The Canadiens lose. The Canadiens win. Vancouver cancels a smoke-in. Or somebody gets murdered on TV and mayhem ensues.  Or somebody takes it upon themselves to launch an armed insurrection of one and starts shooting everybody in sight. 

Those insurrections should not be the responsibility of the police.  The police need to be seen as part of the community.  Not separate from the community.

They need back up.  Back up by somebody that isn't the police.

They also need that back up to be available, trained and effective.  The need that type of back up the same way that infantry needs artillery. 

The primary problem is that nobody wants to be the bad guys.  The politicians don't want to be seen as the bad guys that put soldiers in the streets.  The soldiers don't want to be the bad guys going into the streets.  But somebody has to go into the streets.  And best that it be the "army" - or in the words of Kipling - single men in barracks who aren't plaster saints.

I hear that in the US some National Guardsmen have been turned out, like some of the police riot squads, without their riot gear.  Because that looks too militaristic.

Screw that.  That is too ridiculous.

I want the Riot Troops in the field to look impervious to rocks, hammers, spikes, clubs and molotov cocktails.  I want them to look like the original Immovable Object, capable of resisting any force.  More important than just looking impervious I want those troops to know that their kit and discipline makes them impervious.  I don't want them armed with guns because I don't want them having to worry about protecting their guns.  They should be able to know that there are people with guns deployed to their flanks and rear with guns to remove any gun armed threats they may face.

I want the Riot Troops to be unafraid.  To know that they are going home tonight.  That means that the need to be well protected and well supported.

I also want them well whipped in.  Like a good pack of dogs. They do what they are told when told at the command of their Commissioned Officers - those servants of Her Majesty in whom she has reposed especial trust and confidence to command, exercise and discipline such troops as may be prescribed on occasion.  Those people who are charged with deciding, when the police ask for it, when and how force will be used by the troops under the officer's command.  The Officer is the responsible party for the consequences.  Not the troops.  That is why Officers requested, and were selected for, a commission.

I also want them readily available. On Call.  As readily available as a local SWAT/ERT.  Which means a lot less bureaucracy associated with the call out.

Meanwhile the Army doesn't want the job.  Even though historically that has been one of the primary roles of the army even under the British system.  The Militia doesn't want the job.  Even though since Confederation managing insurrection (Riel 1, Riel 2, BC Miners, General Strikes) has been one of the tasks they have been called out for.  And trade discussions demonstrate that we apparently still have rioters in peace-loving Canada.

Politicians - they just don't want to be seen making that kind of decision - so they would sooner have that kind of capability hidden within their police departments and then leave it as a policy decision for the local Chief of Police - who can be safely fired when things go pear-shaped.

It is easy to de-militarize the police.  All that is necessary is that Other Government Departments step up and do their jobs.  And that politicians recognize that sometimes somebody has to be available to put the kiddies on the naughty step.  And that the kiddies won't like it when that happens.

Or there is the French solution

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/09/france-riot-police-george-floyd-protests/




 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
328
Points
1,130
Chris Pook said:
I hear a lot of talk about Militarization of the Police these days.

For reference to the discussion,

Militarization of the police?
https://army.ca/forums/threads/116026.0.html
7 pages.
LOCKED.
 

blacktriangle

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
170
Points
630
Chris Pook said:
I also want them well whipped in.  Like a good pack of dogs. They do what they are told when told at the command of their Commissioned Officers - those servants of Her Majesty in whom she has reposed especial trust and confidence to command, exercise and discipline such troops as may be prescribed on occasion.

It's great that you hold non-commissioned/enlisted types in such high esteem.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
535
Points
1,060
I knew that would get a response.

I do, in fact, hold ORs and NCOs in great esteem.  If anything my problem is with the Commissioned ranks.  They are the ones hired by the Crown to manage situations with what ever resources the Crown sees fit to allocate to them.

My point is that the troops should not have to worry about following orders in the heat of the moment.  The biggest crime that came out of the Nuremberg Trials was deciding that "I was following orders" is not a defence.  It is the only correct defence.  Anything less puts the blame in the wrong place and results in silly bugger investigations of individuals when the fault is with the orders and the person issuing the orders.

The crimes of people under orders need to be managed. No doubt.  People that acted against orders or on their own volition, like Derek Chauvin and his associates, obviously need to be punished.  As do his supervisors for failing to adequately supervise, train and discipline him.

But the case of the two coppers being chargesd in Buffalo, who pushed a man out of their way when he was obstructing them, after their team leader told them to move him, after their unit had been deployed, under orders, explicitly to move people out of the the way, that is another situation entirely.

So, sorry if my language offends. My sentiments are unchanged.
 

Humphrey Bogart

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Reaction score
450
Points
1,010
Chris Pook said:
I hear a lot of talk about Militarization of the Police these days.

Simple really.

The politicians created the situation.  Aided and abetted by the Army. 

Trump and Cotton are getting beat up about implementing something called the Insurrection Act.  In Canada we refer to it as Aid to the Civil Power.

When things get out of hand then the government needs to be able to put a disciplined body of fit individuals into the streets to quell the crowds.  They are also necessary to guard Vital Points so as to free up police for policing.

Policing.  Polishing.  Polite.  Polity. People.  People of the community interacting with people of the community.  A policeman is a citizen with exactly the same powers as any other citizen, including the power of arrest and detention.  Only they get paid to do nothing else than police the streets.

The problem is that every now and then situations arise. The Canadiens lose. The Canadiens win. Vancouver cancels a smoke-in. Or somebody gets murdered on TV and mayhem ensues.  Or somebody takes it upon themselves to launch an armed insurrection of one and starts shooting everybody in sight. 

Those insurrections should not be the responsibility of the police.  The police need to be seen as part of the community.  Not separate from the community.

They need back up.  Back up by somebody that isn't the police.

They also need that back up to be available, trained and effective.  The need that type of back up the same way that infantry needs artillery. 

The primary problem is that nobody wants to be the bad guys.  The politicians don't want to be seen as the bad guys that put soldiers in the streets.  The soldiers don't want to be the bad guys going into the streets.  But somebody has to go into the streets.  And best that it be the "army" - or in the words of Kipling - single men in barracks who aren't plaster saints.

I hear that in the US some National Guardsmen have been turned out, like some of the police riot squads, without their riot gear.  Because that looks too militaristic.

Screw that.  That is too ridiculous.

I want the Riot Troops in the field to look impervious to rocks, hammers, spikes, clubs and molotov cocktails.  I want them to look like the original Immovable Object, capable of resisting any force.  More important than just looking impervious I want those troops to know that their kit and discipline makes them impervious.  I don't want them armed with guns because I don't want them having to worry about protecting their guns.  They should be able to know that there are people with guns deployed to their flanks and rear with guns to remove any gun armed threats they may face.

I want the Riot Troops to be unafraid.  To know that they are going home tonight.  That means that the need to be well protected and well supported.

I also want them well whipped in.  Like a good pack of dogs. They do what they are told when told at the command of their Commissioned Officers - those servants of Her Majesty in whom she has reposed especial trust and confidence to command, exercise and discipline such troops as may be prescribed on occasion.  Those people who are charged with deciding, when the police ask for it, when and how force will be used by the troops under the officer's command.  The Officer is the responsible party for the consequences.  Not the troops.  That is why Officers requested, and were selected for, a commission.

I also want them readily available. On Call.  As readily available as a local SWAT/ERT.  Which means a lot less bureaucracy associated with the call out.

Meanwhile the Army doesn't want the job.  Even though historically that has been one of the primary roles of the army even under the British system.  The Militia doesn't want the job.  Even though since Confederation managing insurrection (Riel 1, Riel 2, BC Miners, General Strikes) has been one of the tasks they have been called out for.  And trade discussions demonstrate that we apparently still have rioters in peace-loving Canada.

Politicians - they just don't want to be seen making that kind of decision - so they would sooner have that kind of capability hidden within their police departments and then leave it as a policy decision for the local Chief of Police - who can be safely fired when things go pear-shaped.

It is easy to de-militarize the police.  All that is necessary is that Other Government Departments step up and do their jobs.  And that politicians recognize that sometimes somebody has to be available to put the kiddies on the naughty step.  And that the kiddies won't like it when that happens.

Or there is the French solution

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/09/france-riot-police-george-floyd-protests/

I've often felt the French and Italians do a very good job with respect to Policing as their principal National Police Forces are also Military Forces.  The French system makes a lot of sense as the Gendarmerie is officially a Military Force under the command and control of the Armed Forces.  The French still have the National Police who look after the matters you speak about Chris but Crowd Control and Civil Disturbances are the responsibility of the Gendarmerie. 

It is the French Military who protects critical infrastructure in France, which is why when you go to Paris, you will see Legionnaires and other Elite Forces patrolling and guarding places like the Arc de Triomphe or Charles de Gaulle Airport.  It is the Gendarmerie who is responsible for protecting the Borders of France and also dealing with Crowd Control Issues.

I completely agree with you Chris that the politicians have put Police Forces in a very precarious situation.

reverse_engineer said:
It's great that you hold non-commissioned/enlisted types in such high esteem.

You took his comments the wrong way. 
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
328
Points
1,130
Chris Pook said:
Those insurrections should not be the responsibility of the police. 

Not sure the Toronto unions ( police and paramedic ) would be on board with that idea.

Toronto has had a "Riot Squad" ( as it was then known ) at least as far back as 1961.

 

Attachments

  • teargassquad.jpg
    teargassquad.jpg
    62.9 KB · Views: 98

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
535
Points
1,060
OK

You want the responsibility of the Riot Squad and SWAT in the police force?  Then fine, protect your fellow uniformed personnel by putting the Active Reserve (if you will) in different, highly visible and distinctive uniforms that differentiate them from the Patrol Force and place them under a separate command structure.  Occupying separate buildings.

Here's a question:  How many shootings are a result of a police officer leading with a drawn weapon because that is the easiest way to ensure that he can defend the weapon he is carrying as he enters into a melee?

If you have a gun the first concern has to be that you control that gun.  That it is not taken from you.  That it is not used against you.  Or your partner.  Or a civilian.  The easiest way to do that is to remove the gun from its holster and hold it in your hands.  If your gun is drawn then it needs to be aimed, at a target, with intent.

So.  In an armed population armed police are necessary.  Particularly if police are sent out on patrol individually and lacking mutual support or a timely Quick Reaction Force. 

But there is a risk that the officer's weapon can be used in the manner that some were in Nova Scotia recently.

 

brihard

Army.ca Fixture
Mentor
Reaction score
1,726
Points
890
Chris Pook said:
...
Here's a question:  How many shootings are a result of a police officer leading with a drawn weapon because that is the easiest way to ensure that he can defend the weapon he is carrying as he enters into a melee?

If you have a gun the first concern has to be that you control that gun.  That it is not taken from you.  That it is not used against you.  Or your partner.  Or a civilian.  The easiest way to do that is to remove the gun from its holster and hold it in your hands.  If your gun is drawn then it needs to be aimed, at a target, with intent.

So.  In an armed population armed police are necessary.  Particularly if police are sent out on patrol individually and lacking mutual support or a timely Quick Reaction Force. 

But there is a risk that the officer's weapon can be used in the manner that some were in Nova Scotia recently.

With respect Chris, you're fairly far off on some stuff here, and I think missing some considerations.

Let's start right at the top. Constitutionally, the provinces are responsible for the administration of justice. While the federal government has the constitutional authority to craft criminal law, it's to the provinces to enforce and uphold it. They decide what resources they need. The enforcement of law, as well as stemming from a provincial head of constitutional power, is also in western society generally accepted to be a civil responsibility.  It is not generally a matter of national defence, as it's extremely difficult for criminal matters - even significant public disorder - to hit that threshold. I don't agree with your characterization of what we're seeing as 'insurrection'. I'm not suggesting there may not be a small few within the larger popular movements we're seeing who have insurrectionist intent, but not many actually want to see our system of government forcefully tossed. Most just want some reforms, and that's fine. These protests may be a threat to the funding and stable functioning of some police services; they may be a threat to small swaths of businesses in looting-prone areas. They may be a threat to the careers of some politicians. They are not a threat to our courts. They are not a threat to the states ability to levy or spend taxes. They aren't a threat to our systems of healthcare, education, or municipal government. The state is not at risk. It is wrong, in my mind, therefore, to suggest that it's appropriate to take a military whose primary role is to kill people and break stuff in the defense of the national interest under the lawful direction of the civil authority, and put them up against crowds that are essentially just pissed off and that, after a long hot summer, will probably simmer right down.

Chris Pook said:
You want the responsibility of the Riot Squad and SWAT in the police force?  Then fine, protect your fellow uniformed personnel by putting the Active Reserve (if you will) in different, highly visible and distinctive uniforms that differentiate them from the Patrol Force and place them under a separate command structure.  Occupying separate buildings.

Cops are expensive. Tough to justify having them sitting around waiting. ERT/SWAT are a very rare exception to that- a few parts of the country have enough demand for their services to justify full time teams that are always ready to go (or at least are within certain hours, and on call the rest). Even at that they generally have a lot of bodies out backing up patrol, assisting with VIP protection, things like that. As for riot cops, I'm not aware of a police service in Canada (nor offhand of any in the US) who have a full time public order unit who solely do that job. I know that for ours (I'm on it) we all have real jobs, and get orders to assemble when needed. Usually we end up on standby and don't have to deploy into the crowd, but we're all set to go with our kit and buses and a staging area. And when it's done, we go back to our patrol or investigative or administrative or bureaucratic duties. When we're deployed, we DO look very different. You aren't going to mistake 'riot cops' for anything else. And likewise, the SWAT/ERT guys look very different. I am not convinced that there is any organizational, ethical, or legal reason to make these capabilities separate from other police services. Even when a riot squad goes out,t he mission is *Still* to protect the rights of citizens including to preserve he right to peaceful protest. I wish the public could have seen the motivational brief we got at the start of our last callout- a bit, thick set Sgt with many years of public order duties reminding us that the eyes of Canada were on us,a nd that whatever we do, we ave better be prepared to do it in front of, or justidy it to, our friends, family, and kindly 70 year old neighbour. But, also, that if and when it became necessary to act to protect ours or others' safety, we would do so and every member of the team would keep each other safe. Ethics and the 'why we're there' pervade the ethos on the team I'm on, at least.

Here's a question:  How many shootings are a result of a police officer leading with a drawn weapon because that is the easiest way to ensure that he can defend the weapon he is carrying as he enters into a melee?

If you have a gun the first concern has to be that you control that gun.  That it is not taken from you.  That it is not used against you.  Or your partner.  Or a civilian.  The easiest way to do that is to remove the gun from its holster and hold it in your hands.  If your gun is drawn then it needs to be aimed, at a target, with intent.

I'm going to call you flatly wrong on this. I won't say it's never happened, but I haven't heard of it. If your gun is out you're looking to create space, not close it. If you're moving into a melee, no you aren't drawing your gun to protect it. My gun is at much greater risk of being taken forcefully from my hands than from my holster. Modern duty holsters are designed with retention in mind, and we're trained to defend our guns. Go for my holster while standing and I'll keep it, and destroy certain parts of your body. Go for it in a ground fight and I'll keep it and destroy different parts of your body. And then you get to meet my friends. They will remove you without grace from the vicinity of my holster.

If we're having to wade into a physical confrontation - be it in a riotous crowd, or simply in a crowded bar - it's because we've determined we need to, and our risk assessment tells us we can achieve it without compromising the underlying need or putting ourselves or others in more danger.

I want the Riot Troops in the field to look impervious to rocks, hammers, spikes, clubs and molotov cocktails.  I want them to look like the original Immovable Object, capable of resisting any force.  More important than just looking impervious I want those troops to know that their kit and discipline makes them impervious.  I don't want them armed with guns because I don't want them having to worry about protecting their guns.  They should be able to know that there are people with guns deployed to their flanks and rear with guns to remove any gun armed threats they may face.

At present, most riot cops at least in Canada aren't carrying their guns on them, they have lethal overwatch from others. I think we're going to see a shift away from that towards riot cops still having access to their firearms. If you think about what a brawl looks like, odds are the ERT guy fifteen or twenty feet behind you with a carbine cannot see what you see and will not see the knife or the gun that presents two or three feet to your front. The threat picture has, I believe, changed. The vast majority of protesters are still out there with no intent beyond exercising their rights to assemble and to express themselves.  A very small subset might be out there with a generally riotous or disruptive intent, but will limit their stupidity to throwing things from a difference. We must, however, be prepared for the risk that that one guy will use the cover of the crowd to specifically try to attack police with the intent of causing us serious harm.

Overall I cannot agree that the roles of emergency response or public order can or should be removed from the larger organizations that police our communities. I see there as being considerable risk particularly in taking a group of police, making them primarily a public order unit, and separating them from he rest of the policing profession in that role. Public order is a capability, it does require its own mindset and attitude, BUT the members doing it must be able to engage and disengage that mindset at will when the situation or mandate changes. They need to be able to not lose sight of what the reason for their role is. Yes, occasionally there will be a need to wade in to a riot with shields and batons. Much more frequently we'll be out there (or on standby very close by) in case a sizable protest goes sideways- but hoping, hoping, hoping that it doesn't. You want that job done by members whose mentality is still respectful and responsible dealings with people.

- Staff edit to fix quote box
 

daftandbarmy

Army.ca Relic
Reaction score
3,491
Points
1,060
Chris Pook said:
But the case of the two coppers being chargesd in Buffalo, who pushed a man out of their way when he was obstructing them, after their team leader told them to move him, after their unit had been deployed, under orders, explicitly to move people out of the the way, that is another situation entirely.

So, sorry if my language offends. My sentiments are unchanged.

No one is above the law. Everyone in these situations, security forces included, must be able to answer for their actions, or inactions.

The cop that pushed the old man did not demonstrate the proper use of force, and unnecessarily used a disproportionate level of force to the threat posed. This resulted in a critically injured senior citizen. Arrest the guy, cuff him safely and move him out of the area? Sure. That would have been appropriate I’m guessing

He should be charged. There should be an investigation. No question in my mind.

Within the context of similar situations I’ve been faced with in the past I would also probably call him out as a cowardly piece of sh@t, but that’s just me.
 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
612
Points
910
Chris Pook said:
If you have a gun the first concern has to be that you control that gun.  That it is not taken from you.  That it is not used against you.  Or your partner.  Or a civilian.  The easiest way to do that is to remove the gun from its holster and hold it in your hands. 
Really?  Not even close.  The safest place for my gun is in my holster.  it is mechanically restrained by the holster's retention features and securely fastened to my body. If you try to remove it without disabling me first, you will get hurt.

Chris Pook said:
If your gun is drawn then it needs to be aimed, at a target, with intent.
An officer may draw their firearm as a tactical consideration.  For example, you hear a violent commotion in an adjacent room or around a corner.  You have no idea what's going on but you believe it's serious enough to possibly warrant the use of lethal force as a response.  You can draw, but you do not yet have something/someone to point at.
 

Remius

Army.ca Fixture
Reaction score
877
Points
860
I am concerned with some militarization of the police but to be honest I’d rather have those that serve and protect occupy the role of controlled violence against our own citizens than those that are tasked with closing and destroying our enemies.
 

mariomike

Moderator
Staff member
Directing Staff
Subscriber
Mentor
Reaction score
328
Points
1,130
Brihard said:
ERT/SWAT are a very rare exception to that- a few parts of the country have enough demand for their services to justify full time teams that are always ready to go (or at least are within certain hours, and on call the rest).

Only familiar with the one jurisdiction. But, our Emergency Task Force ( ETF ) paramedics were dedicated ETF.
They received a $1000.00 annual premium, pro-rated monthly.

ETF (Swing) received a $250.00 annual premium, pro-rated monthly.

Public Safety Unit ( PSU ) were Callout. They received $500.00 annual premium, pro-rated monthly.

These were pensionable earnings. These were the rates prior to 2015.

They were employed by us. But, under the control of Metro Police when on ETF / PSU training or Operations.

Personally, I have never been in favour of "defunding" "contracting out" ( or whatever they want to call it ) our emergency services.

You get what you pay for. Especially when SHTF.



 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
612
Points
910
Remius said:
I am concerned with some militarization of the police but to be honest I’d rather have those that serve and protect occupy the role of controlled violence against our own citizens than those that are tasked with closing and destroying our enemies.

When speaking about the recent gun ban on May 6, 2020, Minister Blair linked the militarization of police being in response to the militarization of society as a whole.  I suspect, given the intent of the ban to eliminate lawfully owned firearms, that he wasn't concerned with the militarization of criminals. 
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
535
Points
1,060
OK D&B first

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFeewU0HhNE

My version of events

Police drawn up in ranks in riot gear under command.
Unit moves forwards under command
Civilian approaches moving front rank.
Civilian blocks movement of two officers
Officers halt.
Front rank halts.
Civilian within arms-length of officers waves device around their waists (Haggis and Brihard - does that constitute a threat to their personal weapons?)
Officers hold in place
Officer from the next rank steps up and pushes one of the two front rank officers.  Someone is heard to say "Move"
The entire unit moves forwards.
The front rank officer pushed by the officer in the rear cross-checks the civilian with his baton gripped in a defensive position
The accompanying front rank officer reaches out simultaneously with his right hand and pushes the civilian with an open hand
The civilian staggers three or four paces to the rear and falls to the sidewalk
The front rank officer that originally cross-checked the civilian pauses to check on the condition of the civilian.
The rear rank officer grabs the front rank officer by his tactical vest and forcefully lifts him out of the crouch and back into line to continue the advance.
The rear rank officer then halts and immediately activates his radio
The advance halts momentarily and there is some milling around
The left flank front rank advances and secures another civilian with a placard while the centre and right flank stand fast
The officer on the radio stays with the victim and other personnel (including one in a camouflaged uniform) attend the scene and take a knee beside the civilian on the sidewalk.

To my untutored eye I am having difficulty seeing anything other than people following orders and reacting to developing situations.

Just me though.




 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
612
Points
910
Chris Pook said:
Civilian within arms-length of officers waves device around their waists (Haggis and Brihard - does that constitute a threat to their personal weapons?)

That's a pretty loaded question, so I'm going to ask you for an opinion, based on your earlier assertion that the safest place for an officer's pistol is in their hands.  The civilian's hand closest to the officer had an object (smartphone?) in it. The officer's pistol is holstered (and remember what Brihard said about modern police holster design features) You're a reasonable person.  What do you think?
 

OldSolduer

Army.ca Legend
Reaction score
1,408
Points
910
When the criminals are disarmed, when the criminals no longer possess high power automatic weapons, when the criminals no longer have body armor or access to it then we can discuss the militarization of police.

A semi automatic rifle will out gun a pistol every day and many police officers don't have access at short notice to semi automatic rifles.

Common sense seems to be in short supply on many city councils these days.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
535
Points
1,060
In 2010, David Swedler set out to better understand police officer homicides. How and why were cops dying on the job? A doctoral candidate in the Bloomberg School of Public Health, Swedler wanted to go beyond the figures recorded in the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics' Census of Fatal Occupational Injuries. He wanted the stories behind the numbers. In pursuit of those stories, Swedler and his research team discovered a valuable and previously untapped resource: a U.S. Department of Justice database called Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted. The database includes not only basic statistics about police homicides but narrative descriptions of each violent encounter.

...an overwhelming number of the officers—93 percent—died from gunshots. "We expected guns to be commonly used," Swedler says, "but we thought that homicides would be perpetrated by other means as well. We were really surprised by that 93 percent." In 10 percent of cases, officers were shot with their own guns. In 43 percent of the homicides, the victims were working alone, often responding to domestic disturbance calls. "They would arrive on the scene and they would be ambushed and they weren't prepared,"

Brihard and Haggis, I would prefer that you guys continue to go home at night.

With respect to the discussion about funding people to stand around - I suggest that there is a cost to repairing broken people and broken infrastructure.  There is a cost resulting from lost business.  There is a cost from people moving out of unstable jurisdictions.  There is also a cost from looking after bereaved spouses and children and trying to recruit replacement officers - and those costs are considerably greater than the cost of two-officer cars and roving QRFs.

Finally, with respect to the level of responsibility - I understand that Canada is not a federal state.  It is an association of independent states that agreed to pool resources for certain activities - the monopoly on force being one of them.  Each province controls what happens on its own turf.  Therefore .... What? 

Some of the parsimonious Scots that signed the original terms of association were eventually convinced of the need to supply a part time force.  Then they were convinced to hire 300 bodies in red coats and smart little pill box caps to ride out to Lethbridge to stop the sale of substandard whiskey to the locals. When the locals got out of hand in Manitoba, a federally administered territory, then the politicians hired a bunch of civilians for temporary duty to manage the situation. Again in l885.  Again when dealing with miners....

Some cities started building police forces / private armies.
Some provinces started building police forces / private armies.
Some provinces and cities just hired the national force.

(By the way - the difference between an army and a police force is that one faces out while the other faces in - a clear enough distinction until Saskatchewan and Alberta start doing things differently- for example manage possession of "assault rifles" and find it necessary to police their mutual border - with a federal force - an interesting conundrum - but less of a conundrum than the SQ and the OPP managing the border in Ottawa - But that is to digress)

The use of the militia fell out of favour.

I get that.

But in Canada that is a big part of our problem.  There is no national strategy for managing challenges to public order (if you dislike insurrection).

In France (a federal state), as Humphrey Bogart pointed out.  There is the National Police and there is the Gendarmerie.  The National Police looks inwards the Gendarmerie manages the borders and also is on hand to manage public disorder.  But the National Police also has its own reaction forces - the CRS or Compagnies Republicaines de Security

"The Compagnies républicaines de sécurité (French: [kɔ̃paɲi ʁepyblikɛn də sekyʁite], Republican Security Companies), abbreviated CRS, are the general reserve of the French National Police. They are primarily involved in general security missions but the task for which they are best known is crowd and riot control.

There are 60 "general service" CRS companies, specialized in public order and crowd control, nine "motorway" companies (French: Compagnies autoroutières) specialized in highway patrol in urban areas and six "zonal" motorcycle units (one per Defense zone.[1]) Two additional companies and several mountain detachments administratively attached to local companies specialize in Mountain Rescue. One company (CRS n°1) specializes in VIP escort. The National Police band is also a CRS unit.[2]

Some of the CRS officers from the "general service" compagnies are cross trained and serve as lifeguards on the beaches during the summer vacations.

Now, in Canada, perhaps the CRS wouldn't be a Federal force.  Perhaps each province would have its own, if it wanted.

The only problem with the French system is that they have got Riot management down to such a science that Rioting has become a national sport.  Better that Saturday at the football.







 

Haggis

Army.ca Veteran
Reaction score
612
Points
910
Hamish Seggie said:
When the criminals law abiding firearms owners are disarmed, when the criminals no longer still possess high power automatic weapons, when the criminals no longer and the police are the only ones to have body armor or access to it then we can discuss the militarization of police success of the socialist agenda.
  FTFY

Hamish Seggie said:
Common sense seems to be in short supply on many city councils these days.
Common sense doesn't get votes, but emotion does.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
535
Points
1,060
Haggis said:
That's a pretty loaded question, so I'm going to ask you for an opinion, based on your earlier assertion that the safest place for an officer's pistol is in their hands.  The civilian's hand closest to the officer had an object (smartphone?) in it. The officer's pistol is holstered (and remember what Brihard said about modern police holster design features) You're a reasonable person.  What do you think?

Loaded question it is.  And under the circumstances.  One individual with a device in his hand facing an officer with his flank and rear protected by other team members then the risk is low.  On the other hand do you want any individual to be that close to you under any circumstances?  On the other hand the unit was being expressly ordered to advance - ie to close with the civilians in the area.

Not even going to begin to parse the details of what's right and wrong beyond saying that my initial point with respect to this incident was in counter point to the Floyd-Chauvin incident.  It is right that Chauvin be arrested.  I question whether it was right to arrest the officers who pushed the civilian as they were clearly acting under orders, and I can understand why their entire unit quit in solidarity.
 

Kirkhill

Army.ca Legend
Subscriber
Donor
Reaction score
535
Points
1,060
Another point i was making was about the need for Other Government Departments to step up.

Where is the Department of Social Work Flying Squad to manage Domestic Disputes on which the local police can call?

Where are the men in White Jackets that used to be available to remove the mentally unstable to a secure location where they could receive treatment?
 
Top