What is the legitimate role of police?

This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

Unlike government officials, taxpayer funded security forces have no "protection" role to play in our personals lives. The slogan "To protect and serve" emblazoned on half of the nation's police cars is not just a euphemism, it's an outright lie.

Police justifiably carry guns to protect their lives, not yours.

There should be no doubt about this after the Supreme Court has maintained that the police have no duty to risk their own lives to protect those of you or your family.

Click to expand...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.

radcen said:

This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money Or maybe they're role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.

Click to expand...

their role is both, to protect and serve.

they are the shield that is meant to protect the people and uphold the laws

Cops are agents of the collective, they protect and serve society, not individuals.

radcen said:

This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.

Click to expand...

I think the main goal is to uphold the "peace," but that must be done with integrity and within the scope of our laws. In the pursuit of that goal, they will, of course, offer protection to those who (in their best determination) need it (including themselves, when necessary). They will be called on to both enforce the law and maintain the rights of the citizens when at all possible.

That should be the goal, and I think for most it is. Occasionally, an officer gets crosswise of the goal, and then we need to investigate and evaluate the incident, but the goal should not change.

radcen said:

This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.

Click to expand...

SCOTUS has ruled police have no duty to protect you or liability for failing to do so.

Fundamentally it is in the name... Law Enforcement. They are there to enforce the law.


A lot of that patrolling actually, literally involves generating revenue for local, county and city gov't.

Also, deterrence factors and catching lawbreakers to be punished by the judicial system, such as it is. I am very cynical about the criminal justice system having seen it fail and miscarry more times than I count.

I suppose it is better than nothing, but in my semi-rural area the county cops are utterly useless.

I have been of the opinion for a while now, that we need a total reboot in the way we "do policing".


Peel's Principles would be a good place to start.

radcen said:

This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.

Click to expand...

I would say that their role is to protect the public. But usually they seem to be responding to active threats instead of actually protecting the public from those active threats. Sometime their presence is a deterrence to criminals like if a cop car is parked in a neighborhood or store. But cops can't everywhere. You also can't fit a cop in your pocket and pull him out when criminals are trying to harm you. So a lot of times they are like crime scene archeologists gathering data to be used to find out who did what or to gather evidence against a suspect.

radcen said:

This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.

Click to expand...

Good question. I always thought it was both, to protect citizens and enforce laws. If it's not to protect, then we need to protect ourselves apparently.

holbritter said:

Good question. I always thought it was both, to protect citizens and enforce laws. If it's not to protect, then we need to protect ourselves apparently.

Click to expand...

As Goshin stated....the SCOTUS ruled in 2016 that the police have No duty to protect the general public.

So, yes.....best to look after your own safety and security.

radcen said:

This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.

Click to expand...

Most police will agree that they respond to crimes of violence to write a report, not to stop the crime. By the time they arrive, in the vast majority of cases, the crime of violence is already completed.

That said, though, they provide the famous "Thin Blue Line" that protects most of us from the folks on the other side of the line.

A society without police is nothing more or less than a mob.

holbritter said:

Good question. I always thought it was both, to protect citizens and enforce laws. If it's not to protect, then we need to protect ourselves apparently.

Click to expand...

Obviously.

Bullets travel faster than cops.

If you happen to be in the line of fire, the bullet will reach you before the cops know you're in trouble.

Goshin said:

I have been of the opinion for a while now, that we need a total reboot in the way we "do policing".


Peel's Principles would be a good place to start.

Click to expand...

thanks for that
i never knew such guidance was long established

justabubba said:

thanks for that
i never knew such guidance was long established

Click to expand...

I think a lot of our current problems is how far we've strayed from those principles. Especially;

"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.

Polar Bum said:

As Goshin stated....the SCOTUS ruled in 2016 that the police have No duty to protect the general public.

So, yes.....best to look after your own safety and security.

Click to expand...

...and run the risk of serious legal trouble if you do so. Something tells me that SC decision wouldn't protect me if I used it to actually defend myself in ways they didn't like.

Goshin said:

SCOTUS has ruled police have no duty to protect you or liability for failing to do so.

Fundamentally it is in the name... Law Enforcement. They are there to enforce the law.

A lot of that patrolling actually, literally involves generating revenue for local, county and city gov't.

Also, deterrence factors and catching lawbreakers to be punished by the judicial system, such as it is. I am very cynical about the criminal justice system having seen it fail and miscarry more times than I count.

I suppose it is better than nothing, but in my semi-rural area the county cops are utterly useless.

Click to expand...

I'm glad you said that. I am of that opinion also, but chose not to include it in my OP because I didn't want some argumentative yahoo focusing only on that and derailing the purpose of the thread.

radcen said:

...and run the risk of serious legal trouble if you do so. Something tells me that SC decision wouldn't protect me if I used it to actually defend myself in ways they didn't like.

Click to expand...

I'll accept that risk if my alternatives are less amenable.

Polar Bum said:

I'll accept that risk if my alternatives are less amenable.

Click to expand...

Sure, but that wasn't my point... and I suspect you know that.

Since the word "legitimate" is a subjective term this discussion will be difficult. An urban convenience store owner/operator who wants foot patrols and community policing will have different ideas about legitimate policing goals than an industrialist who wants the police to break up a labour dispute picket line. So before one discusses legitimate roles for the police today, one should list all the roles which police have done in the past, do now in the present and are likely to perform in the future.

-Law Enforcement and Making Arrests.
-Serving Legal Orders and Warrants.
-Criminal Investigations and After the Fact Crime Solution.
-Witnesses in Court Proceedings.
-Disaster Response and Crisis Management.
-Accompanying and Supporting Bailiffs and Sheriffs in Seizures of Moveables and Immoveables.
-Surveillance and Intelligence Gathering.
-Covert or Undercover Operations and Infiltration.
-Interdiction of Illegal Goods and Services.
-Patrolling and Community Work.
-Unofficial and Official Mediators and Arbitrators in Private Disputes.
-Riot Control, Curfew Enforcement, Raiding for Evidence and as an Aid to the Civil Power.
-Composing Police Reports and Collecting Data on Crime.
-Education and Indoctrination of the Public.
-Tax Farmers and Fine Collectors for the State.
-Property Confiscators through Forfeiture Laws and Regulations.
-Proactive Policing Methods like Inciting Violence at Public Demonstrations and Sting Operations/Entrapment Operations.
-The First Respondents of First Instance.
-Bully Boys in the Service of Power Elites.
-Assassins - Both illegal Extra-judicial Killings and Sanctioned Murders of Criminal Suspects.
-Strike Breakers and Tools of Suppression towards Organised Labour.
-Guardians and Enforcers of Acceptable Political Speech and Thought.
-Immigration Control and Deportation Duties.
-Political Gendarmes and State Controlled Paramilitaries.

I am sure that I have forgotten to list some roles which police have played in societies but this list is at least a start. Before you react negatively to any items on the list remember that the Russian Okrana and the German Gestapo were police forces and so some very unsavory items are listed which do not apply to all police forces.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.

I'd say theoretically the law is there to protect people and the police are there to enforce the law. In an idealised world there is no conflict.

Of course in reality not all of our laws genuinely protect people. The prohibition of marijuana for instance. You could argue as to whether the intent of the law is to protect people from harming themselves with substances, but it's pretty clear to me that marijuana does not do substantial harm to individuals or their communities.

With some reassessment of the law, there would be no conflict between the police enforcing the law and protecting citizens. That ought to be the ideal at least.

Sent from my LG-H840 using Tapatalk

holbritter said:

Good question. I always thought it was both, to protect citizens and enforce laws. If it's not to protect, then we need to protect ourselves apparently.

Click to expand...

What's that mean exactly?

radcen said:

This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.

Click to expand...

The police were originaly suppossed to help keep the peace, hence why they are called peace officers, as that was their original and primary duty. You see the remnets of that with the names of the various affiliated organizations involved with police. With the advent of the Pinkertons and police departments that were NOT elected and further the restrictions of who could run for elected sheriff, the idea of the enforcement of law came to fore and the idea of keeping the peace took a back seat.

radcen said:

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

Click to expand...

You can't really force heroism on someone. Even if you're paying someone to do a certain job nobody can have any real idea how that person is going to react when they actually find themselves in that situation. Police are taught to protect themselves and be safe first and foremost. Their job is to deter crime, and capture criminals, but they are not bodyguards. They are not secret service agents who are sworn to take a bullet for you or any other member of society. They have families of their own after all, and the life of any random individual citizen is not more important than their own. That being said their training and experience should allow them to effectively neutralize a violent bad guy, but each officer is different, and are still taught to not to any more than they can safely handle on their own.

Police are money grabbing agents... by arresting innocent people and people that committed non-violent crimes and incarcerating them in a money generating system that oppresses minorities. Illegal searches. Seizure of property. Etc.

...and when they feel scared by pretty much anything they are legally allowed to shoot and kill innocent citizens of the United States.

Police exist to ensure the state keeps a monopoly on violence, and to ensure the interests of those most relevant to the state are protected.

radcen said:

This thread prompted my question here, but rather than sidetrack that thread I am choosing to start a new thread. Part of the other person's point was this...

So... What is the legitimate role of police?

Is it to protect citizens? Is it to enforce laws? Is it both?

If they're not here to protect, why do we even have them? We could have a clean-up crew to take care of the carnage for a lot less money. Or maybe their role is to investigate crimes afterward, but if that's the case why are they out in force on a daily basis patrolling? Shouldn't they stay in the office until a crime happens?

If they are to enforce laws, but not protect, how do you separate the two? If a criminal is trying to kill someone, you have no obligation to protect the victim, but you do have an obligation to enforce the law, and battery/murder is illegal. How do you reconcile the two?

Just asking. We seem to have "progressed" to a disconnect.

Click to expand...

Legitimacy, like beauty, is a very subjective term and thus is in the eyes of the beholder. Police action that may seem legitimate to a greedy mining baron (beating the crap out of strikers to break an industrial action) may seem profoundly illegitimate to an urban shop-owner preoccupied with effective community policing and maintaining civil tranquility. What informs the views of pipeline companies' directors and managers about legitimate police action while they are trying to complete their projects is not what informs environmentalists and water-protectors who oppose such constructions about police action legitimacy. What preoccupies persons concerned with national security may seem illegitimate to those preoccupied with defending liberties and constitutinal rights. Relativism plays too large a role in this issue to arrive at a pan-societal definition of which police actions are legitimate and which are not in a comprehensive way.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.