[woodman]

> Police are civilians ... it's a very important distinction.

The misuse of the word is a symptom of the real problem, it is deeply ingrained in police culture that they are fundamentally different. I think it was one of Dave Grossman's books, an author that enjoys a military and LEO following, that put forward the idea that they are sheepdogs - protecting the flock from the wolves. So that is a big problem, as the idea has gotten picked up in popular culture.

I don't really mind cops insisting that they aren't civilians, because I agree with them to a point - the root word doesn't seem to apply anymore. That is unlikely to change without a major overhaul in the standard escalation of force model, where the officer is taught to control a situation by being one level of force above everybody else - making them aggressors by default.

[simoncion]

> The misuse of the word is a symptom of the real problem...

Agreed.

> I don't really mind cops insisting that they aren't civilians...

I do. ;) Because...

> [Police use as a] standard [situation control mechanism the] escalation of force model, where the officer is taught to control a situation by being one level of force above everybody else - making them aggressors by default.

Military police use de-escalation of force by default when interacting with non-combatants. It is drilled and drilled and drilled into their heads that the very fact that they are armed and/or armored automatically escalates the situation, so they MUST continuously work to de-escalate the situation from the microsecond that they arrive on the scene.

Civilian police would be so much more competent and so much more reasonable if they had the same training that actual military personnel receive.

[woodman]

The only difference between what I said and what you said is that you've added that MP training emphasizes deescalation. Both MPs and civilian police observe the same force continuum, but it seems to me that MPs are simply more disciplined. I don't think it is realistic to try and bring regular cops up to that standard of discipline, it would be much easier to simply provide a less flexible justification for violence. Many years ago when I was in USMC security force I remember being trained on actions that nudge the escalation of force - which was likely the first time I heard the phrase "furtive movement". While I'd seen a fair amount force applied subsequent to that period of instruction, I never heard that justification used. It seems to be the go to justification outside of the military.

My point is that giving cops the latitude that the escalation of force provides is like giving the CEO's 15 year old nephew the commit bit and letting him write safety critical software in non-MISRA C.

[simoncion]

Aside from your first sentence, and your (entirely reasonable!) opinions about the difficulty of providing proper training to civilian police, I agree almost entirely with your commentary. [0]

The core of my objection to police personnel calling non-police "civilians" is twofold:

* It lets police benefit from the competency halo projected by the military and their training when -in fact- most police get precious little training.

* It seeks to create a deep division between the police and the communities they serve. Police should be members of (and get to know) the communities that they police.

[0] It's important that cops be able to react with force to uncontrollable, imminently dangerous situations. However, I expect that those situations pretty much never actually happen. ;)

[woodman]

We generally are in agreement, just for different reasons. Whatever cache that halo might have bought them is long gone, thanks to the media's collective realization that stories of police misconduct are of public interest - with no ill effect on the popular opinion of the military (that I have noticed). I think civilian police are just trying to find a way of distinguishing themselves from those subject to their protection, which as you said, creates a deep division. I think they'd change their mind if the cost was trading their constitutional protections for the UCMJ... freedom has a flavor that those who have never been subject to an article 134 will never know :)

[kelnos]

I don't think it is realistic to try and bring regular cops up to that standard of discipline

Why is that? I can understand if you think there's a practical problem with doing so (but would still lament that), but I think that ideally "regular cops" should absolutely be held up to that same standard. I mean, look... these people are literally given life-and-death responsibility over the general populace. They should be held to a ridiculously high standard.

[woodman]

> Why is that?

It is a practical problem. The military has an extremely long institutional memory and has perfected the process of mental conditioning over hundreds of years, to the point where 18 year olds can be given the power to kill and dropped into situations with little to no supervision - and it generally doesn't result in an x-rated version of Lord of the Flies. The methods that the military uses to accomplish this would not work for police without a costly tear down and slow rebuild. The list of methods is far too long to list here, but they include a culture of self policing enabled by a meaningful shared experience (basic redefinition of family), and a mythology that requires a carefully managed narrative of history (Gen MacArthur's farewell address at West Point is full of examples).

[darpa_escapee]

Even if it wasn't life or death, they still determine the outcome of your physical well being, future and livelihood. Giving them access to lethal force with practical impunity is the icing on the why-give-them-so-much-power cake.

[dalyons]

...which they do in most other western countries. Trained in de-escalation I mean.