Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by yareal 802 days ago
No, the term for that is gendarmerie.

If you've read my other posts you've probably been able to infer that I'm not a fan of the police, but I find that being quippy about them undermines actual meaningful conversation about their history and how they could change.
1 comments
thaumasiotes 802 days ago
> No, the term for that is gendarmerie.

That doesn't mean anything. If we renamed the police "gendarmes", what would be different?

link
gattilorenz 802 days ago
That the gendarmes wouldn't be a part of the army (but at that point the police might be).
link
yareal 802 days ago
I'm sorry, but it does have a different meaning. The gendarmerie are military units, police departments are typically civilian units. There's a clear difference in reporting, accountability, access to weaponry, training, and cultural expectations.

It's not just a different word. Maybe you are from a part of the world where military operate the police force and we have different experiences? I'm from the U.S.

link
thaumasiotes 802 days ago
> There's a clear difference in reporting, accountability, access to weaponry, training, and cultural expectations.

I'm happy to stipulate this. But it doesn't mean what you think it means.

> The gendarmerie are military units, police departments are typically civilian units.

Because this is clearly false.

Think about the Air Force. Compared to the Army, there is a clear difference in reporting, accountability, access to weaponry, training, and cultural expectations.

And yet, obviously, the Air Force is a division of the army (small 'a'). There are no civilians who care about the distinction between the Army and the Air Force, because it is meaningless outside of paperwork.

This is also true of the police. They have their own reporting structures, accountability procedures, weaponry, training, and internal culture, and they are very clearly a military organization. Their entire purpose is to enforce the will of the state by using violence. They do not have any function other than that. And that function is what defines the military.

link
yareal 801 days ago
Hmmmm.... on the one hand, I see and understand the argument you are making regarding the use of state violence. On the other hand, I don't think most folk use that as the only difference between military and civilian.

The police are subject to civilian law, cannot, for instance, be deserters. The police lack training and aren't a national force with unified standards. The police can just quit at any time. The police, in many places, are subject to civilian oversight and review.

The differences I think are still material, even though they do have the monopoly of state violence against the people of their nation.

link
thaumasiotes 801 days ago
> The police are subject to civilian law

That would be nice. In fact the police are immune to many laws.

> The police lack training

Huh?

> and aren't a national force with unified standards.

This is no part of what anyone thinks "military" means. Blackwater isn't a national force either.

> The police can just quit at any time.

This does not affect the nature of what they do.

> The police, in many places, are subject to civilian oversight and review.

Ditto.

Imagine you're explaining the police to someone from the year 1600. Your primary goal is to convince this person that they aren't soldiers. What would you say?

link