Talk:Police/Archive/1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Un-professional images

Is it me or...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Cwjqu4as5.jpg | the man at the far right and the one with the ram are both exposed by the windows.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:US_Customs_and_Border_Protection_officers.jpg | aren't they supposed to be a little more spaced out than this, not only does this makes them an easy target... it also looks gay

Heaven forbid anyone should think there's any gayness in the police. bobanny 02:14, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Police_Poland_2_AB.jpg | I'm no professional but I think someone should get a firearm safety lecture ­­ Matt714 06:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

There seems to be a disproportionate number of images of the Polish police, so I have tagged the section in question as lacking in neutrality. Please add different images if possible. --JagSeal 22:23, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pig

Someone seems to have changed 'Pig' to redirect here. Can we have this changed back to redirecting to the 'pigs' article, or even to the disambiguation page? 15:50 (GMT) 21 February 2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.11.60.208 (talk) 15:51, 21 February 2007 (UTC).

It seeems to have already been sorted btw. Thanks for the note. Simply south 15:57, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

what's the problem with "pig" pointing to the police page? it's a common term, no? simply acknowledging this seems to be a neutral position. i don't see anyone trying to destroy the page over it. Christopher hayes 15:52, 1 June 2007 (UTC)christopher hayes

The problem is that when you look up pig in an encyclopedia, the information you find should be about an animal. Deleting an article in order to make it into a redirect for a derogatory term doesn't really make much sense. --OnoremDil 15:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] assessment

Another good article, held back by problems mentioned below, particularly lack of references.--SGGH 16:14, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Moving comments placed on main page here:

[edit] This article is highly POV.

It has the POV of the police and of lawyers.

For example, "critics" say that police are how the government uses its monopoly on force, but that police perform this function for government is an objective fact, and is therefore NPOV.

The rest of the article is riddled with police jargon, which gives it its police POV. For example, "the major role of the police is to discourage and investigate crimes, and if able to apprehend suspected perpetrator(s), to detain them, and inform the appropriate authorities." It's POV in part because it places more emphasis on the possibility that the "suspected perpetrator(s)" might by GUILTY than it places on the possibility that they might be innocent. In Western societies, a court must decide on guilt after the arrest takes place. A NPOV wording would put equal emphasis on both possibilities. The police jargon used (ie "detain", "crime", "perpetrator") insinuates the POV that breaking the law is morally wrong, and enforcing the law is morally right.

A more neutral description of their role might read "the major role of police is to forcibly capture anyone who has or may have acted in defiance of the law." Notice that in this wording, equal weight is given to both guilt and innocence, and the fact that what police do is violence is right out in the open, instead of masked by legalistic euphemisms, thus eliminating the POV that police violence is morally justified. By eliminating the use of the word crime, I remove the non-neutral connotation that breaking the law is morally wrong. Meanwhile, those views are not replaced by their opposites (crime is good and police violence is bad), which makes the description NPOV.

The article is descriptive of an entity, not a philospohical discussion. Being encyclopedic does not mean giving equal weight to all points of view in every sentence. A disclaimer somewhere near the beginning can divert the person looking for such a discussion to the proper philosphical article in the philosophical portal. Sometimes the mere abuse of NPOV-POV gives weight to one side, and this suggestion does. I agree about the jargon criticsm, but it's tough to avoid on occasion without sounding semi-literate. I added a paragraph at the beginning of the United States section which stresses that the police are tasked with putting people/organizations into the system (to determine if a crime was comitted and if so, did they commit it). How they continue through it or are cleared from it at various points along the way is a whole nother article in itself.--Buckboard 05:54, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, what a great topic! We should discuss famous police departments (Scotland Yard, NYPD, LAPD, others?), the history of police, the legal distinction(s) between military and police (and lacks thereof in some societies), what training police officers are typically required to have, comparison and contrast of policing systems, and police behavior...golly, the list goes on and on.

Yeah, and policing is a lifetime study as a discipline, some of these issues should get their own subarticles so we don't swamp the incoming reader user:clarka

Have to agree, this is seriously POV. It makes no mention of the darker side of police forces like e.g. Gestapo or the Stasi and the misuse of power concomitant therewith. Moreover, it makes assumptions about a) the nature of property b) the constitution of order and c) the nature of legislative authority and its ultimate derivation. This needs to be seriously addressed or it should imo be flagged directly with a POV flag. Sjc 08:14, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well fix it. There's plenty that can be said about police brutality, the conservative nature of police forces, the disjunction between the actual effectiveness of additional policing and the propensity of people to vote for it, their use in political oppression, and so on and so forth. However, don't try and turn this into an Indymedia anti-police rant either. --Robert Merkel 09:16, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I don't think that was implicit in my tone or was my intention. However, this nevertheless does look like a disproportionately POV article. Fortunately the police lie a long way outside my real ambit of interest, except perhaps in so far as the activities of earlier police systems (e.g. Burleigh's system of spies and informers) are concerned, and I am dealing with those as I go along. I am more concerned that we can set up an article as unbalanced as this as an encyclopaedic entry, and I would implore someone who has a background in criminology to take a good long hard look at this topic and fix it. Sjc 14:38, 9 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I've added an "Anarchist perspective" section inside the "Function in society" section, which should begin to help remedy the POV problem; as well as to include radical analysis for the sake of information. I'll be making further edits to this article to ensure NPOV. Word up. Zanturaeon 04:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Might I suggest there is a distinct difference between "Police Organization" and "Police Power". The single term "Police" as used to head this article does injustice to both. The points above are all valid, but they sound like an anti-police rant when referring to a "thing" (and police departments/agencies etc are "things") which has no inherent human philosophical characteristics one way or the other. If they have a "conservative nature," that is a reflection of the culture they are a part of, again a philosophical issue. Any way you cut it, a second article is needed, and this appears to be one of those topics where disambiguation is unavoidable--a person looking for information along either vein will have to start at a branch in the road. There is a great article waiting to be written out there on Police Powers.--Buckboard 06:03, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Contradiction with Texas Ranger Division

The Texas Ranger Division article says that the Texas Rangers are the oldest law enforcement agency. BlueGoose 01:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Centralized vs Decentralized

Perhaps, it would be interesting for many readers if the article included some more elaboration on centralized vs decentralized police models. The Encyclopedia Americana's Police article has an excellent entry on this in the passage starting from: "The proliferation of small decentralized police forces in the United States has produced an almost chaotic overlap of police jurisdiction. On the other hand, this development provides a bulwark against the threat of police ever becoming a nationalized political force or a secret agency of domestic spies...". I cannot simply paste this and the following paragraphs from Americana into Wikipedia because it would violate the Copyright. But if someone with a better knowledge of the topic and better English than mine would write on that, the article might very well benefit.

Article fails to mention controversy over existence of police. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:27 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

The truth is a mighty hard thing to defend against, sir :) Subtlety is your friend. Bear in mind the intellectual limits of those who would lie. Your statement is not entirely true! Blatant force of truth will be fought and deleted, but don't underestimate the audience, and bear in mind that this is a two-way street.

Article fails to mention secret police. --Daniel C. Boyer 18:28 Feb 2, 2003 (UTC)

Can we list our favourite nicknames for the constabulary?

  • Pigs
  • Filth
  • Rozzers
  • Old Bill
  • Fuzz --Daniel C. Boyer
  • Boeuf -- French translation of German epithet: "Beef"
  • Poulet -- French: "chicken"
as in (in France): "what do you get when the cop shop burns down?"
Ans: "Poulet Roulet" [anglicized transliteration: poo-lay roo-lay]== roast chicken
How's this ;)

Key

I Inoffensive or Informal
O Offensive
C Critical
  • Cop (I)
  • Copper (I) British, from Cop +-er. See Also, ACAB.
  • Bobby (I) British A reference to the Victorian Home Secretary (Interior Minister) Sir Robert Peel who set up the first Police Force in London (Metropolitan Police Act 1829). Also called "Peelers", though the term is now obsolete.
  • Plod (O/C) British, usually offensive, from Enid Blyton's Noddy books. Can connote Ineptitude. It can also be informal/inoffensive in the right context.
  • Popo (I) American, probably from the PO letters on uniforms [See Also]
  • Pig (C/O) Derogatory, probably related to fascism
  • Flatfoot (I)
  • Flic as in le flic
  • Fuzz (I) American, unknown origin, informal
  • Busies (I) British, inoffensive
  • Bluebottle (O) derived from Wasp, nickname for British Traffic Wardens?
  • Filth (C) British, maybe related to fascism (from earlier 'Nazi Filth'), or corruption
  • Old Bill (I) British, 1960's According to Chambers, the nickname probably arose because many policemen between the World Wars wore large walrus moustaches like that of 'Old Bill', a popular cartoon character of the time created by the British cartoonist B Bairnsfather (1888-1959).
  • Rozzer (O)
  • Tit Head (O) British, related to the helmet British beat officers wear, which is usually round in shape surmounted by a point or knob of some kind
  • Peeler (I) Northern Irish see "Bobby"
  • Boys in Blue (I) Complimentary, related to uniform
  • Finest (I) Suffixed against constabulory or region, Complimentary
yes, they're universally despised.
Think about it: in the USA, at least, even among small children there is the notion of a "tattle tale". This is not something you want to be in this society. A cop's role is to inform upon his fellow man for money. Children are taught from an early age to despise the police...

--Bagpuss

What I do not like is that I typed in "Old Bill", hoping to find an article which explained the above (which I have just inserted), but I was diverted to this article "Police" which is far too long, general and uncritical to be of much use to anybody. The only reference to "Old Bill" on this page is this small part on the discussion page. It is not good enough, there should be a separate article "Old Bill" pointing towards "Policing in the United Kingdom".

Sweetalkinguy 20:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I would say that my granddaddy, who served for 30 years in the San Jose (California) Police Department from the 40s to the 70s, said it best: "You might call cops pigs, but try calling a hippie when you're in trouble." Call the cops whatever you will, but see what you call them if ever you must call them... Tommythegun 10:50 10 May 2006 (UTC)
And sure, I know that if I ever need a violent thug to come kick disruptive teenagers out of my house or some such thing, I'll know who to call. Don't be so proud of your granddaddy being a policeman. As far as I'm concerned, Police on call are bastards for hire. You know it, I know it, everyone knows it. There's only one type of person lower than a cop, and that's a parking inspector. 150.203.11.219 05:55, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


I think the main deficiency in this article reads more like a comparison of the US police with the UK police than a generalized article on police. I also found this factually questionable and highly British in POV, so I removed "particularly the United States".

"In many jurisdictions, particularly the United States, police officers carry guns in the normal course of their duties."

The practice of police carrying firearms is hardly particular to the United States. --Daniel Quinlan 09:26 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Mr. Quinlan: Could you please explain the term "less-lethal" (either in the article or here [making clear why there it no need to explain it]? I think it may not be familiar to people. --Daniel C. Boyer 12:58 22 Jul 2003 (UTC)

No problem, "less-lethal" (also sometimes "less than lethal" although that term is somewhat confusing since it could be interpreted "non-lethal", but is meant to mean "not as lethal as a firearm") is the more recent term used to describe what was originally (and quite incorrectly) called "non-lethal" weapons. These weapons, while intended to be non-lethal, still pose a significant (if not great) risk of death or serious injury. For example, rubber bullets, projectile bean bags, and tear gas cannisters can hit someone in the wrong place (the eye or head) or be fired at too close in range and can result in death. Decapacitating chemicals and electric weapons ("taser" guns can cause more adverse reactions in some people (although I don't know of any deaths due to taser, I have seen a story about a miscarriage which you can interpret how you'd like).

See also:

Daniel Quinlan 02:09 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Thank you. The term itself seems to be an unfortunate one, as it at first blush seems to weigh something which is really binary (either you're dead or you're not). But it is part of the terminology of the subject. --Daniel C. Boyer 15:07 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I added some text to the non-lethal page about the other terms (perhaps could use some more information, or move them up to the beginning of the article as alternate words for the article). Maybe a redirect for less-lethal would be a good idea too. Daniel Quinlan 22:00 24 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Wouldn't a picture of a policeman be more appropriate than a helicopter?Lisiate 03:43, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

100% agreement. I would suggest an "average"-ish sort of uniformed policeman (as opposed to a SWAT officer or detective). Daniel Quinlan 03:52, Sep 28, 2003 (UTC)
How is a police officer pic more appropriate than a pic of some of the gear they routinely use? The article title is Police i.e the whole organisation, not just the people at the front end! By all means add a policeman pic (I don't have one) but please don't remove my helicopter pic.
Adrian Pingstone 07:36, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, dude, we're less attached to the picture than you are! Police does not equal Helicopter. Not even close. Daniel Quinlan 07:50, Sep 28, 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, Daniel, I'm baffled by your attitude. Just read the title of the article. I merely put on a photo of an important piece of police apparatus used by police forces the world over! Seems totally relevant to the article title but remove it if you wish, I don't get into edit wars
82.32.24.68 08:05, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Sorry, that last entry was mine. I forgot to log in.
Adrian Pingstone 08:08, 28 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Is Neighborhood Watch really a police service? Daniel Quinlan 23:31, Oct 4, 2003 (UTC)

No ... although they may be involved in routing information to and from members of an NW. --VampWillow 22:47, 2004 May 22 (UTC)

[edit] History of policing?

The main page today states that the London police force was the first official police force. That begs for information about what came before that? What was policing like before 'official' police forces and what made it more 'official' than others. - Taxman 16:59, Sep 29, 2004 (UTC)

Concur - need more on history, and better linking to related articles. Also a section on names for the police and the origins of these. Rd232 10:34, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Is there information available on police folklore---perhaps the origin of stereotypes? A police officer asked me to track down the origin of the police/dounut stereotype. Does anyone know where I might look?

[edit] Reorganising long lists

I'm trying to sort out the long lists on this page somewhat. I agree that most, if not all of the things mentioned are relevant, but it's all somewhat undifferentiated and hard to follow at the moment.

I've started by grouping the list of forces by country further into continents. If anyone doesn't think it's appropriate... that's what the revert thing's for. PMcM 01:36, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Changed about some of the other long lists at the end too, mostly breaking them up into smaller sub-categories. A few terms didn't fit into any of these, and were lost along the way. If anyone's particularly attached to any of them, then please feel free to stuff them in somewhere appropriate.

Not too fond of the list of notable police personnel, but not sure if it warrants a 'list of famous police personnel' page. Maybe a category? PMcM 02:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

How about fewer pictures of police vehicles and more pictures of actual police officers in various situations?AndyL 02:00, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

AndyL, I agree but it's not that easy. I put the the English police car pic on and I do have some pictures of the police. But I'm not putting them on because their faces show and I have no way of getting their permission. If I blur their faces, the pic looks really weird. Perhaps someone does have pics of police where their faces don't show clearly. - Adrian Pingstone 10:17, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Police in Media section?

How about a "Police in the Media" section? It could depict how police forces are depicted in shows and movies and could references popular shows such as COPS. It could also outline various police stereotypes... -BrandonR 07:00, Jan 14, 2005 (UTC)

I generally take offense to the paragraph relating to "cop-killers". This makes it seem as if all US police officers are ignorant monsters who would simply kill a suspect.

Uh, if you were actually familiar with American law enforcement, with its history, and the history of litigation against law enforcement, you would realize that the rule is quite common nationwide.

The basic problem is that since violent crime became epidemic in the U.S. along with the war on drugs in the 1980s, cops have become extremely trigger-happy and the courts have generally deferred to their discretion. The basic idea is that the burden is on suspects to show their peaceful intent. I know some people who work in healthcare who treat people shot up by cops all the time, because the cops misinterpreted some careless (but innocent) motion.

Try reading cases like Lyons v. Los Angeles (1983) sometime to get an idea of the problem.

--Coolcaesar 00:41, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Just saw an article in the L.A. Times last week about the problem of Los Angeles sheriff's deputies becoming too trigger-happy. Five incidents in two years where they fired anywhere from 50 to 120 bullets at a single suspect in a matter of seconds. The incident with 120 bullets fired in 2004 was particularly egregious since the suspect was unarmed. --Coolcaesar 08:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Term "sworn"

Can someone provide a definition of "swon" and "un-sworn" in reference to different categories of police personnel? Thanks ~ Dpr 08:32, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) Sworn officers are those who have gone through the police academy training and than take an oath to uphold the law. Unsworn or more usually "civilian" employees undertake other police jobs like dispatch, maintenance, secretarial duties and are not trained in policing or working under oath. Rmhermen 02:25, Jun 15, 2005 (UTC)

Maybe generally true today, but sworn in strictly means you have been granted government authority. Untrained specials could be sworn in temporarily during a crisis when the regular police were inadequate, the same as deputizing a posse in American westerns. Bobanny 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wage/Salary?

Shouldn't this article include average salaries for policemen? I think that's the kind of information most people would look for when they search for this article... --Berserk798 21:19, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

The salary for police officers does not only vary between departments, but it also varies between countries and continents. It depends on your rank, how long you have been with the force, your level of education prior to joining the force, and what your exact task is within the force itself (highway patrol, traffic, detective work, etc) This information would result in an article as long as (or longer) than the height of your body. However, if you're talking about the average salary for a regular patrol officer currently serving in the U.S or Canada, his salary would be about 60,000 to 76,000 depending, again, on many factors and variables. -- Squadcar56 19:18, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

entry in rural east georgia is 22,500

[edit] Is the ATF considered police?

Are they?Dudtz 10/7/05 6:17 PM EST

Depends upon what you mean as police. If by police, you mean the broad legal definition where it refers to any law enforcement officer, then yes. But if you mean the general casual sense where police means a local law enforcement officer, who handles all kinds of stuff from speeding to homicides, then no. --Coolcaesar 05:20, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Cop lingo

I deleted this section:

A number of colorful slang terms have found themselves into the terminology commonly used by police officers. Some examples are:

  • BCI: Bureau of Criminal Information (fingerprint and criminal records section)
  • CCRB: Civilian Complaint Review Board
  • CSI: Crime Scene Investigation
  • CSU: Crime Scene Unit
  • DOA: Dead on arrival
  • DRT: Dead Right There
  • DWI: Driving while intoxicated (a.k.a. "Dee Wee")
  • DT: slang for detective
  • EDP : Emotionally disturbed person
  • EMS: Emergency Medical Services
  • ESU: Emergency Services Unit
  • FAT: Fugitive Apprehension Team
  • Five-O: Slang for police (derived from TV police drama Hawaii Five-O)
  • Flying: as in "fly the coup" to work in another precinct or assignment
  • Go down: "You're going down" (being arrested)
  • Gun run: Going in search of a gun used in a crime
  • Hit: To assault or raid a known criminal location
  • IAB: Internal Affairs Bureau ("cops who investigate cops")
  • Lawyering up: A suspect shuts up and requests a lawyer
  • Lou/Loo: slang for lieutenant
  • MOS: Member of the Service, a radio code word identifying a police officer
  • OC: Organized crime
  • Package/VIP: Escorted prisoner, as in "delivering a package" to a destination
  • Paying the rent: Doing grunt work like issuing traffic summonses or tickets
  • Perp: Perpetrator of a crime (also "Mope" or "Mutt")
  • Puzzle Palace: Slang for main police headquarters
  • Rabbi: A reliable, trustworthy person in the work environment, who one can go to for advice
  • Rat Squad: Officers and detectives who work for IAB
  • Red Menace: Nickname for members of the fire department (a.k.a. "Rubbermen")
  • Rip: Pay reduction, resulting from a disciplinary action
  • RMP: Radio Mobile Patrol
  • Skel: short for "skeleton", refers to drug users, junkies, or homeless vagrants. Possibly short for
  • SNAG: Special Narcotics and Guns Unit
  • SNEU: Special Narcotics Enforcement Unit
  • SOD: Special Operations Division
  • TARU: Technical and Research Unit/Technical Assistance Response Unit
  • Tunnel Rats: Transit police officers (usually work in subways)
  • White Shirts: Senior officers (sergeant and above) who wear white police uniform shirts

These are almost exclusively US terms. If people want to add these then a new article should be created specifically about US police. -- Necrothesp 16:17, 15 October 2005 (UTC)


I agree, anything else that's leaning towards policing in the US should be removed. --Squadcar56 20:05, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Are riots against interracial police violence "routine" in the US?

I take umbrage with the following statement in the "Difficult issues" section:

Police forces also find themselves under criticism for their use of force, particularly deadly force when a police officer of one race kills a suspect of another race. In the United States, such events routinely spark protests and accusations of racism against police.

Is it a matter of routine that protests occur? There are many nonprovocative instances in which there is little question that the use of force (deadly or otherwise) by police against members of a different race than the responding officers is justified. It would be accurate to say that these "often" spark protests and accusations. "Routinely" may represent a non-neutral POV.

DrBlintz 07:48, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, it depends upon which city you are talking about. Certainly, in volatile and severely segregated cities like Los Angeles, protests and accusations are routine whenever a police officer shoots someone of another race for any reason (valid or not). But such responses are not as common (or at least not as heavily publicized) in most other American cities. I don't know who put that paragraph in, but I agree that it should be modified.--Coolcaesar 22:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

So much of the "difficult issues" section is WAY over-stated. Serpico and death threats arounbd every corner. 34 years policing Dayton, Ohio (currently one of the top-10 crime rates in US) and NEVER encountered the "code of silence". If you want to leave this kind of crap in the "encyclopedia", it's to Wiki's detriment.

[edit] Pretty pictures and more

The articles nl:Politie in Nederland and de:Polizei contain lots of pretty pictures and information. Shinobu 15:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vice (disambiguation)

What about vice squads? I looked at the disambig page and didn't see it there. I couldn't find it here either. I was trying to link it from Sex Slaves which I just created. - RoyBoy 800 06:20, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed claim

I've just temporarily removed the following paragraph: The oldest police department in the United States is the Virginia Capitol Police Department, headquartered in Richmond, Virginia. It was established in 1618 at Jamestown, Virginia to protect the Colonial Governor and Assembly from Indian attack. The Virginia Capitol Police, while tracing its origins back to 1618, was effectively dissolved in times it was still being called the Virginia Public Guard. It was disbanded in 1869 and reconstituted again in 1884. Thus the assertion of being the oldest "police department", should be debated at the proper article's Talk page before re-adding said paragraph at this article. Reference: Virginia Historical Society. - Phædriel ♥ tell me 02:01, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Anarchist perspective

Is there some reason this section is at the top of the page? I mean right under Function in Society, we have the "Anarchist perspective"? On top of being way too prominent, this section seems to describe more of a socialist perspective than an anarchist perspective to me. "the threat to citizens' safety almost always originates from class inequality or the psychological effects of hierarchy, and that these crimes would not exist in a classless, anarchist society, since (theoretically), everyone would have access to everything they want and need, including a non-hierarchical community." Can we move this to the "Socialist" page?

Maybe we should move the "Function in societ" further down so that it's less prominent, or something. It's not really broadly "socialist" because the revolutionary/anarchist analysis is the only socialist analysis of police that suggests they're fundamentally destructive and should be removed from society. BUT, maybe there should be more sub-sections to this? Anarchism is the only philosophy that I know of that has an overt discussion of the police's purpose in society that differentiates from the rest of political theory, all of which affirms the police's position as fundamentally (or possibly) good. But right, it probably is too prominent - but it definitely does need inclusion or at least mention here, since it's a markedly different perspective on the discussion of police. At least, I think so. Word up. Zanturaeon 06:14, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Yo. So I gave it some thought for a little bit and came back and made some more changes to my additions. I removed the ===Anarchist perspective=== tag n' integrated that section into the main part of "function in society". Then I modified the text to represent the broad socialist perspective and the specifically anarchist analysis in proportion to the ammount of difference from the traditional view, and I also modified and moved the paragraph about charges of bigotry to the "Difficult issues" section, removing mention of socialism & anarchism excepting the opening sentence which mentions that the view of police as enforcing bigotry as being prominent among leftists. E'rybody look over and tell me what you think. I think this is much better. Word. Zanturaeon 22:50, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Hello again. The current form of the article, with the section "Difficult issues", is I think much more attractive and substantially more NPOV than earlier edits that I had introduced. I'd also like to apologize for my edits, which I think were blatantly and unnecessarily POV. Cheerio. Zanturaeon 00:45, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

How do people here feel about merging Police with Police officer? --Generalcp702 00:11, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Makes sense to me. We could probably port the whole article directly into this one without making much changes, n' redirect officer to this main police article. So yeah. Zanturaeon 06:27, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that is a good idea. Soldier and Army are not merged for example. The article itself is already long enough as it is. Besides merging it to an article that is significantly larger will discourage people from adding info by decreasing independant visibility. Only when the two articles start reiterating each other should they be merged. Angrynight 02:04, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Hm, yes that's true. So perhaps we should work to expand Police officer, then? It is rather lacking. We could talk about what it's like to be a cop in diff. countries and times, and cops in pop. culture and stuff. ... In fact, there might even be some material we could move from here to police officer and have the articles refer to each other. Whadya think? Zanturaeon 06:54, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. I'm moving "notable police personalities" and "police officers better known in other walks of life" to officer. Generalcp702 11:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Angrynight- do not merge. Generalcp702's change is a step in the right direction toward differentiating the two articles. Can we remove the merge tag yet?QuixoticKate 14:56, 20 April 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Anthony Appleyard went ahead and merged the articles and redirected Police Officer to this page. I'm confused by this, and think it was a bad change (as discussed above). I must admit I'm not very active here, and I know that Wikipedia is not a democracy but is this standard operating procedure, given that the consensus was leaning toward not merging the articles? I'm certainly not going to just revert this, and Appleyard seems like a very active and probably knowledgeable user, but I thought that Angrynight's point re: Soldier and Army was dead on (in fact, I think that argument is even stronger here). QuixoticKate 15:16, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
I've undone the merge. This page is already long enough and there's a lot that can be said about police officers. 24.127.224.173 18:47, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Police officer

Many comments on this page are about police officers but there is a separate article for that. Generalcp702 23:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but without the police officers there would be no police force. Police officers make up the majority of any police force, therefore they must be mentioned numerous times within this article. However, some tweaking can be done to make the presence of the 'police officer' less noticable. -- Squadcar56 21:14, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of section

Just dropping a line here that I reverted the article a couple edits back because someone 132.239.167.253 anonymously and without explanation deleted a section I had added. Also the edits made since then were just vandalism/fixes of vandalism, anyways. Word up. Zanturaeon 17:45, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

The fourth paragraph in "Function in Society", the one having derived from the aforementioned section, had again recently been deleted by user:JsinGood (at 10:22 April 6 2006); so I've again restored it, as there was no given or apparent reason and it apparently was vandalism. I didn't revert it as I had reverted before because the edit after his/hers was a useful link to the Commons' police material. Word up homies. Zanturaeon 04:53, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] India and "Jeeps"

From the article: "...the various state police forces in India extensively use the Jeep as their main mode of transport."

This is ambiguous as the link goes to the article on the Willys-Overland Jeep brand now owned by Daimler-Chrysler. I'm not sure Indian police typically use Jeeps, although they might use "jeeps" of some sort, SUVs, or other 4x4s. Can someone clarify this? 24.155.88.186 17:44, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Fallacy in the following line: "most crimes originate from class inequality or the psychological effects of this as well as hierarchy, and therefore that these crimes would not exist in a classless and non-hierarchical society, where goods are evenly distributed and hierarchy has been removed." A causes some B, Therefore, if you remove A all B will cease.

[edit] heading: Line of duty deaths

I was wondering is this encyclopedic in itself and is anyone prepared to keep it updated? And also maybe balance it with some information from jurisdictions other than N. America and the UK. It might also benefit from being surrounded by some context (some of this already in the article), eg the arming of police, public expectation of police role or similar. Anyway I'm not sure of the value of these figures by themselves. Also 'line of duty' is a phrase with cultural resonance in the U.S. / N. America but not necessarily elsewhere. -- Hakluyt bean

It would be very difficult to keep this section updated. -- Squadcar56 21:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Nicknames for the Old Bill, Coppers, Cops, Les Flics etc.

Or even the one entered by user 24.210.64.218 which I've deleted. Among his/her past achievements a contribution to the wiki article on poop. He/she raises an interesting point though. Should we not have some mention of this? Nicknames I mean. Contrary to a comment earlier I can't see a section on 'Police Officer' which may be the place for it. I also can't find Cops or Coppers? I mean I don't need one right away but... :)-- Hakluyt bean 23:09, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I can give you a few Dutch nicks: "smeris" (pl. "smerissen"), "juut" (pl. "juten"), "flik" (pl. "flikken"), "klabak" (pl. "klabakken"), "prinsemarij" (the police), "witte muizen" (highway police), "luis" (Leiden, pl. "luizen"), "ballenjatter" (The Hague, pl. "ballenjatters"), "bromsnor" (pl. "bromsnorren", from a TV-series(?)), "dof gajes" (plainclothesmen, more at [1]), there are probably more... Shinobu 12:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
And as someone pointed out, there's always the Bobby. Shinobu 08:23, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Moved Vehicle Data

I migrated the prolix info about Irish police vehicles to the Garda Síochána article; I don't think it belongs in an article about police and policing in general.

Patrol cars are mainly white, with two small blue strips and one large luminous green strip running down the centre. The Garda crest is also on the patrol cars. Garda patrol cars are identical to civilian vehicles and feature no engine or performance improvements, however higher performance cars are normally bought, ie Ford Mondeo 2.5 V6

--Ori.livneh 10:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Departments

The line that 'A police department is the organisation or commission that is made up of police officers.' is US-centric, as police organisations can also be police forces, police services, gendarmeries, constabularies and various other names. It should be removed. MickBarnes 10:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thailand Police

There's nothing about it. Mdoc7 04:26, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

There is a stub at nl:Politie in Thailand. It's also likely that the Thai wiki has something. Unfortunately I don't speak Thai. Shinobu 03:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of Singapore police officers killed in the line of duty

There needs to be similar articles for other countries. Chris 23:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC) http://www.odmp.org/year.php

[edit] Dutch police

I just translated the article Dutch police because I wanted to put a link to it somewhere; it took longer than I thought it would.

Perhaps someone could have a fresh look at it? Never mind the redlinks, just check whether the article is clear for non-Dutch audiences. Shinobu 03:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Patrol car images

Some of the sections in the list of Police forces by country have an image of a patrol car or something similar, while some don't. For some of the ones that don't a suitable image is available. Would it be nice to add these? Shinobu 20:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I think there are too many police car photos. One (or maybe two) is enough. The rest can go in the relevant subarticles. This many police cars gives the impression that all police do is ride around in their cars, and don't interact with citizens. That's less the case nowadays. --Aude (talk contribs as tagcloud) 21:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you're right, it's a bit one-sided. On the other hand, images light a page up a bit. I think the page still contains a lot of proza that may be a worthwhile read, but that would look a bit less daunting with an image. The reason patrol cars were used in the list of countries section is probably that they're recognizable. But we could easily use other pictures, I guess. (Motor)bikes? An officer? A copter? I like the Segway :-) Shinobu 13:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Removed para

Within the United States and other modern countries, dislike for the police force has led to a common stererotype of officers of the law as slothful, doughnut-devouring pigs. Although the term was popularized during the 1960s by political protestors who frequently found themselves at odds with the law, the origins date back further. Criminals have used the term for many years, and as far back as an 1811 reference in OED to a pig from the Bow Street Runners, an early police force. The term actually dates back to the 16th century, during which the word "pig" or "swine" was used to someone who was thoroughly disliked. In modern times, pig has become such a common idiom that a Google search reveals more than 7 million hits.

Needs proper sourcing, and I dislike the reference to Google as if it were an almighty truth-revealing entity. "The term" is not defined before usage, similary "OED". Perhaps more useful at police officer. Shinobu 00:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French police

Surprised that there is no listing for French police in the list of countries. Could somebody add please? (Ajkgordon 08:58, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

Is "lietenant generals" (cf. "vice presidents") a correct plural, or should it be "lieutenants general" (cf. "secretaries general")? (User:Shulgi 18 December 2006, 17:45 (UTC)

[edit] Bobbies can still be found...

"Bobbies can still be found in many parts of the world..." What on earth is this intended to mean? (The word "Bobbies"?, the style of uniform?)

[edit] Arrest

Info regarding monopoly should be qualified to provide for "citizen arrest." --Daniel C. Boyer 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


"Citizen arrests" have very little to do with police themselves, and they only act as a danger to any civilian idiotic enough to risk one. It has no place in an article about police. Squadcar56 21:45, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, that depends... I don't know anything about American law, but according to Dutch law you can detain someone until the Police arrives, which makes it related.
@"a danger to any civilian idiotic enough to risk one": and anyone joining the Police is obviously an idiot too by the same standard. You shouldn't bash people doing the right thing. Anyway, citizen arrest is mainly invented for things like shoplifting, burglary and similar offences. In those cases the risk is small compared to the expected return (i.e. the perpetrator being brought to justice). Shinobu 13:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Three philosophies of policing?

I don't have references for this I'm afraid, but have long understood that there are different policing models according as to whether the police are see as primarily an arm of the legislature, judiciary, or executive. I wonder if taking this into account would help clarify some of the discussion.

In the US, 'We the people' makes the legislature the embodiment of the 'General Will' - police there are creatures of the legislature, and so 'law enforcement officers', hence armed.

In the UK, the unfinished nature of the English and Glorious Revolutions has meant that while civil rights are well and long-established, only the House of Commons could convincingly claim to represent 'we the people' - hence policing has to be by consent, hence police officers cannot be armed (if they were generally so armed, they'd turn into law enforcement officers). This is why police uniforms are blue - to get as far away from any suggestion that the police were anything to do with the 'Redcoats' (the standard uniform of the British Army in 18th/19th centuries), and so not a standing army in disguise. Their primary role is to keep the Queen's peace, not to enforce the law. Historically parish constables reported to the local magistrate. Thus British police are creatures of the judiciary.

In Europe, police forces are typically creatures of the executive, and often under military control - the Guardia Civil in Spain and Gendarmerie in France are examples of this (I don't know where you'd put US State Troopers in this classification). It is only under this model that you can have a secret police, which is is not the same as covert police surveillance, of course. That can go on under any model. But Gestapo, for example was not slang. It stood for its official title GEheimeSTaatsPOlizei - secret state police. The function of secret police is to enforce government policy, usually through fear and state terror.

If I'm talking rubbish, please don't bite me!

Paulredfern1 11:43, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

No this doesn't make much sense. For one thing U.S. police are under the executive branch (federally and in most states) - except for the very small Capitol Police which guard that building. Rmhermen 04:06, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
The British Police seems to be a law enforcement agency just like any other police force.
Having a police force under military control is not a requirement for conducting shady business (see CIA, NSA, certain FBI operations).
Most European police forces fall under the executive branch and/or the judiciary. In the Netherlands e.g. the Police and the OM fall under both: under the Judiciary for investigation and under the Ministries of Internal Affairs and the Ministry of Justice for most other duties. See Dutch Police.
As for gendarmeries, they may be a military body, but that has nothing to do with the branch of government they work for. The Dutch Koninklijke Marechaussee performs duties for all three branches.
(replied before having read response below) Shinobu 13:52, 18 December 2006 (UTC)



OK - the problem I have is trying to explain to US visitors to UK why the British police aren't armed and US police generally are. I do remember reading a story years ago about (I believe) a Minnesota police chief who tried to shift over to the British model of policing (He failed - due to opposition from within his force), and that article was used as a tag to explain the different philosophies of policing in the two countries.

I guess what I am trying to get at is that 'We the people' would explain why it is acceptable for US police officers to be armed; because 'We the people' means that policing in the US is implicitly always 'by consent', and so policing there is seen primarily as a question of law enforcement (with the emphasis on 'enforcement'). In the UK, where technically there are no citizens (of the UK), but merely subjects of Her Majesty (though, bizarrely, all are citizens of the EU), 'consent', of the policed to their policing, must explicitly be sought after; and this means not arming the police, who would otherwise simply be able to enforce their will. Surveys of serving British police, incidentally, show general support for remaining unarmed.

Secondly, countries with a common-law tradition do not generally have secret police forces (as defined previously), whether this is because of the common-law tradition itself, or the historic lack of need for a standing army, I couldn't say. But why this should be is worthy of interest, and maybe should be included in an article on police.

To take a related topic as an example, the doctrine of the separation of the powers means very different things in the US and in France. In the US, of course, it means a judiciary independent of and equal to the legislature and executive. In France, it means that legislators should legislate and judges should judge - judges should be the mouthpieces of the legislature. The debates over whether the Supreme Court should or should not be involved in making social policy (abortion, bussing, segregation etc), simply could not happen in France. Judicial decisions do not make law in France but are simply exercises in showing how the civil code is applicable to the case in question. Similarly I am suggesting that the relation of the police to a) those they police, and b) to those on behalf of whom they exercise their policing roles may not always be the same in different jurisdictions.

So I take Rmhermen's point, and not wishing to turn what should be a forum on which to raise points of information or points of order into a bulletin board, will withdraw from the debate. As a departing comment however, I do maintain that the topic would be better served by a systemic consideration of the relation of the police to 1) those to whom they report and 2) to those they police, and how these relations (may or may not) differ in different parts of the world, or under different legal systems. I agree that the way I tried to develop the point was not very articulate, but I do believe that there are differences and that these are likely to be systemic (underpinned by different philosophies of policing). --Paulredfern1 13:35, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
See Uniforms and equipment of the British police - the difference is a historical one. Note that some British police forces are issues firearms as a matter of course, as are a lot of continental forces. Note also that trying to set up an American unarmed or lightly armed police force will raise severe objections from whithin the force - this has probably everything to do with the USA's lack of gun control. If every citizen could have a gun, you simply need one to perform your duties as an officer of the law. Shinobu 13:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
The armed/unarmed difference is historical, and has to do with the state's relationship to society, so in the US, guns are so 'the people' can protect themselves from encroachments of the state, whereas Bobbies were unarmed essentially so that the state could extend itself deeper into society in a way that was palatable to the citizens. It was felt an alternative was needed to bringing in the military to quell unrest, partly because something more effective was needed and because the military was pretty over-extended in the early decades of the 19th century with the expanding empire and all. Policing in the US was strictly a local thing until the mid-1930s, when the FBI went national. Before that, the Post Office was the only federal agency with a truly national reach. The thinking behind the different approaches seem to be more about national prejudices than philosophy, so the idea of different models seems problematic to me. The English model was in many ways set against the French, so the London Police was designed to at least appear the antithesis to the gendarmerie in France. In the US, the oppressive British Empire they revolted against was the bogey their police were set against, which ironically led to the Pinkerton's model of private policing that didn't exactly nurture liberty. The best comparison I've seen if anyone's interested, is Wilbur R. Miller, "Cops and Bobbies," a journal article that has been expanded into a book. Don't know if this helps, but these are some issues I've been trying to wrap my head around lately. Bobanny 19:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


OK, I know I said I wouldn't bother you any more with this, and this is positively my last appearance. To Shinobu, as a point of information, I would point out that gun control wasn't properly introduced into UK until after WW1 (Gun_politics_in_the_United_Kingdom#History_of_gun_control_in_the_United_Kingdom). You may recall that the amateur detectives, Sherlock Holmes and Dr Watson, regularly went out 'packing heat'! If every citizen is potentially armed, the need for unarmed police to ensure consent would be all the greater. And secondly, very few police, principally Diplomatic Protection officers, and SO19, the people responsible for the Menezes shooting (Jean_Charles_de_Menezes), are issued arms as a matter of course. Even then however, officers can only use those arms on the orders of a senior officer, I think superintendent (4 or 5 ranks above 'constable'), or above, though I happily stand to be corrected on this. London squad cars that do contain firearms are distinctively red, rather than the normal white, in colour, the arms are locked in the trunk and again can only be broken out on the order of a senior officer.
To Bobanny, I agree completely that the armed/unarmed difference is historical, and has to do with the state's relation to society. I think our only point of difference is on where 'national prejudices' end, and 'competing philosophies' begins! As to different models, I should have made clear that I doubt whether any police chief/justice ministry has ever sat down and said: "OK, we are going to follow xyz model of policing, when we set up our police force". The 'model' I had in mind was more of an analysts/analytical construct, than an operational model. I apologise for the lack of clarity. Your comments on how the English model was set against the French and the US against the British were exactly the kinds of ideas I was trying to air for consideration on how this topic might be improved. My work here is evidently done. I shall take up your reference to the Miller book with interest.
Evenin' all - and let's be careful out there!
--Paulredfern1 11:22, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Don't feel obliged to respond if you're moving on to greener (less blue?) pastures, but I would like to begin reworking this article once I muster the courage and the time, and agree that these big issues need to be teased out more. The different 'models', like applied political theory generally, aren't a good representation of reality for many reasons, but unavoidable in thinking about policing in a global way, which this article should reflect. I'm starting to think a separate article for "law enforcement" might be the way to go, so that the "operational" and "analytical/philosophical" aspects of policing can be dealt with adequately without having a massive, convoluted article that covers it all. And maybe another one dedicated to the history of "police" in it's very broad sense. I'm not fond of the current country snippets that collectively don't do much for the general subject. I do disagree with your definition of Secret police, but that's another messy article and discussion. Bobanny 14:13, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

I must correct some misconceptions in the above paragraph about the British police. Diplomatic Protection Officers and SO19 (now actually called CO19) are two specialist units of the Metropolitan Police which polices Greater London. Officers of these specialist units are armed (CO19 is there to support its unarmed colleagues with incidents involving firearms). Other armed specialist units within this particular force would include Royalty Protection and certain officers in Special Branch but there are others. A more accurate picture would be to look nationally, as nearly all police forces in the UK has an armed element. I recall being told that less than ten percent of the 120,000 officers in the country are rountinely armed.

Your understanding of when an officer can use a firearm is quite frankly wrong. A police constable carrying a firearm can self authorise the use of his weapon if he comes across an incident. (For example, on patrol an armed officer comes across an armed robbery in progress - the officer can use his weapon and fire if needed to protect life etc, without having to first get authority - he can self authorise). The Superintendents authority is required for pre-planned armed operations, such as an armed entry whilst executing a search warrant. The red cars mentioned above only designate that the vehicle is part of the Diplomatic Protection Group (a specialist unit of the Metropolitan Police) and has nothing to do with being armed. Most armed officers drive around in vehicles that are identical in livery to any other police vehicle. For information your comments re 'the weapons being locked in the trunk and can only be broken out after authorisation of a senior officer' is also wrong. The officers have the weapons holstered on their person and do not require authority to get weapons out of the vehicle. Dibble999 12:19, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Images

Posting the links here, so I don't forget them:

Shinobu 14:01, 18 December 2006 (UTC)