Admittedly, I didn't think all the way through how to format it best. I
was thinking that perhaps all of the team members could just throw
topics or questions into the blog and everyone interested enough to
address them could do so in the comments sections. If you want to be added to the "Team" of administrator-enabled members, please contact me via Facebook.
So let's begin with something fraught.
The recent issues in Ferguson, with their conclusion still some months away, begs a few questions about politics, power, race, domination, and even media coverage that have been dealt with somewhat poorly.
Since the facts of the case are yet to be determined, let's get right to the heart of it.
Max Weber's definition of the state as any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" is the now unconscious basis for almost every mainstream discussion of the state or political action.
But that definition in itself leaves some pretty serious spaces to be filled-- what constitutes legitimacy? How does a state or entity lose legitimacy? Is the process of legitimation democratic? If it's not, can it be? Can that legitimacy be divided and delegated (in what circumstances is such vesting of power acceptable?)
More specifically--why do police in the United States carry firearms nearly universally? And why do they resort to them more often than police in other "Western" or "developed" nations?
And what about unintended consequences-- the reaction to police over use of Tazers over the last couple of years seems (in my view) conceivably linked to unwillingness to use "less lethal" options when force is necessary (if the public begins to see Tazers, as indeed seems to be the case, less and less as a 'safe' option, the circumstances under which an officer would elect to use or carry a Tazer become increasingly identical to the circumstances under which the same officer would elect to use a firearm).
And do police in the United States see themselves as outside the polity--somehow distinct from 'civilians,' as I often hear police refer to non-police?
For maximum entertainment value, imagine how Russian or perhaps even North Korean media might cover this particular instance. (In fact, Russia Today is easily available)
So let's begin with something fraught.
The recent issues in Ferguson, with their conclusion still some months away, begs a few questions about politics, power, race, domination, and even media coverage that have been dealt with somewhat poorly.
Since the facts of the case are yet to be determined, let's get right to the heart of it.
Max Weber's definition of the state as any "human community that successfully claims the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory" is the now unconscious basis for almost every mainstream discussion of the state or political action.
But that definition in itself leaves some pretty serious spaces to be filled-- what constitutes legitimacy? How does a state or entity lose legitimacy? Is the process of legitimation democratic? If it's not, can it be? Can that legitimacy be divided and delegated (in what circumstances is such vesting of power acceptable?)
More specifically--why do police in the United States carry firearms nearly universally? And why do they resort to them more often than police in other "Western" or "developed" nations?
And what about unintended consequences-- the reaction to police over use of Tazers over the last couple of years seems (in my view) conceivably linked to unwillingness to use "less lethal" options when force is necessary (if the public begins to see Tazers, as indeed seems to be the case, less and less as a 'safe' option, the circumstances under which an officer would elect to use or carry a Tazer become increasingly identical to the circumstances under which the same officer would elect to use a firearm).
And do police in the United States see themselves as outside the polity--somehow distinct from 'civilians,' as I often hear police refer to non-police?
For maximum entertainment value, imagine how Russian or perhaps even North Korean media might cover this particular instance. (In fact, Russia Today is easily available)
I'm not sure what unintended consequences you're speaking of regarding the perception of tasers or non-lethal force but there's reason to doubt the significance to Ferguson, MO. On the one hand, the protests in Ferguson seem to be as much about the use of excessive non-lethal force (see http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html) as the excessive use of deadly force. On the other hand, taser's adoption timeline doesn't allow it to explain the historic context or specific details of Ferguson, MO. The 1992 protests in LA in response to the beating of Rodney King occurred a year before LA police officers were among the first to adopt the taser (http://inthesetimes.com/article/2894). And in 2014, when Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown, the Ferguson PD was not equipped with tasers (anyone have a link?).
ReplyDeleteYou were being extremely coy but if I'm allowed to read into your suggestion, the role of non-lethal force is likely to be the opposite. The significance of non-lethal force and related gear is likely to increase in terms of sales to and adoption by police, and acceptance by the non-police public, in light of the killing of Michael Brown and the following protests. Those who feel threatened by the protests are likely to encourage any means the police feel is necessary and those that object tend to focus most of their attention on the most visible or most violent means of force.
Two examples: First, the critical reactions to police during recent events of Ferguson, MO tend to focus on the killing of Michael Brown, and later Kajieme Powell, as well as the 'militarization' of police (specifically the large vehicles and pointing of large guns), while generally ignoring the overuse of tear gas, curfews, loitering restrictions, and other 'smaller' kinds of force. It might seem that there have been very few specific calls for increased use of non-lethal force. I would argue, though, that the loudest and most specific proposal, in favor of officers being equipped with body cameras, is a call for a certain kind of force---the non-lethal force of surveillance. Since the protests, TASR stock has soared (http://finance.yahoo.com/echarts?s=TASR+Interactive#symbol=TASR;range=1m) likely due more to their manufacture of body cameras for police than stun guns.
But the general point is that, rather than a public backlash against non-lethal force causing more violent force from police, it seems more likely that a public backlash against violent force of police (both lethal and non-lethal) would tend to result in a *greater* overall acceptance for non-lethal force of many kinds.
A well-written response, but both you and Charley have missed the actual reason for the Ferguson protests, mostly because a great deal of modern media seems allergic to discussing race.
DeleteThe case of Michael Browns death starts with a concern that a police force with a history of racist behavior shot a kid because he was black and acting out. This is not to say that Brown wasn't a criminal, or wasn't disturbing the orderly progress of the street he was walking on, but it is to say that what we know of this police force and human psychology makes many people wonder if he would have been shot had he been white.
But the police response was the biggest problem. There was an optics problem of leaving his body on the ground for four hours after the incident. There was the condescending nature of the control policies- curfews are for children, and insult the people they should be trying to mollify. There was no police report until the press was demanding one- at best, the police were too busy doing other things, at worst, they didn't consider the killing of a black kid important enough to do the paperwork. They refused to identify the officer, signaling to the public that the police had something to hide and were going to cover the ass of the police officer. When they did, they also tried to justify the shooting by painting Brown as a criminal- as if a suspect in a mild burglary deserved to be shot.
Consistently, the police force showed a complete lack of self-awareness or concern for the feelings of the public. It was a disregard that I think, again- isn't solely because the victim was black, but I don't think would have occurred if he wasn't.
Let's also take note of a word use. The events in Ferguson have generally been called either "riots" or "protests". Riot has a different connotation than protest- Riots imply looting, burning cars, and violence. Protest implies signs, chants, and some internal organization, but no violence.
It is my hypothesis that the events in Ferguson, associated with black people, will be called a "riot" more than a similar event associated with white people.
This is a google trends chart of the terms "Ferguson riot" and "Ferguson protests" over the last 30 days. Roughly, the events are referred to as "riots" 5 times as often as they are referred to as "protests". The divergence does start on the second day, where there was looting- 2 police officers were reported as injured, and 30 people were arrested. The divergence peaks on Thursday, when the police dispersed protesters and journalists with tear gas.
Let’s compare to an event associated not associated with people of color- the 1999 WTO convention in Seattle- an anti-globalization protests with no racial element in my mind. A google search of the term "Seattle WTO protests" returns 239,000 hits. The Term "Seattle WTO Riots" returns 94,000. Riots is less common than protest by about 30/07 split, opposed to Ferguson, which had a riot/protest ration of about 85/15.
So what's my argument? That these events are absolutely, and without question, racial. The behavior of the victim- just in living his life- influenced by race. The behavior of the cop- almost certainly influenced by race. The behavior of the Police force as a whole- probably influenced by race, and definitely deaf to the implications and tone of their policies. The reactions of the protesters- definitely influenced by race. The coverage of the media- definitely influenced by race.
My point is that anyone talking about these events without talking about race is missing the point. Militarization of police forces, yes it is a huge problem and probably the biggest indicator of a living and happy military/industrial complex, but anyone talking about that issue right now is just looking for a way to ignore the racist elements of these protests and America at large.
It is racial apologetics by omission.
Just lost a big response trying to find old articles (firefox crash), but here's the spark notes:
ReplyDeleteTasers and Ferguson aren't directly connected, and I wasn't very clear in my original post about what I meant by unintended consequences.
In 2012 or thereabouts, there was a spate of taser-induced deaths that got a lot of media coverage at the time. Some of them were clear cases of abuse (repeatedly shocking subjects who where on the ground, etc). But others were less clearly abuse, and resulted in a general impression (in media coverage, granted) that police were using tasers too often and weren't considering them appropriately dangerous.
"Police departments using these weapons should limit their deployment only to situations which are life threatening or where there is the threat of serious injury," said Rachel Ward, managing director of research for Amnesty International USA.
(http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/05/18/taser-death-could-get-supreme-court-review/)
You might notice that the wording she uses above sounds almost exactly the same as most departments' use of force guidelines for firearms. And that's the problem.
If officers (or departments) have determined that tasers represent a form of (potentially) lethal force, and should only be deployed when the officer is in physical danger, the space on the use of force continuum between tasers and firearms shrinks to an almost imperceptible size. It puts officers in a position of balancing their own self preservation with the certainty of the kind of force they use to end the dangerous situation-- restated, it makes a greater use of force more rational to the officer because it's the method most likely to ensure that officer's safety.
And this problem is made worse because officers CAN choose between the two-- since almost every police officer IS armed with a firearm on their person at all times, that option always remains easily viable.
I agree that body cameras seem like a no-brainer. It baffles me that departments are more willing to take on the maintenance and fuel bills of Humvees or MRAP's than equipping officers with cameras. It also lays bare the mentality that I think many people have taken issue with--that departments are more interested in protecting their officers than the citizens of their jurisdictions.
The fact that evidence 'disappeared' in the Henry Davis case is especially disturbing...
I think we need to read this with the understanding that the ACLU is special interest group, who knows with dang near certainty that their policy positions will not be adopted word for word, but that a strong statement will help advance their cause- which probably isn't terribly well connected to tasers. I DO think we need to talk about how an officer decides between taser and gun.
DeleteAs to the question of costs of Mraps and hummers vs. officers- it's a simple question: Which is going to get them better press and make them more prepared?
Also, you need to be aware of a pretty common style of thought in government budgeting- "use it or lose it". Very often, when appropriations time comes, if you haven't spent your whole budget, that surplus becomes low hanging fruit. I can imagine how that translates to a police chief being offered an MRAP and thinking how he really needs some new cruisers, but will take what he can get to preserve his budget for later.
The ACLU is a special interest group, but they do often represent a large and vocal (e.g. voting) segment of the population tuned in to these kinds of issues-- they are the closest thing to an 'authority' I can think of to represent the population of people concerned with police powers. Imperfect, of course. I admit my premise and conclusion are tenuously connected at best.
DeleteI do understand the use it or lose it mentality, and it's a great point to add to the discussion of the way we think about budgets and public services (e.g. that responsible use of funds can paradoxically lead to cuts in funding).
I'm a little less clear (would like some expansion on) the second part-- that an MRAP somehow manages to preserve funds that would have been lost to the department (But couldn't have been spent on cruisers or cameras). The program through which departments are offered MRAPs, etc (to my understanding) is funded by the Defense Department (and fueled by the surplus of two wars), and the vehicles themselves are free to the departments. They only pay maintenance, which I understand motor pools correctly, wouldn't be budgeted separately from cruiser maintenance.
Basically-- the cost of training officers to drive (many aren't really), fuel, and maintain an MRAP is actually more of an Albatross than Golden Goose.
I also just realized how badly chosen my title is.
ReplyDeleteI have been mulling over some related questions in the past few weeks, such as:
ReplyDeleteWhy do we have police officers?
Since we do have them, why is a position with so much power not subject to election and impeachment?
How many police officers would be needed (per capita, perhaps) to enforce laws that were widely popular, or had their origin in a robustly democratic process?
Continuing that line of thought, could the number of police officers and the extent of their power serve as a measurement of a government's popularity?
It seems like a "police state" is nearly defined by its unpopularity. The reason it is is a police state is because sustaining the status quo requires nearly-constant coercion, or at least the looming threat of it, right? People don't want things to be that way, and unless the people were under threat, things would be otherwise, apparently. Hence the extensive policing, to prop up the current state of things.
This is why I immediately thought of you when this project came to mind!
DeleteThe first one seems to be low hanging fruit--people often behave in self interested ways that harm their fellow citizens, and a third party is often needed to neutralize that kind of behavior. Of course that's assuming that behavior of that sort is unavoidable (not built in to the system we're using), but historically speaking we've not managed to find a system lacking that particular quality..
The second is really fascinating-- even looking beyond elections and police officers, how do we decide what constitutes a proper delegation of authority in an otherwise legitimate system?
Although they often use stupid language to do it, there are some Libertarians who talk a lot about executive power and the way power is delegated to unelected officials within the EPA, IRS, etc-- in theory, if you don't approve of their work, you can vote against the President, but you lose some precision if you agree with most actions but vehemently disagree with one department's tendencies...
Do you happen to have a convenient list on hand of various regimes' police to capita ratios? Perhaps even comparing the US to USSR, PRC, Sweden, the UK, etc? I don't even know if such historical data even exists, considering the Soviet tendency to utilize secret police for a lot of functions (and the necessary ambiguity of who is considered a police officer and who isn't).
This also brings to mind questions of the function of government-- should it protect its population even when unpopular (paternalistic?), or simply encourage its citizens' agency?
As for your last point-- are we moving toward a police state? Have we already had one in certain respects? I'd argue that with regards to drug policy we've had a partial police state for nearly a century...
Two related links (i.e. the research does exist)
Deletehttp://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/features/setimes/features/2014/09/02/feature-01
Ignoring for a moment the fact that SEtimes is unapologetically Pro-EU, the article notes that Balkan and Eastern European police forces are around double the size (per capita) of their Western European counterparts.
And then of course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_number_of_police_officers
I haven't gotten to dig into the data yet, but a quick look indicates that the US is pretty average (around the UN's recommended police per capita ratio, and well below the UK's level (although above the rest of the Commonwealth states).