Module 7: Police Use of Force
Lecture and Reflection Question:
Reflection Question: what should be the limits of police use of force? how should police approach the concept of force as a way to enhance its legitimacy? Use the concepts of presumption of superior force and presumption of compliance in your answer.
Final (midterm II) question to keep in mind
1. "Policing practices and visibility often influence public perception of security, particularly in urban areas. Using the concepts of 'police visibility,' 'symbolic visibility,' and 'force,' critically assess how police presence impacts both crime prevention and the public's sense of safety in different socio-economic communities. How might this visibility contribute to or detract from the legitimacy of police in these communities? Consider relevant sociological theories, such as Weber’s theory of the state and the relationship between the police and marginalized communities."
2. "Police corruption has been analyzed as more than just a 'few bad apples' problem, reflecting deeper structural issues within law enforcement. Drawing on the theories of police corruption discussed in the course, such as Kleinig's ethical framework and the 'Dirty Harry problem,' critically evaluate the factors that contribute to police corruption. Discuss how these factors might vary between different police departments and social contexts. In your response, explore how the structure of policing, discretionary power, and public expectations shape the prevalence of corruption and the challenges in preventing it."
Lecture Notes
the most defining feature of police and how police do their job is through use of foce
as talked about last class, there are 2 assumptions police make: the assumption of compliance and the assumption of superior force.
police’s job is to maintain law and order, rather than establish law and order.
they make an assumption that people are going to listen to them
the “superior force” assumption argues that police have an unlimited amount of guns, bullets, people, power, and therefore the superior force over others.
while others can overpower and use force greater than police, this is only momentary. police can always call for backup or even the military and will show superior force
BUT it should be noted that police do not have a monopoly over force. others can use force, like your parents, security guards, club bouncers, other individuals, etc.. they can all use force, but what is unique about police is that their ability to exercise their use of force, as it is almost unlimited how police can use force.
police are one of us though. they were established so the military wouldn’t need to e involved in all this shit - the police are a division of labour within our society.
*******but if police is one of us, and if the people have established police so they can look out for the people and serve the people, it makes sense that the police would want and need to use the least amount of force as possible.*********
police gets power from government, government gets its power from the people in a liberal democratic society, so people are essentially employed by the people and are to serve the people. SO using force would be contradictory in its very nature.
the use of force goes against the ethos of democracy and liberalism
POLICE HAS TO BE AS MINIMALLY INTRUSIVE AS POSSIBLE DUE TO ALL OF THESE REASONS ^^
it is the job of the government to protect everybody. even the “bad people”
the legitimacy of government and power comes from consent at its core. The power that you consented to is the power that is legitimate. therefore, policing has to be consensual.
But when consent goes away, and communities are formed that deem police as illegitimate and undemocratic, the presumption of compliance goes away
in our society we do have some of these communities and subcommunities that do not welcome police and reject their presumption of compliance (black, indigenous, LGBTQ+, etc…)
One issue too is that police do not use their force proportionally. specific communities and demographics are the ones demanding the use of force for police, but also become the same very target of police’s use of force. a lot of lower income communities request and demand force for safety, but end up being over policed themselves.
THIS IS SELECTIVE POLICING
police are more likely to stop a black person than a white person. police are more likely to search a POC than a white person. police are more likely to do RIDE checks in low-income neighbourhoods than rich neighbourhoods.
this isn’t necessarily saying the police are doing the racist shit, but rather the government and the state could be forcing the police to do racist shit through poor legislature and demands of the use of force. But we shouldn’t write off the police so early. it could be an interplay of both factors.
so what should be do to fix this? whats the solution? some say we need to use the 1+1 model of force, while some say we should use the British model of the
1-1 model. if we use the 1-1 model, is there even a need for all police to have a lethal use of force on them? maybe we should have a specific division of police designated for lethal use of force.
Interview Notes w/ Kelly Donovan
the police have ways of presenting information without it being truly honest or transparent - Kelly
police culture oppressed and alienated Kelly
due to police culture, whistleblowers within the organization are often vilified and ostracized. This is counterproductive to change and the betterment of a possibly corrupted institution.
she also says that in order to get a promotion, you need the please those colleges above you in the ranks. This means if you were to ever do something that might upset them, even if you’re doing the right thing, might keep you from ever getting a promotion forever.
She says there’s this whole system due to officers having dirt on other officers, their relationships form, and different cliques begin to exist.
Kelly thought the uniform represented “honesty, truth, and integrity” when she was a civilian, but once she was a cop and upheld honesty, truth, and integrity, she was vilified.
Kelly says that there is a flaw in the training that is promoting police culture and excessive and, at times, unjust use of force.
Kelly also says that elected officials who are in charge of overseeing police and overseeing police complaints do NOT know policing in the slightest, so they’re hiring retired police chiefs below them to aid them, cuz they don’t know anything about policing
this causes the police culture to be perpetuated at the government level, which oversees all policing and everything else.
so how can the ministry be considered an “independent body” that investigates police when it is made up of retired officers. that’s not independent at all.
Kelly says that police should do everything possible to deescalate situations in order not to have to use force. she says they should only use force if absolutely have to.
she says even if they are authorized in that situation, they shouldn’t use force. they should try to talk them down and get them into a mental space where they are willing to cooperate with the police, even if authorized to use force. she says they should only use force if they absolutely have to
police has become an “us versus them” mindset because so many people have lost trust in police due to the amount of incidents that are occurring in every day of our lives.
Kelly says that police are shown “targets” in the briefing room who are repeat offenders, so rather than just policing and looking for crime, you are looking for specific individuals who have committed crimes in their past.
This causes police to prejudice individuals. if 10 wanted guys in the briefing room had neck tattoos, you’re going to be prejudiced against individuals you see with neck tattoos.
policing becomes no longer objective; it becomes a subjective “image” of what a criminal looks like.
Kelly also mentions how police wouldn’t help a man having a heart attack because they perceived him as homeless. EMS asked if they tried CPR on the man who had a heart attack, and they said, “No, he’s obviously dead”.
Documentary - Oka Crisis
The police tried to push the Mohawk people out of their own land in order to build a golf course on behalf of the Oka
a 78 day standoff occurred between the Mokawh and the police/swat team
The Mohawk people said they tried to prevent violence, but force was still used and violence insued. (looks like a 1+1 model)
even outsiders that were affected by the event (due to the roadblock on the bridge) said that this is starting to look more like a policed state rather than a democoracy
local residents who were not Mohawk even said that many of them rejected the proposed project (making a golf course and residential area), but the mayor disregarded their wants and went ahead with it.
despite the government saying its not happening, the police would turn back red cross food and medicine rations for the Mohawk people
the oppression of the Mohawk people caused anti-Mohawk protesters to emerge to counteract the sentiment of the Mohawk. This shows that Policing particular neighbourhoods and communities affects more than just that community. they even shut down the bridge. This DOES NOT increase public perception of safety
The Mohawks were not made aware of the land invasion, just like they weren’t hundreds of years ago when the division started.
The military made some of the Mohawks strip in the street
The police and military try to provoke the Mohawks (increasing barricades, making it harder for Mohawks to enter and leave the reserve, shooting flares at night and shining bright spotlights into the Mohawk's area, halting the access of food coming through the barricade, etc..…) into violent responses to further justify their aggressive tactics and reinforce negative held against Mohawks stereotypes.
When the military is visible (police visibility) to the public and the media, they act in accordance with the law and demonstrate their need to maintain order. When the eyes are off of them, the beat Mohawks and commit illegal acts and abuse their power, without ever taking accountability.