I disremember exactly where but I recall once reading that Robert Peel, founder of the London Metropolitan Police, asserted that police should be considered as members of the public who were paid to perform full-time the duties that every citizen should consider their obligation anyway.
One can easily make the self-evident case that we "live in different times" or that the world is more violent now (tell that to the Londoners of 1829) but I think there's a beautiful ideal in the original concept that's since been lost.
As a Brit living in the US the difference in policing as public servant vs. public master is quite striking. Not to say that policing challenges and situational contexts don't differ enormously; I'd hate to get into an "our police is better than your police" 'debate'!
A bit one-sided, but the article does bring up some interesting points about police touch and "holding the uniform together". I'd call it a decent summary of the state of police along with good points and things that need to change (although as I said it's a bit one sided, not in favor of the police)
I really enjoyed the article as well, though I wouldn't consider it one-sided. While it aims to argue for changes to the current state, I thought its derivations of police culture and behavior were directed at the forces that shape them, not condemning any individuals. At different points, it very vividly brought me into the disparate mindsets that underly the racial tensions prevalent in the news.
I think this article primarily aims for understanding, and to the extent that one sees a bias it says more about which side they don't empathize with.
> Usually they [police] confront situations of conflict they did not cause, but which they are required to enter as third parties
This is a good description of responding to a domestic disturbance or stopping violent crime. But I think a good part of police running amok is precisely due to situations that don't fit this bill. Traffic tickets, drug possession, "jay" walking, home raids. No conflict exists until the police create it, at which point they aren't in the situation as a mediator but as biased second party that still operates with impunity.
One can easily make the self-evident case that we "live in different times" or that the world is more violent now (tell that to the Londoners of 1829) but I think there's a beautiful ideal in the original concept that's since been lost.
As a Brit living in the US the difference in policing as public servant vs. public master is quite striking. Not to say that policing challenges and situational contexts don't differ enormously; I'd hate to get into an "our police is better than your police" 'debate'!