Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive :: View topic - British and U.S. models of policing

jdege wrote:

In my mind, the biggest difference between US and UK policing is in who they work for. UK police are run by, and are paid by, the Home Office. In the US, every county and every town of reasonable size operates its own police force, independently run, and independently funded.

Sietch wrote:

Yep. Right on the money. That's the difference. Community policing in the United States is unique in all the world. The founding fathers expressly discredited the idea of a national police force, specifically so that the United States would make a quilt of distinctly separate and empowered communities.

Carbide Insert wrote:

I'm for county and state rights, to the extent of which those prerogatives fall within the purview of their delegated authority.

Carbide Insert wrote:

Jeremiah,

Your observation falls short of the fact that such laws and ordinances need to fall within the purview of being constitutionally sound in order to be valid in this republic, no matter what county they are proposed in.

Carbide Insert wrote:

From my understanding, states are delegated legislative, judicial, and executive authority by the people in the form of the state constitution. That is the source from whence the legislature, courts, and governor derive their existance (and jurisdiction).

Author:	MostlyHarmless [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:28 pm ]
Post subject:	British and U.S. models of policing
Among the differences in policing between the U.S. and Britain are the differences in how police behavior is constrained. Most people (other than gun enthusiasts) who have spent a substantial amount of time in both countries believe that Britain is the more free country. They would argue that British cops are constrained by the traditions of their role to a greater degree than U.S. cops are constrained by bright-line constitutional protections. A notable example is that Britain does not have the fruit of the poison tree doctrine. From a British perspective, exclusion of valid, accurate evidence from a trial merely because the cop collected it the wrong way is a uniquely American failure of justice. What is interesting is that there is little evidence to suggest that British police conduct more unwarranted stops or searches than their U.S. counterparts. The British would claim that the bright-line constitutional protections encourage U.S. officers to game the system and push the limits while the British way of doing things does not. I don't agree, in large measure because traditions can get lost over time while clearly enumerated constitutional freedoms tend to endure. Witness the 2nd amendment, for example. On the other hand I wonder if there isn't something to be learned from the British model. Perhaps the lack of any meaningful, multigenerational policing tradition is one of the problems with law enforcement in this country.

Author:	Dee [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 10:54 pm ]
Post subject:
One thing about cops in the USA is that you don't have to make an appointment with them to report a crime. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1130302/Police-tell-crime-victims-Well-come-you-book-appointment.html

Author:	jdege [ Wed Jun 03, 2009 11:33 pm ]
Post subject:
In my mind, the biggest difference between US and UK policing is in who they work for. UK police are run by, and are paid by, the Home Office. In the US, every county and every town of reasonable size operates its own police force, independently run, and independently funded. When crime gets out of control in a city, the voters can put pressure on the mayor, and the mayor can put pressure on the cops. Pissed-off voters can have little influence on the way the British Home Office does business. And, if it turns out that the way a police department handles crime doesn't work, and voter pressure doesn't convince them to fix it, in the US it's easy for the voters to move to another jurisdiction that operates under more functional rules. Move to the next town in England, and you're still dealing with cops who are operating under the direction of the Home Office.

Author:	Sietch [ Thu Jun 04, 2009 11:06 am ]
Post subject:
jdege wrote: In my mind, the biggest difference between US and UK policing is in who they work for. UK police are run by, and are paid by, the Home Office. In the US, every county and every town of reasonable size operates its own police force, independently run, and independently funded. Yep. Right on the money. That's the difference. Community policing in the United States is unique in all the world. The founding fathers expressly discredited the idea of a national police force, specifically so that the United States would make a quilt of distinctly separate and empowered communities. When people look at some agencies today, and say "gestapo", are they really exaggerating? I don't think so. Have you seen some of the legislation up in the house? The Department of Peace? Thomas Jefferson isn't rolling over in his grave. He's contemplating busting out.

Author:	Jeremiah [ Thu Jun 04, 2009 1:45 pm ]
Post subject:
Sietch wrote: Yep. Right on the money. That's the difference. Community policing in the United States is unique in all the world. The founding fathers expressly discredited the idea of a national police force, specifically so that the United States would make a quilt of distinctly separate and empowered communities. Just an observation (and not necessarily directed at Sietch in particular; this post just made me think of it)- it seems to me the folks most often telling me about "separate and empowered communities", "states' rights" and such are the same ones complaining when a city decides to make up its own rules on gun control, or when a state bans concealed carry and makes firearm possession a difficult proposition. It would seem to me that if we're going to complain about the over-reaching of government via carry laws, building codes, etc., then we need to be intellectually honest about it and not complain about a city violating the state's preemption on firearms law in the same breath as we complain about the state requiring seat belt usage, for instance. Just an observation.

Twin Cities Carry Forum Archive http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/

British and U.S. models of policing http://forum.twincitiescarry.com/viewtopic.php?f=40&t=13116	Page 1 of 1

Author:	Carbide Insert [ Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:19 pm ]
Post subject:
Jeremiah, Your observation falls short of the fact that such laws and ordinances need to fall within the purview of being constitutionally sound in order to be valid in this republic, no matter what county they are proposed in. The guideline is there, and must be followed state and country wide. Shall not be infringed means just that, and no ordinances can contradict that. Probable cause, warrants and affirmations are required, and no "public good" ordinances can contradict that. Due process shall not be violated, and no fines can be levied which are applied in contradiction to that process. There is a theme here. It goes on and on, to the extent of the declarations in the US and respective State constitutions. Those are the limiting factors in a republic purporting to follow the rule of law. What you are suggesting is a democracy of counties, subject to the whims of the 51% at any given time, State and National supreme law be damned. Not my cup of tea. I'm for county and state rights, to the extent of which those prerogatives fall within the purview of their delegated authority. Nothing more, nothing less. That means I'm all for state's rights, but there is no way on God's green earth that they can be permitted to enact gun restricting ordinances, or search my home to make sure my sump pump is functioning correctly without any evidence suggesting that it is not.

Author:	jdege [ Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:24 pm ]
Post subject:
Carbide Insert wrote: I'm for county and state rights, to the extent of which those prerogatives fall within the purview of their delegated authority. States aren't delegated authority. The federal government is delegated authority. Within its area of delegation, the federal government is supreme. But only within its area of delegation.

Author:	Sietch [ Thu Jun 04, 2009 2:38 pm ]
Post subject:
Carbide Insert wrote: Jeremiah, Your observation falls short of the fact that such laws and ordinances need to fall within the purview of being constitutionally sound in order to be valid in this republic, no matter what county they are proposed in. That's how I would have shot back, or rather, responded. Community-empowerment types, like me, are very careful to avoid advocating both sides of the coin in the same sentence. We DO want separate, empowered communities to form the primary tides affecting society. We DO recognize that an empowered community is out of order in restricting things like gun rights, AS MUCH AS we recognize the same line in the sand before every level of government.

Author:	jdege [ Thu Jun 04, 2009 3:29 pm ]
Post subject:
Carbide Insert wrote: From my understanding, states are delegated legislative, judicial, and executive authority by the people in the form of the state constitution. That is the source from whence the legislature, courts, and governor derive their existance (and jurisdiction). In that sense, yes. It was your mention of cities that had confused me. Cities are delegated power by their higher government, the states, and I had interpreted your phrasing as implying that states, similarly, are delegated power by the federal government. My mistake.

Page 1 of 1	All times are UTC - 6 hours
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group http://www.phpbb.com/