Police Use of Force

Important Issues Facing the Police and the Communities They Serve

Michael J. Palmiotto, Michael J. Palmiotto

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2016
• ISBN:
  9781315352916
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Computer Science
• Subtopic: Cyber Security
• Index: Computer Science

Police use of force has been a major concern for police departments and citizens in the United States since the 1840s, when police first started carrying guns. Starting with a historical introduction, Police Use of Force presents readers with critical and timely issues facing police and the communities they serve when police encounters turn violent. Dr. Palmiotto offers in-depth coverage of the use of force, deadly force, non-lethal weapons, militarization of policing, racism and profiling, legal cases, psychology, perception and training, and violence prevention. Police Use of Force also investigates many case studies, both famous (Rodney King) and contemporary (Ferguson, MO). Essential reading for both criminal justice professionals and academics, this text places police conflict within a complex, modern context, inviting cogent conversation in the classroom and the precinct.

1
CHAPTER

Use of Force Throughout History

Michael J. Palmiotto

Introduction

Human beings establish governments for economic development; to maintain the safety of their citizens; and to control the natural environment. Governments are given or take social control for their state to maintain social order. A government without social order cannot protect its citizens and the country cannot economically prosper. There have been examples of countries in chaos that lack order or economic prosperity. “The idea of social control is often associated with the physical or coercive powers of the police. It is certain that a police force is an important and prominent example of social control” (Chriss, 2013: 36).

Since the early twentieth century social control has come to mean a concept that describes activities that involve the coordination, integration, regulation, or adjustment of individuals or groups to an ideal standard of conduct. Social control has come to mean regulation, either in terms of interpersonal relationships with other people; or regulating human behavior in terms of public safety; or enforcing laws and punishing violators of laws (Chriss, 2013: 23). Social control is often associated with the physical or coercive power of the police. The role of police has a great influence with social control in any culture. However, social norms can influence the behavior of people. For example, specific vocations and professions have specific values which informally control the behavior of fellow workers (Chriss, 2013: 36).

Walter Reckless associates social control as crime control, with the police in modern society having this responsibility. Crime control, according to Reckless, hopes to curb crime and hold it in check, stop it from spreading and provide society with protections from law violators (Reckless, 1955: 655). For decades the police have frequently been placed in situations in which they are given no choice but to use force. Often they are accused of brutality even when they had no other option than to use force to subdue the offender.

Law enforcement with its emphasis on social and criminal control can be traced to ancient times when the family, tribe, or clan assumed the responsibility for the safety of their members. The concept of “kin police” evolved with the idea that an attack against any member of the group was an attack on the entire group. In essence, the enforcers were the people who enforced their laws. Punishment was often inhumane and retaliatory. Branding and mutilation were often used, along with stoning, burning, and crucifixion. Unlike contemporary America, which has a formal process to maintain social control, ancient societies had an informal process to deal with violation against their kin group (Palmiotto, 2013: 11).

As mentioned in the previous paragraph policing can be traced to ancient times. Ancient policing utilized basic features which are still used to this day. This involves the approach of interpersonal mediation. The police were also expected to perform a wide variety of tasks, including firefighting, which had little to do with crime control. The first police organization was created in Egypt in around 3000 bc. Each administrative jurisdiction, there were 42 of them, had an official responsible for justice and security. In ancient Greece, policing duties were assigned to magistrates responsible for municipal upkeep (Britannica, 2014).

Throughout history those in authority have used force against those below them in status, power, and authority. Although specific information is lacking, abuses of authority most likely did occur in ancient societies. In ancient societies individuals addressed these violations themselves. Punishment or retaliation used such inhumane techniques as mutilation and branding. Stoning, burning, and crucifixion were also used as forms of punishment.

The killing of an Egyptian guard for abusing a Hebrew slave provoked Moses to perform the act of murder. This is an ancient example of use of abusive force against an underling. Although there is little information on the abuse of lower status people in ancient times, it seems likely that regular abuse of force took place. Realistically, it would appear that slaves and criminals were recipients of the use of force. It should be mentioned that governments would have to implement laws before law enforcement could be established. The Babylonians, Assyrians, Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans all had a system to maintain order. From the time when some form of government existed, social control was important for governments to function successfully. Governments or those people in authority want to maintain their power and control over the populace and often this requires that force be used.

Similar to ancient Greece, the Roman empire was not peaceful but had crimes committed not only in Italy but also in the provinces of Rome. Threats to the public order frequently occurred. The Roman empire, as in modern society, had similar crimes. There were thefts, riots between sports fans, travel was dangerous, and burglaries occurred. Unlike our modern day, Rome did not have a police force that could compare to twenty-first century police. As with the people of today, the Roman people desired public order. The Romans had four forms of police, with the police coming primarily from the military. The Roman provinces had the authority to maintain order with civilian police who were Roman soldiers in the province under the control of the magistrates and municipal governments. The local magistrates had the authority to use limited force to deter crime, make arrests, and conduct trials for minor offenses (Fuhrmann, 2012: 9).

There were many types of Roman policing. It should be noted that Roman military policing was carried out by soldiers. The types of Roman police were the civilian police which functioned in the provinces. These special troops were under the direct command of the emperor. The emperor was the symbol of public order. The next level of policing was at the provincial or gubernatorial level. Provincial governors were responsible for security and public order and could activate the troops, who functioned as police, under their command. The last level of Roman military policing consisted of out posted soldiers who performed policing among civilians. Out posted soldiers often functioned without supervision (Fuhrmann, 2012: 10). It has been difficult to locate the use of excessive force by the various levels of Roman military police but it seems that excessive force was used by the military police, at least periodically. A good example of excessive force at that time was the scourging of Jesus at the pillar and the crowning with thorns.

Emperor Augustus made a number of contributions to law enforcement. He established the Praetorian Guard from the military legions to protect the life and property of the emperor. The urban cohorts, units of 500–600 men, were created to keep the peace of Rome. The praefectus urbi, the prefect of the city, was given responsibility to maintain order in the city. The curators urbis came under the direction of the praefectus urbi and were responsible for a specific area of the city. Augustine also established the vigils of Rome to assume firefighting duties. Rome was plagued with fires and a unit was needed to spot and fight fires. The vigils of Rome also had the responsibility for patrolling the streets (Palmiotto, 2013: 12). Although the literature is weak on the use of force by Roman military police; it would appear that police trained as soldiers would use force or even excessive force to enforce the laws of the Roman empire.

The French police can be traced to the middle ages but this section will only discuss the French police in the nineteenth century. Upon obtaining the leadership of France, Napoleon established law and order to eliminate the havoc caused by the French Revolution. Two police forces were inherited from the French Revolution: the gendarmerie, the model for police organizations in Europe during the nineteenth century and the administrative police, a civilian police unit. The two units were different from each other with the gendarmerie being a paramilitary unit primarily policing the countryside. The gendarmerie came under the control of the minister of war and was not accountable to civilian authorities. The administrative police or civilian police were assigned to policing in towns of over 5000 people and reported to the minister of general police in Paris. During periods of rebellion the gendarmerie proved to be very effective in repression, which has to be considered the use of excessive force to gain law and order (Broers, 1999: 27–35).

The British can trace their concept of policing to the Danish and Anglo-Saxon invaders. Originally citizens were responsible for peace keeping duties. The mutual pledge system was established by Alfred the Great, 870–901 and has been recognized as the initiating of modern policing. Under the mutual pledge system, every man was responsible not only for his own actions but also for the actions of his neighbor. It was every citizen’s duty to raise the “hue and cry” when a crime was committed, to collect his neighbors, and to pursue a criminal who fled from the district. History is inundated with individuals who, when given the opportunity to apprehend offenders, would use their authority to abuse individuals arrested. It seems likely that that the conditions under the “hue and cry” made possible the use of excessive force against law violators.

In the thirteenth century, the constable system evolved as a rural form of policing. The constable maintained social order within the parish, the population center of worship. The constable was also a royal officer responsible for keeping the king’s peace by the “hue and cry.” In the urban area the “watch and ward” system was implemented and the duties of its officers were patrolling the streets, guarding the town’s gates, arresting strangers at night, and preventing break-ins.

In 1789 the Gordon riots occurred. This was a Protestant protest against laws passed providing Catholics with special rights. King George ordered that the military be permitted to shoot the rioters at their own discretion. On the king’s directive the soldiers killed or fatally wounded 300 persons and ended the riots (Reppetto, 2012: 4) The Gordon riots provide an example of excessive force being used by the British government as well as an example of deadly force.

On August 16, 1819 the Peterloo Massacre took place in Manchester, England when the cavalry charged into a crowd of 50,000 people who were protesting the economic conditions of that period. There was famine and unemployment and a lack of voting opportunities for the lower economic class. The protesters wanted the reform of parliamentary representation. Voting was restricted to adult male owners of land. The number of deaths or injured was not accurately determined. It is estimated that 11–15 people were killed, including women, and about 500 people were injured. The reaction to Peterloo was a crackdown on the reform the demonstrators wanted. A number of Peterloo leaders were tried for sedition. The government supported the cavalry charge. The army’s action provides a good example of use of force. Since police forces were not designed to control demonstrations the army functioned in lieu of the police. The action of the army in their cavalry charge indicates a strong case of use of excessive force (Peterloo Massacre, 2016 [Spartacus-Education]).

During the late seventeenth century the policing system began to break down and corruption was rampant and the force unable to deal with social and economic upheaval. Crime in the seventeenth and early eighteenth century began to increase. It should be recognized that where ever corruption exists so does brutality. Corruption and brutality go hand in hand. In 1829, Sir Robert Peel established the Metropolitan Police of London as an answer to incompetence of the police and their corruption. The Metropolitan Police Act and the establishment of the London Police Department became the model for the United States. From the time when some form of government existed social control had to be put into place. Governments or those people in authority want to maintain their power and control over the populace. The putting down of riots forcefully by the police and military provides a good example of governments making every effort to maintain control over the populace.

In 1855, the Sunday Trading Riots lasted for four consecutive Sundays starting the last Sunday in June and continuing on the following three Sundays in July. Working men by the 1850s were allowed to make known their grievances but not allowed to riot. Two reasons for the riots were influenced by religious measures, with the passing of laws: first to close drinking establishments during specific hours on Sundays and second, to prohibit all Sunday trading, except for the selling of meat and fish, newspapers, and cooked meals. These laws created a stir among working people who did their shopping on Sundays, believing goods were cheaper on this day. In addition, many workers were paid on Saturday evening which gave them sufficient funds to shop on a Sunday (Harrison, 1965: 219–222).

On Sunday June 24 a meeting was held in Hyde Park with 200,000 people attending. The police attempted to prevent the public meeting. During the meeting wealthy people were arriving at Hyde Park. The crowd jeered, taunted, shouted, and used improper language for the time. Disorder was created which was condemned by the Monday papers. In the following weeks the Metropolitan Police Commissioner forbade a meeting for Sunday, July 1 in Hyde Park. The order was ignored and approximately 150,000 people gathered in Hyde Park. “The police endured great provocation, but could not restrain themselves when a large eel was removed from the Serpentine and was passed over the heads of the crowd on to a police detachment. In comparison with the previous Sunday, fewer promenading carriages arrived, but the police decided to clear the carriageway. With their truncheons they beat down opposition from the crowd and carried off 72 prisoners to the Vine Street police station” (Harrison, 1965: 223). The police used force on this Sunday and may have used excessive force to control the crowd and make the arrests. Because of the disorder in Hyde Park police brutality had become a preoccupation of the government. The government appointed a commission to look into the events of Sunday July 1 (Harrison, 1965: 224). The accusation of brutality was such a big issue that the government investigated the claim. Several police officers were fired and the incident faded away.

During the fall of 1887 radical demonstrations took place in London despite the government forbidding political meetings. On Sunday, November 13, 14,000 police with special constables and armed soldiers dispersed the crowd. The demonstrators were protesting being unemployed and were attempting to meet in Trafalgar Square. Bloody Sunday, which November 13 has been named, resulted in three fatal injuries, 75 people hospitalized and 50 people arrested (Keller, 2009). As previous writings indicate the police did use force to break-up demonstrations during the nineteenth century, and it could be said that they used excessive force.

English Police: Political and Social History

The development of policing in America has its roots in England. The Eastern coast of the United States was settled predominately by English people who brought the English law enforcement system to the American colonies. As in England, American law enforcement developed slowly. It was not until the 1840s that the United States initiated a modern municipal policing concept. In 1844 the New York legislature provided funds ...