Talk:Police

"Empowered" should read "authorized by a state (and point to article State_(polity)"

• 23:43, 15 June 2011 User:71.181.31.109

WP:BRD on change to lead.

I have boldy reverted this change to the article. I believe it puts too heavy an emphasis on the use of physical force by a police service (one facet of a complex notion) and deprives the article of an otherwise fairly well built lead. I invite people to discuss this here. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 12:56, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with your revert. Wikipedia is not the place to suggest that police = force. Johnuniq (talk) 03:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

it's not a suggestion it is common knowledge the world over but go ahead wikipedians keep defying reality94.168.208.207 (talk) 12:17, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Defining police

I am seeing several components that are required:

• a system of rules and guidelines, ie. law
• an organization
• enforcing obedience to those rules and guidelines, ie. enforcement
• using force, coercion, and/or inducement, ie. police power

These are described various ways throughout the centuries and nations of Earth.

"Order" is what "law" describes, hence the differentiation between them seems superfluous. "Property" and "disorder" are again described by these rules and guidelines called laws, and hence are also superfluous. The "police power" can be described as "compelling obedience to those laws through legal sanctions, physical means, or other forms of coercion and inducements", ie. use of force and enforcing, and is hence superfluous.

"within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility" seems to signal there is a jurisdictional component. Could prison guards be described as prison police? "Police forces are often defined as organizations separate from any military forces" seems true: they usually are not considered part of the military/defense/peace ministry but usually an interior/security/love ministry; but sometimes they are, for instance military police are still described as "police". Hence this seems superfluous to a possible jurisdictional component:

• within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility, ie. a juridiction

This article seems like it has a European (yes America is mostly European, we killed most the natives off) slant. Could not many organizations be considered police if for instance we recognized their sovereignty or other right to force police organizations? California law for instance does not seem to define what police are, just "Any person who comes within the provisions of this chapter" and recognizes people like "any police officer, employed in that capacity and appointed by the chief of police or chief". See California Penal Code §830-832.17. (Again this is a common law jurisdiction so it is based of the unwritten English feudal laws.) I think such European-isms should be spared from the intro, and the basic English words for what they describe used.

Therefore I think we are left with:

"An organization that enforces obedience to a system of rules and guidelines using force, coercion, and/or inducement"

or

"An organization that enforces obedience to a system of rules and guidelines using force, coercion, and/or inducement within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility"

It sounds crass but that's what they are. Everyone seems to have this urge to call it by anything but its true name. "Obedience" could be replaced by words like "compliance" to water it down a little a give a more neutral tone, but it seems to me "compliance" is usually what non-police forces, like parking enforcement officers, enforce without use of force. But the most basic term should be used, which again may be "compliance" even though most western police enforce "obedience". Int21h (talk) 07:53, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

I agree with you wholeheartedly but wikipedia will not allow such truth and logic in an article. Everything must be pro government, pro police, pro slavery and may not contain any truth or knowledge other than that that comes from people who support there bias view94.168.208.207 (talk) 12:23, 22 November 2011 (UTC)

Service pistols versus side arms

I have a copy-editing question that in theory should be posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Law Enforcement. I am posting it here simply because many more editors watch this page.

The article on service pistol is written from the perspective of the military, but articles such as Detroit Police Department, Halifax Regional Police, New York State Police, Pennsylvania State Police, Portland Police Bureau, Royal Malaysia Police, Swedish Police Service, and Western Australia Police use the term "service pistol" for the handgun used by and/or issued to the police. By contrast, the article on side arm explicitly notes that term's applicability to both the military and the police.

So the question is whether there is a legitimate military vs. police distinction between service pistol and side arm, or as I suspect, "service pistol" is better thought as a more specific term for a type of side arm.

Note that more specialized services, such as the United States Secret Service, the Federal Air Marshal Service and the New York City Sheriff's Office (which is distinct from the New York City Police Department) also refer to service pistols.

Further evidence of this interpretation is in articles on weapons such as the Walther PP, SIG Sauer P220, Beretta Px4 Storm, and P9RC, which refer to service pistols in a broader way.

If my assumption is right, perhaps an editor active in writing WikiProject Law Enforcement articles could have a go at improving the article on service pistol. Thanks. 72.244.206.19 (talk) 20:52, 13 November 2011 (UTC)

The SIG Sauer P226 is certainly the standard issue UK sidearm that I have seen. S.G.^(GH) _ping! 10:59, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 January 2012

Under subheading "Protection of individuals", 1855 (not 1856) is the correct year of the U.S. Supreme Court's South v. Maryland ruling, the first of its kind which ruled law enforcers are not required by the Constitution to protect individuals from each other, and therefore, cannot be sued under the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. This was reaffirmed approx. 150 years later in Castle Rock v. Gonzales (2005).

216.120.186.11 (talk) 17:08, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Y Done. I added a cite to [1] but was unsure on a couple of fields so if someone reading this could finish it off that would be great--Jac16888 ^Talk 17:17, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 2 February 2012

Reference to the "British Independent Police Complaints Commission" is inaccurate - please change to "Independent Police Complaints Commission for England and Wales". The IPCC has responsibility only for complaints against the police in England and Wales, and has recently - in order to clarify this - amended its own Web site front page to clarify that it does not deal with complaints about officers of the eight Scottish police forces.

The same error has also crept into the Wikipedia for Schools item at http://schools-wikipedia.org/wp/p/Police.htm, which also wrongly refers to the UK forming the Serious Organised Crime Agency. That is a common misconception, the SOCA has no formal role in Scotland (which has its own civil and criminal legal systems, quite separate and different from that in England and Wales), where a similar function is undertaken by the Scottish Drug Enforcement Agency. That needs to be changed to "the UK Government formed the Serious Organised Crime Agency for England and Wales". 217.169.14.81 (talk) 04:01, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2012 (UTC)