Had a rather interesting conversation with a police officer friend of mine some time ago in which he asserted that he was a pacifist.
I’m not sure that I managed to convince him that it is in the nature of law enforcement that it is sometimes necessary to use legitimate force and in fact that both roles are mutually incompatible.
Opinions? Am I wrong?
What is his definition of pacifist? Does he oppose all force or just lethal force?
I don’t think you can be a cop and be a pacifist. The police are required to dominate some people, and a pacifist seems like they couldn’t do it.
The discussion mostly centred around the use of lethal force but as far as I could determine it he was against any physical force higher than grapples, holds and restraints.
Cops can dominate in many ways and use of force is just one example. He could be a detective, forensic accountant etc there are many types of cops.
Yeah but what is a “pacifist”?
Why not? I thought a pacifist was against war, not against policing.
Is this to say he is not willing to use his firearm in any situation?
Police in many places aren’t even issued firearms.
There are jobs a pacifist police officer could do, but if his job is to stop bad people hurting innocent bystanders and he chooses not to because it would go against his idiotic morals, I’d be pissed.
Be in the police force? Sure. Walk a beat? No.
And being a pacifist doesn’t mean you’re not willing to use force when you need to. I’ve done things at work I did not like or agree with, but they came with the job. Being willing to support my users when I’ve been hired to do user support and the system the users use is a piece of shit doesn’t mean I endorse piece-of-shit systems, it means I’m willing to do the duty I signed for.
It would depend on what kind of pacifist, obviously - I mean, in one sense, it’s a great job for one, as they are peace officers who are charged to keep the peace. Unfortunately, sometimes to keep the peace you gotta shoot somebody.
There was quite a good article a few issues ago in Tricycle about a Buddhist cop who’s made her peace with the violence in her job.
Thank you. This is what I came in here to say. Pacifist does not mean, as people seem to think it does, “I lay down and take everything and let people walk on me.” In my case, it simply means violence is almost always the very last option.
Yes, I rather consider myself a pacifist. Funny, even I condone violence in certain situations.
Define “many”.
I can think of England, New Zealand, and a handful of university police in the U.S… But even in those examples there are firearms available for some situations.
I can find few police forces that aren’t armed.
The meaning of pacifism has effectively been coopted by people who believe violence should not be the very last option - people who consider it a show of strength, and believe that the readiness to use force is compromised without the willingness to do so.
These people tend to be in powerful groups, because people who believe in violence also believe in, and acquire, power. So it shouldn’t be surprising that the meaning of pacifism has been tailored to their liking - no more so than the meaning of socialism or liberalism.
Every local police force in Spain. Cops from other forces will have firearms issued but, depending on which duties they are performing on a particular day, will be specifically expected to not have them on (there should be no need to pull a gun if you’re on ID-renewal duty, for example).
OK, so maybe I should have said “some”. But it still seems to work out well enough for them.
All South Asian police forces are usually unarmed, Constables are issued weapons only in special circumstances.
Armed policing is a very American and Irish concept.
I saw armed cops in Germany, France, Italy, Mexico, Bahamas, and even Canada. These are just the few I can recall.
Besides, even without a gun being a peace officer and a pacifist just doesn’t compute. A true pacifist would not use a baton or even their body (fists, legs, etc) to use force. How would one stop someone from assaulting someone else without using force against the aggressor? Write them an angry letter?
No, a true pacifist would be opposed to killing someone with a baton or their fists. Don’t redefine the word into meaninglessness.
I don’t have a problem a definition of pacifist that allows the use of non-lethal methods to restrain people. Does being a pacifist mean you couldn’t put someone in handcuffs? Or put them in a locked cell? Or block a punch? Or call for backup?
It seems to me it might be very hard to be a beat cop and decide that under no circumstances will you draw your weapon. However, it’s pretty rare for most cops to draw their weapons, let alone fire them, and plenty of cops retire without ever using a gun except at the practice range.