Worldbuilding Realism Consultation Thread Mk. 4

[Izukyu]

Veterans are disproportionately represented in US police forces because of preferential hiring policies for government jobs, not because there's some skill or character overlap.

I would disagree with this. You talk to most guys getting out of the military and they say they plan on going into LE, precisely because it's an easy transition from military to paramilitary. A lot of military guys don't do well in soft "civilian" jobs, especially when they first get out and are still highly indoctrinated in the military lifestyle / culture.

There is absolutely veteran's preferance for police hiring, but the skill and character overlap is also definitely there.

[Gallia-]

Given how big cops are I've seen, I'd imagine upgrading from Crown Vics to Chargers was necessary just to haul all the girth around. The fittest cops I've seen are generally the ones with absolutely no military background though. The fatter ones tend to all be former NCOs or middling officers. Really says a lot about American society. I'd imagine any sort of "militarization" or "culture fit" of military is beget solely by preferential hiring policies than anything. It doesn't make the police any more violent, though, nor does it make them any more effective at their job.

It really seems to do nothing at all except make them fat, but that might be a small town police thing.

Maybe big cities have continual fitness requirements that aren't just "20 push-up, 30 sit-up, in 10 minute mile run" or whatever.

But there's probably something to the idea that a veteran fresh from a couple combat tours in Afghanistan or whatever might just see policing as a easy way to slide into a protected union, with preferential hiring, and a pension at the end. The guys who join the police force without any military training probably take it more seriously, because they're more motivated to do the job innately, rather than just clocking in for a paycheck.

[Izukyu]

Given how big cops are I've seen, I'd imagine upgrading from Crown Vics to Chargers was necessary just to haul all the girth around. The fittest cops I've seen are generally the ones with absolutely no military background though. The fatter ones tend to all be former NCOs or middling officers. Really says a lot about American society. I'd imagine any sort of "militarization" or "culture fit" of military is beget solely by preferential hiring policies than anything. It doesn't make the police any more violent, though, nor does it make them any more effective at their job.

It really seems to do nothing at all except make them fat, but that might be a small town police thing.

Maybe big cities have continual fitness requirements that aren't just "20 push-up, 30 sit-up, in 10 minute mile run" or whatever.

But there's probably something to the idea that a veteran fresh from a couple combat tours in Afghanistan or whatever might just see policing as a easy way to slide into a protected union, with preferential hiring, and a pension at the end. The guys who join the police force without any military training probably take it more seriously, because they're more motivated to do the job innately, rather than just clocking in for a paycheck.

I will definitely say that most police "fitness" requirements are an absolute joke. The academy may be physically demanding depending on the jurisdiction, but overall the threshold is not terribly high and there is essentially no upkeep requirement. At least in the military you have to pass a fitness test yearly or so. Hence the rotund constables.

Especially when you look at requirements for cops to transfer to other agencies post-academy. Those requirements are so low (5 pushups, 15 min mile, etc.) they're laughable and might as well not exist.

It also is true that a lot of vets see the "protected" nature of the job (hard to get fired, pension, etc.) as attractive.

[Purpelia]

Veterans are disproportionately represented in US police forces because of preferential hiring policies for government jobs, not because there's some skill or character overlap.

I would disagree with this. You talk to most guys getting out of the military and they say they plan on going into LE, precisely because it's an easy transition from military to paramilitary. A lot of military guys don't do well in soft "civilian" jobs, especially when they first get out and are still highly indoctrinated in the military lifestyle / culture.

There is absolutely veteran's preferance for police hiring, but the skill and character overlap is also definitely there.

Except that in any civilized nation police work is an extremely "soft" civilian job. This might come to surprise you but in a stable 1st world or even 2nd rate country the police are not supposed to be a militarized force that acts like a military occupation.

It is NOT a good idea for police forces to recruit former soldiers. Soldiers have very different requirements to police officers in terms of how they approach civilians and frankly if your country is at all civilized that means untraining them from the military before you can train them for police work.

Many countries use soldiers for peacekeeping missions and train them to treat civilians well.
There are also rules governing treatment of POWs.

That's all nice and well. But there is a huge difference between policing and peacekeeping. One is about serving and protecting a community for the purposes of keeping them safe and making them feel safe and doing so with a population that mostly wants you to be there. And it is your job to do your bloody best to maintain that mostly. Where as peacekeeping is about establishing and maintaining order against a population that mostly does not want you to be there and with no intention of changing their mind. There is a huge difference.

America has literally no issues with it.

And look how well that's turning out.

That's not really true at all. The notion soldiers are all dumb and trained killahsz who can't think like normal people is silly. Any normal person is still going to be a normal person and not just murder people for fun or no reason.

A large portion of law enforcement are former military and there is a good degree of overlap between both professions, in large part due to professionalism, a willingness to sacrifice etc. The rules of engagement soldiers have to follow is not that dissimilar than the police, so it's not like they just open fire and kill everything that moves because they are warmongering orcs that eat the heads off of babies. This sort of perception of soldiers is a bit silly, since most will never see combat and fewer will commit atrocities if in combat. In Europe, huge swaths of the police are military, such as with the Gendarmerie units, who do 30-70% of the police work in many of these European countries.

That's not it at all. The issue is that one job requires you to serve within a hostile population, always be on guard and treat everyone at arms length whilst really only trying to maintain order and stay alive where as the other requires you to be friendly, approachable and maintain a civil rapport with a friendly population with a large emphasis on keeping them friendly. When a police officer sees an old lady he helps her cross the street. A peacekeeper in the same situation searches her purse for bombs and is likely to find one too.

I think americans don't realize this but your "police" are not acting like police should. They are acting like an occupying army. Which is why you think the skills match when they don't. If the police where I am from acted that way we would revolt against the government on account of them going crazy.

[Gallia-]

America has literally no issues with it.

And look how well that's turning out.

How well what's turning out?

American riots aren't because "police brutality", they're because it's a successful way of getting what you want. If you frame everything as brutality and police violence, even when it's non-existent, people will flock to certain groups and give them concessions. These groups happen to be the ones visibly protesting (or rioting, depending on which news outlet you read) at the moment. The point isn't an actual police reform, because police reform isn't possible when the police aren't doing anything unexpected or out of the ordinary. Rather, it's formation of independently ruled ethnic enclaves with their own governance.

American police are neither especially aggressive nor particularly docile, they're exactly as aggressive as you'd expect them to be for a society with as much violent crime as America. Americans are not Luxemburgers or Swedes so they don't shoot first and ask questions later, nor are they Indians or Brits, who try to calmly talk down someone who is stabbing them while they're being stabbed. They're right on the trend of what you expect, which is a logistic curve.

The real outliers as far as "not in a general war" (Syria) are Western Europeans, who are generally overly aggressive, and Indians, who are the opposite.

[Izukyu]

I would disagree with this. You talk to most guys getting out of the military and they say they plan on going into LE, precisely because it's an easy transition from military to paramilitary. A lot of military guys don't do well in soft "civilian" jobs, especially when they first get out and are still highly indoctrinated in the military lifestyle / culture.

There is absolutely veteran's preferance for police hiring, but the skill and character overlap is also definitely there.

Except that in any civilized nation police work is an extremely "soft" civilian job. This might come to surprise you but in a stable 1st world or even 2nd rate country the police are not supposed to be a militarized force that acts like a military occupation.

There's really no need to be condescending. I'm just saying that veterans are often attracted to a profession that mirrors the things they've come to expect from the military and actively seeks to recruit them. I was actively sought for recruitment by at least two LE agencies while I was getting out of the military.

I never said that the police *should* be militarized or anything like that. I think the opposite is true, for the most part.

It is absolutely true that the police are not constantly getting into car chases and shootouts and do not need to have a militaristic outlook toward their job. But I would not classify law enforcement as a "soft" job... especially in comparison to professions which don't require you to uphold personal uniform standards and carry a gun.

[Gallia-]

Luxembourg has some tough talk for someone with only a battalion of Humvees but more killings by police than Jamaica as a proportion of homicide rates cleared.

Except that in any civilized nation police work is an extremely "soft" civilian job. This might come to surprise you but in a stable 1st world or even 2nd rate country the police are not supposed to be a militarized force that acts like a military occupation.

There's really no need to be condescending. I'm just saying that veterans are often attracted to a profession that mirrors the things they've come to expect from the military and actively seeks to recruit them. I was actively sought for recruitment by at least two LE agencies while I was getting out of the military.

I never said that the police *should* be militarized or anything like that. I think the opposite is true, for the most part.

It is absolutely true that the police are not constantly getting into car chases and shootouts and do not need to have a militaristic outlook toward their job. But I would not classify law enforcement as a "soft" job... especially in comparison to professions which don't require you to uphold personal uniform standards and carry a gun.

It's a uniformed job requiring dealing with an extreme amount of personal stress.

Similar to doctoring sorta but more stabbings and shoot.

[Izukyu]

It's a uniformed job requiring dealing with an extreme amount of personal stress.

Similar to doctoring sorta but more stabbings and shoot.

And at least in the US, a weird collective PTSD from the bad old days of the 1960s-70s and "training" that leaves much to be desired. It's hard to teach cops to be effective at community policing while also telling them that they might be assasinated by any given person they stop for speeding.

[Purpelia]

Except that in any civilized nation police work is an extremely "soft" civilian job. This might come to surprise you but in a stable 1st world or even 2nd rate country the police are not supposed to be a militarized force that acts like a military occupation.

There's really no need to be condescending. I'm just saying that veterans are often attracted to a profession that mirrors the things they've come to expect from the military and actively seeks to recruit them. I was actively sought for recruitment by at least two LE agencies while I was getting out of the military.

I never said that the police *should* be militarized or anything like that. I think the opposite is true, for the most part.

It is absolutely true that the police are not constantly getting into car chases and shootouts and do not need to have a militaristic outlook toward their job. But I would not classify law enforcement as a "soft" job... especially in comparison to professions which don't require you to uphold personal uniform standards and carry a gun.

If those are the two things you think matter at a police job than yes, it was very much necessary.

[Izukyu]

There's really no need to be condescending. I'm just saying that veterans are often attracted to a profession that mirrors the things they've come to expect from the military and actively seeks to recruit them. I was actively sought for recruitment by at least two LE agencies while I was getting out of the military.

I never said that the police *should* be militarized or anything like that. I think the opposite is true, for the most part.

It is absolutely true that the police are not constantly getting into car chases and shootouts and do not need to have a militaristic outlook toward their job. But I would not classify law enforcement as a "soft" job... especially in comparison to professions which don't require you to uphold personal uniform standards and carry a gun.

If those are the two things you think matter at a police job than yes, it was very much necessary.

What?

I picked two more or less random examples of things that make the police not a "soft" profession and you have decided that those are the only two things I think matter for police officers?

I can't help but feel like you're willfully trying to misunderstand my position here. I think we agree more than we disagree tbh.

[Gallia-]

It's what Purp does.

[Purpelia]

What?

I picked two more or less random examples of things that make the police not a "soft" profession and you have decided that those are the only two things I think matter for police officers?

I can't help but feel like you're willfully trying to misunderstand my position here. I think we agree more than we disagree tbh.

In that case allow me to try and start from scratch.

The purpose of a military doing peacekeeping is to keep the peace. They operate against a hostile population that might well be quite well armed and intent on killing them. And even those that don't want to kill them don't want them there as they see them (rightly) as an occupation force. So the approach a peacekeeper has to take is to be always cautious, semi-distant and concerned not with upholding the law but keeping order and above all staying alive. They are in no uncertain terms an occupying army and have to act and be equipped as such.

The purpose of a police officer a lot different. A police officers job is more than anything to make the people he is policing feel safe. Stopping crime is a part of that. But ultimately it's more about being the firm and friendly reassurance people need to feel safe. That is why for example police foot patrols are much more effective than vehicular patrols even though the later cover more ground and respond more quickly to calls. People simply feel safer when they see a guy walking down the street in uniform even if objectively his effect on caching criminals is negligible. So a police officer has to inspire trust in people and in turn trust them not to be a threat. He can't react with caution, distance and other behavior that in a peacekeeping context makes perfect sense and keeps him alive because he'll end up looking like paranoid and tarnish the public's view of the police force as a whole.

And that I feel is something that americans don't really notice. Like when I watch videos of your police and I see the standard arrest methods it's just insane. Like the whole pin someone to the ground and knee on his back while he is getting tied down. Or the way they point guns at people preemptively by default. Or the way they yell and scream at people to get down and force people to their knees and the ground face down. If that happened where I am from heads would be rolling unless they could prove he was resisting arrest with a firearm or something similar. And yet if I heard of one of our nations soldier acting like this while "peacekeeping" my response would be "well duh. how is he supposed to know that guy doesn't have a bomb or gun?"

So the two skill sets don't really overlap as you have to untrain the "soldier" behavior before you can train the "police" behavior. At least unless you want an american style police that acts like an occupying army.

[Izukyu]

What?

I picked two more or less random examples of things that make the police not a "soft" profession and you have decided that those are the only two things I think matter for police officers?

I can't help but feel like you're willfully trying to misunderstand my position here. I think we agree more than we disagree tbh.

In that case allow me to try and start from scratch.

The purpose of a military doing peacekeeping is to keep the peace. They operate against a hostile population that might well be quite well armed and intent on killing them. And even those that don't want to kill them don't want them there as they see them (rightly) as an occupation force. So the approach a peacekeeper has to take is to be always cautious, semi-distant and concerned not with upholding the law but keeping order and above all staying alive. They are in no uncertain terms an occupying army and have to act and be equipped as such.

The purpose of a police officer a lot different. A police officers job is more than anything to make the people he is policing feel safe. Stopping crime is a part of that. But ultimately it's more about being the firm and friendly reassurance people need to feel safe. That is why for example police foot patrols are much more effective than vehicular patrols even though the later cover more ground and respond more quickly to calls. People simply feel safer when they see a guy walking down the street in uniform even if objectively his effect on caching criminals is negligible. So a police officer has to inspire trust in people and in turn trust them not to be a threat. He can't react with caution, distance and other behavior that in a peacekeeping context makes perfect sense and keeps him alive because he'll end up looking like paranoid and tarnish the public's view of the police force as a whole.

And that I feel is something that americans don't really notice. Like when I watch videos of your police and I see the standard arrest methods it's just insane. Like the whole pin someone to the ground and knee on his back while he is getting tied down. Or the way they point guns at people preemptively by default. Or the way they yell and scream at people to get down and force people to their knees and the ground face down. If that happened where I am from heads would be rolling. And yet if I heard of one of our nations soldier acting like this while "peacekeeping" my response would be "well duh. how is he supposed to know that guy doesn't have a bomb or gun?"

So the two skill sets don't really overlap as you have to untrain the "soldier" behavior before you can train the "police" behavior. At least unless you want an american style police that acts like an occupying army.

I mean, that's all fair. I absolutely agree that the police can be way too aggressive and heavy handed. The police are not the military, nor should they act like it. Our current situation is good evidence of that.

But in America there is always the potential to encounter violent people with weapons on them while doing the work of the police. Not every criminal carries a gun, but a lot of them carry knives or aren't afraid to throw hands. So it's not like you can just walk around being Officer Friendly and just hope you won't be a victim of violence while you interact with people in uncertain circumstances.

You have to balance a healthy concern for your own safety with being a paranoid weirdo. There are reasons why US police do things certain things in comparison to other countries. And I can see how some things that US police do can seem utterly bonkers, or paranoid, or hyperaggressive to someone from another country where things are done differently. That doesn't mean there isn't room for reform on our end, but it also doesn't mean we just do all this crazy over the top stuff for no reason.

[Purpelia]

I mean, that's all fair. I absolutely agree that the police can be way too aggressive and heavy handed. The police are not the military, nor should they act like it. Our current situation is good evidence of that.

But in America there is always the potential to encounter violent people with weapons on them while doing the work of the police. Not every criminal carries a gun, but a lot of them carry knives or aren't afraid to throw hands. So it's not like you can just walk around being Officer Friendly and just hope you won't be a victim of violence while you interact with people in uncertain circumstances.

You have to balance a healthy concern for your own safety with being a paranoid weirdo. There are reasons why US police do things certain things in comparison to other countries. And I can see how some things that US police do can seem utterly bonkers, or paranoid, or hyperaggressive to someone from another country where things are done differently. That doesn't mean there isn't room for reform on our end, but it also doesn't mean we just do all this crazy over the top stuff for no reason.

Yes, because america is a strange and extreme special case. And my entire point is that when giving advice to people on the internet about how they should design their nations you should not give them advice that only applies functionally to an extreme special case. And should instead give advice that applies to the broader civilized world.

[Gallia-]

I mean, that's all fair. I absolutely agree that the police can be way too aggressive and heavy handed. The police are not the military, nor should they act like it. Our current situation is good evidence of that.

But in America there is always the potential to encounter violent people with weapons on them while doing the work of the police. Not every criminal carries a gun, but a lot of them carry knives or aren't afraid to throw hands. So it's not like you can just walk around being Officer Friendly and just hope you won't be a victim of violence while you interact with people in uncertain circumstances.

You have to balance a healthy concern for your own safety with being a paranoid weirdo. There are reasons why US police do things certain things in comparison to other countries. And I can see how some things that US police do can seem utterly bonkers, or paranoid, or hyperaggressive to someone from another country where things are done differently. That doesn't mean there isn't room for reform on our end, but it also doesn't mean we just do all this crazy over the top stuff for no reason.

Yes, because america is a strange and extreme special case.

No, it's the exact opposite.

America has exactly as aggressive police as suits its nature, as it follows the trend line exactly. Is America more aggressive than other OECD nations? Sure. Western Europe is also a lawless wasteland of diverse and historied peoples ready to stab you at a moment's notice compared to Japan, too. Is America substantially more violent than anywhere else in the world? No. It's probably somewhere near the global median, actually, looking at that chart.

The only special cases here might be Indonesia, India, and Japan. Indonesia kills too many people, India isn't killing enough, and Japan doesn't do either. Syria can be excused due to its current experiment in austere living.

[Triplebaconation]

The real similarity between military and the police is that they bear much of the moral risk of society.

Modern American society is particularly bad at recognizing or treating moral injury - the violence done on our behalf isn't much more than a background hum we can ignore at our leisure. Soldiers and police aren't given the resources they need to deal with the trauma they face - which is cumulative.

Of course there are healthy and unhealthy ways to deal with moral injury. The unhealthy ways make for quite bad police officers indeed.

[Gallia-]

ye

polisman join to protecc famiru and friend
polisman put on CRASH instead
polisman discover that CRASH means Crack, Rolls, Addy, Smack, and Handlebars
i thought this was a community resources program?
lmao go sell drugs asshole i need to buy a new BMW

worldview destroyed

e: i met a dude who had a big moral trauma from 2003 also when they didnt find the WMDs (he was in one of the 2d Bde, 3d ID battalions in the thunder runs), he ended up getting out, and just read and read books about saddam trying to make sense of it all, but yeah

i got a lot of books from that dude tho idk how i feel about it but he said he'd made his peace with the matter so there's that

[Izukyu]

I mean, that's all fair. I absolutely agree that the police can be way too aggressive and heavy handed. The police are not the military, nor should they act like it. Our current situation is good evidence of that.

But in America there is always the potential to encounter violent people with weapons on them while doing the work of the police. Not every criminal carries a gun, but a lot of them carry knives or aren't afraid to throw hands. So it's not like you can just walk around being Officer Friendly and just hope you won't be a victim of violence while you interact with people in uncertain circumstances.

You have to balance a healthy concern for your own safety with being a paranoid weirdo. There are reasons why US police do things certain things in comparison to other countries. And I can see how some things that US police do can seem utterly bonkers, or paranoid, or hyperaggressive to someone from another country where things are done differently. That doesn't mean there isn't room for reform on our end, but it also doesn't mean we just do all this crazy over the top stuff for no reason.

Yes, because america is a strange and extreme special case. And my entire point is that when giving advice to people on the internet about how they should design their nations you should not give them advice that only applies functionally to an extreme special case. And should instead give advice that applies to the broader civilized world.

I mean, folks can take or leave the advice I give them. I'm just a dude on the internet, which is a dubious credential at best.

The real similarity between military and the police is that they bear much of the moral risk of society.

Modern American society is particularly bad at recognizing or treating moral injury - the violence done on our behalf isn't much more than a background hum we can ignore at our leisure. Soldiers and police aren't given the resources they need to deal with the trauma they face - which is cumulative.

Of course there are healthy and unhealthy ways to deal with moral injury. The unhealthy ways make for quite bad police officers indeed.

^This.

Particularly when seeking mental health treatment is essentially seen either 1) a sign of weakness or unreliability, or 2) career-ending, or 3) both. And the military/paramilitary subculture's overall answer to dealing with repeated, untreated exposures to trauma is to repress it and use alcohol as a coping mechanism. For all the lip service that the military gives to mental health, they're pretty genuinely awful at practicing what they preach.

[Purpelia]

I mean, folks can take or leave the advice I give them. I'm just a dude on the internet, which is a dubious credential at best.

Always keep in mind that if someone is asking you questions it goes without saying that he does not have enough knowledge to tell a good answer from a bad one.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

What?

I picked two more or less random examples of things that make the police not a "soft" profession and you have decided that those are the only two things I think matter for police officers?

I can't help but feel like you're willfully trying to misunderstand my position here. I think we agree more than we disagree tbh.

In that case allow me to try and start from scratch.

The purpose of a military doing peacekeeping is to keep the peace. They operate against a hostile population that might well be quite well armed and intent on killing them. And even those that don't want to kill them don't want them there as they see them (rightly) as an occupation force. So the approach a peacekeeper has to take is to be always cautious, semi-distant and concerned not with upholding the law but keeping order and above all staying alive. They are in no uncertain terms an occupying army and have to act and be equipped as such.

The purpose of a police officer a lot different. A police officers job is more than anything to make the people he is policing feel safe. Stopping crime is a part of that. But ultimately it's more about being the firm and friendly reassurance people need to feel safe. That is why for example police foot patrols are much more effective than vehicular patrols even though the later cover more ground and respond more quickly to calls. People simply feel safer when they see a guy walking down the street in uniform even if objectively his effect on caching criminals is negligible. So a police officer has to inspire trust in people and in turn trust them not to be a threat. He can't react with caution, distance and other behavior that in a peacekeeping context makes perfect sense and keeps him alive because he'll end up looking like paranoid and tarnish the public's view of the police force as a whole.

And that I feel is something that americans don't really notice. Like when I watch videos of your police and I see the standard arrest methods it's just insane. Like the whole pin someone to the ground and knee on his back while he is getting tied down. Or the way they point guns at people preemptively by default. Or the way they yell and scream at people to get down and force people to their knees and the ground face down. If that happened where I am from heads would be rolling unless they could prove he was resisting arrest with a firearm or something similar. And yet if I heard of one of our nations soldier acting like this while "peacekeeping" my response would be "well duh. how is he supposed to know that guy doesn't have a bomb or gun?"

So the two skill sets don't really overlap as you have to untrain the "soldier" behavior before you can train the "police" behavior. At least unless you want an american style police that acts like an occupying army.

Do all peacekeepers operate against a hostile population?

[Purpelia]

Do all peacekeepers operate against a hostile population?

If the population isn't hostile you don't need to deploy soldiers to patrol the streets, now do you? Remember, peacekeeper is just a fancy modern word for colonial occupation soldier.

[Champagne Socialist Sharifistan]

Do all peacekeepers operate against a hostile population?

If the population isn't hostile you don't need to deploy soldiers to patrol the streets, now do you? Remember, peacekeeper is just a fancy modern word for colonial occupation soldier.

If 90% is supportive but
3% are enemy combatants you do want soldiers patrolling the streets.

[Purpelia]

If the population isn't hostile you don't need to deploy soldiers to patrol the streets, now do you? Remember, peacekeeper is just a fancy modern word for colonial occupation soldier.

If 90% is supportive but
3% are enemy combatants you do want soldiers patrolling the streets.

Which 3%? Unless you are a mind reader the answer is all of them.

[Austrasien]

America has literally no issues with it.

Do you watch the news?

US police violence levels are perfectly in line with what would be expected given the level of violent crime in the country. It appears in every way to be a dependent variable - while actual incidences of violent crime appear to be the independent variable. So there is nothing to explain in terms of any characteristic of American police or policing. Of course, when there is nothing to explain any explanation can be made to fit.

[Purpelia]

US police violence levels are perfectly in line with what would be expected given the level of violent crime in the country. It appears in every way to be a dependent variable - while actual incidences of violent crime appear to be the independent variable. So there is nothing to explain in terms of any characteristic of American police or policing. Of course, when there is nothing to explain any explanation can be made to fit.

Which underlines my point that we shouldn't be giving one size fits all answers to this.