We've had this convo before. tldr: IMHO, it would be counter-productive. We don't like being told what to do, even if it's something good that might help us. Some people would ruin their ballots in protest--probably even some who'd normally vote.
I don't care what their beliefs are, or whether they vote for a Democrat or the Man in the Moon. To stay home and not vote is an abdication of their citizenship.
Or to stay at home means people are saying None of the Above--a Pox on Both Your Houses.
But I happen to believe this year's election will see an unusually high turn out in nearly all states as indicated by the high turn out in the primary voting (even now) and the high turnout in the midterms. When you have the most recent poll on the direction of the Country showing only 28% of Americans thinking it is going in the right direction while 67% say it is going in the wrong direction, you can bet the bank that there will be a very high turnout.
We're talking about an incident in the UK, London. There were no rubber bullets or teargas. The incident happened when mounted police were managing a demonstration, no weapons, and according to the reports, a horse bolted, for whatever reason, and the rider hit her head on a traffic light, falling off, injured (punctured rib, concussion, broken collar bone).
Point of order: the police deploying horses is de facto deploying weapons. They are big scary fuckers, and it is absolutely done to intimidate. Police manage a demonstration in their regular hats and vests - they put on riot gear and bring out the horses and dogs when either they think there's going to be trouble or, more disappointingly, they want there to be trouble.
In the UK the object is to achieve a peaceful event without injuries or arrests. That is not always possible when they are attacked by a section of the crowd.
You have remarkable, if naive, faith in the metropolitan police.
Did you see the video of police on horseback riding into a crowd outside Downing Street?
Just saw it on the evening news. Looks like one of the horses got loose.
The Horse didn't just get loose. The female rider was assaulteed and very seriously injured
Why have horses there? It can only be to use force to disperse people in which case the Police are liable to make things worse. Isn't face to face Policing the best way?
UK police forces routinely use horses for all sorts of events; mainly so that they have officers who can see what's happening (it may be that as drone technology improves that role will decline) but also officers who can be seen from the crowd which in many cases can be reassuring for the public - though I agree that it can equally be intimidating for any seeking to cause trouble. I don't see anything sinister about horses being there, if a horse hadn't got spooked by something and the rider knocked off no one would be talking about horses. If the police had broken out the riot gear (which I assume would be stored in vans nearby) then we'll be into the realms of police intimidation.
They were in riot gear at this point I believe. The bbc has this:
As darkness fell, lines of police in riot gear took up positions to contain a small group of protesters in Westminster, the BBC's Tom Symonds said.
Bottles were thrown at officers and police issued a dispersal order for the City of Westminster, compelling people to leave the area.
It sounds - I’m speculating here - as if come evening they wanted the protest over, and were twitchy about it being close to Downing Street, they moved in on the protesters who were still there in riot gear - who responded by throwing stuff at them - and it went west from there.
We're talking about an incident in the UK, London. There were no rubber bullets or teargas. The incident happened when mounted police were managing a demonstration, no weapons, and according to the reports, a horse bolted, for whatever reason, and the rider hit her head on a traffic light, falling off, injured (punctured rib, concussion, broken collar bone).
Point of order: the police deploying horses is de facto deploying weapons. They are big scary fuckers, and it is absolutely done to intimidate. Police manage a demonstration in their regular hats and vests - they put on riot gear and bring out the horses and dogs when either they think there's going to be trouble or, more disappointingly, they want there to be trouble.
You may think that, but I have a horse-mad sister and school friend who would demur. I've been introduced to and ridden far too many horses, even though never seeking them out, so although wary of hooves and tending to gauge the berth to be given by the equine mood (ears, eyes, nostrils), I'm not so bothered by their presence.
They were in riot gear at this point I believe. The bbc has this:
As darkness fell, lines of police in riot gear took up positions to contain a small group of protesters in Westminster, the BBC's Tom Symonds said.
Bottles were thrown at officers and police issued a dispersal order for the City of Westminster, compelling people to leave the area.
It sounds - I’m speculating here - as if come evening they wanted the protest over, and were twitchy about it being close to Downing Street, they moved in on the protesters who were still there in riot gear - who responded by throwing stuff at them - and it went west from there.
Thanks, I'd missed that. The only police I've seen in the videos were on horseback, they had visors on their helmets but that could have been PPE precautions related to coronavirus. There were protesters throwing things, so it's not surprising if the riot gear was out or coming out (the shields, for example, being designed to protect officers from missiles).
We're talking about an incident in the UK, London. There were no rubber bullets or teargas. The incident happened when mounted police were managing a demonstration, no weapons, and according to the reports, a horse bolted, for whatever reason, and the rider hit her head on a traffic light, falling off, injured (punctured rib, concussion, broken collar bone).
Point of order: the police deploying horses is de facto deploying weapons. They are big scary fuckers, and it is absolutely done to intimidate. Police manage a demonstration in their regular hats and vests - they put on riot gear and bring out the horses and dogs when either they think there's going to be trouble or, more disappointingly, they want there to be trouble.
You may think that, but I have a horse-mad sister and school friend who would demur. I've been introduced to and ridden far too many horses, even though never seeking them out, so although wary of hooves and tending to gauge the berth to be given by the equine mood (ears, eyes, nostrils), I'm not so bothered by their presence.
But most people are just not familiar with horses, especially if they grew up poor.
It's only recently that horses have become the seen to be the preserve of the rich, which is not necessarily so: my school friend was a farmer's daughter and my sister's first decade or so working was in stables for a pittance, along with many other youngsters, who will accept poor wages to get near horses. In my experience, those jobs came with some pretty grim living accommodation to justify the lower wages. (She's also worked in stables abroad and gained an HGV driving horse boxes, so went on to earn more working as a long-distance lorry driver.)
The Metropolitan Police Unit was founded in 1760, according to Wikipedia, when horses were unexceptional and most people's transport, and when looking to find when the mounted police work started, I found this research project from Rand Europe (link) which states that:
While mounted police in the UK are traditionally thought of as public-order policing resources, deployment data show that they spend between 60-70 per cent of their time in local area patrols, and 10-20 per cent of their time in public order work, with the remainder spent in activities such as ceremonial deployments.
And that when used in local areas they "are associated with higher levels of visibility, trust and confidence in police".
They were in riot gear at this point I believe. The bbc has this:
As darkness fell, lines of police in riot gear took up positions to contain a small group of protesters in Westminster, the BBC's Tom Symonds said.
Bottles were thrown at officers and police issued a dispersal order for the City of Westminster, compelling people to leave the area.
It sounds - I’m speculating here - as if come evening they wanted the protest over, and were twitchy about it being close to Downing Street, they moved in on the protesters who were still there in riot gear - who responded by throwing stuff at them - and it went west from there.
Contain and dispersal seem mutually exclusive. Other reports I've seen say the police kettled protesters, which is utterly counter-productive from both a public order and public health perspective.
If you've never been in a demo that's being actively policed by mounted police (that might be used against you) then your attitude is likely to be different.
They don't use them for football crowds just to give them a nice day out, and they don't bring them to a peaceful demonstration unless they want to make a point.
In the UK the object is to achieve a peaceful event without injuries or arrests. That is not always possible when they are attacked by a section of the crowd.
It's certainly not possible when the crowd is attacked by the police.
I've been in football crowds; I used to support Wimbledon at home in the time of the Crazy Gang, the years when they rose through the league, culminating in them winning the FA Cup. One of my better friends travelled with them and is still involved with Wimbledon AFC. Plough Lane was walking distance from home at the time. Near to the ground the route was policed by mounted police. I've also attended policed demos and big crowd events; I used to go to Trafalgar Square for the New Year's Eve celebrations.
In the US, I expect most people have only seen a horse on TV--especially anyone who doesn't live on or near a farm/ranch, and isn't wealthy.
If someone goes to summer camp, they might get a chance to ride. Otherwise, they might see live horses at a fair, in a parade, or when some level of law enforcement officers are riding. (E.g., for show. But some places still use horses in law enforcement work. NYC, I think. We've had them in SF in the past. Might have been park rangers, or local police.)
I have a teeny, tiny bit of experience with/around horses. So, all other things being equal, I wouldn't totally freak out to be around a horse *if I see it ahead of time* and if I can easily step out of the way.
But...I don't like crowds--especially big, loud ones. Very determined ones. Angry ones. If I were in one of them, and horses moved in, and I couldn't get away to a safe, quieter place, I'd have trouble. If things got chaotic,...yuck.
We're talking about an incident in the UK, London. There were no rubber bullets or teargas. The incident happened when mounted police were managing a demonstration, no weapons, and according to the reports, a horse bolted, for whatever reason, and the rider hit her head on a traffic light, falling off, injured (punctured rib, concussion, broken collar bone).
Point of order: the police deploying horses is de facto deploying weapons. They are big scary fuckers, and it is absolutely done to intimidate. Police manage a demonstration in their regular hats and vests - they put on riot gear and bring out the horses and dogs when either they think there's going to be trouble or, more disappointingly, they want there to be trouble.
In the UK the object is to achieve a peaceful event without injuries or arrests. That is not always possible when they are attacked by a section of the crowd.
You have remarkable, if naive, faith in the metropolitan police.
Not really. I know for a fact that these officers are more than happy to have a quiet life.
In the UK the object is to achieve a peaceful event without injuries or arrests. That is not always possible when they are attacked by a section of the crowd.
It's certainly not possible when the crowd is attacked by the police.
In the UK the object is to achieve a peaceful event without injuries or arrests. That is not always possible when they are attacked by a section of the crowd.
It's certainly not possible when the crowd is attacked by the police.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.
Having been rammed by a police vehicle (at low speed) during an entirely peaceful protest I know this to be utterly false.
Black deaths in custody in the UK average 1 a year.
But if you read the whole story, it’s actually quite complicated. An arrested white person is at 25% greater risk of dying in custody than an arrested black person.
But black people are arrested proportionately more than black people, so on a whole population basis the risk of black people dying in custody is twice as high per capita as the risk of white people dying in custody.
We're talking about an incident in the UK, London. There were no rubber bullets or teargas. The incident happened when mounted police were managing a demonstration, no weapons, and according to the reports, a horse bolted, for whatever reason, and the rider hit her head on a traffic light, falling off, injured (punctured rib, concussion, broken collar bone).
Point of order: the police deploying horses is de facto deploying weapons. They are big scary fuckers, and it is absolutely done to intimidate. Police manage a demonstration in their regular hats and vests - they put on riot gear and bring out the horses and dogs when either they think there's going to be trouble or, more disappointingly, they want there to be trouble.
You may think that, but I have a horse-mad sister and school friend who would demur. I've been introduced to and ridden far too many horses, even though never seeking them out, so although wary of hooves and tending to gauge the berth to be given by the equine mood (ears, eyes, nostrils), I'm not so bothered by their presence.
You may not be, others are. That's even more true when the horse is being used to charge you down even if you are an innocent bystander. It is impossible for a horse rider to grasp what's going on on the ground even if he/she has a view of the crowd.
In the UK the object is to achieve a peaceful event without injuries or arrests. That is not always possible when they are attacked by a section of the crowd.
It's certainly not possible when the crowd is attacked by the police.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.
Ever? Really? Tell that to the Irish.
Tell it to people protesting peacefully about Fox Hunting
We're talking about an incident in the UK, London. There were no rubber bullets or teargas. The incident happened when mounted police were managing a demonstration, no weapons, and according to the reports, a horse bolted, for whatever reason, and the rider hit her head on a traffic light, falling off, injured (punctured rib, concussion, broken collar bone).
Point of order: the police deploying horses is de facto deploying weapons. They are big scary fuckers, and it is absolutely done to intimidate. Police manage a demonstration in their regular hats and vests - they put on riot gear and bring out the horses and dogs when either they think there's going to be trouble or, more disappointingly, they want there to be trouble.
In the UK the object is to achieve a peaceful event without injuries or arrests. That is not always possible when they are attacked by a section of the crowd.
You have remarkable, if naive, faith in the metropolitan police.
Not really. I know for a fact that these officers are more than happy to have a quiet life.
We're talking about an incident in the UK, London. There were no rubber bullets or teargas. The incident happened when mounted police were managing a demonstration, no weapons, and according to the reports, a horse bolted, for whatever reason, and the rider hit her head on a traffic light, falling off, injured (punctured rib, concussion, broken collar bone).
Point of order: the police deploying horses is de facto deploying weapons. They are big scary fuckers, and it is absolutely done to intimidate. Police manage a demonstration in their regular hats and vests - they put on riot gear and bring out the horses and dogs when either they think there's going to be trouble or, more disappointingly, they want there to be trouble.
In the UK the object is to achieve a peaceful event without injuries or arrests. That is not always possible when they are attacked by a section of the crowd.
You have remarkable, if naive, faith in the metropolitan police.
Not really. I know for a fact that these officers are more than happy to have a quiet life.
I know for a fact (and have seen it) that some like to wind people up to cause an affray which they then delight in wading into.
It's only recently that horses have become the seen to be the preserve of the rich, which is not necessarily so: my school friend was a farmer's daughter and my sister's first decade or so working was in stables for a pittance, along with many other youngsters, who will accept poor wages to get near horses. In my experience, those jobs came with some pretty grim living accommodation to justify the lower wages. (She's also worked in stables abroad and gained an HGV driving horse boxes, so went on to earn more working as a long-distance lorry driver.)
The Metropolitan Police Unit was founded in 1760, according to Wikipedia, when horses were unexceptional and most people's transport, and when looking to find when the mounted police work started, I found this research project from Rand Europe (link) which states that:
While mounted police in the UK are traditionally thought of as public-order policing resources, deployment data show that they spend between 60-70 per cent of their time in local area patrols, and 10-20 per cent of their time in public order work, with the remainder spent in activities such as ceremonial deployments.
And that when used in local areas they "are associated with higher levels of visibility, trust and confidence in police".
Though, somewhat irrelevant here as that particular finding related to community policing. The brief article didn't give any information about perceptions of the use of mounted police in public order roles - and, this was a public order role.
Minneapolis are going to abolish their police. How can this be done? While I hate all I've heard about their present department I can't get my mind round this.
We've had this convo before. tldr: IMHO, it would be counter-productive. We don't like being told what to do, even if it's something good that might help us. Some people would ruin their ballots in protest--probably even some who'd normally vote.
In the US, I expect most people have only seen a horse on TV--especially anyone who doesn't live on or near a farm/ranch, and isn't wealthy.
I suspect this varies widely depending on what part of the country one lives in. Where I am, I’d be surprised if most people haven’t seen horses, wealth or lack thereof notwithstanding. Whether they have seen them up close or had contact with them may be a different story, but it’s really not hard to see them around here (including downtown in the state capital, where mounted police can sometimes be seen.)
In the UK the object is to achieve a peaceful event without injuries or arrests. That is not always possible when they are attacked by a section of the crowd.
It's certainly not possible when the crowd is attacked by the police.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.
Ever? Really? Tell that to the Irish.
Tell it to people protesting peacefully about Fox Hunting
We've had this convo before. tldr: IMHO, it would be counter-productive. We don't like being told what to do, even if it's something good that might help us. Some people would ruin their ballots in protest--probably even some who'd normally vote.
It’s also arguably unconstitutional.
Right. The Constitution was designed to limit voting, not require it.
Minneapolis are going to abolish their police. How can this be done? While I hate all I've heard about their present department I can't get my mind round this.
There are jurisdictions -- admittedly smaller than the city of Minneapolis -- that rely on the sheriff's department of the county in which they are located to do their policing for them.
There are jurisdictions -- admittedly smaller than the city of Minneapolis -- that rely on the sheriff's department of the county in which they are located to do their policing for them.
Is this just a cross-pond language issue. In what way are the county sheriff and staff not police officers?
There are jurisdictions -- admittedly smaller than the city of Minneapolis -- that rely on the sheriff's department of the county in which they are located to do their policing for them.
Is this just a cross-pond language issue. In what way are the county sheriff and staff not police officers?
There are police at the county level, called sheriffs and deputies, and police at the city level. In general, I believe, county sheriffs have jurisdiction within cities (within their county) but municipal police do not have jurisdiction outside their city, even in the same county.
I think a huge question the people of America are asking themselves right now is, how much of what the police do can really be done, and done a hell of a lot better, by someone else? It's pretty well known that police mostly make domestic violence situations worse by their presence, for example. Police coming to ask the partygoers to tone it down are more likely to cause harm than heal it, especially if the partygoers are people of color. Detectives who are solving crimes don't need guns or nightsticks or even badges. We're seeing the beginnings of a whole rethink of what it is we have police for, and some cost/benefit analysis.
We've had this convo before. tldr: IMHO, it would be counter-productive. We don't like being told what to do, even if it's something good that might help us. Some people would ruin their ballots in protest--probably even some who'd normally vote.
It’s also arguably unconstitutional.
Right. The Constitution was designed to limit voting, not require it.
As I understand it, some of the framers would have preferred that only landed people be allowed to vote.
There are jurisdictions -- admittedly smaller than the city of Minneapolis -- that rely on the sheriff's department of the county in which they are located to do their policing for them.
Is this just a cross-pond language issue. In what way are the county sheriff and staff not police officers?
There are police at the county level, called sheriffs and deputies, and police at the city level. In general, I believe, county sheriffs have jurisdiction within cities (within their county) but municipal police do not have jurisdiction outside their city, even in the same county.
The county sheriff and his deputies would have jurisdiction within the city but would not be under city control.
Ordinarily city police do not have jurisdiction outside the city. I believe, however, that here in Arizona city police have jurisdiction anywhere within the state.
Black deaths in custody in the UK average 1 a year.
But if you read the whole story, it’s actually quite complicated. An arrested white person is at 25% greater risk of dying in custody than an arrested black person.
But black people are arrested proportionately more than black people, so on a whole population basis the risk of black people dying in custody is twice as high per capita as the risk of white people dying in custody.
It is also implied that the white people dying in custody are among the more vulnerable of the population.
So black people of all sorts are being arrests, but the white people being arrested tend to more likely be vulnerable (drug addiction, mental health, etc)
I don't care what their beliefs are, or whether they vote for a Democrat or the Man in the Moon. To stay home and not vote is an abdication of their citizenship.
Or to stay at home means people are saying None of the Above--a Pox on Both Your Houses.
But I happen to believe this year's election will see an unusually high turn out in nearly all states as indicated by the high turn out in the primary voting (even now) and the high turnout in the midterms. When you have the most recent poll on the direction of the Country showing only 28% of Americans thinking it is going in the right direction while 67% say it is going in the wrong direction, you can bet the bank that there will be a very high turnout.
Though, somewhat irrelevant here as that particular finding related to community policing. The brief article didn't give any information about perceptions of the use of mounted police in public order roles - and, this was a public order role.
It makes sense that in community policing, the horse would represent trust. Because the alternative is that the cops are in vehicles and that typically means less interaction. Cars are isolating.
@Curiosity killed
In the days when horses were most common, they were also used as weapons against people on foot.
I don't care what their beliefs are, or whether they vote for a Democrat or the Man in the Moon. To stay home and not vote is an abdication of their citizenship.
Or to stay at home means people are saying None of the Above--a Pox on Both Your Houses.
But I happen to believe this year's election will see an unusually high turn out in nearly all states as indicated by the high turn out in the primary voting (even now) and the high turnout in the midterms. When you have the most recent poll on the direction of the Country showing only 28% of Americans thinking it is going in the right direction while 67% say it is going in the wrong direction, you can bet the bank that there will be a very high turnout.
The Metropolitan Police Unit was founded in 1760, according to Wikipedia, when horses were unexceptional and most people's transport, . . .
In 1760, "most people's transport" was walking.
If you're going to be pedantic, most transport other than on foot; coaches, carts, carriages and ploughs were all horse drawn and were until the early 1900s. For anything that needed more speed or power than could be provided on foot, horses were pretty much the only option.
Mounted patrols are a familiar sight in a lot of places across the UK. They patrol the canals in Nottingham, the parks in London and various other areas which are more accessible on horseback and yes, mounted police are much more approachable than the squad car that checks this road occasionally, if we don't win a fly past by helicopter. Far easier to chat to the human on board.
(And yes, there are some bicycle police in London, I used to know someone who was part of that unit.)
Over the weekend, the police departments in most American cities took a non-confrontational approach to the demonstrators on their streets. Things appeared a lot calmer. In my region, Seattle and Portland, OR still had issues.
The Seattle mayor has now banned the use of tear gas. The use of tear gas and other irritants are technically banned on the battlefield, but not on American streets. I say it is about time.
Detectives who are solving crimes don't need guns or nightsticks or even badges.
They need authority and status to make anybody want to bother talking to them. They may need authority to compel people to talk to them. Don't think detectives usually carry nightsticks, do they? A badge is identification - it's hard to see why they wouldn't need that. Guns? Despite the fact that I've lived in the US for getting on for two decades, I'm still a little taken aback when I see some ordinary policeman doing ordinary things wearing weapons
Comments
We've had this convo before. tldr: IMHO, it would be counter-productive. We don't like being told what to do, even if it's something good that might help us. Some people would ruin their ballots in protest--probably even some who'd normally vote.
Or to stay at home means people are saying None of the Above--a Pox on Both Your Houses.
But I happen to believe this year's election will see an unusually high turn out in nearly all states as indicated by the high turn out in the primary voting (even now) and the high turnout in the midterms. When you have the most recent poll on the direction of the Country showing only 28% of Americans thinking it is going in the right direction while 67% say it is going in the wrong direction, you can bet the bank that there will be a very high turnout.
Fixed broken quoting code. BroJames Purgatory Host
You have remarkable, if naive, faith in the metropolitan police.
Why have horses there? It can only be to use force to disperse people in which case the Police are liable to make things worse. Isn't face to face Policing the best way?
It sounds - I’m speculating here - as if come evening they wanted the protest over, and were twitchy about it being close to Downing Street, they moved in on the protesters who were still there in riot gear - who responded by throwing stuff at them - and it went west from there.
But most people are just not familiar with horses, especially if they grew up poor.
The Metropolitan Police Unit was founded in 1760, according to Wikipedia, when horses were unexceptional and most people's transport, and when looking to find when the mounted police work started, I found this research project from Rand Europe (link) which states that: And that when used in local areas they "are associated with higher levels of visibility, trust and confidence in police".
Contain and dispersal seem mutually exclusive. Other reports I've seen say the police kettled protesters, which is utterly counter-productive from both a public order and public health perspective.
From my personal experience: Norwich, Ipswich , Bristol, East London , Manchester, West London.
Then there is the time honoured tradition of escorting football crowds, usually to coach parks or train stations. And football crowds are loud.....
They don't use them for football crowds just to give them a nice day out, and they don't bring them to a peaceful demonstration unless they want to make a point.
It's certainly not possible when the crowd is attacked by the police.
If someone goes to summer camp, they might get a chance to ride. Otherwise, they might see live horses at a fair, in a parade, or when some level of law enforcement officers are riding. (E.g., for show. But some places still use horses in law enforcement work. NYC, I think. We've had them in SF in the past. Might have been park rangers, or local police.)
I have a teeny, tiny bit of experience with/around horses. So, all other things being equal, I wouldn't totally freak out to be around a horse *if I see it ahead of time* and if I can easily step out of the way.
But...I don't like crowds--especially big, loud ones. Very determined ones. Angry ones. If I were in one of them, and horses moved in, and I couldn't get away to a safe, quieter place, I'd have trouble. If things got chaotic,...yuck.
Not really. I know for a fact that these officers are more than happy to have a quiet life.
The Police do not attack crowds in the UK.
Link. For crowd read mob.
Telford--
Ever? Or currently?
Thx.
Black deaths in custody in the UK average 1 a year.
Having been rammed by a police vehicle (at low speed) during an entirely peaceful protest I know this to be utterly false.
But if you read the whole story, it’s actually quite complicated. An arrested white person is at 25% greater risk of dying in custody than an arrested black person.
But black people are arrested proportionately more than black people, so on a whole population basis the risk of black people dying in custody is twice as high per capita as the risk of white people dying in custody.
That's almost wilfully ignorant. You'd have had to have been living in a cave for the last 50 years to come to that conclusion.
You may not be, others are. That's even more true when the horse is being used to charge you down even if you are an innocent bystander. It is impossible for a horse rider to grasp what's going on on the ground even if he/she has a view of the crowd.
Tell it to people protesting peacefully about Fox Hunting
Who makes that association? The Met?
Though, somewhat irrelevant here as that particular finding related to community policing. The brief article didn't give any information about perceptions of the use of mounted police in public order roles - and, this was a public order role.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52960227
Minneapolis are going to abolish their police. How can this be done? While I hate all I've heard about their present department I can't get my mind round this.
I suspect this varies widely depending on what part of the country one lives in. Where I am, I’d be surprised if most people haven’t seen horses, wealth or lack thereof notwithstanding. Whether they have seen them up close or had contact with them may be a different story, but it’s really not hard to see them around here (including downtown in the state capital, where mounted police can sometimes be seen.)
For or against or both?
Right. The Constitution was designed to limit voting, not require it.
There are jurisdictions -- admittedly smaller than the city of Minneapolis -- that rely on the sheriff's department of the county in which they are located to do their policing for them.
Is this just a cross-pond language issue. In what way are the county sheriff and staff not police officers?
There are police at the county level, called sheriffs and deputies, and police at the city level. In general, I believe, county sheriffs have jurisdiction within cities (within their county) but municipal police do not have jurisdiction outside their city, even in the same county.
The county sheriff and his deputies would have jurisdiction within the city but would not be under city control.
Ordinarily city police do not have jurisdiction outside the city. I believe, however, that here in Arizona city police have jurisdiction anywhere within the state.
So black people of all sorts are being arrests, but the white people being arrested tend to more likely be vulnerable (drug addiction, mental health, etc)
@Curiosity killed
In the days when horses were most common, they were also used as weapons against people on foot.
In 1760, "most people's transport" was walking.
When DJT's disapproval ratings continue to increase, and Biden continues to widen his spread between DJT. It is a pretty sure bet.
If you're going to be pedantic, most transport other than on foot; coaches, carts, carriages and ploughs were all horse drawn and were until the early 1900s. For anything that needed more speed or power than could be provided on foot, horses were pretty much the only option.
Mounted patrols are a familiar sight in a lot of places across the UK. They patrol the canals in Nottingham, the parks in London and various other areas which are more accessible on horseback and yes, mounted police are much more approachable than the squad car that checks this road occasionally, if we don't win a fly past by helicopter. Far easier to chat to the human on board.
(And yes, there are some bicycle police in London, I used to know someone who was part of that unit.)
The Seattle mayor has now banned the use of tear gas. The use of tear gas and other irritants are technically banned on the battlefield, but not on American streets. I say it is about time.
They need authority and status to make anybody want to bother talking to them. They may need authority to compel people to talk to them. Don't think detectives usually carry nightsticks, do they? A badge is identification - it's hard to see why they wouldn't need that. Guns? Despite the fact that I've lived in the US for getting on for two decades, I'm still a little taken aback when I see some ordinary policeman doing ordinary things wearing weapons