Angry in the Great White North

A Toronto police officer has been found guilty of assault:

Toronto police constable Roy Preston used “excessive force” when he punched a 22-year-old man in the face two years ago during a late-night fracas outside a west-end donut shop, an Ontario Court of Justice judge ruled today in finding the officer guilty of assault.

An amateur videotape shot by Ottawa tourists showed Preston punching Jama Jama in the face without warning.

Jama Jama was initially charged with assaulting police and causing a disturbance, but those charges were later dropped after a Crown lawyer reviewed the video.

But this not the misconduct I'm talking about. The man wronged in this case, Jama Jama, was denied his natural right to see justice done by the police, who packed the courtroom in full uniform.

The Somalia-born Jama Jama said he was “very disappointed” he was unable to get into the courtroom this morning to hear the verdict.

“I thought I got here on time but they closed the door in my face.” The small courtroom was packed with police officers, many from Preston's 23 Division in Etobicoke.

The behaviour of the officers in the courtroom was shameful.

Where was the watch commander, the division commander, the chief? Where were the men and women who are supposed to be in charge, who are themselves charged with keeping these officers under control?

In a true military organization, the men are drilled to obey their officers. The officers are judged on their ability to lead and maintain order in the ranks. When things get out of hand, there is a robust military police force to enforce order and to haul away the troublemakers for military justice.

In a paramilitary operation like a civilian police force, the rank and file is unionized, and a contract defines the scope and limits of the way management deals with them. Discipline a constable and face a union grievance. Do it enough times, and face a strike or work slowdown when the current contract runs out.

Does this make sense? Should the police, who are guardians of the State no less than the military, be run in a manner so unlike the military, despite the clear parallels between the two organizations? Is this one of the root causes of the troubles seen in the courtroom today, both the original assault and the behaviour of the police?

Consider the priorities of a US Marine:

[F]irst, Marines must accomplish the mission—a "win" for the Marine Corps and the American people. Second, Marines must lookout for the welfare of their troops—a “win” for the troops themselves.

Police should have the same conditioning -- the first priority is to the application of the law for the safety and security of the public, the second is to his fellow police officers. But that never seems to be the case. The police are a constituency unto themselves instead of the personification of the State and its desire for security for itself and its citizens. As such, the police behave as any special interest group, looking after their own interests first. But as the police, they still see themselves as the defenders of social order, and so the two goals become confused -- what is good for the police is good for the public, and vice versa.

I wonder if the police need to reconsider their organization and their training from a fundamental level. Right down to the very philosophy of policing, as a paramilitary force and not as a public service like the guy who changes street lights.

Suddenly I see Gen. Rick Hillier's comments about the armed forces in a new light:

"We are not the Public Service of Canada," he declared. "We are not just another department. We are the Canadian Forces and our job is to be able to kill people."

He knows what it means for the armed forces to become just another bureaucratic constituency along with the civilian bureaucrats. The mission becomes the continuation of the constituency. And that has a corrosive effect on the force, which is bad for all of us.