[ SECRET POST #5184 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #5184 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.


01.



__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________


03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.














Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 25 secrets from Secret Submission Post #742.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

OP

[(Anonymous)]

policing normatively should assume that citizens are to be protected; the military often assumes that people are enemies.
It's fairly clear I'm saying the difference doesn't make a clear distinction in purpose that justifies Vimes's disgust. Anyway, protection as a norm needs an adversary. Who do police think this adversary is if not people. Furthermore, the military often assumes that people need to be protected. It is part of their function (I would argue fundamentally the same way you would about the police).

the police (usually) operate on, and are subject to civilian control at, local levels.
I'd say police control, which is the relevant chain here, isn't quite civilian for the same reason I'm saying the police aren't civilian

you build political systems that are capable of exercising effective oversight and control. And there are other things you can do too to really emphasize the lack of separation from the populace - which is what the Pratchett quote is about in the first place
Yes and what I'm saying is oversight does not affect the power differential between police as an institution and public, nor does Vimes' quote talk about any of the thing you believe might emphasize lack of separation, and thus that quote is disingenuous as a philosophy at best, and doesn't need a ton of praise and needs a bit more criticism.