c c c c
! " # !$ % " & ! " ' ( ! ) ( " ! " * c
+ , , , , ' %
& - + % & & . c ! / 01 " # !$ % " c & ! " ! " + , ,c 2 ) &
# ,& 2
)
& # , 2 )
, 2 )
3 2 )
& !& " c ! 4 " ! " & 4
%
& ' ! ) " ' & , c 0 5
6 c c & 5
& 6 c
* c
c
*
+
* & 5
6 , & 5
6 !
" ' , &
Police brutality From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Police brutality is the intentional use of excessive force, usually physical, but potentially also in the form of verbal attacks and psychological intimidation, by a police officer. It is in some instances triggered by "contempt of cop", i.e., perceived disrespect towards police officers. Hubert Locke writes, "When used in print or as the battle cry in a black power rally, police brutality can by implication cover a number of practices, from calling a citizen by his or her first name to a death by a policeman's bullet. What the average citizen thinks of when he hears the term, however, is something midway between these two occurrences, something more akin to what the police profession knows as 'alley court' ² the wanton vicious beating of a person in custody, usually while handcuffed, and usually taking place somewhere between the scene of the arrest and the station house."[1] Widespread police brutality exists in many countries, even those that prosecute it.[2] Police brutality is one of several forms of police misconduct, which include false arrest, intimidation, racial profiling, political repression, surveillance abuse, sexual abuse, and police corruption. April 21, 2001: Police fire CS gas at protesters during the Quebec City Summit of the Americas. The Commission for Public Complaints against the RCMP later concluded the use of tear gas against demonstrators at the summit constituted "excessive and unjustified force." The word "brutality" has several meanings; the sense used here (savage cruelty) was first used in 1633.[3] The first known use of the term "police brutality" was in the New York Times in 1893,[4] describing a police officer's beating of a civilian. Throughout history, efforts to police societies have been marred by brutality to some degree. In the ancient world, policing entities actively cultivated an atmosphere of terror, and abusive
treatment was used to achieve more efficient control of the population.[citation needed] In western civilization,as the Power of Royal authority grew in the later European kingdoms these faced a problem that formerly was mostly the charge duty of the local aristocrats and reeves of the Feudal system, which usually were better prepared for military and major brigandage. The House of Burgundy in Castile created and gave license in the Lower Middle Ages to an Institution, The Santa Hermandad that would leave the Military Forces free of this Service, and the local or regional Officers in charge of it independent from Aristocratic or Church interference, though it would not be always so. Other countries will follow issue, and the Royal Sergeants of France to keep order among the military, would take more civilian duties and give in time place to the development of the French national Gendarmes. But all these Forces of Peace and Order would be used and abused by some or another political factions of society at large, if not from their own volition. The origin of modern policing based on the authority of the nation state is commonly traced back to developments in seventeenth and eighteenth century France, with modern police departments being established in most nations by the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries (see Police History section). Cases of police brutality appear to have been frequent then, with "the routine bludgeoning of citizens by patrolmen armed with nightsticks or blackjacks."[5] Large-scale incidents of brutality were associated with labor strikes, such as the Great Railroad Strike of 1877, thePullman Strike of 1894, the Lawrence textile strike of 1912, the Ludlow massacre of 1914, the Steel strike of 1919, and the Hanapepe massacre of 1924. Police brutality can be associated with racial profiling. Differences in race, religion, politics, or socioeconomic status sometimes exist between police and the citizenry. Some police officers may view the population (or a particular subset thereof) as generally deserving punishment. Portions of the population may perceive the police to be oppressors. In addition, there is a perception that victims of police brutality often belong to relatively powerless groups, such as minorities, the young, and the poor.[6] [edit]Causes
Police officers are legally permitted to use force, and their superiors²and the public²expect them to do so when appropriate (see Use of force). According to Jerome Herbert Skolnick, in dealing largely with disorderly elements of the society, some people working in law enforcement may gradually develop an attitude or sense of authority over society, particularly under traditional reaction-based policing models; in some cases the police believe that they are above the law.[7] However, this "bad apple paradigm" is considered by some to be an "easy way out". A broad report commissioned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on the causes of misconduct in policing calls it "a simplistic explanation that permits the organization and senior management to blame corruption on individuals and individual faults ± behavioural, psychological, background factors, and so on, rather than addressing systemic factors."[8] The report goes on to discuss the systemic factors, which include Pressures to conform to certain aspects of "police culture", such as the Blue Code of Silence, which can "sustain an oppositional criminal subculture protecting the interests of police who violate the law"[9] and a "'we-they' perspective in which outsiders are viewed with suspicion or distrust"[8] command and control structures with a rigid hierarchical foundation ("results indicate that the more rigid the hierarchy, the lower the scores on a measure of ethical decision-making" concludes one study reviewed in the report);[10] and deficiencies in internal accountability mechanisms (including internal investigation processes).[8] Police use of force is kept in check in many jurisdictions by the issuance of a use of force [11] continuum. A use of force continuum sets levels of force considered appropriate in direct response to a subject's behavior. This power is granted by the civil government, with limits set out in statutory law as well as common law.
Some members of the public may in fact perceive the use of force by police as excessive even when the force used is lawful. [edit]Global prevalence In the Philippines, the Philippine National Police has many incidents of Police brutality against the
people whom they arrest or investigate. In some cases, instead of inviting a person for questioning and that particular person refuses, they arrest them without a warrant for the reason of obstruction of justice. This is a violation of the right of a person for dignity, silent, and equality before the law. Especially, there is no warrant of arrest, meaning a false arrest. Also in some cases, the officials of the Philippine National Police abuse their privilege to use force to induce psychological intimidation against a group or an individual as revenge due to a previous incident of the latter. The common victims are journalist who made a report of an incident that is done wrongly by the police. Due to these incidents, the public has low approval for the credibility of the Philippine National Police. [edit]Independent oversight
Various community groups have criticized police brutality. These groups often stress the need for oversight by independent citizen review boards and other methods of ensuring accountability for police action. Umbrella organizations and justice committees (often named after a deceased individual or those victimized by police violence) usually engage in a solidarity of those affected. Amnesty Internationalis another organization active in the issue of police brutality. Police brutality. It's a taboo but it is happening here in the Philippines and around the world. Today, on the news another expose about Philippine police brutality has surfaced. The victims of police brutality are usually suspects of some crime. The latest of which was a suspect with numerous charges against him. As far as I can recall, the first torture video that caught the media attention were three holdup suspects - all delinquents, was shown beaten up and were forced to lock lips with one another. Then there was another. The video was apparently shot at the Daet, Camarines Norte police station on April 2009. The victim was punched repeatedly and had a plastic bag over his head. It was to have him confess his crimes and accomplices. Another police torture video that triggered an outrage was a cellphone video shown by ABSCBN news showing a naked man grimacing in pain. A string was supposedly tied on the man's genitals and police reportedly tugged on the string everytime the victim failed to answer questions. Later, the torture victim was reported to have died although he has not been identified. All 21 police men including their chief superintendent has been suspended due to this incident. Again, an investigation unit has been put up. The vow to get these policemen and promise to end police brutality is strong but what keeps these policemen from committing the same "crime" over and over again? As soon as the media frenzy dies on the issue, let us hope that the fight for human rights do not die with it. n the police¶s actions in ³inviting´ them for questioning. We ourselves also experience them often. Abductions, warrantless arrests, illegal detention, rough treatment, torture and even death at the hands of police and the military have almost become an ordinary experience for political activists and journalists who criticize and oppose this tyrannical Arroyo regime. To date, there have been 177 victims of extrajudicial killings and more than 72,000 victims of human rights violations in the Bicol region alone. Almost all of these were done by police and military operatives. Just recently a videotape of police hazing in Camp Simeon Ola was exposed. In the video clip, police trainees were shown being beaten up and humiliated. If the police can do this to
one of their own, then just imagine what they would do to civilians. It is no wonder that the Philippine National Police and the Armed Forces of the Philippines violate human rights so blatantly. We are asking the Commission on Human Rights to look into this matter and the way our military and police officers are trained. If hazing is used in training our cops and soldiers, then we can only expect those who are supposed to serve and protect us to be violent and triggerhappy and to be the first ones to hurt us. They are being taught to look at people as things rather than as human beings. It is by such trainings that they are transformed into heartless, vindictive brutes. Something must be done to correct this training flaw immediately. The way our police and military officers are trained should at least be reviewed comprehensively and supervised by the Commission on Human Rights. Policemen and soldiers already in the service should also be made to undergo extensive reorientation so that police abuses would somehow be curbed. ²JOHN CONCEPCION, spokesperson, Karapatan-Bikol, 664-Encarnacion Bldg., Rizal St., Legazpi City, Albay
