Oxthink

If a protester throws a petrol bomb at a line of police officers, why don’t they shoot him?

Would that be considered an overreaction? Too harsh perhaps?

And yet the protestor knows what he’s doing. His intention is to cause harm and injury, if not to kill. Why should the police be expected to stand there and have explosives hurled at them? Don’t they have a right to defend themselves?

Such restraint is not behaviour we would tolerate in our other relations.

If a nation-state fires a missile at this country, we would consider it an act of war and respond accordingly, probably by firing a missile back.

If somebody acts aggressively towards us, then we have to respond. In all likelihood, any failure to act will only mean that we can expect further abuse and aggressive actions towards us.

It’s not so different from that of the school playground. If we let the bully take advantage of us, then he will keep doing it and probably bully us even worse. We have to stand up to him. We have to make sure he realises that he cannot get away with such behaviour.

But, in the face of protests, all too often, the police will adopt a defensive position and merely fend off the missiles that come towards them. It’s very passive, very tolerant, very restrained.

There is, however, a pragmatic reason for this non-confrontational stance.

The police recognise that the petrol bomber is not throwing the bomb at anyone in particular. He is throwing it at the police force as a whole, at the police as an institution or organised body. There is nothing personal in what he is doing.

For that reason, even though it may be slightly illogical, such actions tend to be considered by the general public as less of a crime than if he were attacking a single person. This reckoning is often the basis for how we assess the gravity of many a crime. We will condemn crimes against individuals, but we may have a much more casual and lenient attitude towards crimes, even violent ones, against organisations.

• Stealing from a work colleague’s locker would earn widespread reprobation; stealing from an employer, although disapproved of, would not earn the same admonishment.
• Graffiti on someone’s house is considered a more serious crime than graffiti on a public site or building, which tends to be more accepted and is even sometimes considered street art.
• House burglary is often regarded as a more odious crime than shoplifting.
• A knife–point street mugging tends to be considered a much more abhorrent crime than an armed bank robbery.

Offences against individuals are deemed more serious and loathsome than those against organised structures, whether public or corporate bodies.

It’s difficult to understand why that would be the case. It may be because we can relate more to the plight of the individual; it may be because we have an instinctive tendency to side with the victim, the afflicted or the underdog; it may be a deeper underlying resentment of authority and power.

In the case of the petrol bomber, the police, as an institution, as a non-personal entity, are the target. Even so, public opinion would generally consider the bomber’s actions to be misguided, reckless and criminal. He probably wouldn’t get much support or sympathy.

But that could all too easily change. If the police were to respond to the bomber with the full force available to them, then, even though the police may be acting in self-defence, public sympathies could quickly shift to that of the bomber. Suddenly, he is seen as the individual; he becomes the victim, the persecuted minority.

Policing relies on public support and consent. The police have to be mindful of that. Unreasonable, disproportionate, or unwarranted actions risk public disapproval.

If the police alienate or become too distant from the public, if their actions garner public sympathy for the protestors, then things can all too easily get out of hand. Ten rioters can easily turn into a hundred, then a thousand. The police have to therefore accept the abuse and barrage of missiles for fear that, if they appear to over-react, they might lose the support of the public.

We might all agree with the principle that if someone is intent on causing serious harm to another person, whether their target represents an organisation or not, they should be stopped by any means necessary. In practice, though, such a course of action is too risky and too damaging.

On the face of it, the police do tend to pride themselves on operating with minimum force. They may even suggest this as being an aspect of their professionalism, but, in reality, it’s a reflection of the often precarious position they find themselves in.

The police need to maintain public support. They must always weigh up what is acceptable to them in the eyes of the public.

That’s why they don’t shoot the petrol bomber – not that he doesn’t deserve it!