Possibly stupid question about police...

[killerkebab]

A policeman is there to uphold/enforce the law, right? (Question 1: Is there a difference between uphold and enforce? I've heard both terms used)

Does that imply that part of the training is exactly that, law? I always wondered if a policeman would be expected to know laws like a lawyer would, and since I know at least one person on here would know the answer, I decided to bite the bullet and ask :)

If the question is retarded, I do apologise and I expect a torrent of 'NOOB' :p

[Dr. Z]

They need to know the basics of what is illegal and what isn't but they don't need to know the whole statute book inside and out. Obviously I would imagine a working knowledge of the law would be needed but if every officer needed to know all of the law it would be pretty impossible to be a cop!

As for upholding/enforcing the law, I see the two as separate but linked. Upholding the law to me means that they are there to provide some kind of deterrent to make sure that the law doesn't get broken. Enforcing the law is what happens when someone breaks the law (or attempts to break a law).

[Mark]

I'd agree with DRZ. Given the difference in length of training to be a lawyer against being a PC, it's pretty obvious. They need the basics of things they're likely to come across day to day - public order, assault, theft, that sort of stuff, how to use the kit they're provided, how to make an arrest, etc. The fine detail is left to prosecution lawyers, the CPS, etc.

[iCraig]

Different types of policeman need different knowledge I'd guess at. A beat officer for example wouldn't need to know the in-depth legality of internet-crimes.

[killerkebab]

I'd agree with DRZ. Given the difference in length of training to be a lawyer against being a PC, it's pretty obvious.Oh that much is obvious, I only wondered just how much training is given in this area, if any :)

[Del Lardo]

The chap driving the Panda car that pulled me over on Sunday night clearly didn't know anything about the law covering the road but I soon put him straight :)

It's actually a rather interesting question, how do the Police know that what you are doing is illegal? I suppose most of the crimes they have to deal with it's fairly obvious but for the less obvious I suppose that's where experience comes into effect.

[Pebs]

I've done a shedload of legislation covering definitions of offences such as theft, robbery, making off without payment, fraud etc. I can tell you the definitions of those offences and the points you have to prove to say those offences have been commited, we really do learn it to death but the finer intricacies are left to the lowyers I'd imagine. There are a million and one crimes I don't know the first thing about and probably never will but I think essentially if a police officer thinks an offence has been commited then its game on ;) Von will know far more.

[Del Lardo]

if a police officer thinks an offence has been commited then its game on ;)


That's where a good moral compass comes in.

I could never be a Police officer :evil:

[Von Smallhausen]

DRZ sums it up nicely.

There will not be one cop in the UK who will know the statute books inside out as there is simply too much to take in.

The Police And Crininal Evidence Act of 1984 is basically the cops bible as to how detainees rights, how they should be treated, how stop searches should be conducted and many other things yet it is in excess of 100 sections and you have further and numerous codes of practice A-H that cover the likes of identification, searching, information on arrest, interviewing etc and that is just one of hundreds of Acts on the statute book.

A lawyer will have a far more in depth knowledge of the law than your average police officer as they will be aware of stated cases / caselaw etc.

[Wossi]

DRZ sums it up nicely.

There will not be one cop in the UK who will know the statute books inside out as there is simply too much to take in.

The Police And Crininal Evidence Act of 1984 is basically the cops bible as to how detainees rights, how they should be treated, how stop searches should be conducted and many other things yet it is in excess of 100 sections and you have further and numerous codes of practice A-H that cover the likes of identification, searching, information on arrest, interviewing etc and that is just one of hundreds of Acts on the statute book.

A lawyer will have a far more in depth knowledge of the law than your average police officer as they will be aware of stated cases / caselaw etc.

Would getting hold of that book and having a quick flick through help someone who was joining the Police? Or would it be a waste of time?

[Von Smallhausen]

Would getting hold of that book and having a quick flick through help someone who was joining the Police? Or would it be a waste of time?

The term statute book is a generic term. All legal references I need are on what is known as the National Police Legal Database where all stautes and case law are on there.

As for joining the police, you will not be expected to learn Acts and sections during the process of trying to join. Visit your local station if you want more info. :)

[Wossi]

The term statute book is a generic term. All legal references I need are on what is known as the National Police Legal Database where all stautes and case law are on there.

As for joining the police, you will not be expected to learn Acts and sections during the process of trying to join. Visit your local station if you want more info. :)

I was planning on visiting my local station anyway, also going to go have a chat with a retired policeman who lives over the road, who coincidentally was at the force I'm thinking of applying to.