Leaving one's beat

[harry]

Police officers in 1888,as today,were expected to react to incidents observed by them or reported to them by members of the public.Not all incidents were/ are of a criminal nature.How they reacted to such incidents were dictated by departmental policy and training.The meeting with Cross and Paul about 3.45 am was an incident which convinced Mizen to leave his beat and investigate.
Mizen had an obligation to the department to report his actions.His training would have instilled a need to obtain particulars of the person/persons reporting.He had opportunity to do that.He had an issued notebook in which to record particulars.He didn't do so.He was in breach of his responsibilities.
I doubt he was let off scot free.A verbal caution at least.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Whilst I can't disagree with David's understanding of what burdens of duty the code placed on an officer in 1888 it does sound strange to these 21st century ears. Today if we were told that a woman was lying 'dead or drunk' in the street the word 'dead' would obvious raise alarm bells (metaphorical ones of course ) We would consider that there's probably a one in three chance of a crime or accident (the other being that she just dropped down dead.) But I'm not a Victorian policeman with a code to work by.

There are of course discrepancies with regard to who said what to whom but it does seem that, as the code existed, Mizen didn't need to take details. He himself said that he'd been told that there was a woman lying drunk and that a Constable wanted him (nothing about a crime or accident.) CL and Paul said that they had told him dead or drunk but probably dead (nothing about a crime or an accident.)

[Elamarna]

[QUOTE=Pierre;425777]

Hi Steve,

that is one way of operationalizing the problem.

However one problem with that operationalization is that the notorius Shouldhaves and Couldhaves so very often are used within ripperology and also in the Lechmere idea (in this set of concepts we also find the terrible Wouldhaves).

A problem is inherit in the "Couldhave": of course many people could have done many things, or "nothing is impossible". But it is very seldom established as historical facts that they did!

And so John is clearly having a problem with this, which is normal when trying the Couldhaves.

Yet another problem is inherit in the "Shouldhave": we apply a norm on the past and say: they should have acted so or so. But the past is the past and we must differ between our history about the past and the past itself.

And he is having a problem with this too. He thinks Mizen should have acted in another way. But Mizen had to (!) pay attention to the Code.

So Mizen did not bother with Johnīs "Shouldhaves" - or with Paulīs.



An hypothesis of "need to and requirement": this is a hypothesis about necessity. It is a good hypothesis to use when anaylzing the past. History shows that people very often have done what they thought was needed and required to do.



So I also vote for the concept of need here.

Pierre

No argument from me on that


steve

[David Orsam]

I'm sure he wasn't expected to take particulars in every case.

But how does he know? A crime could have potentially occurred in any instance. The person who asks him directions could be fleeing the scene of a crime. A report of an open door or window could mean a burglary has taken place. A loose dog reported to him might have attacked someone and left them dying.

He can only go by what he is told and in this case he has (apparently) been told that no more than that a woman is either dead or drunk, lying in the street. No crime has been witnessed or reported. No accident has been witnessed or reported. It is not, therefore, at that time, a criminal case. Nor is it, at that time, a case of an accident.

It might turn out to be a criminal case or a case of an accident and then, but only then, he should start taking the particulars of anyone who witnessed it or was in any way involved.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;425778]

Where does it say he should take particulars if a crime is reported?

Exactly John. That is the exact question I am asking you:

"It is in the Code that he shall take particulars if a crime has been committed or is reported? "

Pierre

[John G]

But what validity do your thoughts have John? Can you give me any examples of police constables from the 19th century taking particulars in such circumstances, just in case an accident or crime "may potentially have occurred"?

I'm sure you can't and you must be wrong. If the Code had wanted constables to take particulars in every case where a crime or accident "may potentially have occurred" it would have said so. That it makes no requirement means that you must be wrong.

Of course, had it made such a requirement it would have made no sense because in effect it would have required a Constable to take particulars on every almost single occasion he spoke to a member of the public. One minute you are going on about the absurdity of taking particulars when someone is drunk or larking about, the next minute you tell me with a straight face that a constable needs to take particulars just case a crime "may potentially have occurred", thus imposing an impossible burden which the drafters of the Code cannot possibly have intended and which Mizen's superiors, or the public, cannot possibly have expected him to carry.

I'm sure he wasn't expected to take particulars in every case. No doubt most cases he dealt with were trivial and mundane. However, this one wasn't, so questions could have arisen as to whether he should have taken particulars in this case.

[John G]

[QUOTE=Pierre;425766]

Allow me.

1. This was clearly NOT a "high profile case" 31 August when Cross spoke to Mizen. So David is not missing anything.

It was a simple case of Mizen being wanted by a policeman in Buckīs Row where a woman was lying dead or drunk. No crime. Nothing extraordinay in Whitechapel. Just the thing the police had to handle every day. Normality.

The rest came AFTER that.

2. "...at least one newspaper was highly critical of Mizen": The newspapers, be it their journalists or the people they interviewed, in this case Paul, was "highly critical" of many things.



Mizen had not any reason for being "acutely aware" of the following when he spoke with Cross:

throat cuts
abdomen cuts

Tell me John: Were these cuts pictured in his head when he spoke to Cross or were they not?




It is nowhere in the Code that "an officer is expected to be little more than a bystander in these cases, i.e. the cases where some woman lying on the street is reported as lying there, being dead or drunk."

It is in the Code that he shall take particulars if a crime has been committed or is reported?



This idea is an idea from our own time. The critical grand idea that "the public should be" "the final"" (!!!) determinator is hyperbolic and perhaps serves your purpose to criticize Mizen from some democratic point of view or a feeling of general justice, but it was really just a simple matter of reporting particulars when a crime had occured in 1888.



Indeed, and so he did.



Exactly. And since noone knew that, there was no activation of the rule of taking particulars.



And I refer you to David: Mizen was not psychic, so the phrase "potentially" is not relevant.

Where does it say he should take particulars if a crime is reported?

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=Elamarna;425771]

It seems we are debating should and could.

And the answers are clear I believe.

Should Mizen have taken names?

Hi Steve,

that is one way of operationalizing the problem.

However one problem with that operationalization is that the notorius Shouldhaves and Couldhaves so very often are used within ripperology and also in the Lechmere idea (in this set of concepts we also find the terrible Wouldhaves).

A problem is inherit in the "Couldhave": of course many people could have done many things, or "nothing is impossible". But it is very seldom established as historical facts that they did!

And so John is clearly having a problem with this, which is normal when trying the Couldhaves.

Yet another problem is inherit in the "Shouldhave": we apply a norm on the past and say: they should have acted so or so. But the past is the past and we must differ between our history about the past and the past itself.

And he is having a problem with this too. He thinks Mizen should have acted in another way. But Mizen had to (!) pay attention to the Code.

So Mizen did not bother with Johnīs "Shouldhaves" - or with Paulīs.

No absolute need to, in the circumstances it was not a requirement.
If sent by another officer, that officer should have taken details.
If not, well as David and Pierre have said he was not informed of a crime.

An hypothesis of "need to and requirement": this is a hypothesis about necessity. It is a good hypothesis to use when anaylzing the past. History shows that people very often have done what they thought was needed and required to do.

Could Mizen have taken the names?

Of course he could have, and it may have beeb sensible to have done so, has John suggested, if he intended to respond to the incident, but there was no need to.

So I also vote for the concept of need here.

Pierre

[John G]

It seems we are debating should and could.

And the answers are clear I believe.

Should Mizen have taken names?

No absolute need to, in the circumstances it was not a requirement.
If sent by another officer, that officer should have taken details.
If not, well as David and Pierre have said he was not informed of a crime.


Could Mizen have taken the names?

Of course he could have, and it may have beeb sensible to have done so, has John suggested, if he intended to respond to the incident, but there was no need to.

And there is no evidence to suggest that he would be unduly critised for not doing so.


Steve

Where does the Code say he should take particulars when informed of a crime?

[Elamarna]

It seems we are debating should and could.

And the answers are clear I believe.

Should Mizen have taken names?

No absolute need to, in the circumstances it was not a requirement.
If sent by another officer, that officer should have taken details.
If not, well as David and Pierre have said he was not informed of a crime.


Could Mizen have taken the names?

Of course he could have, and it may have beeb sensible to have done so, has John suggested, if he intended to respond to the incident, but there was no need to.

And there is no evidence to suggest that he would be unduly critised for not doing so.


Steve

[David Orsam]

Considering the fact that the Code, on the face of it, imposes a strict liability, I would have thought a prudent officer would take particulars in every case where an accident and crime may potentially have occurred.

But what validity do your thoughts have John? Can you give me any examples of police constables from the 19th century taking particulars in such circumstances, just in case an accident or crime "may potentially have occurred"?

I'm sure you can't and you must be wrong. If the Code had wanted constables to take particulars in every case where a crime or accident "may potentially have occurred" it would have said so. That it makes no requirement means that you must be wrong.

Of course, had it made such a requirement it would have made no sense because in effect it would have required a Constable to take particulars on every almost single occasion he spoke to a member of the public. One minute you are going on about the absurdity of taking particulars when someone is drunk or larking about, the next minute you tell me with a straight face that a constable needs to take particulars just case a crime "may potentially have occurred", thus imposing an impossible burden which the drafters of the Code cannot possibly have intended and which Mizen's superiors, or the public, cannot possibly have expected him to carry.

[David Orsam]

I think your missing a very important point. This was clearly a high profile case, and as Steve has pointed out at least one newspaper was highly critical of Mizen.

I'm not missing anything John. I assume you are referring to the LWN report of 2 September. That was not a newspaper being "highly critical" of Mizen, it was Paul criticising him for continuing to knock up. No-one was criticizing Mizen for not taking any particulars. As I've said, this is a modern obsession not a contemporary criticism. And it is a modern obsession based on a misunderstanding of what constables were required to do.

[Pierre]

[QUOTE=John G;425758]

Hello David,

I think your missing a very important point. This was clearly a high profile case, and as Steve has pointed out at least one newspaper was highly critical of Mizen.

In such circumstances Mizen's superiors could potentially have elected to throw him to the wolves, so to speak, by applying the Code literally, and under a strict interpretation he was certainly guilty of misconduct, whether he had been negligent or not.

Allow me.

1. This was clearly NOT a "high profile case" 31 August when Cross spoke to Mizen. So David is not missing anything.

It was a simple case of Mizen being wanted by a policeman in Buckīs Row where a woman was lying dead or drunk. No crime. Nothing extraordinay in Whitechapel. Just the thing the police had to handle every day. Normality.

The rest came AFTER that.

2. "...at least one newspaper was highly critical of Mizen": The newspapers, be it their journalists or the people they interviewed, in this case Paul, was "highly critical" of many things.

If he was acutely aware of this he may well have been motivated to be somewhat economical with the truth when informing the inquest what Cross had reported.

Mizen had not any reason for being "acutely aware" of the following when he spoke with Cross:

throat cuts
abdomen cuts

Tell me John: Were these cuts pictured in his head when he spoke to Cross or were they not?

And I don't accept that an officer was expected to be little more than a bystander in these cases;

It is nowhere in the Code that "an officer is expected to be little more than a bystander in these cases, i.e. the cases where some woman lying on the street is reported as lying there, being dead or drunk."

It is in the Code that he shall take particulars if a crime has been committed or is reported?

nor do I accept that it was intended that members of the public should be the final determinater of what constituted an accident or criminal case.

This idea is an idea from our own time. The critical grand idea that "the public should be" "the final"" (!!!) determinator is hyperbolic and perhaps serves your purpose to criticize Mizen from some democratic point of view or a feeling of general justice, but it was really just a simple matter of reporting particulars when a crime had occured in 1888.

No; an officer must surely have been expected to exercise his judgement in a sensible way after interviewing the witness.

Indeed, and so he did.

For instance, what about situation where a witness informs an officer, "there's a woman lying, possibly dead. Maybe she was a victim of an assault or an accident. Who knows?"?

Exactly. And since noone knew that, there was no activation of the rule of taking particulars.

Considering the fact that the Code, on the face of it, imposes a strict liability, I would have thought a prudent officer would take particulars in every case where an accident and crime may potentially have occurred.

And I refer you to David: Mizen was not psychic, so the phrase "potentially" is not relevant.

[John G]

John, you seem to be utterly obsessed with the idea of people "larking about" and giving false reports of criminal offences to police officers.

I'm sure the Code wasn't drafted with that in mind but it doesn't matter. When a criminal offence is reported he takes down the particulars and he is following the Code. There is nothing absurd about it.

If he is certain that there is in reality no criminal offence then he (obviously) doesn't need to take particulars but it's a risk if there turns out to be one and he hasn't followed the Code.

But that's the type of risk that faces all police officers all the time. People DO falsely report crimes today and we know that this has led to massive police investigations, huge waste of public money, and all because the police can't now be seen to ignore or dismiss any reports of offences, especially sexual ones. So yes strict rules CAN lead to absurd results but in 1888 all the constable had to do was take the particulars when a crime was reported to him.

When Mizen was approached by the two carmen no crime was reported, so no particulars. I refer you to Pierre in this respect.

Hello David,

I think your missing a very important point. This was clearly a high profile case, and as Steve has pointed out at least one newspaper was highly critical of Mizen.

In such circumstances Mizen's superiors could potentially have elected to throw him to the wolves, so to speak, by applying the Code literally, and under a strict interpretation he was certainly guilty of misconduct, whether he had been negligent or not.

If he was acutely aware of this he may well have been motivated to be somewhat economical with the truth when informing the inquest what Cross had reported.

And I don't accept that an officer was expected to be little more than a bystander in these cases; nor do I accept that it was intended that members of the public should be the final determinater of what constituted an accident or criminal case.

No; an officer must surely have been expected to exercise his judgement in a sensible way after interviewing the witness. For instance, what about situation where a witness informs an officer, "there's a woman lying, possibly dead. Maybe she was a victim of an assault or an accident. Who knows?"?

Considering the fact that the Code, on the face of it, imposes a strict liability, I would have thought a prudent officer would take particulars in every case where an accident and crime may potentially have occurred.

[harry]

Pierre,
I am sure that it was also very rare for a policeman to be approached,about 3.45am,and informed that a woman might be lying dead in a public place.Rare enough,that he should consider it important to extract the names of those reporting such an incident,and enter those names in his notebook.