Firstly, by using the fact that lying to the police was not illegal, witnesses openly challenged the police’s authority. Due to their public occurrence, criminal investigations could easily harm people’s reputation by publicly labeling them as suspicious. As a result, secondly, the incriminated officially complained or -- more effective for the public restoration of one’s honor -- explained themselves in newspapers. Thereby, the policemen’s ability to perform their job was publicly questioned. Thirdly, the officers also defended their professional honor towards jurists involved in their examinations. In their reports to the court, the police tried to cover up unprofessional behavior and defended their judgment calls. Regarding acquittals as personal defeats and symbolic reprimands, they often sued defending witnesses for perjury. These accusations symbolically underlined the notion of the police being the crucial force that protected the state.
In sum, the Bavarian police defended their status against accusations from two sides: the population and court officials. Thus, their professional identity in fact was not that of a self-assured servant of an authoritarian state but of a public officer fighting for acknowledgement. The Kaiserreich was a period of transition from monarchy to democracy. By looking at policing practices, we can see how self-confident citizens on the one hand and state servants on the other hand constantly negotiated on how state power should be executed.
See more of: AHA Sessions