Response Help

Rosilene Silva 

Discussion 6 

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

 

Rosilene Alcantara Silva

CJE 3115 – Police and Society

Prof.: Elizabeth Buchholz

November 07, 2022

 

 

Are the police becoming too militarized?

In my opinion, the police are becoming too militarized. Over the last 30 years, the militarization of policing in the U.S. has grown by leaps and bounds, making a bad situation even worse in many parts of law enforcement. When police forces become militarized, ordinary citizens feel less protected and lose some of their liberties because their law enforcement officers look, act, and carry themselves like soldiers on the battlefield (TheEconomist, 2021). The likelihood of death or injury for civilians who come into contact with militarized police is greatly increased, whether in everyday life or during a protest. Breonna Taylor, a Black woman, was killed on May 13, 2020 in Louisville, Kentucky, as a result of the improper execution of a "no-knock" search warrant. Taylor wasn't the one for whom the warrant was issued. Police used a battering hammer to break down the door and opened fire, shooting Taylor eight times without identifying themselves. As police officers dress more and more like soldiers, they look more and more like soldiers ready to go to war against unarmed civilians. This makes things worse between the police and peaceful protesters. And a study from 2017 found that when police departments use military equipment, officers are more likely to act violently and kill the civilians they are supposed to protect and serve.

Perhaps most disturbingly, police enforcement's cultural image of its duty in society has shifted from protector to warrior as a result of militarization (Wayne, 2020). An officer's outlook on their role in the community and the people who live there can be severely damaged by police training based on the military boot camp model, which, according to former Justice Department policy analyst Karl Bickel, "tends to create a 'us versus them' mind set in rookie officers." Officer recruitment that emphasizes a "fight or flight" mindset not only fails to attract who perceive the community as the enemy.

Is the Police Militarization Justified?

Shields, helmets, batons, guns, camouflage, and armored personnel carriers conjure up images of battle distant from American shores in the minds of most Americans. While formerly reserved for the military, such equipment is now often used by civilian police forces. So ordinary that the pictures of riot gear-clad policemen brandishing weapons and using force against protesters in the wake of the police deaths of Michael Brown, Breonna Taylor, and George Floyd are etched into the collective consciousness of the American people (Heritage Explains 007: Military Gear for Police, 2017). The motivations for getting rid of military surplus tend to change as often as the wind, leading us to believe that those in favor of the legislation are more concerned with putting the equipment into the hands of law enforcement than they are with the reasons for doing so (ABCNews, 2016). It's reasonable to be worried about this. Instead of questioning why their police departments need military-grade equipment from Washington, DC lawmakers, local governments should be controlling procurement trends and asking why their police departments want such equipment.

I therefore strongly believe that the militarization of the police is not justified. The danger that the police force is exposed does not equate the militarization that has been seen in the police force. As much as the police are being protected, the public also needs to see the police force as their helpers.

WC: 552

 

Bottom of Form

Breanna Valdes 

DBQ 6 

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

The militarization of the United States police force grants officers the ability to respond to suspects with any grade of weapons that the suspects may have. By the military providing police stations with surplus equipment, officers are able to focus on their responsibilities, knowing that they are well equipped with the weapons for anything that they might face. However, there are aspects of police militarization that do elicit a cause for concern. Critics of police militarization are concerned with the reliance on assets such as Special Weapons and Tactics units (SWAT) for situations that do not call for such a show of force. One thing is certain though, the militarization of the police force is needed in order to keep up with the advances of terrorism, however, officers cannot become accustomed to employing their military gear for situations that do not call for it.

A police department's crime rates should be analyzed in order to truly decide whether a town  needs the type of support that military weapons can provide. "Keene, a small town in New Hampshire which had three homicides between 1999 and 2012, spent nearly $286,000 on an armoured personnel-carrier known as a BearCat."  (The Economist, 2014). An armoured personnel-carrier is not necessary for a town like Keene, especially when considering the costs of such a vehicle. The San Bernardino shooting suspects were dealt with using the same BearCat carrier, therefore establishing that larger cities have more of a use for such equipment (ABC News, 2015). Supplying small towns with military-grade weapons is a waste of their tax payer's hard-earned money. In the town of Keene, before spending so much money on the BearCat, the government should have consulted its citizens, "so that the community has the opportunity to voice their position and opinion on how their money will be spent, and, probably more importantly, if they want to have a police department that becomes more militarized" (NJ Spotlight News, 2017). Instead of immediately spending $286,000 on an armored vehicle that is essentially going to act as an intimidation tactic, the citizens of Keene should have been consulted on the use of their tax dollars. 

The employment of SWAT teams in situations where they are not warranted allows for an embodiment of the harm that can arise from police departments relying on militarization. "...SWAT teams were deployed about 3,000 times in 1980 but are now used around 50,000 times a year... Baltimore and Dallas have used them to break up poker games. In 2010 New Haven, Connecticut sent a SWAT team to a bar suspected of serving under-age drinkers." (The Economist, 2014).

Police officers handling tools of war allows them to become more comfortable with the destruction that is caused by such weapons. "When you're using war equipment... That's a very dangerous thing, because soldiers have a very specific mission, and that's to annihilate a foreign enemy. Whereas a police officer's job is to protect our rights and to keep the peace" (Kennedy, 2014). An example of a militarized police force being used against citizens would be the protest for the unjustified death of Michael Brown in Ferguson. The backlash regarding the employment of military-grade weapons serves to establish public opinion on using such weapons against citizens. The Department of Defense established they gave the Ferguson police department "two humvees, one generator, and a cargo trailer" (Gabrielle, 2014).

As advancements in technology are made, the potential threat that officers face is concerning; the rationale behind providing police departments with military-grade weapons can be comprehended when considering the perspective of an insufficiently supplied officer. The shootout in North Hollywood's Bank of America establishes how SWAT teams are necessary considering the lengths that individuals will go to in order to harm officers (RebRulez, 2008). The suspects of the shooting very well could have left once they finished robbing the bank, however, they decided to stay and mercilessly shoot at officers, taking advantage that the officers were not able to compete with their automatic weapons. "As a direct result of the North Hollywood heist, some officers can now carry automatic rifles. (Rbtelee1, 2018). However, military equipment can also benefit society. By avoiding the costs that would have been charged without the use of tactical tools, military aid serves to anticipate the needs of future situations. "It’s estimated that $5,800 worth of military gear can result in savings to society of $112,000, thereby making military aid 'a very inexpensive crime-reducing tool'" (The Heritage Foundation, 2017). 

747 words.

Bottom of Form

Sarah Tejera 

Chapter 6 Discussion 

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

The question of whether the police are becoming too militarized is a complex one. On the one hand, the police are armed with more sophisticated weapons and equipment than ever. On the other hand, this may be necessary to protect the public from increasingly sophisticated criminals and terrorists. There is no question that the police are better armed than they were in the past (The Economist, 2014). In particular, they have access to military-grade weapons and equipment, such as armored personnel carriers and battering rams. They also have better training in using these weapons and responding to potentially violent situations. However, it is important to remember that the police are not the military. They are not trained to fight a war and should not be used as a tool of war. The police are there to protect the public and to keep the peace. In most cases, they will only use their weapons and equipment in self-defense or defense of others.

Some argue that the police are becoming too militarized. They point to the fact that the police are now using military tactics and equipment and are often more aggressive than they used to be. They also argue that the police are more likely to use excessive force and that they are less likely to de-escalate potential violence.

However, there are also good arguments to be made that the police are not becoming too militarized. The police are armed with more sophisticated weapons and equipment because they need to be able to protect the public from increasingly sophisticated criminals and terrorists. In most cases, they will only use their weapons and equipment in self-defense or in defense of others. Secondly, the police are subject to strict laws and regulations regarding the use of force, and they are held accountable for their actions. 

The use of military tactics and equipment by police forces has also been a controversial topic in recent years. Some people argue that using such tactics and equipment is justified and necessary, while others argue that excessive use of force can lead to more violence.

 There are a few reasons why using military tactics and equipment by police may be justified. First, police forces are often called upon to respond to serious crimes, such as terrorist attacks or mass shootings (NJ Spotlight News, 2017). In these situations, military tactics and equipment may be necessary to ensure the safety of the public and the police officers. Second, military tactics and equipment may be justified if it is the only way to apprehend a suspect safely. For example, if a suspect is barricaded inside a building and armed with a weapon, using military tactics and equipment may be the only way to apprehend the suspect safely. 

There are also a few reasons why using military tactics and equipment by police may be seen as excessive. First, military tactics and equipment can often be seen as a show of force, which can intimidate and scare members of the public. Second, the use of military tactics and equipment can sometimes lead to violence, as was seen in the case of Ferguson, Missouri. In Ferguson, police officers used military tactics and equipment to quell protests, which led to violence and property damage. Finally, using military tactics and equipment can often be seen as an abuse of power, as it can give police officers a sense of superiority and authority.

 Word Count 566

Bottom of Form

Sandy Aguila 

D3 

COLLAPSE

Top of Form

Over the past three decades, the militarization of policing in the United States has increased exponentially, changing for the worse an already problematic culture in many areas of law enforcement. The result of this militarization, with local police taking on the looks, weapons, and demeanor of soldiers at war, is that the public is less safe and less free. And those who encounter a militarized police force, whether in their daily lives or at a demonstration, are far more likely to suffer deaths or injuries due to an officer's militarized mindset. As police officers dress in military force gear, they increasingly look like members of an army ready to go to war against unarmed civilians, increasing tensions between police and peaceful protesters. And as a 2017 study showed, law enforcement officers wearing military gear are more likely to behave violently and kill the civilians they are assigned to protect and serve. Although some tactical gear and specialty weapons may be enough to deal with a dangerous emergency, such as an active shooter, outside of these limited and isolated circumstances, the use of this type of equipment should be restricted to combat zones. It is completely unsuitable for normal police work. Militarization is just one of the many causes of police brutality and fatal shootings. The police force has always been plagued by explicit and implicit bias and racism. America’s rate of police violence far outstrips that of any other western democracy. However, the national police are committed to protecting individuals and defending the rights the Constitution affords to all Americans, including freedom of speech and association. Civil servants are not military, but civilians charged by the government with the responsibility to protect and serve the people in their greatest need. However, these roles can be dangerously confused when the civilian police wear military gear and carry special weapons. The effects of police militarization in American communities will certainly resonate well beyond the protests that are taking place now. The normalization of the paramilitary police poses a threat to the personal safety of the people the police are supposed to protect. It destroys the trust and legitimacy of law enforcement and destroys the community cooperation on which effective policing depends. And it makes it harder for Americans to exercise their constitutional rights. SWAT teams were originally developed for use in violent emergency situations such as hostage situations, terrorist attacks or bank robberies. By the early 1980s, however, they were increasingly being used for routine warrants in drug cases and other nonviolent crimes. But when it comes to nonviolent drug offenders, paramilitary police action breeds violence rather than defusing it. Whether it's an innocent family caught off guard by a police invasion and accidentally pointing to the wrong house, or a drug dealer who mistakes the mugging cops for a rival drug dealer, breaking into someone else's home leads to a confrontation. Overall, it’s a troubling trend because the military has a very different and distinct role than our domestic peace officers. (“Our Militarized Police Departments - reason.com”) The military's job is to annihilate a foreign enemy. The police are supposed to protect us while upholding our constitutional rights. It's dangerous to confuse the two.

 

I do believe the use of military tactics and equipment is needed in our police force because we live in a time where anyone can get an assault rifle and start shotting people. Not to mention all the domestic terrorism groups we have in the country and all the gangs who deal in weapons. An example would be the second video where it mentions “such equipment has saved lives during police operations in response to terrorism attacks”.

 

Word Count: 613

 

Bottom of Form