peer review

The human rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of expression are largely used by the public to express concern and bring attention to actions taken by those who impose a threat to their rights. Police involvement in these situations is intended to primarily defend protesters as well as ensure that violence does not erupt. Introduction of police militarization in the U.S. has substituted idealistic police involvement with heavy police interference and the use of excessive force toward protesters. This imposes its own threat to the same rights that protestors are aiming to defend. Militarized policing of demonstrations in the U.S. has effectively introduced violence into non-violent protests by adding a level of disruption and aggression that was not present before riot gear and military grade weapons were involved. In mistreating and criminalizing protesters, police effectively suppress the voice of the public in their attempts to defend their rights.

The way the public perceives a demonstration or movement is important in ensuring that the correct message is spread to bring attention to the issue in the way it was intended. When that message is skewed by media’s misrepresentation, it is harder for progress to be made. In her article “Protest is Democracy at Work,” Amy Lerman explores the way opposing media represents protests. She confirms that “Protests are not about violence” and that the narrowed focus on issues that support their opposing cause only “[threaten] to undermine the legitimate message of tens of thousands of peaceful protesters.” Lerman continues to focus on the shift of attention that is made by media toward instances where few individuals use the cover of protest to commit crimes and injure police officers. She elaborates on that when concluding that “[protesters] unequivocally condemn these acts of violence against members of our community. However, blaming all protesters or their supporters for the actions of one unstable individual fundamentally misrepresents the nature and importance of protests.” For some, especially those who have found that the voting process in their state is like jumping through hoops, protesting may feel like the only way they can express their opinion on important matters. Unfortunately, media’s representation of these demonstrations undermines the message that protesters are aiming to share, all the while encouraging officers to step in and use unnecessary excessive force to disrupt otherwise peaceful protests. The focus seems to be on the idea that police have been forced to use militarized measures in response to out of control protesters which gives the intention that protesters are simply a group of people looking to go against the system to cause trouble. While this is unsettling, looking at history books can give clues that help explain what this strong resistance against protesters is all about.

Protesters are constantly portrayed as the enemy regardless of their well intentioned actions due to the trouble that seems to erupt around popular protests. The idea that the protesters are the enemy has been a common misconception throughout history. In their report “Suppressing Protest: Human Rights Violations in the U.S. Response to Occupy Wall Street” by Sarah Knuckey, Katherine Glenn, and Emi MacLean, the importance of how protesters are handled by police is outlined. In a decision regarding whether a civil lawsuit against the New York Police Department's aggressive action toward protesters was allowed to move forward, U.S. District Judge Jed Rakoff began with suggesting that protesters are not the enemy, but rather the hero's that lead this nation toward progressive change. He makes it clear that this nation owes a lot to its “troublemakers,” a statement presumably in direct response to the way protesters were earlier portrayed in court. He further declared that

from Thomas Paine to Martin Luther King, Jr., [these “troublemakers”] have forced us to focus on problems we would prefer to downplay or ignore. Yet it is often only with hindsight that we can distinguish those troublemakers who brought us to our senses from those who were simply…troublemakers. Prudence, and respect for the constitutional rights to free speech and free association, therefore dictate that the legal system cut all non-violent protesters a fair amount of slack. (20)

Rakoff brings attention to historic figures that effectively brought change that was, at the time, seen as rebellious and out of control. He reminds everyone that even Martin Luther King, Jr. was once portrayed as a “troublemaker” just as protesters are being portrayed today. This solidifies the idea that protesters are not enemies but are rather, and quite possibly, the misrepresented heros of a society that struggles for progressive change. While it has been said that understanding history is the best way to prevent repeating past mistakes, it only begs the question: Why has police aggression toward protesters recently gotten so much worse?

Since the SWAT team was introduced in the 1960’s, militarization of police in the U.S. has been a rising concern. While the military is well funded and receives upgrades to weapons, the older equipment has been passed down to police officers. Keep in mind that these are weapons created for military use for situations against enemy forces where the goal is typically associated with lethal action. In his article, “How Militarizing Police Can Increase Violence,” Jesse Signal breaks down reasons why militarized police inevitably leads to otherwise avoidable destruction and chaos. Signal references a quote by Maria Haberfeld, a Professor of Police Science, revealing that “military equipment is used against an enemy, so if you give the same equipment to local police, by default you create an environment in which the public is perceived as an enemy.” There is a saying closely resembling Haberfeld’s message that fits well here: “If all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.” It is not a hard concept to wrap the mind around when considering the tools that officers are being handed when they are assigned to police protests. Water cannons, body armor, gas masks, riot shields, tear gas, assault rifles, pepper spray, and police dogs are just some of the means that have been used to break up protests. While police may feel the need to control situations, it is necessary for them to prioritize tasks and understand when interference will only exacerbate a problem. It is important to note that both the officer and protester are probable to react in a way that may only escalate toward more violent measures while police are carrying equipment that science suggests increase aggressive behavior.

A study conducted by Leonard Berkowitz and Anthony LePage in 1967 suggested that the mere presence of a weapon tends to increase aggressive behavior. This study has been reconducted by many brilliant scientists over the years with varying results, however in 1998 the study was conducted again and the question was put to rest by researchers Craig Anderson, Arlin Benjamin, Jr., and Bruce Bartholow. They concluded that the so called “weapons effect” was indeed as real as Berkowitz and LePage suggested back in ‘67. As noted in a discussion of the results in the research report, “Does the Gun Pull the Trigger? Automatic Priming Effects of Weapon Pictures and Weapon Names,” the scientists behind this experiment conclude that their extensive research suggests that yes, the gun does in fact pull the trigger. They claim that “[their] research demonstrates one way that exposure to weapons might increase aggressive behavior—by increasing the accessibility of aggressive thoughts” (313). The experiment was conducted by priming the brain with prime stimuli comparing weapon and non weapon images and words. The goal was to prime the brain and then time how long it took for subjects to read aloud words that were aggressive versus nonaggressive. The hypothesis was that priming the brain with images and words of weapons triggers the brain into thinking aggressive thoughts which, in theory, would be quicker to access since they are at the ready (Anderson et al. 312). As previously stated, after several trials, the results concluded that this, in fact, was the case. To elaborate on the importance of this, imagine a circumstance in which officers are carrying assault rifles around while policing protest. The officer may not want to use the weapon per se, however as this study suggests, having the weapon on hand triggers aggressive thoughts. In this case, the officer is more likely to resort to aggressive behavior before anything else is considered as those thoughts are fresh in mind. A protester with nonviolent intentions may also notice the weapon which triggers aggressive thoughts in their mind. Excessive force used by officers in attempts to control a group of those attending a demonstration is likely to make protesters angry, but the presence of these weapons is now proven likely to resort to aggressive retaliation. Understanding the science behind militarized weaponry and its aggressive thought provoking nature, moves us to think about whether there is any part of this massive militarized policing of protest that is legal.

Works Cited

Anderson, Craig A., et al. Does the Gun Pull the Trigger? Automatic Priming

Effects of Weapon Pictures and Weapon Names. Columbia, U of Missouri, July

1998. PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE. Scanlab, scanlab.missouri.edu/docs/pub/pre2010/

caa-ajb-bdb-psychsci1998.pdf. Accessed 23 Feb. 2017

Knuckey, Sarah, et al. Suppressing Protest: Human Rights Violations in the U.S.

Response to Occupy Wall Street. Protest and Assembly Rights Project, June

2013. Academic Search Complete, hrp.law.harvard.edu/wp-content/uploads/2013/

06/suppressing-protest-2.pdf. Accessed 22 Feb. 2017.

Lerman, Amy E. "Protest Is Democracy at Work." Goldman School of Public Policy,

U of California Berkeley, 23 Dec. 2014, gspp.berkeley.edu/news/news-center/

protest-is-democracy-at-work. Accessed 23 Feb. 2017.

Singal, Jesse. "How Militarizing Police Can Increase Violence." New York

Magazine, 14 Aug. 2014, nymag.com/scienceofus/2014/08/

how-militarizing-police-can-increase-violence.html. Accessed 22 Feb. 2017.