The Benefits and Drawbacks of Police Militarization

This paper examines the differences between the police and military, between war and law enforcement. In this paper we will distinctively distinguish, the pros and cons of militarization of the police. We will discuss how this action in itself can change the security of the nation and if this action presents a harmful situation for the civilians of America. Could this action internally affect the future? We discuss how this brings change in our day and age of terrorism.

Before we weigh in on both sides we must first look into the definition of Militarization and how it began in the United States. Militarization is the giving up or equipping forces with military supplies or gear. Now that might sound like a bad thing but it's not. We are going to put ourselves in police officers shoes and find out why this benefits both the public and our police officers. Now in 1990 congress passed the national defense act in the wake of a rise in drug violence, which allowed the department of defense to transfer and give used military gear and equipment to local and state police departments. This program was known as the 1033 program. And this program also gave used military supplies for counter-terrorism. Now one benefit to militarization is that it can boost police officers confidence in the streets and make them feel safer and more reliable. Another benefit is that barely any money is wasted in supplying gear because they are used military gear that the department of defense transfers to local police departments based on necessity. Its also important to point out that with new equipment and gear comes better training for police officers. Putting highly disciplined and trained police officers in the streets only benefits the communities they swore to protect and serve. And also putting well trained and well armed police officers benefits because they are ready for anything such as a terrorist attack.

Now some people might not agree with these statements because one they might say that having police officers carry military weapons or riding other military vehicles gives communities the appearance of an armed police confrontation. This statement is completely absurd because society is always grieving when a tragedy such as a terrorist attack occurs and many people die as a result. Instead of grieving let's prevent the next attack by preparing now by providing law enforcement with the tools and supplies they need to keep us safe. Because at the end of the day they are the ones who respond to our calls for help. Another con people might have a concern with is that some people might not feel safe having highly trained police officers with military guns. Which again is absurd because these police officers took an oath to protect and serve and give their life for the safety of their communities. It's always better to be safe than sorry. These police officers are here to protect us and we must provide them with the support they need to continue the job.

Police officers are not the only ones who carry around firearms. Criminals and legal firearm holders do too. Police officers are not the ones who carry around seriously deadly weapons with bad intentions. It’s the criminals, the terrorists. Although many may disagree, it is a lot safer in some situations to use these military style tactics and equipment. The police force should be empowered with pre owned military gears, weapons and armed vehicles so as to protect not only the people but also themselves when they really need to.

The police in the middle is wearing a “Class A” type of uniform. Do you think this uniform is appropriate when on a mission? This uniform especially with the long jacket may be problematic when on the job. It is as unsuitable on street patrols as the two on the far left at a ballroom event. The officers on the right are wearing a more traditional patrol uniform, which are not much useful, are they? In today’s world, would you expect to see officers on the job in this uniform? The two officers on the far left are wearing military styled uniforms. The external vests can be removed in the station for the officer’s comfort when not on duty. I believe it is most appropriate during patrol and or during special duties. The officer on the left is also wearing a thigh holster. Research shows that the waist belt carrying lots of weight may result in back problems, so there the thigh holster steps in. It may look very military-like but it’s better for personal configuration. There is definitely a certain time and place to wear these uniforms. But then again, just as said about firearms, police officers are not the only ones who wear these type of vests for their protection, criminals do too. The criminal’s targets are their own people or random people; however, it is the police who needs to step in to save them. So why shouldn’t the police wear such uniforms for the sake of their own protection too?

The military clothing would intimidate criminals much more than an officer with the dark blue or black shirts and clip on ties (traditional or Class A type uniforms), don’t you think? I believe that these uniforms would even boost the police’s confidence when taking down heavily armed criminals or terrorists. It provides more safety and makes it much easier for them. These military type uniforms also can significantly cut down a number of police deaths, for it is safer than the others. There are special times when these uniforms need to be worn. Not on a regular day basis but in times when it is really needed. Citizens should not have a problem with this because when the police are out assisting them, doing their job, saving lives, they do not think about the police’s uniforms then, they think about their own lives whether they will be saved or not but do they think about the police’s life? They do not. So why should they or anyone disagree when fighting for officers safety also?

When we support the idea that agree that the police force should have hand me downs from the military, we try to give a more realistic view of the situation. Meaning what the future holds in term of 10,20 years and so on. When we use our thesis of “the police force should be empowered with pre owned military gear” we use the word should. To join any police force in the world is take an oath that you will protect society and the very people that live to uphold the law. These members of the law are putting their lives on the live so people like us can write an essay on it, back to my main point the police force should have the proper equipment they need to fight the good fight. Can you go to far as in giving the police everything of course! The 5-0 can’t arrive to the scene in a tank if there is somebody jay walking. According to the article the job of swat by Steven Sarao he states” IN 2005, I FOUND myself face-to face with a man who was naked, crazed, and high on drugs. There were shards of glass all over the floor as my fellow police officers and I struggled to handcuff the man. After what felt like an eternity, the Emergency Service Unit (ESU) finally arrived. With the help of the ESU's specially trained officers and equipment, we were able to safely restrain the subject” this quote from the article shows how how dangerous being on the job can be. Even with back up your life is always in danger. Let’s say for example, the police had better equipment this situation wouldn’t have got out of hand as it did. This can be due to training as well but why can’t the police train like the military? Which leads me to my second article Anta Plowden “Bringing Balance to the Force: The Militarization of America’s Police Force and its Consequences” which describes how after the events of 9-11 the people lost their faith in the police force. The people wanted the military to handle domestic issues. “Then the focus will shift to the problems with the military being used to handle domestic disturbances and how the military has adapted to its new role in a post-9/11 world. Finally, it will make recommendations to restore trust in the police force and allow them to safely and effectively accomplish their mission of upholding the law.” this quote shows that allowing the military to handle domestic issues instead of the police force, would allow the people to rely on the armed force too much. Thus, when they leave who would be around to help them?

Police forces have always followed a certain standard: neutralize the threat as soon as possible and ensure public safety. It has worked for them countless times in the past when they dealt with crimes or injustices. As the future gets more advanced and the actions of criminals get more insane, the police have to better equip themselves to deal with the terrible threat at hand. “The military-grade weapons source for many LEAs in the United States comes from either grants from the Department of Homeland Security or from the Department of Defense Excess Property Program (1033 program)” (Guerra, 2015, pg.1). During the past decade, the military entrusted pre-owned weapons, armors, and vehicles, used in times of crisis, to police forces to handle situations more efficiently. Living Under The Boot: Police Militarization and Peaceful Protest is an article that explains the extensive militarization of local and state police forces and the threats it can pose to the liberty of civilians. Some people view it as “unnecessary” or plainly bragging about the amount of power they have, which they are abusing to some extent. Also, it provides some well thought solutions the police can take to rekindle their relationship with the public. To eliminate patterns of abuse, officers can manage their own personnel and accept accountability for their actions. “With only a few changes, such as switching the uniform color, using BWVs, changing the discipline process, and banning tear gas, SPD can once again be a model to the nation, this time for the proper way to manage a police force in answer to protest” (Guerra, 2015, pg.1).

The DHS was founded after the attack on the World Trade Center, and these grants were used to fight against “terrorist threats” (Guerra, 2015, pg.1). The purpose of the grants was to provide new methods of dealing with unexpected, dangerous situations. Anything that came to mind could be purchased, so long as it improves the way they handle crime and other actions that go against the law. Guerra (2015) “In 2011 alone, the DHS gave $2 billion in grants. “The department then makes little effort to track how the grants are spent (Guerra, 2015, pg.1), which involves checking the equipment that was purchased, and determining whether the “requesting agency” is facing any actual menacing threats of terrorism.

The population of Fargo, North Dakota contains less than 116,000 people, and Canada, a US ally, is the closest foreign nation. The DHS sent Fargo $8 million in grants to obtain “Kevlar helmets, assault rifles, and an armored truck with a rotating turret.” These acts by the DHS show how committed they are with ending the threat of terrorism as soon as possible. The ability to maintain law and order is a strong virtue they hold high, and wish to see it through to the end. Also, the DHS has given out “at least $34 billion in anti-terror grants since its inception.” The 1033 program gives off the impression that it aids officers by providing them the resources they need to win their “war”. The program involves the National Defense Authorization Act which allows transferal of Department of Defense property to federal, state, and local departments. The initial agenda for the program was to assist in the War on Drugs. As of 1997, any agency may request the property for “bona fide law enforcement purposes that assist in their arrest and apprehension mission,” with preference given for “counterdrug and counterterrorism requests.” Nearly half a billion dollars worth of military equipment was given out in 2013 alone. In total, over $4.3 billion dollars worth of equipment has been transferred since the 1033 Program’s inception.

“Law enforcement officers are taught an “Us-versus-Them” mentality. They are taught that everyone is a suspect and just about anyone can kill you in a moment’s notice. “While there might be some truth to this theory, often times it can lead to mistakes with disastrous consequences” (Plowden, 2016). The duty of police officers is quite difficult because their priority is protecting civilians and enforcing the law. Also, they’re ordered with fighting a war, whether it be drugs, crime, or even terror. The impact of war can greatly affect the way officers chose to protect innocent bystanders.

Every American is a soldier, and every citizen is in this fight were the words used by President Bush following the attacks on 9/11. This threat of terrorism allowed for police departments across the country to justify requests for bigger arsenals and more equipment; even small towns needed a SWAT team. As American soldiers geared up to fight terrorism abroad, the constant and ubiquitous threat of another terrorist attack on American soil blurred the lines between the military and the increasingly militarized domestic police forces (Plowden, 2016). Police departments patrolled the streets in armored vehicles and increased the frequency of predawn military-style raids on civilian homes--all in the name of counterterrorism efforts.

Bringing Balance to the Force: The Militarization of America’s Police Force and its Consequences, is an article that is integral to proving the benefits and disadvantages of militarization. It provides a brief explanation of the history of militarization, and how it came to the point now where we all know what it entails. Also, there is an explanation as to why police forces feel obligated to follow the relentless strategies of the military. The relationship between the police and the community they are obliged to serve has been tarnished, and people feel resentment towards the officers. An interesting dynamic occurs with the military because they are acting more like police officers and become solely focused on spreading peace rather than harm. The only solution for creating a balance is having the police focus on improved training, taking responsibility for their actions, and demilitarization.

The job of SWAT: understanding the need for special weapons and tactics capabilities: a review of rise of the warrior cop: the militarization of America’s police forces Radley Balko, is an article that summarizes how the need for police militarization is misunderstood and why it has a bad reputation. “In Rise of the Warrior Cop, Radley Balko fails to acknowledge the significance of this kind of support (Sarao, 2013). The writer criticizes Balko through the entire article because he believes Balko is one-sided and doesn’t present all the facts. He believes it is misleading for readers to see what Balko is writing and it can lead to them having false assumptions of both SWAT and police forces. The discussion of the amendments is an essential part of the article. It starts with Balko’s argument of believing soldiers should follow the Third Amendment and “can be used to assess the constitutionality of policing (Sarao, 2013). Balko depends on a 2001 article in the Seton Hall Constitutional Law Journal to further his point. This article suggests that our founding fathers would consider the current departments of the police force resembles a strong, “standing army”. The evaluation of law enforcement policies have legal scholars refer to Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments. They chose to rely on these amendments because they address the issues such as the protection of privacy and the regulation of search and seizure.

Militarization of the police force can be beneficial for all if tangible solutions are created to maintain peace and uphold the law. Police departments have the best interests for the public in mind when they make decisions that have people question their morals. Mistakes have happened but the mistakes for militarization are catastrophic on a global level. One wrong decision can lead to the deaths of innocents and have violent, uproars of riots occur throughout the world. The training officers get from militarization can improve the way they approach criminals, establish bonds with peers, genuinely spread their sincerity, and become fully equipped to handle the dangers of the unexpected.