Militarized Policing

Gaines, L. K., & Kappeler, V. E. (2014). Policing in america (8th ed.). (S. Decker-Lucke, Ed.) Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America: Anderson Publishing. Retrieved January 2017

The militarization of the police is becoming more and more prevalent issue in our society. There are positives and negatives to this issue, but in my opinion it is a negative occurrence. Excessive use of force further divides police and community, which eventually may lead to severe consequences that may be irreparable.

Rise of the Warrior Cop, by Radley Balko, centers around police in the United States and how it has gone through militarization throughout the years. Militarization is a process in which the police departments take on tactics that are similar to the tactics used by the military. Police forces were initially made to make our environment a safer place to live in. In this book, Balko explains how that has changed. Practices of policing first began when people would get hired, unofficially, to keep slaves under control and catch them if they try to run away. These people were sometimes known as slave catchers. Soon it evolved into formal policing, allowing police to catch criminals and make the neighborhood safe. However, today it is not so much about catching criminals; it involves a lot of violence and Balko questions whether this is even constitutional. In his writing, Balko brings awareness to the horrible tactics police are using in today’s society and how we could fix it.

The militarization of the local law enforcement first escalated with the passing of the 1981 Military Cooperation Law Enforcement Act, which allowed for greater engagement between the military and the domestic police (Coyne, 2015). The terrorist attacks on 9/11/01 provided an opportunity for an expansion of the militarization of the police (Coyne, 2015). In 2002, the Department of Homeland Security was formed. The Department of Homeland Security provided even more funding for local police departments to buy military-grade equipment and training (Hall, & Coyne, 2013). The police started to use more military tactics and technology and this has lead to the lines being blurred between the police and the military. The idea behind the militarization of the police is preventing further terrorist attacks from happening on United States soil (Nacos, Bloch-Elkon, & Shapiro, 2007). Even though there are some benefits from using military technology and strategies in policing, the militarization of police is more harmful than beneficial.

The social issue that is most important to fix is separating the police from militarization in the U.S. Before the ‘‘War on Drugs’’ police are meant to keep citizen safe, detect and prevent crime and bring public order. Now after the ‘‘War on Drugs’’ was announced, President Ronald Reagan passed the federal law that police cooperate with military and use military equipment as justification on the war on drugs. As time pass in modern times we still see police using military equipment and vehicles around the street. This became an issue to many people, as police carry military possession in their hands. These are my reason why police and military should be separated. My first reason is that police are meant for civil order and keeping the peace.

One way to limit policy brutality from occurring is to restrict the flow of military equipment to police departments. Many believe that the access police departments have on military guns and personnel carriers creates a militarized culture that promotes violence and unnecessary force. In the past 8 years alone the Defense Department has “distributed more than $1.5 billion worth of surplus equipment”, which many see as unnecessary. The line between the defense department and local enforcement agencies is blurred where it should not be; confiscating high-caliber weapons, grenade launchers, armed drones, and other military equipment may be the solution to repress police violence.

Very insightful post! You made several interesting points in your discussion. I do agree that the mass majority of American law enforcement personnel have become militarized in their attire, as well as their approach in addressing various community issues. There is certainly a degree public intimidation whenever law enforcement gets involved in local matters. There is a value system that is supposed to permeate a police department. Working with the community, local leaders, individual citizens and public/private organizations should be at the fore front of any police department. However, the increased workloads and loss of confidence in police departments have made it difficult to foster such relationships. According to Tom Casady, “Community-based

The roles, responsibilities, and styles of policing in the United States have changed dramatically since the first “era” of policing was established in 1840. Until recently, there were only three established eras of policing: The Political Era, Reform Era and Community Era. We are now in a fourth era- the New Era. All of these eras are reflections of evolution amongst law enforcement officers, as well as political figures of their times. The roles and styles of policing have been a never-ending topic of change, which has grown to fit the demands of the public. Each new era has been born out the desire to make the United States as safe as possible given an evolving climate of

Soon after, as the development of policing began to grow, many different cultures made use of different policing systems. Practices created throughout the development of policing has played a major role in shaping modern policing in the U.S. In this paper, I will discuss the history of policing, the different eras, how professional standards have affected the way police officers carry out their duties, how standards have affected modern policing and what can be modified to make policing profession

I chose to do this second paper on the militarization of American police departments. This will lend to the thesis Greg and I intend to submit for our final presentation – so we are beginning our research now. As discussed in class, the militarization of police departments is leading American police departments – city or small towns – to act like occupational forces. This is due to several different factors ranging from the availability of weaponry and tanks, to the training of the police departments, to the accessibility of locating crime by advanced surveillance and tracking systems. To further our exploration, Greg and I chose two episodes of the HBO show Vice to watch and elaborate on. For our final presentation we will incorporate these as well as a book Greg has read and some interesting research we will find online. Not only is the militarization of police departments a controversial subject, the consequences of such a transition of our police is detrimental to many. The episode of Vice, and something we are all aware of and have discussed extensively in our courses, reference that the consequences are felt far more severely on the African American population and in low income areas. The two episodes of vice interview several different people about the effects this has on them individually and their communities. These effects, in turn, lead to lack of faith in law enforcement.

Walker, S., & Katz, C. M. (2011). The police in America: An introduction (7th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Domestic police forces within the United States have been getting more and more militarized since the . In the 1990s, programs were made to help police departments acquire military hardware and weapons. These programs were a response to the feeling that police were out gunned by the drug cartels and gangs. Now, with violent crime rates on the decline, police are still acquiring this hardware and weapons, not in response to crimes currently happening, but in fear of crimes that can happen. It can be seen in the purchases made by the police departments, the hardware the police have, and their response to calls.

Then the idea is to go back in with officers who are more oriented in community policing. The problem with this tactic is that it is hard for a lot of the departments to understand when the proper time is to take out the tactical teams and insert the community teams. One of the perceived negative impacts of this culture involving militarization state the possibility that it forces officers into believing that they are to treat the people they serve as enemy combatants. Militarization of policing encourages officers to adopt a “warrior” mentality and think of people the people they are supposed to serve as enemies (ACLU 2). It is important to keep those ideals in check in order to prevent hostilities that prevent a department from adequately communicating with its

Law enforcement’s drift towards militarization has its roots in the 1960s and the need to respond to the social unrest that swept the nation at the time (Bickel 2013). The development of Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) teams in reaction to the Watts riots in Los Angeles began a movement in policing that relied more and more on military tactics, training, and equipment (Bickel 2013). Additionally, stress training in police academies and its warrior-like orientation tends to create an “us versus them” mindset in rookie officers (Bickel 2013). This ingrained mindset has the potential of creating barriers between the police and the community.

Local police are being overly co-opt by federal law enforcement agencies. They are directing too many resources toward protecting the nation’s borders and other federal duties. It is a belief held by some that local police are becoming too militaristic in nature by using military-style weapons, tactics, training, uniforms, and heavy equipment. This notion makes local police no longer a benefit for the community. A number of attacks on American soil have demonstrated this nation’s vulnerability to both foreign and domestic terrorist. The Federal Bureau of Investigations defines terrorism as the unlawful use of force against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government or its population to further political or social objectives.