American police: Too militarized?

And yet they've been presented with those situations in the past. The problem is with utilizing that equipment without considering the ramifications of doing so.

When the hell have American police forces ever been presented with situations in which they absolutely needed MRAPCs and grenade launchers

Why are you limiting this to MRAPs and Grenade launchers? Plate carriers with higher degrees of customization and protection are optimal for Police tactical units. They're also a good solution to having a back-up, robust personal protection system when a standard concealable bulletproof vest might be inadequate. M4s are a good mid-range weapons platform. The whole point of having a pistol is to use it in order to get to to your car and grab your shotgun or rifle. I would feel much safer if every Police cruiser had an M4 and a shotgun in the trunk. Grenade launchers launch tear gas where traditional hand-thrown canisters can't reach. I don't believe Police forces are issued high explosive rounds. At least my department isn't and I know for a fact that the county SWAT teams have MGLs in order to launch tear gas only. As for MRAPs, I see no reason for a Police force not to have one or two for "Oh shit!" scenarios. My department doesn't have an MRAP. The county SWAT team does, along with Clarkstown PD(since they're by far the largest town police force in my county).

As for what Police have faced in the past, the Hollywood shoot out is a good example. The point is, though, that we don't know what could happen in the future. If the military is getting rid of the hardware there is no reason civilian PDs shouldn't be able to get their hands on some of the equipment.

@doejack202:

I agree with you that militarization is the cause of brutality in the modern policing system. While community oversight, transparency, education and training can aid in preventing the use of excessive force and brutality, ultimately these will not fix the underlying issue of our police forces becoming more and more militarized.

Militarization takes form in the equipment and training that police are given. They have become armed with high-powered rifles, body armor and a wide array of non-lethal weapons. This allows them to crush any criminal opposition they may encounter. However this places the police on a pedestal that removes them from the community around them. It creates the image that the police are enforcers, rather than partners of the community. While this view is often perpetrated by the community it can also get into the heads of the officers themselves.

With this image of power and righteous force the police are more likely to participate in acts of brutality. Their military capabilities means that they will not suffer physical harm, although they may get punished within the department. It leaves them with a false sense of superiority and they can often create justifications for their acts of brutality.

The problem lies not within the things that we need to add to police culture but rather the things we need to remove from police culture. It is important to understand that if we take away the “war” mentality the police will no longer view citizens as enemy combatants. With this out of the way we can work towards creating a functioning relationship between the police and the community.

@geekinkinc said:

Courtesy of Business Insider

Those numbers are from 2011. I'd say we need to make our cops more accountable for not being prepared for their jobs because other places are doing a better job at it, a WAY freaking better job.

This pretty much tells us everything. Americans kill way too many

Yes they are.

@berto64: Anaheim, CA.

The police in my country are worst than america which I consider still soft and fluffy.

they are above the law... trigger happy ......politician's dog ..... and fat/ugly

@junglist101 said:

@berto64: Anaheim, CA.

What were they responding to? You haven't provided any context, just a picture of Police wearing body armor. Are they tactical units?

Just found this article on the internet. It's pretty interesting.

I'm not as concerned about the militarization of police as I am about the "war on drugs" and similar endeavors; in other words, I'm more concerned about how police resources are being used, not what resources they have to begin with.

Police forces vary by location. They are not all the same...

In response to mattbbpl:

“No, I want the police to be well equipped. That said, there are related issues in the police department. A lack of published Standard Operating Procedures has already been mentioned, and the police force have a trust issue with the populace - that needs to be rebuilt, and doing so requires not overreacting to trivial situations with an excessive display of force and generally displaying a strong ethical base for a long time. That last portion is the trickiest because tensions are already high. Once tensions are high, even situations in which the officer reacted correctly can be misinterpreted as unethical and the goodwill built to that point is lost. The police have a long way to go in that regard, and they're staring at an uphill battle.”

I agree that the police should be, and already are, well equipped. But what do you mean by “well equipped,” as this is a very vague concept. It sounds like you are suggesting that the police should be more equipped than they currently are. At the same time, you propose a need for improved police relationships with the populace. If you think that an increase in equipment, which is basically an increase in weaponry, will enhance police-public relations you are incorrect.

I had the pleasure of visiting Istanbul, Turkey last summer. Istanbul is one of the largest international cities in the Middle East. It is relatively safe for Americans to visit, as the city is a huge tourist attraction. Every day when I walked down the crowded streets I would see Turkish police officers on foot patrol. Foot patrol is not as efficient as automobile patrol, but it’s less isolated from the community than car patrol is, and it’s great for improving relationships with citizens. However, I recognized the guns every officer carried as MP5’s. MP5’s are small automatic assault rifles, typically holding around 30 bullets in a magazine.

These officers had a similar demeanor to American officers. However, the fact that they carried assault rifles instead of pistols made them much more intimidating. I was told by Turkish citizens to not engage with police unless absolutely necessary. Throughout the entire two weeks I was there, I never saw an officer smile or laugh with a citizen. I felt uncomfortable walking past them as they unsubtly watched me. The more power you give someone, the more dangerous they become. Would you feel more comfortable asking an officer for directions who carried a pistol, or asking one who carried an assault rifle?

I agree with you when you said, “and doing so requires not overreacting to trivial situations with an excessive display of force…”. However, if officers become more equipped it will make it even more difficult than it is now for them to not display force during trivial situations. An increase of coercive force would be omnipresent if officers carried standard assault rifles, no matter what the situation. Equipping officers more is a great way to raise tensions between the public and the police.

they have to be that way because how else can the corrupt remain in power?

i'm sure the majority of our politicians on both sides of the fence think they are not even close to militarized enough.

In response to mattbbpl who said:

“No, I want the police to be well equipped. That said, there are related issues in the police department. A lack of published Standard Operating Procedures has already been mentioned, and the police force have a trust issue with the populace - that needs to be rebuilt, and doing so requires not overreacting to trivial situations with an excessive display of force and generally displaying a strong ethical base for a long time. That last portion is the trickiest because tensions are already high. Once tensions are high, even situations in which the officer reacted correctly can be misinterpreted as unethical and the goodwill built to that point is lost. The police have a long way to go in that regard, and they're staring at an uphill battle.” - mattbbpl

I agree that the police should be, and already are, well equipped. But what do you mean by “well equipped,” as this is a very vague concept. It sounds like you are suggesting that the police should be more equipped than they currently are. At the same time, you propose a need for improved police relationships with the populace. If you think that an increase in equipment, which is basically an increase in weaponry, will enhance police-public relations you are incorrect.

I had the pleasure of visiting Istanbul, Turkey last summer. Istanbul is one of the largest international cities in the Middle East. It is relatively safe for Americans to visit, as the city is a huge tourist attraction. Every day when I walked down the crowded streets I would see Turkish police officers on foot patrol. Foot patrol is not as efficient as automobile patrol, but it’s less isolated from the community than car patrol is, and it’s great for improving relationships with citizens. However, I recognized the guns every officer carried as MP5’s. MP5’s are a small automatic assault rifle, typically holding around 30 bullets in a magazine.

These officers had a similar demeanor to American officers. However, the fact that they carried assault rifles instead of pistols made them much more intimidating. I was told by Turkish citizens to not engage with police unless absolutely necessary. Throughout the entire two weeks I was there, I never saw an officer smile or laugh with a citizen. I felt uncomfortable walking past them as they unsubtly watched me. The more power you give someone, the more dangerous they become. Would you feel more comfortable asking an officer for directions who carried a pistol, or asking one who carried an assault rifle?

I agree with you when you said, “and doing so requires not overreacting to trivial situations with an excessive display of force…”. However, if officers become more equipped it will make it even more difficult than it is now for them to not display force during trivial situations. An increase of coercive force would be omnipresent if officers carried standard assault rifles, no matter what the situation. Equipping officers more is a great way to raise tensions between the public and the police.

@obieron1995: Maybe you should use the reply button if you want him to see your post.

@junglist101 said:

@berto64: Anaheim, CA.

Jesus Christ, they look identical to soldiers. What the fucking ****?

Yikes. That's pretty....eye opening.

@obieron1995: A little nitpicking: The MP5 is actually a submachine gun, not an assault rifle. It fires pistol rounds, so it can't be an assault rifle.

In response to JangoWuzHere who said:

“It's not the equipment they use, it's the police themselves. Too many police officers react poorly in many situations. If it were up to me, you shouldn't be allowed to join the police force after you leave the military. Many who leave the military end up joining the police force, and it's a really bad mixture. Military personal have the mind set of search and destroy, while a police officer should be serving and protecting the people.”

I think a less offensive version of your point is that the most threatening aspect of police militarization is the potential mindset behind it. Saying that former military personnel shouldn’t be allowed to become police officers is a form of discrimination, and is going too far. Secluding a group of people who have dedicated so much to the prosperity of this nation is not a solution to the primary consequence of police militarization, which is police use of excessive force.

Military personal don’t typically have a search and destroy mindset. Some of my father’s Marine Corps friends are the friendliest and most empathetic people I know. Individual police officer recruits with low impulse control and general proclivity towards violence are the real problem. Unfortunately, recruit screenings sometimes don’t recognize these traits. Screenings are great for determining recruits educational and literacy levels, but they fail in recognizing critical characteristics that contribute to excessive force and police brutality.

Police departments put their recruits through interviews, lie detector tests, background checks, and even a probationary period during the first year of field training where recruits can be instantly fired for misconduct and unsatisfactory performance. Departments generally do a great job in selecting their officers. However, situational factors sometimes can’t be helped. The fact that excessive force is a vague concept with lots of ambiguity makes it dependent of interpretation.

@JangoWuzHere:

Primarily, it is noteworthy to bring into the light that a common misconception regarding military personnel is that they all endure war and combat. Every soldier chooses an MOS at the beginning of the enlistment process; many of which are services, mechanical support, medical professionals, logistics, law enforcement, etc. Not every United States military solider is an aerial gunner, tank operator, armor officer, fire support specialist, and so on. With this being said, it is not a matter of prior military service when selecting police officers; but rather a matter of individual police recruit personality and ability. Simply because a police officer served his/her country before serving his/her community does not mean that they are going use increased force on the citizens they encounter.

In fact, some aspects of American policing assimilate to the culture of the military. For example, the idea of academy training is similar to that of basic military training. Also, ex-military personnel that become police officers are already used to wearing uniforms and addressing their superiors by rank as a sign of respect. However, the missions of the police and the missions of the military are not the same. Though this does not mean that just because a person was in the military, they will not be able to serve efficiently as a police officer.

Police militarization is in large part due to the “war on crime” model which has skewed the police mission. According to Skolnick and Fyfe (1993), it has caused many police officers to become “demoralized and frustrated”. Unlike the soldiers in the military, the police will never be victorious in their “war” because they are fighting an unknown enemy and crime will never completely be eliminated. In my opinion, the main problem is not the people carrying out the duties of police; it is the current mode in which policing is operating under. Use of force is used in less than 1% of cases, which gives a solid indication that not many “people” or “individuals” can be blame for this issue. If you would like to see any of the sources that I utilized, please let me know.

Again--leave old threads alone. The next person to bump one is going to run the risk of being moderated.