Police Militarization Is a Problem the Left and Right Can Agree About — and Solve

emax100 · Aug 16, 2014

How Congress is at least in part responsible for what is happening in Ferguson

http://www.nationaljournal.com/cong...create-ferguson-s-militarized-police-20140814

As The New York Times reported in June, the Defense Department has been making use of unused military equipment by giving it to local precincts.
This is despite the fact that violent crime in the U.S. has steadily plummeted since 1993. Between 1993 and 2012, the violent-crime rate dropped by nearly 50 percent.
Yet today, local police—in cities and small towns across the country—are increasingly loaded for bear. How did this militarization of the police force come about? It all seems to have started with an obscure section in a defense bill passed more than 20 years ago.

In 1990, Congress passed a National Defense Authorization Act with a clause allowing the "transfer of excess personal property" from the Defense Department to local law enforcement—otherwise known as Section 1208. The clause was included in response to the surge of violent crime and the War on Drugs in the late 1980s. (It's worth noting that at the time, both chambers of Congress were controlled by Democrats.)

Now of course, this is one of those situations where members of Congress of both major parties, not to mention members of various Presidential administrations, all have a substantial amount of responsibility for the atrocious behaviors and scenes we are witnessing in Ferguson.

That said, I think this shows yet again that in this November's elections, if Democrat or Republican Congress hopefuls can demonstrate what they are gonna do about this other than just talk about it, it is gonna help them win their seats in a genuine blowout victory.

emax100 · Aug 16, 2014

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/08/militarization-liberals-and-libertarians-agree.html

The outrage over the shooting death of Michael Brown escalated in part because of a sense that nothing had changed, that police officers were still operating in minority communities with a wantonness and brutality that belonged to another era.
But over the past two days — as the police in Ferguson have responded to very angry protests with an alarmingly heavy hand, looking and reacting as if they were not the community's own peace officers but an invading army — something remarkable has happened. The longstanding liberal concerns about police racial hostility has seemed to merge with the longstanding libertarian concerns over police militarization. It isn't just that no one is defending the cops. It's that many of the criticisms from the left and the right sound very similar.
"We need to demilitarize this situation" is how Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill's statement began this morning. The whole piece sounded awfully similar to Senator Rand Paul's op-ed, which appeared a little bit later under the headline, "We Must De-Militarize the police."
Kevin D. Williamson, the roving correspondent for the conservative journal National Review, wrote from Ferguson this morning of "ridiculously militarized suburban police ... pointing rifles at people from atop armored cars, i.e. the worst sort of mall ninjas." (This is the same Kevin D. Williamson who compared a black child to a primate 24 hours earlier.) In a similar vein, the liberal MSNBC host Chris Hayes introduced a segment on police militarization on his show last night by mentioning the surreal fact that the police — in a suburban setting, not a jungle, were wearing camouflage: "What exactly are they trying to camouflage into?"

Xelebes · Aug 16, 2014

Thread title: Yup.

Article: still reading.

ShaunHorton · Aug 16, 2014

I don't think this really warrants it's own thread when we have an active thread on the Ferguson situation already.

Also, while this may be part of the problem, and we will certainly see discussion of it as such, I don't think it's as much of an issue as, say, a police department having complete and utter disdain for the community they're tasked with serving.

clintl · Aug 16, 2014

In a similar vein, the liberal MSNBC host Chris Hayes introduced a segment on police militarization on his show last night by mentioning the surreal fact that the police — in a suburban setting, not a jungle, were wearing camouflage: "What exactly are they trying to camouflage into?"

I'm not sure if they realize exactly how outrageously idiotic and offensive they look on the streets in those uniforms, but I suspect the stupidity is driven mostly by a strategic decision to try to look as intimidating and macho as possible. And as way to psyche themselves up for "battle".

Those uniforms, though, need to taken away from the cops and destroyed. As much as anything, they symbolize the problem, and quite likely contribute to it.

clintl · Aug 16, 2014

I'd be in favor of putting a complete halt to the program for review, and then dramatically reducing the kinds of equipment the police can legally obtain through the program. For example, they definitely don't have any legitimate reason to own those mine-resistant armored personnel carriers.

Xelebes · Aug 16, 2014

All three levels in most states and cities have some things to change. This relates to Wisconsin, but if the same question was asked of Missouri, what would they find? I will note that Ferguson automatically handed the file of Michael Brown over to the FBI, but how many have they not?

It took six years to get our wrongful death lawsuit settled, and my family received $1.75 million. But I wasn’t satisfied by a long shot. I used my entire portion of that money and much more of my own to continue a campaign for more police accountability. I wanted to change things for everyone else, so no one else would ever have to go through what I did. We did our research: In 129 years since police and fire commissions were created in the state of Wisconsin, we could not find a single ruling by a police department, an inquest or a police commission that a shooting was unjustified. There was one shooting we found, in 2005, that was ruled justified by the department and an inquest, but additional evidence provided by citizens caused the DA to charge the officer. The city of Milwaukee settled with a confidentiality agreement and the facts of that sealed. The officer involved committed suicide.

The problem over many decades, in other words, was a near-total lack of accountability for wrongdoing; and if police on duty believe they can get away with almost anything, they will act accordingly. As a military pilot, I knew that if law professionals investigated police-related deaths like, say, the way that the National Transportation Safety Board investigated aviation mishaps, police-related deaths would be at an all time low.

Roxxsmom · Aug 16, 2014

clintl said:
I'm not sure if they realize exactly how outrageously idiotic and offensive they look on the streets in those uniforms, but I suspect the stupidity is driven mostly by a strategic decision to try to look as intimidating and macho as possible. And as way to psyche themselves up for "battle".

Those uniforms, though, need to taken away from the cops and destroyed. As much as anything, they symbolize the problem, and quite likely contribute to it.

QFT. Instead of "to protect and serve," it's now "to terrify and subdue."

backslashbaby · Aug 16, 2014

Xelebes, we see it here in NC, so 129 years is mind-boggling to me. The Jonathan Ferrell case from Charlotte (but being tried by the state government to avoid any conflicts of interest) is the most known example, but there are more in the news here even now.

It's standard procedure to have the SBI investigate officer-involved shootings here. I think that works much better than ever letting a local department or even district investigate themselves.

I was happy to see the DoJ say they'd get involved in Ferguson, too. I think that is an important role for the DoJ to do more of. Many governors won't like it, but if federal civil rights abuses are possibly occurring, I think the feds should take an active role at that point.

For the OP, I think the over-militarization of police is a big problem when they ram through homes and such, but I bet I disagree on the line where it gets out of control. I think riot gear can be entirely appropriate.

We see vehicles from the National Guard station in my city that have looked like troops invading ever since I was little, so I'm also very desensitized to seeing that. Folks also jump off some sort of tower here

Dunno, but they are nice guys (here). It's just a base, and my dad used to run a military base, so it's not something I ever gave much thought to as far as 'looking scary'. I do understand that others feel like it's very frightening to see, so I'm trying to be open-minded on even the riot cops being too intimidating-looking.

How some militarized cops act is something I'm much more prone to heavily criticize. Having them just in town or in a line blocking something that needs blocking doesn't weird me out a bit, assuming something really is going on in town.

Xelebes · Aug 16, 2014

Riot gear is appropriate for many situations. They, however, have to be designed for police forces and not be hand-me-downs from the military. If you need military-grade equipment to deal with a situation, then you call the National Guard.

Captcha · Aug 17, 2014

Give a man a hammer, he's going to start looking for things to use it on.

I think the feeling of invincibility and anonymity is also dangerous. Robocop was not a great model for community policing, was he?

PorterStarrByrd · Aug 17, 2014

Short memories abide here of the days when police were badly outgunned by criminals, and the occurrence of 9/11 and the very recent agenda announced by ISIS.

As in the 2nd amendment, it's not the program that is the problem, it's the idiots who utilize it sometimes. Better that good people be prepared than let a few intelligence-challenged examples be used to erase a good idea.

I don't want tanks in the street for crowd control, and they are a little harder to justify anywhere in town except as a memorial in the town square, but there are a lot of good aspects to the program that put a little of our already used tax money to good use.

knee jerk reactions sometime result in things being kicked that shouldn't be.

Captcha · Aug 17, 2014

PorterStarrByrd said:
Short memories abide here of the days when police were badly outgunned by criminals, and the occurrence of 9/11 and the very recent agenda announced by ISIS.

As in the 2nd amendment, it's not the program that is the problem, it's the idiots who utilize it sometimes. Better that good people be prepared than let a few intelligence-challenged examples be used to erase a good idea.

I don't want tanks in the street for crowd control, and they are a little harder to justify anywhere in town except as a memorial in the town square, but there are a lot of good aspects to the program that put a little of our already used tax money to good use.

knee jerk reactions sometime result in things being kicked that shouldn't be.

9/11 wouldn't have been stopped by cops with tanks, and I doubt whatever ISIS can come up with would be, either.

Military surplus used to be sold to other countries, right? Given the poor track record of anticipating who will be a US ally in the future, I can see how this program might have been controversial, but I still think it makes more sense than using the equipment domestically.

ap123 · Aug 17, 2014

PorterStarrByrd said:
Short memories abide here of the days when police were badly outgunned by criminals, and the occurrence of 9/11 and the very recent agenda announced by ISIS.

As in the 2nd amendment, it's not the program that is the problem, it's the idiots who utilize it sometimes. Better that good people be prepared than let a few intelligence-challenged examples be used to erase a good idea.

I don't want tanks in the street for crowd control, and they are a little harder to justify anywhere in town except as a memorial in the town square, but there are a lot of good aspects to the program that put a little of our already used tax money to good use.

knee jerk reactions sometime result in things being kicked that shouldn't be.

With the passing of time and life, there are definitely some spotty areas of my memory, but 9/11? Nope, 100 % clear--well, clear with a thick layer of smoke and ash. I also remember when NY was a different city with a much, much higher crime rate--well before 9/11.

IMO, knee jerk reactions have resulted in laws and programs being implemented that shouldn't have been.

For me, the problem with this level of preparation is that those using these instruments of war aren't prepared at all. I'm not and have never been a police officer or a member of the armed services. My understanding is that within the context of war, it is accepted that tragedies and human fallout (?) will happen, though far from desirable. But this is our home, we aren't at war, the police are supposed to be here to protect and serve--an important job, but only one branch of the legal system-- not act as judge and jury. Instead of being valued members of the community, in way too many places around the country it's become us vs them, a mindset causing both "sides" to lose.

Williebee · Aug 17, 2014

emax100 said:
That said, I think this shows yet...is as illogical as this statement is hopeful.

milkweed · Aug 17, 2014

clintl said:
I'd be in favor of putting a complete halt to the program for review, and then dramatically reducing the kinds of equipment the police can legally obtain through the program. For example, they definitely don't have any legitimate reason to own those mine-resistant armored personnel carriers.

Our county recently acquired one of these units and all I could think was who the hell is laying land minds in my county and why??? Is it to keep the morel mushroom hunters out of the woods???

Alessandra Kelley · Aug 17, 2014

milkweed said:
Our county recently acquired one of these units and all I could think was who the hell is laying land minds in my county and why??? Is it to keep the morel mushroom hunters out of the woods???

Those morel hunters are vicious. It's a jungle out there.

mccardey · Aug 17, 2014

backslashbaby said:
We see vehicles from the National Guard station in my city that have looked like troops invading ever since I was little, so I'm also very desensitized to seeing that. Folks also jump off some sort of tower here Dunno, but they are nice guys (here). It's just a base, and my dad used to run a military base, so it's not something I ever gave much thought to as far as 'looking scary'. I do understand that others feel like it's very frightening to see, so I'm trying to be open-minded on even the riot cops being too intimidating-looking.

How some militarized cops act is something I'm much more prone to heavily criticize. Having them just in town or in a line blocking something that needs blocking doesn't weird me out a bit, assuming something really is going on in town.

That struck me as a really telling point. I'll bet for a lot of people it's quite ok - even comforting - to see this kind of protection on the street. It's protecting their interests after all. But I'll bet there is an entirely different view from a less privileged segment of society.

Is this equipment ex-military? Does it bother people that rather than being provided with the correct equipment, the police are being forced to make-do with the kind of gear that sets them apart from the community they're meant to serve? Or are these specifically riot-police and the equipment is riot-equipment?

clintl · Aug 17, 2014

I believe it's ex-military equipment, not equipment made for police use. As for being "forced to make-do", however, I don't think that's the case. Nobody's forcing them to take it. The Feds are offering to give it to them if they want it.

blacbird · Aug 17, 2014

Aside from the issue of physical armaments, another matter of concern is the militarization of the mindset of police now equipped with such weapons. Very few police forces undergo the training the military forces do in use and discipline of use of such weapons. In short, there are a lot of undertrained, underdisciplined cowboy cops out there that I'd rather not see driving around an APC brandishing a .50 cal. machine gun.

caw

mccardey · Aug 17, 2014

clintl said:
I believe it's ex-military equipment, not equipment made for police use. As for being "forced to make-do", however, I don't think that's the case. Nobody's forcing them to take it. The Feds are offering to give it to them if they want it.

Presumably, though, it's not the cops on the street who get to make the decison about whether it's accepted or not? They will wear and use the stuff that the Dept decides?

I just think that it does suggest the needs of the bean-counters are being placed ahead of the concerns of people who might have gotten into policing from a real desire to serve (and protect) the community. And going forward it might make policing a less attractive option for the very people who do real good - community-building good - in their work as police. It seems like a tremendously ill-thought-through back-office option to me. (But I'm not in the area or in the USA, so I'm asking how it feels on the ground.)

redfalcon · Aug 17, 2014

An armored troop carrier might have come in handy here.

http://www.dailynews.com/20100924/n...fficers-injured-2-robbers-killed-march-1-1997

Xelebes · Aug 17, 2014

A good heavy (armoured) car with strong bullbars.

Actually, come to think of it, an APC would have done doodly squat in the North Hollywood Shootout. Not fast enough to deal with a van fleeing on on the highway.

Prozyan · Aug 17, 2014

There are actually two factors at play in the "militarization" of the police force.

First, there is the hand-me-downs they receive from the military. This came about easily enough, as some bean counters figured they didn't want to flood the world market with our military surpluses and re-using the stuff would be more cost-effective than destroying it. Turns out, this is one of those ideas that looks a hell of a lot better on paper than it does in practice.

The second factor, which I don't think I've seen mentioned here, is the increased terrorist funding police forces receive from the DHS. DHS is shelling out tons of funding to police departments. Anyone vaguely familiar with government budgets knows it is considered a sin to have a budget surplus at the end of the year, as this usually results in a budget cut the following year. So police departments have been buying all forms of body armor, weaponry, etc. After enough years, they have an arsenal of this stuff and can't justify further spending on it so they have find other things to spend in on. In roll the urban vehicles, etc.

Both factors add up to a highly armed force with little in the way of true training to handle the increased firepower.

Prozyan · Aug 17, 2014

redfalcon said:
An armored troop carrier might have come in handy here.

http://www.dailynews.com/20100924/n...fficers-injured-2-robbers-killed-march-1-1997

The North Hollywood Shootout is an anomaly and shouldn't be used as any sort of justification to increase the weaponry of the police force. Even as severely outgunned as the police were in that situation, they handled the job just fine.

Police Militarization Is a Problem the Left and Right Can Agree About — and Solve

Delerium ex Ennui

AW's resident Velociraptor

Represent.

Represent.

Delerium ex Ennui

Beastly Fido

~~~~*~~~~

Delerium ex Ennui

nutruring tomorrows criminals today

Twitching

Capeless, wingless, & yet I fly.

Abuses commas at will.

Sophipygian

Represent.

Delerium ex Ennui

Are you one, Herbert?

Are you one, Herbert?

*