Long gone are the days of simple crime fighting. Images of many police officers arriving to subdue one suspect at a secured scene are part of an outdated representation of law enforcement. The expectation that a subject only armed with a single weapon is willing to surrender or comply with police commands is also a misrepresentation. A growing number of crime suspects are part of terroristic style incidents, active shooter situations, and crimes that involve larger caliber and modified weapons. Mass fear and injuries, as well as high amounts of projectiles are now involved. Militarization of law enforcement is a necessary step in protecting society against ever evolving crime. By looking at how militarization has paid off, why people argue against it, and how politics have played a role, we will be able to ultimately see that adopting militarization within law enforcement agencies is important in keeping society safe today.
The origins of the modern-day militarization of law enforcement can arguably be traced to one incident. In 1997, the North Hollywood Shootout took place. While on routine patrol, two Los Angeles Police Department officers witnessed “two men clad in jumpsuits and ski masks, each carrying an AK-47 assault rifle” (Coffin, 2007) entering the North Hollywood Bank of America. Following the attempted bank robbery, the two heavily armored suspects could not escape the scene due to the rapid police response. As the two perpetrators Larry Phillips and Emil Matasareanu left the bank and realized they were trapped, a gun fight ensued. While the police officers were armed with only standard department-issued handguns and shotguns, the suspects were armed with automatic rifles with drum magazines as well as homemade body armor. Officers were forced to find protection from bullets behind their police cars, civilians in surrounding buildings had to shelter in place, and even circling helicopters were shot at. Phillips and Matasareanu had an extensive history of crime together, specializing in “paramilitary-style ‘takeover robberies’ in which they dressed in full body armor, equipped themselves with military firearms and raided their targets using brute force” (Coffin, 2007) Even though the suspects were ultimately killed, it was clear that law enforcement was out-gunned and ill-prepared to confront suspects who were better armed than they were. Though Phillips and Matasareanu were specialized criminals with military style training, there was no reason to think such approach among criminals was isolated. Thus, this could be considered a turning point for departments. The North Hollywood standoff and shootout could have ended much sooner if police had been equipped with weapons that were able to penetrate the suspects’ body armor. Also, the response time of the SWAT team came into question as it took nearly an hour for them to arrive. This incident sparked the debate of whether or not officers need to be issued rifles while on duty or be better armed to deal with more substantial threats; though the response from patrol officers was very fast, they needed to defend themselves until SWAT response could arrive. Another incident that made it clear that crime suspects should not be organizationally underestimated is the Columbine High School Shooting. Seniors Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold walked into their high school two weeks prior to their graduation and began shooting students and teachers. They were armed with shotguns, handguns, knives, and multiple types of bombs, and were intent on taking as many lives as possible. Harris and Klebold gave meticulous information on their exact reasoning, training, and preparations in diaries and videotapes in the months leading to the shooting. The detail given was organized as a militarized plan. Law enforcement response times and tactical training again became critical in discussion, for prior to this, shootings at schools were not a common occurrence or carried out to this extent. The widely-broadcasted media coverage gave details of the scene like no situation ever before; shots continued to be heard after television news crew arrived, leading many to believe the incident was still ongoing. But, the shots being heard was the SWAT team “pumping bullets into locked classroom doors in a painfully slow and clumsy effort to track down the killers. Only later did the authorities realize Harris and Klebold were already lying dead in the library.” (Gumbel, 2009) Police would again have to re-evaluate their responses through a militarized perspective as they responded to a multi-suspect, active shooter situation, not terribly different from what could occur in a war zone. Police efficiency in clearing Columbine High School could have benefitted greatly from more military and tactical-style training, training that is seen today in many larger metropolitan departments. Thus, militarization is critical to combat crime that has evolved from what it once was, as well as to protect communities from crime that has developed as a new part of society.
The use of law enforcement snipers has also become part of modern day crime fighting. Though the term “sniper” used to be synonymous military service, it is now more common to hear its association with law enforcement. SWAT teams are now utilizing snipers in situations in which shot placement is extremely important; just as in the military, this is especially true when there is a risk of a large amount of collateral damage or the situation is sensitive enough where a large number of officers cannot be sent in. Traditionally, the use of snipers has been part of a military tactic in wars overseas like the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The military sniper gathers intelligence when needed as well as delivers precision shooting abilities to take down specific targets with minimal risk to innocent bystanders. The approach has now been adopted by law enforcement for use in American communities to keep citizens safe. This is reflective of how crime has changed; threats have developed which are obviously dangerous enough that there is a need to eliminate the subject with death as a result. The decision has been made that the suspect will not be able to be placed into custody, simply based on the severity and circumstance of his actions. For instance, in Tulsa, Oklahoma in 2016, Salvador Reyes locked himself in the house of his estranged wife and initiated a police standoff which lasted into the early hours of the morning. While most occupants of the house escaped, Reyes refused to release his wife’s two-year-old daughter. It was clear how dangerous the hostage situation had become when Reyes presented outside the home with the toddler and began pointing a gun at her and police officers. At this point, Tulsa Police Officer Jason Lawless, “a precision rifle operator – more commonly known as a sniper – for the agency’s Special Operations Team,” (Phillips, 2016) was called in. Though it was 3 a.m. and Reyes was still holding the toddler and moving around on the balcony of the home, “Lawless fired one shot from his .308 semiautomatic rifle, striking Reyes in the head. He died immediately. The child was not injured.” (Phillips, 2016) The standoff was ended with only minimal, necessary damage thanks to the police sniper’s training and restraint in a situation which easily could have turned deadlier. Thus, sniper utilization has become and should become an asset to law enforcement agencies in 2017. Military tactics have not only been implemented in weapons and personal gear, but also in transportation. Police departments are acquiring vehicles that have previously belonged to the military; they are typically armored, are bullet proof and can be used to breach walls. Also, the militaristic technology of integrating ballistic materials into the patrol vehicle has become a common trend. The usefulness of such equipment in a non-military situation is evident in the 2016 Pulse Nightclub Shooting in Orlando, Florida. After Omar Mateen began firing shots in a crowded night club at approximately 2 a.m., large amounts of fatalities and injuries began to accumulate; even with all agencies in the area responding and repeated attempts to shoot and negotiate with Mateen, three hours had passed, and many victims were still in the club with the shooter. The Orlando Police Department had to rapidly assess what was the best way to enter and put an end to the shooting despite all of their previous efforts. Finally, “Mateen was dead, killed by Orlando police officers after they breached a wall with an armored vehicle about 5 a.m.” (Lotan et. al., 2017) Ultimately, a military vehicle enabled Orlando Police Department officers to quickly enter the scene, shoot Mateen, and begin rescuing victims still trapped inside the building. This tactic allowed officers to have an element of surprise and higher level of protection from incoming rounds that were being fired by Mateen. In addition to the armored vehicle, even “the Justice Department noted that a military-style helmet saved the life of an officer responding” (Goldman, 2017) to the scene who was struck by one of Mateen’s bullets. There were no law enforcement fatalities. Social media access throughout the entire incident ensured that Omar Mateen was able to communicate right up until his death and make it known that his actions were done in the name of the terrorist group ISIS. Though the casualties of the Orlando Nightclub Shooting were high at 49 dead and 53 injured, they could have been even higher had law enforcement not deemed it necessary to utilize military-style equipment.
Despite the demonstrated positives of police militarization, there are those who continue to argue that it is actually harmful to the communities and citizens that are served. Some believe that the militarized image is the problem and not a solution; the image perpetuates oppression disproportionately based on stereotypes. Officers are now carrying out their daily duties wearing load-bearing vests, drop down holsters, and tactical rifles instead of traditional 1950’s style uniforms. Sam Brown utility belts, ties, and hats are now reserved for special occasions or departmental funerals. To some, this militarized and intimidating look creates a perception of a threat being present, whether in their surroundings or as the officers themselves. With a less approachable presence, police will be working against the community-oriented policing model that most departments strive for. Thus, while militarization of police may ultimately be protecting citizens from society’s threats by allowing officers to respond to critical incidents confident in their equipment, a barrier may be created which makes those citizens feel uncomfortable. The basis for community oriented policing ideals, is an approachable officer working with the citizens of his or her community to respond to the community’s needs. If citizens are not able to contact the officers in the community because they feel uncomfortable doing so, a strong divide will remain that will do nothing to combat crime. In Police Militarization and the War on Citizens, the American Civil Liberties Union goes further and insists that the issue goes beyond just an image. While criticizing the government’s economic role in providing funding that allows police departments to “engage in battlefield tactics,” (Adachi, 2016) the ACLU claims that “easing the flow of federal funds and military-grade equipment into states and localities would have a significant impact on the overuse of hyper-aggressive tactics and military-grade tools in local communities.” (Adachi, 2016) Others argue not only against the militarized police look, but also against equipment and actions. Some think this “scare tactic” is enough to actually provoke violent interactions between officers and citizens. Citing SWAT team militarization and actions, the ACLU again voices their perceptions of violence being incited by police. In a report entitled War Comes Home, the ACLU vividly details how they believe SWAT police should carry out their duties; local police should “avoid all training programs that encourage a ‘warrior’ mindset” and “SWAT teams should not equate the suspected presence of drugs with a threat of violence.” (Adachi, 2016) This shows a lack of knowledge about how the drug industry threatens officer and civilian safety in everyday life. Without citing any real-life examples, the organization also claims that “the presence of a highly armed, militarized unit often ratchets up the possibility of violent confrontation.” (Adachi, 2016) However, there is very little evidence to show that human behaviors are disposed to violence solely based off of the image of a militarized officer. The argument of the ACLU is based on the organization’s interpretation of aggression, mindset, and provocation; they fail to address that members of their communities have the ability to determine their actions and associations, especially ones which will put them in the presence of police officers. Under this mindset, the danger and mistrust one should feel in the presence of a criminal is instead placed on officers of the law, all in the name of supposed civil liberties. Finally, another argument against militarization of police in the United States is that it is the beginning of an imminent movement toward marshal law. Marshal law determines that a country as a whole is under dictatorship or military law; curfews, economies, and media are under governmental control. Thus, under this argument, basic human rights and more will be infringed upon with over-policing of citizens. Overbearing, militarized police are symbolic of a government which is working to take away current freedoms. And, as police officers change uniforms and work toward a more militaristic look, unsupportive citizens may believe that marshal law may be around the corner.
The era of police militarization has not only been influenced by evolving crime, but also by politics. The major events which prompted such change on a national level were the terrorist attacks of September 11th, 2001. With increased security and resources first allocated to airports and then law enforcement, there was little perceived opposition if it was done in the name of national security. The country was perhaps more united than ever before on the topic of safety. The attacks prompted the creation of the Department of Homeland Security in 2002, as it was clear terrorism should now be considered a domestic threat. This only bolstered the Department of Defense and its ongoing efforts to augment law enforcement resources from excess military stocks. For instance, as part of Congress’ National Defense Authorization Act of 1997 or 1033 Program, the Secretary of Defense is authorized “to provide material support to authorized federal and state law enforcement agencies in the form of transfers of articles suitable for use in counter-drug and counter-terrorism activities.” (Library of Congress, 2014). Legislation was clearly in the interest of protecting citizens on American soil from evolving international threats by equipping police agencies with similar tools as their military counterparts. However, opponents of the ‘War on Drugs’ began to claim the ‘War on Terror’ was just as useless and driven by politicians and their personal interests. While the War on Drugs, a political movement initiated in the 1980’s proposed as a solution to national drug abuse, was disparaged as a war that could never be won, President Bush’s War on Terror was also seen as a political opportunity. Interests in Middle Eastern oil money were loosely covered by a supposed concentration in fighting enemies of America; however, as the war dragged on, it was evident the country was involved in another war that could never be won. As years have passed, the fear created by the 9/11 terrorism attacks has somehow subsided and skepticism has instead turned inward to law enforcement.
Though there have always been opponents of police militarization, law enforcement in general has never come under such scrutiny as during the years when President Barack Obama was in office. With “a national debate over policing touched off by a spate of high-profile deaths of black men at the hands of police,” (Goldman, 2017) Obama took advantage of intense media coverage and societal fears on the platforms of gun control and racially-motivated police. Though protests turned into violent riots which destroyed entire neighborhoods and businesses, “angered community activists said law enforcement agencies were reacting disproportionately” by responding with “armored vehicles, snipers and riot gear.” (Goldman, 2017) Instead of waiting for thorough investigations into claims of institutionalized racism within law enforcement departments, President Obama chose to act in the best interest of his agendas, one of them being undermining the justice system with the guise of reform. He put “prohibitions on certain military surplus gear, he added restrictions on transferring some weapons and devices, including explosives, battering rams, riot helmets and shields.” (Goldman, 2017) Thus, during one of the most tumultuous times in recent American history, legislation was passed which made police susceptible as possible victims of the people they were trying to serve and protect. Though plenty will argue the connection, it cannot be ignored that there were 152 line-of-duty deaths of law enforcement officers in 2014 alone. President Obama did succeed in creating a divide between communities and law enforcement whether it was part of political goals or not; this was proof that the mindset of disrespecting authority would exist as a result of political unrest and encouragement, rather than as a condition of militarization. Fortunately, circumstances seem to be changing in favor of police and public safety.
The extreme scrutiny of police militarization is not anything that will disappear soon. Politics have played a major role in restricting police abilities, and they will also be critical in again allowing “police to protect themselves and their neighborhoods.” (Goldman, 2017) The traditionally bipartisan political system in the United States today is unfortunately very predictable when it comes to gun control, law enforcement, and military stances. However, the election of Republican President Donald Trump cannot be overlooked as the start of a positive trend to the criminal justice system. According to Attorney General Jeff Sessions, the current administration “will not put superficial concerns above public safety” (Goldman, 2017) as the Obama administration did. One of the first steps toward this will be President Trump’s reinstating of Program 1033 originating from the 1990’s. Once again police departments will have access to military surplus gear that can be lifesaving and will enable officers to do their jobs with an appropriate level of defense. Attorney General Sessions states that President Trump is doing “all he can to restore law and order and support our police across America.” (Goldman, 2017) However, no matter how noble it sounds, this goal will face many obstacles. Within the political clout today, issues still remain that raise questions about whether or not officers will be able to utilize their military style gear without the constant questioning of its use. Proponents hope the hassle of such scrutiny will not outweigh the benefits of having access to it. With every terroristic or active shooter situation, whether it’s the Democratic or Republican agenda, questions will continue come to light of how the situation is handled by the departments that must confront these monsters.
Adopting militarization within law enforcement agencies is an important and arguably necessary step in post 9/11 America. Despite opinions, beliefs, and issues in popular culture, society must find a way to put aside differences and truly assess the nature of crime today. Criminals with body armor and high caliber weapons cannot be met with unprepared police responses. Police are perceived as threatening only because of other threats communities have become accustomed to; crime has infiltrated traditionally “safe” neighborhoods even if citizens cannot (or choose not) to see it. For many Americans, opinions of police are simply fed to them through media and culture. If a person could see the safe communities of generations passed, there would be much less hesitation to turn to police in times of need. Though protesters and politicians claim police, militarization, and racism are the major problems in America today, others have pointed out that the matter may be of a much less concrete nature. Entitlement and lack of respect for authority are traits often mentioned when discussing our current populations, especially those who clash with police. How can one pose a solution to something as dynamic as inherently generational flaws? This question has no definitive answer; however, we must acknowledge that roots of a solution will lie in changing the society that creates a criminal rather than in changing those who must enforce the law upon them.
Citations:
Adachi, Jeff. (2016). Police Militarization and the War on Citizens. Human Rights,42(1),
14-18.
Bove, Vincenzo. (2017). Police Officer on the Frontline or a Soldier? The Effect of
Police Militarization on Crime. American Economic Journal: Economic
Policy, 9(3), 1-19.
Chirambwi, Kudakwashe. (2016). Militarizing Police in Complex Public
Emergencies. Peace Review, 28(2), 171-178.
Coffin, B. (2007). WARZONE: The North Hollywood Shootout, 10 Years Later. Risk
Management, 54(3), 36-41.
Dunham, R.G. & Alpert, G.P. (eds.). (2010). Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary
Readings. 7th Edition. Prospect Heights, Illinois: Waveland Press.
Goldman, A. (August 2017). Trump Reverses Restritions on Military Hardware for
Police. The New York Times. Retrieved from:
https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/trump-police-
military-surplus-equipment.html
Gumbel, A. (April 2009). The Truth About Columbine. The Guardian. Retrieved from:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2009/apr/17/columbine-massacre-gun- crime-us
Library of Congress. Congressional Research Service, Library of Congress, & Library of
Congress. Legislative Reference Service. (2014). The "Militarization" of Law
Enforcement and the Department of Defense's "1033 Program" CRS Insight.S.l]: [s.n.].
Lotan, G., Minshew, C., Lafferty, M., Gibson, A. (2017) Orlando Nightclub Shooting
Timeline: Four Hours of Terror Unfold: Orlando Sentinel. Retrieved from:
http://www.orlandosentinel.com/news/pulse-orlando-nightclub-shooting/os-orlando-pulse-nightclub-shooting-timeline-htmlstory.html
Phillips, K. (October 2016). An Armed Man Held a Toddler Hostage for Hours. A Police
Sniper Fired One Shot and Saved Her. The Washington Post. Retrieved from:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/10/24/an-armed-man-held-a-toddler-hostage-for-hours-a-police-sniper-fired-one-shot-and-saved-her/?utm_term=.0f4a5156b81d
Vernon, A. (2006). RESPONSE TO CRITICAL INCIDENTS. Fire
Engineering,159(Weapons of Mass Destruction), 5-6, 8-10.