The “militarization” of police was not only inevitable, but necessary

Hot Air ^ | August 16, 2014 | Jazz Shaw

[2ndDivisionVet]

The rioting, protests and controversy continue to swirl around Ferguson this weekend, and you will no doubt be reading plenty of coverage from both sides about it. But in the background, a disturbing, larger national conversation has erupted out of the troubles in the St. Louis suburb. The hot topic everywhere seems to be a growing call to halt the so called “militarization” of the nation’s civilian police forces, highlighted by the riot suppression gear on display in Ferguson. It’s an argument coming from both sides of the ideological spectrum, too.

The IBD editorial board warns us to “beware” of this trend. John Fund, writing at National Review, worries over not just police, but a host of federal agencies being armed to the teeth. Bob Barr sounds the alarm as to how the psyche of our police must become warped when they are equipped like soldiers. Our own Noah Rothman has written thoughtfully on the subject, expressing some of his own concerns.

Frankly, I find the whole discussion to be a rather rapid rush to judgement and lacking in larger context. As far as the specific incidents in Ferguson go, we still need a lot more information before final conclusions can be drawn. The details of the initial shooting may remain in question, but what followed was well documented. Riots and looting broke out on a massive scale for such a small town, and continue this morning. The local police stood on the edge of being completely overwhelmed. And whether or not you find their level of response appropriate, this one local disturbance has turned into a national demand to defang the police. The Washington Post quickly began issuing advice on how to tame the cops. Clearly the nation’s legislators were listening, as Hank Johnson (D – Georgia) has already drafted legislation to do just that.

Am I the only one who finds this rather insulting to the nation’s first responders in general? Even if we are to assume that the Ferguson police crossed a line in breaking out their heaviest equipment in an attempt to reestablish control (which has not been conclusively proven at all, in my opinion), what of the rest of the country? As these critics frequently note, police departments in cities and towns of all sizes have been equipped with more modern, military style equipment for quite some time now and they don’t seem to be converting the rest of the nation into a series of oppressive death camps. And far too often, the cops find themselves in need of the “big guns” and body armor.

In case you think I’m coming in late to this debate, it’s not true. There was apparently a meeting held at some point in which Radley Balko was appointed as the go to guy for such discussions, but that dates back quite a ways. More than a year ago, Balko was pushing his ideas about so called “warrior cops” and at that time I penned an editorial stating that he was going too far.

Do we need “kinder and gentler” cops interacting with the community in a friendly fashion? It is certainly to the benefit of the police to be in good standing with a cooperative community and to know the people they protect and serve, but they also deserve a fighting chance when the situation suddenly turns violent and ugly. The rise of “warrior cops” may not be what everyone would hope for, but I don’t see any realistic alternatives.

While I both understand and sympathize with the reminiscing for the good old days, the times have changed. The era of the lovable flatfoot, twirling his baton and wagging a finger at the precocious kid about to steal some penny candy has passed us by. Have we collectively forgotten the riots that took place following the Rodney King verdict? How about the now infamous North Hollywood shootout? And for our friends on the Left, what about the next time somebody goes into an elementary school armed with a Bushmaster and a couple of 9mm Glocks? You don’t want us arming the teachers or having local residents open carrying to keep the school grounds safe. “Leave it to the cops,” you say. But should the cops be going into a situation like that with nothing more than a layer of cotton uniform and a revolver to protect themselves and take down the bad guys? Or should they have to wait until a SWAT unit from an “appropriately large city” shows up, with the shooter mowing down third graders in the meantime?

While the shooting of Michael Brown may provide a teachable moment in terms of police interactions with the community, the nearly immediate mayhem which followed should also serve as a timely reminder. The old assumptions of law enforcement and their unwritten compact with the citizenry relied on a society where the police – and the laws – were respected, and criminals were a minority who would be rejected by the rank and file residents. But when the majority of an entire community decides to break that compact, the formula changes. They realize that they outnumber – and frequently outgun – the cops. A slumbering, snarling beast is awakened and in short order the police can find themselves on the run. This is not a formula for freedom of speech… it’s the path to mayhem and the breakdown of civil society. Before you’re too quick to demand the “demilitarization” of the police, you might want to remember who it is that stands between the neighborhood you have now and South Central L.A circa 1992. And Ferguson has shown us that you don’t need a huge metropolitan area for it to happen.

[all the best]

As the government on all levels grows bigger, more powerful and more intrusive so will its armed enforcers. No two ways about it.

[balch3]

It’s interesting because arguing against the “militarization of police” ultimately is saying that more power has to go to State and Federal government than local.

Its somewhat analogous to 2nd amendment issue where the anti-right-to-bear side says big brother will take care of you, so you don’t need guns.

Here it is big big brother will come in and take care of your city if there are any problems, so you don’t need equipment to deal with riots or other threats to your city.

---

The point is those threats are vanishingly rare in most cases, and out of all proportion to the equimpment. To justify the expense, they have to use it, so the rules of engagement get looser and looser.

I’ll take my chances with the occasional riot.

[JRandomFreeper]

Not true. Cops are employees. They work for someone and that someone gets to dictate what equipment they use.

Not the cops.

/johnny

[balch3]

Big difference between a police force with riot gear and the para-military forces of Federal Departments which shouldn’t even have a law enforcement branch.

---

If I’m on the ground with a boot on my neck, it doesn’t make much difference whether it’s a Fed, State, or local patch on the uniform.

[Yogafist]

I have been thinking about this for a little while now, but assumed if I put something out like this I would be rabidly flamed. Police have always been paramilitary, even their ranks are taken from the military. In fact, a lot of cops are former military, and carry the same deep respect for their fellow Americans as they did when they served. Back around the turn of the 20th century, cops were arming themselves with everything the gangsters had. They had fully auto Thompsons, and a host of other weapons that should have been alarming to the public. Times are changing fast, as demonstrated by all the discussion over what authority, or access cops should have over electronic media, and some seem to think cops should still be using a cheap ball-point pen and a sheet of carbon paper. Really, how many of us have ever seen cops armed with the equipment we are seeing in these photos? Cops prepare for worst case scenarios, and they should. I think the armored vehicles are a little over the top, but if that vehicle is the key that provides them the access to rescue people in a terrorist attack, then so be it. Certain elements in our society now believe they have the right, whenever they are offended, to take to the street, and disrupt the lives of every other citizen, and peace through strength doesn’t just apply to foreign policy.

[JRandomFreeper]

They can be armed when they are out of uniform and not working as agents of the state.

They certainly don't need to be armed against the citizenry by the state.

I also carry everywhere. Cops don't need to. To turn it around. ;)

/johnny

[First_Salute]

If the author must be a left wing fascist or a right wing fascist, there are plenty of countries for him (or her) to go to and be tossed without a care ... into the cauldron.

The United States of America is not up for sale to any police state authority nor to the many martinets who are mad enough to think, that the power they want to unleash ... will not be used against *them* personally.

You want a police state here? You will get fully-armed civil war, and much sooner.

Your proposal is to do that ... because you think that you want some solution ... because you “want to get to it” ... because you say “bring it.”

It will be brought, you and everything that you care and love, will be destroyed.

All the while you could not be bothered to love liberty and the worthy foundations of our blessed, free democratic-republic, the principles for which, *must* be defended.

The author is an utter failure at defending these principles, within the writing of his frustration for the day.

[SunkenCiv]

Yeah, no ####. The cartels have automatic weapons, muzzies are probably stockpiling heavy weapons and explosives in the basements of mosques, street thugs are carrying concealed weapons (up to and including automatic weapons, even here in little old Grand Rapids), and racist thieves are rioting in Missouri and elsewhere.

Of course, there will always be those who blame the police for not being diverse enough, or not being culturally sensitive enough, or for daring to duck when people throw things at them — and those people are even on FR. I’ve even been told, ridiculously enough, that it was only a matter of time before I was illegally detained by police for no reason whatsoever, and that was in open thread.

Apropos of nothing, paranoia is one consequence of long term drug use.

Thanks 2ndDivisionVet.

[ifinnegan]

“The writer seriously understates the importance to effective policing of having public’s good will.”

I think what you’re trying to say is the key.

It’s how any police force or other organization uses their equipment.

Militarization of the police is beginning to sound a lot like the gun issue.

Blame the guns, not the murderer.

Blame the equipment, not the abuse of power.

Ultimately it points to more control from the Feds and less individual and local autonomy.

[PGR88]

If police are militarized, its because our government has become increasingly centralized, and the progressive policy of the welfare state and government management over society have disconnected people from their local communities and their rights and responsibilities to civil society.

[GeronL]

yes

[2ndDivisionVet]

The Ferguson riots are not even significant in the context of race riots, much less insurrection or revolt. My late father had just retired from the Marines and was working in Watts the day the riots broke out. Now remember, he had been a Gunnery Sergeant and veteran of three wars months before and was 6 feet tall and 225. He very nearly lost his life that day just because his company had placed him in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Zhang Fei]

There’s less violent crime than any time in the nation’s history.

Not just incorrect, but off by 50%. We're a long way from Mayberry. Even in 1960, crime was starting to skyrocket. Since then, the numbers have gotten steadily worse, as the following per capita crime rates show:

Year	Population	Total	Violent	Property	Murder	Rape	Robbery	assault	Burglary	Theft	Theft
1960	179,323,175	1,887.2	160.9	1,726.3	5.1	9.6	60.1	86.1	508.6	1,034.7	183.0
1961	182,992,000	1,906.1	158.1	1,747.9	4.8	9.4	58.3	85.7	518.9	1,045.4	183.6
2011	311,587,816	3,292.5	387.1	2,905.4	4.7	27.0	113.9	241.5	701.3	1,974.1	230.0
2012	313,914,040	3,246.1	386.9	2,859.2	4.7	26.9	112.9	242.3	670.2	1,959.3	229.7

If you think crime is out of control, you're right. It's just less out of control than in the 80's and 90's, such that it is over double the rate of the early 60's, which was itself much higher than the norm in the 50's.

[ifinnegan]

So you support only the Feds having the right to have such potential force.

OK.

[ifinnegan]

“The point is those threats are vanishingly rare in most cases, and out of all proportion to the equimpment. “

Exactly what the gun grabbers say.

[JRandomFreeper]

Don't care who agrees with me. That's what makes America great.

Your idea of up-arming police might have merit if the cops actually were effective against the feral lawless that appear in places like Detroit.

It isn't effective, so stop it.

/johnny

[2ndDivisionVet]

People here probably don’t realize that most countries have police units that take orders from the central government (as in the UK) and not local leaders.

[balch3]

I notice you made a big jump from 1961 to 2011.

[JRandomFreeper]

The citizens DID have guns, back when their version of 'professional policing' began.

I simply want to disarm most police officers. They don't need their firearms for their official duties. A special squad can handle those situations.

/johnny

[GeronL]

I agree.

Such as how about arresting MoJo when he’s buying his 40 ounce at the convenience store or something, not waiting until after midnight and raiding his house where his kids also live.