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

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.

The rioting, looting, and arson seems to be coming from people who are not gainfully employed.

In the pre-"Welfare State" days, such people were not numerous enough, nor sufficiently concentrated in a small area, to achieve "critical mass". They knew that bad behavior risked censure from the armed middle-class residents who would not like to see their businesses go up in flames.

We need to eliminate the Welfare State. More cops, and more weapons in cop hands will not fix it.

yes, with 169 and 170, your basis was the absolute idea that if we fear martial law, then full fledged martial law must be going on somewhere….or if we are disturbed by the militarization of cops, then we must be against all sniper units.

Both are absurd. NO ONE ….zip zero nada…..said that.

I agree with that part of your post. My point is that history will show that there's really no big difference between "local law enforcement" and "the military" when it comes to trampling on the rights of the citizenry.

In fact, one of the defining characteristics of most other countries -- including modern European nations and Third World dumps -- is that the police and the military are pretty much the same.

well then they are wrong in the absolute too…….I think this has gone way too far - and it’s done so while we see cop shops more interested in their unions and their pensions than the citizens…..and we see more paramilitary gov agencies too. Way way too far. There is no longer the attitude to protect and serve, and cops are often on the wrong side of law and order these days.

Scary.

But I have never been against the SWAT type unit totally, or even in general.

I had no issues with SWAT before, in recent years though every wide spot in the road is forming a SWAT team, collecting military vehicles and gear. Smaller police forces cannot afford to dedicate men to units like that so their training has to be less than ideal. Not to mention when they have budget talks they have to justify having a SWAT team. The only way to justify the money spent is to use the SWAT team; from a budget standpoint the more they use it the better. In my opinion that is why SWAT is being used to serve regular warrants, and against garden variety potheads in some cases.

In too many places we have small town police officers, with little or no real SWAT training- yet they have all the toys the big boys do. They are also encouraged to use those toys at every opportunity. What could possibly go wrong?

Tammy very well said, and on the money. I too have spent most of my life inherently giving cops the benefit of the doubt and accepting the new toys and gear.

But I cannot ignore what is going on all around us. Freepers and other conservatives who think this militarization of cop departments isn’t connected to the IRS, TSA, ATF, BLM militarization and the growth of government power and government unions are fooling themselves, head buried deeply in sand.

I bet yet another input to the same “Shock and Awe”, being felt by a surprised media...

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/terrifying-result-militarization-police-210128735.html

Just something to further illustrate how utterly unprepared the majority of the media, and those that live and breath by “these” particular sources are shocked by these revelations...

Some of this already saw this happening years ago...

Yawn.../sarc

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

There is only one alternative for the law to being in good standing with the public. Its not something any country wishing to remain free would want.

Could not agree more. My son, who is barely old enough to drink and hasn't been to college yet, spent just under a year in Afghanistan as a Marine. He learned more about effective policing and having the public's good will in that year, than these knuckle draggers with badges have learned in 10+ years.

Of course, my son's life relied upon his unit having a good relationship with the locals in the area he operated in. These cops in in Ferguson don't have their lives on the lines in the same manner, and so it's very easy for them to act like an occupying force.

And anybody who doesn't think this can happen in their town is not paying attention - these police forces are not being militarized just in areas with poor or black people. If anything, some of the richest/whitest areas have police forces with a lot more weapons and armor, and trust me, they aren't buying or receiving all of this equipment to protect the citizens.

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.

The casual manner in which the police in Ferguson disregarded the Constitution should scare the hell out of anybody who calls themselves a Conservative.

I've seen people on other forums laughing at the media being pushed around. What those idiots don't understand is this: a police force, whether it be local, state, or national, that ignores the 1st Amendment will damn sure ignore the 2nd Amendment.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.