There has been criticism that the police have taken on more of a militaristic appearance in recent years. For example, when considered in the scope of the “guardian versus warrior” conversation, it makes sense that the community might be alarmed at the approach of a vehicle most commonly associated with the military, such as a Mine-Resistant Ambush-Protected (MRAP) vehicle. Acquisition programs allowing state and local governments to acquire and repurpose inflatable rugged boats, jeeps, and helicopters decommissioned from military use for their public safety needs have long been in place. Such programs are cost-effective and tend to be well received in their communities.

Some cities have encountered criminal actors employing stolen weapons, military-grade explosives, or improvised explosive devices against the police. Sometimes officers arrive at scenes where wanted individuals, persons in crisis holding hostages, or drug labs are hunkered down in reinforced or fortified locations. The criminals in these situations may be extremely hostile and pose a threat to the police and  the neighborhood. To gain tactical and safer advantages toward mitigating the potentially explosive situations, some police departments have accessed military surplus sources to acquire MRAPs, Humvees, and other military vehicles decommissioned after a military conflict. The use of such equipment, which would otherwise be declared surplus or scrapped, has protected police during high-risk conditions and saved the lives of civilians facing death or serious injury at the hands of criminals.

The fallout here becomes one of optics. Having heavily armored vehicles responding to a quiet neighborhood that finds itself under siege may be interpreted as the police perpetrating war against civilians. The Fraternal Order of Police has stated that allowing departments to equip their police with military equipment increases the officers’ safety and, in the process, affords better protection of the public and first responders (as cited in Norris, 2017). Some local government leaders have forbidden public safety officials from entering into surplus property agreements with the military. The police argue that their safety and their ability to efficiently stop major threats to the community are compromised when they do not have access to proper equipment. However, a 2017 study (Delehanty et al.) revealed that police forces that received military equipment were more likely to have violent encounters with the public regardless of the crime rate. That aside, uses of military equipment at the state and local levels, such as helicopters, amphibious watercraft, night vision optics, and other surplus military items, have made policing safer and more efficient in countless cases where their absence may have led to more dire consequences. Examples are search and rescue activities, tracking violators from the air, and detecting heat signatures within buildings, underground emplacements, and forestry using sophisticated military equipment.

As with many of the challenges in the criminal justice profession, resolving the so-called militarization of the police may be achieved by open, honest, timely, and transparent communication between all interested parties. The police should be honest with their constituents and governmental leadership by providing clear and justified reasons for the equipment and training they seek. Leaders of the community need to voice their concerns in appropriate public forums. All sides should strive to reduce heated accusatory rhetoric. In the end, it is possible that not everyone will be satisfied with decisions made or outcomes suggested. But it is from civil discourse or sanctioned nonviolent First Amendment protest (U.S. Const. amend. I) where the best and most certain pathways to understanding and cooperation are paved.

Attributions

1. Figure 7.8: SWAT team by Tim McAteer is released under CC BY-SA 3.0