7.6 MILITARIZATION OF THE POLICE
One criticism that has been voiced is the appearance that the police have taken on more of a militaristic appearance in recent years. 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. Inflatable rugged boats, Jeeps and helicopters have been decommissioned from military use and through acquisition programs allowing state and local governments to acquire and repurpose them for public safety needs have long been in place. Such programs have been deemed cost-effective and tend to be well-received in their communities.
Myth or Fact?
Please refer to the article “Militarized or Modernized” (Norris, 2017). It will help to dispel myths surrounding the perceived militarization of the police, and explain further the reasons why department leadership may opt for surplus military equipment to support the mission of service to the community. The answers provided may be surprising!
Ethical Dilemma-What would you do?
As you go through the morning’s orders and summons to be served during your civil patrol duties, you see one summons to appear in court is for a friend of yours. You are aware that your friend’s spouse is in the hospital with a serious condition, and that they have a three-year-old child at home. Having expressed financial worries, your friend is doing the best they can to manage the home, take on child-care duties at home, and is in jeopardy of losing housing for an ability to pay the monthly rent. The summons indicates a court appearance that, coincidentally, happens on your friend’s birthday. Your first reaction is to delay delivery of the summons by one day, but you also know there are strict guidelines associated with service of summons to court. This summons is for a previous failure to appear for a court date, and a second failure to appear will likely result in an arrest warrant being issued for your friend. What are your options, if any? Consider how you might handle this situation in the most professional, yet empathetic, way so that all concerns are addressed?
Some cities have had incidents involving criminal actors who employ stolen weapons, military-grade explosives, or improvised explosive devices against the police. Other common police responses bring officers to scenes in which wanted individuals, persons in crisis holding hostages, or drug labs are in reinforced or fortified locations. The actions or conduct of criminals in these and other situations may be very hostile and pose a threat for the police and for the neighborhood. Some police departments have taken advantage of similar military surplus access to acquire MRAPs, Humvees, and other military vehicles decommissioned after military conflict in Afghanistan, Iraq, and other theaters of engagement, to gain tactical and more safe advantages toward mitigating the situations they face. Time and time again, the use of such equipment, which would otherwise be declared surplus or scrapped, has instead protected police during high-risk conditions, and have also saved the lives of civilians in many cases where they were 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 which finds itself under siege may be interpreted as the police perpetrating war against civilians. The Fraternal Order of Police have stated that allowing departments to equip their police with military equipment increases the officers’ safety, and in the process, afford better protection of the public and first responders (as cited in Norris, 2017). Some leaders of the local government 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 subject to compromise without access to proper equipment. However, a 2017 study (Delehanty et al.) revealed that police forces which received military equipment were more likely to have violent encounters with the public, regardless of 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 greater consequences. Examples can be found in search and rescue activities, trackers of violators from the air, and detecting heat signatures within buildings, underground emplacements, and forestry, using sophisticated equipment acquired through process from the military.
As with many of the challenges in the criminal justice profession, one answer to resolving the so-called militarization of the police may come to resolution through 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 ought 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 dissatisfied with decisions made or outcomes suggested. It is from civil discourse or sanctioned, nonviolent First Amendment protest (U.S. Const. amend. I), not disrespectful conduct nor destructive criminal violence, where the best and most certain pathways to understanding and cooperation will be achieved for all parties concerned.
Attributions
- Figure 7.8: SWAT team by Tim McAteer is released under CC BY-SA 3.0
