I was pretty taken aback after reading this article. I believe that military weapons should not be in the hands of so many policemen because it is unecessary and also costs too much. The article describes situations where innocent civilians were killed with this heavy artillery. The article also described how much money the government gives to armor these policemen with these weapons. I believe that the country can use that money that is funding the distribution of those weapons towards something else that the country needs. I understand that the policemen need to protect themselves; however, using heavy artillery to carry out their duties is unecessary.
You bring out a good concern as it relates to money and costs. A lot of these military grade weapons and heavy artillery cost more to obtain and maintain than standard police gear, and the necessity of such extra spending should be scrutinized more. In some cases, fiscal responsibility can enhance physical responsibility; in this case, being fiscally responsible by limiting spending on such high grade weapons when they may not be absolutely necessary may lead to physical responsibility in terms of less people being injured at the hands of police officers in possession of such weaponry on routine patrols or out in the field where such high-level firepower isn't needed.
As someone who is aspiring to be involved in law enforcement this article was a bit of an eye opener for me. I do believe police officers should have the best equipment and weaponry in order to protect their lives. I believe how some police departments handle situations is inappropriate. Like the article mentioned, sending in SWAT teams for bar with underage drinkers or the barber shops. I believe the training and purpose has to be more clear and the use of the swat team need to be at necessity not something that is just for the ever day routine traffic stop.
I think the audacity that police show towards the general public is absolutely atrocious. The fact that a person can subjectively decide when to take someone else's life, based on their own perception of things is incredibly unsettling to me. For example, the police in the article arbitrarily (as I see it) decided to raid and arrest a couple because the Police Chief decided they were not "good people". That is an absolute misuse of authority and shows that that Police Chief is not trying to protect the people, but instead, (and I'm postulating here) make a quota. The public needs to take a step back and realize that the way the police are handling certain situations is not correct (MICHAEL BROWN), and we, as a society, need to reform the way we view authority, and the way authority figures can treat us.
"I think the audacity that police show towards the general public is absolutely atrocious." Are you arguing that the majority of Police in America treat the people they serve poorly? I can not agree with that. Yes I do agree that across America there are Bad Cops who do horrible things. However, to say the police in America treat people rudely or in a disrespectful manner is wrong. I think your argument that a cops just decide when to take someones else's life, based on perception, is invalided. Do you really believe a cop joins the force in order to just kill someone or that a cop just says hey I am going to kill this person? I would probably say no to both those questions. Have their been failures throughout history, yes but I believe you are over shadowing what the good police do with the failures. Who would be the first person you would call if you were in a bad situation where you were scared for your life? I believe the majority of cops try their best everyday to make sure yours and my own life are safe everyday. There is no excuse for a bad cop but you can not label the Police Departments in America as disrespectful. The Police Chief in the article believe their was stolen goods in the house which is why he preformed the raid. The Police Chief must of had reasonable suspicion which is why a United States JUDGE would grant him a warrant to search the house. I think the Police Chief may of used the SWAT team because of the individuals previous arrest record(as stated in the article). "One had a criminal history that included three assault charges, albeit more than a decade old, and on his arrest was found to have a knife and a meth pipe." Does that sound like a good person to you? I agree with the Police Chiefs Decision. I agree with have to view the way we view authority. Maybe we should collectively as a society stop with this "F-the police attitude". I do have to say though, although I do think there is more to learn from the Michael Brown tragedy, respectfully, I wonder how anyone in America would react to man trying to steal your gun and shot you with it.
I find it eye-opening that all of these grants and such large sums of money are given and distributed to law enforcement offices in regards to buying better weapons. I do believe that the police are a part of an institution who's duty is to serve and protect, but as of lately, this has been taken a bit too far. Who's dictates which weapons are allowed for what occasion? I am not at all suggesting that money should be limited to supply officers with their means of "enforcement" but the line has to be drawn somewhere. the article claims that "Mr Balko contends that these forfeiture laws are “unfair on a very basic level”. They “disproportionately affect low-income people” and provide a perverse incentive for police to focus on drug-related crimes". I do not believe that this is necessarily an accident, I think these forces enjoy being able to target certain demographics and certain crimes, and the budgets allow them to do so. Is that fair?
It’s unbelievable to me that in this country, where we were founded on the basis of freedoms and liberties, even adopting the mantra of “innocent until proven guilty” for our courts, the investment in creating a military police is startling. Considering the increased surveillance on our citizens, coupled with the increased ability of hackers and other technology gurus, while some may feel secure, others (possible those who are not as economically prosperous as others) may feel that the government is out to get them, and in a way they’re right.
Arguably the most notorious killing of an unarmed citizen by a cop took place not even six months after this article was published on March 22nd, 2014. I struggle with determining the rights that police officers have versus what determines the abuse of their power. I label myself as a pacifist so I don’t think that we should ever celebrate violence and brutality, yet I understand that there is sometimes the need to protect oneself or one’s family. I believe the issue lies in most American citizens’ growing distrust of the government and those who have sworn to protect it. We need to be reasonable though by stating that SWAT teams are not innately evil, if they are attempting to protect the citizens and helping to promote justice then they are doing their jobs. Also it is important to remember that they are following orders from a higher officer. These higher officials who dispatch the teams need to follow protocol and make sure that their teams are not abusing and following their personal orders. O’Malley’s initiative ensures some semblance of responsibility and I believe that all states should implant this. Courts decided that Darren Wilson was telling the truth, and we need to understand that the majority of cops are not corrupt. There probably isn’t a need for SWAT teams to forcibly enter homes like they did to the Princes’ home. I know if they entered my parents’ home like that and sacred my siblings I would be furious. The people who budget the SWAT money need to make sure that they are not spending frivolously on these raids that are not worth it. I think that police brutality is a real epidemic and yet I believe that we need to be encouraged that we have people who are willing to risk their lives for the betterment of our nation.
Lately, I have been focusing my thoughts on the abuse by everyday police officers on the streets. However, this article made me also think about other organizations such as SWAT. There is currently a lot of mainstream talk about the ways police abuse their power and this article is showing the ways violence can be encouraged. The article points to small towns that have very few homicides, yet have a massive amount of military gear and weapons. What is the point? I believe this can lead to no good.
The situation with the militarization of police in this country is pretty scary. The fact that cops are finically motivated to kick in your door (without announcing themselves) and try to arrest you for something, even if that isn't what the warrant was for, only leads to unnecessary arrests and deaths. Also, police forces spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on military equipment that they don't need just to, "keep up with the others" is not only wasteful but gives too much power into untrained hands. Having a military style police force is reminiscent of an authoritarian government rather than a democracy. Not to mention how it affects lower income classes on a much larger scale, this wasteful and harmful spending serves to further disenfranchise the poor, and perpetuate a military style government that has been created through fear campaigns such as the "war on drugs" and "war on terror."
This article is a perfect example of how this country is corrupt, going beyond the boundaries of the constitution. The first thing that is wrong with this article is that SWAT teams are going into potentially dangerous situations way more than they should be. As the article points out, deployment of SWAT teams has increased significantly today compared to the 1980s. Most of the scenarios where SWAT teams are deployed today are for drug related crimes or warrants.. A good amount of these drug warrant busts even end in false arrests or unjustified killings by police. A second problem is the Supreme Court's passage of a law that allows for "no knock" warrants. There needs to be some sort of warning when police invade the property of potential criminals. The biggest reason for this is because home owners have the right to use their firearm if a stranger breaks and enters their property, unless of course that intruder is a SWAT team. How are these people supposed to know the difference between threatening intruders and SWAT teams without these policemen announcing their warrant and right to enter the residence? Police forces are abusing their right to "protect and serve" and taking it to a different level by arming themselves with helmets, assault rifles, and riot shields. They seem to be evolving from regular police officers to military guards. Unless there are drastic changes to these police agencies, they are going to gain more power and abuse their power even more.
The usage of SWAT teams as a form of defense has been a highly contested topic for years. Given recent publicized events such as the Michael Brown Shooting, Sandy Hook, and other unfortunate instances; more people are starting to debate Police militarization and how much power policemen have. Though there have been several instances where SWAT raids have unfortunately gone wrong, I think the argument that we need less SWAT teams is not valid given recent events. In our society, gun laws are not that restrictive. People can get access to guns and weaponry online and people no longer fear policemen and their guns like in the past. I think Governor O'Malleys initiative to require Maryland police departments to report the details of their SWAT raids is a brilliant plan. It gives departments some sort of accountability in regards to how often they use SWAT teams given that they have to report it. Similarly, I think there should be SWAT team re-training and evaluations every three months as well. Places that do not see many violent crimes like North Dakota should especially implement evaluations given that SWAT teams are not used often there. Reports, systematic retraining, and constant evaluations should hopefully cut down on cases of police brutality due to their militarization. Being a policemen is a hard and dangerous occupation. As hard as it is, they should be adequately prepared to not only defend themselves but be consciously aware of situations so they are not "jumpy" and accidentally shoot someone. Only through proper training will that change.
I am strongly against the militarization of local police departments across the country. The first reason is due to the misuse of these forces. As the article states there are many instances in which SWAT forces clearly aren't necessary but they are used simply because they can. This leads to accidents and even mistrust and skepticism between the general public and the police force. The second reason is that a lot of money goes towards militarizing departments that do not need this type of force at all. We already spend a great deal on the actual military so to spend this type of money on local departments seems extremely wasteful. It seems to be turning into an arms race with police departments spending and using the biggest and best forces just for the purpose of keeping up with others. This can easily lead to a dangerous and wasteful cycle of spending. However, there have been instances in which these types of forces were necessary and used somewhat effectively for example in Boston and Ferguson. As a whole though there should be a scaling back and some type of reform to prevent things from getting out of hand.
I agree. With great power comes great responsibility. Handing out billions and billions of dollars to law enforcement for weapons allows the forces to abuse their power. I believe this is also an issue of power dynamics. People in charge want to stay that way, and given physical power through weapons reinforces the mindset of militery. Not every situation should result in violence to solve, but people are quick to jump to this as a solution, unfortunately. Targeting specific populations will only result in finding issues in that community. Giving money designated for weapons to stop people in certain siutations is not really necessary.
This article hinted at who the real victims of police militarization are when the author mentioned that militarization “disproportionately affect low-income people.” What this article failed to mention was who the low income people are - people of color disproportionally fall under the poverty line. To neglect the race issue in this article was a huge mistake on the author's part.
It is people of color who must bear the brunt of the egotistical cop, inflated by the military weapons in his hands, and adamant in exterminating threats. Who does society see as threats? Blacks and Latina/os. Individual cops have implicit biases and they will act on them - once paired with military weapons, their actions will be fatal.
The fault does not fall completely on the individual cop, but the fault falls on a system that contains, limits, and puts PoC in vulnerable situations.
Even here at UMD, the campus police are militarized. This is completely ludicrous and unacceptable. Is the university waging a war? Maybe a war against people of color? We do not need our campus police to militarized. We need our students of color to live.
Erica, I was interested in your thoughts about campus police being militarized. Have you or someone you know been raided by a UMPD SWAT team? I have actually came across the website that showed me how the UMPD is going to be purchasing 49, M-16 Assault Riffles, 16, gauge shotguns, and an armored vehicle. In respects to the military type weapons for the UMPD officers, I would want the UMPD to have the best equipment in case there was a shooter on campus like in Virginia Tech, or Sandy Hook, or Columbine.(where the shooters used semi automatic weapons.) Also I believe I could obtain these types of weapons as well if I were to get the proper licenses. With advancing technology I don't think it's possible to restrict police departments from technology and I don't think its possible to restrict citizens from having these technologies. I think a way to keep police officers accountable is to have body cameras on them. Taking away their weapons would not be ethical. Do you take away all doctors medical equipment because one doctor used it wrong and caused a death in a patient. No because that equipment the lives of thousands every day. I also remember the police brutality innocent where a student was beaten after a basketball game and received about 2 million dollars in a settlement. However that was a PG county police officer, not a UMPD officer. Those are two different departments.
As for the UMPD raging a war against people of color, I looked up the Arrest Statistics from according to the UMPD here is the link... (http://www.umpd.umd.edu/RECORDS/arrest_ledgers.cfm?year=2014) according to the statistics, this year, there were 642 White people arrested, 589 Black people arrested, 66 Asian/Pacific Islander people arrested, 7 American Indian arrested. Respectfully, based on these statistics, I can't conclude a war against people of color, more white people have been arrested this year. According to the reasoning of these arrests I see a war on DUI and drug possession.
I believe the UMPD is acting in the best interests of this campus and community. I have seen first hand people disrespecting the UMPD who stand on Route One to insure the safety of drunk college students who forgot how to properly cross the street. I have witnessed 3 police officers risk their lives by running in the middle of the street to grab a female, who was drunk and texting, because three cars almost hit her because she wasn't paying attention. The dedication to safety by the UMPD is second to none. I believe if more police departments acting like the UMPD this country would be a little safer. I do not get safety advisors from my county police back in New York, however, the UMPD keeps me up to date on criminal activity, keeps this community safe everyday, and does it with the up most professionalism.
Respectfully Looking Forward to your thoughts, Sean O'Malley
Controversy over police brutality and excessive force is always going to be present for as long as police have access to weapons. That I believe, we unfortunately have no control over because the public already has pre conceived schema that police are not protecting us but instead harming us.
However, I do believe that the funds and grants given to states and the local police forces should be evaluated. For example, there is no need to have an armored police forcer with rotating turrets in places like Fargo, North Dakota that averages fewer than 2 murders a year. The tons of money that is used to fund police weaponery needs to be revised because although it is necessary, It is not necessary in excess. Also, The criminal justice system needs to reallocate the true functions of each form of law enforcement. State police should really be taking on the functions that this article illustrates SWAT teams are enforcing. For example the state law enforcers should be serving warrants on people suspected of nonviolent crimes, or breaking up poker games not SWAT teams. SWAT teams and their tremendous force should stick to the big deal crimes that are violent and life-threatening.
As a criminal justice major, I understand the responsibility that law enforcers feel they have to the community. However, excessive force and funds in places that are not needed should be reevaluated. I strongly agree that the law Governer O’Malley enforced is extremely important in order to know where and how much funds and resources should be implemented.
As long as grants are given and labor cost are paid for, there will always be cops with assault rifles in their trunks. I live in Rockville, Maryland and the city police are of the most financed in the country, their side arms cost on average 3k$ a piece, they have up to date license plate readers and new squad cars, departments will make arrests and bring money to the courts to keep departmental tools from gathering rust. Fortunately for citizens, police departments are receiving grants for POV over shoulder cameras, this might cause a financial problem in the future though because moral hazard will be less prominent. Its a stat game in the end though, more money is thrown into police departments to lower statistical crime rates so people will move there, police makes arrests to compensate the funding, BUT, conviction rate is low because the state makes probation deals which also bring funding back to the state, so in essence, the state receives money in the end with a larger and more equipped police department
This article is very relevant because of the recent focus on police brutality in the media and around the nation. I agree that possibly these officers are given too much power. If their job is to serve and protect, I feel as though basic weapons are needed, nothing extraordinary and nothing that can bring more danger. Don't get me wrong, I feel that they should definately be able to control a situation with different means just because its never known what may be happening, but maybe it's ridiculous to designate billions of dollars for weapontry.
I think this was a very interesting read, especially in spite of the recent high profile cases of police brutality. The fact that SWAT teams increased from 3,000 times a year in 1980 to 50,000 a year recently just show how "militarized" they are becoming. The US isn't getting more violent - the crime rate has actually significantly decreased since the 1990s. I think just this fact alone proves how much more aggressively police have become lately. Another reason is that police know that they can get away with it. Just like in the recent grand jury trial of Darren Wilson, the cop that shot Michael Brown, he did not get indicted on any charges. Now none of us were there and none of us know what REALLY happened that day last August, but the fact that a cop can shoot an unarmed teenager and get away with it just shows their increasing brutality and also that there aren't any consequences, which will allow them to continue their behavior.
After reading this article I was really taken back at the state in which our country is in presently. There really is no need for cities around the United States to be receiving military grade weaponry especially because of the fact that violent crime rates have been decreasing, yet the number of SWAT team deployments have skyrocketed. I feel as though equipping the police force with this kind of gear is just giving them too much power only causing more unrest and tension in the general public. I feel as though this act is making people feel even more unsafe just because of all the cases you see of police brutality in the United States. Another problem I have with this is the fact that this is not even driven by a need for it, but by the fear of being left behind. These problems coupled with the fact that many police officers are joining the force for all the wrong reasons will only causes more issues in our society.
I find this article to be very interesting and a disturbing reality of the areas of importance in the American law enforcement system. While, I agree this is no help to the fight against police brutality. I see a deeper issue with the militarization of policemen. That basically being that these are policemen not soldiers. There is no reason for police departments to own military style weapons to the degree that they currently own them. There needs to be more money put into training policemen how to deal with situations and not jump to harming innocent people. Kendall Heatley
I was quite shocked after reading the article. I had no idea that police in the US were allowed to use such force in situations that do not necessarily warrant it. The British police force and many other police forces around the world are able to handle crime without the need for military style equipment. That being said we do not have the right to bear arms. I think that in situations that warrant it an increased level of force should be used. However as mentioned in the article helmets, masks, shields and guns does not come to mind given the fact that the police were only looking for stolen clothes and electronics.
This article makes me think of the University of Maryland Police Department. We have recently received military grade weapons because of the nuclear reactor on campus. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires a higher level of protection for any nuclear reactor. This kind of makes sense for UMD given its proximity to Washington DC.
Having said that, militarization points to larger issues revolving around American society. One is the amount of guns American citizens own. When a civilian is allowed to carry an assault rifle, we see the police having to get the same weapon or having to get an even stronger one. This alludes to the downward spiral of weaponry, tension, and violence between citizens and police. Without a question, militarization of the police relates to racial issues in the United States - even if it was not the intent. Urban areas and cities were the first to utilize military grade weapons. These areas are disproportionately black, which means they experience the problems with this system the most.
Like many of the classmates, I was taken back by this article as well. The reasons behind the purchase of such weapons is understandable, however, the way our officers, who are supposed to “maintain public safety,” are not utilizing them properly. “SWAT teams were first formed to deal with violent civil unrest and life-threatening situation,” evidently the author of this article presented us with multiple examples proving that the law enforcement agents are utilizing such tactics inappropriately. This article reminded me of a book that I’m reading for another class, The Divide, By Matt Taibbi. The first three chapters focus on comparing the way the law is applied towards large financial corporation versus towards individuals who commit minor crimes, such as a homeless person sleeping in a closed park. While those individuals in large corporations are responsible for several felonies only receive a fine, poor, homeless individuals are being sent to jail multiple times adding harmless crimes to their record. It is unfortunate to see that officers, people who we are supposed to trust, are doing such things that in the end harm the public.
Police militarization in the United States is a very scary topic. I admit, that I do not know much about the topic but I have heard that police have to meet certain arrest quotas so many times they will arrest anybody for anything they can. The fact that they are now knocking down doors and are heavily weaponed; makes the whole situation that much scarier. I have a lot of respect for law enforcement, and I appreciate the sacrifices they make for us (the public); however, it is not good for any one group to have too much power over the public. There is a reason that our government instituted checks and balances. Too much power often leads to people abusing said power and not all cops are saints.
I thought this article was very disturbing, but also, interesting. While I do understand that police want to be better armed than their opponent, I do not believe they need to be so brutal with the way they handle certain situations. In the story in the article, the police were looking for clothes and electronics from a stolen credit card. Yet, they went into the building as though they were entering into a drug lord's home. I know that there is a time and place when they need their shields, guns, helmets and masks, however, that is not all the time. I think that our police force needs to be better regulated. Especially with everything that is going on with the controversial arguments about police forces in Ferguson. Caitlin Crouse
I'm not sure what caused the increase of police militarization and SWAT teams, but I do feel that it is not always necessary. In the wake of many recent tragedies and injustices for slain victims by the police, this article really strikes a chord. While there have been some successful SWAT team raids, many of them go horribly wrong and cost the lives of innocent people. These teams also disproportionately affect African American people. When cops who abuse their power, yet do not face punishment, it raises a red flag and calls the justice system into question. How far is too far? Why do these police feel the need to shoot first and think later? I have many questions about the decision making ability of the people behind the uniform because they are meant to protect and serve yet sometimes it seems that the opposite is true.
I agree with Andryna, this is an issue of power abuse from the police officers. Allowing them to have weapons upon weapons, gives them a sense of power and control over everyday citizens. It is a true sense of power given to tem in order to simply control the masses in the event that force is needed, but recently, the force has been overused. I think it stems from a place a fear, that people will harm them, so they take the first action. They need to be involved in further training in order to learn new ways to react and handle difficult situations without using weapons immediately. This is obviously not doing any good for society. There have been too many innocent lives taken because police officers have "felt threatened"; but maybe they should develop new ways to handle the threat instead of ending lives as easily and quickly they have been doing so.
Police have to much power and it's getting out of control. The varying degrees of force that the officers use is getting ugly. This has been happening through out the country for ome time now. Their counties that have military grade trucks and kevlar armor to combat people. Michael Marinelli
I disagree with the increasing militarization of police officers across the country. Clearly, these type of weapons and armor are more than a normal police officer should require. I can understand SWAT teams having these types of weapons or certain police in explicit circumstances when they are needed. But for a everyday tasks like looking for stolen clothes, as the case in the story shows, I believe this is completely unnecessary and creates a divide between police and citizens and breeds fear and contempt.
The article brings to light what seems to be a growing issue here in the U.S. The recent uproar in Ferguson as well as many other recent issues involving the police and what appears to be unlawful actions against citizens, can relate to this article. The police along with their departments have been showing increasing signs of overstepping their boundaries and abusing their power. This article proves that. I think that the percentage of "....Americans [who] think the use of drones, military weapons and armoured vehicles by the police has gone too far" would actually be higher now than it was since the article was written (albeit six months ago), which was 58 percent. And as stated before, I think this would be due to the increase in activities where the police have abused their power to "protect".
Another issue that the article brings up is the frivolous spending by police departments and the government on militarized weapons that they clearly don't need and are using for the wrong reasons. "Between 2002 and 2011 the Department of Homeland Security disbursed $35 billion in grants to state and local police." That is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of further disrupting what little peace there is left, why not use that money to educate people on crime and preventing it or invest that money in some other area like education in general but in poor/ low income communities and in reducing the homeless population we have in the U.S. It is absolutely horrible that people have to pay for despicable actions of the men and women who swore to serve and protect; some at the high price of their lives.
That is ridiculous. I can understand the need to carry firearms as police officers, that makes sense for many obvious reasons. However, it is getting out of hand with what kinds they can carry, especially in situations where there is really no need to have it drawn in the first place. I could understand if these were situations in which the police were potentially facing weapons of high fire power as well, however the idea of breaking into someone's home with assault rifles simily because of some stolen clothes and credit card fraud is completely unacceptable. They need to have restrictions on when what equipment can be used. Even with that being said, if a situation would arise that needed assault weapons and armor it should we left to s.w.a.t. and the like, in which case the police shouldn't be able to carry such things at all.
It’s absolutely disturbing that the police are being militarized. Outside of what’s been going on with Ferguson and the Eric Garner case, it’s unnerving. It doesn’t make sense that police get militarized equipment and training, aren’t they trained to enforce the law with the equipment that they are already mandated? Why are they still getting militarized when violent crimes are going down? Why is the equipment getting used for nonviolent crimes- there needs to get a SWAT team to bust a thief, really? And if all of this money is going into these programs, can’t we use that money for prevention programs- programs that can help disadvantaged youths that are at risks for getting into crime?
I agree with you. Training and outfitting regular police as soldiers is crazy and all it does is help to increase the fear that people already have towards members of the police. I think they need to do a better job at responding to situations with the appropriate level of force needed and no more.
Stories like this always make me question the maturity of our countries law enforcement. I know there are plenty of good cops, probably the majority, but seeing a bunch of men that want to play soldier is ridiculous. I can understand that doing your standard patrol in full tactile gear may fulfill some fantasy of being a bad ass hero, but their job isn't to play pretend. Maybe this isn't exactly what has led to this militarization, but whatever the cause I do think it is getting out of hand.
So I was watching this and although it doesn't have to do with police materialization. It talks about Wall Street, Private Corrections Facilities and our judicial systems. It is pretty crazy.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAHGcU3_rfc
I’ve actually been in a situation similar to the one the people in the story were in. The police had an arrest warrant for a friend of mine and I was in the house when they came. It was actually pretty scary experience. Eight cops just burst through the door waving guns and yelling stuff. So much was going on it was hard to think and I can understand why some people react the way they o I those situations. Thankfully no one was shot. But with everything that was going on, there was a possibility of that happening.
I feel that this is certainly an article that raises arguments. The article raises many points that many people would agree and disagree with. One thing the article mention was the amount of money that goes into weapons for police officers or law enforcement. I do believe that as being part of the law enforcement and their duty to protect and save lives of innocents do require the best tools and equipment’s possible to carry out their mission. However, today most police officers tend to abuse their power and bully innocents because they can and the possibilities of them getting charged for their actions are not high at all. I understand that it is their job to protect themselves as well from the criminals they face, but where do we draw the boundaries of police officers that have gone too far. The article talked about the increase of SWAT teams being dispatched today compared to it in the 1980s. Most of these are dispatched in scenes of drug related crimes or breaking into peoples’ homes unannounced which a lot of these ends in false arrest. I feel that the increase of SWAT teams related incidents are ridiculous and waste of time and money and should be focused more on life and death related situations.
There is no reason that the police should have military grade weapons. They are police officers, not soldiers. Being armed to the teeth when trying to attempt a drug bust is only going to elevate the tensions of everyone involved, which as we've seen in the past, leads to actions that can injury or even death to the innocent bystanders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is, in the path of over excited police officers, who bust into a home, throwing flash bangs into cribs or into living rooms where children are sleeping and killing them. Not to mention, after these injuries or deaths, the police are seldom held responsible. Under the guise of "the war on *insert current panic here*" militarized police officers are, more than anything, fueling already tense relationships in certain communities.
I actually died in side while reading this article. To be completely honest, there is NO REASON whatsoever why a *local* police force should ever need to possess military-grade weaponry and armor to the level of becoming a SWAT team or a special forces unit. Those weapons and gear should be reserved for - take a wild guess - actually military officers and special forces units, on combat fields under hostile conditions. A BearCat is appropriate on a war field yes, on the residential streets of a small town in Connecticut absolutely not. Now, that's not to say that such high-caliber firepower is not needed or should not exist on American soil in active use; recently, numerous school and public-place shootings have brought to the forefront the issue of law enforcement needing access to such weaponry in order to adequately match and subdue those who possess such an intense threat to public safety through their illegal use of such guns (flipped to the acceptability of a BearCat in Connecticut of all places). However, Joe Random, the new rookie officer fresh out of the academy, should not be able to or need to get his hands on an AR-15 and tactical body armor in order to do his daily beat patrol in Sweet Rosyville, USA.
I found it really bizarre that the police chief said that the people he arrested were "bad people," as if that justified it. I think that it crosses dangerous boundaries when the enforcers of the law begin to neglect the law and arrest people on what they deem right or wrong, whether we agree with them or not. I think this principle is reflected in what is currently happening in a lot of cities around the us where the police are acting out of their own prejudice or beliefs and not looking at the situation objectively or as objectively as humanly possible. - Ana Kyriakos
This article provided information that I found disappointing solely because it had an example of how swat raids can go wrong and no one seems to want to acknowledge how inappropriate these raids are given the crimes that they raid these homes for. These are people's homes where they have children and disturbing that homelife to make an arrest for charges that are not harming anyone at that given moment seems irrational and it invades the rights you have to your home. It violates the comfort that was once there and it lets people think that these crimes deserve that kind of treatment. The article touches on the communities most affected by these raids and people still choose to ignore the severity of this problem targeting specific communities. How can people be confused as to why the militarization of police can be a bad thing when they will never have to worry about their homes being invaded for smoking some pot. It's unnecessary and bottom line, unjust. You can't expect relations with the police and people to improve when you allow your police to wear protective war wear and intimidate people who feel like they are in the midst of a war.
Cops today act more like storm troopers than actual cops. First let look at cost for recovering 1,000 dollars’ worth of electronics, the man power and effort put into recovering those items is a waist of tax payers money. A summons to court would have suffice. Second the militarization of cops seem more like to suppress the people instead of protect the people. It is like when they used an armored vehicle to raid a frat party over liquor. If something is not done about it, are rights will be forcefully taken away from us. However granted there are plenty of cops that disagree with militarizing the police. -Joshua Zidek
After reading all of these comment, I do understand the concern about having military retype weapons in the hands of police officers. Instead spending money on these weapons maybe they should invest their departments money in training officers with the weapons they have now.
I think that police over-militarization is to some extent warranted, given the potential threats that they could face. In most cases, police are acting with the mindset that the suspects could be armed, and this is a reasonable and safe assumption to make since it is legal to own a firearm. The situation presented in the article is a perfect example since they were raiding a house that did indeed have weapons in it. I honestly believe that they shouldn't send swat teams into a house for something like credit card fraud, but if guns were more restricted, then police wouldn't have to use such militarized force for a case like this in the first place
the over militarization of police and SWAT teams has infiltrated the police force and instilled fear in many civilians where they should fee safety. I believe police should carry weapons to use in life threatening situations. However, having a weapon should come with a high degree of responsibility. Unfortunately, it seems that a large enough fraction of the police confuse responsibility with power and abuse their position
The militarization of police is a big problem in our country. It is even a big problem on our campus at the moment as our campus police are armed with military grade weapons. The problem with this is that people have to be trained to use these guns which all officers are not. Also, military are for protecting our nation while the police are for protecting our rights as citizens. You can not have the same approach you use in fighting outside wars that you use with your own citizens.
I think that the problem of militarization of the police is not the big problem, it how and when they are being used that is the problem. There are circumstances when I believe a highly trained officer is needed, but for the most part those instances are few and far between. The idea that the use of these paramilitaristic forces should be allowed for just about anything is absurd, and there should be a way of governing when they are actually sent into the field that is better then this one.
I agree, the context really does matter. While I personally believe that in those kinds of situations they should bring in a specialized unit such as SWAT, I agree that if a situation arose when you would need a specialized officer to handle the situation then they would be doing a very good service. But as you said, these situations do not often arise.
Given the history of prejudiced application of Justice within this society, I do not feel comfortable at all with the growing militarization of Police forces within the United States. I also believe that many of the instances of crime are being escalated to quickly, where relatively minor crimes, such as "credit card fraud" and "assault", are often met with SWAT like tactics. This usage of fear in not very conducive to an effective police force, and only goes to show how fucked up this country is as a whole.
I do not see how this article relates to inequality. Maybe between the S.W.A.T. teams and the homeowners whose houses they are raiding? I do not see any problem with the militarization of police when it is in terms of combating violent crime. I do agree though that this is not what is happening and that in many cases the police forces are becoming overly militarized for the job that they are trying to accomplish. The “no knock” warrants mentioned in the article just seems absolutely absurd to me for a number of reasons. From instances mentioned in the article and instances that I have heard of previously it seems like it makes the whole procedure more dangerous and less efficient. I think that most people would try to defend themselves if they heard their door being broken in the middle of the night. If the police would announce themselves it might cause for the people inside the home to not react the way they would if they believed it was a home invasion. It seems safer for the officers and the people in the home to do away with “no knock” warrants. I think this is especially true when the majority of these cases are only drug related. Instead of the case just pertaining to drug charges people potentially end up losing their lives.
This is a growing problem in America. Even some universities are going so far as to form undercover units and having them trained by former FBI agents, just so they can deal with the crime issues they face on campus.
This is an issue that has been brewing for some time, and it has been getting out of hand. Police forces are becoming more and more armed with military style weapon and armour as they patrol their communities and "serve the people". There are defintely precautions that need to to be made in regard to safety of the officers, but at the same time I believe the militarization of police forces brings forth a wider social gap between both cops and civilians. People of the general public see this and find it hard to look at those who are supposed to protect and serve as comrades of the commnity. - Maulford Smith
I don't feel that this act is in any way beneficial for the police. It will only worsen community relations. The community has difficulty trusting people who don't relate to them. If police-community relations are bad now with racial tensions, adding a mask, armored suit, gun and automatic aggressive force will only make things worse. Police are already viewed by the majority as having too much power. Reducing power and making the police more integrated in the community is the only way to improve upon this. Police militarization will provoke the opposite response-distancing and inequality. When the police are removing rather than protecting the people's rights, then they are no longer serving their purpose.
This year has made it very tough to talk sensibly about what is good or bad for police. Both police and civilians have acted barbarically. I feel that the use of SWAT teams would feel a little like a war on America, with our own troops defending our own people from our own people. I think it is intimidating and unnecessary. Fear of enforcement is what drives people to rebel. I do not think that SWAT is necessary, perhaps a better plan would be that police get more training and special HR teams set more regulation to watch over the intention of police.
Recent events have led most people to at least take a look at what consequences might come from the advanced weaponry given to police in today's United States. While the prejudices of police in the United States and their uses of force are questionable and debatable, the statistical evidence that supports a negative consequence of increased military gear for police is not. With those weapons comes a dangerous mindset that may increase the likely-hood of choosing deadly force with dealing with a threat. While I won't go as far as to say our police have a problem, I do think the equipment we give them itself may be a fault of our system.
"The American police are becoming too much like soldiers" (Radley Balko), and I do not understand why. While I respect that the police risk their lives everyday to ensure the protection of domestic society, they should not resemble the ranks of international military arms. The connotation of "the militarization of police" insists that there is some sort of war in our own country. Just like the "War against drugs", the enemy and aggressors is not the criminals or drug users but the police themselves. Police are here for protection of all citizens, just because someone is suspected of being a criminal or someone that may or may not have committed a crime does not mean their life no longer matters. It does not mean that they, along with their families, should have to suffer through an intense invasion of their home or more dramatically, the loss of life.
I think this really boils down to who is making the decisions when it comes to using SWAT teams. Clearly in the examples posed in the article mistakes were made: the team raided a person or group of people and charged them on unrelated chargers (I thought the barbering without a license in Fla. to be pretty funny). It seems that these local police stations are calling the shots to use SWAT teams, so I think the pressure should be put on them to improve their decision making.
David, I agree that the ones to blame for sending the SWAT teams out for petty offenses and non-violent crimes. However, it's been at the discretion of these police departments and from the article, it seems like they need some assistance in decision making because they have a second agenda. The SWAT raids are clearly profitable to them, so what's to stop the police departments from continually using these tactics to gain more money? That's why there should be legislation restricting the use of SWAT teams. In addition, the rules on civil asset seizure should be changed so that police departments can no longer profit from seizing the property of suspects. Both of these measure will help decrease the unnecessary use of SWAT teams.
Yeah, fair point - the police will keep doing this sort of thing if it is readily available and is making them money. Not to mention, the SWAT teams themselves are probably making money from being relevant as well.
This article is very relatable to many current events happening now or in the past few months. I believe that the whole country as a whole has developed this fear for security and that is what has lead to this "militarization" of the police. As they mentioned in the article, I really don't think it is necessary to have a SWAT team in towns where very few crimes occur. I see it as a waste of money and bad allocation of resources. All that money the Department of Homeland Security spends on the police and police equipment in areas where it is not needed could be used in other areas that may be more helpful to the community. On the other hand, it is also very easy to see why this has happened with the numerous "massacres" that have occurred in the very past few years. These events have not only made security a more "important issue," or more of an issue but have also made people lose their faith and confidence in the police because of the way they are seen in recent cases, killing "innocent people." It is as if we have a war against terrorism overseas but also have one here at home, which makes it difficult because we don't know which one to focus on and takes our attention from other important national issues. -Karen Reyes
I think that this article is very relevant as far as what is currently going on in the country. While the article was a little eye opening, I am not overly shocked. I believe that the once noble profession of law enforcement has become a tool for oppression and corruption. I think that police are too quick to take over the persona of John McClane in every day situations, and it is starting to show in the startling amount of fatal interactions with citizens. -Damarr Gordon
The organization and normalization of these paramilitary groups is done in order to further limit peoples freedom. Having such a force trained and experienced makes them more adapted to deal with future civil unrest, striking them down quickly and effectively, even when the demands might be just. Militarizing the police, by the frequent use of SWAT teams for example, is done preventively in order to maintain the political status quo as more and more people find the injustices in society unacceptable and take action to change it. The bigger the tensions in a society, the bigger the force needs to be in order to keep order. In other words, a militarization of the police can be a sign of increased tension and insecurity in society and this increased tension can be a result of increasing inequality. - Visar
The fact that SWAT teams are deployed for reasons such as breaking up poker games seems a bit uneccessary. Or at least it seems that swat teams should be deployed for more serious matters.
Part of the problem is the fact that many of these decisions come from lose interpretations of “reasonable suspicion”. If there are not clear standards as to what is self-defense what is suspicion then these guidelines are moot and subjective. It is important that some cases require SWAT teams in order to protect. The disturbing idea that increased force is being used even while violent crimes are decreasing is something hat needs to be considered. There are some who will argue that the instilled fear is deterring violent crimes, but we have to consider to what extent is excessive (i.e. violent Pumpkin Festival, really?). Perhaps an evaluation of the training tactics used and the timeline of training is in need, as well as implementing workshops on implicit racial biases, as this police force did.
I think that yes, there is a bad use in the SWAT team and other resources from the police departments. However, I also think that SWAT teams and other high-skilled equipment groups should be always on the hand of police departments when they community needs them. But that has to be in balance, where it is needed and where it is not. I do know that some small departments want to keep up with the large/big departments. That should change. There should be a law that demands police departments to give reasons of why they want to build up these expensive equipment. Also, at the large scale, if these programs are not needed, they are not easy to dismantle. It costs money, even if it is from forfeiture gains. And as the expert explains, this gives inequality of service to the community. The police department is more concentrated in catching up drug-dealers in their last part of their illegal transaction, than to catch up with other offenders. Again, we see a small sector of the society that can make or is making inequality service to the general public. Something we need to look up, and change for the better.
I agree that our police departments are becoming really militarized. It's extremely unacceptable for the increase of SWAT deployments and the change in criteria to when they get deployed. SWAT should only be deployed for extremely violent situations. Police officers are already far more equipped while on the job than your average civilian. So bringing in SWAT could be misconstrued as excessive force because why would a regular officer with a fully equipped duty not be suitable to combat a drug situation. Unless there is prior knowledge of weapons or forces stronger than what the average officer carries on a daily basis there should not be a need for a militarized forced. In that case police forces are abusing there power and authority using excessive force to subdue unarmed offenders.
It cannot be argued that our police departments have been acting more militarized in recent years, however I do not think it is fair though to discuss the negative actions of SWAT teams, or other sectors of the police for using weapons that have been assigned to them. SWAT teams do a great deal of good for communities, and are highly trained operatives that save lives when asked. It may seem unacceptable for a SWAT team to be used to raid the home of a man who is organizing cockfights, but no one knows the details of the man, and the circumstances the Police faced when raiding his home. Just because the crime he committed is not murder, it does not mean that the police were not faced with a dangerous situation when attempting to obtain the man.
"Reasonable suspicion" basically gives police officers a license to kill; if they think a person "looks suspicious", they might assume that the person has drugs or is guilty of some other kind, and so, legally, they would be able to raid their house, even though it's not at all the intended purpose of the Supreme Court ruling. The police officers involved use extremely excessive force against civilians, and in one example provided, they actually plant marijuana in the home of an old woman whose house they raided after they killed her. SWAT raids may not necessarily be "bad", but there are far too many examples of officers raiding the houses of innocent people - not to mention, the officers themselves are carrying weapons that are much too deadly for use against civilians.
Very interesting article. I have to say that I think civil fortfeiture laws are extremely dangerous. The police has a monopoly on the (legal) use of violence/force within a society and in order for that to work, it needs to be as trustworthy as possible, and only use violence/force when absolutely necessary (and without excess). A police department that benefits financially from solving one type of crime but not another is no longer trustworthy, since there are always some people who cannot withstand the corrupting power of money, even within an otherwise competent police force and police department management. I agree with Balko that the civil forfeiture laws seem to strike especially hard against low-income groups, and I cannot help but to think of "Inside Job" when I read this. Sending a SWAT team to chase $1000 from a stolen credit card when white-collar criminals and executives are getting away with millions of dollars through tax fraud and bribing credit rating agencies on Wall Street without getting arrested seems extremely hypocritical. - Malin Niklasson
This article showed how fearful we have become as a society because of past events such as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon tragedy. The fact that we choose to deploy the SWAT Team for small incidents like arresting someone who stole credit cards is a little unnecessary to me. The SWAT team should only used to are advantage when we want to stop a criminal who is extremely dangerous or when are police officers are placed in a life or death situation. Yes, I understand that the life of a police officer is extremely unpredictable but it is still important that as a society we are using The SWAT team effectively by not making them waste their times on small petty crimes. The first situation showed how dangerous it can be having the SWAT team deploy for a criminal act that would most likely be considered petty or minor. We cannot let fear impact our decisions when it comes to fighting crime because then we are putting ourselves in a bad position.
It does seem that SWAT teams are being used for things that defeat their main purpose. Personally I do not feel that having fear as a police officer and or chef is a good enough reason to eliminate others or hurt them. I was taught in some of my classes that crime rates have dropped in total in the US, but this article states that violent crime have fallen and that in the recent years crime rates have increased a little in the small cities. Either way It does not seem appropriate for the number of SWAT teams deployed to be so disproportionately to the rate of just the violent crime.
A very fascinating article observing the militarization of police units across the US. I believe that SWAT is a necessary entity among law enforcement, but sometime this level force is excessive. In the news recently, police have been a hot topic, as news stories break seemingly everyday of excessive force used for minimal offense. People should not be scared of the people that are meant to protect them.
I completely believe that United States urban police are overly militarized. I think that protection of police is not enough of a reason to use SWAT in non severe criminal cases and in cases that SWAT was not originally intended for only because there are non lethal tools that the police have such as aerosol stun devices that they can throw into homes before entering them. The intense militarization of the police feels threatening because the police are essentially as afraid of you as you are of them. When they pull up guns blazing it makes it easier for causalities to occur because everyone is on a hair trigger. I think a lot of people see militarization and think police state. Although I think that is a slippery slope argument, the fear is real especially among people of color who feel targeted by the police and I believe that the police and police departments need to respect that and understand how their policies are translated and interpreted by them.
I believe the police units across the United States may be becoming too militarized especially with the recent events occurring across the nation. I understand that the police officers are risking their lives to protect members of society, but there is a very fine line between protection and abusing that power which is what is occurring with police militarization. I agree with the author that it would be easier to determine the need for police militarization if reports on the right of police departments to use SWAT teams were released to the public.
I can definitely agree with certain police units beginning to be militarized. For example, the campus police were going to be equipped with AR-15 assault rifles, for a SCHOOL. I'm not sure if they actually have them now but I know it was proposed. During the Ferguson protests we saw the police heavily militarized, tanks, assault rifles, snipers posted on top of vehicles, the whole nine yards. The irony of militarizing the police in response to the protests and outcries against the excessive force used by police is clear as day.
“Universities that mould the American elite seek out talented recruits from all backgrounds,” this statement is laughable. University of Maryland is considered a diverse college, but that is only compared to other colleges—who are frighteningly lacking in diversity. We are still a long way from having students from all backgrounds present at universities.
This comment is for this article: Of course America’s police have become too militarized, yet that is not only issue we need to deal with when talking about the police. They have too much discretion, we—the citizens, are vulnerable. There needs to be stricter guidelines for police to follow; in fact, I believe policing in America should be restructured. Leaving it up to the police’s discretion can save lives (depending on the situation), but I can also lead to harassment by the police.
The article stated that the increase in SWAT team deployment has increased since the 80s; the police are trying to become an extension of the military. My personally experience with this aside, this is a serious problem that needs to be arrest.
Lastly, I am not sure how much of the data account for “SWATing,” but “SWATing” also shows that some everyday citizens lack in understanding the seriousness of these situations.
I don’t think that giving police more military weapons and defenses is necessarily a problem. They are already capable of accidentally (or purposely) killing innocent people with a basic pistol and SWAT teams won’t make these people more dead, but they will allow the government to match the threat of more dangerous and armed criminals. The problem is how to ensure proper conduct, as this is the only thing that differentiates police from criminals out in the field. SWAT teams being given more leeway by courts is definitely a bigger problem than militarization. If anything, SWAT teams should be subject to more regulations, such as only being used for life-threatening situations.
With everything happening in the the states today in regards to the police, this article is not at all shocking. I understand that being put in the position to be the one that protects and serves the community, can be rewarding while at the same time stressful. I am also sure it can be terrifying not knowing what you are being faced with in the line of duty, however this new militarized police force makes me, the citizen, more terrified of them then the evil that lurks in the dark. And having SWAT teams handle trivial jobs like the ones listed in this article is absurd. Has the world become that unstable that police officers feel like they need to be trained like soldiers, or should there be more rules placed on citizens so that doing the wrong thing is more difficult, or are there too many rules. I want my police officers to feel safe while they are out there fighting crime, but only if they themselves act honestly and courageously and truly do what is right while also admitting to faults. The part about the officers who want to stay up to date on all the new equipment, is hilarious to me, I get it, but seriously no, I still have a 3G virgin mobile cell phone, and the only reason I am updating is because I lost the back to my current phone, and they no longer make this type. But back to the point. I'm sure the family of the grandma who had drugs placed in her home as a cover up, lost all respect for the folks in blue, who are meant to serve and protect us. My only guess is that our protectors are trying to stay ahead of the criminals out here, and they feel like this is the only way.
I agree with your statement about being more afraid of the police than the criminals they are supposed to protect us from. Honestly, there isn't much of a difference between a criminal, a cop, or you or me. We are all just people subject to fears and prejudices like any other. A human being entrusted with that amount of firepower and responsibility with that much entitlement and self-righteousness built up is going to be problematic no matter what.
I do agree with the main point the article makes about police officers becoming too militarized. They often abuse their power and like the article mentions “knocking down doors with a battering ram and rushing inside.” Sometimes they destroy the property of others traumatizing and marginalizing the people living in that house. I feel like they should investigate really well before using force to enter a home. But also I do agree that police officers risk their lives daily and that is why they need to be armed at all times. I feel like this topic is very controversial because the majority of people have negative views of police officers because the media shows the corrupt ones. There is also police officers who really care about their community and try their best to be fair but also follow the laws to keep neighborhoods safe and in peace.
Its easy to see that the police officers are risking their lives everyday to keep us safe but the need to look like a military force is a little scary. I was shocked to find out the use of SWAT teams went from 3000 times in 1980 to around 50,000 times a year.
Police brutality is such a prevalent issue this year, with so many cases of unreasonable violence being executed as a result of racism. I think that in these cases of brutality, there needs to be regulation and it needs to stop being something that people of color, specifically African Americans, are worried about. However, I think that at some times it is completely necessary to move into a potentially dangerous location with a SWAT team. In my opinion, it is better to be safe than sorry and if police officers are risking their lives to approach a potential attacker, it is not unreasonable for them to want as much protection as possible. Of course there are instances where it is too dramatic and unnecessary, but there are plenty of other times where the protection was necessary.
"That, say critics, is what SWAT teams should be used for: not for serving warrants on people suspected of nonviolent crimes, breaking up poker games or seeing that the Pumpkin Festival doesn’t get out of hand." This pretty much sums up the entire message of the article. I'm not very educated on the history of police brutality but looking at the statistics, it seems like a big issue, especially with the events that have been happening over the last few years. When we were younger, we were taught that police officers exist to protect us, not to hurt us - I really wish kids in the coming generations would be able to see it that way too.
Over 300 people have been killed by police this year alone and it is only May. Militarization of the police is utterly and completely unnecessary. If police officers knew how to do their job correctly and did not terrorize communities, then there would be no need for them to feel threatened when they come into situations involving non-violent offenders. It is sad that many police choose to shoot people on sight rather than arresting people. There is already a huge problem of police brutality without military grade weapons. When police go on duty, they are not up for war against Al-Qaeda, they are supposed to be protecting and serving the communities. Police brutality in America is a known problem nation wide. Then to give them even more lethal weapons sanctions the use of lethal force more than ever. The police force has become a joke. If officers feel the need to pull out a gun every time they encounter potential offenders then they need to find a new job. I wish all police would realize that the communities are not the problem, it is them. They come into communities and terrorize them and establish a distrust of police within communities, which is why they feel unsafe when going into these communities to "protect and serve." Police officers are always pointing the finger at everyone else but themselves, but how can they possibly expect to establish a trusting relationship with people in these communities if every encounter they come into is with a weapon waving it around scaring people to death? I think that these military grade weapons need to be removed as a start to remove the fear of police established in these communities so that they can learn to do their job correctly. Then, the use of body cameras would also be helpful in decreasing brutality. I also think a test should be administered as well, or at least an interview where police are asked certain questions involving race and gender to see what type of job they should have because some police officers put targets on innocent people's backs because of stereotypes and it is sickening.
I believe that paramilitary training and weapons should be at the disposal of police departments that are ready to handle them but should only be used in times of dire emergency. I also think that the federal legislation that requires the Department of Defense to lease unused equipment to state and local law enforcement should be appealed. -Gregory Brown
This is a really interesting article. There was a great piece on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver recently that showcased some of the absurdities of modern police equipment - including a video of cops joy riding their new toys (a tank) set to a song called "Kill Them All". Very uncomfortable.
I was pretty taken aback after reading this article. I believe that military weapons should not be in the hands of so many policemen because it is unecessary and also costs too much. The article describes situations where innocent civilians were killed with this heavy artillery. The article also described how much money the government gives to armor these policemen with these weapons. I believe that the country can use that money that is funding the distribution of those weapons towards something else that the country needs. I understand that the policemen need to protect themselves; however, using heavy artillery to carry out their duties is unecessary.
ReplyDeleteYou bring out a good concern as it relates to money and costs. A lot of these military grade weapons and heavy artillery cost more to obtain and maintain than standard police gear, and the necessity of such extra spending should be scrutinized more. In some cases, fiscal responsibility can enhance physical responsibility; in this case, being fiscally responsible by limiting spending on such high grade weapons when they may not be absolutely necessary may lead to physical responsibility in terms of less people being injured at the hands of police officers in possession of such weaponry on routine patrols or out in the field where such high-level firepower isn't needed.
DeleteAs someone who is aspiring to be involved in law enforcement this article was a bit of an eye opener for me. I do believe police officers should have the best equipment and weaponry in order to protect their lives. I believe how some police departments handle situations is inappropriate. Like the article mentioned, sending in SWAT teams for bar with underage drinkers or the barber shops. I believe the training and purpose has to be more clear and the use of the swat team need to be at necessity not something that is just for the ever day routine traffic stop.
ReplyDeleteI think the audacity that police show towards the general public is absolutely atrocious. The fact that a person can subjectively decide when to take someone else's life, based on their own perception of things is incredibly unsettling to me. For example, the police in the article arbitrarily (as I see it) decided to raid and arrest a couple because the Police Chief decided they were not "good people". That is an absolute misuse of authority and shows that that Police Chief is not trying to protect the people, but instead, (and I'm postulating here) make a quota. The public needs to take a step back and realize that the way the police are handling certain situations is not correct (MICHAEL BROWN), and we, as a society, need to reform the way we view authority, and the way authority figures can treat us.
ReplyDelete"I think the audacity that police show towards the general public is absolutely atrocious."
ReplyDeleteAre you arguing that the majority of Police in America treat the people they serve poorly? I can not agree with that. Yes I do agree that across America there are Bad Cops who do horrible things. However, to say the police in America treat people rudely or in a disrespectful manner is wrong. I think your argument that a cops just decide when to take someones else's life, based on perception, is invalided. Do you really believe a cop joins the force in order to just kill someone or that a cop just says hey I am going to kill this person? I would probably say no to both those questions. Have their been failures throughout history, yes but I believe you are over shadowing what the good police do with the failures. Who would be the first person you would call if you were in a bad situation where you were scared for your life? I believe the majority of cops try their best everyday to make sure yours and my own life are safe everyday. There is no excuse for a bad cop but you can not label the Police Departments in America as disrespectful.
The Police Chief in the article believe their was stolen goods in the house which is why he preformed the raid. The Police Chief must of had reasonable suspicion which is why a United States JUDGE would grant him a warrant to search the house. I think the Police Chief may of used the SWAT team because of the individuals previous arrest record(as stated in the article). "One had a criminal history that included three assault charges, albeit more than a decade old, and on his arrest was found to have a knife and a meth pipe." Does that sound like a good person to you? I agree with the Police Chiefs Decision. I agree with have to view the way we view authority. Maybe we should collectively as a society stop with this "F-the police attitude". I do have to say though, although I do think there is more to learn from the Michael Brown tragedy, respectfully, I wonder how anyone in America would react to man trying to steal your gun and shot you with it.
I find it eye-opening that all of these grants and such large sums of money are given and distributed to law enforcement offices in regards to buying better weapons. I do believe that the police are a part of an institution who's duty is to serve and protect, but as of lately, this has been taken a bit too far. Who's dictates which weapons are allowed for what occasion? I am not at all suggesting that money should be limited to supply officers with their means of "enforcement" but the line has to be drawn somewhere. the article claims that "Mr Balko contends that these forfeiture laws are “unfair on a very basic level”. They “disproportionately affect low-income people” and provide a perverse incentive for police to focus on drug-related crimes". I do not believe that this is necessarily an accident, I think these forces enjoy being able to target certain demographics and certain crimes, and the budgets allow them to do so. Is that fair?
ReplyDeleteIt’s unbelievable to me that in this country, where we were founded on the basis of freedoms and liberties, even adopting the mantra of “innocent until proven guilty” for our courts, the investment in creating a military police is startling. Considering the increased surveillance on our citizens, coupled with the increased ability of hackers and other technology gurus, while some may feel secure, others (possible those who are not as economically prosperous as others) may feel that the government is out to get them, and in a way they’re right.
ReplyDeleteArguably the most notorious killing of an unarmed citizen by a cop took place not even six months after this article was published on March 22nd, 2014. I struggle with determining the rights that police officers have versus what determines the abuse of their power. I label myself as a pacifist so I don’t think that we should ever celebrate violence and brutality, yet I understand that there is sometimes the need to protect oneself or one’s family. I believe the issue lies in most American citizens’ growing distrust of the government and those who have sworn to protect it. We need to be reasonable though by stating that SWAT teams are not innately evil, if they are attempting to protect the citizens and helping to promote justice then they are doing their jobs. Also it is important to remember that they are following orders from a higher officer. These higher officials who dispatch the teams need to follow protocol and make sure that their teams are not abusing and following their personal orders. O’Malley’s initiative ensures some semblance of responsibility and I believe that all states should implant this. Courts decided that Darren Wilson was telling the truth, and we need to understand that the majority of cops are not corrupt. There probably isn’t a need for SWAT teams to forcibly enter homes like they did to the Princes’ home. I know if they entered my parents’ home like that and sacred my siblings I would be furious. The people who budget the SWAT money need to make sure that they are not spending frivolously on these raids that are not worth it. I think that police brutality is a real epidemic and yet I believe that we need to be encouraged that we have people who are willing to risk their lives for the betterment of our nation.
ReplyDeleteLately, I have been focusing my thoughts on the abuse by everyday police officers on the streets. However, this article made me also think about other organizations such as SWAT. There is currently a lot of mainstream talk about the ways police abuse their power and this article is showing the ways violence can be encouraged. The article points to small towns that have very few homicides, yet have a massive amount of military gear and weapons. What is the point? I believe this can lead to no good.
ReplyDeleteThe situation with the militarization of police in this country is pretty scary. The fact that cops are finically motivated to kick in your door (without announcing themselves) and try to arrest you for something, even if that isn't what the warrant was for, only leads to unnecessary arrests and deaths. Also, police forces spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on military equipment that they don't need just to, "keep up with the others" is not only wasteful but gives too much power into untrained hands. Having a military style police force is reminiscent of an authoritarian government rather than a democracy. Not to mention how it affects lower income classes on a much larger scale, this wasteful and harmful spending serves to further disenfranchise the poor, and perpetuate a military style government that has been created through fear campaigns such as the "war on drugs" and "war on terror."
ReplyDeleteThis article is a perfect example of how this country is corrupt, going beyond the boundaries of the constitution. The first thing that is wrong with this article is that SWAT teams are going into potentially dangerous situations way more than they should be. As the article points out, deployment of SWAT teams has increased significantly today compared to the 1980s. Most of the scenarios where SWAT teams are deployed today are for drug related crimes or warrants.. A good amount of these drug warrant busts even end in false arrests or unjustified killings by police. A second problem is the Supreme Court's passage of a law that allows for "no knock" warrants. There needs to be some sort of warning when police invade the property of potential criminals. The biggest reason for this is because home owners have the right to use their firearm if a stranger breaks and enters their property, unless of course that intruder is a SWAT team. How are these people supposed to know the difference between threatening intruders and SWAT teams without these policemen announcing their warrant and right to enter the residence? Police forces are abusing their right to "protect and serve" and taking it to a different level by arming themselves with helmets, assault rifles, and riot shields. They seem to be evolving from regular police officers to military guards. Unless there are drastic changes to these police agencies, they are going to gain more power and abuse their power even more.
ReplyDeleteThe usage of SWAT teams as a form of defense has been a highly contested topic for years. Given recent publicized events such as the Michael Brown Shooting, Sandy Hook, and other unfortunate instances; more people are starting to debate Police militarization and how much power policemen have. Though there have been several instances where SWAT raids have unfortunately gone wrong, I think the argument that we need less SWAT teams is not valid given recent events. In our society, gun laws are not that restrictive. People can get access to guns and weaponry online and people no longer fear policemen and their guns like in the past. I think Governor O'Malleys initiative to require Maryland police departments to report the details of their SWAT raids is a brilliant plan. It gives departments some sort of accountability in regards to how often they use SWAT teams given that they have to report it. Similarly, I think there should be SWAT team re-training and evaluations every three months as well. Places that do not see many violent crimes like North Dakota should especially implement evaluations given that SWAT teams are not used often there. Reports, systematic retraining, and constant evaluations should hopefully cut down on cases of police brutality due to their militarization. Being a policemen is a hard and dangerous occupation. As hard as it is, they should be adequately prepared to not only defend themselves but be consciously aware of situations so they are not "jumpy" and accidentally shoot someone. Only through proper training will that change.
ReplyDeleteI am strongly against the militarization of local police departments across the country. The first reason is due to the misuse of these forces. As the article states there are many instances in which SWAT forces clearly aren't necessary but they are used simply because they can. This leads to accidents and even mistrust and skepticism between the general public and the police force. The second reason is that a lot of money goes towards militarizing departments that do not need this type of force at all. We already spend a great deal on the actual military so to spend this type of money on local departments seems extremely wasteful. It seems to be turning into an arms race with police departments spending and using the biggest and best forces just for the purpose of keeping up with others. This can easily lead to a dangerous and wasteful cycle of spending. However, there have been instances in which these types of forces were necessary and used somewhat effectively for example in Boston and Ferguson. As a whole though there should be a scaling back and some type of reform to prevent things from getting out of hand.
ReplyDeleteJack O'Connor
I agree. With great power comes great responsibility. Handing out billions and billions of dollars to law enforcement for weapons allows the forces to abuse their power. I believe this is also an issue of power dynamics. People in charge want to stay that way, and given physical power through weapons reinforces the mindset of militery. Not every situation should result in violence to solve, but people are quick to jump to this as a solution, unfortunately. Targeting specific populations will only result in finding issues in that community. Giving money designated for weapons to stop people in certain siutations is not really necessary.
ReplyDeleteThis article hinted at who the real victims of police militarization are when the author mentioned that militarization “disproportionately affect low-income people.” What this article failed to mention was who the low income people are - people of color disproportionally fall under the poverty line. To neglect the race issue in this article was a huge mistake on the author's part.
ReplyDeleteIt is people of color who must bear the brunt of the egotistical cop, inflated by the military weapons in his hands, and adamant in exterminating threats. Who does society see as threats? Blacks and Latina/os. Individual cops have implicit biases and they will act on them - once paired with military weapons, their actions will be fatal.
The fault does not fall completely on the individual cop, but the fault falls on a system that contains, limits, and puts PoC in vulnerable situations.
Even here at UMD, the campus police are militarized. This is completely ludicrous and unacceptable. Is the university waging a war? Maybe a war against people of color? We do not need our campus police to militarized. We need our students of color to live.
- Erica Puentes
Erica,
DeleteI was interested in your thoughts about campus police being militarized. Have you or someone you know been raided by a UMPD SWAT team? I have actually came across the website that showed me how the UMPD is going to be purchasing 49, M-16 Assault Riffles, 16, gauge shotguns, and an armored vehicle. In respects to the military type weapons for the UMPD officers, I would want the UMPD to have the best equipment in case there was a shooter on campus like in Virginia Tech, or Sandy Hook, or Columbine.(where the shooters used semi automatic weapons.) Also I believe I could obtain these types of weapons as well if I were to get the proper licenses. With advancing technology I don't think it's possible to restrict police departments from technology and I don't think its possible to restrict citizens from having these technologies. I think a way to keep police officers accountable is to have body cameras on them. Taking away their weapons would not be ethical. Do you take away all doctors medical equipment because one doctor used it wrong and caused a death in a patient. No because that equipment the lives of thousands every day. I also remember the police brutality innocent where a student was beaten after a basketball game and received about 2 million dollars in a settlement. However that was a PG county police officer, not a UMPD officer. Those are two different departments.
As for the UMPD raging a war against people of color, I looked up the Arrest Statistics from according to the UMPD here is the link... (http://www.umpd.umd.edu/RECORDS/arrest_ledgers.cfm?year=2014) according to the statistics, this year, there were 642 White people arrested, 589 Black people arrested, 66 Asian/Pacific Islander people arrested, 7 American Indian arrested. Respectfully, based on these statistics, I can't conclude a war against people of color, more white people have been arrested this year. According to the reasoning of these arrests I see a war on DUI and drug possession.
I believe the UMPD is acting in the best interests of this campus and community. I have seen first hand people disrespecting the UMPD who stand on Route One to insure the safety of drunk college students who forgot how to properly cross the street. I have witnessed 3 police officers risk their lives by running in the middle of the street to grab a female, who was drunk and texting, because three cars almost hit her because she wasn't paying attention. The dedication to safety by the UMPD is second to none. I believe if more police departments acting like the UMPD this country would be a little safer. I do not get safety advisors from my county police back in New York, however, the UMPD keeps me up to date on criminal activity, keeps this community safe everyday, and does it with the up most professionalism.
Respectfully Looking Forward to your thoughts,
Sean O'Malley
Controversy over police brutality and excessive force is always going to be present for as long as police have access to weapons. That I believe, we unfortunately have no control over because the public already has pre conceived schema that police are not protecting us but instead harming us.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I do believe that the funds and grants given to states and the local police forces should be evaluated. For example, there is no need to have an armored police forcer with rotating turrets in places like Fargo, North Dakota that averages fewer than 2 murders a year. The tons of money that is used to fund police weaponery needs to be revised because although it is necessary, It is not necessary in excess. Also, The criminal justice system needs to reallocate the true functions of each form of law enforcement. State police should really be taking on the functions that this article illustrates SWAT teams are enforcing. For example the state law enforcers should be serving warrants on people suspected of nonviolent crimes, or breaking up poker games not SWAT teams. SWAT teams and their tremendous force should stick to the big deal crimes that are violent and life-threatening.
As a criminal justice major, I understand the responsibility that law enforcers feel they have to the community. However, excessive force and funds in places that are not needed should be reevaluated. I strongly agree that the law Governer O’Malley enforced is extremely important in order to know where and how much funds and resources should be implemented.
As long as grants are given and labor cost are paid for, there will always be cops with assault rifles in their trunks. I live in Rockville, Maryland and the city police are of the most financed in the country, their side arms cost on average 3k$ a piece, they have up to date license plate readers and new squad cars, departments will make arrests and bring money to the courts to keep departmental tools from gathering rust. Fortunately for citizens, police departments are receiving grants for POV over shoulder cameras, this might cause a financial problem in the future though because moral hazard will be less prominent. Its a stat game in the end though, more money is thrown into police departments to lower statistical crime rates so people will move there, police makes arrests to compensate the funding, BUT, conviction rate is low because the state makes probation deals which also bring funding back to the state, so in essence, the state receives money in the end with a larger and more equipped police department
ReplyDelete-Crash
This article is very relevant because of the recent focus on police brutality in the media and around the nation. I agree that possibly these officers are given too much power. If their job is to serve and protect, I feel as though basic weapons are needed, nothing extraordinary and nothing that can bring more danger. Don't get me wrong, I feel that they should definately be able to control a situation with different means just because its never known what may be happening, but maybe it's ridiculous to designate billions of dollars for weapontry.
ReplyDeleteI think this was a very interesting read, especially in spite of the recent high profile cases of police brutality. The fact that SWAT teams increased from 3,000 times a year in 1980 to 50,000 a year recently just show how "militarized" they are becoming. The US isn't getting more violent - the crime rate has actually significantly decreased since the 1990s. I think just this fact alone proves how much more aggressively police have become lately. Another reason is that police know that they can get away with it. Just like in the recent grand jury trial of Darren Wilson, the cop that shot Michael Brown, he did not get indicted on any charges. Now none of us were there and none of us know what REALLY happened that day last August, but the fact that a cop can shoot an unarmed teenager and get away with it just shows their increasing brutality and also that there aren't any consequences, which will allow them to continue their behavior.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this article I was really taken back at the state in which our country is in presently. There really is no need for cities around the United States to be receiving military grade weaponry especially because of the fact that violent crime rates have been decreasing, yet the number of SWAT team deployments have skyrocketed. I feel as though equipping the police force with this kind of gear is just giving them too much power only causing more unrest and tension in the general public. I feel as though this act is making people feel even more unsafe just because of all the cases you see of police brutality in the United States. Another problem I have with this is the fact that this is not even driven by a need for it, but by the fear of being left behind. These problems coupled with the fact that many police officers are joining the force for all the wrong reasons will only causes more issues in our society.
ReplyDeleteI find this article to be very interesting and a disturbing reality of the areas of importance in the American law enforcement system. While, I agree this is no help to the fight against police brutality. I see a deeper issue with the militarization of policemen. That basically being that these are policemen not soldiers. There is no reason for police departments to own military style weapons to the degree that they currently own them. There needs to be more money put into training policemen how to deal with situations and not jump to harming innocent people.
ReplyDeleteKendall Heatley
I was quite shocked after reading the article. I had no idea that police in the US were allowed to use such force in situations that do not necessarily warrant it. The British police force and many other police forces around the world are able to handle crime without the need for military style equipment. That being said we do not have the right to bear arms. I think that in situations that warrant it an increased level of force should be used. However as mentioned in the article helmets, masks, shields and guns does not come to mind given the fact that the police were only looking for stolen clothes and electronics.
ReplyDeleteThis article makes me think of the University of Maryland Police Department. We have recently received military grade weapons because of the nuclear reactor on campus. The Nuclear Regulatory Commission requires a higher level of protection for any nuclear reactor. This kind of makes sense for UMD given its proximity to Washington DC.
ReplyDeleteHaving said that, militarization points to larger issues revolving around American society. One is the amount of guns American citizens own. When a civilian is allowed to carry an assault rifle, we see the police having to get the same weapon or having to get an even stronger one. This alludes to the downward spiral of weaponry, tension, and violence between citizens and police. Without a question, militarization of the police relates to racial issues in the United States - even if it was not the intent. Urban areas and cities were the first to utilize military grade weapons. These areas are disproportionately black, which means they experience the problems with this system the most.
Like many of the classmates, I was taken back by this article as well. The reasons behind the purchase of such weapons is understandable, however, the way our officers, who are supposed to “maintain public safety,” are not utilizing them properly. “SWAT teams were first formed to deal with violent civil unrest and life-threatening situation,” evidently the author of this article presented us with multiple examples proving that the law enforcement agents are utilizing such tactics inappropriately. This article reminded me of a book that I’m reading for another class, The Divide, By Matt Taibbi. The first three chapters focus on comparing the way the law is applied towards large financial corporation versus towards individuals who commit minor crimes, such as a homeless person sleeping in a closed park. While those individuals in large corporations are responsible for several felonies only receive a fine, poor, homeless individuals are being sent to jail multiple times adding harmless crimes to their record. It is unfortunate to see that officers, people who we are supposed to trust, are doing such things that in the end harm the public.
ReplyDeletePolice militarization in the United States is a very scary topic. I admit, that I do not know much about the topic but I have heard that police have to meet certain arrest quotas so many times they will arrest anybody for anything they can. The fact that they are now knocking down doors and are heavily weaponed; makes the whole situation that much scarier. I have a lot of respect for law enforcement, and I appreciate the sacrifices they make for us (the public); however, it is not good for any one group to have too much power over the public. There is a reason that our government instituted checks and balances. Too much power often leads to people abusing said power and not all cops are saints.
ReplyDeleteLindsey Stalnaker
I thought this article was very disturbing, but also, interesting. While I do understand that police want to be better armed than their opponent, I do not believe they need to be so brutal with the way they handle certain situations. In the story in the article, the police were looking for clothes and electronics from a stolen credit card. Yet, they went into the building as though they were entering into a drug lord's home. I know that there is a time and place when they need their shields, guns, helmets and masks, however, that is not all the time. I think that our police force needs to be better regulated. Especially with everything that is going on with the controversial arguments about police forces in Ferguson.
ReplyDeleteCaitlin Crouse
I'm not sure what caused the increase of police militarization and SWAT teams, but I do feel that it is not always necessary. In the wake of many recent tragedies and injustices for slain victims by the police, this article really strikes a chord. While there have been some successful SWAT team raids, many of them go horribly wrong and cost the lives of innocent people. These teams also disproportionately affect African American people. When cops who abuse their power, yet do not face punishment, it raises a red flag and calls the justice system into question. How far is too far? Why do these police feel the need to shoot first and think later? I have many questions about the decision making ability of the people behind the uniform because they are meant to protect and serve yet sometimes it seems that the opposite is true.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Andryna, this is an issue of power abuse from the police officers. Allowing them to have weapons upon weapons, gives them a sense of power and control over everyday citizens. It is a true sense of power given to tem in order to simply control the masses in the event that force is needed, but recently, the force has been overused. I think it stems from a place a fear, that people will harm them, so they take the first action. They need to be involved in further training in order to learn new ways to react and handle difficult situations without using weapons immediately. This is obviously not doing any good for society. There have been too many innocent lives taken because police officers have "felt threatened"; but maybe they should develop new ways to handle the threat instead of ending lives as easily and quickly they have been doing so.
ReplyDeletePolice have to much power and it's getting out of control. The varying degrees of force that the officers use is getting ugly. This has been happening through out the country for ome time now. Their counties that have military grade trucks and kevlar armor to combat people.
ReplyDeleteMichael Marinelli
I disagree with the increasing militarization of police officers across the country. Clearly, these type of weapons and armor are more than a normal police officer should require. I can understand SWAT teams having these types of weapons or certain police in explicit circumstances when they are needed. But for a everyday tasks like looking for stolen clothes, as the case in the story shows, I believe this is completely unnecessary and creates a divide between police and citizens and breeds fear and contempt.
ReplyDeleteThe article brings to light what seems to be a growing issue here in the U.S. The recent uproar in Ferguson as well as many other recent issues involving the police and what appears to be unlawful actions against citizens, can relate to this article. The police along with their departments have been showing increasing signs of overstepping their boundaries and abusing their power. This article proves that. I think that the percentage of "....Americans [who] think the use of drones, military weapons and armoured vehicles by the police has gone too far" would actually be higher now than it was since the article was written (albeit six months ago), which was 58 percent. And as stated before, I think this would be due to the increase in activities where the police have abused their power to "protect".
ReplyDeleteAnother issue that the article brings up is the frivolous spending by police departments and the government on militarized weapons that they clearly don't need and are using for the wrong reasons. "Between 2002 and 2011 the Department of Homeland Security disbursed $35 billion in grants to state and local police." That is absolutely ridiculous. Instead of further disrupting what little peace there is left, why not use that money to educate people on crime and preventing it or invest that money in some other area like education in general but in poor/ low income communities and in reducing the homeless population we have in the U.S. It is absolutely horrible that people have to pay for despicable actions of the men and women who swore to serve and protect; some at the high price of their lives.
That is ridiculous. I can understand the need to carry firearms as police officers, that makes sense for many obvious reasons. However, it is getting out of hand with what kinds they can carry, especially in situations where there is really no need to have it drawn in the first place. I could understand if these were situations in which the police were potentially facing weapons of high fire power as well, however the idea of breaking into someone's home with assault rifles simily because of some stolen clothes and credit card fraud is completely unacceptable. They need to have restrictions on when what equipment can be used. Even with that being said, if a situation would arise that needed assault weapons and armor it should we left to s.w.a.t. and the like, in which case the police shouldn't be able to carry such things at all.
ReplyDelete-Matt Fera
It’s absolutely disturbing that the police are being militarized. Outside of what’s been going on with Ferguson and the Eric Garner case, it’s unnerving. It doesn’t make sense that police get militarized equipment and training, aren’t they trained to enforce the law with the equipment that they are already mandated? Why are they still getting militarized when violent crimes are going down? Why is the equipment getting used for nonviolent crimes- there needs to get a SWAT team to bust a thief, really? And if all of this money is going into these programs, can’t we use that money for prevention programs- programs that can help disadvantaged youths that are at risks for getting into crime?
ReplyDeleteI agree with you. Training and outfitting regular police as soldiers is crazy and all it does is help to increase the fear that people already have towards members of the police. I think they need to do a better job at responding to situations with the appropriate level of force needed and no more.
DeleteStories like this always make me question the maturity of our countries law enforcement. I know there are plenty of good cops, probably the majority, but seeing a bunch of men that want to play soldier is ridiculous. I can understand that doing your standard patrol in full tactile gear may fulfill some fantasy of being a bad ass hero, but their job isn't to play pretend. Maybe this isn't exactly what has led to this militarization, but whatever the cause I do think it is getting out of hand.
ReplyDeleteSo I was watching this and although it doesn't have to do with police materialization. It talks about Wall Street, Private Corrections Facilities and our judicial systems. It is pretty crazy.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eAHGcU3_rfc
ReplyDeleteI’ve actually been in a situation similar to the one the people in the story were in. The police had an arrest warrant for a friend of mine and I was in the house when they came. It was actually pretty scary experience. Eight cops just burst through the door waving guns and yelling stuff. So much was going on it was hard to think and I can understand why some people react the way they o I those situations. Thankfully no one was shot. But with everything that was going on, there was a possibility of that happening.
ReplyDeleteI feel that this is certainly an article that raises arguments. The article raises many points that many people would agree and disagree with. One thing the article mention was the amount of money that goes into weapons for police officers or law enforcement. I do believe that as being part of the law enforcement and their duty to protect and save lives of innocents do require the best tools and equipment’s possible to carry out their mission. However, today most police officers tend to abuse their power and bully innocents because they can and the possibilities of them getting charged for their actions are not high at all. I understand that it is their job to protect themselves as well from the criminals they face, but where do we draw the boundaries of police officers that have gone too far. The article talked about the increase of SWAT teams being dispatched today compared to it in the 1980s. Most of these are dispatched in scenes of drug related crimes or breaking into peoples’ homes unannounced which a lot of these ends in false arrest. I feel that the increase of SWAT teams related incidents are ridiculous and waste of time and money and should be focused more on life and death related situations.
ReplyDeleteThere is no reason that the police should have military grade weapons. They are police officers, not soldiers. Being armed to the teeth when trying to attempt a drug bust is only going to elevate the tensions of everyone involved, which as we've seen in the past, leads to actions that can injury or even death to the innocent bystanders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. That is, in the path of over excited police officers, who bust into a home, throwing flash bangs into cribs or into living rooms where children are sleeping and killing them. Not to mention, after these injuries or deaths, the police are seldom held responsible. Under the guise of "the war on *insert current panic here*" militarized police officers are, more than anything, fueling already tense relationships in certain communities.
ReplyDeleteLindsay Bonaparte
I actually died in side while reading this article. To be completely honest, there is NO REASON whatsoever why a *local* police force should ever need to possess military-grade weaponry and armor to the level of becoming a SWAT team or a special forces unit. Those weapons and gear should be reserved for - take a wild guess - actually military officers and special forces units, on combat fields under hostile conditions. A BearCat is appropriate on a war field yes, on the residential streets of a small town in Connecticut absolutely not. Now, that's not to say that such high-caliber firepower is not needed or should not exist on American soil in active use; recently, numerous school and public-place shootings have brought to the forefront the issue of law enforcement needing access to such weaponry in order to adequately match and subdue those who possess such an intense threat to public safety through their illegal use of such guns (flipped to the acceptability of a BearCat in Connecticut of all places). However, Joe Random, the new rookie officer fresh out of the academy, should not be able to or need to get his hands on an AR-15 and tactical body armor in order to do his daily beat patrol in Sweet Rosyville, USA.
ReplyDeleteI found it really bizarre that the police chief said that the people he arrested were "bad people," as if that justified it. I think that it crosses dangerous boundaries when the enforcers of the law begin to neglect the law and arrest people on what they deem right or wrong, whether we agree with them or not. I think this principle is reflected in what is currently happening in a lot of cities around the us where the police are acting out of their own prejudice or beliefs and not looking at the situation objectively or as objectively as humanly possible.
ReplyDelete- Ana Kyriakos
This article provided information that I found disappointing solely because it had an example of how swat raids can go wrong and no one seems to want to acknowledge how inappropriate these raids are given the crimes that they raid these homes for. These are people's homes where they have children and disturbing that homelife to make an arrest for charges that are not harming anyone at that given moment seems irrational and it invades the rights you have to your home. It violates the comfort that was once there and it lets people think that these crimes deserve that kind of treatment. The article touches on the communities most affected by these raids and people still choose to ignore the severity of this problem targeting specific communities. How can people be confused as to why the militarization of police can be a bad thing when they will never have to worry about their homes being invaded for smoking some pot. It's unnecessary and bottom line, unjust. You can't expect relations with the police and people to improve when you allow your police to wear protective war wear and intimidate people who feel like they are in the midst of a war.
ReplyDelete-Semira Tesfai
Cops today act more like storm troopers than actual cops. First let look at cost for recovering 1,000 dollars’ worth of electronics, the man power and effort put into recovering those items is a waist of tax payers money. A summons to court would have suffice. Second the militarization of cops seem more like to suppress the people instead of protect the people. It is like when they used an armored vehicle to raid a frat party over liquor. If something is not done about it, are rights will be forcefully taken away from us. However granted there are plenty of cops that disagree with militarizing the police.
ReplyDelete-Joshua Zidek
After reading all of these comment, I do understand the concern about having military retype weapons in the hands of police officers. Instead spending money on these weapons maybe they should invest their departments money in training officers with the weapons they have now.
ReplyDeleteI think that police over-militarization is to some extent warranted, given the potential threats that they could face. In most cases, police are acting with the mindset that the suspects could be armed, and this is a reasonable and safe assumption to make since it is legal to own a firearm. The situation presented in the article is a perfect example since they were raiding a house that did indeed have weapons in it. I honestly believe that they shouldn't send swat teams into a house for something like credit card fraud, but if guns were more restricted, then police wouldn't have to use such militarized force for a case like this in the first place
ReplyDeletethe over militarization of police and SWAT teams has infiltrated the police force and instilled fear in many civilians where they should fee safety. I believe police should carry weapons to use in life threatening situations. However, having a weapon should come with a high degree of responsibility. Unfortunately, it seems that a large enough fraction of the police confuse responsibility with power and abuse their position
ReplyDeleteThe militarization of police is a big problem in our country. It is even a big problem on our campus at the moment as our campus police are armed with military grade weapons. The problem with this is that people have to be trained to use these guns which all officers are not. Also, military are for protecting our nation while the police are for protecting our rights as citizens. You can not have the same approach you use in fighting outside wars that you use with your own citizens.
ReplyDeleteI think that the problem of militarization of the police is not the big problem, it how and when they are being used that is the problem. There are circumstances when I believe a highly trained officer is needed, but for the most part those instances are few and far between. The idea that the use of these paramilitaristic forces should be allowed for just about anything is absurd, and there should be a way of governing when they are actually sent into the field that is better then this one.
ReplyDeleteMichael Lerche
I agree, the context really does matter. While I personally believe that in those kinds of situations they should bring in a specialized unit such as SWAT, I agree that if a situation arose when you would need a specialized officer to handle the situation then they would be doing a very good service. But as you said, these situations do not often arise.
Delete-Matt Fera
Given the history of prejudiced application of Justice within this society, I do not feel comfortable at all with the growing militarization of Police forces within the United States. I also believe that many of the instances of crime are being escalated to quickly, where relatively minor crimes, such as "credit card fraud" and "assault", are often met with SWAT like tactics. This usage of fear in not very conducive to an effective police force, and only goes to show how fucked up this country is as a whole.
ReplyDeleteI do not see how this article relates to inequality. Maybe between the S.W.A.T. teams and the homeowners whose houses they are raiding? I do not see any problem with the militarization of police when it is in terms of combating violent crime. I do agree though that this is not what is happening and that in many cases the police forces are becoming overly militarized for the job that they are trying to accomplish. The “no knock” warrants mentioned in the article just seems absolutely absurd to me for a number of reasons. From instances mentioned in the article and instances that I have heard of previously it seems like it makes the whole procedure more dangerous and less efficient. I think that most people would try to defend themselves if they heard their door being broken in the middle of the night. If the police would announce themselves it might cause for the people inside the home to not react the way they would if they believed it was a home invasion. It seems safer for the officers and the people in the home to do away with “no knock” warrants. I think this is especially true when the majority of these cases are only drug related. Instead of the case just pertaining to drug charges people potentially end up losing their lives.
ReplyDeleteThis is a growing problem in America. Even some universities are going so far as to form undercover units and having them trained by former FBI agents, just so they can deal with the crime issues they face on campus.
ReplyDeleteThis is an issue that has been brewing for some time, and it has been getting out of hand. Police forces are becoming more and more armed with military style weapon and armour as they patrol their communities and "serve the people". There are defintely precautions that need to to be made in regard to safety of the officers, but at the same time I believe the militarization of police forces brings forth a wider social gap between both cops and civilians. People of the general public see this and find it hard to look at those who are supposed to protect and serve as comrades of the commnity. - Maulford Smith
ReplyDeleteI don't feel that this act is in any way beneficial for the police. It will only worsen community relations. The community has difficulty trusting people who don't relate to them. If police-community relations are bad now with racial tensions, adding a mask, armored suit, gun and automatic aggressive force will only make things worse. Police are already viewed by the majority as having too much power. Reducing power and making the police more integrated in the community is the only way to improve upon this. Police militarization will provoke the opposite response-distancing and inequality. When the police are removing rather than protecting the people's rights, then they are no longer serving their purpose.
ReplyDeleteThis year has made it very tough to talk sensibly about what is good or bad for police. Both police and civilians have acted barbarically. I feel that the use of SWAT teams would feel a little like a war on America, with our own troops defending our own people from our own people. I think it is intimidating and unnecessary. Fear of enforcement is what drives people to rebel. I do not think that SWAT is necessary, perhaps a better plan would be that police get more training and special HR teams set more regulation to watch over the intention of police.
ReplyDeleteRecent events have led most people to at least take a look at what consequences might come from the advanced weaponry given to police in today's United States. While the prejudices of police in the United States and their uses of force are questionable and debatable, the statistical evidence that supports a negative consequence of increased military gear for police is not. With those weapons comes a dangerous mindset that may increase the likely-hood of choosing deadly force with dealing with a threat. While I won't go as far as to say our police have a problem, I do think the equipment we give them itself may be a fault of our system.
ReplyDelete"The American police are becoming too much like soldiers" (Radley Balko), and I do not understand why. While I respect that the police risk their lives everyday to ensure the protection of domestic society, they should not resemble the ranks of international military arms. The connotation of "the militarization of police" insists that there is some sort of war in our own country. Just like the "War against drugs", the enemy and aggressors is not the criminals or drug users but the police themselves. Police are here for protection of all citizens, just because someone is suspected of being a criminal or someone that may or may not have committed a crime does not mean their life no longer matters. It does not mean that they, along with their families, should have to suffer through an intense invasion of their home or more dramatically, the loss of life.
ReplyDeleteI think this really boils down to who is making the decisions when it comes to using SWAT teams. Clearly in the examples posed in the article mistakes were made: the team raided a person or group of people and charged them on unrelated chargers (I thought the barbering without a license in Fla. to be pretty funny). It seems that these local police stations are calling the shots to use SWAT teams, so I think the pressure should be put on them to improve their decision making.
ReplyDelete-David Teitelbaum
David, I agree that the ones to blame for sending the SWAT teams out for petty offenses and non-violent crimes. However, it's been at the discretion of these police departments and from the article, it seems like they need some assistance in decision making because they have a second agenda. The SWAT raids are clearly profitable to them, so what's to stop the police departments from continually using these tactics to gain more money? That's why there should be legislation restricting the use of SWAT teams. In addition, the rules on civil asset seizure should be changed so that police departments can no longer profit from seizing the property of suspects. Both of these measure will help decrease the unnecessary use of SWAT teams.
DeleteYeah, fair point - the police will keep doing this sort of thing if it is readily available and is making them money. Not to mention, the SWAT teams themselves are probably making money from being relevant as well.
DeleteThis article is very relatable to many current events happening now or in the past few months. I believe that the whole country as a whole has developed this fear for security and that is what has lead to this "militarization" of the police. As they mentioned in the article, I really don't think it is necessary to have a SWAT team in towns where very few crimes occur. I see it as a waste of money and bad allocation of resources. All that money the Department of Homeland Security spends on the police and police equipment in areas where it is not needed could be used in other areas that may be more helpful to the community. On the other hand, it is also very easy to see why this has happened with the numerous "massacres" that have occurred in the very past few years. These events have not only made security a more "important issue," or more of an issue but have also made people lose their faith and confidence in the police because of the way they are seen in recent cases, killing "innocent people." It is as if we have a war against terrorism overseas but also have one here at home, which makes it difficult because we don't know which one to focus on and takes our attention from other important national issues. -Karen Reyes
ReplyDeleteI think that this article is very relevant as far as what is currently going on in the country. While the article was a little eye opening, I am not overly shocked. I believe that the once noble profession of law enforcement has become a tool for oppression and corruption. I think that police are too quick to take over the persona of John McClane in every day situations, and it is starting to show in the startling amount of fatal interactions with citizens. -Damarr Gordon
ReplyDeleteThe organization and normalization of these paramilitary groups is done in order to further limit peoples freedom. Having such a force trained and experienced makes them more adapted to deal with future civil unrest, striking them down quickly and effectively, even when the demands might be just. Militarizing the police, by the frequent use of SWAT teams for example, is done preventively in order to maintain the political status quo as more and more people find the injustices in society unacceptable and take action to change it. The bigger the tensions in a society, the bigger the force needs to be in order to keep order. In other words, a militarization of the police can be a sign of increased tension and insecurity in society and this increased tension can be a result of increasing inequality. - Visar
ReplyDeleteThe fact that SWAT teams are deployed for reasons such as breaking up poker games seems a bit uneccessary. Or at least it seems that swat teams should be deployed for more serious matters.
ReplyDeletePart of the problem is the fact that many of these decisions come from lose interpretations of “reasonable suspicion”. If there are not clear standards as to what is self-defense what is suspicion then these guidelines are moot and subjective. It is important that some cases require SWAT teams in order to protect. The disturbing idea that increased force is being used even while violent crimes are decreasing is something hat needs to be considered. There are some who will argue that the instilled fear is deterring violent crimes, but we have to consider to what extent is excessive (i.e. violent Pumpkin Festival, really?). Perhaps an evaluation of the training tactics used and the timeline of training is in need, as well as implementing workshops on implicit racial biases, as this police force did.
ReplyDeleteI think that yes, there is a bad use in the SWAT team and other resources from the police departments. However, I also think that SWAT teams and other high-skilled equipment groups should be always on the hand of police departments when they community needs them. But that has to be in balance, where it is needed and where it is not. I do know that some small departments want to keep up with the large/big departments. That should change. There should be a law that demands police departments to give reasons of why they want to build up these expensive equipment. Also, at the large scale, if these programs are not needed, they are not easy to dismantle. It costs money, even if it is from forfeiture gains. And as the expert explains, this gives inequality of service to the community. The police department is more concentrated in catching up drug-dealers in their last part of their illegal transaction, than to catch up with other offenders. Again, we see a small sector of the society that can make or is making inequality service to the general public. Something we need to look up, and change for the better.
ReplyDeleteI agree that our police departments are becoming really militarized. It's extremely unacceptable for the increase of SWAT deployments and the change in criteria to when they get deployed. SWAT should only be deployed for extremely violent situations. Police officers are already far more equipped while on the job than your average civilian. So bringing in SWAT could be misconstrued as excessive force because why would a regular officer with a fully equipped duty not be suitable to combat a drug situation. Unless there is prior knowledge of weapons or forces stronger than what the average officer carries on a daily basis there should not be a need for a militarized forced. In that case police forces are abusing there power and authority using excessive force to subdue unarmed offenders.
ReplyDeleteRyan Rumph
It cannot be argued that our police departments have been acting more militarized in recent years, however I do not think it is fair though to discuss the negative actions of SWAT teams, or other sectors of the police for using weapons that have been assigned to them. SWAT teams do a great deal of good for communities, and are highly trained operatives that save lives when asked. It may seem unacceptable for a SWAT team to be used to raid the home of a man who is organizing cockfights, but no one knows the details of the man, and the circumstances the Police faced when raiding his home. Just because the crime he committed is not murder, it does not mean that the police were not faced with a dangerous situation when attempting to obtain the man.
ReplyDelete-Jeremy Levin
"Reasonable suspicion" basically gives police officers a license to kill; if they think a person "looks suspicious", they might assume that the person has drugs or is guilty of some other kind, and so, legally, they would be able to raid their house, even though it's not at all the intended purpose of the Supreme Court ruling. The police officers involved use extremely excessive force against civilians, and in one example provided, they actually plant marijuana in the home of an old woman whose house they raided after they killed her. SWAT raids may not necessarily be "bad", but there are far too many examples of officers raiding the houses of innocent people - not to mention, the officers themselves are carrying weapons that are much too deadly for use against civilians.
ReplyDelete- Brian Kang
Very interesting article. I have to say that I think civil fortfeiture laws are extremely dangerous. The police has a monopoly on the (legal) use of violence/force within a society and in order for that to work, it needs to be as trustworthy as possible, and only use violence/force when absolutely necessary (and without excess). A police department that benefits financially from solving one type of crime but not another is no longer trustworthy, since there are always some people who cannot withstand the corrupting power of money, even within an otherwise competent police force and police department management. I agree with Balko that the civil forfeiture laws seem to strike especially hard against low-income groups, and I cannot help but to think of "Inside Job" when I read this. Sending a SWAT team to chase $1000 from a stolen credit card when white-collar criminals and executives are getting away with millions of dollars through tax fraud and bribing credit rating agencies on Wall Street without getting arrested seems extremely hypocritical. - Malin Niklasson
ReplyDeleteThis article showed how fearful we have become as a society because of past events such as 9/11 and the Boston Marathon tragedy. The fact that we choose to deploy the SWAT Team for small incidents like arresting someone who stole credit cards is a little unnecessary to me. The SWAT team should only used to are advantage when we want to stop a criminal who is extremely dangerous or when are police officers are placed in a life or death situation. Yes, I understand that the life of a police officer is extremely unpredictable but it is still important that as a society we are using The SWAT team effectively by not making them waste their times on small petty crimes. The first situation showed how dangerous it can be having the SWAT team deploy for a criminal act that would most likely be considered petty or minor. We cannot let fear impact our decisions when it comes to fighting crime because then we are putting ourselves in a bad position.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem that SWAT teams are being used for things that defeat their main purpose. Personally I do not feel that having fear as a police officer and or chef is a good enough reason to eliminate others or hurt them. I was taught in some of my classes that crime rates have dropped in total in the US, but this article states that violent crime have fallen and that in the recent years crime rates have increased a little in the small cities. Either way It does not seem appropriate for the number of SWAT teams deployed to be so disproportionately to the rate of just the violent crime.
ReplyDeleteA very fascinating article observing the militarization of police units across the US. I believe that SWAT is a necessary entity among law enforcement, but sometime this level force is excessive. In the news recently, police have been a hot topic, as news stories break seemingly everyday of excessive force used for minimal offense. People should not be scared of the people that are meant to protect them.
ReplyDeleteI completely believe that United States urban police are overly militarized. I think that protection of police is not enough of a reason to use SWAT in non severe criminal cases and in cases that SWAT was not originally intended for only because there are non lethal tools that the police have such as aerosol stun devices that they can throw into homes before entering them. The intense militarization of the police feels threatening because the police are essentially as afraid of you as you are of them. When they pull up guns blazing it makes it easier for causalities to occur because everyone is on a hair trigger. I think a lot of people see militarization and think police state. Although I think that is a slippery slope argument, the fear is real especially among people of color who feel targeted by the police and I believe that the police and police departments need to respect that and understand how their policies are translated and interpreted by them.
ReplyDeleteI believe the police units across the United States may be becoming too militarized especially with the recent events occurring across the nation. I understand that the police officers are risking their lives to protect members of society, but there is a very fine line between protection and abusing that power which is what is occurring with police militarization. I agree with the author that it would be easier to determine the need for police militarization if reports on the right of police departments to use SWAT teams were released to the public.
ReplyDeleteI can definitely agree with certain police units beginning to be militarized. For example, the campus police were going to be equipped with AR-15 assault rifles, for a SCHOOL. I'm not sure if they actually have them now but I know it was proposed. During the Ferguson protests we saw the police heavily militarized, tanks, assault rifles, snipers posted on top of vehicles, the whole nine yards. The irony of militarizing the police in response to the protests and outcries against the excessive force used by police is clear as day.
ReplyDelete“Universities that mould the American elite seek out talented recruits from all backgrounds,” this statement is laughable. University of Maryland is considered a diverse college, but that is only compared to other colleges—who are frighteningly lacking in diversity. We are still a long way from having students from all backgrounds present at universities.
ReplyDeleteIgnore my comment above, this is for a different article.
DeleteThis comment is for this article: Of course America’s police have become too militarized, yet that is not only issue we need to deal with when talking about the police. They have too much discretion, we—the citizens, are vulnerable. There needs to be stricter guidelines for police to follow; in fact, I believe policing in America should be restructured. Leaving it up to the police’s discretion can save lives (depending on the situation), but I can also lead to harassment by the police.
ReplyDeleteThe article stated that the increase in SWAT team deployment has increased since the 80s; the police are trying to become an extension of the military. My personally experience with this aside, this is a serious problem that needs to be arrest.
Lastly, I am not sure how much of the data account for “SWATing,” but “SWATing” also shows that some everyday citizens lack in understanding the seriousness of these situations.
I don’t think that giving police more military weapons and defenses is necessarily a problem. They are already capable of accidentally (or purposely) killing innocent people with a basic pistol and SWAT teams won’t make these people more dead, but they will allow the government to match the threat of more dangerous and armed criminals. The problem is how to ensure proper conduct, as this is the only thing that differentiates police from criminals out in the field. SWAT teams being given more leeway by courts is definitely a bigger problem than militarization. If anything, SWAT teams should be subject to more regulations, such as only being used for life-threatening situations.
ReplyDeleteWith everything happening in the the states today in regards to the police, this article is not at all shocking. I understand that being put in the position to be the one that protects and serves the community, can be rewarding while at the same time stressful. I am also sure it can be terrifying not knowing what you are being faced with in the line of duty, however this new militarized police force makes me, the citizen, more terrified of them then the evil that lurks in the dark. And having SWAT teams handle trivial jobs like the ones listed in this article is absurd. Has the world become that unstable that police officers feel like they need to be trained like soldiers, or should there be more rules placed on citizens so that doing the wrong thing is more difficult, or are there too many rules. I want my police officers to feel safe while they are out there fighting crime, but only if they themselves act honestly and courageously and truly do what is right while also admitting to faults. The part about the officers who want to stay up to date on all the new equipment, is hilarious to me, I get it, but seriously no, I still have a 3G virgin mobile cell phone, and the only reason I am updating is because I lost the back to my current phone, and they no longer make this type. But back to the point. I'm sure the family of the grandma who had drugs placed in her home as a cover up, lost all respect for the folks in blue, who are meant to serve and protect us. My only guess is that our protectors are trying to stay ahead of the criminals out here, and they feel like this is the only way.
ReplyDeleteI agree with your statement about being more afraid of the police than the criminals they are supposed to protect us from. Honestly, there isn't much of a difference between a criminal, a cop, or you or me. We are all just people subject to fears and prejudices like any other. A human being entrusted with that amount of firepower and responsibility with that much entitlement and self-righteousness built up is going to be problematic no matter what.
DeleteI do agree with the main point the article makes about police officers becoming too militarized. They often abuse their power and like the article mentions “knocking down doors with a battering ram and rushing inside.” Sometimes they destroy the property of others traumatizing and marginalizing the people living in that house. I feel like they should investigate really well before using force to enter a home. But also I do agree that police officers risk their lives daily and that is why they need to be armed at all times. I feel like this topic is very controversial because the majority of people have negative views of police officers because the media shows the corrupt ones. There is also police officers who really care about their community and try their best to be fair but also follow the laws to keep neighborhoods safe and in peace.
ReplyDeleteIts easy to see that the police officers are risking their lives everyday to keep us safe but the need to look like a military force is a little scary. I was shocked to find out the use of SWAT teams went from 3000 times in 1980 to around 50,000 times a year.
ReplyDeletePolice brutality is such a prevalent issue this year, with so many cases of unreasonable violence being executed as a result of racism. I think that in these cases of brutality, there needs to be regulation and it needs to stop being something that people of color, specifically African Americans, are worried about. However, I think that at some times it is completely necessary to move into a potentially dangerous location with a SWAT team. In my opinion, it is better to be safe than sorry and if police officers are risking their lives to approach a potential attacker, it is not unreasonable for them to want as much protection as possible. Of course there are instances where it is too dramatic and unnecessary, but there are plenty of other times where the protection was necessary.
ReplyDelete"That, say critics, is what SWAT teams should be used for: not for serving warrants on people suspected of nonviolent crimes, breaking up poker games or seeing that the Pumpkin Festival doesn’t get out of hand."
ReplyDeleteThis pretty much sums up the entire message of the article. I'm not very educated on the history of police brutality but looking at the statistics, it seems like a big issue, especially with the events that have been happening over the last few years. When we were younger, we were taught that police officers exist to protect us, not to hurt us - I really wish kids in the coming generations would be able to see it that way too.
Over 300 people have been killed by police this year alone and it is only May. Militarization of the police is utterly and completely unnecessary. If police officers knew how to do their job correctly and did not terrorize communities, then there would be no need for them to feel threatened when they come into situations involving non-violent offenders. It is sad that many police choose to shoot people on sight rather than arresting people. There is already a huge problem of police brutality without military grade weapons. When police go on duty, they are not up for war against Al-Qaeda, they are supposed to be protecting and serving the communities. Police brutality in America is a known problem nation wide. Then to give them even more lethal weapons sanctions the use of lethal force more than ever. The police force has become a joke. If officers feel the need to pull out a gun every time they encounter potential offenders then they need to find a new job. I wish all police would realize that the communities are not the problem, it is them. They come into communities and terrorize them and establish a distrust of police within communities, which is why they feel unsafe when going into these communities to "protect and serve." Police officers are always pointing the finger at everyone else but themselves, but how can they possibly expect to establish a trusting relationship with people in these communities if every encounter they come into is with a weapon waving it around scaring people to death? I think that these military grade weapons need to be removed as a start to remove the fear of police established in these communities so that they can learn to do their job correctly. Then, the use of body cameras would also be helpful in decreasing brutality. I also think a test should be administered as well, or at least an interview where police are asked certain questions involving race and gender to see what type of job they should have because some police officers put targets on innocent people's backs because of stereotypes and it is sickening.
ReplyDeleteI believe that paramilitary training and weapons should be at the disposal of police departments that are ready to handle them but should only be used in times of dire emergency. I also think that the federal legislation that requires the Department of Defense to lease unused equipment to state and local law enforcement should be appealed.
ReplyDelete-Gregory Brown
This is a really interesting article. There was a great piece on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver recently that showcased some of the absurdities of modern police equipment - including a video of cops joy riding their new toys (a tank) set to a song called "Kill Them All". Very uncomfortable.
ReplyDelete