When you can’t tell the difference between your local police and soldiers entering a war zone, there is obviously something wrong. Unfortunately, this is the case in far too much of America today.
In the wake of the shooting of Mike Brown, an unarmed 18 year old African American in Ferguson, Missouri, the militarization of America’s police forces became apparent as armed policemen in armored vehicles rolled into the town. This action forces one to ponder the question; How have the police been getting military grade equipment and when did it start?
Ever since the September 11 terrorist attacks, the United States has gone through some drastic transformations when it comes to maintaining public safety. However, the militarization of the police began well before that. In 1990, Congress approved the 1033 Program, a program that fell under the Department of Defense. This program allowed for the transfer of military surplus equipment to local law enforcement agencies.
According to a 2013 ACLU report titled “War Comes Home,” over the program’s lifetime, more than $5 billion worth of military equipment has been given to state and local police departments. This includes 63 agencies that received 15,045 items of “battle uniforms” and 500 agencies that received Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles built to withstand armor piercing road side bombs.
Why do local law enforcement officers need military grade equipment? Yes, the police should be equipped to handle threats to public safety, but I don’t believe that they often encounter criminals who are so dangerous that the police would need to roll down the street in tanks. However, if a criminal of extreme caliber does pose a threat to the public, it should be dealt with. Of course, some police departments already have specially trained SWAT teams. Although no local police departments should have military grade arms, an argument could be made that SWAT teams, if anyone, should have limited access to this type of equipment. However, the use of such equipment would only be for high-risk situations.
The first time the nation really seemed to take notice of the militarization of our police force would be in the days following the Boston Marathon bombings. After the actual bombing, the police, terrifyingly clothed in camouflage, masks, and full body armor, went from house to house hunting down the suspected bombers with complete disregard for the Fourth Amendment. I understand that catching the bombers was their only priority, but innocent people having their houses searched was a complete violation of the Bill of Rights and is an example of how militarized the police force has become and the power they now wield.
This militarization of our police force was in full effect in Ferguson. In response to Mike Brown’s death, the citizens of Ferguson took to the streets to display their anger at the situation. Although there were some looters and rioters, these were mostly peaceful protests.
The police response was shocking. Police officers in full riot gear and camouflage came to meet the protesters. Armored vehicles rolled down the street, loaded rifles were aimed at protestors, and even journalists were arrested. Although the Boston bombing displayed the police’s militarization, it was Ferguson that truly opened the nation’s eyes to how militaristic our police force has become.
So how do we solve this problem? Well, for starters, we must end the program that allows for the transfer of military equipment to police agencies. This would get rid of the source. Next, there should be a review of what weapons and equipment is reasonable for the police to be issued and use. Finally, once this is decided on, there should be national legislation restricting police departments to own any weapons and equipment that have been found to be unreasonable or unnecessary.
If these steps are implemented, I am sure that the police will no longer seem to be the terrifying, oppressive faction that sees the very people they have sworn to protect and serve as an enemy. These steps will help to establish the police as defenders of the people rather than an expansion of our military force.