Most Police Officers Should Not Carry Firearms

Understanding the SituationUnfortunately, it has become all too common to hear the disturbing news of yet another incident in the United States where the use of Deadly Force via Firearms by the Police has resulted in yet another death.In 2014 alone, the FBI reports 396 "justifiable homicides" committed by Police. This represents "the killing of a felon by a law enforcement officer", and doesn't include any persons killed by a law enforcement officer who were not felons. https://ucr.fbi.gov...So, what exactly is "Justifiable Homicide"?"a killing without evil or criminal intent, for which there can be no blame, such as self-defense to protect oneself or to protect another, or the shooting by a law enforcement officer in fulfilling his/her duties." http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com...IdealsDiscussions regarding the appropriate usage of firearms in the line of duty aren't new. This essay, written in 1950 by associates at Northwestern University School of Law, depicts a strong outline for proper behaviour.One of the strongest and most emphasized points in this essay is the need for a felony to have already occurred or be currently in progress. If an arrest is being made for a misdemeanor and the arresstee is resisting or attempting to flee, the use of a firearm is not justified.Even if the crime is a felony and the suspected felon is resisting or attempting to flee, every effort should be taken by the officer to not use his firearm.A firearm is a not to be used as an intimidation device or in an effort to make a subject comply with orders. http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu...If we are to agree that this model of behaviour is ideal, it should be reasonable to think that officers who do not routinely deal with suspected felons have little to no need to have a firearm. Even officers who do carry should only use their firearms as an absolutely last resort. Setting The BarListen, as silly as it may seem, I am certainly not the first person to have this idea. There are many countries that do not permit their officers to carry or use firearms in the line of duty. These aren't new developments either."In Britain, Ireland, Norway, Iceland and New Zealand, officers are unarmed when they are on patrol. Police are only equipped with firearms in special circumstances."https://www.washingtonpost.com...Even in countries, like Iceland, that have relatively high percentages of armed citizens this strategy of low-armament by the police force seems to work. http://www.csmonitor.com...Let's get one thing straight, despite not carrying firearms, these officers are not entirely "unarmed" or "defenseless". It's common to see many officers of type being issued Tazers, Billy Clubs/Whacking Sticks, and Mace. Again, I'm not trying to say that all officers must be unarmed. There should definitely be a contingent that is armed and ready to respond. In Iceland, the only officers that are allowed to actually carry are called the "Viking Squad". These armed units specialize in hostage scenarios, anti-terrorism, and other high-stakes operations.http://criminologycareers.about.com...This all culminates in the fact that countries that restrict firearm usage by their Police have significantly lower rates of "justifiable homicide". Even when Police in these countries do use their firearms, they do not shoot to kill unless absolutely necessary. Moral and Philosophical QuestionsI hold that it is the duty of Police to protect citizens at peril to themselves. Much like the military, these brave men and women should be expected to put their lives on the line in order to protect our freedom. To these few brave individuals we grant the power to take the lives of others. A monopoly on violence, given through the consent of the governed.There is nothing honorable about taking the lives of others.We grant Police and the Military this power not because they risk their own lives, but so that they don't have to risk the lives of the people they are supposed to protect. This is what makes these occupations honorable and commendable. This why we as a society should be able to look up to these individuals. They don't kill in order to protect themselves, they kill to protect us.ConclusionTraffic Cops do not need to be packing heat when they pull over your grandmother for running a red light. Beat Cops do not need to be packing heat as they patrol your neighborhood. Uniformed officers do not need to be locked and loaded as they respond to general calls. Am I arguing that the Police shouldn't be able to kill other people? I certainly am not. The use of deadly force can be justified in certain situations. We need armed officers to mitigate situations like Georgia Tech, the Aurora Theater Shootings, and other incidents where the lives of citizens are in grave danger. However, we have good examples of other modern countries that are able to keep the peace without arming every Officer.Obviously, these other countries are not the United States. There are a lot of other factors that affect the ability of Police to do their jobs without firearms. Officer education and training, officer pay, community relationships, and overall cultural attitudes play a major role in how successful they can be. This is by no means the solution to the the problems manifested in recent years by United States Police.However, I do believe that restricting firearms to select officers will be a major stride towards creating a relationship of trust and respect between Police and Citizens, reducing the potential for abuse of power, and creating a safer society.