American Police are Overly Militarized

The definition of overly militarized involves two components. First, it involves the employment of weapons, equipment, and tactics that are disproportionate to the tangible threat. Second, it is an overall force posture that is overly aggressive to the point of being counterproductive. My argument will follow these two components. Before I begin, I will be the first to acknowledge that our police must be allowed to protect themselves when threatened. Threats manifest over a broad spectrum, and therefore response options must be equally broad. This spectrum includes the occasional need for powerful weapons and aggressive tactics. I am not advocating the complete removal of necessary capabilities from our police force. I am arguing that far too often, the police exercise an extreme response option to moderate threats. Weapons, equipment, tactics: Police forces across the nation often employ measures against American citizens that the military itself often does not employ against enemy combatants. While the exact arsenal data of police forces are not publicly accessible, pictures from recent police actions show some of their capabilities. M4's, M16's, M14's, sniper systems, Kevlar ballistic helmets, 7.62mm compatible body armor, helicopters, working dogs, gas masks, camouflage uniforms, etc... Pictures emerging from Ferguson, Missouri (which is certainly not the only example) showing police officers in camouflage, riding in heavily armored vehicles designed to survive IEDs, carrying primary and secondary weapons, openly carrying literally hundreds of rounds of rifle ammunition in multiple 30 round magazines, and wearing not the soft anti-pistol body armor most officers wear under their uniforms but external ceramic SAPI plate carriers, designed to stop 7.62mm rounds from AK-47 rifles. It is doubtful that any of the protesters in Missouri were brandishing AK-47s and IEDs. One must ask why such excessive weapons were employed against an extremely lightly armed (if armed at all) crowd. Does each police officer really need to carry 120 rounds for his M4? Another interesting question is why the police were wearing military style camouflage. Were they truly trying to blend into their environment? Or was it a symbol, intended to intimidate through militaristic undertones? Tactical clothing almost always comes in a variety of colors, from solid tan and black to various camouflage patterns. So why are police forces increasingly choosing camouflage patterns over a more police-like black or blue? What message does this send to the communities they are protecting? A quick image search of any of the school shootings in the past decade further supports this point. Does a 15 year old with a pistol really require dozens, even hundreds of fully armored police in armored vehicles, carrying assault rifles, shotguns, and sniper rifles, using helicopters and working dogs? Again, I am in no way making light of school shootings or police protecting themselves and others. However, the U.S. military doesn't even employ such assets against a similarly armed foe in combat zones. The reason they do not is because there are better, more effective ways to deal with such situations. Such a response is in no way proportional to the threat, and in fact can make the situation even more dangerous by putting innocent lives at risk. Overly aggressive posture: The overall posture of an armed force makes a huge difference in stressful situations. The military has learned this in over a decade of hard, bloody lessons. The U.S. Army counterinsurgency manual, FM 3-24.2, highlights these hard earned lessons. Such instructions as "Your ideal position is when you are present and not noticed" are found in its pages. Furthermore, military officers and scholars have written numerous counterinsurgency articles which include lessons such as "the more you protect your force, the less secure you are," and "the more force you use, the less effective you are."[1] Of course, American citizens are not insurgents and police are not fighting a counterinsurgency. But policing and COIN share many similar aspects, and police forces would be wise to learn from the military in these cases. During the Occupy Wall Street protest, while heavily armed police were violently clashing with protesters across the country, Salt Lake City police chief Chris Burbank experienced great success by taking a softer approach. He had his police go into the crowds without their aggressive and intimidating armor, talking one on one with protesters, de-escalating the situation, and got most of the protesters to disperse without resistance [2]. Looking at recent pictures from Missouri and elsewhere, we see police officers in combat gear and camouflage openly pointing sniper rifles into crowds atop armored vehicles, raising M4's to the high ready position against approaching citizens. There is no reason to behave this way toward American citizens on American soil unless Police are actively being fired upon or exposed to an imminent threat. In most cases, such behavior only escalates tension and violence, daring crowds to react and resist. In conclusion, police are increasingly employing tactics, weapons, and equipment in an overly aggressive posture that is disproportionate to the threats they face in the vast majority of situations. Such behavior is counter productive, and, as such, overly militarized. [1] http://www.au.af.mil... [2] http://www.washingtonpost.com...