militarization of the police
white house to review military surplus policy for law enforcement
It seems as if every time I turn on CNN I am transported to Ferguson, Missouri, where I witness riots caused by emotional chaos and confusion and the attitude and response of the police department. Formidable crowds of protesters have taken to the streets, throughout the day and into the night, to express their anger and concern over the incidents surrounding the fatal shooting of teenager Michael Brown by Officer Darren Wilson. In order to contain, and more importantly, restrain the introspective citizens of Ferguson, Missouri, local police officers have heavily armed themselves with military-grade equipment. Finding the images of police officers and American citizens facing off, as if they were soldiers and enemies of state (respectively), troubling, President Obama is ordering an analysis of the federal programs that enable law enforcement to buy and utilize military equipment. The President wishes to determine whether investing in the programs are an "appropriate" method for the local police departments--being questioned is if the officers have received the proper "training and guidance" to operate these aggressive machines and weapons in an effective and controlled matter. Furthermore, the White House staff-conducted review will delve into the matter of whether the federal government is adequately verifying the utilization of the equipment it facilitates to civilians.
Prompted by the events of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government made plans to ready and prepare the nation's police forces, in the event of another dangerous attack; this "police readiness" included the federal government assisting the police in purchasing military equipment for other ten years. Under the guise of grant programs and transfers from the U.S. military, the equipment is made available to law enforcement agencies that ask for it. The gradual militarization of local police departments went widely unnoticed until the unrest in Ferguson created a state that called for affirmative action. "Protests, looting, and....anti-police violence" were challenged with police officers obtaining and presenting "body armor, heavy vehicles, and automatic rifles." President Obama poke about the state of the police in a new conference held a week after Brown's death. The president acknowledged that some of the post-9/11 equipment upgrades, like an improvement in "radio communications" and dealing with hazardous substances, has been beneficial to the country. However, Obama wants to make sure that, in addition to the proper and appropriate equipment being offered, the police departments are purchasing "stuff that they actually need." The President also assured that he doesn't want to see any blurred lines when it comes to differentiating between local law enforcement and the U.S. military; according to Obama, failing to do so would result in actions that would contradict "our traditions" as a nation.
Dating back to 1995, the Pentagon has issued $5.1 billion worth of surplus military equipment--a surplus that includes items ranging from "sleeping bags and office equipment" to "assault rifles [and] mine-resistant armored personnel...helicopters;" a California police department felt the need to purchase an 18-ton tank. As a component of the White House review of select federal programs, both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security will be under the magnifying glass of the White House's domestic and national security staff. One issue being brought to the forefront of the review is if the government should continue providing military supplies to state and local police. If the outcome of the analysis is in favor of police department's right to available military supplies, the question of how extensive training should be for these officers is likely to surface and be considered an imperative issue. Furthermore, government systems will be examined to ensure that "caches of weaponry" and the monitoring of their distribution and utilization is secure. Fortunately, for all parties involved, there are signs of bipartisan support for the review; for example, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky "decried the "increasing militarization" of police."
In my opinion, the duty, the obligation, of police officers is to protect the Americans living in their communities--policemen exist to help and protect, not the harass and kill. At the same time, policemen are in need of protection themselves, as they stigma of being a police officer, especially a Caucasian police officer working in a predominantly African American community, can oftentimes lead to dangerous interactions. I believe that in times of great panic and confusion, police officers have the right to defend themselves using methods that otherwise might seem excessive or even inhumane, like tear gas or rubber bullets. Are policemen qualified to operate military equipment that was last used by soldiers fighting Iraqi and Afghan militants in the Middle East? Perhaps not. However, with the proper training, these miltary-grade weapons can be used responsibly, and in the right setting, here on American soil. Despite the negativity associated with police officers showing "aggressive force" against American citizens, the militarization of police officers could have positive, long-term effects in that, police officers are more equipped to deal with the few troublemakers in a community and create a peaceful balance in the areas that they protect.
Prompted by the events of the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, the federal government made plans to ready and prepare the nation's police forces, in the event of another dangerous attack; this "police readiness" included the federal government assisting the police in purchasing military equipment for other ten years. Under the guise of grant programs and transfers from the U.S. military, the equipment is made available to law enforcement agencies that ask for it. The gradual militarization of local police departments went widely unnoticed until the unrest in Ferguson created a state that called for affirmative action. "Protests, looting, and....anti-police violence" were challenged with police officers obtaining and presenting "body armor, heavy vehicles, and automatic rifles." President Obama poke about the state of the police in a new conference held a week after Brown's death. The president acknowledged that some of the post-9/11 equipment upgrades, like an improvement in "radio communications" and dealing with hazardous substances, has been beneficial to the country. However, Obama wants to make sure that, in addition to the proper and appropriate equipment being offered, the police departments are purchasing "stuff that they actually need." The President also assured that he doesn't want to see any blurred lines when it comes to differentiating between local law enforcement and the U.S. military; according to Obama, failing to do so would result in actions that would contradict "our traditions" as a nation.
Dating back to 1995, the Pentagon has issued $5.1 billion worth of surplus military equipment--a surplus that includes items ranging from "sleeping bags and office equipment" to "assault rifles [and] mine-resistant armored personnel...helicopters;" a California police department felt the need to purchase an 18-ton tank. As a component of the White House review of select federal programs, both the Pentagon and the Department of Homeland Security will be under the magnifying glass of the White House's domestic and national security staff. One issue being brought to the forefront of the review is if the government should continue providing military supplies to state and local police. If the outcome of the analysis is in favor of police department's right to available military supplies, the question of how extensive training should be for these officers is likely to surface and be considered an imperative issue. Furthermore, government systems will be examined to ensure that "caches of weaponry" and the monitoring of their distribution and utilization is secure. Fortunately, for all parties involved, there are signs of bipartisan support for the review; for example, Republican Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky "decried the "increasing militarization" of police."
In my opinion, the duty, the obligation, of police officers is to protect the Americans living in their communities--policemen exist to help and protect, not the harass and kill. At the same time, policemen are in need of protection themselves, as they stigma of being a police officer, especially a Caucasian police officer working in a predominantly African American community, can oftentimes lead to dangerous interactions. I believe that in times of great panic and confusion, police officers have the right to defend themselves using methods that otherwise might seem excessive or even inhumane, like tear gas or rubber bullets. Are policemen qualified to operate military equipment that was last used by soldiers fighting Iraqi and Afghan militants in the Middle East? Perhaps not. However, with the proper training, these miltary-grade weapons can be used responsibly, and in the right setting, here on American soil. Despite the negativity associated with police officers showing "aggressive force" against American citizens, the militarization of police officers could have positive, long-term effects in that, police officers are more equipped to deal with the few troublemakers in a community and create a peaceful balance in the areas that they protect.