Militarizing the police

Law enforcement officers have the right to protect themselves. However, does that mean that when they guard a civilian demonstration, they have to be armed and dressed in battle uniforms, as if they were patrolling a street in Afghanistan or Iraq?

What happened in Ferguson, Missouri revealed worrisome images of police officers armed to the teeth, pointing their weapons at civilians protesting a police shooting that ended in the death of an African-American teen.

This reaction by the police brings to the forefront a growing concern regarding the militarization of police departments. Specifically, this refers to an increased use of SWAT special forces, the use of military equipment and the emphasis on violent action in recruiting videos, among others.

The military equipment that many police departments throughout the country are receiving consists of surplus from the Iraq and Afghanistan wars. From ammunition to helicopters and armored vehicles, the equipment is being distributed thanks to a military transfer program approved in the 1990s, at the height of a crime wave.

In police circles, the weapons and outfits, like Kevlar helmets, are explained as serving for personal protection, like the tactics of bursting into homes with SWAT.

All this does not explain the worrisome scenario in Ferguson. Neither does the growing appearance of ski masks and officers covering their faces during demonstrations, as if these public officials must protect their identity when in action.

There is reasonable concern that the apparent militarization of some aspects of the police’s work undermines efforts to keep the trust of minority communities.

On the other hand, it would be ideal for the police, even when facing a demonstration, felt part of the community it protects with well-deserved respect. If officers dress and act toward American civilians like an occupying army, the distance between both sides will widen. And that is not good.