Over militarization of police forces is a new and extreme problem; it leads to more deaths, possible infringements of constitutional rights and a host of other problems. Even though violent crimes have dropped over the years, the number of SWAT team deployments have gone up. This rise, despite the fall of that which should be causing them, is often targeted at drug suspicions. This is all probably part of the grand military- industrial complex in the nation. -Matthew Glazer
I agree with this, but I also think it is important to look at the new advancements in technology and take that into consideration. The new technological advances that police are now using can be justified at times with the advancements in technology that the criminals are using. I think it is important to look at this information and consider the correlation between the two and whether or not police are justified in their over militarization.
I believe it is better to be overprepared than underprepared. Particularly when it comes to crime fighting, it is important to expect the worst yet hope for the best. In this regard, arming themselves with higher powered weapons and more protective gear is justified. Most of the militarization is witnessed in big crime scenarios, such as drug and human trafficking and large scale robberies. The police do not know what to expect (how heavily armed the criminals are) when they are tasked with taking down them down, so they overcompensate by arming themselves as heavy or heavier than the criminals to try to balance the odds and increase the chance of arrest.
Nicola Konigkramer I completely agree with your statement. The militarization of our police has instilled a fear in our society rather than a sense of protection. The extreme measures taken for drug-related crimes are not always necessary, creating more disparity between the public and the police.
Fear culture is omnipresent in many of our societies interactions with the police. After the overspending of the military for the wars we fought in the middle east was realized, there was a great surplus of military equipment. This resulted in distribution to multiple police agencies for fees often lower than if they were to purchase such equipment directly from manufacturer's. Although it is important to be prepared for individuals who themselves may be armed as well, it is extremely unnecessary to send a vehicle designed to withstand roadside bomb's to serve a search warrant on a suspected drug house. I believe police departments should be limited in their ability to use the extreme equipment, and that such situations should be evaluated for their individual merit.
I agree with your comment, but I don't think police exceeding their right and misconducting is anything new. Police have have wrongfully used intimidation and physical violence as a means of resolution for years. In regards to the present, I believe that the advancing technologies give officers the ability to strike much harm. But those who break the law also have up to date weapons. I find it necessary for cops to arrive to the scene suited up with top-notch military equipment when necessary. -Brandon Chambers
I remember seeing the SWAT team in movies, deployed when there was a bomb or a shooter or another huge problem. Now they're deployed to search homes, a job regular officers can take care of. But now since the police are using more "no knock" warrants they require more gear to keep themselves safe from terrified citizens. They often don't tell people they're police until after they've knocked the door down and scared people half to death. There are way too many deaths due to police. Whether its an "accident" or "self defense" something has to change. Maybe better self defense training, better conditioning. There has to be something wrong with a police force that guns down a 92 year old woman. Whatever's wrong we need to fix it soon. -Celia Reilly
I agree that there must be some reform of the current police force. However, they are also very important when considering the role that they play in society as peacekeepers. No doubt without police officers, there would be no one to maintain peace and enforce the laws. You also have to consider the availability heuristic. We only hear about the rare cases when cops do something terrible because the media will eat it up. Thus, the amount of bad actions performed by cops are over represented in most cases. However, I am also not saying that there are no cops who have done bad things.
I agree with this statement. I believe that the police are honestly abusing the power they have and using it in the wrong ways. However, I still believe that as our world becomes more high tech and develops, criminals are finding different and more dangerous ways of attacking and fighting back (even small criminals). So I do believe that for the safety of our cops, who are still human and still people with families, should have better protection for themselves. Moreover, on top of that, I believe that cops need better training so that they know the different between "self defense" and actually wrong murder and also to make sure that "accidents" don't happen. It may be that the more "SWAT"ed a police officer is the more they will be careful and more aware... or they may just become too powerful and abuse their power more than they are now
I have definitely noticed a large increase in the use of SWAT teams as is mentioned in this article. Even on television, you see huge SWAT teams entering homes with the suspicion of drug action which can often be handled by a simple police force instead. It does make sense that all the police forces are dispatching their SWAT teams because everyone else is doing it and they don't want to seem left behind or different from everyone else. In some instances though, I think it is appropriate that SWAT teams are taking action because with more violent crimes and higher crime rates, people are becoming more violent and the use of a SWAT team can help to control such situations. -Chelsea Pudimott
You mention more violent crimes and higher crime rates, however, crime rates are actually decreasing in the United States as we talking about in class. Why do you think SWAT team action is still increasing even though these crime rates are decreasing? The article also mentions the argument that SWAT teams are being used for crimes that do not warrant such violent action - what kind of crimes do you all think warrants the use of a SWAT team? -Alanna Rothman
I think that the article brings up good points for both sides. On one side, it is saying that it may not be necessary to have such dramatic displays for going into a possible criminal's house. However, on the other side, it is also saying that it may be better for the police to be better armed in case there is real danger. I think that these points both make sense as it is the police's job to ensure safety and security within a community. Although the author of the article does talk about incidences in which the extremity taken has backfired, I think that it may be necessary to continue with this as there is still extreme violence occurring in the US. -Kiet Zhou
I feel as though there needs to be more of a balance, instead of just strictly continuing with the extreme route the government is taking on militarizing police forces. There are still good citizens, who should not be subjected to a fear of a brutal police force at all times. Creating more regulations of when different types of police forces are used would be most successful.
It is true that our police departments are over militarizing however in many cases it is necessary. However, small towns that have 1 or 2 homicides in the last 50 years do not need SWAT teams at all. In addition, more laws that require the police department to report their activities to the public should be passed in every state to prevent SWAT teams from being deployed for any small crime. I think many police departments are using the deterance theory to justify their need for large, militarized police forces. They think if they can show the criminal how severe their punishment can be (be raided and/or shot by SWAT) and how quickly they can be punished (quick mobilization of SWAT and useage of "no knock" warrants") most criminals will not commit a crime.
I think that SWAT teams are doing everything except what they are supposed to. Although it can be said that the presence of SWAT teams in neighborhoods will definitely deter criminals and make them think twice about committing a crime. However, as the legitimacy of the reasons for the presence dwindles down, the activities of SWAT teams should be questioned and scrutinized. SWAT teams are showing up at bars that are serving underage patrons and poker games. This is a waste of money and time. Not to mention the fact that a SWAT team can come into your house and take ownership of your possessions on the basis that they were used for a possible crime is completely outrageous. The activities of SWAT teams should be recorded and there should be transparency in the type of events that they ‘handle’.
The main point of this article is that certain Americans fear cops are becoming too much like soldiers, that they basically believe they can do whatever they want because they have the protection of their badge. I understand that stories such as the cops in Atlanta placing marijuana in a woman's home may frighten Americans, and it is obviously wrong for these specific police officers to do this. However, I want us all to realize that this is just a specific case and many SWAT invasions are done with the absolute best intentions in order to insure the safety of our homes and neighborhoods.
The police are being portrayed very negatively in the media right now because of the Michael Brown trial and other instances such as the 12 year old boy who was shot while playing with a BB gun. Cops are just too quick to pull the trigger because they are protected and have little to no consequences for killing a child, even when this child had a non-lethal weapon. I think police need stronger guidelines and need to learn ways other than killing to de-escalate situations.
I agree. I feel that the guidelines for police officers should be much tighter. There should be consequences for killing harmless people. I know all situiations are different. I also believe there are other options than raising a gun and killing innocent people.
I agree with Rebecca. There is not enough regulation against cops that do not follow protocol when it comes to pulling the trigger. Hopefully, in the coming months following several very high profile cases, there will be more and more people pushing to fight for officers to get better training on what to do in certain situations which serve as alternatives to resorting to pulling the trigger.
These three are my favorite post because I can't seem to understand why a SWAT team is needed to raid somebody's home. I understand that police want to protect themselves but how often do police officers get shot at? Police officers are shooting citizens at the drop of a dime because they feel threatened. There should be guidelines because some of the crimes people are getting murdered for are petty.
Ryan Muscatella Over the past few years policing forces have significantly increased their forces. These forces include new machinery such as guns, protective suits, and even tanks for local police forces. Even though this may seem beneficial to the society as a whole for the protection of the community some people are actually negatively affected by the increase in SWAT activity. For example, SWAT teams go and interrupt people's personal lives because they have a suspicion of a criminal activity. When nothing is found, they usually arrest someone for an unrelated crime that detrimentally affects a person in the long run. Now, I am all for the protection of the American people, however, when people start targeting certain people and arresting them for no reason, then that is when they cross the line. The government should stop wasting money on purchases such as tanks for small police forces and use them on essential equipment for the military.
It is evident that the usage of SWAT teams at times seems unnecessary especially on an economic level. When there are deployments of SWAT teams in cities such as Fargo, North Carolina and Keene, New Hampshire where the crime rates are very minuscule it makes it difficult to understand why these cities’ spend a lot of money on these “armored personnel-carrier.” It is quite interesting that although 58% of Americans oppose the usage of drones, armored vehicles as well as military weapons by the police, there is nothing being done about it. Not only are police militarized in cities that don’t require them to be due to substantially lower crime rates but they also have the ability to seize anything that they can somehow claim was associated with a crime. Due to the civil asset-forfeiture, police are allowed to take items of value if they find drugs or any other paraphernalia that the person/family cannot legally own. One cannot be oblivious to the fact that the money could be gained through drugs or illegal objects in that situation however it does not seem just for police to confiscate money and even the home in which a person who owns drugs lives in. It seems that this issue along with many of the issues that the United States has not solved is relative to capitalism. The fact that in 2012, the Seized Asset Deposit Fund held almost $6 billon in assets indicates a problem. The problem is that with a fund that has been obtained through the confiscation of assets of people it should not be that high. In 1986, the fund consisted of only $93.7 million. This is not to say that the amount in 1986 is miniature but comparable to the substantial increase of the fund there has been a dramatic increase. In addition it has been found that police are being given a perverse incentive when they’ve focused on drug-related crimes which more often affect low-income people. When police are told to focus on these types of crimes they are unable to give significant focus on rape and murder investigations which do not have incentives. If police are given an incentive to focus on a certain crime they will be conditioned to continue to do so as the monetary retribution for their actions may be even more substantial each time. This is problematic as the U.S funds should not be this high in this particular aspect of homeland security. In comparison, Britain has less than a hundred police agencies whereas the United States has eighteen thousand local and state police agencies. The paradox is that Britain has far less prisoners; although there is less protection in Britain there are less prisoners. Even though SWAT teams seem unnecessary in small cities and even in cases where they are needed to break poker games in major cities, the overly populated major cities do need SWAT teams. Cities such as Baltimore and New York city have higher crime rates than the small town cities that have SWAT teams and so they maybe more of a use there. This does not mean that the cities need to spend more on obtaining SWAT teams but rather homeland security should consider crime rates in the spending of these teams.
Police militarization is beginning to happen. SWAT is being used more that ever. I feel that SWAT should only be used for extreme emergencies and not for $1000 worth of clothes bought on a stolen credit card as described in the article. Police officer should focus on being police officers instead of soldiers.
I agree that the militarization of police is getting out of hand and that SWAT teams are being used far too much. Although I am sure most of these raids have been performed with good intentions, they can often disrupt families, scare children, and even lead to injuries or deaths as seen in the article.
In light of recent police activity in Ferguson, Missouri, there has been more attention towards the issue of increased militarization in the police force. I think that in emergency situations, a SWAT team is more appropriate and more able to handle the violence and chaos, but should be the last resort. It should only be used when it is clear that local police forces are unable to control the situation. It should definitely not be the first form of security to control all kinda of situations.
Based on the statistics shared in the article, it seems as though the government is spending too much money on weapons and gear for their police forces. SWAT teams have doubled and policemen are often seen as being militarized. I agree with these statements to some extent. It is important to have strong police force to protect its citizens, however, with the first example given in the article of how the police all geared up broke down the door of a house looking for stolen credit card purchases, some things are getting out of hand. There does need to be funding for police actions, however i feel there needs to be more regulation on when a full team handles a situation based on its severity.
The article explains that SWAT teams around the nation are primarily used for non-violent crimes. In exchange, they are gaining a lot of money to put into the seized asset deposit fund. I agree with the statement at the end of the article, stating that SWAT teams are indeed necessary for quick responses when life-threatening situations arise. However, I do not think it is necessary to send a whole SWAT team to a house suspected of selling marajuana or using a stolen credit card. There have been incidents where SWAT teams have killed innocent people, in which they were responsible for, but they're human and are not perfect. They will not always be 100% accurate. But for instance, with the recent Ferguson incident, that is a situation where SWAT teams are needed. I think states should have some regulation on when to use and not use SWAT teams, because it some cases, it's entirely unnecessary, like the stolen credit card incident. In other cases, such as suspicion of a bomb where it could injure hundreds of people, or the Ferguson incident, SWAT teams are needed.
This article speaks on how the police force has changed into something similar to a military raid force. There is an overuse of extreme tactics for non extreme circumstances as shown in the article. I think that in some cases the extreme force is definitely understandable in certain situations where the police clearly want to have better weapons than the person they are trying to arrest, however where does this end? This mentality has lead to small towns in the middle of no where with small crime rates to have military grade assault weapons and tanks. When will a tank ever be necessary for them? Our government needs to stop spending absurd amounts of money on weapons for the police and rather spend more money to decrease violence and crime before confrontation with police is necessary. -Shannon Healy
Police militarization is scary now. A lot of people don't feel safe anymore. There is suppose to be a major difference between a police officer and a soldier in the military. Police officers does not need to have the same abilities as soldiers. Otherwise, they do not need to be labeled differently anymore. I believe that some police officers forgot what their role actually is. It is scary and for children to see things happening like this, it can either traumatize them or they will end up thinking it's okay to grow up and be a police officer and arrest or kill anyone.
I agree with ruby. Cops are become to militarized and its leading to people feeling much LESS safe. This is impractical due to the fact that people are usually supposed to feel more safe when cops are present. However, the current behaviors and appartatus that the cops are equipped with are causing people to feel uneasy and at risk when they are around. After receiving much publicity for the killing of several seemingly harmless teenagers over the last couple of years, people are more and more fearful of the power that cops have and how it is being misused.
I think that the US Police force is becoming increasingly violent and forceful in many different ways. As the article shows, the militarization of these officers is being demonstrated in response to even the least threatening crimes. The increasing violence and power abuse of officers can also be seen in the streets where officers are speeding with no emergency lights or any emergency, simply because they think they have the power to. Its this kind of thinking that is scary when thinking of what the police force will eventually become. -12keys
The police forces in the United States have become unnecessarily aggressive in their tactics, overreliant on brute force, and excessive in their use and capacity of firearms and other gear. Although it makes sense that the police force should be able to overwhelm and force to surrender criminals to avoid gunfire and possibly more violence by being physically intimidating, they are beginning to exacerbate situations in which a less aggressive and combative attitude would have more helped than hurt. The militant attitude some police departments in the country are taking is seemingly counterproductive. Police are being more belligerent meaning that they are more likely to fire first and possibly without proper intentions which is causing unnecessary violence.
Right away I take the stance of the police officers. Radley Balko said that cops are becoming to much like soldiers, in my opinion, is an extremely bogus statement. Police officers are armed heavily so they can accomplish the mission and ultimately go home to their respective families. If Radley Balko was being held hostage for whatever reason or circumstance, he would retract his statement quickly. Having police officers trained as “soldiers” is appropriate because they in fact are “soldiers of the law” for the common man, better totally safe then sorry. However, the usage of SWAT teams need to be investigated, if there is no need for the use of a SWAT team and a bullet proof vest and Helmet is sufficient enough for the raid then that can be investigated. Raiding a bar for underage drinking is extreme but if there is suspicion of guns and violence then taking the utmost precautions to keep our civil service men safe is appropriate. Most of the people that do this “research” and make comments are not the ones putting themselves in harms way.
Yes the Police are becoming more military like but this article seemed to only look at this as a bad thing. The up side to the police force changing tactics is that they are less likely to be killed. Also having the extra protection of the swat team may lead to fewer ambushes and murders of police officers. I think that it is hard to be too careful when it comes to protecting men and woman who serve and protect our country. As long as the police announce themselves when they enter a private or public residence then most people will not feel the need to draw weapons if they are innocent. So police officers should just be better trained so they can properly identify themselves rather than revert back to more dangerous methods.
I do not see a problem with police becoming more militaristic, especially if it is for the safety of the force and the police at work. Because the police announced themselves properly, they avoided the potential conflict when the resident at home felt threatened. I believe there is a culture in our society that paints police in a negative light, especially during media fire storms surrounding the Michael Brown case.
I don't exactly agree with the statement that Police Officers are becoming more like soldiers. Just because Police uses heavy equipment that is similar to military soldiers doesn't mean that they are becoming military soldiers. Including the fact that many are dieting from police officers becoming to similar to the military. Police officers are just trying to do their jobs the best possible way they can. Sometimes people slip and make accidents. They also have to protect themselves and I think if a police officer determines to shoot and kill someone it is probably for a good cause because they have trained years to make decisions such as these and to protect innocent people.
I agree with the author of this article that police are becoming overbearing and all too powerful. Less and less restriction are being placed on their work which is allowing too much autonomy which leads to police brutality. I definitely agree that SWAT teams are not necessary for non-violent crimes. Allowing police and SWAT teams to value drug related crimes so the criminals can forfeit their money is a sign of corruption. The police need to have more restrictions and regulations in order to create a limit on their power and stop police brutality.
While I do think the safety and well being that everyone feels in society is a top priority, I do agree with the article in that the police has become far more aggressive in the recent years. Today, this topic has become a major concern especially in light of the Ferguson case. I think having heavily armed police is not a bad thing, unless it is misused which I believe it has been. Having a heavily armed police is necessary when there is a life threatening situation, however I think the police misuse their power for petty crimes. I do believe police are quick to take violent actions than before, because they're actions are supported by the law since they are the ones who are protecting it. The recent militarization reminds me of the Prison experiment that Zimbardo had conducted. In the experiment while many "solidiers" became more inhumane towards the prisoners as they assumed the position, it made me realize that could also be the problem in regard to police militarization. After given all the equipment, many police officers may become more desensitized as they band together and as a result take more violent and aggressive actions than they previously would have done.
I think that while SWAT teams are an essential part of our police force, this article highlights the fact that there needs to be certain measures in place to determine exactly when it is alright to deploy a SWAY team. While it is perfectly fine for police officers/SWAT team members to be highly trained, there seems to be an over usage of heavy arms and equipment. The government should keep a closer track of why they are giving tanks and expensive equipment to places where there will be no practical uses for them. And when they do give such equipment, they should make it mandatory that all the officers there get the proper training to use these weapons/military equipment. By partitioning out these resources better, it would prevent some of the accidents mentioned from occurring. While it’s unavoidable for some mistakes to happen, these statistics and stories show that there are too many mistakes being made to be excusable. Singi Weerasuriya 0601
Police militarization has become very controversial recently. Many people feel that police are abusing their powers thus people are not able to trust them. Not being able to trust a force that is supposed to protect you and make you feel safe is pretty sad. I think that less money should be spent on supplying police with an excessive amount of weapons and instead be used towards better training. A police should not be reaching for their gun and shooting someone as their first instinct especially if the 'suspect' is unarmed. This has become a violation of human right from the very people that are supposed to be protecting those rights. pretty counterproductive.. -Tita
There are pros and cons to the police becoming more militarized. The pros are that they simply do so to protect society. on the other hand, SWAT isn't needed for small crimes that the police can handle on their own. SWAT teams are needed for violent crimes, not drug crimes or crimes that are not life threatening. They are still needed, like the article says, however not for small crimes. Also, the fact that less warrants are used nowadays increases the rates of murder. Police coming in without saying anything can scare people in their own homes, and cause them to panic. Sarah Sakhi
Although it may be considered a precautionary and safety-oriented measure, there is no doubt that the police has become far too militarized. Not to be overlooked, crime rates have decreased as a result of this, but at the same time deaths of innocent people and cost rates have correspondingly increased as well. In addition, the usage of SWAT teams have increased as well, often on smaller jobs that would normally require nothing more than a police force. Because of this, more innocent people are being injured or killed as the SWAT teams are given clearance to enter a household with no warrant, and use whatever means necessary to see their mission completed. Although killing innocent people is not their intention, the risk of this is significantly heightened when utilizing these SWAT forces. I think that the usage of these elite forces must be reserved for major crimes and searches, and let the police do their job for these smaller-scale issues. This is necessary to keep the public's trust in a force that's job is to "protect and serve."
I think there is a very large tradeoff between safety and too much police power. I agree with this article that that police have become much more aggressive in recent years. I believe police should be armed at all times, although I think the roles and responsibilities of police need to be reviewed with police themselves and citizens. Police are not only responsible for catching the bad guys, but PROTECTING the good guys. Police need to prioritize what dangers they should deal with. Using arms in a non threatening life situation is never appropriate and unnecessary. If an indivudal wants to use arms on a daily basis, they should join the military.
The article clearly states the present condition of the police force in the US. It talks about the extravagant nature of the authorities of the small towns of New Hampshire and North Carolina. The excessive funding of the police forces like the SWAT teams in the small towns seems to be of no use. True, that these forces are required in the big cities of Baltimore and New York, where the crime rates are way higher. But, there seems to be no use of funding the highly advanced machinery and SWAT teams in the small towns. The regular police can handle the criminal issues like robbery in the small towns. The use of such SWAT teams in small towns just creates fear among the people and not a sense of security.
Although this instance where the SWAT team raids a house for stolen clothes is a little over kill and probably doesn't warrant SWAt with high grade military weapons, Police around the country should be more heavily armed than the criminals they are up against. Even though Crime rates around the country are decreasing, our officers should be put in the best position to protect themselves and when criminals are usually in a position to carry automatic weapons that they acquire, the standard handgun and bulletproof vest probably wont do the job against a machine gun. Even though our officers and police forces are more heavily armed now and take a more violent approach to taking on crime, its better that they're safer and more prepared. Bryce Young
Police militarization has become a strong part of our society. In many scenarios the brute force isn't needed, but used regardless of the situation. I believe that our police force is becoming too much like the military in how it treats certain situations. The police and the military are different forces so they should each do their job in the way that's appropriate. Brute force from the police is necessary in high risk situations, but in lower level crimes I believe that a simple police many can handle the job without risking many innocent lives.
The point of police militarization is to give the police the advantage of being better armed than their suspects and to be better prepared for any scenario. But police dealing with civilians do not need weapons made for warcraft on a daily basis. Carrying weapons like that to use on people is extreme. weapons police carry now seem adequate for their job and even before they were militarized there were many cases of unnecessary police force. The militarization of police can only make that worse. -Christina Asare
Bryce Young has a good point that it is important for officers to be more heavily armed than any criminal they may face, but too often we see armed law enforcement officials abusing their weaponry and technology causing harm to citizens. This is ironic because it is the citizen's tax money that pays for new equipment for police officers. I think that with the advancement in police weaponry and technology there also needs to be an increase in education for officers on when and how to properly use their supplies. - Drew Brees
The police force of today is increasingly becoming more militarized and therefore sometimes have over aggressive attitudes and use excessive force. As the article says,SWAT teams were first formed to deal with violent civil unrest and life-threatening situations - so why was this tactic used when looking for $1000 worth of clothes and electronics? I agree with the police having to have an advantage by being better armed than their suspects, however that advantage should be reasonable. The use of heavy armor against a non-violent or life-threatening situation raises the risk of "accidents."
This article seems to have a bit of confirmation bias - due to the fact that the author chose to include the most intrusive and aggressive police interventions as a paradigm for the rest of the police-civilian interactions. However, even with this bias, I believe that police militarization and brutality is a detrimental attribute of society. What's worse is the fact that elected officials don't seem to chastise them for it enough and that the police individually don't seem to feel remorse and even if punished and sued, the money given to the plaintiff are tax-payer's dollars. It would be interesting to see if civilians would decide that they've had enough and eventually demand a more transparent, just, and appropriate police response because it would parallel Marx's Conflict Theory.
This issue of the misuse of SWAT teams is concerning from multiple perspectives. It is scary to think that we, in some sense, can have our privacy and thus liberty invaded and taken away at any moment. Yet, I think it is important to recognize the larger picture here. This article highlights some unique cases in which individuals have been wronged due to SWAT mishandling. I imagine, however, that there are loads of other cases in which SWAT teams have been quite useful and beneficial. If my assumption is incorrect, and we then have a problem, as mentioned earlier. An additional factor of concern would be the money that is being invested in SWAT work. I would be very skeptical about if it is being used in the right way, if it is funding the SWAT program to continue conducting small, rather insignificant raids. In agreement with the article, SWAT should only be justified if they are taking care of the more severe cases of violence and severe crime. -- Max Samuels
It is very disappointing seeing our police force, our source of protection and safety, to turn into a team of aggressive military force. The original purpose for any security force such as the SWAT team was to combat terrorism and other violent acts that focuses on american citizens. Now these days, the police force went from possessing a hand gun to heavy armed artillery used in rural societies, not on a battlefield. The use of these heavy armed artillery are used to raid homes and investigate any illegal processes on certain suspects. I find this to be very extreme where in the past, the same concept of police investigations were successful with use less use of force and military like approaches. The article looks in depth of recent SWAT actions and having them infiltrate and raid small missions is abusing their purpose of having a anti terrorist squad in the first place.
Over the past thirty years SWAT teams across the nation have doubled in size, even in small towns. Police forces are constantly trying increase their own security and protect themselves against criminals. SWAT teams are often deployed simply to intimidate the suspect(s), even if they are suspected of non-violent crimes. Police forces would rather ensure their own safety rather than the safety of those they are employed to protect. Usually, especially in small town America, it is unnecessary for such strong police forces. However, because SWAT teams can be profitable, police forces now depend on the profits to subsidize larger parts of their general budgets. While SWAT teams have previously compromised the safety of innocent people, they also provide necessary protection to all.
I think that the police should continue to be well armed and have many SWAT teams, even if it is not proportional to the crime rates that are decreasing. The reason for this is when the deterrent factor - certainty - is increased (many teams of well armed and trained policemen), people are less likely to commit crimes because they are afraid of professional and powerful responses of law enforcement forces and of higher possibility of apprehension in comparison to possible benefits. By controlling the cities with large numbers of well armed and trained policemen, crime events can be avoided, and people would feel much safer.
I do think that the American police has become like soldiers. I remember when I was younger and they would only deploy SWAT teams for very big tragic events like 9/11. But recently, in the past couple of years, I noticed that they deploy SWAT for almost everything like capturing a drug dealer in his house. The reason I feel that this has happened in the past couple of years is because the security and fear in our country has increased every since 9/11 and shootings that happen in public places too often. I am not sure if this is a good thing or bad thing, but I see both sides to the argument. One side says the government is wasting lots of money by deploying these teams for really no reason. The other side is saying that they are just taking precautions; it's better to be safe than sorry.
I had a debate with my cousin about the militarize police, and it is interesting that at the same age, we have completely different ideas about cops with guns. While I think what policemen do is a job at high risk and they have the right to get themselves protected in any dangerous circumstances and they can also better protect us in extreme situations. While my cousin’s idea was that with such dangerous weapon and such power, they can turn their gun to us at any time, for committing minor crime or just “seem suspicious”. Then just stay out of trouble, I said. But you never know, said him, adding how things can be misinterpreted and you can be wronged without a chance to prove yourself. I have to say he’s got some point. But still, thinking about cops without weapon make me feel unsecure for it is a country that everyone can have a gun. Li
--Bl@k Thought Before I even finished reading the article, I suspected there was some type of incentive to police militarization and SWAT deployment throughout the years and lo and behold, there is, needless to say. The question is why is it incentivized in the first place? Why are there statutes that permit this type of sanctioned larceny in the name of justice? I remember around the time of the Boston bombing incident and how police militarization was more or less in the spotlight on certain cable news outlets. The American public was taken aback after witnessing the resources that were at the disposal of local law enforcement. Essentially, the problem is the war on drugs and the witch hunt on non-violent drug offenders that fills the prisons. I can think of many cases where the government profits off of human suffering and misfortune. Requiring someone to forfeit there home and possessions due to a non-violent drug offense followed by a subsequent prison sentence of 5-10 years is just another thorn in side of the working class American who is usually underpaid and overstressed.
I think now would be a good time to cite some science fiction wisdom: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." Our police force is becoming too militarized, too aggressive, too self-righteous and SWAT teams are being sent out to liberally. The latter should be a last resort, and should be used when the normal police force is completely overpowered. That being said, I do think that police officers should still be allowed to carry guns. Yes, the police are there to protect us (in theory), but who will remain if every officer sacrifices themselves?
In my opinion, the US's police force needs a makeover, so to speak. They need to return to the original intent of the police force: to help the all the people, to keep the peace, and to enforce laws equally and reasonably. The police force needs to get its priorities straight: the people, not profit.
I think it is good that we have the SWAT team and that our defense system is well-funded, however it seems that our use of military-type force in the police system is becoming overused. It is understandable that a police would want to be better armed than whoever they are dealing with, but we also must keep in mind the type of crime these police are approaching. SWAT teams are not needed in crimes such as theft or drug possession, unless we know that they are going into a very dangerous place for it. In most cases police aren't going into a dangerous enough place that they need a heavy SWAT team. It is also ridiculous that in most of these cases, the "criminals" were ended up being charged with unrelated offenses.
While I'm glad we take our defense system seriously, I also believe we are starting to take it a little too seriously. The police needs to calm down, and give people the benefit of the doubt (unless they are clearly guilty and dangerous).
I believe that the police should be well equipped for their own safety reason while on duty due to the fact that their jobs are at much higher high risk of death than most peoples jobs. However, I do think it is excessive for the police to be wearing helmets, masks, and shields on a regular basis. This intense outfit will promote fear in the public and is not always necessary for the job they are doing. A cop giving out speeding tickets does not really need to be dressed like an army soldier. Yet at the same time, I do believe that the police should be using these precautions wisely when patrolling in high violent crime neighborhood as a safety for themselves.
I agree with Bill Bratton, the New York police chief, that police officers are risking their life everyday to protect the citizens from dangers. Being well equipped and prepared for risks is better than being vulnerable to dangers. Though I don't think it's necessary to be as armed when investigating for stolen credit cards. But if it makes them feel safer when working, I am willing to cooperate, because you never know when the danger will come.
The problem boils down to the excessive use of the SWAT teams. Of course SWAT teams are important because they are trained to take care of immense human threats that need swift and forceful response, so we can’t blame them. The ones to blame are those that direct this powerful source: the use of SWAT teams has skyrocketed for the past years. Ironically, they were called to take care of mostly private drug-related crimes, or small incidents that can be handled by normal police force such as dispute in festivals, gambling or stealing. This is not only dangerous if the situation gets out of hand (the intensive SWAT training is certainly unsuitable for small crimes), but it is also unfair when people are paying large amount of taxes for this.
I believe that it is important that the SWAT team is prepared for anything. Like they said they risk their lives everyday, not knowing what situation they will get themselves in. I understand that it might be over the top on certain situations, but that is better than being not prepared. In the end they are looking to for the safety of themselves, while also the safety of the criminal that they are facing. On the other hand, our police force is a bit over the top. I believe that they are becoming too powerful and way too aggressive in very minor situations. Our police force is also become way to militarized as well. The main concern should be the safety of the people, and certain adjustments should be made.
I believe that over-militarization has become a serious issue in our country in regards to our police task forces. Local police abusing their power is something that has become a norm in American society; although I do believe that US police do risk their lives everyday for our safety, I think that their quick nature when using violent force has damaged a once proud reputation. I believe that the militarized forces should be SWAT and the National Guard exclusively; I do not agree with local police barracks being equipped with militarized weapons.
SWAT teams and their increased use is a growing concern. I understand that it is frightening giving a certain set of people, namely police officers, such large amounts of power that could potentially harm people. I don’t think having this sort of team with this power is as much as a concern as how it is utilized. The incidents that raise concerns stem from how people use this power. That being said, I think it is beneficial to have SWAT teams in general because, like some of the other comments, it offers added protection. However the level to which SWAT teams have evolved needs to be reviewed. SWAT should not be used for every day occurrences, which is what this article portrays is being done (something that is highly unlikely). I think a lot of the issues that surround the tactics and methods used by SWAT teams today at the local level can be fixed, or at least helped, if there were stricter guidelines and these capabilities were reserved for certain instances. I definitely think it makes sense having these capabilities in large cities with constant serious crime, however it does not make sense to have them in small towns or cities.
i. I, along with several others, believe that the American police force has become too militarized. I find it unfortunate that people fear the police when in fact, they are supposed to protect us. The first short anecdote about the police searching a home for $1000 worth of stolen merchandise “helmeted and masked, guns drawn and shields in front, knocking down the door with a battering and rushing inside”. Even when I saw the photo, I thought the police were handling a more serious situation like a murder or an armed kidnapping. Of course, policemen risk their lives every day to protect citizens, but I personally think that the increase of these weapons are detrimental to the wellbeing of the United States.
I agree with you. I had the same exact train of thought upon seeing the photo in the article. I thought the situation would be of a greater extent instead of $1000 worth of stolen merchandise. To me, there seems to be a general trend of fearing the police instead of seeing them as people who protect us, especially in the light of recent events. This fear seems to be especially heightened among minorities. Yes, the police are serving the people, but what good is it when the people they are serving have a fear of them? I do commend their work in protecting citizens but I believe the fear that people have, cause partly by militarization, is undermining their efforts.
The police force nationwide has increased the use of violent procedures in order to properly protect the law. Despite the lowering of crime within the nations, cities and states are still making a point to join the rest in fear of getting left out and being unprepared when societal unrest occurs. The increasing privileges by SWAT and other special forces raises the concern for the invasion of privacy of the everyday citizen. Sometimes, SWAT breaks into a house (with or without a warrant) and doesn’t find anything that they’re looking for but convict the tenant on other related charges. The system of law seems to favor the police officer and excuse him/her of any wrong doing in light of the law, which is particularly a case in question with the recent Ferguson incident.
This article strikes a nerve with me because a similar situation happened with me and my friends- our senior year of high school a friend threw a party while her parents were away. While this was wrong to do, it did not warrant the 6 police officers with 3 police dogs barge into the house with large guns drawn, handcuff my friends, while several helicopters were flying above (totally true story). Someone tipped the cops that they thought robbers were in the house, and this is how the cops responded. They reacted completely over the top, and I sympathize with the family whose house was broken into in the story. There is a time and place for SWAT teams, and while yes I would rather they be over prepared than not under prepared, it seems they sometimes go to unnecessary lengths. -Sarah Wigmore
I think that SWAT teams are an integral assets to police departments. They help to eliminate threats, without putting others officers in dangers. With police using “no knock” warrants, the extra protection their gear offers is beneficial. I do agree that SWAT teams should not be deployed for nonviolent threats or serving warrants. The strength and power of SWAT team tactics is too much for nonviolent crimes. It is increasing the public’s fear of police. There shouldn’t be innocent people being shot by SWAT officers. There is no need for an innocent 92 year old women to be gunned down mistakenly by SWAT officers. I think that it is important for police to critically consider if the deployment of the SWAT team is critical. -Foofie
Nicola Konigkramer It is clear that police militarization is becoming one of the largest issues in this country. Not only are we taking extreme measures by using SWAT and other special groups to combat rather than protect, but we are training to kill rather than enforcing the law. To take a step beyond this issue, we can see the negative impact that guns have on the force that police are given. With technological advances, we are increasing our arms, yet most crimes do not require such extreme defense.
I definitely agree with how the police force now has become too militarized. Police are supposed to protect us from danger, but seeing them now makes us fear them. It is crazy to see how police are just loaded up with weapons and armor that it is difficult for us to really trust them. To make sure that people obey them and don't break the law they feel that somehow they must increase violence and that instills fear in the public. The over-militarization also comes with an abuse of power because there have been so many accounts over the past few months of police beating up people for small things. I thought that I could always trust a police officer when I need help because they are good people that protect the citizens, but now, not so much anymore.
I don't really agree with you, because I still trust them even if they are armed. I think the article is biased because if focused on one circumstance where the police over armed themselves. However, with all the police officers that I have contacted before, they were not as armed, which still make me feel safe and protected.
The growing rise of violent and/or unnecessary police force action is very disturbing. It is also, unfortunately, creating a stereotype for police offers. This stereotype being created is very unfriendly towards the image of cops, and is dangerous in that it can lead people to believe that all cops are out of control and violent. --Glen Coco
In my opinion, SWAT teams are not doing the things they are supposed to do. They are supposed to make a neighborhood safer, but the opposite is sometimes true. SWAT teams are present at bars that serve underage patrons and poker games and a SWAT team have the ability to come into your house and take ownership of possessions because of a ‘’possible crime’’. This goes way too far and I believe SWAT teams should be controlled a lot more. -Jeroen Meefout
If this posts twice I appologize but I did not see my first comment post. I believe police are not overly militarized . I believe they are prepared for any and all situations that may arise.but on the other hand I do believe they are using their power unnecciarily. I believe their level of training is neccisary but misused
I believe that the citizens of this nation should be protected; however, the increase in militarization of our police has gotten out of hand. The article mentions that it is easy to see why the police like to better armed than those that they arrest. With that being said, I believe that a lot of people would agree that the majority of folks that these police are assigned to protect are and will never be armed enough for the type of artillery these police are getting. The idea behind creating these special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams was so that they can deal with the violent and life threatening situations that might be difficult for police to handle such as rescuing hostages or shoot-outs. However, the article points out that the number of SWAT deployments continue to soar as violent crime falls. That statement contradicts the sole purpose of these SWAT teams. Therefore, I think that it is reasonable to believe that police should downscale their growing military.
Over militarization is not necessarily new, but it isn't all too common here in the United States until now. It is not good for society as a whole as it leads to possible undermining of rights legally bound to us, unnecessary violence, and wasting of our economic resources. I understand the case if one feels it is good to be prepared to fight crime, but with innovations in technology, should we not be actually doing almost the opposite? I think it is ok to have a certain degree of higher firepower than the average person is normally able to obtain for contingency purposes, but only if it is truly justifiable.
Stating that police officers are becoming more and more militarized is a somewhat vague assumption. Yes, I could agree to the situations where police are over prepared, however, shouldn't we always consider the times when police are under prepared as well? Assessing risk and hazards in our society is getting increasingly difficult, therefore I understand the seemingly harsh preparations police and SWAT teams have at times. I believe that police and SWAT teams should better asses situations they must seize before taking serious measures.
I feel like there are times when the police should be equipped with heavier arms and there are times when they should not be. At first, I thought that the police didn't need to go in with as many arms, but once I read that one of the men arrested had assault charges, I felt that the police were justified in taking some precautionary measures. However, I do feel as though there have been recent events in which I think militarization of the police was unnecessary because it led to multiple accounts of death. -Paige Willingham
I agree with you Paige. The answer is not to take away the weapons of police officers. I feel that officers need the tools that are necessary to do their jobs, but they must be held to a higher standard than that of an ordinary citizen. As a former employee in the enforcement arena, these men and women are heavily trained, and have multiple checklists of criteria they must meet in order to maintain weapons status. In enforcement, you are taught to shoot center mass. Many people argue, "Why didn't he shoot him in the arm, or the leg?!" The problem with that is, it is a smaller more difficult target and the officer puts bystanders in danger if he or she misses the aforementioned smaller target. If I were on duty, trying to take someone down, and I try to hit their arm out of fear of going to trial and having my face on CNN for two weeks, I run the risk of killing an innocent instead of neutralizing the threat. Police officers are not trained to "shoot to kill" , they are trained to "stop a threat". I think if you were to ask any officer he or she would most likely respond that they would rather not have to shoot anyone. -SecretAgent
The militarization of police is an issue that needs to be addressed. In our society cops have been using more brutal force. These controversial issues are seen in the news in such cases as the shooting of Trayvon Martin. I believe that there needs to be a change in laws that would only require police to use lethal force if necessary. I do not condone the use of lethal weapons on unharmed citizens.
This is an issue that are country is talking about right now as we begin to take a hard look at our police and justice system. The question needs to be asked, do we trust our cops with these weapons. Are they receiving the proper training, not just with the weapons but with their decision making skills as well. In my opinion the answer is no, they seem unnecessary.
while the militarization of police can be helpful because of their increased ability to protect the citizens, its also quite harmful because of the fact that being more militarized makes it easier for police to oppress the citizens and some fear that it also signifies the movement of America towards a police state, which is frightening because of the loss of rights that would come along with a police state. The brutality of police can be seen in many high profile cases around the country, including what happened in Ferguson, Missouri.
Over militarization of police forces is a new and extreme problem; it leads to more deaths, possible infringements of constitutional rights and a host of other problems. Even though violent crimes have dropped over the years, the number of SWAT team deployments have gone up. This rise, despite the fall of that which should be causing them, is often targeted at drug suspicions. This is all probably part of the grand military- industrial complex in the nation.
ReplyDelete-Matthew Glazer
I agree with this, but I also think it is important to look at the new advancements in technology and take that into consideration. The new technological advances that police are now using can be justified at times with the advancements in technology that the criminals are using. I think it is important to look at this information and consider the correlation between the two and whether or not police are justified in their over militarization.
DeleteI believe it is better to be overprepared than underprepared. Particularly when it comes to crime fighting, it is important to expect the worst yet hope for the best. In this regard, arming themselves with higher powered weapons and more protective gear is justified. Most of the militarization is witnessed in big crime scenarios, such as drug and human trafficking and large scale robberies. The police do not know what to expect (how heavily armed the criminals are) when they are tasked with taking down them down, so they overcompensate by arming themselves as heavy or heavier than the criminals to try to balance the odds and increase the chance of arrest.
DeleteNicola Konigkramer
DeleteI completely agree with your statement. The militarization of our police has instilled a fear in our society rather than a sense of protection. The extreme measures taken for drug-related crimes are not always necessary, creating more disparity between the public and the police.
Fear culture is omnipresent in many of our societies interactions with the police. After the overspending of the military for the wars we fought in the middle east was realized, there was a great surplus of military equipment. This resulted in distribution to multiple police agencies for fees often lower than if they were to purchase such equipment directly from manufacturer's. Although it is important to be prepared for individuals who themselves may be armed as well, it is extremely unnecessary to send a vehicle designed to withstand roadside bomb's to serve a search warrant on a suspected drug house. I believe police departments should be limited in their ability to use the extreme equipment, and that such situations should be evaluated for their individual merit.
DeleteI agree with your comment, but I don't think police exceeding their right and misconducting is anything new. Police have have wrongfully used intimidation and physical violence as a means of resolution for years. In regards to the present, I believe that the advancing technologies give officers the ability to strike much harm. But those who break the law also have up to date weapons. I find it necessary for cops to arrive to the scene suited up with top-notch military equipment when necessary.
Delete-Brandon Chambers
I remember seeing the SWAT team in movies, deployed when there was a bomb or a shooter or another huge problem. Now they're deployed to search homes, a job regular officers can take care of. But now since the police are using more "no knock" warrants they require more gear to keep themselves safe from terrified citizens. They often don't tell people they're police until after they've knocked the door down and scared people half to death. There are way too many deaths due to police. Whether its an "accident" or "self defense" something has to change. Maybe better self defense training, better conditioning. There has to be something wrong with a police force that guns down a 92 year old woman. Whatever's wrong we need to fix it soon.
ReplyDelete-Celia Reilly
I agree that there must be some reform of the current police force. However, they are also very important when considering the role that they play in society as peacekeepers. No doubt without police officers, there would be no one to maintain peace and enforce the laws. You also have to consider the availability heuristic. We only hear about the rare cases when cops do something terrible because the media will eat it up. Thus, the amount of bad actions performed by cops are over represented in most cases. However, I am also not saying that there are no cops who have done bad things.
DeleteAndrew Cheng
I agree with this statement. I believe that the police are honestly abusing the power they have and using it in the wrong ways. However, I still believe that as our world becomes more high tech and develops, criminals are finding different and more dangerous ways of attacking and fighting back (even small criminals). So I do believe that for the safety of our cops, who are still human and still people with families, should have better protection for themselves. Moreover, on top of that, I believe that cops need better training so that they know the different between "self defense" and actually wrong murder and also to make sure that "accidents" don't happen. It may be that the more "SWAT"ed a police officer is the more they will be careful and more aware... or they may just become too powerful and abuse their power more than they are now
Delete-Rahel Mehreteab
I have definitely noticed a large increase in the use of SWAT teams as is mentioned in this article. Even on television, you see huge SWAT teams entering homes with the suspicion of drug action which can often be handled by a simple police force instead. It does make sense that all the police forces are dispatching their SWAT teams because everyone else is doing it and they don't want to seem left behind or different from everyone else. In some instances though, I think it is appropriate that SWAT teams are taking action because with more violent crimes and higher crime rates, people are becoming more violent and the use of a SWAT team can help to control such situations.
ReplyDelete-Chelsea Pudimott
You mention more violent crimes and higher crime rates, however, crime rates are actually decreasing in the United States as we talking about in class. Why do you think SWAT team action is still increasing even though these crime rates are decreasing? The article also mentions the argument that SWAT teams are being used for crimes that do not warrant such violent action - what kind of crimes do you all think warrants the use of a SWAT team?
Delete-Alanna Rothman
I think that the article brings up good points for both sides. On one side, it is saying that it may not be necessary to have such dramatic displays for going into a possible criminal's house. However, on the other side, it is also saying that it may be better for the police to be better armed in case there is real danger. I think that these points both make sense as it is the police's job to ensure safety and security within a community. Although the author of the article does talk about incidences in which the extremity taken has backfired, I think that it may be necessary to continue with this as there is still extreme violence occurring in the US.
ReplyDelete-Kiet Zhou
I feel as though there needs to be more of a balance, instead of just strictly continuing with the extreme route the government is taking on militarizing police forces. There are still good citizens, who should not be subjected to a fear of a brutal police force at all times. Creating more regulations of when different types of police forces are used would be most successful.
DeleteIt is true that our police departments are over militarizing however in many cases it is necessary. However, small towns that have 1 or 2 homicides in the last 50 years do not need SWAT teams at all. In addition, more laws that require the police department to report their activities to the public should be passed in every state to prevent SWAT teams from being deployed for any small crime. I think many police departments are using the deterance theory to justify their need for large, militarized police forces. They think if they can show the criminal how severe their punishment can be (be raided and/or shot by SWAT) and how quickly they can be punished (quick mobilization of SWAT and useage of "no knock" warrants") most criminals will not commit a crime.
ReplyDeleteAakash Patel
I think that SWAT teams are doing everything except what they are supposed to. Although it can be said that the presence of SWAT teams in neighborhoods will definitely deter criminals and make them think twice about committing a crime. However, as the legitimacy of the reasons for the presence dwindles down, the activities of SWAT teams should be questioned and scrutinized. SWAT teams are showing up at bars that are serving underage patrons and poker games. This is a waste of money and time. Not to mention the fact that a SWAT team can come into your house and take ownership of your possessions on the basis that they were used for a possible crime is completely outrageous. The activities of SWAT teams should be recorded and there should be transparency in the type of events that they ‘handle’.
DeleteThe main point of this article is that certain Americans fear cops are becoming too much like soldiers, that they basically believe they can do whatever they want because they have the protection of their badge. I understand that stories such as the cops in Atlanta placing marijuana in a woman's home may frighten Americans, and it is obviously wrong for these specific police officers to do this. However, I want us all to realize that this is just a specific case and many SWAT invasions are done with the absolute best intentions in order to insure the safety of our homes and neighborhoods.
ReplyDeleteThe police are being portrayed very negatively in the media right now because of the Michael Brown trial and other instances such as the 12 year old boy who was shot while playing with a BB gun. Cops are just too quick to pull the trigger because they are protected and have little to no consequences for killing a child, even when this child had a non-lethal weapon. I think police need stronger guidelines and need to learn ways other than killing to de-escalate situations.
ReplyDeleteI agree. I feel that the guidelines for police officers should be much tighter. There should be consequences for killing harmless people. I know all situiations are different. I also believe there are other options than raising a gun and killing innocent people.
DeleteI agree with Rebecca. There is not enough regulation against cops that do not follow protocol when it comes to pulling the trigger. Hopefully, in the coming months following several very high profile cases, there will be more and more people pushing to fight for officers to get better training on what to do in certain situations which serve as alternatives to resorting to pulling the trigger.
DeleteThese three are my favorite post because I can't seem to understand why a SWAT team is needed to raid somebody's home. I understand that police want to protect themselves but how often do police officers get shot at? Police officers are shooting citizens at the drop of a dime because they feel threatened. There should be guidelines because some of the crimes people are getting murdered for are petty.
DeleteRyan Muscatella
ReplyDeleteOver the past few years policing forces have significantly increased their forces. These forces include new machinery such as guns, protective suits, and even tanks for local police forces. Even though this may seem beneficial to the society as a whole for the protection of the community some people are actually negatively affected by the increase in SWAT activity. For example, SWAT teams go and interrupt people's personal lives because they have a suspicion of a criminal activity. When nothing is found, they usually arrest someone for an unrelated crime that detrimentally affects a person in the long run. Now, I am all for the protection of the American people, however, when people start targeting certain people and arresting them for no reason, then that is when they cross the line. The government should stop wasting money on purchases such as tanks for small police forces and use them on essential equipment for the military.
It is evident that the usage of SWAT teams at times seems unnecessary especially on an economic level. When there are deployments of SWAT teams in cities such as Fargo, North Carolina and Keene, New Hampshire where the crime rates are very minuscule it makes it difficult to understand why these cities’ spend a lot of money on these “armored personnel-carrier.” It is quite interesting that although 58% of Americans oppose the usage of drones, armored vehicles as well as military weapons by the police, there is nothing being done about it. Not only are police militarized in cities that don’t require them to be due to substantially lower crime rates but they also have the ability to seize anything that they can somehow claim was associated with a crime. Due to the civil asset-forfeiture, police are allowed to take items of value if they find drugs or any other paraphernalia that the person/family cannot legally own. One cannot be oblivious to the fact that the money could be gained through drugs or illegal objects in that situation however it does not seem just for police to confiscate money and even the home in which a person who owns drugs lives in. It seems that this issue along with many of the issues that the United States has not solved is relative to capitalism. The fact that in 2012, the Seized Asset Deposit Fund held almost $6 billon in assets indicates a problem. The problem is that with a fund that has been obtained through the confiscation of assets of people it should not be that high. In 1986, the fund consisted of only $93.7 million. This is not to say that the amount in 1986 is miniature but comparable to the substantial increase of the fund there has been a dramatic increase. In addition it has been found that police are being given a perverse incentive when they’ve focused on drug-related crimes which more often affect low-income people. When police are told to focus on these types of crimes they are unable to give significant focus on rape and murder investigations which do not have incentives. If police are given an incentive to focus on a certain crime they will be conditioned to continue to do so as the monetary retribution for their actions may be even more substantial each time. This is problematic as the U.S funds should not be this high in this particular aspect of homeland security. In comparison, Britain has less than a hundred police agencies whereas the United States has eighteen thousand local and state police agencies. The paradox is that Britain has far less prisoners; although there is less protection in Britain there are less prisoners. Even though SWAT teams seem unnecessary in small cities and even in cases where they are needed to break poker games in major cities, the overly populated major cities do need SWAT teams. Cities such as Baltimore and New York city have higher crime rates than the small town cities that have SWAT teams and so they maybe more of a use there. This does not mean that the cities need to spend more on obtaining SWAT teams but rather homeland security should consider crime rates in the spending of these teams.
ReplyDelete-Saron Bizuayehu
Police militarization is beginning to happen. SWAT is being used more that ever. I feel that SWAT should only be used for extreme emergencies and not for $1000 worth of clothes bought on a stolen credit card as described in the article. Police officer should focus on being police officers instead of soldiers.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the militarization of police is getting out of hand and that SWAT teams are being used far too much. Although I am sure most of these raids have been performed with good intentions, they can often disrupt families, scare children, and even lead to injuries or deaths as seen in the article.
ReplyDeleteIn light of recent police activity in Ferguson, Missouri, there has been more attention towards the issue of increased militarization in the police force. I think that in emergency situations, a SWAT team is more appropriate and more able to handle the violence and chaos, but should be the last resort. It should only be used when it is clear that local police forces are unable to control the situation. It should definitely not be the first form of security to control all kinda of situations.
ReplyDeleteBased on the statistics shared in the article, it seems as though the government is spending too much money on weapons and gear for their police forces. SWAT teams have doubled and policemen are often seen as being militarized. I agree with these statements to some extent. It is important to have strong police force to protect its citizens, however, with the first example given in the article of how the police all geared up broke down the door of a house looking for stolen credit card purchases, some things are getting out of hand. There does need to be funding for police actions, however i feel there needs to be more regulation on when a full team handles a situation based on its severity.
ReplyDeleteThe article explains that SWAT teams around the nation are primarily used for non-violent crimes. In exchange, they are gaining a lot of money to put into the seized asset deposit fund. I agree with the statement at the end of the article, stating that SWAT teams are indeed necessary for quick responses when life-threatening situations arise. However, I do not think it is necessary to send a whole SWAT team to a house suspected of selling marajuana or using a stolen credit card. There have been incidents where SWAT teams have killed innocent people, in which they were responsible for, but they're human and are not perfect. They will not always be 100% accurate. But for instance, with the recent Ferguson incident, that is a situation where SWAT teams are needed. I think states should have some regulation on when to use and not use SWAT teams, because it some cases, it's entirely unnecessary, like the stolen credit card incident. In other cases, such as suspicion of a bomb where it could injure hundreds of people, or the Ferguson incident, SWAT teams are needed.
ReplyDeleteThis article speaks on how the police force has changed into something similar to a military raid force. There is an overuse of extreme tactics for non extreme circumstances as shown in the article. I think that in some cases the extreme force is definitely understandable in certain situations where the police clearly want to have better weapons than the person they are trying to arrest, however where does this end? This mentality has lead to small towns in the middle of no where with small crime rates to have military grade assault weapons and tanks. When will a tank ever be necessary for them? Our government needs to stop spending absurd amounts of money on weapons for the police and rather spend more money to decrease violence and crime before confrontation with police is necessary.
ReplyDelete-Shannon Healy
Police militarization is scary now. A lot of people don't feel safe anymore. There is suppose to be a major difference between a police officer and a soldier in the military. Police officers does not need to have the same abilities as soldiers. Otherwise, they do not need to be labeled differently anymore. I believe that some police officers forgot what their role actually is. It is scary and for children to see things happening like this, it can either traumatize them or they will end up thinking it's okay to grow up and be a police officer and arrest or kill anyone.
ReplyDelete-Ruby22
I agree with ruby. Cops are become to militarized and its leading to people feeling much LESS safe. This is impractical due to the fact that people are usually supposed to feel more safe when cops are present. However, the current behaviors and appartatus that the cops are equipped with are causing people to feel uneasy and at risk when they are around. After receiving much publicity for the killing of several seemingly harmless teenagers over the last couple of years, people are more and more fearful of the power that cops have and how it is being misused.
DeleteI think that the US Police force is becoming increasingly violent and forceful in many different ways. As the article shows, the militarization of these officers is being demonstrated in response to even the least threatening crimes. The increasing violence and power abuse of officers can also be seen in the streets where officers are speeding with no emergency lights or any emergency, simply because they think they have the power to. Its this kind of thinking that is scary when thinking of what the police force will eventually become.
ReplyDelete-12keys
The police forces in the United States have become unnecessarily aggressive in their tactics, overreliant on brute force, and excessive in their use and capacity of firearms and other gear. Although it makes sense that the police force should be able to overwhelm and force to surrender criminals to avoid gunfire and possibly more violence by being physically intimidating, they are beginning to exacerbate situations in which a less aggressive and combative attitude would have more helped than hurt. The militant attitude some police departments in the country are taking is seemingly counterproductive. Police are being more belligerent meaning that they are more likely to fire first and possibly without proper intentions which is causing unnecessary violence.
ReplyDeleteRight away I take the stance of the police officers. Radley Balko said that cops are becoming to much like soldiers, in my opinion, is an extremely bogus statement. Police officers are armed heavily so they can accomplish the mission and ultimately go home to their respective families. If Radley Balko was being held hostage for whatever reason or circumstance, he would retract his statement quickly. Having police officers trained as “soldiers” is appropriate because they in fact are “soldiers of the law” for the common man, better totally safe then sorry.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the usage of SWAT teams need to be investigated, if there is no need for the use of a SWAT team and a bullet proof vest and Helmet is sufficient enough for the raid then that can be investigated. Raiding a bar for underage drinking is extreme but if there is suspicion of guns and violence then taking the utmost precautions to keep our civil service men safe is appropriate. Most of the people that do this “research” and make comments are not the ones putting themselves in harms way.
Yes the Police are becoming more military like but this article seemed to only look at this as a bad thing. The up side to the police force changing tactics is that they are less likely to be killed. Also having the extra protection of the swat team may lead to fewer ambushes and murders of police officers. I think that it is hard to be too careful when it comes to protecting men and woman who serve and protect our country. As long as the police announce themselves when they enter a private or public residence then most people will not feel the need to draw weapons if they are innocent. So police officers should just be better trained so they can properly identify themselves rather than revert back to more dangerous methods.
ReplyDeleteI do not see a problem with police becoming more militaristic, especially if it is for the safety of the force and the police at work. Because the police announced themselves properly, they avoided the potential conflict when the resident at home felt threatened. I believe there is a culture in our society that paints police in a negative light, especially during media fire storms surrounding the Michael Brown case.
ReplyDeleteI don't exactly agree with the statement that Police Officers are becoming more like soldiers. Just because Police uses heavy equipment that is similar to military soldiers doesn't mean that they are becoming military soldiers. Including the fact that many are dieting from police officers becoming to similar to the military. Police officers are just trying to do their jobs the best possible way they can. Sometimes people slip and make accidents. They also have to protect themselves and I think if a police officer determines to shoot and kill someone it is probably for a good cause because they have trained years to make decisions such as these and to protect innocent people.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the author of this article that police are becoming overbearing and all too powerful. Less and less restriction are being placed on their work which is allowing too much autonomy which leads to police brutality. I definitely agree that SWAT teams are not necessary for non-violent crimes. Allowing police and SWAT teams to value drug related crimes so the criminals can forfeit their money is a sign of corruption. The police need to have more restrictions and regulations in order to create a limit on their power and stop police brutality.
ReplyDeleteWhile I do think the safety and well being that everyone feels in society is a top priority, I do agree with the article in that the police has become far more aggressive in the recent years. Today, this topic has become a major concern especially in light of the Ferguson case. I think having heavily armed police is not a bad thing, unless it is misused which I believe it has been. Having a heavily armed police is necessary when there is a life threatening situation, however I think the police misuse their power for petty crimes. I do believe police are quick to take violent actions than before, because they're actions are supported by the law since they are the ones who are protecting it. The recent militarization reminds me of the Prison experiment that Zimbardo had conducted. In the experiment while many "solidiers" became more inhumane towards the prisoners as they assumed the position, it made me realize that could also be the problem in regard to police militarization. After given all the equipment, many police officers may become more desensitized as they band together and as a result take more violent and aggressive actions than they previously would have done.
ReplyDelete-Lakshmi Subramanian
I think that while SWAT teams are an essential part of our police force, this article highlights the fact that there needs to be certain measures in place to determine exactly when it is alright to deploy a SWAY team. While it is perfectly fine for police officers/SWAT team members to be highly trained, there seems to be an over usage of heavy arms and equipment. The government should keep a closer track of why they are giving tanks and expensive equipment to places where there will be no practical uses for them. And when they do give such equipment, they should make it mandatory that all the officers there get the proper training to use these weapons/military equipment. By partitioning out these resources better, it would prevent some of the accidents mentioned from occurring. While it’s unavoidable for some mistakes to happen, these statistics and stories show that there are too many mistakes being made to be excusable.
ReplyDeleteSingi Weerasuriya 0601
Police militarization has become very controversial recently. Many people feel that police are abusing their powers thus people are not able to trust them. Not being able to trust a force that is supposed to protect you and make you feel safe is pretty sad. I think that less money should be spent on supplying police with an excessive amount of weapons and instead be used towards better training. A police should not be reaching for their gun and shooting someone as their first instinct especially if the 'suspect' is unarmed. This has become a violation of human right from the very people that are supposed to be protecting those rights. pretty counterproductive..
ReplyDelete-Tita
There are pros and cons to the police becoming more militarized. The pros are that they simply do so to protect society. on the other hand, SWAT isn't needed for small crimes that the police can handle on their own. SWAT teams are needed for violent crimes, not drug crimes or crimes that are not life threatening. They are still needed, like the article says, however not for small crimes. Also, the fact that less warrants are used nowadays increases the rates of murder. Police coming in without saying anything can scare people in their own homes, and cause them to panic.
ReplyDeleteSarah Sakhi
Although it may be considered a precautionary and safety-oriented measure, there is no doubt that the police has become far too militarized. Not to be overlooked, crime rates have decreased as a result of this, but at the same time deaths of innocent people and cost rates have correspondingly increased as well. In addition, the usage of SWAT teams have increased as well, often on smaller jobs that would normally require nothing more than a police force. Because of this, more innocent people are being injured or killed as the SWAT teams are given clearance to enter a household with no warrant, and use whatever means necessary to see their mission completed. Although killing innocent people is not their intention, the risk of this is significantly heightened when utilizing these SWAT forces. I think that the usage of these elite forces must be reserved for major crimes and searches, and let the police do their job for these smaller-scale issues. This is necessary to keep the public's trust in a force that's job is to "protect and serve."
ReplyDeleteI think there is a very large tradeoff between safety and too much police power. I agree with this article that that police have become much more aggressive in recent years. I believe police should be armed at all times, although I think the roles and responsibilities of police need to be reviewed with police themselves and citizens. Police are not only responsible for catching the bad guys, but PROTECTING the good guys. Police need to prioritize what dangers they should deal with. Using arms in a non threatening life situation is never appropriate and unnecessary. If an indivudal wants to use arms on a daily basis, they should join the military.
ReplyDeleteThe article clearly states the present condition of the police force in the US. It talks about the extravagant nature of the authorities of the small towns of New Hampshire and North Carolina. The excessive funding of the police forces like the SWAT teams in the small towns seems to be of no use. True, that these forces are required in the big cities of Baltimore and New York, where the crime rates are way higher. But, there seems to be no use of funding the highly advanced machinery and SWAT teams in the small towns. The regular police can handle the criminal issues like robbery in the small towns. The use of such SWAT teams in small towns just creates fear among the people and not a sense of security.
ReplyDeleteAlthough this instance where the SWAT team raids a house for stolen clothes is a little over kill and probably doesn't warrant SWAt with high grade military weapons, Police around the country should be more heavily armed than the criminals they are up against. Even though Crime rates around the country are decreasing, our officers should be put in the best position to protect themselves and when criminals are usually in a position to carry automatic weapons that they acquire, the standard handgun and bulletproof vest probably wont do the job against a machine gun. Even though our officers and police forces are more heavily armed now and take a more violent approach to taking on crime, its better that they're safer and more prepared.
ReplyDeleteBryce Young
Police militarization has become a strong part of our society. In many scenarios the brute force isn't needed, but used regardless of the situation. I believe that our police force is becoming too much like the military in how it treats certain situations. The police and the military are different forces so they should each do their job in the way that's appropriate. Brute force from the police is necessary in high risk situations, but in lower level crimes I believe that a simple police many can handle the job without risking many innocent lives.
ReplyDeleteThe point of police militarization is to give the police the advantage of being better armed than their suspects and to be better prepared for any scenario. But police dealing with civilians do not need weapons made for warcraft on a daily basis. Carrying weapons like that to use on people is extreme. weapons police carry now seem adequate for their job and even before they were militarized there were many cases of unnecessary police force. The militarization of police can only make that worse.
ReplyDelete-Christina Asare
Bryce Young has a good point that it is important for officers to be more heavily armed than any criminal they may face, but too often we see armed law enforcement officials abusing their weaponry and technology causing harm to citizens. This is ironic because it is the citizen's tax money that pays for new equipment for police officers. I think that with the advancement in police weaponry and technology there also needs to be an increase in education for officers on when and how to properly use their supplies.
ReplyDelete- Drew Brees
The police force of today is increasingly becoming more militarized and therefore sometimes have over aggressive attitudes and use excessive force. As the article says,SWAT teams were first formed to deal with violent civil unrest and life-threatening situations - so why was this tactic used when looking for $1000 worth of clothes and electronics? I agree with the police having to have an advantage by being better armed than their suspects, however that advantage should be reasonable. The use of heavy armor against a non-violent or life-threatening situation raises the risk of "accidents."
ReplyDelete- Kiana Smith
This article seems to have a bit of confirmation bias - due to the fact that the author chose to include the most intrusive and aggressive police interventions as a paradigm for the rest of the police-civilian interactions. However, even with this bias, I believe that police militarization and brutality is a detrimental attribute of society. What's worse is the fact that elected officials don't seem to chastise them for it enough and that the police individually don't seem to feel remorse and even if punished and sued, the money given to the plaintiff are tax-payer's dollars. It would be interesting to see if civilians would decide that they've had enough and eventually demand a more transparent, just, and appropriate police response because it would parallel Marx's Conflict Theory.
ReplyDeleteSong Yun
This issue of the misuse of SWAT teams is concerning from multiple perspectives. It is scary to think that we, in some sense, can have our privacy and thus liberty invaded and taken away at any moment. Yet, I think it is important to recognize the larger picture here. This article highlights some unique cases in which individuals have been wronged due to SWAT mishandling. I imagine, however, that there are loads of other cases in which SWAT teams have been quite useful and beneficial. If my assumption is incorrect, and we then have a problem, as mentioned earlier. An additional factor of concern would be the money that is being invested in SWAT work. I would be very skeptical about if it is being used in the right way, if it is funding the SWAT program to continue conducting small, rather insignificant raids. In agreement with the article, SWAT should only be justified if they are taking care of the more severe cases of violence and severe crime.
ReplyDelete--
Max Samuels
It is very disappointing seeing our police force, our source of protection and safety, to turn into a team of aggressive military force. The original purpose for any security force such as the SWAT team was to combat terrorism and other violent acts that focuses on american citizens. Now these days, the police force went from possessing a hand gun to heavy armed artillery used in rural societies, not on a battlefield. The use of these heavy armed artillery are used to raid homes and investigate any illegal processes on certain suspects. I find this to be very extreme where in the past, the same concept of police investigations were successful with use less use of force and military like approaches. The article looks in depth of recent SWAT actions and having them infiltrate and raid small missions is abusing their purpose of having a anti terrorist squad in the first place.
ReplyDeleteOver the past thirty years SWAT teams across the nation have doubled in size, even in small towns. Police forces are constantly trying increase their own security and protect themselves against criminals. SWAT teams are often deployed simply to intimidate the suspect(s), even if they are suspected of non-violent crimes. Police forces would rather ensure their own safety rather than the safety of those they are employed to protect. Usually, especially in small town America, it is unnecessary for such strong police forces. However, because SWAT teams can be profitable, police forces now depend on the profits to subsidize larger parts of their general budgets. While SWAT teams have previously compromised the safety of innocent people, they also provide necessary protection to all.
ReplyDeleteI think that the police should continue to be well armed and have many SWAT teams, even if it is not proportional to the crime rates that are decreasing. The reason for this is when the deterrent factor - certainty - is increased (many teams of well armed and trained policemen), people are less likely to commit crimes because they are afraid of professional and powerful responses of law enforcement forces and of higher possibility of apprehension in comparison to possible benefits. By controlling the cities with large numbers of well armed and trained policemen, crime events can be avoided, and people would feel much safer.
ReplyDeleteI do think that the American police has become like soldiers. I remember when I was younger and they would only deploy SWAT teams for very big tragic events like 9/11. But recently, in the past couple of years, I noticed that they deploy SWAT for almost everything like capturing a drug dealer in his house. The reason I feel that this has happened in the past couple of years is because the security and fear in our country has increased every since 9/11 and shootings that happen in public places too often. I am not sure if this is a good thing or bad thing, but I see both sides to the argument. One side says the government is wasting lots of money by deploying these teams for really no reason. The other side is saying that they are just taking precautions; it's better to be safe than sorry.
ReplyDeleteI had a debate with my cousin about the militarize police, and it is interesting that at the same age, we have completely different ideas about cops with guns. While I think what policemen do is a job at high risk and they have the right to get themselves protected in any dangerous circumstances and they can also better protect us in extreme situations. While my cousin’s idea was that with such dangerous weapon and such power, they can turn their gun to us at any time, for committing minor crime or just “seem suspicious”. Then just stay out of trouble, I said. But you never know, said him, adding how things can be misinterpreted and you can be wronged without a chance to prove yourself. I have to say he’s got some point. But still, thinking about cops without weapon make me feel unsecure for it is a country that everyone can have a gun.
ReplyDeleteLi
--Bl@k Thought
ReplyDeleteBefore I even finished reading the article, I suspected there was some type of incentive to police militarization and SWAT deployment throughout the years and lo and behold, there is, needless to say. The question is why is it incentivized in the first place? Why are there statutes that permit this type of sanctioned larceny in the name of justice? I remember around the time of the Boston bombing incident and how police militarization was more or less in the spotlight on certain cable news outlets. The American public was taken aback after witnessing the resources that were at the disposal of local law enforcement. Essentially, the problem is the war on drugs and the witch hunt on non-violent drug offenders that fills the prisons. I can think of many cases where the government profits off of human suffering and misfortune. Requiring someone to forfeit there home and possessions due to a non-violent drug offense followed by a subsequent prison sentence of 5-10 years is just another thorn in side of the working class American who is usually underpaid and overstressed.
I think now would be a good time to cite some science fiction wisdom: There's a reason you separate military and the police. One fights the enemies of the state, the other serves and protects the people. When the military becomes both, then the enemies of the state tend to become the people." Our police force is becoming too militarized, too aggressive, too self-righteous and SWAT teams are being sent out to liberally. The latter should be a last resort, and should be used when the normal police force is completely overpowered. That being said, I do think that police officers should still be allowed to carry guns. Yes, the police are there to protect us (in theory), but who will remain if every officer sacrifices themselves?
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the US's police force needs a makeover, so to speak. They need to return to the original intent of the police force: to help the all the people, to keep the peace, and to enforce laws equally and reasonably. The police force needs to get its priorities straight: the people, not profit.
-CouchPotato
I think it is good that we have the SWAT team and that our defense system is well-funded, however it seems that our use of military-type force in the police system is becoming overused. It is understandable that a police would want to be better armed than whoever they are dealing with, but we also must keep in mind the type of crime these police are approaching. SWAT teams are not needed in crimes such as theft or drug possession, unless we know that they are going into a very dangerous place for it. In most cases police aren't going into a dangerous enough place that they need a heavy SWAT team. It is also ridiculous that in most of these cases, the "criminals" were ended up being charged with unrelated offenses.
ReplyDeleteWhile I'm glad we take our defense system seriously, I also believe we are starting to take it a little too seriously. The police needs to calm down, and give people the benefit of the doubt (unless they are clearly guilty and dangerous).
Treva Thrush
I believe that the police should be well equipped for their own safety reason while on duty due to the fact that their jobs are at much higher high risk of death than most peoples jobs. However, I do think it is excessive for the police to be wearing helmets, masks, and shields on a regular basis. This intense outfit will promote fear in the public and is not always necessary for the job they are doing. A cop giving out speeding tickets does not really need to be dressed like an army soldier. Yet at the same time, I do believe that the police should be using these precautions wisely when patrolling in high violent crime neighborhood as a safety for themselves.
ReplyDeleteJialun Lin
ReplyDeleteI agree with Bill Bratton, the New York police chief, that police officers are risking their life everyday to protect the citizens from dangers. Being well equipped and prepared for risks is better than being vulnerable to dangers. Though I don't think it's necessary to be as armed when investigating for stolen credit cards. But if it makes them feel safer when working, I am willing to cooperate, because you never know when the danger will come.
The problem boils down to the excessive use of the SWAT teams. Of course SWAT teams are important because they are trained to take care of immense human threats that need swift and forceful response, so we can’t blame them. The ones to blame are those that direct this powerful source: the use of SWAT teams has skyrocketed for the past years. Ironically, they were called to take care of mostly private drug-related crimes, or small incidents that can be handled by normal police force such as dispute in festivals, gambling or stealing. This is not only dangerous if the situation gets out of hand (the intensive SWAT training is certainly unsuitable for small crimes), but it is also unfair when people are paying large amount of taxes for this.
ReplyDeleteI believe that it is important that the SWAT team is prepared for anything. Like they said they risk their lives everyday, not knowing what situation they will get themselves in. I understand that it might be over the top on certain situations, but that is better than being not prepared. In the end they are looking to for the safety of themselves, while also the safety of the criminal that they are facing. On the other hand, our police force is a bit over the top. I believe that they are becoming too powerful and way too aggressive in very minor situations. Our police force is also become way to militarized as well. The main concern should be the safety of the people, and certain adjustments should be made.
ReplyDeleteI believe that over-militarization has become a serious issue in our country in regards to our police task forces. Local police abusing their power is something that has become a norm in American society; although I do believe that US police do risk their lives everyday for our safety, I think that their quick nature when using violent force has damaged a once proud reputation. I believe that the militarized forces should be SWAT and the National Guard exclusively; I do not agree with local police barracks being equipped with militarized weapons.
ReplyDeleteSWAT teams and their increased use is a growing concern. I understand that it is frightening giving a certain set of people, namely police officers, such large amounts of power that could potentially harm people. I don’t think having this sort of team with this power is as much as a concern as how it is utilized. The incidents that raise concerns stem from how people use this power. That being said, I think it is beneficial to have SWAT teams in general because, like some of the other comments, it offers added protection. However the level to which SWAT teams have evolved needs to be reviewed. SWAT should not be used for every day occurrences, which is what this article portrays is being done (something that is highly unlikely). I think a lot of the issues that surround the tactics and methods used by SWAT teams today at the local level can be fixed, or at least helped, if there were stricter guidelines and these capabilities were reserved for certain instances. I definitely think it makes sense having these capabilities in large cities with constant serious crime, however it does not make sense to have them in small towns or cities.
ReplyDelete-Cierra Horsting
i. I, along with several others, believe that the American police force has become too militarized. I find it unfortunate that people fear the police when in fact, they are supposed to protect us. The first short anecdote about the police searching a home for $1000 worth of stolen merchandise “helmeted and masked, guns drawn and shields in front, knocking down the door with a battering and rushing inside”. Even when I saw the photo, I thought the police were handling a more serious situation like a murder or an armed kidnapping. Of course, policemen risk their lives every day to protect citizens, but I personally think that the increase of these weapons are detrimental to the wellbeing of the United States.
ReplyDeleteHi Drue,
DeleteI agree with you. I had the same exact train of thought upon seeing the photo in the article. I thought the situation would be of a greater extent instead of $1000 worth of stolen merchandise. To me, there seems to be a general trend of fearing the police instead of seeing them as people who protect us, especially in the light of recent events. This fear seems to be especially heightened among minorities. Yes, the police are serving the people, but what good is it when the people they are serving have a fear of them? I do commend their work in protecting citizens but I believe the fear that people have, cause partly by militarization, is undermining their efforts.
Oyin Adedipe, 0601
The police force nationwide has increased the use of violent procedures in order to properly protect the law. Despite the lowering of crime within the nations, cities and states are still making a point to join the rest in fear of getting left out and being unprepared when societal unrest occurs. The increasing privileges by SWAT and other special forces raises the concern for the invasion of privacy of the everyday citizen. Sometimes, SWAT breaks into a house (with or without a warrant) and doesn’t find anything that they’re looking for but convict the tenant on other related charges. The system of law seems to favor the police officer and excuse him/her of any wrong doing in light of the law, which is particularly a case in question with the recent Ferguson incident.
ReplyDelete- Cameron J. Goins/ 12/10/14
This article strikes a nerve with me because a similar situation happened with me and my friends- our senior year of high school a friend threw a party while her parents were away. While this was wrong to do, it did not warrant the 6 police officers with 3 police dogs barge into the house with large guns drawn, handcuff my friends, while several helicopters were flying above (totally true story). Someone tipped the cops that they thought robbers were in the house, and this is how the cops responded. They reacted completely over the top, and I sympathize with the family whose house was broken into in the story. There is a time and place for SWAT teams, and while yes I would rather they be over prepared than not under prepared, it seems they sometimes go to unnecessary lengths.
ReplyDelete-Sarah Wigmore
I think that SWAT teams are an integral assets to police departments. They help to eliminate threats, without putting others officers in dangers. With police using “no knock” warrants, the extra protection their gear offers is beneficial. I do agree that SWAT teams should not be deployed for nonviolent threats or serving warrants. The strength and power of SWAT team tactics is too much for nonviolent crimes. It is increasing the public’s fear of police. There shouldn’t be innocent people being shot by SWAT officers. There is no need for an innocent 92 year old women to be gunned down mistakenly by SWAT officers. I think that it is important for police to critically consider if the deployment of the SWAT team is critical.
ReplyDelete-Foofie
Nicola Konigkramer
ReplyDeleteIt is clear that police militarization is becoming one of the largest issues in this country. Not only are we taking extreme measures by using SWAT and other special groups to combat rather than protect, but we are training to kill rather than enforcing the law. To take a step beyond this issue, we can see the negative impact that guns have on the force that police are given. With technological advances, we are increasing our arms, yet most crimes do not require such extreme defense.
I definitely agree with how the police force now has become too militarized. Police are supposed to protect us from danger, but seeing them now makes us fear them. It is crazy to see how police are just loaded up with weapons and armor that it is difficult for us to really trust them. To make sure that people obey them and don't break the law they feel that somehow they must increase violence and that instills fear in the public. The over-militarization also comes with an abuse of power because there have been so many accounts over the past few months of police beating up people for small things. I thought that I could always trust a police officer when I need help because they are good people that protect the citizens, but now, not so much anymore.
ReplyDeleteI don't really agree with you, because I still trust them even if they are armed. I think the article is biased because if focused on one circumstance where the police over armed themselves. However, with all the police officers that I have contacted before, they were not as armed, which still make me feel safe and protected.
Delete- Jialun Lin
The growing rise of violent and/or unnecessary police force action is very disturbing. It is also, unfortunately, creating a stereotype for police offers. This stereotype being created is very unfriendly towards the image of cops, and is dangerous in that it can lead people to believe that all cops are out of control and violent.
ReplyDelete--Glen Coco
In my opinion, SWAT teams are not doing the things they are supposed to do. They are supposed to make a neighborhood safer, but the opposite is sometimes true. SWAT teams are present at bars that serve underage patrons and poker games and a SWAT team have the ability to come into your house and take ownership of possessions because of a ‘’possible crime’’. This goes way too far and I believe SWAT teams should be controlled a lot more.
ReplyDelete-Jeroen Meefout
If this posts twice I appologize but I did not see my first comment post. I believe police are not overly militarized . I believe they are prepared for any and all situations that may arise.but on the other hand I do believe they are using their power unnecciarily. I believe their level of training is neccisary but misused
ReplyDeleteConor wetzel
I believe that the citizens of this nation should be protected; however, the increase in militarization of our police has gotten out of hand. The article mentions that it is easy to see why the police like to better armed than those that they arrest. With that being said, I believe that a lot of people would agree that the majority of folks that these police are assigned to protect are and will never be armed enough for the type of artillery these police are getting. The idea behind creating these special weapons and tactics (SWAT) teams was so that they can deal with the violent and life threatening situations that might be difficult for police to handle such as rescuing hostages or shoot-outs. However, the article points out that the number of SWAT deployments continue to soar as violent crime falls. That statement contradicts the sole purpose of these SWAT teams. Therefore, I think that it is reasonable to believe that police should downscale their growing military.
ReplyDelete- Louis Pardo
Over militarization is not necessarily new, but it isn't all too common here in the United States until now. It is not good for society as a whole as it leads to possible undermining of rights legally bound to us, unnecessary violence, and wasting of our economic resources. I understand the case if one feels it is good to be prepared to fight crime, but with innovations in technology, should we not be actually doing almost the opposite? I think it is ok to have a certain degree of higher firepower than the average person is normally able to obtain for contingency purposes, but only if it is truly justifiable.
ReplyDelete-Kenny Perez
Stating that police officers are becoming more and more militarized is a somewhat vague assumption. Yes, I could agree to the situations where police are over prepared, however, shouldn't we always consider the times when police are under prepared as well? Assessing risk and hazards in our society is getting increasingly difficult, therefore I understand the seemingly harsh preparations police and SWAT teams have at times. I believe that police and SWAT teams should better asses situations they must seize before taking serious measures.
ReplyDeleteI feel like there are times when the police should be equipped with heavier arms and there are times when they should not be. At first, I thought that the police didn't need to go in with as many arms, but once I read that one of the men arrested had assault charges, I felt that the police were justified in taking some precautionary measures. However, I do feel as though there have been recent events in which I think militarization of the police was unnecessary because it led to multiple accounts of death.
ReplyDelete-Paige Willingham
I agree with you Paige. The answer is not to take away the weapons of police officers. I feel that officers need the tools that are necessary to do their jobs, but they must be held to a higher standard than that of an ordinary citizen. As a former employee in the enforcement arena, these men and women are heavily trained, and have multiple checklists of criteria they must meet in order to maintain weapons status. In enforcement, you are taught to shoot center mass. Many people argue, "Why didn't he shoot him in the arm, or the leg?!" The problem with that is, it is a smaller more difficult target and the officer puts bystanders in danger if he or she misses the aforementioned smaller target. If I were on duty, trying to take someone down, and I try to hit their arm out of fear of going to trial and having my face on CNN for two weeks, I run the risk of killing an innocent instead of neutralizing the threat. Police officers are not trained to "shoot to kill" , they are trained to "stop a threat". I think if you were to ask any officer he or she would most likely respond that they would rather not have to shoot anyone.
Delete-SecretAgent
The militarization of police is an issue that needs to be addressed. In our society cops have been using more brutal force. These controversial issues are seen in the news in such cases as the shooting of Trayvon Martin. I believe that there needs to be a change in laws that would only require police to use lethal force if necessary. I do not condone the use of lethal weapons on unharmed citizens.
ReplyDeleteThis is an issue that are country is talking about right now as we begin to take a hard look at our police and justice system. The question needs to be asked, do we trust our cops with these weapons. Are they receiving the proper training, not just with the weapons but with their decision making skills as well. In my opinion the answer is no, they seem unnecessary.
ReplyDelete- Malcolm Lawanson
while the militarization of police can be helpful because of their increased ability to protect the citizens, its also quite harmful because of the fact that being more militarized makes it easier for police to oppress the citizens and some fear that it also signifies the movement of America towards a police state, which is frightening because of the loss of rights that would come along with a police state. The brutality of police can be seen in many high profile cases around the country, including what happened in Ferguson, Missouri.
ReplyDelete