Police Militarization – Law Street

The Militarization of American Police: How Far is Too Far?

Valeriya Metla — Sat, 30 May 2015 18:11:10 +0000

Image courtesy of [Andy Grant via Flickr]

There has been a lot of talk lately about police brutality in connection with the killings of unarmed Black men. As a result of these discussions, the issue of police militarization has also become a hotly contested topic. Do we need highly militarized police forces in our communities? What are the issues behind government-sponsored militarization practices? Read on to learn about the history of police militarization, the main issues, and the current efforts to demilitarize.

How have our police become militarized?

The Third Amendment to the U.S. Constitution states:

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

Thus, the distinction between police officers and soldiers was stipulated in the Bill of Rights. This fundamental principle was further codified in the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 that limits the power of the government to operate military forces inside its borders. It was clear from the beginning that the police should maintain peace inside the country, while military troops protect U.S. interests outside the borders.

During the Prohibition Era, criminal syndicates became involved in the manufacturing and distribution of alcohol in the United States. At that time, the police also became more militarized, deploying armored cars and automatic weapons to counteract illegal alcohol “bootlegging.”

During the race riots of the 1950s-60s, police militarization continued. The Watts Riots of 1965 played a crucial role when SWAT teams were deployed to combat the violence. The upturn in the usage of battlefield weapons can be traced to this period as well.

The 1970-80s were marked by the rise of drug trafficking and the inception of the Medellin Cartel, one of the most powerful international narcotic rings. At the same time, street gangs began to hold considerable weapons arsenals, resulting in shoot outs and gun violence in some inner-city neighborhoods. As drug traffickers and local gangsters were heavily weaponized, police continued militarizing their departments as well.

But the most profound transformation came with the inception of the War on Drugs, initiated by President Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. During this time, the federal government started its long-term attempts at militarization and weaponization of local law enforcement agencies, primarily to enforce drug laws. Thus, the practice of transferring the army’s military equipment to police departments was born. The 1981 Military Cooperation with Civilian Law Enforcement Agencies Act established close ties between the U.S. military and police by allowing military forces to aid police departments in drug and counterterrorism operations as well as in cases of civil disturbances. It’s widely believed that the War on Drugs introduced the large scale militarization of police departments, shifting the government focus from the civil unrest of the 1960s toward drug enforcement.

In 1997, the Clinton Administration created the 1033 Program, authorized by the National Defense Authorization Act. This initiative legitimized transfers of surplus military equipment from the Department of Defense (DoD) to police departments across the country to aid local law enforcement agencies in their anti-drug operations. Most of the transferable equipment came from U.S. involvement in wars, including operations in Iraq and Afghanistan. To utilize this surplus of military equipment, it was further distributed to police departments across the country, and led to police agencies even obtaining mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicles.

After 9/11, the militarization of police departments accelerated as the Patriot Act of 2001 came into play. Since 2003, militarization has become large scale, with the federal government giving grants as well as military gear, mainly through the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Besides federal programs, the militarization of police was achieved through the expansion of companies that build military gear and sell it directly to police departments or the federal government. As of now, many police departments are highly militarized with MRAT vehicles, SWAT teams, and military-grade gear, often originally intended for use in the battlefield.

How militarized is the American police force?

As was discussed above, the militarization of American police is channeled mainly through the Department of Defense (DoD) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The numbers are staggering. In 1990, police departments received just $1 million worth of military equipment, but in 2013 this number reached $450 million. By 2005, more than 17,000 police departments received military gear from the DoD. In the same vein, from 2002 until 2011, DHS dispensed $35 billion in grants to state and local police departments.

American police forces have sniper rifles, armored vehicles, and all sorts of heavy weaponry. According to the American Civil Liberties Union, at least 63 police departments received 15,054 pieces of personal protective equipment, and around 500 police departments obtained MRAP vehicles, all through government-sponsored initiatives, including the DoD’s 1033 program.

In addition, the use of Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) teams has greatly increased throughout the last decades. In 1980, SWAT teams were utilized only 3,000 times–now they are deployed on a regular basis, around 50,000 times a year. By 2007, more than 80 percent of police departments in large cities with populations higher than 25,000 had SWAT teams.

What are the issues against militarized police forces?

There is no doubt that police officers should be well equipped to protect peace and security in American communities. The question is whether the current level of police militarization makes our communities safer and more secure or harms the very people police departments are trying to protect. Here are some of the arguments against police militarization.

It’s Unnecessary

Police militarization is unnecessary, especially when talking about small cities that have hardly any crime. There are a myriad of towns that have few murders but huge arsenals of military-grade gear and SWAT teams. For example, there were only three murders in Keene, a small town in New Hampshire, from 1999 till 2012, but its police department has spent $286,000 on an armored personnel carrier, in addition to spendings on other military gear. Federal programs provide incentives for law enforcement to obtain military equipment, even when it’s not needed.

It’s Dangerous

Highly militarized and well trained SWAT teams were designed for deployment in dangerous situations, for example, hostage situations or mass shoot-outs. Now, SWAT teams are used in routine drug enforcement operations. Overall, 79 percent of SWAT teams are deployed to execute search warrants, while only seven percent are used in high-risk situations.

SWAT teams often force their way inside a house, use violent tactics that may inflict bodily harm or property damage to homeowners, and scare children who may suffer psychological damage after the experience. In fact, 65 percent of such teams forced their way into people’s homes, relying on “no-knock” warrants. SWAT teams are also employed to counteract illegal gambling, underage drinking, and other low level non-life threatening crimes.

It Incites Violence

According to multiple psychological studies, paramilitary police forces can incite violence in communities. It’s called the “weapons effect,” meaning that people feel the threat of violence and get ready to fight back when they encounter military-like weapons and large machinery. Simply put, the mere presence of paramilitary police forces can escalate situations and produce tensions between police and community members that could be avoided if police would engage with people in a friendly way. In 2014 alone, 623 Americans were killed by the police.

Asset Forfeiture

Some argue that asset forfeiture is one of the primary ways used to fund police militarization. Many law enforcement agencies use money obtained through asset forfeiture to buy military gear, machinery, and other military-grade equipment. In 1986, the Federal Asset Forfeiture Fund controlled $93.7 million; in 2012 the fund held $6 billion. There is an ongoing debate over whether or not asset forfeiture laws are discriminatory and unfair, with many lawmakers and politicians casting their support for changes in the matter. At the core of asset forfeiture laws is the principle that any property involved in committing a crime can be seized by the government, even if a person is not convicted or even charged with a crime. This argument holds that law enforcement chooses to raid homes to seize a house, or bust drug deals during monetary transactions to seize the cash. Such practices often happen in communities of color and focus on drug-related crimes. A 2013 investigative piece by New Yorker reporter Sarah Stillman provides that:

Thousands of police departments nationwide have recently acquired stun grenades, armored tanks, counterattack vehicles, and other paramilitary equipment, much of it purchased with asset-forfeiture funds.

No Public Oversight

Militarization of the police came into being without any public oversight. There were no public debates in this regard, and no agency was empowered to monitor military equipment transfers. The lack of transparency is evident in the inadequacy and sometimes even complete absence of records that document and track police militarization. The ACLU reports on the omission of information, deficiency in reporting, and nonexistence of government monitoring, all regarding the amount of military gear and its usage.

Communities of Color

SWAT team deployment and the overall militarization of the police increased while violent crime fell. It also coincided with the inception of the “War of Drugs,” which disproportionally targeted communities of color by raiding low-income communities and public housing in the search for drugs. According to the ACLU, 61 percent of SWAT raids were executed in minority communities, and 68 percent of those were drug related. At the same time, white people were usually targeted by SWAT teams only in serious and life-threatening situations, not drug raids. A similar argument is explained in a highly acclaimed book by Michele Alexander “The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness,” where she talks about marginalization of Black communities and the creation of a new caste-like system based on race. According to her argument, the War on Drugs was waged to marginalize Black communities by disproportionately incarcerating young Black men. In this regard, the militarization of police was a necessary step to enforce punitive drug laws.

Police Imagery

When police officers are riding in MRAT vehicles and wearing highly militarized gear, some worry it sends the wrong message to communities. Police encounters can be highly traumatic experiences for anybody, but especially for communities of color that are often policed more aggressively. Instead of patrolling by foot and engaging with the community members, police officers use military-grade gear and painted camouflage vehicles. Thus, police officers are perceived more as soldiers fighting an enemy. As a result, the relationships between communities and police departments have become hostile. Community members are scared of the police and often don’t want to cooperate or even interact with law enforcement.

Big Business

For American companies that produce military equipment and gear, the militarization of police is a big business. Companies like Lockheed Martin and Blackhawk Industries sell their military equipment to police departments, or donate money to those politicians who favor further militarization of law enforcement. For example, politicians who voted against Representative Alan Grayson’s (D-FL) efforts aimed at limiting police militarization received on average a 73 percent increase in defense industry donations than those who supported his efforts. Besides the selling of equipment, military contractors sponsor training sessions for SWAT teams and other events to promote their products and sell them to police departments across the United States.

Current Efforts to Demilitarize Police Departments

Police militarization went largely unchallenged for decades. Only recent events, such as protests in Ferguson, Missouri, were able to shed some light on the issue of ongoing police militarization. When protests in Ferguson erupted, police met protesters with armored cars and military gear designed for battlefields. As the media was covering the events, millions of Americans were able to see the aggressive and intimidating images of highly armored police from Ferguson.

The #BlackLivesMatter movement also added fuel to the fire by demanding government to stop transferring military gear to local law enforcement agencies, and start dismantling the existing arsenals.

Eventually, the Obama Administration delivered a long-awaited response. A new policy focuses on the 1033 Program by regulating military equipment transfers, overseeing and monitoring the usage of military equipment, and reshaping police practices toward community-oriented approaches. For example, armored and weaponized vehicles as well as grenade launchers will be forbidden for transfer. Other transferable equipment will be regulated with restrictions and certain conditions for transfer. Essentially, a police department will have to justify the need for military equipment by presenting arguments and explaining precisely why and for what purposes it will be used. In addition, a new federal agency will be empowered with monitoring military equipment transfers and even conducting local compliance reviews if needed. The new policy also mentions community-based policing as a desired form of conducting police business. Police departments will have to engage with residents more, nurture trust, and build relationships with local leaders and youth in order to receive federal grants in the first place.

Conclusion

As the United States has the highest per capita gun ownership in the Western world, it’s assumed that police departments should also be highly militarized. But militarization has many issues and unintended consequences that cannot be ignored. Instead of weaponizing police officers, law enforcement officials should focus on engaging with residents and building meaningful relationships, not casting fear and intimidation with MRAT vehicles and heavy weaponry. It’s not only about limiting the 1033 Program, but reforming asset forfeiture laws, limiting aggressive drug enforcement in low-income communities, and providing clear guidelines regarding when SWAT teams are appropriate for deployment. It’s paramount that local activists and elected officials continue to demand accountability from police departments, and push the current efforts even further.

Resources

Washington Post: Obama Moves to Demilitarize America’s Police

Washington Post: Demilitarizing the Police is Not an Option. What is?

Pacific Standard: The Psychological Reason Local Police Don’t Need the Military’s Left-Over Weapons

Huffington Post: President Adopts Amendment Against Police Militarization

Economist: Disarming Warrior Cops

Economist: How America’s Police Became So Heavily Armed

Economist: Cops or Soldiers?

International Business Times: Police Militarization History Stretches Back to Civil Rights Movement

American Civil Liberties Union: War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing

Alternet: 11 Shocking Facts About America’s Militarized Police Forces

1920-30: Prohibition

National Gang Center Bulletin: History of Street Gangs in the United States

New Yorker: Taken

Valeriya Metla

Valeriya Metla is a young professional, passionate about international relations, immigration issues, and social and criminal justice. She holds two Bachelor Degrees in regional studies and international criminal justice. Contact Valeriya at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Militarization of American Police: How Far is Too Far? appeared first on Law Street.

Protests Continue After Freddie Gray’s Death in Baltimore

Anneliese Mahoney — Mon, 27 Apr 2015 00:02:43 +0000

Image courtesy of [Graham Correll-Allen via Flickr]

Freddie Gray was a Baltimore man who died after injuries he received while in the custody of the Baltimore police department. Multiple protests, some violent, have occurred against Gray’s treatment that Gray received in police custody on April 19. Although exact numbers appear unknown, reports cite that 34 people have been arrested as a result of the protests.

Arrests last night in Baltimore during a protest of the death of #FreddieGray http://t.co/j5mU7B7Jfj pic.twitter.com/5JcRDP2vtg

— Newsweek (@Newsweek) April 26, 2015

Demonstrators in Baltimore continue protesting #FreddieGray‘s death. PHOTOS: http://t.co/FvUWbmnHi4 pic.twitter.com/Dh9LGIJFPf

— 99.1 WNEW (@WNEW) April 23, 2015

#UPDATE: Crowd continues to grow. Protestors want officers suspended in death of #FreddieGray arrested. pic.twitter.com/XVRtcIZP55

— WJZ | CBS Baltimore (@cbsbaltimore) April 21, 2015

Gray was arrested after he saw a police officer and then started running. Regardless of that not being a reason to arrest someone, police caught up to him. At this point it was discovered that Gray had a knife on him, and was brought into police custody. He sustained a spinal cord injury at some point during this incident, and desperately needed medical attention. It’s not clear how he got the injury–although hopefully that will eventually become clear as a few different investigations delve into the events. The bigger issue here, however, is that once officers caught up to Gray and arrested him, they should have sought medical help for him. Their failure to do so appears to have directly led to Gray’s death. The Baltimore police have even admitted that they should have gotten medical help for Gray. According to CNN:

Police Commissioner Anthony Batts told reporters there are no excuses for the fact that Gray was not buckled in as he was transported to a police station.

It’s in light of this news that protesters have taken to the streets in Baltimore. Some are calling for the arrest of the six officers involved in Gray’s case–they have already been suspended without pay. Last night an estimated 1,200 people gathered in protest at City Hall in Baltimore. This caused some problems for the city–thousands of fans were trapped inside the Baltimore Orioles’ Stadium last night after the game. Unfortunately, as protests continued, things did grow violent. Looters damaged a local convenience store, and at one point a protester “tossed a flaming metal garbage can toward police officers in riot gear trying to push back the crowd.”

After the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, and Tamir Rice in 2014, and the recent death of Walter Scott, the United States is still dealing with discontent over police violence and the treatment of black men by police officers. While Baltimore PD admitting that it should have sought treatment for Gray sooner certainly can be viewed as a step in the right direction when it comes to accountability, what exactly happened to Gray still needs to be determined. Until then, there will almost certainly still be protests and critics.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Protests Continue After Freddie Gray’s Death in Baltimore appeared first on Law Street.

UVA Community Gathers in Support of Martese Johnson

Anneliese Mahoney — Thu, 19 Mar 2015 20:11:25 +0000

Image courtesy of [VCU CNS/Craig Zirpolo via Flickr]

On Tuesday night, 20-year-old University of Virginia student Martese Johnson was brutally arrested. His treatment has sparked outrage around the country, and has led to protests at the university. Moreover, Virginia Governor Terry McAuliffe has called for an investigation into the police officers’ use of force.

Alibi: New App Aims to Record Everything, Including the Police

Anneliese Mahoney — Mon, 09 Feb 2015 20:34:11 +0000

Image courtesy of [Alan Wolf via Flickr]

Almost six months after Michael Brown was killed in Ferguson, Missouri, we’re still having a conversation about the potential of police officers wearing body cameras to ensure accountability and answer the questions that naturally spring up after a police shooting. But will body cameras be enough? A new app called “Alibi” doesn’t think so–and it wants to be the “body camera” of the private citizen, as well as so much more.

Right now, Alibi is only available on Android devices; it’s a $0.99 download. Alibi essentially serves as a mobile witness–depending on how you set it, it can record video, audio, still images, and GPS locations. It doesn’t store this data forever; unless you tell it otherwise, it dumps everything after an hour, or else the storage on a phone would be filled up way too quickly. One of the biggest challenges in developing the app came from making sure that it wouldn’t immediately drain a phone battery. But because the video being recorded is so low-caliber, they’ve managed to make it so even running video all day, it only takes up 1.2 times the battery consumed during normal usage.

So why would a normal person want a device that, to be completely honest, seems a bit paranoid? There are plenty of reasons. The reasoning that inspired the app itself is pretty simple–many people in the U.S. are worried about the increase in police brutality and profiling. Alibi founder Ryan Saleh explained his inspiration for the app in an interview, saying:

The way that Alibi came to be was that I was pulled over for a traffic ticket in New York City. Two cops came up to my windshield and knocked on the windshield, and one of them’s just talking, totally normal, and the other one takes the liberty of asking me to roll down the window and sticks his head in the car and pokes a flashlight around. I’m a straight-laced person, I have nothing to hide, and it didn’t bother me that much at the time, but I was thinking about it, and was like, ‘You know, that probably wasn’t legal.’

I never would have thought to pull out a camera and record the guy, and that probably would have caused more pain than it was worth in the situation, but the number of times in my life that I wish I was recording something — you don’t think to do it at the time, but you go back and you wish you were recording something — is outrageous. I said to myself, ‘You know, we all walk around with a device in our pocket that has a GPS in it, a microphone and a camera.’

Obviously, interactions with police aren’t the only thing that Alibi would be used to record. It could actually be used in reverse–as a tool for the police. Obviously, a 99-cent app is cheaper than a body camera; Alibi could be required by police departments in lieu of body cameras.

Other things that Alibi could be used for are plentiful. It could be used to prove a literal alibi with the GPS and pictures function. It could be used to record something you saw as a passerby. But it could also be used in really creepy, negative ways as well. Imagine if everything you did or said could be recorded by someone who had a smartphone. It could easily be used for nefarious purposes. There are also legal issues here–there are certain laws that restrict photographing people in private places, or places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Having a constantly recording device could break those laws.

Alibi definitely has its practical uses, and it’s an intriguing solution to the issue of American concerns about our police force. That being said, it’s also a little creepy, and may not be something that will worm its way into daily life too quickly. Privacy is still an important right, and while Alibi may protect other rights, privacy can’t be forgotten.

Anneliese Mahoney

The post Alibi: New App Aims to Record Everything, Including the Police appeared first on Law Street.

Dr. Cornel West’s Religious Activism is Exactly What We Need in Ferguson

Jake Ephros — Mon, 20 Oct 2014 10:33:57 +0000

Image courtesy of [Bernd Schwabe via Wikipedia]

In Ferguson, Missouri, protests over police aggression continue two-and-a-half months after unarmed teenager Michael Brown was shot and killed by police officer Darren Wilson. On Monday, October 13, Dr. Cornel West and other spiritual leaders were arrested. This came as no surprise to West; earlier during the protests he claimed “I came here to go to jail.” While this feels like a 1960s documentary on Martin Luther King, Jr., that spirit is exactly what is needed now. We should all take a page from West’s book and really see the police militarization and violence for what it is: a civil rights issue. Addressing it with a religious community the way leaders did a half century ago could help.

As a PBS special notes, West “is a highly regarded scholar of religion, philosophy, and African-American studies” and “an an intellectual provocateur outside of the academic world.” His combination of academia and activism, of scholarship and celebrity, profoundly impacts the different causes he joins or criticizes. As a renowned Black figure in America, West’s disappointment in President Obama has been especially jarring. Slate reported this summer that West said that Obama “posed as a progressive and turned out to be counterfeit. We ended up with a Wall Street presidency, a drone presidency, a national security presidency.” Such harsh criticism reveals the complex matrix of Obama’s approval in the Black community. That the criticism is newsworthy reveals the significance of West’s opinion in America.

The Guardian reports that the recent rally in Ferguson was meant to harken back to the Civil Rights movement, and West’s intent to be arrested solidifies that. Leaders of the Black Freedom movement frequently organized to fill the jails of segregationist towns and cities across the South. Faith played an important role. Religious networks enabled civil rights leaders to encourage and mobilize people in the fight against oppression. But in Ferguson it seems like fewer people are looking for religious guidance from faith authorities. According to the Guardian, St. Louis rapper and activist Tef Poe “took the microphone and noted that the Christian, Jewish and Muslim preachers on the stage were not the people on the street trying to protect people from the police.” The article suggests that the nonviolence espoused in the 50s and 60s may not carry as much weight as it used to.

I have already written on how an emphasis on community is significant for civil rights. It may be a loss, then, if Ferguson protesters reject any religion’s power to engage and empower a community. This isn’t to say that secularism should be removed from protest, but secular people should not dismiss religion’s ability to organize. How can religion, grounded in old beliefs and traditions, aid a progressive movement toward greater justice? West, part theologian and part activist, has an approach that helps bridge the gap that many may see between religion and social justice.

His conception of democracy includes “the prophetic commitment to justice, which is at the foundation of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, means we must fight the reasons for unjustified suffering and social misery,” as a biography on West notes. Bringing religiosity into the activist fold is important for the pressing civil rights problems of our time. As the Guardian article notes, many see this as a generational problem in which elders are being held back from action. Speaking as a young person who is largely not religious, young people who are seeking change need to respect the authority of American religiosity; we should note where democratic principles of social justice meet those of religion.

Jake Ephros

Jake Ephros is a native of Montclair, New Jersey where he volunteered for political campaigns from a young age. He studies Political Science, Economics, and Philosophy at American University and looks forward to a career built around political activism, through journalism, organizing, or the government. Contact Jake at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Dr. Cornel West’s Religious Activism is Exactly What We Need in Ferguson appeared first on Law Street.

Arming the Police Against American Citizens, Part II

Jake Ephros — Tue, 08 Jul 2014 10:30:44 +0000

Recent media attention has shed light on many of the controversial aspects of police militarization, from excessive force to the use of paramilitary units in routine policing. Less frequently discussed, however, is the significant lack of transparency of these trends. The public lacks information about the extent and impact of equipment transfers and the increasingly hostile police culture. While the military has historically been able to invoke claims to national security to justify its secrecy, should local police departments, tasked to serve and protect our communities, be able to do the same?

Despite the significant lack of information on police militarization, Peter Kraska, a justice studies professor at Eastern Kentucky University, found some disturbing trends among law enforcement agencies. His article, “Militarizing Mayberry and Beyond,” documents research on police departments in small localities and demonstrates the recent changes in U.S. law enforcement. Kraska’s findings suggest that more and more low-population areas are forming SWAT teams, which are increasingly used for proactive deployment.

Roughly 40 percent of police paramilitary units, or PPUs, were engaged in warrant work in 1984. By 1995 that statistic skyrocketed: 94 percent of these specialized, soldier-like teams were used to serve warrants. Kraska notes that the majority “of these PPUs serve in the organization as regular patrol officers during their normal duties.” Despite being trained and designed for emergency situations, PPUs are most often deployed for routine practices.

Capt. Chris Cowan of the Richland County (South Carolina) Sheriff’s Department, told the New York Times that an armored vehicle with a mounted gun, “allows the department to stay in step with the criminals who are arming themselves more heavily every day.” Kraska dismisses this perceived arms race saying, “there’s not evidence that the citizenry is grabbing this heavy weaponry themselves, going after cops.”

There is little information about the weaponization of criminals in general, which seems to be a recurring theme in FBI data collection. Kraska claims, “we don’t have good national-level statistics that provide us a good measure of the extent to which the police are fired upon using heavy weaponry, or the policing occupation is more dangerous.” The absence of data is twofold, as little information is available about the increasing militarization of both criminals and police forces.

The Relationship Between Police and Criminals

The U.S. lacks important data on the relationship between police and criminals. The FBI’s Uniform Crime Report does include a publication called “Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted,” which contains an entire table specifically dedicated to the “Number of victim officers killed with firearms while wearing body armor and receiving torso wounds,” yet they provide no national statistics on killings by police.

“You would think that given these are all taxpayer-funded items, and that they’re coming either directly out of the Department of Defense or they’re coming out of the Department of Homeland Security, and they’re being transferred to supposedly democratically-controlled civilian-based police agencies all over the country, that sort of simple, straight-forward program based in tax dollars, that the data and all the information about that would be easily coughed up.”

-Peter Kraska

Where’s the Data?

It is disturbing that we know so little and that such information is consistently difficult to come by. To gather information about the effects of police militarization, we have to rely on nongovernmental organizations such as the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) or the Cato Institute. Moreover, the little information that is available is constrained, as many law enforcement agencies will not answer independent surveys.

While data should be limited in certain circumstances, I question the possible reasons for concealing or not collecting so much important data about our law enforcement. What justification could there be for not granting U.S. citizens access to information about our law enforcement? Agencies’ justifications for refusing to provide information to the ACLU include, “the requested documents contained trade secrets, concerns about jeopardizing law enforcement effectiveness… and the costs associated with producing the documents were simply prohibitive.”

As the issue of proactive, if not aggressive, paramilitary units becomes increasingly prevalent, the situation is exacerbated by the disturbing secrecy with which our government handles data. As Kraska says in his 1997 work, the deep bureaucracy behind this kind of law enforcement “acts as a barrier to police-community ties by fostering a ‘we-they’ attitude.” This barrier not only distinguishes our police from citizens, but also separates citizens from information about our police.

Why isn’t our government providing us with uniform information? Kraska says it is a result of “the nature of military bureaucracy, and increasingly police bureaucracy. The bottom line is it’s one of secrecy.” As police culture transforms into military culture, law enforcement naturally distances itself from the community. The increase in police militarization is inexorably linked with a tightened grip on information about law enforcement practices.

I know I will not stand alone in demanding different treatment by not only those who enforce the law, but also by those who create the law. I demand that this policing style come to end. I demand that the FBI Uniform Crime Reports include information on how many people are killed by our police. I created a petition on WhiteHouse.gov asking the President to request this and filed a Freedom of Information Act request with the FBI. We are all disenfranchised when deprived of information about the enforcement of our laws, so I think we should all demand.

#WeDemand

—

Jake Ephros (@JakeEphros)

Featured image courtesy of [CHPSocialMedia via Wikimedia]