The Daily Gamecock

Column: Police do not need military weapons

If you’ve tuned into the news at all over the past several weeks you’ve already heard about the police shooting of Michael Brown, an African-American teen who many witnesses said was completely unarmed and submissive to police commands at the time.

The shooting has sparked protests (or riots, depending on which station you prefer) about racism and its relationship to police violence. Local police have responded to protests against their unnecessary use of force by using even more force against the protesters and arresting journalists who record these incidents.

To call these officers “police” is a bit of an understatement. Thanks to a program originally enacted under the Clinton administration and strengthened post 9/11, called “1033,” law enforcement across the country has been receiving decommissioned weapons from the military.

I’m not just talking about pistols and ammo, or even M4 assault rifles; I’m talking about grenade launchers, helicopters and MRAPs (or Mine Resistant Armored Personnel carriers, which the lay person could hardly be blamed for mislabeling as tanks).

Take a look at the news coverage of Ferguson and see if you can find any difference between the police and the extras in “Black Hawk Down,” then remember that the police wherever you call home look just as much like soldiers.

(Fun fact: Columbia’s MRAP is bright blue and sports a .50 cal machine gun turret — the kind they use against armored vehicles and aircraft.)

Don’t get me wrong, I’m all for officer safety. The men in blue make great sacrifices to keep us safe, and we should take every reasonable precaution to keep them out of harm’s way, as well. All of this military equipment would absolutely make sense to give to police if America’s streets were even a fraction as dangerous as the war torn streets this kind of equipment is made for.

But they’re not. In fact, thanks in part to dramatic decreases in crime rates beginning in the ‘80s and continuing through today, police are in less danger now than they were at any time in the 20th century.

From the very beginning, we as a nation drew a bright line between domestic peacekeepers and soldiers. Police are supposed to protect citizens from violence by enforcing the rule of law. Soldiers are supposed to wage war by forcing the enemies of our nation into submission.

Historically, these distinct groups have had different goals, and as such, they have always been trained and equipped differently. As American police officers increasingly transition into soldiers, we are left with a bit of a quandary. Soldiers, by definition, fight against an enemy.

If I can think of no enemy here on American soil, does that mean the enemy is me?


Comments