From Fallujah to Ferguson: the Dangerous Militarization of American Policing

© Josh Sager – TheProgressiveCynic.com

All opinions belong to the writer and may not necessarily represent the views of Activate Media as a whole

As virtually everybody who reads the news knows, the shooting of 18-year old Michael Brown by a Ferguson, Missouri police officer has ballooned into an extremely volatile situation—protesters have flooded the streets of Ferguson, while police have armed themselves with weapons fresh off of the Middle Eastern battlefields in Iraq. The militarization of a police force is a multi-faceted process that transforms a civil police force into what amounts to a paramilitary occupying force. In Ferguson, we are currently witnessing the end-state of a militarized police force, treating American citizens as though they were an occupied population being held under martial law in a foreign nation (ex. Iraq).

zx

 

Weapons of War on American Streets

The most obvious sign of police militarization is a repurposing of military guns, armored vehicles, and tactical uniforms for police use. Domestic police start dressing like soldiers, using the weapons of soldiers, and driving the vehicles that soldiers would use in an active military setting. These weapons allow police officers to enforce their will on the population and present an intimidating show of force to deter any dissent (ex. refusing to disperse a protest).

In addition to increasing the capacity of the police to exert force, the distribution of military weapons to domestic police creates the desire to use the new “toys” on the part of police. They have the equipment, are dying to use it (I mean, who has a tank and doesn’t want to drive it), and will pull it out at the earliest provocation, despite the fact that it isn’t the best tool for the job.

In Ferguson, we have seen the deployment of mine-resistant armored vehicles, escorting legions of police officers armed with military assault rifles. These vehicles and munitions were bought, with virtually no effort and at very low cost, through a Department of Defense program that virtually hands out millions of dollars in surplus military ordinance to domestic police forces every year.

zc

If you were to see the MRAP in the previous picture rolling down your street with that escort, you would be entirely justified in assuming that they were soldiers in Baghdad, hunting some dangerous terrorist with the threat of incoming RPGs keeping everybody alert—unfortunately, if you look at the tags on the officers’ flak jackets, you will see that they are simply the new police in the United States.

zv

…these are the MRAPs in Baghdad (specifically Camp Stryker). While the color scheme is different, they are all versions of the same vehicle.

Pro-militarization advocates (who oftentimes are “coincidentally” affiliated with arms manufacturers) argue that the US is dangerous and that our police should have the very best tools to keep themselves safe—this argument, while superficially appealing, is completely false.

As was proven by Captain Ron Johnson, pulling off the armor, and starting to walk with and talk to the protesters honestly was far more effective than presenting them with the threat of force. Tanks, guns, and military body armor enflamed the situation and led to police crackdowns, while getting officers to dialogue with the population had the opposite effect.

Criminalizing Dissent

Militarized police forces often have extreme responses to dissent, both from the population and the media. Their militarization creates a mentality that necessitates control in every situation (as though they were on a battlefield) and sees any dissent as a direct threat to be crushed at any cost—citizens are beaten, arrested, tear gasses, or even fired upon at the slightest provocation, while press agents are harassed and disrupted.

In Ferguson during the last week, we have seen police fire tear gas, bean bag rounds and rubber bullets indiscriminately at protesters while utilizing LRAD sound cannons to disperse protests. While nobody has been killed by these “non-lethal” weapons in these protests, numerous people have been injured or put into immense pain by clouds of irritating chemicals.

In addition to crushing the protesters, the police in Ferguson have made every effort to prevent the media from covering the protests. They have instituted a no fly zone over Ferguson to shut out news choppers, arrested 4 reporters (2 for not leaving a McDonalds fast enough and 2 last night while covering the protests in the streets), and even fired tear gas at an Al Jazeera camera crew.

zb

Put simply, the Ferguson police are demonstrating exactly why our founding fathers wrote the 1st Amendment—they are trying to suppress peaceful redress of grievance against the government and cover up their crimes by bullying the media. Unfortunately, a militarized police force doesn’t prioritize adherence to the Constitution over enforcing quiet over the population, thus police forces like that in Ferguson have regularly abused those who should be protected by the 1st Amendment with impunity (ex. Occupy Wall Street).

Occupation, not Public Service

When a police force is militarized, they prioritize enforcing rigid order over looking after the well-being of the community that they are supposed to protect. This mentality is very similar to that of an occupying army towards the population of a land that they are controlling (ex. the US military in Iraq).

A militarized police force will use military tactics and extreme force to achieve their goals, completely disregarding the long term consequences of their actions on those they police. They react with overwhelming force rather than building ties within the community and finding less damaging ways of achieving the same goals (ex. talking to community leaders to diffuse anti-police actions rather than just gassing and shooting at protesters until they disperse).

In many places, this lack of care for the wellbeing of society is coupled with a disconnect between the group doing the policing and the group being policed—the police live far away from the community that they serve, thus their only connection to the community is their duty to enforce the law. They are, in effect, foreigners maintaining order on a population that they cannot relate to, nor that they are forced to deal with in their personal lives.

The Dangers of Militarization

A militarized police force is a danger to the population that it polices and a serious threat to any free society. Police who are armed with military weapons have the power to cause immense damage and, in many cases, are more likely to resort to violence than if they were less able to exert force. They suppress any who threaten the status quo, oftentimes with violence, and are a legitimate threat to our constitutional rights.

If we continue to let our police get increasingly militarized, we will continue to see crises like the one in Ferguson. Mindless force will be used instead of honest discussion, and the most economically vulnerable of our population will be crushed under the authoritarian heel of a police force that doesn’t empathize with them (even militarized police forced don’t often mess with the rich).

Nobody serious argues that our police should be disarmed—we have nearly as many guns as we do people in the USA—but that doesn’t mean that we go to the other extreme and start handing out tanks willy-nilly.

We have reached the point where it is impossible to tell whether we are looking at a picture of soldiers in Fallujah or police officers in Missouri, and this should be a wake-up call for every American.

No Justice for NYPD Chokehold Victim Eric Garner

© Josh Sager – December 2014 – TheProgressiveCynic.com

All opinions belong to the writer and may not necessarily represent the views of Activate Media as a whole

Apparently, American police officers are now able to kill citizens—particularly young black men—at will, without having to worry about even facing charges.

Yesterday, a New York grand jury refused to indict NYPD officer Daniel Pantoleo for killing New York resident Eric Garner with an illegal chokehold on July 17th, 2014. Garner was selling loose (thus untaxed) cigarettes and had just broken up a fight between two other people, when four officers confronted him and began to forcibly detain him. While the three other officers forced Garner to the ground, officer Pantoleo jumped on his back with a full rear-naked choke, slowly cutting off the blood supply to Garner’s brain and causing his death. The investigating medical examiner ruled his death a homicide.

This entire incident was recorded on video by several passersby, thus there is no controversy over what happened during the arrest:

Choke holds and other restraints that cut of the blood supply to the brain are banned by the NYPD because they have killed numerous suspects in the past (I have practiced Brazilian Jiujutsu for four years and can personally attest to how dangerous these chokes are—you can knock somebody out in seconds and cause permanent damage in just a little longer if you don’t release the choke immediately). Beyond the excessive and negligent type of force used, there was no justification for using any force, as Garner wasn’t presenting a threat to anybody, nor was he assaulting the police; at worst, he was being argumentative and should have been talked down.

In a sane world, this situation would be open and shut: a police officer used a chokehold during an arrest that is illegal because it has a history of killing people; predictably, his illegal use of the chokehold killed the suspect while the man begged for help. We have a very clear video of the event, a ruling of homicide by the medical examiner, and an indisputable violation of police procedure. Getting an indictment for manslaughter, criminally negligent homicide, reckless endangerment, or excessive force through the grand jury should have been so easy that a first-year law student could do it, blindfolded, in about an hour.

Unfortunately, we live in a world where the system is slanted away from justice, just as long as the victim is a member of a disenfranchised class. I don’t think anybody argues that, if the victim in this case where an 18-year old blond girl, Wall Street banker/billionaire, or family member of a politician, the charges wouldn’t have immediately been filed and the officer been put on trial. This is because society sees those groups as insulated against such police violence, thus actually moves to consequence of officers if they attack such people—conversely, it has become commonplace for police to kill unarmed black citizens, thus society doesn’t demand justice as vociferously as it should (it has been desensitized).

While many police apologists will call the Garner killing an isolated incident and the product of poor training, the preponderance of the evidence shows that these killings are epidemic. In 2013, over 1,000 Americans were killed by police officers, almost all of which were deemed “justified” by the police departments and prosecutors involved. Compiling this data is very difficult, as many police departments simply don’t report such killings to the FBI alongside their crime data, thus analysts are often left to sift through media reporting to estimate police killing rates.

Few people realize just how large this problem of police killings is. While some tragedies make the news—like the Brown shooting in Ferguson, or the Rice shooting, where an officer with a history of mental instability essentially did a drive-by on a 12-year old black child holding a toy gun (not hyperbole, watch the video)—most are simply left to local media outlets and are ignored by the national media.

This lack of attention and outrage by many Americans has allowed a terrible situation to fester and we are now seeing the results. Our police have, in many cases, become the murderers who they should be protecting innocent Americans from.

Welcome to Ⓐctivate Magazine

 Ⓐctivate Magazine

Social Justice – Activism – Politics

Activate Magazine Banner

 

 

Why we do what we do: To decrease human suffering and to promote human values of equality and justice.

Activate Magazine is an on-line publication that focuses on Social Justice, Activism and Politics but also features Music Reviews. Some of the work here may come with a defiant sneer and others with brutal cynicism but it all comes with a sense of genuity. Not all the viewpoints or perspectives here represent the values or ideals of Activate Media. That being said we try to be fair in journalistic principles.

Principles of Journalism

Do you like to write about Social Justice and Politics? Join Us!! Send Us a message !