Militarization of the Police (Updated and bumped)

There have been a lot of police departments, large and small, all across the nation loading up on military equipment, including MRAPs. A friend pointed me to this op-ed in the Idaho Statesman where the Boise City Chief of Police, Mike Masterson, responds to criticism of his department obtaining an MRAP. What is concerning is his anti-Second Amendment views and unrealistic expectations of what police face. After spending a couple paragraphs on the importance of protecting civil liberties, he writes:

Unfortunately, we live in an increasingly violent society. Boise hasn’t made national news for murder and mayhem, but we’ve had our stories, too. Just because we’ve avoided major headlines doesn’t mean we don’t see issues on the horizon that could affect our safety. Why is it that our laws don’t keep deadly weapons (guns and cars) out of the hands of the mentally ill or those who intend to harm our government and its most visible forms of authority? Why is it that guns made exclusively for the military are available in society for general use? When society addresses these issues and others equally important to public safety, there won’t be a need for police departments to acquire surplus armored vehicles.

Almost everything he says is incorrect. We do not live in an increasingly violent society--unless he is suggesting that the FBI has been lying to us, violent crime rates have fallen sharply over the past 20 years nationwide.

We have laws keeping the insane from obtaining firearms. Because "mentally ill" is such a broad and loose term, it is a dangerous road to go down to prevent anyone with a "mental illness" from possessing firearms. How many police officers suffer from depression or anxiety?

"Why is it that guns made exclusively for military are available in society for general use?" Besides being self-contradictory, I would like to know what he believes are military weapons being made available for public use. I think I know the answer to that, which are weapons based on the AR or AK platforms. However, the military versions of those weapons are banned from general use. All he is saying here is that Idahoans need more gun control.

What other issues of equal importance to public safety does he think justify having an MRAP? How can we have a discussion concerning these issues if he won't even reveal his concerns?

In the end, here is what we have: the department obtained a vehicle designed for military use and intended to protect soldiers from land mines and small anti-tank weapons such as the RPG. I challenge the Boise Police Chief to point to a single case of police officers in Idaho being attacked with land mines and RPGs. If he can, then perhaps there is an argument justifying such a vehicle. If not, then he is hiding his officer's desire to "play soldier" behind empty rhetoric.

Update (11/22/2013): From the Belgrade News, an op-ed by John Whitehead:

Why are police departments across the country acquiring heavy-duty military equipment and weaponry? For the same reason that perfectly good roads get repaved, perfectly good equipment gets retired and replaced, and perfectly good employees spend their days twiddling their thumbs—and all of it at taxpayer expense. It’s called make-work programs, except in this case, instead of unnecessary busy work to keep people employed, communities across America are finding themselves “gifted” with drones, tanks, grenade launchers and other military equipment better suited to the battlefield. And as I document in my book, A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, it’s all being done through federal programs that allow the military to “gift” battlefield-appropriate weapons, vehicles and equipment to domestic police departments across the country.


It’s a Trojan Horse, of course, one that is sold to communities as a benefit, all the while the real purpose is to keep the defense industry churning out profits, bring police departments in line with the military, and establish a standing army. As journalists Andrew Becker and G. W. Schulz report in their insightful piece, “Local Cops Ready for War With Homeland Security-Funded Military Weapons,” federal grants provided by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) have “transformed local police departments into small, army-like forces, and put intimidating equipment into the hands of civilian officers. And that is raising questions about whether the strategy has gone too far, creating a culture and capability that jeopardizes public safety and civil rights while creating an expensive false sense of security.” ....

Whitehead notes that the practice is not only an incredible waste of money, but dangerous as well:

[T]his equipping of police with military-grade equipment and weapons also gives rise to a dangerous mindset in which police feel compelled to put their newly high-power toys and weapons to use. The results are deadly, as can be seen in the growing numbers of unarmed civilians shot by police during relatively routine encounters and in the use of SWAT teams to carry out relatively routine tasks. For example, a team of police in Austin, Texas broke into a home in order to search for a stolen koi fish. In Florida, over 50 barbershops were raided by police donning masks and guns in order to enforce barber licensing laws. 

Thus, while recycling unused military equipment might sound thrifty and practical, the ramifications are proving to be far more dangerous and deadly. This is what happens when you have police not only acquiring the gear of American soldiers, but also the mindset of an army occupying hostile territory. In this way, the American citizen is no longer seen as an employer or master to be served by public servants like police officers. With police playing the part of soldiers on the battlefield and the American citizen left to play the part of an enemy combatant, it’s a pretty safe bet that this particular exercise in the absurd will not have a happy ending.