Clashes between protesters and police in Ferguson, Mo., spurred by the fatal shooting of unarmed black 18-year-old Michael Brown by white police officer Darren Wilson on Aug. 9 have left some wondering if local police departments are becoming too militarized.
Protests in Missouri have gone from peaceful by day to some riots at night with Molotov cocktails thrown and stores looted. Armed officers have responded with tear gas, flash grenades, rubber bullets and armored vehicles as they’ve tried to drive the crowds back.
Although the clashes have slowed since the Missouri National Guard arrived, some feel the police response has been excessive and may have further fueled the tensions in the racially charged situation.
President Barack Obama has called for a re-examination of programs that have helped law enforcement departments obtain military gear.
“There is a big difference between our military and our local law enforcement, and we don’t want those lines blurred,” Obama said to reporters at the White House this week.
U.S. Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Missouri, has also said she will lead a Senate hearing next month regarding the militarization of local police.
But Capt. Sam Hulse with Bonneville County Sheriff’s Office doesn’t think the whole system needs to be re-examined.
“It’s disheartening to me — with society still under pressure from terrorism — that legislative branches would be this quick and this willing to take away the tools that law enforcement needs to do its job,” he said.
Hulse said it’s important not to make broad changes based on one incident, especially since there are decades worth of instances that show why officers need these tools.
He points to the North Hollywood shootout in 1997, when Los Angeles police went up against two bank robbers who had body armor, automatic weapons and armor-piercing bullets. Outgunned, officers had to track down additional weapons to fight back. The bank robbers eventually died, but nearly a dozen officers and several civilians were also injured in the process.
“If you’re coming up against people with rifles, you have to have the ability to have the same firepower to deal with that,” Hulse said, adding that the Second Amendment gives people the right to bear arms. “We support and defend that, but it means the populace is armed.”
Inkom Police Chief Cal Edwards agrees. He’s been in law enforcement for more than 30 years. Although he carried a six-shot revolver for the first two decades, he said officers typically carry semiautomatic handguns and have access to rifles now.
“The bad guys keep up with this stuff. If we don’t, we get killed,” he said. “These are things we use to save lives.”
Several area law enforcement agencies also have armored vehicles now. Hulse said Bonneville County Sheriff’s Office has a Lenco BearCat up armored with rifle-rated steel, which it’s using Homeland Security grant funds to pay for.
They can deploy chemical agents from a position of relative cover and shoot from the vehicle, Hulse said, but only with guns they normally have. The armored vehicle also allows them to drive a bomb squad robot closer to an explosive, he said.
The vehicle essentially just gives them a shield when responding to dangerous situations in which officers and civilians can get hurt.
“All of this equipment buys us time and buys us the ability to save life,” he said, adding that it’s the local law enforcement officers who first respond when someone starts shooting in a school or a theater or sets off a bomb during a marathon.
“Police are the first line of defense in the community,” he said.
Hulse believes they need certain types of equipment to do their job.
“The goal is to save life,” he said, adding that people should want to have equipment that helps officers do that in their communities.
Edwards agrees. His department doesn’t have an armored vehicle of its own, but he’s grateful the Pocatello Police Department, where his son works, does.
“If it saves one officer’s life, it’s worth it,” he said. “I’m for giving police officers the proper equipment to do the job.”
Bingham County Sheriff’s Office has a Humvee from the U.S. Department of Energy, and its special response team can use the vehicle during search and rescue missions and other emergencies.
Bingham County Sheriff Craig Rowland doesn’t believe that having military equipment makes law enforcement militarized, but it does help them to do their job.
“I think that it is good that we can have equipment that the military has and is no longer using,” he said. “If you have a vehicle that is bullet proof and you go into a situation where people are shooting at you, that vehicle can help you greatly.”
Hulse also takes exception to the word “militarized.”
Having gas masks, helmets, plate carriers and riot agents, which they’ve had access to since the Vietnam era, doesn’t make them military, he said.
“The military has tanks with cannons and aircraft that drop bombs and missiles. We don’t have those,” he said, adding that he doesn’t think they are militarized just because they have armored capabilities and can rescue people under fire.
Sen. Roy Lacey, D-Pocatello, recognizes that some people may think the equipment that local law enforcement have is excessive, but he trusts the officers.
“If you talk to the layperson, most feel it’s way more than they need; however, policemen and firemen lay their lives on the line everyday they go out and they’re the best judge to determine what they need,” he said. “I try not to second guess that.”
Lacey said situations can turn dangerous quickly, especially with so many guns being sold to the public right now.
“They’re in more danger than they’ve ever been before. If they feel they need it, I think they should have it,” he said.
Although officers agree that equipment can be misused and no one is perfect at their job, they believe incidents of abuse should be dealt with individually and not as a whole. And all of the facts should be in before any decisions are made.
None of those interviewed wanted to comment on the situation in Ferguson because the facts are still being sorted out, but they’re concerned about the ripple effect that could impact law enforcement in the rest of the country who had nothing to do with the circumstances there.
“It’s scary that a politician could take (our abilities) away based on a limited incident,” Hulse said.
The Associated Press contributed to this story.
(10) comments
Let me first say that I understand Pocatello isn't the biggest city in America but I'd like to see some actual facts of the situation being reported on instead of one-sided bias opinions of people whom frankly don't have the education nor the public interest to make said opinions on a matter such as militarization or even the concept of police stating.
For instance a little journalistic effort would of turned up Radley Balko's paper "Overkill, The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America" which by it's name I'm half-way sure you can piece together where it's going to lead you; now of course I'm not going to dive into the details but I highly recommend all the police officers as well as all the other misguided individuals that support this fallacious idea that we "aren't militarized" to read this and shed a little light upon your dark fearful lives.
Secondly I can't really add any more to the redundancies and hypocrisies pointed out by Theseus or Scott but what I can do is make a brief comment in support of our local police.
This article is riddled with the same idea "save lives" (on the aside I'd like the police to reevaluate themselves and ask "is this what i'm doing every day on the job when most of what I do is deal with petty traffic violations like unregistered cars?"). But back to saving lives; lets consider the only two societal pressures given are terrorism and guns, now if we think a little harder are those really our two major concerns? Seeing how most people with guns aren't creating terroristic situations I think that answer is undoubtably a NO. Above all our concerns are with a healthy economy and with education, for obvious reasons in a failing economy people resort to crime to make a living so if you truly cared about saving lives instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on military equipment because of the ridiculously high budgets police departments have been receiving from DoD & DHS I say they should focus more their efforts on devising some sort of local economic stimulus within the community, this will result in a twofold benefit: first it will bring a community of segregated citizens together to actually address a very hard-felt pressure in this area and second it would relieve a lot of that tension and stress which causes the unsafe situations we're so desperately in support of avoiding. Tied into the whole economic side of things comes the education; it's important to note that the way police are organized is to respond to problems after-the-fact, we don't live in Minority Report, so the only true way to save lives, if that's the main goal, is to have an educated population. Clearly most the people in this rural area are gun educated whom have guns, those that don't either trust their fellow neighbor or they're living in fear, and just like a cornered animal when scared those are the ones that lash out mindlessly and should be the main focus of gun education because they not only don't understand their constitutional rights but also don't know how to handle themselves around peaceful people that open carry. Secondly with education, since this whole article basically points to distrust between citizens and police the police should probably make an effort of showing their good intentions by not literally buying into the whole "we're going to erupt in chaos rioting" and think a little more highly of the people. Actions speak louder then words so since a well educated person in civilian duties is a cops only beneficial resource (see how I didn't resort to fear rhetoric) they should work on showing people how these duties should be upheld (once again this is outside of police 'expertise' so yes outside people, probably some law or philosophy professors from ISU, would be the ones to do this) and that they actually trust their fellow man and don't just look at us like pions that are just born to follow police commands. So instead of making demands at people like their sheep or cattle try treating them like human beings and open up a TWO-WAY communication and I'm almost positive it would take you further toward saving lives then just buying a lot of ex-military equipment, heck it would probably even open doorways to sell that unnecessary equipment back.
Lastly this is a public concern but why don't the citizens of Pocatello have any say on how all this funding gets spent? Last I check the police department was part of this city (not above it) so shouldn't there be some public voting or at least open debate as to what the city needs? (This is part of that communication I was talking about above)
Let me first say that I understand Pocatello isn't the biggest city in America but I'd like to see some actual facts of the situation being reported on instead of one-sided bias opinions of people whom frankly don't have the education nor the public interest to make said opinions on a matter such as militarization or even the concept of police stating.
For instance a little journalistic effort would of turned up Radley Balko's paper "Overkill, The Rise of Paramilitary Police Raids in America" which by it's name I'm half-way sure you can piece together where it's going to lead you; now of course I'm not going to dive into the details but I highly recommend all the police officers as well as all the other misguided individuals that support this fallacious idea that we "aren't militarized" to read this and shed a little light upon your dark fearful lives.
Secondly I can't really add any more to the redundancies and hypocrisies pointed out by Theseus or Scott but what I can do is make a brief comment in support of our local police.
This article is riddled with the same idea "save lives" (on the aside I'd like the police to reevaluate themselves and ask "is this what i'm doing every day on the job when most of what I do is deal with petty traffic violations like unregistered cars?"). But back to saving lives; lets consider the only two societal pressures given are terrorism and guns, now if we think a little harder are those really our two major concerns? Seeing how most people with guns aren't creating terroristic situations I think that answer is undoubtably a NO. Above all our concerns are with a healthy economy and with education, for obvious reasons in a failing economy people resort to crime to make a living so if you truly cared about saving lives instead of spending hundreds of thousands of dollars on military equipment because of the ridiculously high budgets police departments have been receiving from DoD & DHS I say they should focus more their efforts on devising some sort of local economic stimulus within the community, this will result in a twofold benefit: first it will bring a community of segregated citizens together to actually address a very hard-felt pressure in this area and second it would relieve a lot of that tension and stress which causes the unsafe situations we're so desperately in support of avoiding. Tied into the whole economic side of things comes the education; it's important to note that the way police are organized is to respond to problems after-the-fact, we don't live in Minority Report, so the only true way to save lives, if that's the main goal, is to have an educated population. Clearly most the people in this rural area are gun educated whom have guns, those that don't either trust their fellow neighbor or they're living in fear, and just like a cornered animal when scared those are the ones that lash out mindlessly and should be the main focus of gun education because they not only don't understand their constitutional rights but also don't know how to handle themselves around peaceful people that open carry. Secondly with education, since this whole article basically points to distrust between citizens and police the police should probably make an effort of showing their good intentions by not literally buying into the whole "we're going to erupt in chaos rioting" and think a little more highly of the people. Actions speak louder then words so since a well educated person in civilian duties is a cops only beneficial resource (see how I didn't resort to fear rhetoric) they should work on showing people how these duties should be upheld (once again this is outside of police 'expertise' so yes outside people, probably some law or philosophy professors from ISU, would be the ones to do this) and that they actually trust their fellow man and don't just look at us like pions that are just born to follow police commands. So instead of making demands at people like their sheep or cattle try treating them like human beings and open up a TWO-WAY communication and I'm almost positive it would take you further toward saving lives then just buying a lot of ex-military equipment, heck it would probably even open doorways to sell that unnecessary equipment back.
Lastly this is a public concern but why don't the citizens of Pocatello have any say on how all this funding gets spent? Last I check the police department was part of this city (not above it) so shouldn't there be some public voting or at least open debate as to what the city needs? (This is part of that communication I was talking about above)
Years ago police/fire referred to people of the community as citizens. Today we are referred to as civillans as in the military. Getting closer to a police state.
I for one am glad that Sheriff Nielsen was not included in this article. Let me first say Nielsen was the first to allow his officers to blouse their duty uniforms like the military instead of wearing the traditional uniform trouser. Recently a purchase was made of a very expensive personnel carrier. I would like the Journal to determine the actual number of callouts where the vehicle is used over a years period of time and then calculate the cost each month just for possessing the unit, not to mention gas, upkeep etc.
Funny that Sam Hulse was used in this article. If you recall Hulse was the one who gave the order to shoot the unarmed Rindfliesch during the course of a pursuit that was stopped in the middle of the road.
While I might not agree with several of the comments posted, as a tax payer I find it disturbing that we purchase or obtain items that will only be used very infrequently.
The article mentions about grants from Homeland Security. What the public forgets to understand that means that your tax dollars not not be used from local coffers, instead it's your Federal tax dollars that are being used. There are already too many abuses in the system and Taxes need to be cut, not increased so some 5 or 6 man department will obtain something that they could not afford, let alone ever need.
Lets talk about an armor personnel carrier given to the Preston Police Department. How many barricade incidents does Preston get in a year. Probably less than 1. Instead you have a 300 to 400,000 dollar rig that would be better suited for the border patrol in Texas or Arizona.
One major problem that we have is the media does not dig into the reasoning when they do an article like this. In the past many law enforcement officers only needed semi auto weapons. Now most have fully auto from surplus which means if you encounter another incident like Hulse, it might not be 5 or 6 shots, it will be fully automatic.
The reality is they need good vests, good equipment, but when they continue to get MRAPs when there is no justified use, does that mean that an Abrams M1 will be the next item patrolling your streets to keep Law Enforcement safe? Common Sense!
Scott and Theseus...............
Nicely written posts, thank you.
I don't have much to add but i agree with what you both have stated. Something i think is quite obvious, is that those in charge DO NOT CARE what the public think............... for proof look at the poll on this very page. 90% have voted NO............ they DON'T CARE
If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck. Police departments across the nation are receiving military grade weapons, military grade armor, and military grade vehicles, FROM the military itself. When asked why the police force needs multiple bear-cats, their response is that they're I.E.D. protection. I.E.D'S in Idaho? Across American? Clearly police training today is disillusioned. If cops don't believe that that equates to militarization, they're either liars, or incompetently obtuse. My bet is on liar. In the minds of officers, fellow officers can do no wrong. Every decision they make is a "hard decision on a dangerous job". When they taze a person, they probably "saved their life". And when they're given military equipment from the military, it's not militarization, it's "helping save lives". To be sure, when an officer talks about the importance of saving lives, the lives they're talking about are those behind a badge, not the general populace. The character of a person, or in this case group, is determined by their actions, not their public relations rhetoric. I don't know if the belief that driving a military vehicle with military weapons isn't militarization qualifies as stupidity, but it can't be called intelligent. Then we have to listen to the regurgitated "post 9/11 terrorist" shpill ad nausea to justify every violent and absent minded action they take. I'm glad that Capt. Sam is "disheartened". How do you think people feel when they get pulled over for some traffic infraction while the officer has his hand on his gun, in case you're some "terrorist"? Unfortunately for these uneducated sycophants they don't seem to be aware that the National Safety Council, in cooperation with the National Health Association, has determined through death records that American's today are 8x more likely to be killed by an officer than a terrorist. There is real divide between police officers and civilians, and it's the fault of officers who possess the thinking in this article. Comments like "terrorists are around today", or "criminals are keeping up with this" (citing an extremely rare event that occurred in highly populated L.A. nearly two decades ago as justification) is the height of propaganda. There hasn't been a terror attack or even a threat of attack on domestic soil in over a decade. Criminals aren't likely to have body armor and bomb proof vehicles. So, to be sure, the police force IS militarizing itself, across the country, and it should be no surprise that the police force itself promotes the activity and wants to diminish its significance to make us all accept that it's for our own good. It's textbook sophistry of a growing fascist mentality.
"Bingham County Sheriff Craig Rowland doesn’t believe that having military equipment makes law enforcement militarized, but it does help them to do their job"
WHAT! /facepalm. And what exactly do you need a armoured car for, believe he said so they can get closer to explosives or deploy tear gas or shots from a secure location. Because there is SOOO much need for that in our area.
This entire article is absurd and I wish I had more time to take it apart piece by piece, this is your local police departments justifying their toys in the local media to make YOU the reader persuaded to let them keep them.
My favorite part. Ok, just read carefully here.
"Hulse said it’s important not to make broad changes based on ONE INCIDENT, especially since there are decades worth of instances that show why officers need these tools.
He points to the North Hollywood shootout (ONE INCIDENT) in 1997, when Los Angeles police went up against two bank robbers who had body armor, automatic weapons and armor-piercing bullets. Outgunned, officers had to track down additional weapons to fight back. The bank robbers eventually died, but nearly a dozen officers and several civilians were also injured in the process."
Anyone else see the Irony in this statement?
We haven't seen an incident like that since! And that's what our SWAT teams are for! Though they seemed to be used for serving search warrants for drugs (mainly pot), where that should be a normal officers job, and they really don't need full body Armour to serve a search warrant. Granted there can be an unknown risk, but they already wear vests and have a plethora of weapons and training to help them deal with said risks.
Our police are in most cases in this country BETTER equipped than our military anymore. He talks about them having tanks and planes, THAT IS NOT WHAT WE ARE TALKING ABOUT! We are talking about what the ground unit is equipped with.
You have flak vests, fully automatic rifles with all the bells and whistles, night vision, tear gas, stun grenades, riot shields, state of the art gas masks, face shields, FULL body armor including, knee pads, elbow pads, shoulder pads, neck protectors, groin protection, shin protection and combat boots.
ALL laced with kevlar. And you come in Platoon sized numbers!
Our Troops get a pair of BDU's a cheap gas mask, a bare bones rifle, couple grenades, and supplies for traveling and treating wounds. The troops that get all the extras are your Special Forces teams on extremely high risk missions where they WILL be facing gunfire.
There is absolutely no need for our police officers to have all this gear other than to strike fear into the hearts of the citizens and escalate the violence. Proper training is what they need and in the deescalation of violence and social empathy.
There has been a couple recent shootings of Dogs in the surrounding area that show that lack of empathy.
Our area is not as bad as some when it comes to this, nor is our crime. Sure we have a bad meth problem and that leads to some crazy incidents. None of them require an MRAP as that is a Warzone ready vehicle designed for safely transporting and patrolling troops to be protected from road side bombs...
They use "potential terrorist threats" as justification, I say what terrorists? Point me to a Terrorist in Pocatello, and I'll tell you to tazer him and call in the FBI.
I will second the notion here
"When you can't tell the difference between an American street and downtown Baghdad, some re-thinking is past due."
Even the military thinks that officers don't need this equipment and are not properly trained to use them. I"d go into that and supply some links but I've run out of time.
I would love to have a heart heart with these officers, and am contemplating sending in a full response to the Journal.
You pretty much said it all.
Please do send a full response to the journal. I am going to do the same. They need to print the counter argument from someone who doesn't have a bias interest in their own position. I'm with ya. Also, yours was a good and lucid post, and I'm glad you pointed out the fallacies that others are also recognizing.
To a man with a hammer, all problems look like nails ... or, so the old saying goes.
Until recently, we have lived fairly well with three distinct tiers of protection: Our local/state Police, the National Guard and the U.S. Military. In those rare instances when violence and mayhem have escalated, our elected officials have always been able to up the ante by calling in the next highest level of protection.
I'm all for giving the police, the National Guard and the U.S. Armed Forces everything they need to stay safe and do their jobs. However, then the local police arrive in an MRAP instead of a patrol car, M-16s locked and loaded, I'm not sure which side is contributing the most to the much-feared "escalation of violence."
When you can't tell the difference between an American street and downtown Baghdad, some re-thinking is past due.
Welcome to the discussion.
Log In