
Walking through the streets of Ferguson, Missouri in early August 2014, a passerby would likely hear “hands up, don’t shoot.” That popular slogan was sparked by the fatal shooting of unarmed black teenager, Michael Brown, at the hands of police officer Darren Wilson on August 9th.  The grand jury’s decision to not press charges against the officer responsible for Brown’s death catalyzed an unrest in the citizens of this middle American city resulting in several massive protests against police violence. Under the circumstances, law enforcement officers took measures to protect the public in combating the uproar of protests. To police these protests, the officers utilized military equipment and tactics to manage the unruly mob. However, many of these tactics are questionable, as they seem too extreme to simply contain or disband a crowd. Hence, a heavily controversial debate has arisen concerning whether local law enforcement should partake in the use of military force against civilians. Though police departments in the United States are, in fact, granted use of unused or surplus military equipment, its presence creates both an intimidating and aggressive atmosphere across the country that is undermining the law enforcement officers’ ability to provide safety and authority to the public. 

The legalization of militarization in police units began when the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997 passed the 1033 Program (Else, 2014). Else declared that the program was not only made to cut cost, but designed for “authority to transfer excess defense material, including small arms and ammunition, from excess DOD [Department of Defense] stocks to law enforcement agencies for use in both counter-narcotic and counter-terrorism activities” (6). That being said, the grant to militarize police was championed by the government to help outgunned police departments gain the necessary firepower to fight against the drug lords and terrorists who had an oppressive control over them, not to combat civilian protests and assemblies. 

In Ferguson, the officers utilized their military force on unlawful demonstrators. The events that occurred display that it is seemingly routine of officers to apply coercion on the public. Due to the Ferguson police’s militarized response, the 1033 Program has been highly criticized since civil police forces use the militarization for their benefit. Agencies have been previously suspended from failure to abide by the rules, thus proving that the rules are not clear and concise (Else, 2014). Without unambiguous guidelines, it appears that police departments have free use of military equipment, making the officers even more powerful.

What the 1033 Program also fails to state is the opportune time to use the high-end equipment, thus allowing for selective allocation in the social control. This results in a controversial debate regarding the appropriate time to deploy the tactics on the public. The law enforcement officers may choose to utilize certain tactics during a non-alarming time. There are no criteria for the usage of the equipment. As a matter of fact, various police agencies get different levels of weaponry. This causes an inconsistency in the standards and procedures of the militarization of police across the country. 

The dispersion of equipment among police departments is not regulated in terms of who gets which equipment, when to use it, and how to use it. Consequently, Johnson and Hansen stated that, “[while] a majority of state and local law enforcement agencies participated in the 1033 Program, a significant number of agencies did not. Acquisition of military surplus weapons, vehicles, and other types of equipment was not the norm. Significant differences were discerned for overall participation and equipment acquisition based on region, agency type, and size” (791). With the 1033 Program being faulty and inconsistent, it establishes an unknown response of police, resulting in public panic which causes law enforcement officers to be rather unproductive.

Although it could possibly pose a threat to those who encounter it, Ferguson Police chose to use tear gas as a deterrent to help control and disperse those individuals rioting against the police brutality. Ironically, the use of this chemical agent is illegal in warfare per the Chemical Weapons Agreement of 1993, but legal in domestic control (McCoy, 2014). Though the fact that the effects of tear gas are supposed to cause harmless short term symptoms, there have been documented occasions where the aerosol bombs have been used incorrectly and have caused a lethal toxic injury due to the exposure of high levels of the chemical agent, 2-chlorobenzalmalononitrile (McCoy, 2014). “The use of tear gas in … situations of civil unrest, however, demonstrates that exposure to the weapon is difficult to control and indiscriminate, and the weapon is often not used correctly” (McCoy, 2014). The power in the militarization of police is due to the access of not only equipment such as assault rifles and grenade launchers, but also potentially lethal weapons. In fact, according to Capehart, “the militarized response to protestors by local police put an exclamation mark on demonstrators’ concerns.” This method of violent restraint must be used appropriately, and if it is not, could impose serious effects. Additionally, the tear gas treats the protestors as a single unit. The few that exhibit threatening behaviors encourage a response from police that could injure innocent, non-violent protestors who are actually obeying the law. Therefore, it is an unfair treatment against many protestors as people have the right to peacefully assemble per the First Amendment. That being said, not all protestors should be punished if only some protestors imposing hostile behavior. It has become a major issue as the public fears the use of this military weaponry. Overall, since the law enforcement officers have access to equipment that can be inhumane, it conveys a frightening climate to the public.

Due to the routine utilization of these tactics, there clearly has been difficulty in identifying the fine line between military force and domestic law enforcement. In regards to Ferguson, following the unrest that sparked the debate about the militarization of police, Kienscherf states, “The Obama administration even ordered a review of the policy to equip local police departments with military-grade gear, such as body armor, assault rifles, armored personnel carriers, etc. In a press statement, President Obama (2014) stressed the significance of a clear distinction between the military and the police: 

Well, I think one of the great things about the United States has been our ability to maintain a distinction between our military and domestic law enforcement. That helps preserve our civil liberties. That helps ensure that the military is accountable to civilian direction. And that has to be preserved” (1180).

Though the President touched on an obvious difference between the military and the local police, the public continues to struggle to see it as black and white. Instead, there is a grey area where they overlap, creating an erosion between soldiers and police officers. As a result, the public becomes rather confused on whether or not civil law enforcers are considered military force. While the military’s duty is based on the use of force, local law enforcement officers try to use as minimal physical force on the public as possible by crime prevention (Bickel, 2013). In fact, law enforcement officers ultimately use the former military equipment for coercion, rather than protection.

Training to become a police officer is a completely different process than training to go into the military. Nevertheless, the police are trained to keep peace, whereas the military are trained in combat. However, military equipment is available to police, but not all police are trained as military personnel. Unfortunately, that does not allow the public to feel safe in the presence of militarized personnel. As a civilian, it is not comforting to know that officers are not as skilled, but are permitted to use equipment that allows them to exert excessive forcefulness. This situation produces an uneasy feeling in society since the local authorities are equipped with military-grade gear without extensive training necessary to employ it. 

With the presence of equipment that is used in war, the streets of Ferguson, Missouri mirrored that of a war zone. In his article, Kienscherf claims that, “In fact, many comment-ers remarked that the images from Ferguson were more reminiscent of a war zone than a small American town” (1180). The heavily equipped officers were viewed as a militarized unit that oppressed the community that it patrolled. A negative perception among communities that leads the public to believe they are in a war zone is that the law enforcement officers are dressed as soldiers in camouflage uniforms with military gear instead of the typical blue or black police officer uniform with a duty belt. Not only did they dress the part, but they use large vehicles and tactics to control a small town of 22,000. This has led people to presume that law enforcement officers have turned into a domestic army. In Lynch’s article, he states that “combat-armored shock troops shoot tear gas into crowds while snipers train high-powered rifles on groups of civilians from atop heavily armored MRAP (Mine Resistant Ambush Protected) assault vehicles rolling through and blocking off city streets like tanks.” With this gear and the officers trolling the streets, Ferguson was easily mistaken as a foreign war torn region. The officers contained the public by pointing rifles at men and women, but it is difficult to win over people while pointing a gun at them. American citizens felt as though they were controlled in their own homes. Additionally, when equipment is used on the protestors, it angers them to the point where they revolt, causing a more dramatic scene. Fear creates a fight or flight response in individuals which can result in uncharacteristic behavior among law-abiding citizens. The mere sight of combat clad officers incites a response that they are, ironically, trying to avoid. 

The current militarization tactics is also damaging the relationship officers have with the public. Rather than the Ferguson officers protecting and serving, it had turned into a battle of law enforcement officers versus the public. It appeared as if the officers were the predators, while the public was its prey. According to Bickel, “stress training in police academies, and its warrior-like orientation that tends to create an “us versus them” mind set in rookie officers, has the potential of creating barriers between the police and the community. Even when community policing is part of a stress academy curriculum, it has been shown that the stress training creates obstacles to the kind of police-citizen relationships necessary to operationalize community policing.” Therefore, two opposing sides are created in the mindsets of both parties. As a result, people lose a sense of trust in the officers. Rather than seeing the officers as protection, the exposure of the inherent brutality from militarization causes the public to perceive them more as a threat. With distrust, citizens fail to look at their authority with high regard and dignity, something that officers must gain to successfully protect the country. Carter and Mamadi cite a survey: “With respect to enforcing the law, about 39 percent and 36 percent of survey respondents indicated having a great deal and a fair amount of conﬁdence, respectively, in local police ofﬁcers doing a good job” (492). The survey further demonstrates Americans’ views regarding police on holding them accountable for cases of misconduct, using the right amount of authority and force, and the equal treatment of racial and ethnic groups. The low percentage represents the public’s confidence in the police. This is problematic when civilians do not feel as if the country’s authority is doing their job righteously. American citizens of recent decades are not accustomed to being controlled by the government. This movement to defy the establishment is in direct contradiction to the response public officials are trained. 

Through the use of military equipment on civilians, the local police have merely assembled into a domestic army. The 1033 Program states that the law enforcement agencies are authorized military equipment, but this unreliable program has many flaws as the agencies have the ability to abuse the power. Not only that, but they are granted use of severely dangerous equipment that could potentially be used improperly. As a result, due to the unclear distinction between military and civil police, a division of police versus society has evolved. The foundation that this country was created to embrace is in jeopardy based on the intense atmosphere that police agencies are unknowingly establishing with their militarized governing. The idea of using surplus militarized equipment to mitigate expenses in the nation’s policing agencies solves a financial problem, but has only created an even larger social climate issue.
