Aidyn K.

Dodds
Dr. Bell
12/8/20
Use of Force
Use of force: Militarization

In our country over the past few decades there has been a huge increase in the

militarization of our police forces. This has been a response to the war on drugs and as arrests

increased, police departments were able to secure more funds from the state. In turn the money

was spent to justify how much was given to the departments, and they end up buying military

grade equipment and firepower to increase arrests and continue this cycle. This is the general

theory regarding the ramp up of militarized police departments, however there are plenty of other

explanations as well that can explain the spending for the equipment. The issue however is how

this militarization relates to use of force. Militarization leads to an increase in the chance of a

deadly force issue occurring when officers are equipped with high-powered weaponry, and

changes how entire departments function. Militarization is the biggest thing that needs to be

changed from “use of force” perspective in police departments. Militarization hurts the

accountability of “use of force” by affecting protests, media portrayal, and lastly how we can

create alternatives to militarization that could help police departments for the better and help in

their use of force programs to create stronger accountability.

The most topical place to start when discussing use of force would be to start at the

protests this summer over the death of George Floyd. In this case George Floyd was subjected to

intense police brutality and died after a cop had placed his knee on the neck of our victim George

Floyd for an extended amount of time. The following outcry at police brutality and use of force

as a whole was extraordinary. There were protests in all 50 states (Kishi, Jones, 2020). However,
some of these protests did turn violent, sometimes instigated by rioter’s other times it was

peaceful protesters who were the subject of intense violence by the police. To start with we need

to look at some of the statistical information we have from the protests this summer. We know

that in the first few days right after it occurred there were over 3,000 protests occurring across

America (Kishi, Jones, 2020). The people have been largely in favor of police reform for many

years but this event is what sealed the fate of no longer lobbying for the change but instead in the

street demanding for the immediate rectifying of American policing. Now how this ties into our

militarization aspect was that these largely peaceful protests were met with an unprecedented

response by police departments around the country. Over 10% of all these protests were met with

some form of government response with police in riot gear and other forms of protester

management (Kishi, Jones, 2020). When something would happen and they would have to get

involved in over 54% of the encounters they had they ended up using force (Kishi, Jones, 2020).

The force used was often times rubber bullets that can break bones, blind and even break skin if

hitting with enough force, pepper spray and worst of all tear gas. Tear gas can kill people. It is a

lethal gas that if inhaled to much can cause failure in the lungs. Tear gas is also banned in

warfare. This means that many a police department were using a substance banned in warfare on

its own citizens to disrupt protests violent but sometimes non-violent. This becomes a huge issue

in use of force. There were many videos that showed peaceful protests getting hit and dispersed

before anything violent ever occurred, what was the criteria for the police when deciding if they

could use force or not? Is it legal to open fire on protesters before something occurs? What about

the appropriate level of force? Tear gas is a volatile substance that in earnest could kill so how is

that ok to use? Non-lethal options are few and far between as we know that a rubber bullet can

still cause massive harm on an individual. On a larger scale we have the policy pushes that not
only change the wording for law enforcement that allows then to arrests individuals but the

changes for their prosecution of them as well. Antifa was a word that was thrown around a lot to

describe the group of rioters who were causing destruction during these protests. Legislation was

passed that put the administrations views on Antifa, declaring them a terrorist group. This is use

of force in a different way. Now the response to these protests could be fully federal and

“actually” militarized. If the government decided to brand you (a peaceful protestor) an Antifa

member then they could detain you and strip you of your rights immediately. The laws governing

the American people do not apply to terrorists who are arrested by America authority’s. Use of

force can be tied directly with not only the militarization and the realization of that fact through

protest response, but also the legislation that it is passed that directly affects police and federal

response to these protests. These two things play indirectly to how departments use force when

dealing with protests. These legislation passages are often times accompany by some sort of

backing from one group or the other. The DOD (Department of Defense) wants to increase profit

by having access to be able to sell to these departments but often it is hurting in their contribution

to use of force. These legislative pushes are also accompanied by a key component of media

portrayal and how the public views the issue the law is trying to fix.

Media portrayal is another aspect of how militarization is affecting use of force. We

know the media influences our perception of crime. We often hear about the worst of the worst

crimes and the event with the most tragedy. As humans we want to know about these situations

and almost like a survival instinct we crave to know about why it occurred to learn about the

situation and avoid it in the future. People love serial killer documentaries and often times its to

learn how that one person could be so depraved to do the actions that they did. Media knows this

and that’s why they report crimes in the fashion that they do, because it brings in viewers and
clicks. The media did the same thing during the protests. When there is a huge number of

extremely peaceful protests the media reverts to just showing the riots. This changes the public

perception and lets militarized police departments act with impunity when deciding what actions

they are going to take on protesters. It normalizes military police. It makes these things become a

normal action when in reality it is breaking the American peoples trust. The police departments

began to receive public backing for their use of force and then it becomes allowed in society. The

counter is that the media also shows the police in a negative light. They capitalize on situations

where they can take the most advantage of people’s interest. When they showcase police

brutality and an officer is covered head to toe in riot gear it paints the police in a bad light. Often

times its after these protests that people begin to bring up the subject of militarized police. The

media also influences by the content they produce. Shows such as Live P.D, Cops, SWAT Texas,

all glorify the militarization of the police force. Historically we can look back to the 1980s where

public perception of crime was at an all-time high and in response a “law and order” response

occurred alongside massive legislation reforms that targeted petty crimes. The media began to

shift blame onto the disenfranchised and poor communities. Three strikes laws sent people to jail

for 30 years for petty theft and most importantly the war on drugs began. The Government has

poured billions of dollars into fighting drug crime and it’s during this time that the militarization

of the police began. With high public support during this time the media portrayed all these

ongoing actions in a positive light highlighting the great work they were doing. The media also

has an adverse effect on police by influencing their views on crimes as well. If police think

violent crime is going to happen then in situations they get involved with while out on patrol

could end up more deadly then they need to be, because a cop is heightened on adrenaline and

scared that you might do something. Matthew D. Hanley in his work said “Extensive media
reporting of violent incidents have an effect on how police officers internalize the threat of

violence. The high rate of exposure to intensely negative incidents makes it easy for police

officers to recall violent encounters. It becomes a powerful determinant for the narratives that

form a police officer’s socially constructed perception of violence” (Hanley, 2015 pg.72). The

media has a big influence on use of force and the perceptions that we have. Militarization and the

media both influence each other in different ways. They are correlated in only the perceptions

that they give to the American populace.

To change perceptions and to influence change you have to change militarized police.

Changing military police won’t only help to change the public perception but also limit the

dangerous amount of use of force situations that one can run across. First the departments must

be separated from the federal government. Under the passing of the 1033 program departments

were then able to purchase military grade weaponry for their precincts. Ending this program

would stop the federal government from being able to sell military grade weaponry to the police.

This would fix the outright issue of supplying police with weaponry that can cause a lot of harm

but what about the militarized tactics that cops still preform. The next step would be legislation

that restricts the cop’s ability to purchase or use the weaponry and tactics. With the federal

government restricted to not being able to sell we would then have police departments not

allowed to buy military grade equipment. This would prevent the use of a third party to obtain

the equipment. With the blocking of any new equipment we then have to prevent access to the

old stuff. Armored cars would not be allowed as they are for one costly to the taxpayer but also

used to fire a multitude of different assailments and other weaponry at the public. Aircraft use of

drones would be banned as not only does that violate the privacy of many Americans but they

can also be used to take surveillance footage of innocent peoples. We also need to restrict the
usage of the high powered weaponry of grenade launchers as they are often used to launch tear

gas. Restricting the usage of camouflage uniforms so police can’t go into the crowd and incite

violence just to be able to arrest a few. The most militarized part of most precincts is going to be

the SWAT team. SWAT teams would not be limited to only responding to the worst of the worst,

life threatening situations and would no longer be a unit to raid family houses for suspected drug

crimes. We would also look for a ban on no-knock raids. These types of raids are what was

responsible for the death of Breonna Taylor. These are conducted by officers breaching a home

first without a knock or any identifying commands before the breach occurs. When this happen

to Breonna Taylor’s home her boyfriend open fired thinking the police to be intruders and when

the police fired back they stuck and killed Breonna who was lying in bed. These types of raids

also sparked massive protests in Louisville and must be at the federal level banned across the

United States. People must be able to know the police are entering their home before it happens.

I would also have a federal committee that oversaw police departments and investigated police

departments for misconduct. They would overlook all the departments and make sure that

discriminatory practices were not taking place there. Changes to how police fire at vehicles

prohibiting it outright would help to curb not only unjust killings but protect innocent bystanders

who have been caught in the crossfire between the police and subjects before. A national

database could also track all police use of force incidents making it so the public can view and

oversee what is occurring in police precincts across the nation. A re-training method that would

focus on looking at officers who receive complaints and also with a prescribed focus on

protecting communities. The public also deserves to be able to view and categorize officer

complaints that occur. These changes would all act to help provide more oversight why also

limiting the power that some police officers have over the public. The public can also overview
the progress being made and ultimately have a stronger perspective towards the police.

(Demilitarization, 2020, some of the policy changes were done in conjunction with the ideals of

“Join Campaign zero”)

Looking at militarization we can see the influence that the protests for George Floyd had

on by bringing this issue to the forefront of police reform. Use of force is increased under a

militarized police force. The media has an influence on the American people’s perceptions and

how they view crime. Not only crime but also how the American people view a militarized

police force. Research showed “For the most part, support for police militarization across all

dimensions were not significantly associated with gender, age, race, education, and income.

However, gun ownership, military service, and police/criminal justice occupation were

significantly related with some measures of support for police militarization. For example, gun

ownership was significantly associated with support for police use of tactical

equipment/vehicles, adoption of a warrior mentality, the use of SWAT teams to conduct no-

knock drug/search warrants, and support for police militarization overall” (Lopez-Cristobal,

2020, pg.99). The biggest influence to how we can curb the militarization of the police force is

by restricting the military grade weaponry these departments can buy and also restricting the

freedoms they have when applying the tactical aspect of militarized police. Overall there is large

evidence that supports if police militarization is declined then overall use of force will be

improved. If this occurs public perception can change and we can begin to implement long term

changes such as community policing. We would have a large switch of public perception and

better relationships between the public and the police.

 Resources
Demilitarization. (n.d.). Retrieved December 09, 2020, from
https://www.joincampaignzero.org/demilitarization
Hanley, M. D. (2015). Killing Barney Fife: law enforcements socially constructed perception of
violence and its influence on police militarization. Naval Postgraduate School Monterey United
States.
Lopez-Cristobal, L. (2020). Public Perceptions of Police Militarization: A Nuanced
Understanding of Public Support for Police Practices.
Kishi, R., & Jones, S. (2020, November 05). Demonstrations & Political Violence in America:
New Data for Summer 2020. Retrieved December 09, 2020, from
https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-
summer-2020/