What are your thoughts on “Militarizing the Police?”

Sir,I'd have to respectfully disagree with a few points.
"Yes there are bad apples as in any profession"- While this is true, not many professions are composed of individuals whose job it is to use their discretion in physically subduing someone by force.
"Unfortunately, over-sensationalism and ignorance on the part of civil and community leaders has created this mess."- Rogue cops created this mess. The sensationalism is a response to the public's awareness of it via technology. Cops can't continue to needlessly hurt people and expect that nobody is watching them.
"Higher recruiting standards would require higher pay for police officers."- Small price to pay. How much does a civil suit cost a department? For that matter, what is a life worth?
The hiring standards, for many departments are simply too low. Their training is inefficient. Instead of militarizing the police departments (aside from armored vehicles), it would make more sense to expand SWAT forces, who are highly trained, in comparison.
If we must hand these guys assault weapons, I just don't see how arming the weakest link that a police department has to "offer" is going to solve anything.
Coming from a police and military family, I believe that most officers take their jobs very seriously. Their hearts are in the right place. And even saying that, there are too many videos out there that demonstrate that quite a few abuse their powers. It does need to be addressed. I just don't think it's feasible to arm them without extensive training. But first, weed out the mavericks. Hold them accountable. There's a good 'ol boy system in place way too often.
In the military, they take weapons away from SMs who have mental health issues. We don't see the same standard for police officers. Why in the world would we think that militarizing them even more would help the problem? We have to delve deeper into why this is going on in the first place.

I think the term militarization is being confused with increasing force protection. In the latest events that sparked these discussions, I can't agree that people were needlessly hurt. One was shot because he was trying cause harm to a police officer in the rightful execution of his duties. The other died because he was obese and had a heart attack after being physically over exerted from resisting a lawful effort at an arrest. If militarization was not necessary, even if at least for a show of force then we would never need the National Guard to be employed in a law enforcement capacity. A force less trained and less experienced than a police force. And to address another post further up, it is not illegal or wrong to point a weapon at an unarmed person. Many times in law enforcement you present your weapon at unarmed subject. You never know the intent of a suspect, you never know if he is potentially armed. Despite the belief of many ignorant people in the media, unarmed bad guys can kill someone too. Police officers have a plethora of weapons on their person that can be used against them if an assailant gets the upper hand. They don't have super powers and can't subdue everyone physically. So using deadly force to protect themselves is totally acceptable and justifiable.

Sir, why is acceptable for a police officer to draw a weapon on an unarmed person because they dont know the intent of that person and not for an average citizen? If a PVT in a combat zone can show better application and understand of escalation of force than a police officer, there is something wrong. Im not specifically talking about the two incidents being talked about in the media right now.

1LT Shacklett, I am a military police officer, and I know first hand than unarmed subject does not mean they are harmless. Look at Michael Brown as he was unarmed yet he was uncomplaint, he was a suspect in a robbery (he attacked the store clerk on his way out so its a stong armed robbery), he was over 6ft tall and at least 250 lbs (much larger than Officer Wilson), he failed to obey a police officer during apprehension, he resisted arrest and he attacked a police officer. If he had done this to a civilian who had the proper documentatiion to carry a fire arm, that civilian would be with in his or her rights to defend theirself with deadly force. The media and false statements helped spread the fire about officers being loose pistols shooting anyone they want without going through the proper steps of rules of engagement so to speak. Now, as an MP, we are not trained to draw our fire arms out on an unarmed person because we don't know their intent, and that is not what police do in general. We are trained to draw our fire arms when we believe our life and safety is in danger like clearing building for exanple or when we confirm an incident of imminent danger or when a subject has a presentation of deadly force such as a knife, or a pistol.

I would argue using an "assault rifle" (I use quotes because most of those rifles are Semi only. Cops typically don't issue out select fire weapons to regular patrol officers) is better during crowd control because you have higher control of where the bullet goes as opposed to the a shotgun loaded with buckshot.

Most police grenade launchers are 37mm. The only grenades that are made for those are illum and smoke/gas.....

LTC (Join to see), lets be more particular about our language. An M16 or M4 is (or could be considered) an assault rifle. An AR-15 or the civilian variant is simply a rifle because it has no automatic fire capacity. The SWAT team has what look like grenade launchers, but they don't have HE grenades. I can't speak for all departments, but the department I am affiliated with only uses SWAT for high risk situations and not for directing traffic. All officers have riot gear and that gear looks intimidating too, but it is more like football pads as it is designed to protect from blunt impact, not ballistic impact.

Regardless, what you should find disturbing is that if the police have the military equipment but not the capability, what's to keep them from getting it? In very short order the police could be transformed from their present capabilities into a paramilitary force cracking down on protesters (for example). We must not forget that the police are paid by our taxes and they work for the general public under the authority of those we elect to represent us. WE are not their enemy. We do not need to Federalize the police and they do NOT need military capabilities to do their job. That's why we have a National Guard, commanded at the State level by each State's governor.

LTC Vincent Stoneking,
In the civilian world, if your Police Department is oppressing the population that it serves, then as a citizen you need to address it to the civilian leadership which controls it....they fund it and control it. If that leadership does not change the department's direction, then vote them out off office. Yes, I know that sounds like a simple answer, but complaints go along way, especially if you can document constitutional rights have been violated (civilian police can face criminal charges and civil judgement against them if they knowingly (implies a reasonableness clause of their actions) violated someone's right.)

A quote I like to use is "I was walking around one day and saw something that was wrong, I said 'someone needs to do something about this', then I realized that I was 'Someone'".

Anyhow the relationship the Police should have was summed up by Sir Robert Peel a long time ago:

Sir Robert Peel's Principles of Law Enforcement 1829
1. The basic mission for which police exist is to prevent crime and disorder as an alternative to the repression of crime and disorder by military force and severity of legal punishment.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon public approval of police existence, actions, behavior and the ability of the police to secure and maintain public respect.
3. The police must secure the willing cooperation of the public in voluntary observance of the law to be able to secure and maintain public respect.
4. The degree of cooperation of the public that can be secured diminishes, proportionately, to the necessity for the use of physical force and compulsion in achieving police objectives.
5. The police seek and preserve public favor, not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolutely impartial service to the law, in complete independence of policy, and without regard to the justice or injustice of the substance of individual laws; by ready offering of individual service and friendship to all members of society without regard to their race or social standing, by ready exercise of courtesy and friendly good humor; and by ready offering of individual sacrifice in protecting and preserving life.
6. The police should use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice and warning is found to be insufficient to achieve police objectives; and police should use only the minimum degree of physical force which is necessary on any particular occasion for achieving a police objective.
7. The police at all times should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police are the only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent on every citizen in the intent of the community welfare.
8. The police should always direct their actions toward their functions and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary by avenging individuals or the state, or authoritatively judging guilt or punishing the guilty.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with them.

LTC Paul Heinlein , I totally agree on both fronts.

I am also happy to say that my local police force seems to think that they "serve and protect." Sadly, many do not - the Seattle PD being a prime local case in point. People complained, and it is changing several investigations, lawsuits, DOJ injunctions, etc latter. Unfortunately, it takes a lot of effort (and often funding) to be the "somebody." In the case of the SPD, this effort has been going on at least a decade that I am aware of, likely much longer. This is an inherent weakness in our system - those who focus on managing their own lives routinely find that they are disproportionately impacted with those who spend their time advocating. (This really has nothing specific to do with the policing question, just how our society works in pretty much every niche.)

I am familiar with Peel's Principles. I quite honestly wish that more police departments would internalize them. Especially #2 and 7 (which the militarization directly works against) and #9 (which is where most policing metrics seem to be).

LTC Vincent Stoneking, LTC Paul Heinlein, Gentlemen,

I agree with you 100% The only time the police should roll out in full battle rattle is with a swat team and a situation that where the treat level is high. Example the shooter is using long guns, multiple shooters, hostage situations, hight threat arrest warrant, or god for bid a terrorist attack.