How did we get to the modern militarized police?

As somebody who has worked in law enforcement, civilian and military, for 30 plus years now, the change has been a gradual evolution that parallels an escalation of violence in society from the criminal element. My personal observation is that violent assaults against police officers; complexity of defenses established at drug houses; enhanced access to military grade weapons by criminals (generally stolen from legal owners or imported from outside the country), and the rise of both foreign and domestic terrorism has led to the need for a more robust police response. Law enforcement reacts to the threat in society, not creates it.

As somebody who has responded to more than my fair share of violent events (the most recent being last month - a drive by shooting involving drug dealers using SKS rifles - a total of two police officers in our little drug infested town along with three sheriff's deputies against two rival drug gangs); made 12 trips to emergency room for injuries sustained in the line of duty; and witnessed an increasingly violent criminal element arise in our country, the M4 in the front seat of my cruiser isn't militarization. It's a survival tool.

It's nice to think that Officer Friendly can walk along calling everybody on their beat by name, and that all disputes will be settled with a kind word; but the world doesn't work that way anymore. I liked it much more when as a rookie cop walking my little corner of the world everybody offered a kind word in return, but the world has changed in the last 30 years (and not for the better). I, and those like me, are increasingly the target of criminal aggression. There was a time when people would kill you to escape custody; now they will kill you just because you're a cop.

I would offer that while there are clearly misapplications of equipment and technique, the vast majority of law enforcement people are genuinely committed professionals just trying to do a good job. Unfortunately the one bad apple who finds his/her way to CNN makes us all look like cowboys. And to the uninformed and those not thoroughly educated about the dangerous realities of doing the job, it all looks like overkill.

And finally, the public has always wanted the police out of sight and out of mind until something really bad happens. Then there aren't enough of us and we didn't get three fast enough. Sounds jaded I'm sure, but maybe when society stops making war on its police, the police will be able to step back from the more robust posture required just to survive these days.

I don't blame them. The proliferation of assault weapons in our country has forced the police to respond in kind. It does no good to have to have a police force armed with six shooters when the average gang banger has an AK 47...

Offense and defense, an arms race as old as time...

The worse the criminals get, the more tools, tactics and training the police need in an effort to deter them, plain and simple. "Sir I've asked you 3 times now, NICELY, to put down the AK-47 with drum mag. I'm going to have to resort to harsh language next until you comply. Something out of the movie, "Demolition Man" might also be appropriate here, "Be Well them for me..."

Let us weigh the options, shall we? We have criminals that are increasingly better armed because they use illegal means to obtain more powerful weapons.

Do we:

A) "Militarize" our police forces so that they can properly protect their given jurisdictions as they've all sworn to do?

B) Create a rotation of emergency response National Guard units to respond to highly armed threats?

C) Use the Active Duty military as a Special Response Force for highly armed threats?

D) Do nothing and let all the criminals bend us over and give us the business?

Bear in mind, creating new laws to limit or completely ban the types of weapons that civilians can own don't prevent criminals from owning anything. If they want it, they'll get it.

I don't like seeing police dressed up to look like soldiers on deployment, however until we end the whole "war on drugs," I don't see how we can scale this militarization back.

Maybe because of threats like these? My opinion, allow the Police to decide and defend their requirements, based on the threats they believe may effect their jurisdiction. Military equipment within reason should not be banned through broad based policy.

http://video.foxnews.com/v/ [login to see] 001/police-pull-body-from-suspects-vehicle-in-san-bernardino/?intcmp=hpbt1&playlist_id=trending#sp=show-clips

Personally, I am strongly of the opinion that it is largely due to the War on Drugs, and the related Nanny State. Banning something does not magically remove demand, it simply moves the market underground. Without the eradication of demand (effectively impossible, you can't control someone's desires), more pressure on the market will result in the market returning that pressure. The result is basically an arms race, as the gov't attempts to destroy the market and the market attempts to defend itself.

Given that no one has a right to control what another adult puts in their own body, I find the War on Drugs and the resulting militarization of the police particularly appalling. So many violent gangs, cartels, and the like, have arisen with big gov't's creation of a black market. This has affected not just individual police officers, who now must place themselves in greater danger to enforce irrational policy, but the citizens of various nations who share environments with such violent gangs. The War on Drugs only empowers thugs, thus giving gov't illusory reason to empower itself in kind.

Police forces have had armored vehicles for dozens of years,
I do not see why people are freaking out about this.