In everyone’s life, there is a
moment when they have an idea and later find out that someone implemented the
idea, generally making a ton of money.
While my particular idea will never make me a bunch of money, anyone
that knows me will tell you I have been saying this for years. The growing problem with police in our
society is based in large part of the militarization of those originally tasked
with the words protect and serve. Those
who were once the Boy Scouts who wanted to help their fellow man have, over the
years, become literally, the jack-booted storm troopers with the us vs them
mentality. The problem is “us” is the
cops and “them” is everyone who isn’t a cop, you and me.
We have gotten far too close to
the losing end of the quote often attributed to Benjamin Franklin, “Those who would give up Essential Liberty
to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” We are in the process of mortgaging our future
rights with the militarization of the police and it needs to stop.
I was reminded of my oft-told
“theory” of the militarization of law enforcement in an article by Wall Street Journal essayist Radley Balko entitled
“Rise of the Warrior Cop.” I will let
you read Mr. Balko’s article and book to speak for themselves, but allow me to add some
personal perspective.
As I have stated previously in
this blog, I was once a cop, so I have some considerable personal knowledge from the
inside looking out. I have also been a
criminal defense investigator, so I have seen things from the outside looking
in, too
I joined law enforcement back
in the days when the pendulum was starting to swing back from the Liberal days
of Justice Earl Warren’s Supreme Court.
Some police departments, in an effort to be more “people friendly” had
actually abandoned the ubiquitous blue uniforms made popular by the LAPD in
favor of blue blazers, white shirts, ties and grey slacks. All you need to do is check out the uniforms
of Menlo Park, CA and Lakewood, CO in the late 1960’s and 70’s for examples. The idea was that we wanted to de-emphasize
the militaristic style of the police in an open and democratic society. Then things began to change…
Lyndon Johnson had figured out
that he could mobilize the population in this country by declaring “war” on
something. He started the “War on
Poverty.” Richard Nixon was politically
astute enough to recognize that this worked and we had more “wars;” the “War on
Drugs” the “War on Pornography,” etc. We
continue the “War on Drugs” (I would argue we have been losing for many years)
and now we have the “War on Terror.” The
result of these domestic and civilian “wars” is militarized law enforcement.
Daryl Gates of the LAPD got the
ball rolling when he started the first “SWAT” Team in 1965. That stands for Special Weapons And Tactics. It began the militarization
of the police in this country. Okay,
maybe Sir Robert Peel, the “Father of Modern Policing” in Great Britain, may
have been the first by declaring that the police had to follow military lines
of authority to be professional in 1829, but Gates is still considered the
“Father of SWAT,” and he clearly started police militarization in uniform
styles and tactics.
In the 1980’s the department for
which I worked, wanting to be just like the big boys, started the “Tactical
Patrol Force” or “TPF” (actually they stole the name an idea from the NYPD). What
distinguished this band from the rest of us “road patrol” guys was more than
just their assignments and schedules.
They dressed different, they were armed different and they had
“tactics.” The TPF wore black t-shirts
with “POLICE” over the words “TACTICAL PATROL FORCE” on the back between the
shoulders. “POLICE” was also printed
across the front of the shirt assuming no self-respecting cop would ever be
running away while being shot at. These
guys wore “Battle Dress Uniform” (BDU) pants, bloused into gleaming combat
boots. Later, in a display of esprit de
corps, they adopted, as a unit, the wearing of military-style, paratrooper,
jump boots, a specific type of combat boot.
The TPF’ers also began to wear their bulletproof vests on the outside of
their clothing. This never made sense to
me as I happen to agree with the logic of one of the body armor manufacturers
of the time; “If they see the vest, they’ll shoot for the head.” Thus, police body armor was designed to be
concealable under a uniform shirt. (Note: I also never saw the logic of putting a
bright, shiny badge over my heart on my uniform shirt so the bad guys had a
target at which to shoot, but hey, that is just me. Gotta look good for that scary shooting
incident, I guess.).
Among other things, the TPF became
responsible for the execution of Search Warrants in the city, and execution is a more accurate term than serving these papers. I remember when the police, armed with a
search warrant, would knock on the door, someone would answer and the police would
say, I have a search warrant and go in to do their business. However, once the TPF started executing
Search Warrants, things changed. It is
important to note that nobody had been hurt or killed prior to this, so there
was seemingly no rationale for it; things just changed and the change was
drastic.
TPF would arrive at the house
to be searched, having held a long-winded briefing session to discuss their “attack.” The overall basis of the briefing was “Officer
Safety.” This is the idea of do what you
gotta do and kill who you gotta kill to go home at the end of the shift. Then they would literally roar up to the
house in their patrol cars, surround the house, generally brandishing assault
weapons and “make entry.” “Making entry”
is a very polite and politically correct way of describing kicking the door off
the hinges while repeatedly screaming “POLICE… SEARCH WARRANT!!!” Anyone and everyone in the residence was
taken to the ground, usually violently as they were deemed to have “not
complied” if they were not face down on the ground in about 5 nanoseconds. The “instructions” given by the TPF at gunpoint
were usually liberally laced with obscenities, and few words were not preceded
by some form of the “F-word; “Get the f**k down.” Put your “f**king hands behind your back”,
etc, etc. Their hands were cuffed behind them and they
were searched. They were then lined up
sitting on the floor or, if they were lucky, on a couch. Keep in mind that a Search Warrant is not an Arrest Warrant.
Now this is interesting. If one of these, I guess, “suspects” asked,
am I under arrest? They would normally
get a response that involved some form of the sentiment, “Shut the f**k
up.” A Search Warrant only authorizes a
search of the premises. If a search of a
person was done for the purposes of “officer safety” (a legitimate concern) and
they had no weapons or contraband, then why were they not released? I cannot answer that question. If contraband, usually drugs, were found in
the house, then, okay, maybe the cops could hold the person for further investigation. If the next-door neighbor just had bad
timing in bringing that peach cobbler over, then the cops could
release them, I suppose, but prior to finding that contraband, why was everyone
under arrest? Again, I don’t know, and I
have always wondered.
The point is that the police were
no longer serving Search Warrants in a civilized society; they were kicking
doors with automatic weapons at the ready, more like an infantry squad clearing
a house in an urban combat environment. They
were dressed like, equipped like, looked like and had the tactics of a combat
unit in a high threat environment. This
gives rise to a shoot first, ask questions later mentality. Don’t believe me; ask a Marine who has been
to Fallujah in Iraq, or New York City Police Officer in the Bronx or an LAPD
Officer in Watts. Compare their
answers. Trust me they all have PTSD,
and come by it honestly.
Now go back to the Search
Warrant “execution” and think about this, all the guys on the TPF or SWAT Team
are wearing ski masks in addition to their BDU’s and military hardware when they
kick in the door. I think the thing that bothers me the most is
the fact that police officers now routinely wear masks to hide their identities
while engaged in their “SWAT” duties.
This would seem to be the ultimate method of making sure there is little
or no accountability for their actions.
How can you make a complaint against an alleged public servant when you
have no idea who he or she is? I
remember when only the bad guys wore ski masks; you know, when they were
robbing the local 7-Eleven. Yes, the
Lone Ranger and Batman wore masks, but these are fictional characters, not real
people engaged in civilian law enforcement activities. I look forward to the argument with the moron
that uses Batman and Robin defense for the rationale for local law enforcement
wearing ski masks. Even the police in the comics viewed Batman and Robin as a scourge
because they were vigilantes. Who needs a mask to fight crime, apparently the police of today.
The rationale we are given is
the potential threat to the police who engage in these “high risk” activities. In reality, it is more a function of the us
vs. them mentality. The police perceive
a threat from the society at large and this paranoia results in the need for
them to hide their identity from that society.
It also allows them to more readily act with impunity. I would suggest that the trade off is not fair
to society. If police are engaged in
activity they are afraid to be identified doing, then they should not be doing
it. The threat to society of masked,
armed, potentially-rogue, law enforcement officers who cannot be held accountable
because we don’t even know who they are, outweighs the potential threat to the
officers because someone can see their faces.
The police in the United States
are not an occupation force on foreign territory. They are a civilian law enforcement agency (I
think even the term “police force” gives the wrong impression. If we want to do what every bureaucracy does
with an agency problem we should change the name of the agency. That fixes things, right?). When you have 20-something kids, fresh out of
a police academy, generally with military combat backgrounds (and yes, that’s
who gets on these units, because they are young, aggressive and want to change
the world), kicking in doors and pointing military hardware at the “enemy,”
more consistent with the 101st Airborne than a police department,
you are asking for trouble. Based on my
reading, there are lots of troubles, and more dead citizens than anyone cares
to admit.
Interestingly, we give the cops
that all important benefit of the doubt.
We uniformly take them at their word and refuse to indict them when they
kill unnecessarily. How can we do
anything else? If we start to hold the
police to the higher standard to which they should be held, and are uniformly
disappointed, how do we feel safe? We
cannot destroy the perception that makes us feel safer, regardless of whether
we actually are safer, or just face a new threat from the police themselves. The very people we expect to protect us. Unfortunately, that perpetuates the behavior.
While I do not think we need to
go to the Brooks Brothers police uniform, can we just take the militarization
of law enforcement down a few notches?
Hell, the police have hard enough time remembering they are there to protect and serve
others when every morning you put on a bulletproof vest and a firearm. I know I was reminded each and every day of
both my own mortality and the fact that there were those in my small world that
would seek to do me harm if I was not careful. There is however a difference
between being careful and dressing like a combat infantryman and taking the offensive in a “War on Crime.” I
believe we have allowed law enforcement to have descended way too far into the
us vs. them mentality and the thinking that everyone
is trying to kill them. I want some
of the Boy Scouts back...please?
