The ‘Militarization’ of the Police?

Outrage In Missouri Town After Police Shooting Of 18-Yr-Old ManMaking the rounds through libertarian (and other) circles in the wake of the police shooting death of Michael Brown is the notion that the “militarization” of local police forces is a huge problem besetting the country.

Though I self-identify as a conservative, I have a considerable affection for libertarianism. In fact, it is precisely because of this fondness that I am compelled to put out to pasture all of this “militarization” talk.

(1)The mere possession of weaponry of a kind on the part of police is no more objectionable—no more a justification for the charge of “militarization”—than is the mere existence of guns or SUV’s objectionable.

For starters, it is unclear as to what libertarians even mean in claiming that the police are “militarized.” From what I can gather—sorry, but no self-avowed libertarian writer who I have yet encountered is clear on this—it is the fact that today’s police forces are equipped with weaponry of a technologically sophisticated sort, the sort with which our soldiers are armed when confronting enemies overseas, that warrants the charge of “militarization.”

How the mere possession of things is a cause of alarm for, of all people, the libertarian, is beyond me. In personifying inanimate objects he comes perilously close to sounding like just those enemies of liberty against whom he’s tirelessly railing, those who would personify guns, wealth, and, say, SUV’s.

Moreover, libertarians are the first to champion the (law-abiding, adult) citizen’s constitutional, even “inalienable,” right to bear virtually whatever arms he prefers. How, we must ask, does it turn out to be permissible—not “militarized”—for the janitor next door to possess a machine gun, but somehow impermissible—“militarized”—for the police to do the same?

(2) The distribution of arms among the police, on the one hand, and the citizenry, on the other, utterly fails to establish that the police, or anyone, haven’t a right to arm themselves like Rambo—i.e. it fails to supply a single warrant for the charge of “militarization.”

If the libertarian insists that it isn’t the possession by police of weaponry as such to which he objects, but the fact that, as things currently stand, the police have access to these weapons to which other citizens are denied, then it is the distribution of this access, and not the access itself, that has him upset.

But if this is the case, then the proper complaint is not, “The police are ‘militarized’!” The proper complaint is that, “We should be allowed to be ‘militarized’ too,” or something like this.

In other words, the charge of “militarization” makes no sense here.

(3) The concept of “militarization” encompasses the concepts of collective purpose and coercion.

Government, by definition, has a monopoly on force. Yet, theoretically, the libertarian, unlike the anarchist, has no objections to this: the libertarian recognizes the authority of government to both enact and enforce laws. Since police officers are government agents, the libertarian affirms their authority to deploy the power at their disposal to coerce citizens into abiding by the laws that police are committed to safeguarding.

So, the sheer fact that police are endowed with the power to coerce prospective and actual violators of the law can’t be something with which the libertarian has a problem, for he has no problem with government per se.

In other words, that police are using force to maintain law and order—precisely what police have always done and what they’ve always been meant to do—can’t be the spring of the libertarian’s howls of “militarization.”

Only if government agents—whether police or otherwise—are coercing citizens in the service of fulfilling some grand collective purpose will the charge of “militarization” apply. Coercion, in and of itself, is insufficient to constitute “militarization.”

But this, in turn, means that the actual weaponry with which the police (or any other agent of the government) are endowed is irrelevant to determining whether the police, or any other agent of government, are “militarized.” If police were armed only with clubs, but used these clubs in order to insure that citizens were exercising three days a week for the purpose of producing “The Physically Fit Society,” say, then this would indeed show that the police had a “militarized” set of mind. Conversely, if the police are armed to the teeth with the stuff of soldiers but used their arms only to insure that the rule of law was preserved, to protect the life, limb, and property of citizens from those—like the rioters in Ferguson—who are intent upon undermining civilization, this would fail to establish that they are “militarized.”

(4) Police brutality, dereliction of duty, abuse of power and the like are issues that should count for much for all decent people, especially the libertarian. But none of these things are necessarily a function of “militarization,” much less equivalent to it.

That there are police officers that abuse their authority and power is not only an empirically verified fact; it is a no-brainer to the lover of liberty who knows, along with Lord Acton, that while “absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely,” even a limited degree of “power tends to corrupt.”

But when police do violate their oath to serve and protect, then we can and should call out their violations for what they are. Conflating or obscuring issues with bumper-sticker friendly misnomers like “militarization” is counterproductive.

Freedom Center pamphlets now available on Kindle: Click here.  

Subscribe to Frontpage’s TV show, The Glazov Gang, and LIKE it on Facebook.

  • Roha Waha

    I have served in the Military , I have fired shots in anger and for survival.
    It actually wounds your own soul to kill another man if you are a man of belief in God, regardless of how justified. I am a Christian of 90% Irish heritage
    Before joining the Marines in 1975, I worked in a Library, one day I stumbled on a section of books on the Jewish Holocaust, I was shocked and amazed at the number of books in that section, well over 200 books many were first hand accounts of day to day suffering and brutal murders that have haunted me since.
    The sickening photo evidence, that the atrocity was in the millions could not be disputed, I too pledged Never Again, for the Jewish or any other people and I joined the Marines. If I have learned anything in my 57 year’s it is that man is an aggressive and efficient killer and my best hope at living in peace is to be better
    armed and resolute in my protecting innocent life.
    Three men with knifes and a musket do not attack a family who’s leader is holding a high capacity rifle. You are responsible for this generation and unto your grand children, teach them first God’s word and their responsibility to protect their family’s and the innocent of the world and ARM THEM. Or , as history documents over and over
    the unarmed and unprepared ” like the Yazidi’s ” will be stripped and marched to the ditches to be exterminated.

    Gunny Roha USMC 1975-1997 retired
    P.S. There are very few book’s on the Holocaust in library’s now, what happened to them all.

    • JB Ziggy Zoggy

      CAIR and Obama probably had the Holocaust histories replaced with korans.

  • happytrails5

    And whenever I come in contact with LE I am treated with respect and courtesy. Could it possibly be YOU?

    • john rowlinson

      It is easy to blame me but I was an officer for 5 years. How about this? As public servants, why can’t we expect officers to treat everyone equally?

      • keyesforpres

        Because not everyone treats police officers equally.

        • JB Ziggy Zoggy

          So that excuses the abuse of authority by many police? And where is this wave of abuse against police taking place? TV shows? Cartoons? Treating police poorly will get you arrested.

    • JB Ziggy Zoggy

      Are you a super model? Because I figure they’re the only Americans who aren’t automatically treated like “perps” by our adversarial law enforcement personnel.

      Rowlinson’s experience is not unusual. I cant say that ALL my encounters with cops have been abusive but the majority of them definitely were – and like him, I’m not a criminal. To add insult to injury, most cops are uneducated and just plain stupid. I once knew a guy who was a retired Texas Ranger. He told me that the only people more crooked than the crooks were the cops. I never doubted him and I never forgot that. My sister and her ex husband used to be cops. So was my regional manager. That doesn’t mean I cant see that America has a cop problem. Abad one.

      • keyesforpres

        Not nearly as bad as Mexico though.

        • JB Ziggy Zoggy

          That’s for sure. I actually bribed a Tiajuana cop once, although it was actually more of an extortion on his part. Many of them work for the drug cartels.

  • burghseyeview

    I am also a law and order conservative and a veteran. The police are absolutely militarized and anyone, including the author who says otherwise is wrong. Mine Resistant Ambush Protected vehicles, every officer w/M4, Kevlar helmet, gloves, goggles, some with masks. They are being used to frequently in this offensive posture.
    A solution is have a few regional SWAT teams on stand down. If needed LE contacts State AG who has to authorize use. When our police have hand grenades or worse grenade launchers for drug offenders, we have a problem. Foolish conservatives need to wake up. What we used to solve with detectives we now use a battering ram to knock down peoples doors. Prayers to the baby in Atlanta whose face was blown off by a flash bang.

  • hrwolfe

    I’ve got to say for all the rhetoric about over action in Ferguson and other “Protests” like Occupy Wall Street. Nobody seems concerned about the lawlessness of the rioters some even go so far as to say they have a right to destroy public property. I too fear a military state but that is well explained here. We got to stop over reacting to everything and SOME people need to learn how to behave and some need to stop excusing their behavior, We Are Not A 3rd World Country so stop acting like one.

    • JB Ziggy Zoggy

      Who excuses looting and rioting? And how does that excuse the militarization of police? Will blind support of a police state grow a face back for that baby in Atlanta? The militarization of police is not only a deadly menace, IT’S COMPLETELY UNNECESSARY.

      • Bulan Sabriel

        Riots, gangs and left wing terrorism are what “militarized” the police.

        • JB Ziggy Zoggy

          Bloated budgets and adversarial policies are what militarized the police. Instead of dressing up like Nazis and GI Joe for crowd control and to serve warrants, why don’t they go after gangs? And the leftwing terrorists who go on mass shooting sprees usually shoot themselves before the cops get there or surrender immediately.

      • keyesforpres

        Ya know Ziggy, most police are on our side….and quite frankly that equipment could come in handy if the feds ever do decide to come after us.
        I think Holder and Obama realize that and Holder has said they need to rethink allowing the police to have this equipment.
        I guess the police must have done a pretty good job of keeping the looters somewhat in check for Holder to say that.

        • JB Ziggy Zoggy

          It’s not the police on my side that I’m worried about, and it’s the use of militarized police for routine matters that needs to end. If Obama and Holder send the Dept of Homeland Security and all the other heavily armed federal agencies after the citizenry and real military, I don’t trust most urban police forces to side with us. Many sheriff depts have pledged to uphold the Constitution, but they’re outgunned.

  • Erudite Mavin

    The Police equipped to defend them selves and the public are up against criminals who have everything from automatic weapons and other weapons
    the police have not had until the very recent years.
    The Libertarians – Left who complain about masks and so called militarization
    of the police, don’t like the Military period.
    The public is allowed to own humvees, automatic weapons and masks
    so should the Police be allowed.

    • JB Ziggy Zoggy

      The public is NOT allowed to own machine guns, tanks and Apache helicopters. Criminals are NOT better armed than cops. Cops have used machine guns to blow away crooks since the twenties. Bonnie and Clyde, John Dillinger, Pretty Boy Floyd, et al did NOT die of old age.

      Cops aren’t facing an army of criminals with heavy weaponry. That means they don’t need to be equipped like an army to enforce the law.

      • Erudite Mavin

        Anyone can own an automatic weapon.
        You must live in Podunk and have no clue what is going on in the real world

        • JB Ziggy Zoggy

          Can convicted felons own automatic weapons? Can you own a machine gun for home protection?

          I live in Lake Forest CA and it’s in one of the few conservative areas along the coast. Feels like the real world to me.

          • Erudite Mavin

            Mentally ill buy automatic weapons and how they kill many children in seconds in the school shootings.
            I live in San Diego which has a 70 mile coast line and second largest city in CA and the largest city in the U.S. with a Republican Mayor and of our 5 congressmen 2 of the best conservative Reps. Duncan Hunter and Darell Issa.

      • keyesforpres

        Ummmm yes they are…ever heard of the Mexican drug cartels?

        • JB Ziggy Zoggy

          The drug cartels are not at war with American police. They’re at war with each other and the vast majority of their murders are committed in Mexico.

          Besides, the cops rarely use their heavy ordnance against the cartels. They usually use it for crowd control and serving warrants. That’s ridiculous.

          • keyesforpres

            They’re at war with us. They murder Americans all the time.

  • JB Ziggy Zoggy

    (1) Cops don’t need machine guns, tanks and Apache f****** helicopters. Those are military ordnance.

    (2) Law abiding citizens are not allowed to own machine guns, tanks and Apache f****** helicopters.

    (3) Cops don’t need military ordnance to serve petty arrest warrants or to terrorize peaceful protesters.

    (4) The ability of police to commit abuse is commensurate with their armament. When they break down doors and storm homes with machine guns to serve warrants on a person for the sale of harmless marijuana, they endanger everybody in that home and everybody within firing range – machine gun rounds go through walls as easily as flesh. That crap may have worked for the Gestapo but America doesn’t need a f****** Gestapo.

    No citizen is allowed to arm himself like GI Joe and practice home invasions. That means we cant protect ourselves when cops break the law or make stupid mistakes – which they do on a daily basis. If ten murdering rapists break into my house, I have a bullet for each of them. If ten cops with machine guns break in because they have the wrong name or address on their warrant, I’m a dead man. And that’s the problem. Our militarized police use their heavy ordnance against us, the citizenry. Ferguson MO is a perfect example. While rioters were looting stores, cops were using armored vehicles, machine guns and sniper rifles to terrorize a bunch of stupid protestors carrying stupid signs. I don’t want that in my country. Do you?

    • Bulan Sabriel

      “(1) Cops don’t need machine guns, tanks and Apache f****** helicopters. Those are military ordnance.”

      With the exception of a few individual officers who have licences for machine guns, police have none of the above. You really know nothing about the subject.

      “(2) Law abiding citizens are not allowed to own machine guns, tanks and Apache f****** helicopters.”
      Machine gun licenses are rare but do exist. Individual civilians do own disarmed tanks. Thanks for playing.

      “(3) Cops don’t need military ordnance to serve petty arrest warrants or to terrorize peaceful protesters.”
      Peaceful, like the race rioters in Fergueson?

      What about dealing with drug gangs?

      “(4) The ability of police to commit abuse is commensurate with their
      armament. When they break down doors and storm homes with machine guns
      to serve warrants on a person for the sale of harmless marijuana, they
      endanger everybody in that home and everybody within firing range –
      machine gun rounds go through walls as easily as flesh. That crap may
      have worked for the Gestapo but America doesn’t need a f****** Gestapo.”
      SWAT teams don’t use machine guns. They use semi-automatic guns. With the exception of snipers, they are using either pistol rounds or intermediate caliber rounds. This means that the average hunting rifle round has far greater penetrating capability.

      You really know nothing about this subject.

      “No citizen is allowed to arm himself like GI Joe and practice home invasions.”

      We are also not allowed to detain and try people.

      “That means we cant protect ourselves when cops break the law or make stupid mistakes – which they do on a daily basis.”
      Non-sequitor. Besides, we have the courts.

      “If ten murdering rapists break into my house, I have a bullet for each
      of them. If ten cops with machine guns break in because they have the
      wrong name or address on their warrant, I’m a dead man. And that’s the
      problem. Our militarized police use their heavy ordnance against us, the
      citizenry.”
      You would be safer with the Army or Marines coming through your front door than a SWAT team. This is not a militarization issue. It is an issue of bad training of civilian police.

      “Ferguson MO is a perfect example. While rioters were looting stores, cops
      were using armored vehicles, machine guns and sniper rifles to
      terrorize a bunch of stupid protestors carrying stupid signs. I don’t
      want that in my country. Do you?”

      Not to worry. You inhabit an alternate reality. Police in the US did none of this

      • JB Ziggy Zoggy

        Police in America absolutely do have full auto “assualt rifles,” tanks and Apache helicopters. Citizens do not. The rare ownership of a machine gun at shooting ranges is not the same as a constitutional right of ownership, and a tank without weapons that cant be driven on the street cant be compared with what the police have. You’re parsing words and being disingenuous.

        What about drug gangs? Are they a match for an entire police force? What do you think will happen if cops fire full auto in public? And I didn’t see any “drug gangs” in Ferguson. Most of the looters and rioters in Ferguson got away with their crimes while the cops terrorized reporters and protesers. And military ordnance isn’t necessary to arrest a small number of unorganized rioters with rocks and beer bottles. Maybe you think the dead baby in Atlanta was a member of a drug gang?

        You confirmed what I wrote about cops using home invasions to serve warrants when you admitted they’re poorly trained. Thanks. I don’t take much comfort knowing that our crooked courts can “protect” me after the fact.

        Its asinine to claim that police forces across the country need to be militarized to serve petty warrants and crowd control. That is a step away from a police state. And save your insults, because you’re wrong about everything, as a quick web search proves. If you want to worship authority, go ahead. Just don’t try to force a totalitarian state pn the rest of us. Dumb@$$.

        • Bulan Sabriel

          Show me police Apache Helicopters. Not just helicopters, but any varient of the Boeing AH-64 Apache

          Show me police TANKs. Not armored personel carriers, but TANKS.

          ” The rare ownership of a machine gun at shooting ranges is not the same as a constitutional right of ownership”
          I don’t agree with the 1934 act. However, police departments do not deploy machine guns on a regular basis. Show me more than a dozen owning them. I mean actual machine guns.

          “What about drug gangs? Are they a match for an entire police force? What
          do you think will happen if cops fire full auto in public?”
          Gangs routinely outgun police patrols.

          Show me any incident of police firing full automatic on the public.

          “And I didn’t see any “drug gangs” in Ferguson. Most of the looters and
          rioters in Ferguson got away with their crimes while the cops terrorized
          reporters and protesers.”
          The looters are dryg gangs or other thugs. Teh police have been using non-lethal weapons even when SHOT AT in Ferguson.

          You are an angry ignorant twit.

  • DDoSCapitol

    This entire piece is an attack on straw men.

    How many of us objecting to militarization have claimed that mere possession of the equipment is somehow the root of the problem ?

    An honest observer has no problem discerning that critics have been concerned with one question – should cops use the same kinds of tactics, attitude and approach toward citizens that soliders use against foreign nationals in an invasion or occupation ?

    Weapons don’t cause people to act a certain way, but people who want to use intimidation and force to suppress the civilian population might just set out to acquire this kind of weaponry, and they might just recruit like minded people.

    When the author feels he has to tell us how much he respects libertarians before he proceeds to sneer about them for paragraphs on end, it’s pretty clear this isn’t an argument or opinion piece, it’s agitprop. It’s two minutes of hate mixed with two minutes of “you’re stupid.”

    You know what’s really “counterproductive” ? Attacking arguments the opposition isn’t even making to score cheap points with your own amen chorus.

    This isn’t typical FrontPage material. It’s a fact-free intellectually dishonest and cowardly exercise in rhetoric. I expect better from this site. This kind of writing belongs on Ed Schultz or Maddow.