Argumentative Essay #2

Joshua Hahn-Varona

4/28/15

Police Soldicers

Police brutality and police militarization are becoming hot topics of discussion in the United States today. The dangers of police militarization are becoming more prevalent and cases of the use of brutal force by police are becoming more common. The question is, how do we deal with these types of issues in terms of prosecuting police who used brutal force and how do we prevent these cases from occurring? What are the pros and cons of militarizing police forces around the country? The answer to solving problems with police brutality is quite simple: body cameras.

    Body cameras on police can be, by far, one of the best ways to slow down or even stop police brutality. They provide an officer’s perspective of any encounter with people. Body cameras can make officers think twice before pulling out a gun on a citizen or if an officer does pull out a gun for a good reason, the body camera will record all that happens, and it can easily be determined whether the officer’s use of force was necessary or not.

    Take for example Rialto, California; a study was done by the Police Foundation, which is an organization that specializes in researching law enforcement, that found that when half of Rialto’s police force wore body cameras for a year of patrols, “there were just three complaints of excessive force against the officers -- down from 28 in the previous 12 months.” After reading the study myself, they had also found that there were “ten times more citizens’ complaints.” This is because now that police have cameras recording encounters, there is more solid evidence for or against citizens where excessive force as used.   As you can see, body cameras are very effective in keeping officers from stepping out of line for the most part.

    The good news is that many police departments around the country are joining in on the use of body cameras. The Los Angeles Police Department announced that they will be buying “7,000 on-body cameras to expand transparency and accountability” The police chief of the Los Angeles Police Department, Chief Charlie Beck said that “Officers will have tremendously powerful evidence and the ability to collect it. We are starting a journey that will go on for decades."

    A journey it is, a long and hard one, unfortunately. Though you would think it is a no-brainer to immediately implement body cameras to police after all that has happened in the country over the last year, there are some complications, mainly political, to come about.

    For starters, the cost. It will cost over $75 million to cover just half of the cost of 50,000 body cameras for police officers around the country. Now mind you, there are over 680,000 police officers in the United States, so you can imagine how much it would cost to provide cameras for ALL police officers. In my eyes, however, the cost of buying cameras is well worth it. Cameras will be able to make cases of brutality or just regular criminal cases that are caught on camera easier to solve, costing those involved less money from court fees, if the police department were to get sued and so on.

    Another potential concern with police body cameras is in regards to privacy. If a police officer is to have a camera on at all times, what if a case was more of a private matter. For example if the police officer has an embarrassing encounter with someone, or if the encounter was some sort of domestic issue. Also of note that “storing such videos is open to potential abuse” and “with the possibility of… winding up on the Internet.” This is a very legitimate concern that also begs the question as to how the police will handle recordings.

    Some say that the police have the ability to edit video footage from body cameras, or even delete footage that could also be improperly stored. The biggest concern with the storage of footage is that if body camera footage is going to be stored by someone, it MUST be by an independent company that has no affiliation with a police department other than providing the cameras. This way, the footage will not be tampered with, and records will be kept safe from the hands of police departments who may want to alter footage of police encounters.

    The last concern is when how body cameras will be used. That is to say, when should cameras be on and recording, and when should they not? Also, what happens if an officer forgets to turn his or her camera on when it is needed? The problem is, there is no right or wrong place to have these cameras on, because they are for the safety of both the citizens and the officers. The cameras should be on at all times when a police officer is on patrol. The only time a police officer should turn his or her camera off is when they go to the bathroom, really. Otherwise, if a police officer does turn off their camera, there should be some sort of notification for them to turn it back on if it is turned off for too long.

           When it comes to militarizing the police, there are potential pros but very obvious cons. For starters, a militarized police force may be better equipped for drastic situations that may require special types of weapons or vehicles that are immune to bombs. The problem is that there hasn’t been a situation where these weapons and vehicles were needed. Not only that, but just because a police force has military-grade weapons and equipment, does not mean that they are trained well enough to use them. Another issue with having military-grade weapons and equipment is that, to keep them, the police force has to use the equipment in the field within six months of receiving the equipment. As I pointed out before, the police have not needed to use the equipment in a proper situation, and because the police want to keep this military-grade equipment, they use the equipment on civilians. Use on civilians is usually excessive, too mostly because of the lack of training the officers receive with the equipment. A good example of this, is in John Oliver’s “Last Week Tonight” episode “Ferguson, MO and Police Militarization”

       

           In this episode, John Oliver talks about the Michael Brown case in in Ferguson, Missouri and what is becoming of police forces across the country. He mentioned a photo from Ferguson, Missouri where, a man was standing in front of a line of police with guns pointed at him while the his hands were up; the line of police officers wearing military uniforms. John Oliver showed a clip from CNN of an interview where, the interviewee said that “In the military, we’re trained on something called ‘escalation of force.’ Which basically means, the only time you’re really going to point a weapon directly at someone, is when you’re ready to pull the trigger. And instead of that, in Ferguson, police are just wandering around with their weapons up at all times pointing them at people that obviously didn’t pose a threat.” This brings me back to what I had said earlier. Just because a police force has military-grade equipment, doesn’t mean they have the proper training to use it. Another point John Oliver mentioned was how the military-grade equipment was used. He showed a clip of a video that talked about how “The number of S.W.A.T. raids have gone up 1400% since the 1980s. An estimated 50,000 now take place every year.” He then explains that 79% of S.W.A.T. deployments were used to execute search warrants that were mostly for drug investigations. There is no need to call in the S.W.A.T. team to search a home or area for drugs unless it is considered hostile or dangerous. See, the police however, don’t care. This is because, as I mentioned, the military-grade equipment has to be used within six months after it is received. Because of this, the next con of militarizing police becomes apparent.

Militarizing police has psychological consequences for both the community the police force serves, and the officers themselves. As "When Peace Officers Dress for War" points out, police officers who dress and act military-like, become military-like overtime automatically. It makes "their uniform and vocabulary of war reinforces their mind-sets" and "they become distanced from the community."

This distance from the community that a military-like police force causes is a dangerous thing. The trust that a police force is there to help a community is eliminated by the idea that rather than helping, they are controlling a community. A police officer, as the article calls them “Peace Officers” should be just that; a peace officer. Their goal should not be to scare a community with their fancy and dangerous equipment so that the community is terrified of what could be used against them if they commit a crime or protest, etc.

Another way of explaining what police officers should do and what they are is outlined by John Paul and Michael L. Birzer's paper: "The Militarization of the American Police Force: A Critical  Assessment". They talked about how militant police officers alienate themselves from the community that they are supposed to be a part of and explained that "A law enforcement officer is ultimately a member of a community, and a member of law enforcement is subject to the same laws as their fellow citizen; a soldier is not." Later, they quoted Max Weber who wrote about police that said "the job of the police is to react to the  violence of others, to apprehend criminal suspects and deliver them over to a court of law. A soldier on the other hand, does not think; [he/she] initiates violence on command and doesn't  worry about the Bill of Rights."

The paper also proposes some ways to ease tension between a community and its police force. One that I found most interesting was by changing the color of uniforms. They proposed that instead of police officers wearing military-like black and camouflage, they should be wearing “a color more consistent and symbolic of democracy, such as ordinary blue.” Interestingly, in our case here in Rockford, most of our officers wear blue uniforms. Only more specialized officers wear black or a dark navy-blue.

Another way to build trust in the community is by adding a community policing initiative. This can be done by having a community become sort of a self-policing one. By this, a community will report its problems to the police and they will have to identify and respond to “crime, disorder, fear of crime, drug use, urban decay, and other neighborhood concerns.” By doing this, they said “Community oriented policing is a strategy that entails crime prevention, problem solving, community partnerships, and organizational transformation. With community policing, the police take on a role of being more community oriented and the citizens take on a role of being more involved in assisting the police with information.” Going back to our community and police officers, we have programs like “Crime Stoppers” that allows people to call in for suspected crimes and other mischief in their area. This type of community policing can be very effective in building trust within the community towards police.

           All in all, the simple solution to solving problems with police officers is done by simply de-militarizing them. It is that simple, but only at first. The next problem is whether or not a community trusts their police force. The first step is for the police department to show their community that they are there to help, not to harm. Police officers need to show that they are in fact "peace" officers. Other steps to take would include body cameras as proof of just actions by police officers, as well as help distinguish the "bad apples" of a police force to gain trust from the community.  Only then will the relationship between a community and law enforcement become stronger and more effective, and less problems will arise with a police’s use of force.