Neil 1

Sarah Neil

Professor Malcolm Campbell

UWRT 1103

7 November 2019

Police Militarization: Law Enforcement Officers or Community Soldiers?

This year I attended a football game at Clemson University. As I approached the stadium

I took note of the abundance of police officers; especially those wearing SWAT gear and holding

high powered rifles. These officers had a tense and watchful presence compared to their peers

standing next to them in regular uniform. This scenario encapsulates the concept of police

militarization. According to the Charles Koch Institute police militarization is defined as the

adoption of military equipment, strategy, thinking, or culture by civilian police forces

(Mosteller). In recent years the appearance of police officers has begun to shape how community

members view and interact with law enforcement.

Law enforcement agencies have acquired military grade weapons and supplies through

the Department of Defense’s Excess Property Program 1103 (Mosteller). The 1103 program

grants lethal and non-lethal surplus military supplies to local and federal law enforcement

agencies (Katel). It can be argued that this program has led to the militarization of police forces

across America. Mark Lomax, the executive director of the National Tactical Officers

Association, argues that the appearance of militarized police units has a negative effect on trust

towards law enforcement (qtd. in Katel). The militant appearance of law enforcement officers

can lead citizens to feel like they are the enemy instead of fellow community members (Katel).

Lomax acknowledges that police departments receive military supplies, and sometimes receive
 Neil 2

little to no training on how or when to properly use them (qtd. in Katel). The apathetic attitude

towards proper training can lead to the misuse of newly implemented equipment.

Are SWAT Teams Overused?

According to Frederic Lemieux, a criminologist at Georgetown University, SWAT team

presence has increased in everyday police operations (qtd. in Akpan). Lemieux explains that the

intended use of SWAT teams was to barricade armed suspects and face hostage situations (qtd.

in Akpan). It is common for police departments to explain their goals and reasoning for

deploying special operations teams. The Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department in North

Carolina defines SWAT as Special Weapons and Tactics team. The goal of the Charlotte

Mecklenburg Police Department’s SWAT team is to protect people in high risk situations using

specialized weaponry and skill to boost community confidence (“Special Weapons and Tactics

Team (S.W.A.T.)”). However not all police departments across America increase community

confidence using their SWAT team’s presence.

In 2008 a Maryland SWAT team raided the home of Cheye Calvo that was supposedly

involved in a drug trafficking scheme (Akpan). After a 32-pound drug shipment was delivered to

the address a SWAT team raided the home; they killed Calvo’s two dogs and interrogated him

and his wife on the scene (Akpan). Calvo and his wife were later found innocent in a court of

law. This event led to the implementation of a Maryland statute requiring state agencies to report

their SWAT team deployments (Akpan). The raid of Cheye Calvo’s home inspired Jonathan

Mummolo to research the pros and cons of militarized policing and its effect on communities

(qtd. in Akpan). Jonathan Mummolo is a political scientist at Princeton University. Mummolo

observes that the militant appearance of police forces can diminish police-community relations,

especially in communities of color. Mummulo found that African American communities

 Neil 3

witnessed more SWAT team deployments than areas with a predominately white population.

Surprisingly this was still the case in areas with low crime rates (Mummolo).

The Use of Force Continuum

When considering the role of militarized police forces it is important to understand the

use of force continuum. According to the National Institute of Justice this sequence describes

escalating levels of force and action that officers can use in certain situations. The National

Institute of Justice explains that the mere presence of an officer in uniform can deter crime and

diffuse situations. Officer presence is listed as the lowest level of force an officer can inflict

(“The Use-of-Force Continuum”). If misused this position of authority can be used to take

advantage of citizens and violate their rights. If a law enforcement officer in a traditional uniform

has a forceful presence, an officer in militarized gear is likely to have an even greater effect.

The Visual Effect of Police Uniforms

Mummolo conducted a survey of 6,000 people regarding their support of increasing

funding for law enforcement after showing them two different images of police officers (qtd. in

Akpan). The first image shown to respondents was of an officer in standard uniform and the

other was of an officer who had a militant appearance. The survey found that the militant

appearance of police officers decreased the respondents support for law enforcement funding by

four percent (Akpan). However, the militarized police image had an increased effect on African

American respondents who showed a 21 percent decrease in support (Akpan). Mummolo

concluded that there was no overwhelming evidence that the use of SWAT teams lowered

violent crime rates or a decrease in the rate of officer deaths or assaults. Mummulo’s study

provided evidence that the militarization of police forces has begun to erode public trust. The use

of militarized police force threatens to increase tensions between police officers and their
 Neil 4

community; especially in African American communities where trust in law enforcement is

already weakened by historical tensions (Mummulo).

Jay Fortenbery explains that the modern distinction between police officers and military

personnel was influenced by the discontent colonist felt toward British troops that took on

policing roles in colonial America. Jay Fortenbery is a former police officer and police chief who

is currently an assistant professor of criminal justice at Elizabeth City State University in North

Carolina. When looking at the role of police officers it is important to consider the philosophy of

Sir Robert Peel; that law enforcement officials should be intertwined with citizens and should

enforce the law using the least amount of force necessary (Fortenbery). Sir Robert Peel is

referred to as the father of modern policing for his Metropolitan Police Act of 1829 that helped

shape modern policing. Fortenbery contradicts the finding and opinions of Mummolo by arguing

that the militarization of police departments tends to correlate with a community’s crime rate.

The militarization of police can be justified through the concept that certain geographical

locations face unique challenges and law enforcement agencies should be allowed to respond

using appropriate measures (Fortenbery).

Benefits and Responsibilities Associated with Police Militarization

An argument can be made in support of the militarization of police departments. Dr. Jay

Fortenbery explains that lawless individuals and groups have acquired increasingly lethal

weapons throughout time (Fortenbery). Therefore, law enforcement officials need advanced

equipment and training to address modern threats. Police equipment being modified to defend

against the threats of the time can be traced back to the 1920’s (Fortenbery). Police departments

began upgrading their weaponry in the 1920’s to face mobs and gangsters who had access to

high capacity weapons (Fortenbery). The trend continued throughout the 1960’s as police
 Neil 5

departments began to implement the use of less lethal weapons such as tear gas to disperse large

and violent crowds (Fortenbery). The use of SWAT teams expanded to numerous agencies

across America in the 1990’s during the War on Drugs (Fortenbery). Modern threats to society

like terrorist threats and mass shootings have sparked the adoption of assault rifles and military

techniques in modern policing (Fortenbery).

Although the use of advanced weapons and training can be justified there is a level of

responsibility that must be acknowledged. Fortenbery warns readers that the overuse of

specialized force can make police officers appear intimidating and less approachable. This can

lead to a gap in communication between citizens and law officials. Comparisons to the military

can be illustrated by the rigorous fitness requirements and high level of weapons training

demanded of specialized police forces (Fortenbery). It is important to understand that these

qualifications can make law enforcement officials less aware of the consequences of their actions

and more likely to oppose demilitarization efforts (Fortenbery).

Considerations for Law Enforcement Officials

Former chief of police Dr. Jay Fortenbery offers several considerations for law

enforcement agencies regarding the use of military resources. He explains that is important for

high raking law enforcement officials to consider how the use of militarized force can counteract

relationship building efforts. Many officers on foot patrol make a conscious effort to get to know

community members (Fortenbery). They do this by presenting themselves as approachable and

visible. Military gear can appear intimidating and cause community members to keep their

thoughts and actions to themselves.

It is important to consider the role of the Black Lives Matter and the Blue lives Matter

movements when discussing police militarization and police-community relationships. Although

 Neil 6

the two movements often take opposing sides, they both feel that members of their communities

are undervalued (Stoughton). Former police officer and law professor at the University of South

Carolina, Seth Stoughton, remains optimistic about police-community relations. Public distrust

of the police can lead to violent crime, resistance, and the rejection of information regarding high

profile cases. When police officers distrust their communities the probability of officer

misconduct, lowered tolerance for minor actions, and the excessive use of force increases

(Stoughton). Stoughton believes if military personnel serving in Iraq and Afghanistan can

implement community policing strategies and experience positive outcomes it is possible for

local law enforcement agencies to do the same.

Community Policing

Police militarization efforts can formulate distrust and disconnection within communities.

Community building efforts from residents and officers can help minimize the repercussions of

police militarization. According to Jason Scott, the implementation of community policing ideals

is one method that law enforcement can use to build a connection to the people they serve

(Scott). Scott holds multiple degrees in criminal justice from the University at Albany and has

conducted research studies on community policing, social capital and the criminal justice system.

Two main components of community policing are an openness to organizational change and the

role of community members in problem solving efforts (Scott). The collaborative aspect of

community policing can enhance communication among residents, increase the level of trust and

dependence among fellow citizens, and foster the willingness to assist in solving community

issues (Scott). This sense of community may also make it easier for police departments to initiate

coproduction efforts.
 Neil 7

Jason D. Scott’s study on police-community coproduction and social capital found that

residents play an important role in problem solving and crime prevention efforts in communities

where police and residents collaborate. Residents can provide information that a police officer

may not be able to discover on their own (Scott). Residents can also provide leads based on

personal experience and background knowledge; two things police officers don’t necessarily

have coming into a case cold (Scott). Scott found that residents also play a key role in

communities where the police is perceived as easily accessible. This academic journal provides

useful insight through the lens of academia. It is important to consider the thoughts and opinions

of academics because they tend to hold different views than those who are directly involved in

police work.

Reflection and Conclusion

As a child I had multiple positive interactions with police officers in my hometown

Belmont, North Carolina. There was always a police presence at major community events and

fundraisers, but they were usually handing out free stickers and letting kids look at the squad

cars. While the kids were exploring, parents and other adults usually engaged in brief casual

conversation with the officers in attendance. This vivid memory inspired me to consider

variables that effect police-community relations. I wasn’t exposed to police officers taking a

militant appearance until I began attending major sporting events in Charlotte, North Carolina

and other surrounding areas. Seeing officers holding large high-power rifles while standing in

front of armored vehicles was a new concept for me to grasp.

As an aspiring member of law enforcement, it was important for me to remain open

minded to views that criticize or oppose law enforcement operations. I found it easy to remain

impartial by focusing on works published by credible authors and publishers; opposed to

 Neil 8

emotionally charged and one-sided arguments. It will become important to consider the long

term affects of technology and social media on the formation of opinion. Social media has

allowed the harsh truth behind issues like police militarization to surface. It will be interesting to

see how future technological advancements transform policing and the role of officers in their

communities.
 Neil 9

Works Cited

Akpan, Nsikan. “Police Militarization Fails to Protect Officers and Targets Black Communities,

Study Finds.” PBS News Hour, Public Broadcasting Service, 21 Aug. 2018,

www.pbs.org/newshour/science/police-militarization-fails-to-protect-officers-and-targets-

black-communities-study-finds. Accessed 14 Oct. 2019.

Fortenbery, Jay. “Police Militarization in a Democratic Society.” FBI Law Enforcement Bulletin,

FBI Training Division, 13 June 2018, leb.fbi.gov/articles/featured-articles/police-

militarization-in-a-democratic-society. Accessed 14 Oct. 2019.

Katel, Peter. “Police Tactics: Has U.S. Law Enforcement Become Militarized?” CQ Researcher,

vol. 24, no. 44, 12 Dec. 2014, http://library.cqpress.com.eu1.proxy.openathens.net/

cqresearcher/document.php?id=cqresrre2014121200&type=hitlist&num=1. Accessed 4

Nov. 2019.

Mosteller, Jeremiah. “Militarization of Police.” Charles Koch Institute, 2019,

https://www.charleskochinstitute.org/issue-areas/criminal-justice-policing-

reform/militarization-of-police/. Accessed 31 Oct. 2019.

Mummolo, Jonathan. “Militarization fails to enhance police safety or reduce crime but may harm

police reputation.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States

of America, vol. 115, no.37, 11 Sep. 2018, pp. 9181-9186.

https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1805161115. Accessed 3 Nov. 2019.

Scott, Jason D. “Assessing the Relationship Between Police-Community Coproduction and

Neighborhood-Level Social Capital.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, vol. 18,

no. 2, 1 May 2019, pp. 147-166. https://doi.org/10.1177%2F1043986202018002003.

Accessed 3 Nov. 2019.

 Neil 10

“Special Weapons and Tactics Team (S.W.A.T.).” Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police Department,

City of Charlotte, 2018, https://charlottenc.gov/CMPD/Organization/Pages/SpecOps/

SWAT.aspx. Accessed 3 Nov. 2019.

Stoughton, Seth. “Is the Police-Community Relationship in America Beyond Repair?” The

Washington Post, 8 July 2019. https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/is-the-police-

community-relationship-in-america-beyond-repair/2016/07/08/595c638c-454b-11e6-

bc99-7d269f8719b1_story.html. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.

“The Use-of-Force Continuum.” National Institute of Justice, 3 Aug. 2009.

https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/use-force-continuum. Accessed 4 Nov. 2019.