A common criticism you hear coming from progressive circles these days is against the “militarization” of police. This criticism goes deeper than just equipment, and deserves (and will ultimately get) more treatment than what I’ll say in just this article. But the face of the argument is in police equipment: most visibly, rifles, armored vehicles, and more BDU-like uniforms.
My next “Trump’s Presidency” article is going to address how it might impact the transfer of military equipment to the police. To set the stage for that, though, I want to talk a little about a couple pieces of “military” equipment.
I’ve previously discussed the “tactical” look and how it’s really more about practical, so I will consider that addressed for the moment.
Patrol Rifles
After what someone’s wearing, then, the next logical thing to consider in evaluating the extent to which they look “militarized” is what they’re holding, which, in some cases, might be a rifle.
This video was bouncing around the internet earlier this year, showing an Asheville (NC) police officer confronting a group of teenagers while carrying an AR-15 rifle. It was later revealed that, in the context of a spate of recent gun violence in the area, police were responding to a 911 call regarding someone waving a gun around. (This article doesn’t mention it, but I read elsewhere that one of the teenagers they confronted was found to be carrying a bb gun.)
If you spend time with gun people, eventually you will hear someone say, “The only thing a handgun is good for is fighting your way to a rifle.” I am a big defender of cops having rifles, and deploying them whenever there seems to be any enhanced likelihood of a deadly force threat. My reasons are as follows:
- It is extraordinarily difficult, even with training, to hit anything with a handgun while under stress. Maybe you’ve been to the range and you were all right. But there, you and your target were stationary. It’s a different story when you are moving, your target is moving and shooting back at you, and your heart is pumping out of your chest. Besides the obvious importance of hitting your target, consider the consequences of missing: Many police are operating in urban settings. Even if they’re not, a bullet can easily be lethal for a mile from where it’s fired. Missing a threat could mean hitting a bystander. Rifles are MUCH easier to shoot accurately, and can be easily equipped with optics that help even more.
- People don’t just drop to the ground when they get shot. They might not even know they’ve been hit. A committed killer can only be stopped by a truly incapacitating shot. To be perfectly blunt, ten or thirteen or seventeen rounds might not be enough.
- You can literally just walk into a sporting goods store and buy an AR-15 or similar high powered, high capacity, semi-automatic rifle. Bad guys have these guns. Even worse, there are concealable submachine guns like MAC-10s that have the same high capacity but can be shoved down a waistband. Why should cops place themselves at a disadvantage?
Obviously it would be impractical for cops to carry rifles around at all times. You might see NYPD officers doing it, but most departments don’t have the personpower for full-time lethal cover officers. We need our hands to take reports, handcuff suspects, and fistbump citizens. And honestly, we know that walking around strapped with ARs at all times would send the wrong message. But when the job calls for that tool, I want it in my toolbox.
Armored Vehicles
First, repeat after me: Police departments do not have tanks. Maybe–maybe–some department somewhere has a tank they picked up, but I guarantee you it doesn’t have armaments. But generally, if you hear someone complaining about police departments using tanks, they quite simply do not know what they’re talking about.
Some police departments are fortunate enough to have armored vehicles, and some of these armored vehicles came from the military. The ones that made the news are MRAPs, or Mine Resistant, Ambush-Protected vehicles. These are an obvious necessity in a place where IEDs and ambush attacks are the preferred method of warfare. To the police, the benefit of an armored vehicle is singular: It can stop bullets.
Forget every TV show you ever saw where cops were crouched behind vehicles, shielded from gunfire. With the sole exception of the engine block, there is no part of a car that will reliably stop a bullet. They’ll go in one side and out the other. So if police need to approach a barricaded suspect, or rescue a wounded officer or civilian in an area that is still under fire, they need something specialized.
Anyone who argues that police don’t need armored vehicles is literally saying they would prefer police not have a way to shield themselves from gunfire. They might as well ask us to give up our vests, too.
One final word, since it will come up in my next article: There was a specific prohibition under President Obama on transferring treaded armored vehicles to police departments (wheels were OK). I guess because they looked too much like tanks. The advantage of treads is they don’t go flat: in an environment with broken glass, shrapnel, and active gunfire, a treaded vehicle has a particular advantage.
Bottom Line
Look, cards on the table, I get it. The police are here to serve and protect, and we don’t want that to look scary. We are cautious of every step towards a police state. And in a democracy like ours, each step should be reasonably questioned.
Violence is scary–Dave Grossman claims it is the most common human phobia. We want to pretend it’s limited to the TV screen and the news of not here. It’s precisely this aversion to violence that has our society outsource it to the police.
There are some who would say that for all the realness of violence, we should never consider it justified. That the police should not be armed or armored at all. If that’s you, hats off. I really, truly, deeply respect and admire your position. And I respectfully submit that we have competing axioms and cannot convince each other to change positions.
But for everyone else, look: For all the scariness, when violence must be confronted, there is no place for moderation or fairness. Quite frankly, you expect us to confront that violence as quickly, effectively, and safely as possible. That requires equipment that makes people uncomfortable when it’s not needed, because it is a constant reminder that it might be. But we need all the help we can get.