Political Reverse Psychology (op-ed)
President Obama banned federal provision of military-style equipment to local law enforcement. (Police departments can still buy military-style gear from private vendors.)
The militarization of local police was questioned last year when the Ferguson Police Department used full body armor and armored trucks to confront a protest by day riot by night problem.
When did the police become militarized?
After 9/11 the federal government expanded its capability to provide local police with non-civilian hardware in case of emergency. This action coincided with all other government efforts to restore a sense of security to a public traumatized by terror.
What was the executive reason for the ban? Was it because the public overcame their fear of terror?
This would make sense because the reason the previous administration allowed local authorities to acquire military-style gear no longer existed. And the president’s action would be a simple matter of fiscal policy.
But the reason stated was militarized gear by local police departments can give the public the feeling that the police are like “an occupying force”, and this image can “alienate and intimidate” people and send the wrong message to the community.
The president believes demilitarization is a necessary step to restore community/police trust in an effort to build better community/police relations.
The director of the office of community oriented policing services at the Department of Justice said, “We are … at a defining moment for American policing in our democracy, to ensure that public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence of justice.”
So what’s the problem?
Beside the fact that unarmed men are killed by police handguns and not rocket propelled grenades, and justice is presented to the public by courtroom convictions and not in a police parade of community orientated attire approved by the Justice Department.
The problem is the actions mentioned by the previous and current president remedy public feelings that are detrimental to the approval of their respective administrations and not any actual problem.
Is it possible that an understanding was passed on to the Obama administration that the police can stock pile military equipment and train with it, but it was never suppose to be put to use? Why else would Obama say, “There is a big difference between our military and our local law enforcement, and we don’t want these lines blurred.”
The President’s statement obviously sent the wrong message to The Fraternal Order of Police. Their national president said, “That equipment is used for a protective reason, not an offensive purpose. Putting those on restricted lists and making it so you’re going to have to justify having that equipment gives the connotation that the police shouldn’t have that protection, and the fact is a riot can happen in any city in America.”
He’s right, a riot can happen in any city, but the military gear was granted to provide the public with a sense of security, and once the Ferguson police used the military gear as a psychological deterrent, to instill fear, to prevent civil unrest, this immediately became a breach of public trust, and once again the public was intimidated, but this time the public didn’t feel unprotected by their government, they felt threatened by it.
Should the local police be able to have military equipment as a deterrent or to use for their own protection during a riot? This is a public policy debate lawmakers and law enforcement officials should have. The president’s ban of military-style equipment was political reverse psychology. But the problem with political reverse psychology is that it’s backwards.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 5/27/15
The militarization of local police was questioned last year when the Ferguson Police Department used full body armor and armored trucks to confront a protest by day riot by night problem.
When did the police become militarized?
After 9/11 the federal government expanded its capability to provide local police with non-civilian hardware in case of emergency. This action coincided with all other government efforts to restore a sense of security to a public traumatized by terror.
What was the executive reason for the ban? Was it because the public overcame their fear of terror?
This would make sense because the reason the previous administration allowed local authorities to acquire military-style gear no longer existed. And the president’s action would be a simple matter of fiscal policy.
But the reason stated was militarized gear by local police departments can give the public the feeling that the police are like “an occupying force”, and this image can “alienate and intimidate” people and send the wrong message to the community.
The president believes demilitarization is a necessary step to restore community/police trust in an effort to build better community/police relations.
The director of the office of community oriented policing services at the Department of Justice said, “We are … at a defining moment for American policing in our democracy, to ensure that public safety becomes more than the absence of crime, that it must also include the presence of justice.”
So what’s the problem?
Beside the fact that unarmed men are killed by police handguns and not rocket propelled grenades, and justice is presented to the public by courtroom convictions and not in a police parade of community orientated attire approved by the Justice Department.
The problem is the actions mentioned by the previous and current president remedy public feelings that are detrimental to the approval of their respective administrations and not any actual problem.
Is it possible that an understanding was passed on to the Obama administration that the police can stock pile military equipment and train with it, but it was never suppose to be put to use? Why else would Obama say, “There is a big difference between our military and our local law enforcement, and we don’t want these lines blurred.”
The President’s statement obviously sent the wrong message to The Fraternal Order of Police. Their national president said, “That equipment is used for a protective reason, not an offensive purpose. Putting those on restricted lists and making it so you’re going to have to justify having that equipment gives the connotation that the police shouldn’t have that protection, and the fact is a riot can happen in any city in America.”
He’s right, a riot can happen in any city, but the military gear was granted to provide the public with a sense of security, and once the Ferguson police used the military gear as a psychological deterrent, to instill fear, to prevent civil unrest, this immediately became a breach of public trust, and once again the public was intimidated, but this time the public didn’t feel unprotected by their government, they felt threatened by it.
Should the local police be able to have military equipment as a deterrent or to use for their own protection during a riot? This is a public policy debate lawmakers and law enforcement officials should have. The president’s ban of military-style equipment was political reverse psychology. But the problem with political reverse psychology is that it’s backwards.
First published in the New Pittsburgh Courier 5/27/15
Comments
Post a Comment