Police or army? (photo: AP)
15 August 14
Anyone who thinks race does not skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention, Sen. Rand Paul writes for TIME, amid violence in Ferguson, Mo. over the police shooting death of Michael Brown
he
shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that
continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri
and across the nation.
If I had been told to get out of the street as a
teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have
smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.
The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there
is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role
for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference
between a police response and a military response.
The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.
Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics, recognized the increasing militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote:
Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. … Police look inward. They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.
It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians.
The Cato Institute’s Walter Olson observed this week how the rising militarization of law enforcement is currently playing out in Ferguson:
Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors? Why are the authorities in Ferguson, Mo. so given to quasi-martial crowd control methods (such as bans on walking on the street) and, per the reporting of Riverfront Times, the firing of tear gas at people in their own yards? (“‘This my property!’ he shouted, prompting police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face.”) Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone”?
Olson added, “the dominant visual aspect of the story,
however, has been the sight of overpowering police forces confronting
unarmed protesters who are seen waving signs or just their hands.”
How did this happen?
Most police officers are good cops and good people. It
is an unquestionably difficult job, especially in the current
circumstances.
There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.
Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart
of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local
police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments
build what are essentially small armies—where police departments
compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of
Americans think of as law enforcement.
This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. The Heritage Foundation’s
Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, “the Department of Homeland Security
has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns across the
country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns, armor, aircraft,
and other equipment.”
Bernick continued, “federal agencies of all stripes,
as well as local police departments in towns with populations less than
14,000, come equipped with SWAT teams and heavy artillery.”
Bernick noted the cartoonish imbalance between the
equipment some police departments possess and the constituents they
serve, “today, Bossier Parish, Louisiana, has a .50 caliber gun mounted
on an armored vehicle. The Pentagon gives away millions of pieces of
military equipment to police departments across the country—tanks
included.”
When you couple this militarization of law enforcement
with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the
police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock
searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to
have a very serious problem on our hands.
Given these developments, it is almost impossible for
many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them.
Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is
impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is
particularly targeting them.
This is part of the anguish we are seeing in the
tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of
Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting
like the incident with Michael Brown.
Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if
inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country
is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black
and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh
sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.
The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an
unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one
thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local
authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to
subsidize it.
Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an
illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have
championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our
country.
Let us continue to pray for Michael Brown’s family, the people of Ferguson, police, and citizens alike.
No comments:
Post a Comment