Line between a police force and military worth keeping

The shooting Aug. 9 of Michael Brown in the St. Louis suburb of Ferguson, Mo., has left a lot of questions unanswered and tempers on edge.

The young man’s death is becoming one of those issues that is viewed almost exclusively through a prism of race.

To summarize, on one side people see an unarmed teenage boy, one week away from heading off to college, who was confronted by a police officer for walking in the street, which led to his being shot six times, his body left to lie in the street for four hours.

On the other side, people see a man, 6-foot-4 and nearly 300 pounds, who minutes before the shooting had stolen cigarillos from a neighborhood store, manhandled the store owner and resisted arrest when confronted by Patrolman Darren Wilson for jaywalking.

The shooting of Brown is on track to join the cases of Trayvon Martin, O.J. Simpson and Rodney King in which a majority of black people see it one way, and a majority of white people see a mirror image. That’s unfortunate, but a week of polarization on the streets of Ferguson tends to have that effect. People pick and choose which eyewitness accounts to believe, even which way they will interpret scientific evidence. A fatal bullet fired through the top of Brown’s head shows one side that he lowered his head and was charging the officer like a bull. The other side says he was raising his arms and lowering his head in a gesture of submission.

Perhaps time, a more sophisticated interpretation of ballistic evidence and comparing the veracity of witness statements will give a clearer picture, but the unfortunate truth is that many on both sides are no longer open to having their minds changed. And, of course, of the two key actors in the deadly drama, only one can still speak.

MILITARIZATION OF POLICE

But there is one part of the reaction to the shooting that deserves serious and dispassionate debate. That is the relatively recent but rapidly escalating trend toward the militarization of police departments. There is reason to suggest that in the immediate wake of the shooting Ferguson police exacerbated a tense situation.

First there was the refusal of police to identify the officer involved in the shooting. We understand the inclination to close ranks and the fear that identifying Wilson might put him in danger. But in a free society, no one should be allowed to kill another with anonymity. Anonymous killings are the province of police states.

In addition to those signals that the police department sent to a black community seeking answers, there was the incredibly aggressive response by the department to protesters, the majority of whom were engaging in peaceful protest.

Those protesters found themselves across the line from a police department not only outfitted in traditional riot gear, but dressed and armed in military fashion and backed up by military vehicles mounted with machine guns.

Does such a military-type response make crowds cower in fear or react with indignation or even rage? Given that the protests haven’t stopped, the efficacy of that quasi-military response certainly is questionable.

Any American of a certain age is shocked by the image of police patrolling a city’s street in camouflage and armed with military assault rifles. Even the thuggish cops who cracked the heads of civil-rights protesters in Alabama 50 years ago still dressed like police officers.

The job of the military when operating in hostile foreign territory is not the same as that of a local police department. And blurring the lines between their missions, acceptable methods of operation and the equipment they use is a dangerous precedent.

Since 2006, the Defense Department has “distributed 432 mine-resistant armored vehicles to local police departments. It also has doled out more than 400 other armored vehicles, 500 aircraft, and 93,000 machine guns,” Defense One, a specialized news service, reports.

VALLEY POLICE JOIN TREND

In the Mahoning Valley, several police departments have been happy to accept military gear, essentially on the premise that it is free stuff. But while military equipment may be free, training to use it properly isn’t, and using it without proper training could be very expensive.

Local police departments do not have the time or money to train every officer on the proper use of military equipment, especially when responding to an emergency. The U.S. military protects the nation against foreign threats. The National Guard is available when needed. The police protect and serve their communities and are most effective when seen as part of the community, not an alien force.

We allow such distinctions to be blurred at our own risk. Militarizing local police for little better reason than that the government is giving away the tools of war is penny wise, but pound foolish.

The New York Times quoted Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr.: “At a time when we must seek to rebuild trust between law enforcement and the local community, I am deeply concerned that the deployment of military equipment and vehicles sends a conflicting message.” Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Rand Paul, R-Ky., voiced similar sentiments.

The wisdom of militarizing police departments is now being questioned and none too soon.