# data[].attributes.headline
NPR - How the Storming of the Capitol Was - and Was Not - About Police

# data[].attributes.subject
NPR - How the Storming of the Capitol Was - and Was Not - About Police

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to Code Switch podcast

subscribe to Code Switch podcast

People around the world watched in shock on Wednesday as thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building, descending on the halls of Congress and postponing the vote that would make Joe Biden's election official. And while there was much to take in - windows shattered, Trump flags waving, a man with his boots up on Nancy Pelosi's desk - many were particularly struck by what they saw from police at the scene. The police force seemed quickly overwhelmed and unable to secure the Capitol. In some cases, officers were even criticized for appearing sympathetic to the will of the crowd.

Over and over in the news and on social media, people imagined how different - and likely more deadly - the police response would have been if those people lined up outside the barriers had been Black or brown. And that alternate scenario is raising complicated questions about what role the police can, and should, play in response to protests, riots and mobs.

But Alex Vitale, author of The End of Policing, says it's a mistake to boil Wednesday's events down to questions of police force and tactics. Rather, Vitale, who is a professor of sociology and coordinator of the Policing and Social Justice Project at Brooklyn College, says that, in addition to examining the role of the police in these incidents, we need to open up a broader conversation about race, politics and justice. (We'll be talking more about this, and other aspects of Wednesday's events, on the next episode of the Code Switch podcast.)

Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
As you were watching the footage of what was going on at the Capitol Building on Wednesday, what were you noticing? What stood out to you?
Well, the thing that was most striking was the intense militancy of the crowd. The willingness of the demonstrators to engage in physical combat with the police - to fight with them over barricades, to fight with them with their own pepper spray and weapons. To see thousands of Americans engaged in violent attacks on police is extremely rare in American history. And that was deeply concerning to me.
What do you think made the people on Wednesday feel empowered to confront the police in this violent way, as opposed to other situations?
I think it's absolutely appropriate to talk about the racial disparities that are so crucial and so obvious. Mostly peaceful demonstrations, not just this summer, but over the last six years, calling for fundamental rethinking of our use of police and the status of African-Americans in our society have been met with very high levels of police violence, massive restrictions, criminal investigations, the labeling their movements as black identity extremists by federal law enforcement. The posture of police towards their demonstrations is entirely different. Cori Bush, a member of Congress newly elected from St. Louis, said if there had been Black and brown people pushing through police lines, running up the Capitol steps, people would have been shot down and at the very least, tear gassed and beaten. And I think that's absolutely correct.

And I think that the kind of angry white man, white supremacy at the center of the movement we saw yesterday is emboldened by their racial status. They feel like they have the right to engage in this kind of behavior. Clearly these white nationalists, extremists feel that they have the right to do this. And without having to worry about any consequences.
One of the scenes that I saw yesterday seemed like a strange inversion of what we've seen at some of the other protests from the past year. An African-American police officer was basically chased up the stairs of the Capitol by a group of white people. And you could see in this video that he seemed perhaps afraid, but certainly questioning what to do in that moment, how much to react. He had a gun, which he seemed to reach for and didn't touch. Did you see that scene, and what did you make of it? I've been hearing a lot is people saying, as you described, that the police were kind of letting this happen. That some police seemed sympathetic to what was happening. People described seeing some officers taking selfies with protesters. Do you think that's what was happening on a larger scale? One of the things that I heard was people talking about the fact that the police weren't prepared for this moment. And people were contrasting that to, you know, the very geared up, militant looking police officers that were stationed around the Capitol during some of the Black Lives Matter protests over the summer. And whether that difference in preparation says a lot about who we expect to be violent and who we think of as a real threat in this country.
Yes, I did see that. So we've seen a handful of videos that have shown either the D.C. Metropolitan Police or the Capitol Police sort of giving way to the demonstrators. And this has been used to talk about their alleged affinity with the demonstrators or their complicity in this kind of right wing politics. And while I'm sure there are officers who were very sympathetic to the protests and we know there are officers who buy into a lot of these conspiracy theories, I think if we look a little bit more carefully at these videos, what we see is officers who were overwhelmed by an extremely violent and persistent crowd and are making a discretionary judgment about the use of force in a situation where they have lost control.

And I think if that African-American officer had started shooting people, then I think the national crisis we're experiencing right now would be worse. And we know that in one case, an officer did shoot someone to death, and I've seen those videos as well. This was someone trying to climb through a window into a more secure part of the Capitol. And a lone officer made the decision to kill someone rather than to allow them into this more secure part of the Capitol. And that, too, in my view, is a failure of policing.
Another theme that I saw coming out of all this was these different narratives about what to make of the way that police force was used. I saw some people saying, "Look at this reaction, this is proof that the police are ineffective!" Different people were saying, "Look at this, we need police to be stronger and more prepared and have more weapons at their disposal." And then I saw other people saying that this is how police should respond to any situation, with the sort of calm and restraint that kept things escalating even more. What did you take from Wednesday's events? And what do you think other people should be considering? Just to put a finer point on it, where do you think the failures that led to yesterday stem from, and where do they need to be addressed?
No, I don't. If you look really at a broad array of these videos, you see police really fighting to keep these demonstrators out of the Capitol. Several officers were injured, some seriously.

Now, there was a failure of planning. There was a failure of deployment. There are ways that this could have been prevented. The fact that we got ourselves into this mess in the first place is the real problem. So, while there are clearly sympathies within law enforcement to the demonstrations, to the Trump administration, to the kinds of conspiracy theories that they are in league with, I don't think that that is the way to understand what happened.

Police, before a demonstration, engage in threat assessments. They gather intelligence, they sit around in a room, sometimes in consultation with political leaders. And they make a threat assessment. One of the things we know from extensive research is that these threat assessments are colored by police world views, which means that threats from the left and threats from racial minorities are always exaggerated, and threats from the right and from white nationalist groups are always diminished.
I'm guessing there are a lot of people who might agree with what you're saying. But people who were also, in the moment, watching what was going on yesterday and having the sort of visceral reaction of: "I want to see something happen. I want to see some consequences for people who feel like they have the right to just come in and storm the government and not fear any consequences."
So that, you know, left the Capitol Police and the D.C. Metro Police unprepared to manage the level of extremist violence that they were confronted with, and that then puts individual officers or groups of officers in this kind of untenable situation.

I think that it is a huge mistake, at the end of the day, to analyze this event in relationship to questions of policing. Because even if we had the perfect police deployment, and the Capitol was protected, [yesterday's violence] would have required high levels of force by police that would have just played into these existing polarizing narratives. It would have done nothing to resolve the underlying political problems, and might just have inflamed additional resentments. Which then just means police have more work to do.
Many Black people, and more broadly, other people of color, are not really under the illusion that the police are going to keep them safe. But a lot of white people are. And a lot of white people, I think, see chaos or violence or what they perceive to be dangerous situations and think, I want a police force. I want something standing in the way of me and violence. The solutions that you're talking about and the kind of radical change that we're talking about are obviously going to take time. In the meantime, how much is that fear of violence a barrier?
So, yes, the policing did not work. It both failed to protect the Capitol and used what I think is probably unnecessarily deadly force against people. It was a double failure. And then to the take away from that the message that, well, we just need to do more of that seems misguided. What we need is a real national reckoning about political responsibility for this mess we're in. And I think we're starting to move in that direction.

I think the real accountability for this rests with the Trump administration and his core supporters. [The election marked] a repudiation of this politics in the national political arena. But we have to continue that process, that those members of Congress who have supported this politics need to be voted out of office. And I think ultimately that is the most important form of accountability here, is the kind of popular rejection of this kind of white nationalist extremist politics. Trying to use the criminal justice system to fix those political problems is not the right way to go and is unlikely to be successful.

It's not a simple solution and it doesn't happen very quickly, right? It's going to be two more years almost until we have another round of congressional elections. And so we have to sustain this analysis. We have to sustain this anger and indignation about what's happening. And we have to turn that into real political power. And to see members of Congress last night talking about using the Sedition Act against protesters as somehow the logical solution to this problem is a way of absolving their own responsibility for this mess.

The history of this is to turn what are essentially political problems over to the police to manage, whether it's mass homelessness or deep political divisions in our society or longstanding racial inequalities. The police are not capable of doing that. And to the extent that they attempt to do so, they often make those problems worse.

Well, look, Americans are deeply committed to their retributive impulses. The United States has become a gigantic revenge factory. So obviously, people are falling back on these impulses - imagining justice as a question of punishment. Imagining that accountability is going to be measured in years of incarceration.

But that is not the only possible way to imagine these things, right? There is going to be accountability for this, which is that these movements are going to become politically isolated. The politicians who support them are going to become politically isolated. We're already seeing that happen. I think that this is going to be a turning point in the kind of extremist Trump ideology, and I think that the voters of Georgia helped cement this, because this problem didn't just emerge yesterday on Capitol Hill. This was in Charlottesville. This was in the streets of Portland, Oregon. This is an ongoing problem. And I think a majority of Americans have spoken clearly against this approach. And I think that trend is going to continue.

One of the major bulwarks of policing is not right wing extremists, it's centrist liberalism. It's the belief that what's most important is the production of order. And the willingness to to turn that problem over to police and the criminal legal system. And the kind of willful ignorance about what the consequences of that turning over are for the people who are subjected to it. So part of what's happening is a racial reckoning. That the folks who've been subjected to that system of order are unwilling to put up with it anymore.

And so this continues to be the problem: Whites who have benefited from this system of order continue to support order over justice. And what I think is being demanded in this moment is some courage. Some willingness to stare a little bit of disorder in the face. As a necessary part of producing a more just and ultimately more stable society, because, look, our state, our society, is a mess. The standards of living are declining for all but the richest. People are miserable. And to say that we need to hold on to that system at the expense of racial justice because it's less scary is a profound kind of cowardice.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How The Storming Of The Capitol Was - And Wasn't - About Police

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
subscribe to Code Switch podcast subscribe to Code Switch podcast People around the world watched in shock on Wednesday as thousands of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol building, descending on the halls of Congress and postponing the vote that would make Joe Biden's election official.

# data[].attributes.headline
Charles Koch Institute - Militarization of Police

# data[].attributes.subject
Charles Koch Institute - Militarization of Police

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Policing in the United States has grown and changed over hundreds of years. Here's why the militarization of police doesn't necessarily keep us safer.
The Potential Dangers of Police Militarization

The increased militarization of police has occurred alongside a significant decline in public trust for law enforcement agencies. While the public continues to respect their own community's law enforcement agencies, public confidence and trust in law enforcement as an institution have decreased since the early 2000s. In a national survey from 2016, a majority of Americans stated that they believe the use of military equipment by police is "going too far." This same study also found that most Americans believe that police should be required to receive a warrant before conducting a search of homes and vehicles or monitoring phone calls. This erosion of public confidence in law enforcement and low support for militarization impedes law enforcement's ability to effectively secure public safety.

Police Militarization Statistics

Drawing conclusions about the impact of militarization on public safety and police use of force is difficult because research on this topic is both scarce and mixed. One study from 2017 found that every 10 percent increase in the value of military equipment received by a county results in 5.9 fewer crimes per 100,000 residents. However, when looking at military-grade weapons specifically, the same study found that receipt of these weapons had minimal or no deterrent impact on crime. Multiple studies have confirmed concerns about the militarization of police, showing that it results in law enforcement using higher levels of force against citizens. Overall, police militarization statistics seem to suggest that utilizing certain types of military equipment may result in reduced crime within a community but increased use of force by police officers against community members.

The responses of many jurisdictions following the incidents in Ferguson are illustrative of other problems with the militarization of police: infringements upon federalism and a lack of oversight by the people law enforcement is sworn to serve and protect. For example, to secure equipment through the 1033 program, law enforcement agencies send applications directly to state coordinators in each jurisdiction. This allows local law enforcement agencies to acquire the military equipment, purchased with federal tax dollars, without any appropriate oversight by state lawmakers or local city officials. The current structure of the 1033 program allows law enforcement agencies to circumvent the traditional principles of federalism and avoid the appropriations process meant to protect citizens from excessive government spending.

Furthermore, regulations that accompany the receipt of property under the 1033 program create perverse incentives for local law enforcement agencies to ensure they are able to retain the property for their department's use. First, police must use any property acquired through the program within one year of receipt, otherwise they must return it to the Department of Defense. Second, law enforcement agencies are responsible for all of the transportation, maintenance, and conversion costs of this equipment. Although the initial zero cost for the equipment may be appealing, the insurance, fuel, storage, training, and cost to convert the equipment for law enforcement's use can be extremely high. In some instances, these costs are too expensive for many jurisdictions to justify retaining the equipment if it is not being used on a frequent basis. This creates an incentive for the agency to utilize the equipment in circumstances where it may not appropriate or reasonably necessary simply to justify its retention by the agency. It also encourages police to shift resources away from catching individuals who are the largest threat to public safety to activities that will reap financial benefits for the department through civil asset forfeiture or seizure of property associated with low-level drug possession.

The rise of police militarization can also be detrimental to the recruitment of quality candidates for law enforcement agencies. Agencies from across the country have received criticism in recent years for the creation of recruitment videos showing SWAT raids and the use of military equipment. This reinforces counterproductive thought patterns in the minds of officers and attracts potential candidates which are more excited about using military equipment against "bad guys" than helping their local communities. This will dissuade more community-minded individuals from applying for open police roles, reducing law enforcement's ability to build positive community relationships, which have been shown to improve perceptions of police, increase police effectiveness, and increase reporting of crimes by victims.

The Unsubstantiated Argument for Police Militarization

Proponents of police militarization typically argue that the rise of gangs and cartels has resulted in the use of more sophisticated and deadly weapons by criminals, necessitating more heavily armed officers. While research clearly shows that gang membership and activity have both increased, the evidence does not support the assertion that more dangerous weapons are being used during criminal activity.

Almost 75 percent of homicides that occurred in 2016 involved either a handgun or a non-firearm weapon other than explosives. The FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting Program shows that the number of homicides committed with a firearm between 1994 and 2016 decreased by more than 32 percent. The number of robberies and aggravated assaults involving a firearm declined by more than 40 percent over that same time period. Assault weapons, or semi-automatic weapons with military-style features, are used in only a few crimes. One study from 2017 found that they account for as little as 2 percent of the guns used in a crime. While we all want our law enforcement officers to come home safely each night, it is not the case that those committing crimes are using more dangerous weapons during the commission of those criminal acts.

How to Overcome the Militarization of Police

It is law enforcement's role to guard the public against criminal wrongdoers and restore order, but officers should avoid the use of excessive force, ensure individual due process protections, and respect the moral dignity of every person. In recent years, law enforcement agencies across the country have increasingly adopted tactics, equipment, and a culture that is more akin to those seen in the branches of our military. This current trend has resulted in a clear decrease in legitimacy and trust between communities and law enforcement. When a community does not trust those tasked with protecting their public safety, this negatively impacts law enforcement's ability to achieve its goals. Proper policing practices require that law enforcement build positive relationships with their community, respect civil liberties, and avoid tactics which encourage the use of excessive force against citizens.

A History of Law Enforcement in America

Law enforcement has not always been a formal, government-run entity in the United States. The early American form of policing was akin to that seen in England during colonial times, consisting of volunteer groups and privately funded part-time officers. Urbanization and the growth of cities resulted in the development of centralized municipal police departments; the first being created by the city of Boston in 1838. On the federal level, the United States Marshals Service existed as the sole law enforcement apparatus of the federal government until the end of the Civil War. Reconstruction brought about the creation of the Department of Justice and shortly thereafter the Federal Bureau of Investigation. The professionalization of law enforcement in America has continued over the past 100 years, resulting in numerous federal agencies and almost every local and state jurisdiction having their own law enforcement agency.

Today, there are currently more than 18,000 local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in the United States. These agencies employ over 420,000 law enforcement officers tasked with protecting public safety in our communities. Each year, law enforcement conducts over 10 million arrests, resulting in more than 600,000 admissions to state or federal prisons. These activities cost taxpayers over $126 billion each year for federal, state, and local police protection. It is essential that we ensure that these investments in public safety are focused on maintaining a safe and orderly society where individual liberty and property rights are secure.

The Rise of the Militarization of Police

What is Police Militarization?

Police militarization is defined by scholars as the "process whereby civilian police increasingly draw from and pattern themselves around, the tenets of militarism and the military model." This process tangibly occurs when a civilian police force adopts the equipment, operational tactics, mindsets, or culture of the military.

Public Opinion of Police

Public awareness and coverage of police militarization has largely focused on the acquisition of military equipment by police, such as armored vehicles, aircraft, and weapons. Since the early 1990s, the Department of Defense's 1033 program has provided local law enforcement agencies access to military-grade equipment. This program, now expanded by President Trump after President Obama attempted to limit its use, allows local law enforcement agencies to receive excess Department of Defense equipment that would otherwise be destroyed because it was no longer useful to the military. Over 8,000 law enforcement agencies have utilized the 1033 program to access more than $6 billion worth of military equipment such as night-vision goggles, machine guns, armored vehicles, bayonets, grenade launchers, and military aircraft. Other items that can be accessed by local law enforcement agencies through the program include field packs, canteens, sleeping bags, and ponchos.

The increased use of military equipment has coincided with an increased use of military tactics, such as SWAT teams and no-knock raids, by law enforcement agencies. In recent years, police departments from Ferguson, Charlotte, and Southampton have received criticism for their use of military tactics. One study found that use of paramilitary-style teams by law enforcement increased by more than 1,400 percent since 1980.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Militarization of Police In the United States | Charles Koch Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Policing in the United States has grown and changed over hundreds of years. Here's why the militarization of police doesn't necessarily keep us safer. The increased militarization of police has occurred alongside a significant decline in public trust for law enforcement agencies.

# data[].attributes.headline
Police Militarization - Last Week Tonight

# data[].attributes.subject
Police Militarization - Last Week Tonight

# data[].attributes.body
NOTE - As a comedian, Oliver does use graphic language. Should the link not work, the video is provided in today's LEARN.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ferguson, MO and Police Militarization: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)

# data[].attributes.headline
Community Policing Dispatch - Militarization of Policing Doom Community Policing?

# data[].attributes.subject
Community Policing Dispatch - Militarization of Policing Doom Community Policing?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Will the Growing Militarization of Our Police Doom Community Policing?

The growing militarization of U.S. policing may be threatening community policing. When Sir Robert Peel developed his plan for the London Metropolitan Police circa 1829—which U.S. policing was loosely patterned after—he borrowed heavily from the military in organization and administrative structure, but he wanted there to be a clear distinction between the police and the military. To achieve that, the uniforms of the London Metropolitan police (Bobbies) were blue, in contrast to the red uniform of the day's British military, and Bobbies were forbidden to carry firearms.

While the military's mission is predicated on the use of force, Peel's principles of policing emphasize crime prevention, public approval, willing cooperation of the public, and a minimal use of physical force.

As U.S. policing evolved it took on a quasi-military orientation, with a hierarchical rank structure supported by distinctive uniforms, insignias, and a tangle of rules that borrowed heavily from the military. The military trappings were embraced even more as the field worked its way out from under the grip of political patronage and focused on crime control as the core mission.

The professional movement (1920s through 1970s) took policing from the corruption and political influence that pervaded the early years of policing to a more autonomous and less corrupt police culture. The professional movement relied on a regimented militaristic style to accomplish the transition, which remains constant to this day.

While the community policing movement has drawn heavily from Peel's principles of policing, which emphasize the importance of the relationship between the police and the community they serve, the concurrent militarization trend may be undermining those relationships.

The current drift toward militarization has its roots in the 1960s and the responses to the social unrest that swept the nation at the time. The development of Special Weapons And Tactics (SWAT) teams in reaction to the Watts riots in Los Angeles began a movement in policing that relied more and more on military tactics, training, and equipment.

There was unquestionably a need for the SWAT team approach in handling serious violent emergency situations, particularly those involving hostage taking and terrorist related incidents, and that was their primary use from their inception through the 1970s.

However, since the early 1980s the use of SWAT teams has undergone a dramatic expansion: in the number of departments creating SWAT teams and in the mission and sheer number SWAT deployments. The number of departments—both large and small—with SWAT teams has increased by 48 percent from 1985 to 1995. SWAT team use increased as well, with team deployments jumping by 939 percent from 1980 to 1995, reaching about 30,000 deployments. The nature of their use changed as well. Search and arrest warrants related to drug cases accounted for a significant amount of the increase in SWAT deployments. Peter Kraska, Professor and Chair of Graduate Studies and Research in the School of Justice Studies at Eastern Kentucky University, estimates the increase in SWAT team use from 1980 to 2000 to be about 1,500 percent.

SWAT is not the only contributing factor to the growing militarization of our police. Some evidence suggests that the military type battle dress uniforms (BDU) that are becoming more prevalent as standard dress for patrol officers, and the stress training patterned after military boot camps may have a negative impact on the very relationships between police and community members that are critical to the operationalization of community policing.

The type and color of the uniform has been said to contribute to a citizen's perception of the officer, and some research has suggested that the uniform color can influence the wearer—with black producing aggressive tendencies, tendencies that may produce unnecessary conflict between police and the very people they serve.

Stress training in police academies, and its warrior-like orientation that tends to create an "us versus them" mind set in rookie officers, has the potential of creating barriers between the police and the community. Even when community policing is part of a stress academy curriculum, it has been shown that the stress training creates obstacles to the kind of police-citizen relationships necessary to operationalize community policing.

Police chiefs and sheriffs may want to ask themselves—if after hiring officers in the spirit of adventure, who have been exposed to action oriented police dramas since their youth, and sending them to an academy patterned after a military boot camp, then dressing them in black battle dress uniforms and turning them loose in a subculture steeped in an "us versus them" outlook toward those they serve and protect, while prosecuting the war on crime, war on drugs, and now a war on terrorism—is there any realistic hope of institutionalizing community policing as an operational philosophy?

Karl Bickel
Senior Policy Analyst
The COPS Office

Jon M. Shane, "Key Administrative and Operational Differences in the Police Quasi Military Model," Law Enforcement Executive Forum Journal, 10 (2): 75–106.
Radley Balko, Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces (Jackson, TN: Public Affairs, 2013), 53.
Our Militarized Police Departments: Hearing Before the Subcommittee on Crime, House of Representatives, 110th Cong. (2007) (Testimony of Radley Balko). http://reason.com/archives/2007/07/02/our-militarized-police-departm/print.
Peter Kraska,Militarizing the American Criminal Justice System, (Richmond, VA: Northern University Press, 2001).
Karl Bickel, "BDUs and Community Policing?"Community Policing Dispatch, 5, issue 11 (2012).
Karl Bickel, "Recruit Training: Are we preparing officers for a community oriented department?"Community Policing Dispatch, 6, issue 6 (2013) http://cops.usdoj.gov/html/dispatch/06-2013/preparing_officers_for_a_community_oriented_department.asp.

Enhancing Survivability at Mass Casualty Events | Coffee with a Cop | Police and Dog Encounters | Militarization | Innovative Policing on a College Campus: UMASS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Will the Growing Militarization of Our Police Doom Community Policing?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Community Policing Dispatch is the e-newsletter of the COPS Office. It aims to educate readers about a variety of criminal justice issues that affect the implementation of community policing and to assist law enforcement practitioners in more effectively addressing crime and social disorder in their communities

# data[].attributes.headline
PBS - Police Militarization Fails to Protect Officers and Targets

# data[].attributes.subject
PBS - Police Militarization Fails to Protect Officers and Targets

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Police militarization neither reduces rates of violent crime nor changes the number of officers assaulted or killed, according to a study of 9,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. The study is arguably the nation's first systematic analysis on the use and consequences of militarized force.

In at least one state - Maryland - police are more likely to deploy militarized units in black neighborhoods, confirming a suspicion long held by critics, the study found.

The study found that merely seeing militarized units can erode public confidence in law enforcement and give off the impression that a police department is overfunded.

Many police leaders view their SWAT teams and other militarized units as a necessity for police and public safety, especially for "high-risk" hostage situations or active shooters. Between 1997 to 2014, the Department of Defense transferred $4.3 billion in military equipment to local law agencies.

But police militarization may also work against law enforcement in the court of public opinion, according to the report published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academies of Science.

The study found that merely seeing militarized units can erode public confidence in law enforcement and give off the impression that a police department is overfunded.

What the study did

In August 2014, the fatal police shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown sparked a wave of clashes between protestors and law enforcement in Ferguson, Mo, rife with images of unarmed racial minorities standing against snipers and police atop armored vehicles. The fallout inspired a national conversation about race and police militarization - and sparked the curiosity of a Stanford graduate student.

"I started getting curious about what we actually know about militarized policing, in terms of the claimed benefits and the purported costs that are asserted by critics," said Jonathan Mummolo, a political scientist who conducted the study and now works at Princeton University.

Critics argue that police militarization preferentially targets communities of color, but in the wake of Ferguson, Mummolo could not find much evidence to back the claim. That's partially because police recordkeeping on the use of militarized force varies widely from agency to agency

"There's not a lot of data readily available, and in many cases depending on which type of agencies you're studying, there may not be any data that exist at all," Mummolo said.

Maryland provided a rare exception. In 2008, a SWAT team raided the home of Cheye Calvo, the mayor of a small Maryland town whose address was being used in a drug trafficking scheme. Rather than intercept a 32-pound shipment on its way to the Calvo residence, police allowed the package to be delivered and then invaded the mayor's home, killed his two dogs and interrogated him and his wife on the floor.

It turned out the mayor and his wife were completely innocent, and the event led Maryland to issue a new statute calling on all state agencies to record their SWAT activity from 2010 to 2014.

Mummolo petitioned a number of states for information on SWAT deployments, but "Maryland had the cleanest and consistently coded set of records on SWAT teams - on why they're deployed, where they were deployed, various actions they took during the deployments," he said.

What the study found

The term SWAT brings to mind images of mass shootings or riot barricades.

Yet over the course of four years, Maryland conducted about 8,200 SWAT missions, and the overwhelming majority - 92 percent - were used to execute search or arrest warrants. Only 5 percent involved barricades, which are typically meant for handling armed suspects.

"SWAT teams were initially developed to barricade people with weapons or for hostage crises, said Frederic Lemieux, a criminologist at Georgetown University, who wasn't involved with the study. "But they have started to trickle down to much more ordinary operations, like drug busts and patrolling areas with high concentrations of crime."

Mummolo found predominantly black areas witnessed more of these SWAT deployments than white neighborhoods, but this happened even if the areas had low rates of crime. Every 10 percent increase in the number of African-Americans living in an area corresponded with a 10 percent increase in SWAT deployments per 100,000 residents.

Mummolo still wanted a grasp of police militarization on a national level, and so he sought data from a census of state and local law enforcement that is conducted every four years by the federal government. The survey revealed 9,000 of 15,000 or so law agencies in America had SWAT units at one point between 2000 and 2008. Mummolo then looked at how crime statistics and violence against officers changed before and after those police forces militarized.

The acquisition of SWAT forces had no perceptible impact on police safety - the number of officers killed or assaulted - on a national level.

"There are over a million police officers in the U.S. and the number of officers killed every year is in the low hundreds," said Mummolo, who previously worked as a police and court reporter for the Washington Post. "So those are really rare events, and it would be hard for anything to have an effect on them."

This trend aligned with the Maryland data. Shots were fired only 1 percent of the time in Maryland's raids. Plus, civilians were twice as likely as officers to be injured during Maryland's raids, though these injuries happened rarely (1.15 percent versus 0.45 percent, respectively).

Why it matters

Police militarization is sometimes viewed as a necessary infringement of civil liberties for the sake of public safety.

But that position is a false choice based on this study, and a common outcome of aggressive police operations, Lemieux said.

"Research into aggressive, military-style tactics - stop-and-frisk, security checkpoints - may have some effect on targeted crimes like weapons possession. But it has very little impact in terms of crime overall," Lemieux said. "However, "it does impact the feeling of safety and security in the community where those operations are conducted."

Along those lines, Mummolo surveyed 6,000 people on their feelings toward law enforcement after they each read a mock news article about a police chief looking for a budget increase. All of the news vignettes contained the same text, but the photos differed. Some featured police in normal gear, while others showed militarized police.

The respondents expressed losing confidence in policing, with support from black participants being 21 percentage points lower than white respondents. The respondents were also more likely to perceive a city as being violent if they saw militarized photos.

Overall, the respondents' support for funding for law enforcement fell by 4 percentage points with police militarization photos, and their desires for police patrols took a 3 percent hit.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Police militarization fails to protect officers and targets black communities, study finds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Police militarization neither reduces rates of violent crime nor changes the number of officers assaulted or killed, according to a study of 9,000 law enforcement agencies in the U.S. The study is arguably the nation's first systematic analysis on the use and consequences of militarized force.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why America's Police Look Like Soldiers - Vox

# data[].attributes.subject
Why America's Police Look Like Soldiers - Vox