Please respond to the following:
View the video, Militarization of U.S. Police? [Video]. In the past decade or so, we have seen what is known as the “militarization of police.” What this means is that police agencies have been given old military equipment such as armored vehicles, uniforms, and the like to better address violent situations.
What are your thoughts on this? In your opinion, does the militarization of police better help police address violent situations? Or is it a threat to the public when they respond to protests and the like with this equipment? Why or why not? Week 5 discussion- CRJ 100
______________
Those in favor of the militarization of police argue that it provides law enforcement agencies with the necessary equipment to deal with dangerous and violent situations. The equipment that they receive from the military, such as armored vehicles and body armor, can help protect police officers and innocent civilians in situations like active shooters, terrorist attacks, and hostage situations.
However, those opposed to the militarization of police argue that the use of military equipment by police has resulted in an escalation of force and a decrease in community trust. Critics argue that when police officers dress and behave like soldiers, it creates an “us vs. them” mentality and can lead to the excessive use of force, particularly against marginalized communities.
Furthermore, opponents also argue that the militarization of police has been used inappropriately, such as in response to peaceful protests, which violates the rights of citizens to protest and free speech.
Whether the militarization of police helps address violent situations or is a threat to the public depends on how the equipment is used and by whom. When used judiciously and appropriately, militarized equipment can be beneficial for public safety. However, when used indiscriminately or inappropriately, it can lead to negative consequences and harm public trust in law enforcement.
