Skip navigation
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct - Header
× You have 2 more free articles available this month. Subscribe today.

Police Won’t Give Up Militarization Without a Fight

In the wake of the tragic mass shooting in Uvalde, Texas, where 19 students and two teachers lost their lives, attention has been drawn not only to the devastating loss but also to the prolonged 77-minute delay it took for police to respond. This incident has sparked a critical examination of the militarization of law enforcement in the United States, its shortcomings in protecting communities from threats, and its tendency to foster a culture of self-protection that often leads to unnecessary violence.

The issue of police militarization is complex, and despite growing concerns over racism within law enforcement and a crisis of confidence in the police, many departments across the country continue to resist necessary reforms. Jessica Katzenstein, an Inequality in America fellow and anthropology Ph.D. graduate from Brown University, has undertaken extensive research to shed light on the reasons behind this resistance and to challenge the prevailing narrative that portrays it as a straightforward matter.

At its core, police militarization involves the federal government’s longstanding practice of providing military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies. Initially intended to combat the war on drugs and later to counteract potential terrorist threats, this practice has expanded to encompass SWAT teams, paramilitary tactics, military-style bureaucracies, and a mindset that views non-officers as potential adversaries or threats.

During her field research, Katzenstein engaged in conversations with law enforcement officers, reform activists, and others to better understand their perspectives on militarization and proposed police reforms. Officers distinguished between what they perceived as “good” and “bad” militarization. Some criticized the heavy-handed response seen during social justice protests, such as the militarized actions taken by officers in Ferguson, Missouri, following the police killing of Black teenager Michael Brown.

Conversely, some officers expressed concerns about small-town police departments having excessive military-grade equipment that they are unlikely to ever use. They questioned why certain departments were fully equipped with weapons, shields, and training but failed to fulfill their duty to protect and serve their communities.

Katzenstein’s research also highlighted the prominent role of self-protection in police training and culture. Some officers acknowledged the challenges they face when encountering individuals with mental health issues, citing a lack of humane training and the inherent nature of their work as contributing factors.

Furthermore, officers tended to attribute mass shootings primarily to mental health issues rather than examining other factors. Katzenstein argues that the framing of militarization reforms often grants legitimacy to certain aspects of the practice. Even the strictest demilitarization policies allow exceptions for disaster preparedness, terrorism response, and active shooter situations. This creates an environment where police departments can continue to justify their equipment requests under these exceptions, potentially undermining genuine efforts to curb militarization.

As a digital subscriber to Criminal Legal News, you can access full text and downloads for this and other premium content.

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login



CLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x600
PLN Subscribe Now Ad 450x450
The Habeas Citebook: Prosecutorial Misconduct Side