Why Militarized Police Departments Create Tension and Fear in Communities

Paramilitary Model of Modern Police

The paramilitary model of policing incorporates a kind of military-grade level of discipline into the ranks of the police so that they maintain better use of force at all times. The goal of this model is to help the officer be a more disciplined public servant who is self-possessed but fully equipped to restore order at times when public disturbances threaten to turn chaotic or violent (Potter, 2013). While the paramilitary model of policing certainly has its benefits, I believe that it also has some limitations, especially when it comes to the differences between police work and military work. It should be remembered soldiers are tasked with engaging an enemy while the police are tasked with serving and protecting the public. The militarization of the police can give communities the wrong impression that their communities are actually being occupied by a militarized police force rather than being served and protected by a police department that truly has their best interests at heart. This can seem the case especially when police departments begin purchasing military-tech directly from the military, which is no longer in need of it. A community policing model should, therefore, be implemented as well to help keep a police department balanced. The paramilitary model can give police the discipline they need, and the community policing model can give police the appropriate orientation they should have towards the community.

In the paramilitary model, the chain of command dictates that decisions are made in a hierarchical manner, just as they are in the military, so that officers take their orders from higher-ups at the top of the chain of command (Cruickshank, 2013). The purpose is to create a more regimented and discipline police department, but to ensure its success it means that the leaders of the department have to be very good at what they do—for in the paramilitary model of policing the department is only going to be as effective as the leaders at the top. If the leaders are well-qualified and effective, some of major benefits of this model are that officers will feel more united and aligned with one another and their leaders: everyone will be on the same page, which helps to give police officers the confidence they require to be able to do their work in the field most effectively. In this model, there is less emphasis on individualism and more emphasis on the mission, vision, values and principles of the police department. The model stipulates that officers represent in their own persons the values and principles of the department at all times and to such a degree that the officer knows full well that any violation of the ethical principles and standards of the department, whether on or off duty, will result in his termination. Every officer is made to believe firmly that his conduct has to be of a very high standard because he represents the department, the city, county or state that he is serving, his fellow officers and commanders, and the people he is tasked with protecting. The recognition of the responsibility and accountability that every officer owes to the department and to the community is given front and center focus.

In this light, I think that the paramilitary model offers a lot of good for police departments: it teaches discipline, ethics, responsibility, and duty. These are all good qualities and characteristics that an officer of the law should be expected to cultivate. When an officer acts with a high caliber of character, the community really and truly appreciates it because it understands that there is nothing better in a strong community than a much-loved and much-respected police officer who abides by the principles and values of the community. At the same time the community knows that there is nothing worse in a community than a bad police officer who fails to live up to the ethical principles and standards expected of him and who, instead, engages in corrupt actions and leverages his power and resources to manipulate, exploit, harass and oppress the community either directly or indirectly.

That leads us to the problem or limitation of the paramilitary model of policing: it puts a great deal of power into the hands of the police department and if that power is abused it can lead to all manner of bad ends. The community can feel oppressed. Community leaders can feel out of the loop. The problem of oversight can rear its ugly head if departmental actions raise the ire of the public. And in terms of the issue of organizational change, the paramilitary model can entrench departments in a very club-rule type of mentality that can foster the wrong kind of spirit.

The paramilitary model also places a great deal of emphasis on decisions being made at the top, which means that officers may not be as effective at making smart decisions on their own in the field—especially if the situation is not one that they have trained for. While relying on discipline and tactics can be helpful, critical thinking and the use of social and emotional intelligence—tools that can be acquired through the process of community policing—can be even more helpful, especially when it comes to reducing the risk of violence and to the need for deescalating situations (Greene, 2000). In my opinion, community policing is a much better option for changing the organization of a police department’s structure because it brings in community leaders and involves them in the process of overseeing policing policies, and it builds bridges between the police and the community, allowing both sides to feel more confident that the police truly are there to serve and protect.

The paramilitary model, on the other hand, can cause tension and fear unnecessarily in the community, especially if the police department is bringing in military-grade weapons and Humvees. It gives the community the impression that it is being occupied by a foreign power and that its voice is being crushed as those every member of the community were under suspicion or was a dissident one step away from being arrested and imprisoned for life. The paramilitary model does not do much to shore up the confidence of the community, though it can certainly help to shore up the confidence of the police officers who are trained within it.

Though the hierarchical structure of the police organization is supported by the paramilitary model, many communities want to be more involved in the decision making and oversight of police organizations because of past issues involving racial tensions, violence, or riots. The Arizona officer who etched into his service weapon the words, “You’re f*cked” before killing an unarmed teen in a hotel when the teen reached down to his shorts to pull them up is one example of the kind of mentality that community leaders would like to keep out of the police organization (Friedersdorf, 2017). However, such a mentality may be attracted to the organization if the organization embraces the paramilitary model of policing. That is the problem with this model when it comes to change: it can attract the wrong kind of person. People who think they are facing off against an enemy combatant should join the military—not the police. The Arizona officer who killed the teen neither served nor protected the community in doing so, and judging from the words on his service weapon he seems to have had no intention of doing so.