This article examines the differences between the police and the military, between war and law enforcement. In this article, we will clearly distinguish the advantages and disadvantages of police militarization. We will discuss how this action itself may change the security of the nation and whether this action presents a harmful situation for American civilians. Could this action affect the future internally? We discuss how this brings change in our age of terrorism. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”? Get an Original Essay Before we weigh in on either side, we must first look at the definition of militarization and how it began in the United States. Militarization involves abandoning or equipping forces with military supplies or equipment. This may seem like a bad thing, but it's not. We're going to put ourselves in the police officers' shoes and find out why this benefits both the public and our officers. Now, in 1990, Congress passed the National Defense Act following an increase in drug-related violence, which allowed the Department of Defense to transfer and donate materiel and equipment used military equipment to local and state police departments. This program was known as the 1033 program. And this program also provided military supplies used in the fight against terrorism. Today, one of the benefits of militarization is that it can increase the confidence of police officers on the streets and make them feel safer and more reliable. Another advantage is that virtually no money is wasted in the provision of equipment, as it is used military equipment that the Ministry of Defense transfers to local police departments as needed. It is also important to emphasize that the new equipment is accompanied by better training for police officers. Sending highly disciplined and trained police officers onto the streets only benefits the communities they are sworn to protect and serve. And also to give advantages to well-trained and well-armed police officers, because they are ready for anything, like a terrorist attack. Now, some people might disagree with these statements, because they might say that having police officers carry military weapons or drive other military vehicles gives communities the appearance of an armed police confrontation. This statement is completely absurd, because society is always in mourning when a tragedy such as a terrorist attack occurs and many people die. Instead of distressing, let's prevent the next attack by preparing now by providing law enforcement with the tools and supplies they need to keep us safe. Because ultimately, they are the ones who answer our calls for help. Another downside that might worry some people is that some people might not feel safe in the presence of highly trained police officers armed with military weapons. Which again is absurd because these police officers took an oath to protect, serve and give their lives for the safety of their communities. Prevention is always better than cure. These police officers are there to protect us and we must give them the support they need to continue their work. Police officers are not the only ones to carry guns. Criminals and legal gun owners do it too. It is not the police who carry extremely deadly weapons withbad intentions. They are the criminals, the terrorists. Although many may disagree, it is much safer in certain situations to use these military-style tactics and equipment. Police forces should be equipped with second-hand military equipment, weapons and armed vehicles in order to protect not only people but also themselves when they really need it. The police in the middle wear a “Class A” type uniform. Do you think this uniform is mission appropriate? This uniform, especially with the long jacket, can be problematic at work. He's as unsuitable for street patrol as the two on the far left at a ballroom event. The officers on the That's right, they wear a more traditional patrol uniform, which isn't very useful, is it? In today's world, would you expect to see officers on the job in this uniform? The two officers on the far left are wearing military-style uniforms. Outer vests may be removed at the station for officer comfort when off duty. I think it is more appropriate when on patrol and/or during special tasks. The officer on the left also wears a thigh holster. Research shows that belt carrying a lot of weight can lead to back problems, which is where the thigh holster comes in. This may sound military-like, but it's better for a personal setup. There is definitely a certain time and place to wear these uniforms. But again, as with firearms, police officers are not the only ones to wear this type of vest for their protection, criminals too. The criminal's targets are their own people or random people; however, it is the police who must intervene to save them. So why shouldn't the police wear such uniforms for their own protection as well? Military clothing would intimidate criminals much more than an officer with dark blue or black shirts and clip-on ties (traditional or Class A type uniforms), don't you think? I think these uniforms would even boost the confidence of the police when eliminating heavily armed criminals or terrorists. This gives them more security and makes their job much easier. These military-style uniforms can also significantly reduce the number of police deaths because they are safer than others. There are special times when these uniforms must be worn. Not daily, but when really necessary. This should not be a problem for citizens, because when the police assist them, do their job and save lives, they do not think about police uniforms, they think about their own life, whether it will be saved or not , but do they do it? do you think about the life of the police? This is not the case. So why should they or anyone disagree when they are also fighting for officer safety? When we support the idea that the police force should pass on the legacies of the military to me, we are trying to give a more realistic view of the situation. That is to say what the future holds for us in 10,20 years and so on. When we use our thesis that “police forces should be equipped with second-hand military equipment,” we use the word “should.” Joining any police force in the world is taking an oath to protect society and the very people who live to uphold the law. These members of the law are putting their lives on the line so people like us can write an essay about this. Back to my main point: police forces should have the appropriate equipment they haveneeded to fight the good fight. Can you go so far as to give everything to the police of course! 5-0 cannot arrive on scene in a tank if there is someone walking. According to Steven Sarao's article on swat work, he states: “IN 2005, I came face to face with a naked, crazy, drugged man. There was broken glass all over the floor as my fellow officers and I struggled to handcuff the man. After what seemed like an eternity, the Emergency Services Unit (ESU) finally arrived. With the help of specially trained ESU officers and equipment, we were able to safely master the subject. » This quote from the article shows how dangerous the job can be. Even with backup, your life is still in danger. Let's say for example that the police had better equipment and the situation would not have gotten out of control like it did. This could also be due to training, but why can't the police train like the army? Which brings me to my second article by Anta Plowden "Bringing Balance to the Force: The Militarization of America's Police Force and its Consequences" which describes how, after the events of 9/11, people lost trust in the police. The people wanted the military to take care of internal issues. “Next, attention will shift to issues surrounding the use of the military to manage domestic unrest and how the military has adapted to its new role in the post-9/11 world. Finally, it will make recommendations to restore confidence in the police forces and enable them to safely and effectively carry out their mission of enforcing the law. this quote shows that allowing the military to handle domestic issues instead of the police would allow people to rely too much on armed force. So, when they leave, who would be there to help them? Police forces have always followed a certain standard: neutralize the threat as quickly as possible and ensure public safety. This has worked for them countless times in the past when faced with crime or injustice. As the future advances and the actions of criminals become more and more senseless, police must become better equipped to deal with the terrible threat that presents itself. “The source of military-grade weapons for many LEAs in the United States is either grants from the Department of Homeland Security or the Department of Defense Surplus Property Program (1033 Program)” (Guerra, 2015, p. 1). Over the past decade, the military has provided police forces with second-hand weapons, armor and vehicles, used in times of crisis, to handle situations more effectively. Living Under The Boot: Police Militarization and Peaceful Protest is an article that explains the extensive militarization of local and state police forces and the threats it can pose to civilian freedom. Some people consider this “useless” or simply boast about the power they have, which they abuse to some extent. It also offers thoughtful solutions that police can adopt to revive their relationship with the public. To eliminate patterns of abuse, officers can manage their own staff and accept responsibility for their actions. “With just a few changes, such as changing the color of the uniform, using BWVs, changing the disciplinary process and banning tear gas, the SPD can once again be a model for the nation, this time for the right way to manage a police force in Germany. response to protest” (Guerra, 2015, p.1). DHS was founded after the attack on the World Trade Center, and these grantshave been used to combat “terrorist threats” (Guerra, 2015, p.1). The purpose of these grants was to provide new methods for dealing with unexpected and dangerous situations. Anything they can think of could be bought, as long as it improves how they deal with crime and other law-breaking actions. Guerra (2015) “In 2011 alone, DHS awarded $2 billion in grants. “The department then makes little effort to track how grants are spent (Guerra, 2015, p. 1), which involves verifying the equipment purchased and determining whether the “requesting agency” faces real terrorist threats. The population of Fargo, North Dakota is less than 116,000, and Canada, an ally of the United States, is the closest foreign country. DHS sent Fargo $8 million in grants to get "Kevlar helmets, assault rifles and an armored truck with a rotating turret." These actions by DHS demonstrate how committed it is to ending the threat of terrorism as quickly as possible. The ability to maintain law and order is a strong virtue that they hold high and wish to see through to the end. Additionally, DHS has distributed “at least $34 billion in counterterrorism grants since its inception.” The 1033 program gives the impression that it helps officers by providing them with the resources they need to win their “war.” The program involves the National Defense Authorization Act which allows for the transfer of properties from the Department of Defense to federal, state and local departments. The original goal of the program was to aid the war on drugs. Since 1997, any agency may request the property "for bona fide law enforcement purposes that assist it in its mission of arrest and apprehension", with preference given to "counter-drug requests and terrorism”. Nearly half a billion dollars in military equipment was distributed in 2013 alone. In total, more than $4.3 billion in equipment has been transferred since the inception of the 1033 program. Law enforcement officers learn the “us versus them” mentality. They are taught that everyone is a suspect and that almost anyone can kill you in no time. “While this theory may contain some truth, it can often lead to errors with disastrous consequences” (Plowden, 2016). The task of police officers is quite difficult because their priority is to protect civilians and enforce the law. Additionally, they are tasked with waging war, whether it be on drugs, crime, or even terrorism. The impact of war can greatly affect how officers choose to protect innocent bystanders. Every American is a soldier, and every citizen participates in this fight, President Bush declared after the September 11 attacks. This terrorist threat has allowed police departments across the country to justify their demands for larger arsenals and more equipment; even small towns needed a SWAT team. As American soldiers prepared to combat terrorism abroad, the constant and ever-present threat of another terrorist attack on American soil blurred the lines between the military and the nation's increasingly militarized police forces. (Plowden, 2016). Police departments patrolled the streets in armored vehicles and increased the frequency of pre-dawn military-style raids on civilian homes, all in the name of counterterrorism efforts. Bringing Balance to the Force: The Militarization of America's Police Force and its Consequences, is a.