New research finds that the militarization of police does not reduce crime, and it reduces support for law enforcement

Quote:The militarization of America's police has been hotly debated in recent years. Critics argue that effectively turning cops into soldiers risks alienating them from the communities they supposedly serve.

New research provides evidence supporting such warnings. It finds the use of SWAT teams—perhaps the most common and visible form of militarized policing—neither reduces crime nor enhances public safety.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/militar...duce-crime

(08-21-2018 10:31 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  New research finds that the militarization of police does not reduce crime, and it reduces support for law enforcement

Quote:The militarization of America's police has been hotly debated in recent years. Critics argue that effectively turning cops into soldiers risks alienating them from the communities they supposedly serve.

New research provides evidence supporting such warnings. It finds the use of SWAT teams—perhaps the most common and visible form of militarized policing—neither reduces crime nor enhances public safety.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/militar...duce-crime

This is a dubious report. First of all--SWAT teams are not regularly deployed anywhere. They are only called upon in specific situations where a more military type police presence would be helpful to preserve life. You'll only see SWAT type units at hostage and armed stand off type situations or large events or locations that are at high risk of possible terrorism. Keep in mind, these SWAT units were a response to police forces in the 60' and 70's running into armed terrorist and criminal groups that were far better armed than the police. Its a silly debate. Police are not being militarized. They simply have created a small team of trained officers capable of using military tactics and weapons to counter a very limited number of extremely dangerous armed situations and groups. Its not like SWAT teams are doing routine traffic patrols down Santa Monica Ave.

Quote:First of all--SWAT teams are not regularly deployed anywhere. They are only called upon in specific situations where a more military type police presence would be helpful to preserve life. Usually hostage and armed stand off type situations or large events or locations that are at high risk of terrorism

I make no judgement as to the veracity of the reporting, however the article does claim that "the vast majority of SWAT deployments occur in connection with non-emergency scenarios, predominately to serve search warrants."

A police force does not reduce crime on a large scale.

There may be those instances where a person who planning to commit a crime defers his act due to a police presence. But I would expect that only changes the time the crime is committed.

For example, a guy planning to rob a convenience store will choose to pass by a store with police cars in the lot. He'd either wait until they left or move to another store that doesn't have police hanging around.


A police force is used primarily to catch people breaking the law or who broke the law.

The perceived threat of punishment and the scale of that punishment is the primary scope of deterrence.

A person's behavior is an individual action. To engage in a particular act is solely the decision of the individual.

There is no law under the sun that forces certain behavior.

We've heard the talking point, "You can't legislate morality." And that's true.

Instead, society legislates AGAINST immorality.

No law forces a person to not rob a bank.

But there are laws that categorize robbing banks as bad behavior.

Laws also prescribe punishment for engaging in bad behavior.

Robbing a bank is wrong.
The punishment for robbing a bank is prison time.


Another deterrence to crime is a society made up of individuals who understand right from wrong and behave accordingly.

Of course, this takes us to the discussion of whether morality is objective or subjective. Is there a universal moral code outside of and beyond individuals, or is the moral code different for each individual?

(08-21-2018 11:06 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:First of all--SWAT teams are not regularly deployed anywhere. They are only called upon in specific situations where a more military type police presence would be helpful to preserve life. Usually hostage and armed stand off type situations or large events or locations that are at high risk of terrorism

I make no judgement as to the veracity of the reporting, however the article does claim that "the vast majority of SWAT deployments occur in connection with non-emergency scenarios, predominately to serve search warrants."

Very dangerous work.

(08-21-2018 11:06 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:First of all--SWAT teams are not regularly deployed anywhere. They are only called upon in specific situations where a more military type police presence would be helpful to preserve life. Usually hostage and armed stand off type situations or large events or locations that are at high risk of terrorism

I make no judgement as to the veracity of the reporting, however the article does claim that "the vast majority of SWAT deployments occur in connection with non-emergency scenarios, predominately to serve search warrants."

Im guessing these are break the door down situations involving violent crime suspects presumed to be armed. So the article is correct---these deployments are not a response to an emergency call. However---thats certainly not to say its not an extremely dangerous armed life or death situation. In other words---I don't find their use in those situations particularly unreasonable.

(08-21-2018 11:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im guessing these are break the door down situations involving violet crime suspects presumed to be armed. So the article is correct---these deployments are not a response to an emergency call. However---thats certainly not to say its not an extremely dangerous armed life or death situation. In other words---I don't find their use in those situations particularly unreasonable.

Just so we are clear, the article is not claiming that serving search warrants cannot be dangerous. It's just that their data supports that these search warrants served with SWAT teams are not always for dangerous situations.

We've seen how wrong serving a simple warrant can go for officers here in Mempho on several occasions, most recently a female officer - and mother of small children - attempting to serve a simple warrant was gunned down through the door on which she was knocking.

(08-21-2018 10:31 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  New research finds that the militarization of police does not reduce crime, and it reduces support for law enforcement

Quote:The militarization of America's police has been hotly debated in recent years. Critics argue that effectively turning cops into soldiers risks alienating them from the communities they supposedly serve.

New research provides evidence supporting such warnings. It finds the use of SWAT teams—perhaps the most common and visible form of militarized policing—neither reduces crime nor enhances public safety.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/militar...duce-crime

Its a really sloppy report. Online survey? Really? And comparing these groups responses on budgets with a picture, not real world situations?

Disproportionately used in minority communities? How many white suburbs have SWAT teams in their police department?

There is no evidence that it lowers crime? Based on what? There appears to be nothing he has done to verify that. And its more for safety when you have serious crimes.

Its a "politics and public affairs" professor. It sounds like a sociology type study. A soft science with soft data.

(08-21-2018 11:25 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 11:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  Im guessing these are break the door down situations involving violet crime suspects presumed to be armed. So the article is correct---these deployments are not a response to an emergency call. However---thats certainly not to say its not an extremely dangerous armed life or death situation. In other words---I don't find their use in those situations particularly unreasonable.

Just so we are clear, the article is not claiming that serving search warrants cannot be dangerous. It's just that their data supports that these search warrants served with SWAT teams are not always for dangerous situations.

And misuse of these teams has nothing to do with the conclusion of the article.

(08-21-2018 11:16 AM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 11:06 AM)Lord Stanley Wrote:  

Quote:First of all--SWAT teams are not regularly deployed anywhere. They are only called upon in specific situations where a more military type police presence would be helpful to preserve life. Usually hostage and armed stand off type situations or large events or locations that are at high risk of terrorism

I make no judgement as to the veracity of the reporting, however the article does claim that "the vast majority of SWAT deployments occur in connection with non-emergency scenarios, predominately to serve search warrants."

Im guessing these are break the door down situations involving violet crime suspects presumed to be armed. So the article is correct---these deployments are not a response to an emergency call. However---thats certainly not to say its not an extremely dangerous armed life or death situation. In other words---I don't find their use in those situations particularly unreasonable.

Agreed. I am assuming the special operations units like SWAT aren't used for a typical bench warrant where someone missed a court date unless they have a history of violence.

LOL @ the "militarization" of police

(08-21-2018 01:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  LOL @ the "militarization" of police

They are already referred to as a "paramilitary" force because they get some of the same training and they as well as the FD refer to people not like them as civilians, which I find laughable as they can at any time they want leave a police/fire department. A servicemen can't without a punishment of some sort before his stint is up.

(08-21-2018 02:51 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  LOL @ the "militarization" of police

They are already referred to as a "paramilitary" force because they get some of the same training and they as well as the FD refer to people not like them as civilians, which I find laughable as they can at any time they want leave a police/fire department. A servicemen can't without a punishment of some sort before his stint is up.

It's a buzzword that ignorant people who think that police officers should be dressed the same as what they wore in One Adam Twelve and only armed with revolvers.

(08-21-2018 02:51 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  LOL @ the "militarization" of police

They are already referred to as a "paramilitary" force because they get some of the same training and they as well as the FD refer to people not like them as civilians, which I find laughable as they can at any time they want leave a police/fire department. A servicemen can't without a punishment of some sort before his stint is up.

The police refer to themselves as "paramilitary" organizations. The police director in Memphis referred to his force as a paramilitary in a press conference when all the protests for confederate statues were going on here.

(08-22-2018 06:29 AM)JTiger Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 02:51 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  LOL @ the "militarization" of police

They are already referred to as a "paramilitary" force because they get some of the same training and they as well as the FD refer to people not like them as civilians, which I find laughable as they can at any time they want leave a police/fire department. A servicemen can't without a punishment of some sort before his stint is up.

The police refer to themselves as "paramilitary" organizations. The police director in Memphis referred to his force as a paramilitary in a press conference when all the protests for confederate statues were going on here.

Depends on the definition, but the police director isn't wrong. Most police departments (and fire departments FWIW) are structured in a military style in terms of rank structure and organizational structure.

(08-23-2018 01:59 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  

(08-22-2018 06:29 AM)JTiger Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 02:51 PM)olliebaba Wrote:  

(08-21-2018 01:30 PM)Kaplony Wrote:  LOL @ the "militarization" of police

They are already referred to as a "paramilitary" force because they get some of the same training and they as well as the FD refer to people not like them as civilians, which I find laughable as they can at any time they want leave a police/fire department. A servicemen can't without a punishment of some sort before his stint is up.

The police refer to themselves as "paramilitary" organizations. The police director in Memphis referred to his force as a paramilitary in a press conference when all the protests for confederate statues were going on here.

Depends on the definition, but the police director isn't wrong. Most police departments (and fire departments FWIW) are structured in a military style in terms of rank structure and organizational structure.

They have always had that sort of setup. That isn't a new system. Firemen also have a similar command structure.