The arming of police officers in the US is an issue that is generating so much controversy that arguing for or against it would be quite counterproductive unless one understands the underlying issues.
It is important first to look at arguments from both sides before jumping to any form of conclusion. In most of the cases that have emerged, it is evident that human rights activists like Rev. Jesse Jackson are not making noise for anything, they have strong issues to pick against the proponents of the arming who happen to be the police chiefs who are facing an ever-increasing threat from the arm sophistication that is emerging from the underworld.
According to Monique Bond, the Chicago police spokeswoman, while it is quite understandable to be strong against arming the police especially during this time when the debate of gun legislation is picking, it is necessary to “ensure that our police officers are safe, because when they are safe, the communities they protect are even safer”.
Monique’s concerns come against a background of an increasing number of homicides in the city for the first few months of 2008; from January to April there have been 134 cases of recorded homicide cases which represents a 9% increase compared to the previous year’s figure. There has been a marked increase also of violent crimes involving guns, the latter has equally jumped to about 6.1 percent which for any security agent is alarming and something needs to be done urgently. It seems the society and the police, in particular, are under siege from marauding heavily armed gangs.
Any form of crime increase, especially when guns are involved has obvious repercussions to the police force that are required to act with speed to counter such vice. Trying to stem such a vice sometimes means that the police officers will have to physically exchange fire with the criminal elements. Lately, there has been a significant rise in the number of police officers who have died in the line of duty, especially when they are involved in such gun exchanges.
That the number of guns in the hands of criminals is rising at an unprecedented rate, for example in Fort Lauderdale the criminals seem to be well-armed and many guns have been seized; with around 291 guns being sized in Fort Lauderdale in 2007 alone.
What this spells for any police officer is that the job at hand is more dangerous than ever before and makes them so vulnerable and afraid to venture outside to handle any crime situation. They feel they would end up being sacrificial lambs in a society that seems not to care or understand their precarious situation.
Arming police officers with rifles seems to be one of the effective ways of staying ahead of criminals. Assault rifles are said to be more effective than handguns because they are more accurate and have a higher range. This argument has not gone down well with the civil rights groups who find it illogical because firepower has not been needed in the recent past. The civil rights groups vehemently oppose the move of arming police officers because they feel crime and violence will be intensified. This would eventually create more tension between the citizens on one hand and the law enforcement officers on the other.
Activists like Rev. Jackson view arming not only as dangerous but as an escapist way of dealing with crime. They feel that the police are not doing their homework well in utilizing other available measures of countering crime. According to the rights groups, the best way to handle the whole issue is to address the general root causes of crime. The main causes of crime have been listed as the rise in unemployment rates amongst the youth, the proliferation of dangerous arms to the wrong hands, and the increase of cases of drug use. If carefully analyzed these causes can be addressed comprehensively thereby arresting crime without resorting to any form of violence. However, such a move will require the involvement of all governmental departments.
Opponents of the police arming say this is a dangerous move because it exposes the public to the impunity that has been witnessed while dealing with situations that do not qualify to be rated as extremely dangerous; a case in mind is the shooting to death of Sarah Manfield of Boise. She was shot eight times although she did not necessarily pose any great danger to the police. It is on the activists’ view that other methods could have been used to neutralize her especially because she was one against many. Right activist groups argue that even though she posed some danger to the law officers, one shot from a basic gun would have sufficed. It seems the police officers in this particular case were more or less trigger happy, pumping 8 bullets into a hapless woman was the height of impunity.
The security agents, on the other hand, think that there has been an acceleration in cases of shootouts and standoffs resulting in police officers being outgunned. This has resulted in rising cases of officers dying in the line of duty which sometimes involves the mass shooting of civilians by heavily gunmen.
According to Chaska’s police chief, “if you get into a fire fight, you want to be the winner”.9 Given this argument, the police officers are being armed with more sophisticated weaponry to “stay ahead”.
However, it seems that some states or towns are only arming their officers, not because of the danger that is lurking behind the covers but because that is what is in vogue across the country; for example in Chaska in Minneapolis, the arming of the police seems unnecessary, this is because crime in a town with an inhabitant population of 24,000 can easily be controlled. With such a small population, crime detection and prevention through intelligence is not a tall order, yet the law enforcers do not seem to want to take that direction. Arming them with sophisticated weaponry seems to be an all-time answer to crime which is a flawed view.
While Chaska seems to be an isolated case, other states and towns have had the negative impact of the expiration of the ban on assault weapons. The ban has given rise to violence related to dangerous weapons. Thus the police officers find themselves in a catch 22 situation and according to Peter Ham the spokesman for Brandy Center to Prevent Gun Violence, police officers “need to be able to defend themselves and the rest of us and they need the weapons to do so”.
The crime statistics in the country seem to be on the rise, which in a way can be attributed to the economic hardship that the country and the world are experiencing. Criminal gangs are aware of the dangers awaiting them at the hands of well-equipped police officers and strive to keep themselves well advanced not only to scare the law enforcers but to counter them when necessary. The law agencies on their part have been left with extremely lean options and see the only way out is to militarize themselves as well. How effective this method depends solely on how well the police are trained to restrain themselves; which remains to be seen.
Works Cited
Allison Klein: D.C. Police to Carry Semiautomatic Rifles on Patrols: 2008. Web.
Brittany Wallman: Exclusive Elite teams bid to slash firearm crime 734 cops carrying rifles and handguns: Florida Police to get Assault Rifles: (Fort Lauderdale, Florida). 2008. Web.
Keith Ridler: More police arming with assault rifles. Departments across U.S. switch to keep up with criminals: 2008. Web.
Norman Silvester: Gun Law: 2008. Web.
Sophia Tareen: Jesse Jackson Opposes Plan to Arm Cops with Rifles: 2008. Web.