Martin O’Malley is in a tough spot. On one hand, he is far (faaaaar) behind Hillary Clinton. On the other hand, he doesn’t have the Progressive support (or revolutionary zeal) that Bernie Sanders has. And, worst of all, he is getting partial blame for the death of Baltimore’s Freddie Gray. So much so that a group Read More
On May 18, 2015, President Obama made a surprising announcement: he ordered the federal government to reverse its standing practice of providing American police departments with surplus weapons and vehicles from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq. Given declining confidence in police after a seemingly constant recent stream of fatalities involving black suspects, this newfound caution with heavy provisioning is understandable. But questions about the wisdom of militarizing police are not new. WhoWhatWhy first wrote about the issue in February, 2014.
Images from Ferguson, Missouri, underline disturbing parallels between unrest in the US, the Middle East or elsewhere in a world where attitudes toward “people power” depend on who the people are and who is in power.
WhoWhatWhy first brought you the story of the disturbing trend of police departments arming themselves with surplus weapons from the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq to patrol Main Street, U.S.A. Others are finally picking up on this explosion of police firepower.
FBI statistics show violent crime is down, but politicians keep funding more cops, lavishing them with military equipment, and training and encouraging them to act like soldiers instead of peace officers.
Does your local police department really need an armored vehicle capable of surviving explosive devices like those buried in the roads of Afghanistan or Iraq? A Republican legislator in New Hampshire, troubled by the increasingly militarized police force in his town, is trying to do something about it.