Talk:Militarization of police/Archive 1

Archive 1

AFD

Hoping the article will survive an AfD : )OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 01:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

US centric view

I tagged the article for US centric view, The edit was reverted on 11 January with the edit summary "It specifies that it is a US topic". No discussion was started here.

I am reverting the revert because the title of the page militarization of police does not indicate that it is an US topic. This is important, because there is evidence that the militarization of police is a global phenomenon. Hence, militarization of police in the US is only one facet of the topic.

So, the choices are simple:

• leaving the flag and expanding the article, which is doable.
• Removing the flag and changing the title to [militarization of police in the US]. --Wuerzele (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

The article scope is clear at this current moment which is that it is a US topic. Get some RS's that show police militarization worldwide and add content. Until then, there is no need for a globalize tag. - SantiLak (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

We could go either way. If this is a world-wide trend, we could have sections for each country effected. If this is only a U.S. phenomenon, we should change the title. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

Deletion of Chris Kyle material

Reliably sourced information about Chris Kyle bragging that he shot looters in New Orleans has been repeated deleted from the article with very weak reasons:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militarization_of_police&diff=644112469&oldid=644065652
• https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militarization_of_police&diff=644252519&oldid=644217760

Do other editors feel this material is not relevant, not reliably sourced, or not NPOV? The person deleting this claims it is "misinformation" and "disinformation" but provides no reliable sources to support his or her claim. I believe this is notable, relevant and reliably sourced and should remain in the article. Ghostofnemo (talk) 14:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Kyle never bragged about this at all...These "writers" that misrepresent the story of Kyle claiming HE shot people from the Superdome after Hurricane Katrina. Kyle did fabricate the story of snipers shooting persons from atop he Superdome but he never once stated that he did so himself. The originally story is from an op-ed written by another navy seal and is here at this link. The news media has bamboozled people into the lie that Kyle claimed he was there...he never made that claim. These "journalists" are apparently too slovenly to do their own research before writing a "news" piece. The fabrication of information to fit an agenda is one of the things that brings discredit to some media outlets and news magazines. Webb's piece predates these sources and it is from that that the lies were spun. Of course, chickenshit cowards can easily smear a person after they are dead and no longer capable of defending themselves.--MONGO 15:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

While I appreciate you sharing your personal insights on this matter, unless you can provide a reliable source to support your assertions, I'm afraid we have to go with the reliable sources we do have, and the three I've provided say he bragged he shot looters in New Orleans. Ghostofnemo (talk)

Since you have not provided any reliable sources to back your assertion that the cited reliable sources are misrepresenting the truth, I'm going to restore the deleted line. Ghostofnemo (talk) 04:45, 31 January 2015 (UTC)

I reverted you. Here's my edit summary: "Clearly hearsay. No reliable reporter heard Kyle say it, therefore it was not 'reported' that he said it. It was reported that some person of unknown reliability else claimed he said it." Evidently because Chris Kyle was murdered, all of the precautions contained in WP:BLP get thrown out the window by certain editors. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 00:44, 4 February 2015 (UTC) Also, I've edited the "Viewpoint" section. It used to have one statement from the ACLU and five or six by "Huffington Post" writers. Each and every one of them critical of recent changes in weapons and tactics by police. Not even one opposing viewpoint. Painfully obvious WP:NPOV problem. I cut down the number of "HuffPo" opinions to two, and now I'm looking for opposing viewpoints to add. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:18, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Why is Chris Kyle even mentioned in this article? He wasn't a police officer, and his inclusion in an article about police militarization just seems random. Also, Snopes claims that the information about the looters is bogus: [1].Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:53, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Because private contractors (and apparently even volunteer veterans) were apparently allowed to play law enforcement roles, even though martial law had not even been declared. There was a "state of emergency" but not martial law. http://www.propublica.org/nola/story/nopd-order-to-shoot-looters-hurricane-katrina/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:03, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

The story has been altered by liars. Kyle never said he was there...he said others were. Snopes claims all of it is bogus. So the legend isn't fact.--MONGO 18:48, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

The three reliable sources cited say he said this. Can you supply reliable sources to back your claim that this is untrue? If so, you can note that this is disputed, but you shouldn't delete reliably sourced material. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:26, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Ghost, the story orginated as I stated above several weeks ago. Kyle told the other navy SEAL that he believed other military personnel has gone to work for a security firm possibly Blackwater and that they (other former soldiers) had been shooting people from atop the Superdome. His story predates these other legends and even Snopes claims the whole thing is a concoction. It not true...and you and I have gone over this before on the Chris Kyle page.--MONGO 13:57, 12 February 2015 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring over this, Ghost. You don't have consensus for the changes you've made. Your so-called reliable sources do not say, "Chris Kyle said XXX. I heard him say it." What they say is, "Some person of unknown reliability told me that he heard Chris Kyle say XXX." I'm not challenging the general reliability of those publications. I'm saying that in this specific context, those cannot be accepted as reliable sources to unequivocally say, "Chris Kyle said XXX" in Wikipedia's mainspace. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 03:59, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Neutrality

I've added a neutrality tag, due to some extensive coatracking, failure to include all relevant views under the viewpoint section and my concerns that this article is taking sides against certain police practices and procedures. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

Just for those who don't know the term, coatrack is a Wikipedia term. See WP:COATRACK.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 00:22, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

If you feel this article is not balanced, you could add reliably sourced material expressing other points of view, claiming this is not actually happening, or is an illusion, or is actually a positive trend, or that our Constitutional rights were judicially revoked by the courts so that this is all legal, that police safety always over-rides the human rights of citizens, etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:05, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

I've added some statements from the Fraternal Order of Police. I'll try and edit the article some more, but I'm still worried about bias. My concern is that the article depicts police militarization as something that is unquestionably happening, unquestionably negative and procedes to back this up with a lot of cherry picked examples. I think it would be more in-line with our neutrality policy to describe it as a trend that many people believe is happening, describe the supporters of this belief and the evidence they give, and give due weight to those who believe that police militarization is not happening or that the programs deemed militaristic are actually positive. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:15, 13 February 2015 (UTC)

Militarization of police as a trend reaching back decades in U.S.

I don't think the material that has been added about border clashes with Mexico at the turn of the century, organized crime in the 30's, and 60's terrorist attacks is relevant to this article. The issuing of machine guns to police officers was not widespread until recently, with the War on Drugs and the rise of SWAT teams. The FBI had these weapons, but they were not widely used by local police, and were certainly not used to control protesters or serve warrants until very recently indeed. I think this historical material is not relevant to the article and should be removed. Ghostofnemo (talk) 12:22, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

To the contrary, it is essential. Try reading the sources cited in what is now the second paragraph of the section. Municipal police departments and county sheriff's departments were creating SWAT units with fully automatic weapons, body armor and armored vehicles in the 1960s. Historian Charles Beard indicated that changes in American culture in the Great Depression (the 1930s) contributed to police militarization. Riot gear has been consistently deployed by urban police in response to violent protests, as well as protests that could become violent, such as those at the 1968 Democratic National Convention, and on our college campuses throughout the late '60s and early '70s. This is not a recent phenomenon, nor did it occur in a vacuum. Pretending the opposite contributed to the situation that required a neutrality tag. I'm hoping to get that tag removed. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 05:14, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

It appears that you are trying to justify this widespread phenomenon based on extremely isolated incidents of violence. The Mexican border incident is especially ridiculous. This is like treating seriously Hitler's claim that a police state was necessary because one man burned the Reichstag down. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

And policing protests with riot gear and policing them with assault rifles are two very different things. The military does not use riot gear in battle. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:51, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

The information is essential background information needed to give the full context on police militarization. I know that law enforcement have been using armored vehicles since the 1930s, and a lot of the "militarization" occurred throughout the 20th century, so it is incredibly misleading to claim that militarization is brand new to the 21st century. Also, I'd like to reiterate my desire for this article to actually describe what police militarization is and to provide analysis from reliable sources as well as giving due weight to those who do not believe it is occurring. As it stands, this article is just a cherry picked list of times the police got scary looking tools or did something the press disliked.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Also, the history section (minus the notable incidents section) is currently the most neutrally written section in the article since it gives all relevant information needed to understand the subject without deliberately favoring a certain viewpoint. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:55, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source that mentions widespread use of armored vehicles by U.S. law enforcement prior to the 21st century? Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:59, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I found the section you are complaining about to be a very neutrally worded section that enhanced the article significantly. It does not contradict the militarization of police....it shows in fact that it has happened and more importantly major reasons why it has happened.--MONGO 14:11, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

It may be neutrally worded, but it is suggesting a dubious cause - effect relationship, with the cause and effect happening decades apart. Armored vehicles and police equipped like combat troops on our streets are not a response to the gangsters of the 30's, or to Mexican incursions across our borders, or because of a handful of radicals in the 60's. If you can provide reliable sources that say that police militarization in the 21st century is a result of events which took place decades ago, but which did not manifest themselves until recently, after a long period of gestation, you may have an argument, but this appears to be an original theory that is being proposed by Wikipedia editors without any evidence to support it. Ghostofnemo (talk) 16:18, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

The Lenco BearCat and Cadillac Gage Ranger are both lines of armored police vehicles that have been produced since the 1980s and late 1970s, respectively (the bearcat link goes to a specific vehicle that started production in 1999, but the line it is a part of has existed since the listed time). In addition, here is a link proving that at least one police department was using armored vehicles in the early 1930s against organized crime: [2]. I’m really not seeing how early police usage is not relevant, especially when some of the sources about police militarization go into detail about the early usage. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 04:40, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Were these armored cars sold primarily to the military, or to police departments? Were they in widespread use by local police departments more than 20 years ago? Your one armored car from the 1930's is not relevant because this article is about the recent (last 20 to 25 years) trend of local police departments to acquire and deploy military weaponry. Arguing this is a response to Al Capone or Mexican border incursions or the Weather Underground is ridiculous. Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:26, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikpedia articles should provide background history on events and trends to help put them in context. Most of the sources on "police militarization" depict it as a long-running trend that started during the 20th century, so the background information is relevant to the article. If you disagree, do you have any reliable sources demonstrating that the "militarization" that occurred during the early 21st century is distinct and separate from the "militarization" that occurred during the early to mid 20th century? Spirit of Eagle (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

I think the earliest we can talk about the current trend developing is with the advent of SWAT teams in the mid-60's. This is from the article SWAT; "According to the Historical Dictionary of Law Enforcement, the term "SWAT" was used as an acronym for the "Special Weapons and Tactics" Squad established by the Philadelphia Police Department in 1964." Here is a direct link to that section https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SWAT#History Ghostofnemo (talk) 13:17, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

After further research, I haven't been able to actually find any information actually linking Poncha Villa's raid on Columbus with "police militarization". However, the war on crime from the 1930s has been linked to the "militarization", and was the supposedly militarized tactics and gear were first used. I propose that the information on Poncha Villa be removed, and that the information on the 1930s war on crime be edited to show the relevance and demonstrate its significance. This would eliminate any appearances of synthesis, and would result in a concise history section. Does this sound acceptable?Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:16, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I still think SWAT is the beginning. Most police departments had little more than shot guns before that. The FBI dealt with the mobsters. Ghostofnemo (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2015 (UTC)

I regret that I do not have the time to devote to this article that it deserves. Ghost, consensus is clearly against you (3 to 1). I've done a quick Google search to confirm use of armored cars by municipal police departments in Kansas City (a small city) and Kenosha, Wisconsin (a small town) in the 1920s and 1930s, and added this information to the article. I also found a blog entry showing the use of an armored Cadillac sedan by Dayton, Ohio police, complete with photo. If these three municipalities used armored cars, it is reasonable to infer that many more did as well. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 17:53, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Exactly. The idea that police have become suddenly more military-like is based on a lack of past knowledge. Police are more technologically capable overall and have more military grade hardware like armoured types vehicles but even larger departments usually only have token items of such equipment.--MONGO 18:52, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

Hi there MONGO -- I think Spirit of Eagle offered a reasonable compromise: remove the sentence about the Pancho Villa raid and keep the rest. What do you think? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 19:06, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

If nothing links them together then it does not belong in this article.--MONGO 22:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

There are several articles focusing on police developments during the 1930's war on crime in the context of police militarization. We do not need to devote an entire section to the 1930s. However, we should definitely note that the first armored police vehicles and "militarized" police tactics emerged during this time period as a response to well armed and organized criminal groups. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 06:18, 8 March 2015 (UTC)

Looks like we have consensus for removal of the sentence about the Pancho Villa raid. I'm doing it. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:52, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

OK a couple of issues. First, just because a few police departments had armored cars in the 20s and 30s does not mean it was a widespread, accepted police practice. Clearly this has not become common until the last 20 years or so, so the info about the armored cars should be removed. It's like arguing that because a few airplanes existed at the turn of the century that air travel was widespread. Next, what is this all about? "with organized, violent left-wing protesters at such events as the 1968 Democratic National Convention in Chicago and the 1999 WTO Conference in Seattle,[16] with urban rioting such as the 1965 Watts riots in Los Angeles, with arsonists such as Earth Liberation Front (ELF),[17][18]" You're arguing that we have SWAT teams serving arrest warrants and demonstrations being policed with snipers and machine guns because some protesters got out of control and threw some bottles and smashed some windows, or because of fires started during riots and arson incidents? Unless you can find a reliable source that says cops needed machine guns to deal with rioting college students, or that armored cars protect people against arson, etc. this stuff needs to go. The cited sources say arson and riots occurred, but don't connect this with the increase in police firepower, armor, aggressiveness, etc. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Spirit of Eagle, MONGO and I have all agreed that the material belongs in the article. This is consensus. We've removed the most objectionable sentence regarding the Pancho Villa raid. If you think the sources don't link these events with police militarization, you haven't read the sources. In particular I'm thinking of the work of historian Charles Beard, as described by Richard Kohn in the Journal of Military History. This is a quarterly, peer-reviewed academic journal. Also you may be interested in a book called "Terrorism and Homeland Security" by Jonathan White, available via Amazon. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 02:56, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo says police are more aggressive...that's hilarious. Allnthjs baloney about armored vehicles...where? I live in the Omaha area and I have never seen one, and Omaha is one of the most dangerous cities in the USA for African-American males. Maybe they have them stored in a secret warehouse right next to their tanks and helicopter gunships.--MONGO 03:12, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

I see this answers my question, "Three trucks, a generator set and two M-14 rifles are the only military surplus items acquired by the Omaha Police Department." Does not seem to be a "militarization".--MONGO 03:21, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Posse Comitatus Act

The government militarized local police to bypass the Posse Comitatus Act — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.8.26.224 (talk) 18:09, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

Hi there. Welcome to the discussion. Is that your opinion? Or is it the opinion of a notable author or expert on police matters, published in a reliable source? Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 16:02, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

If it is your opinion and you aren't really bringing anything to this article then remember WP:NOTAFORUM. - SantiLak (talk) 07:52, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Their or its in lede sentence

In the lede sentence that follows, we have been going back and forth between using "their" and "its". See the word "its" bolded in the following sentence: "The use of tear gas in warfare is prohibited by various international treaties that most states have signed; however, its law enforcement or military use for domestic or non-combat situations is permitted." If the opening words of the sentence contained a plural noun (e.g., "The use of tear gas canisters"), then "their" would be appropriate. But since the opening line is singular ("The use of tear gas"), we need "its".OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 11:54, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

References

SYNTH

How are 'notable incidents' like "During the 2008 Democratic Party Convention in Denver, Colorado, approximately 100 people were arrested by the Denver Police Department, some of whom were bystanders." related to militarization of police? They arrested people, how is that related to military equipment? Neither does the source mention militarization. This article needs to be checked for WP:SYNTH issues. --Pudeo' 14:27, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The following sentence reads, "Denver officials agreed to pay $200,000 to settle a lawsuit accusing police of indiscriminate mass arrests and preventing civilians from exercising their First Amendment rights." These were mass, indiscriminate arrests, which violated the protesters' rights. That happens in police states, not in democracies. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:44, 8 April 2015 (UTC)

If this "violated the protesters' rights," do we have a reliable, neutral source stating that? Ideally it would be an attorney commenting on legal matters for CNN or some other major, neutral news agency, not Huffington Post, Daily Kos, or Democracy Now. Ideally, we would have a source indicating that military style weapons or armored vehicles were used. If not, then it may be a violation of the protesters' rights, but that can certainly happen (and has happened many, many times) without militarization. It would be irrelevant. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 21:22, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

Mass arrests of protesters for demonstrating are associated with martial law. Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:23, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I reposted this incident using the Denver Post as a source. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:17, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

FBI photo

The FBI is not a normal police department. I think that photo should be replaced with a more relevant photo. Likewise with the Secret Service and Coast Guard photos. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:01, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

A reliable source discusses police militarization in the US and refers to the up-arming of the ATF and the FBI. James Fisher's SWAT Madness and the Militarization of the American Police: A National Dilemma (ABC-CLIO Press, 2010), on page 42, discusses the Branch Davidian standoff and the ATF and the FBI, particularly noting the FBI's use of M-16s, Bradley Fighting Vehicles, M-60 tanks, and so on.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 03:42, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

OK, but I did swap out the FBI SWAT team for an LAPD photo for the lead photo. Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:10, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

An FBI photo is back at the top of the article. There is a difference between "police" (local police) and "federal law enforcement agencies". This article is primarily about militarization of our local police forces. The FBI has been using machine guns for a long time (against gangsters in the 20's, for example). A photo of local police officers with machine guns would be fine here. Ghostofnemo (talk) 05:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

This article is about the militarization of police, which involves police, such as local police, and various law enforcement bodies. What other law enforcement bodies a Wikipedia article on "police militarization" should cover, and whether it should cover the activities of the FBI, is a question that we should look to published, WP:Reliable sources for guidance, rather than rely on Wikipedia editor's opinions, like my opinion or your opinion. In SWAT Madness and the Militarization of the American Police: A National Dilemma', A. James Fisher describes the role of the FBI in the Waco siege. On page 42, he describes how FBI hostage rescue teams in full combat gear and M-16 assault rifles stormed the Waco compound, supported by FBI agents in Bradley Fighting Vehicles and M-60 tanks. Fisher's book supports the position that the FBI's use of military gear such as M-16s, Bradley Fighting Vehicles and tanks are an example of police militarization. As such, it can be argued that photos of FBI agents in military-style combat apparel and armed with assault rifles or submachine guns are appropriate for this article. If you have reliable sources which demonstrate that the FBI's use of military weapons is not an example of police militarization, please provide them here.OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 18:28, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

"Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), principal investigative agency of the federal government of the United States. The bureau is responsible for conducting investigations in cases where federal laws may have been violated, unless another agency of the federal government has been specifically delegated that duty by statute or executive fiat. As part of the Department of Justice, the FBI reports the results of its investigations to the attorney general of the United States and his assistants in Washington, D.C., and to the United States attorneys’ offices in the country’s federal judicial districts. Although it is a federal agency, the FBI is not a national police force, and law enforcement in the United States remains principally the responsibility of state and local governments." https://www.britannica.com/topic/Federal-Bureau-of-Investigation Ghostofnemo (talk) 22:50, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Synthesis / No original research / Reliable sourcing

This article suffers from a serious problem with original research — specifically, synthesis. (I'm not the first to notice this problem; Pudeo has also done so. Much text is not on the topic of "militarization of police," but rather deals with other, distinct issues, such as police brutality, police misconduct, searches and seizures, and the like. Most of the citations used to support this material also don't mention "militarization" or military-style equipment/tactics.

This article needs to stay on topic and the sources cited should directly refer to militarization. Not all police misconduct, or controversial law-enforcement actions, are "militarization." Police surveillance, civil forfeiture, and the infamous Chicago police black site should and are discussed on other pages, but they shouldn't be on this one unless a reliable (journalistic, scholarly, etc.) source expressly connects these topics to militarization. Anything else is essentially a coatrack.

And one more thing. Fringe conspiracy-theory sites like WorldNetDaily, op-eds on Breitbart from members of Congress, op-eds from Grover Norquist, and random op-eds are not reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 14:56, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

I endorse this view. "Militarization" covers a number of law enforcement issues, but it doesn't cover everything. Felsic2 (talk) 17:41, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Mass deletion of entire "Civil liberties" section

I'm going to restore the deleted "Civil liberties" section. Clearly, as described in the (previously deleted) lead of the article, erosion of citizens' civil liberties is a clear result of police militarization. This is "Paris is the capital of France" obvious. This article is not strictly concerned with military hardware but also with the broader issue of the impact of this new mind-set on society. Ghostofnemo (talk) 00:30, 1 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm reverting. Please carefully read the following:

1. Sorry, but you don't get to include text that the sources don't link directly to the topic just because you think it's "obvious." Wikipedia:No original research. Just because you think something is "clear" doesn't mean it actually is. I've laid out in detail above my problems with this text, not only because it's out of scope (again, not all police misconduct is "militarization"; militarization generally refers to military equipment and tactics, not just police abuses. Another user has agreed with me and disagreed with you.

2. Even if this text wasn't out of scope, the sourcing is not sufficient. (Most egregious: A congressman's op-ed published in Breitbart is not a reliable source for anything except the author's own opinion, and even then it's subject to the limitations: it has to be due weight and given attribution in text).

3. Two users (myself and Felsic2) have objected to this content. You are the only user to support it. You cannot restore this material against the consensus. If you want to develop a consensus, try starting an RfC or posting to the relevant n=.

--Neutrality^talk 06:02, 3 March 2017 (UTC)

--I that that the "equipment" issue is one that deserves broader consideration. The equipment and funding for that equipment actually drives the operational policy. I agree with Neutrality, hopefully timely enough to add to the discussion. Activist (talk) 07:09, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps the material would be more relevant to another article. Maybe Civil liberties in the United States? Felsic2 (talk) 16:46, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry old sport, but I think two readers is not much of a consensus. Your view demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of this matter. You've not thought clearly about it. This article does a reasonably good (if perhaps over-brief) job summarizing the history and current nature of police militarization (it misses the shift in esp. USA local police hiring practices reported in law enforcement journals, from college graduates to ex-armed-forces enlisted personnel). It is perfectly legitimate to report criticism of that devolopment, as shedding light on it as a problem. You need to think more clearly, and perhaps become more familiar with the subject st hand. It is deficiency in judgment such as yours that keeps Wikipedia second-rate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.240.83.101 (talk) 05:51, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Rewriting the civil liberties section.

So while I agree that we need a section on civil liberties, I don't think any cites in it except maybe the first one are usable. If people want to defend any cites from the previous version in particular, go ahead and bring them up here; but basically, we need a collection of sources to write something better. The section doesn't necessarily have to be as huge as it was (it could be in line with the others, perhaps a bit larger depending on what sources we find), but it does have to be there. In addition to Here's what I came up with on a quick search:

• Preventing a Reign of Terror: Civil Liberties Implications of Terrorism Legislation. Academic paper published in the Summer/Fall 1996 issue of Oklahoma City University Law Review
• The Militarization of US Domestic Policing The Independent Review, v. 17, n. 4, Spring 2013.
• The book Militarizing the American Criminal Justice System: The Changing Roles of the Armed Forces and the Police seems like a good source, especially this chapter, Waging War on Immigrants at the U.S.–Mexico Border: Human Rights Implications.
• The Police-ization of the Military, published in the Journal of Political and Military Sociology
• Soldiers as Police Officers/ Police Officers as Soldiers: Role Evolution and Revolution in the United States (Quote: "As noted, role convergence contains significant societal implications. With the militarization of police, the concerns center on infringement of civil liberties..." There' a particularly valuable paragraph further down, just above the conclusion, starting with "Although the paper specifically notes that, ideally, PPU officers should see themselves as peace officers rather than as paramilitary soldiers, it does not discuss the implications for civil liberties when this does not occur." The whole paragraph is valuable to us because it articulates specific civil liberty concerns unique to blurring the line between military and police.)
• Also, while we need a source from the ACLU to present their position on police militarization and the threat it poses to police militarization, I think (since they're probably the most notable civil liberties organization in the world), I'm not sure the one currently used in the article is the best available. This and this present their views on police militarization more directly.

...there are probably others, but we can expand the section as we go; that should be enough for a decent paragraph or two at the very least. --Aquillion (talk) 03:56, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

As a first step, I will restore the previously deleted section, and editors can improve it from there. Ghostofnemo (talk) 02:14, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Proposed replacement section

Aquillion, Ghostofnemo: I have drafted the following as a proposal replacement section, based on the sources identified by Aquillion and some sources that I found as well.

The federal Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 forbids the U.S. military from conducting domestic law enforcement activities, embodying "the traditional American principle of separating civilian and military authority." There have been exceptions made, however: in 1981, Congress enacted legislation allowing military involvement in drug interdiction at U.S. borders, and eight years later "designated the Department of Defense as the 'single lead agency' in drug interdiction efforts." In the late 1990s, following the Oklahoma City bombing, there were proposals to further limit the act to allow military participation in law enforcement activities in chemical/biological weapon and terrorism cases. These anti-terrorism proposals were criticized by some commentators on the basis that they were a threat to civil liberties. Writers such as U.S. Air Force officer Charles J. Dunlap, Jr. critiqued proposals to use the military for internal security, on the basis that "No one should suffer the illusion that military forces could ever execute the laws with the same sensitivity to civil liberties as regular police forces." Dunlap argued that "the central imperatives of military service" was "destroying targets and undermining enemy command and control"—a skill that did not necessary carry over into intelligence-gathering and investigation. Under this view, "a successful policization of the armed forces may well render it incapable of defeating authentic external military threats."

The accelerating militarization of regular law enforcement during the War on Drugs and post-September 11 War on Terror, however, prompted some commentators to express alarm at the blurring of the distinction between civil and military functions, and the potential to erode constraints on governmental power in times of perceived crisis. A 2010 paper published in the journal Armed Forces & Society examined "role convergence, that is, evidence that significant segments of police operations in the United States have taken on military characteristics; and evidence indicating that many U.S. military initiatives have taken on policing characteristics." It concluded that "for individual citizens and for society as a whole, at least one aspect of role convergence—the militarization of the police—is potentially troublesome. If this convergence results in the police adopting not only military-type tactics and procedures but also military attitudes and orientations, the convergence may seriously threaten traditional civil rights and liberties."

A 2014 report by the American Civil Liberties Union, War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing, concluded that "American policing has become unnecessarily and dangerously militarized...," citing an increase in the use in unnecessarily aggressive SWAT raids, "tactics designed for the battlefield"; and military equipment such as armored personnel carriers, flashbang grenades, and battering rams, as well as a lack of transparency and oversight..

References

Any feedback? Neutrality^talk 04:53, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Hearing no objection, I've implemented this. Neutrality^talk 03:09, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Militarization of police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141209035113/http://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/leso/Pages/default.aspx to http://www.dispositionservices.dla.mil/leso/pages/default.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Ghostofnemo - Wikipedia:Synthesis

Ghostofnemo - regarding this edit, adding this citation: doesn't this squarely violate Wikipedia:Synthesis? The cited source nowhere discusses the military, militarization, military tactics, etc., and yet you've added it to an article on militarization. The same is true of other material that you added on police killings. All the text must directly be connected to the article topic, with the connection made by the source, not us.

And, moveover - wouldn't you agree that this text would be far better placed in the articles use of force and List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States?

Neutrality^talk 04:12, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

From the source cited above: "Van Dyke is an extreme example of a pattern of unnecessary deadly force used by US police. American police kill a few people each day, making them far more deadly than police in Europe." Although the author does not explicitly use the term "police militarization" it is understood by most readers that the higher rate of use of deadly force is not because U.S. police officers enjoy killing people. Ghostofnemo (talk) 03:01, 18 June 2017 (UTC)

Request for comment on deleted "Civil liberties" subsection

The consensus is to restore the subsection on "Civil liberties". Cunard (talk) 00:53, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the subsection on "Civil liberties", which has been entirely deleted from the article Militarization of police, most recently here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Militarization_of_police&diff=768340612&oldid=768206442 be restored to the article? Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes It should be restored because it is relevant to the article and reliably sourced. Militarization of police forces clearly has a negative impact on civil liberties, as the numerous reliable sources which are cited point out. Ghostofnemo (talk) 01:47, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes On the whole the section is relevant and well-sourced, with some issues. These did not warrant removal, and most of the section should be restored.

The part on the Chicago police "black site" are most certainly relevant as they pertain to warfare tactics (extra-legal detention, interrogation and likely torture) and to civil liberties (arrest and detainment without charge or access to layer). The source is a thorough investigation by the Guardian and was reported on by multiple other reliable news sources.

From the lede: "The militarization of law enforcement is also associated with intelligence agency-style information gathering aimed at the public and political activists." Civil Liberties objections to police intel gathering have been widely raised and are therefore relevant to this article and this section. (note also that NSA would not be relevant here as it is technically not law enforcement)

The only part that I am unsure about is the second paragraph, as several of the sources don't seem to discuss militarization of police and as far as I can tell none of them are secondary sources. Also the source for the very last sentence of the section (re. justice dept probes) does not mention militarization or military tactics. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 03:15, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Regarding the second paragraph on 4th amendment violations, I would point out the heavily militarized police response after the Boston marathon bombing, during which squads of "soldiers" conducted house-to-house warrantless searches of an entire neighborhood to find a single suspect. "A startling home-made video now shows the terrifying moments where Watertown residents were forced out of their homes at gunpoint as SWAT teams performed door-to-door searches as they hunted the second marathon bomber. While millions of Bostonians waited in their houses on Friday during the city-wide lockdown, the people of Watertown were faced with SWAT officers yelling at them to get out of the buildings immediately. At the time, the Boston police department and federal agents were barely criticized, but now many are concerned about the dangerous precedent that could lead to more police searches using the rationale of ‘exigent circumstances’ as an excuse." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2313249/Boston-bomber-search-Moment-SWAT-teams-ordered-innocent-neighbors-houses-GUNPOINT.html and "As the Atlantic reported last year, we haven’t seen a lockdown and an occupation of an American city on the scale of what happened in Boston after the marathon since the Watts riots — not in Oklahoma City after the Murrah Federal Building bombing in 1995, not in Atlanta after the 1996 bombing in Centennial Olympic Park, not in D.C. during the 2002 sniper attacks, not after a series of pipe bombs went off in federal courthouse in San Diego in 2008, not during the dozens of instances in which a mass killer or serial killer was still at large. In Boston, 19,000 National Guard troops moved into an American city, not to put down a civil uprising, quell riots or dispel an insurrection, but to search for a single man. Armored vehicles motored up and down residential neighborhoods. Innocent people were confronted in their homes at gunpoint or had guns pointed at them for merely peering through the curtains of their own windows." https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/04/22/the-police-response-to-the-boston-marathon-bombing/ Ghostofnemo (talk) 07:44, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'm on your side. Boston is a good example and certainly fits the bill, although your two references, daily mail referencing infowars (also remember RfC on Daily Mail) and a washington post reported opinion blog (not strictly journalistic) don't really amount to rigorous analysis. The post article talks more about precedent setting than actual documented civil liberties violations in boston (one would need to prove that the searches were both conducted without necessary legal authority and without consent). But the case definitely applies to this article, although it isn't actually part of your second paragraph. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 22:36, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree. I searched for better sources but there were apparently no mainstream news stories on the door-to-door, warrantless searches by militarized police units that also mentioned the negative implications for civil liberties in the United States, which is spooky to say the least. I did find two that say this happened but it was completely legal: "Boston's Door-to-Door Searches Weren't Illegal, Even Though They Looked Bad" by Philip Bump https://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/04/boston-door-to-door-searches-legal/316042/ and "Can the Police Search My Home for a Bomber? Why the door-to-door manhunt for Dzhokhar Tsarnaev doesn’t violate the Constitution" by Katy Waldman http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2013/04/boston_bomber_manhunt_is_the_watertown_door_to_door_search_by_police_for.html Interesting that I could not find even one mainstream story that says this was troubling and illegal. Ghostofnemo (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

Found one. "Thomas Nolan, who served for 27 years in the Boston police department, says he commends first responders for their overall handling of the bombing and investigation, but he condemns the armed house-to-house searches that took place in Watertown. “We don’t have house-to-house searches in the United States,” Nolan told Here & Now’s Robin Young. “I don’t know that consent across-the-board was freely given. And consent that’s obtained looking down the barrel of a machine gun is never freely given.” http://hereandnow.legacy.wbur.org/2013/04/25/search-dzhokhar-tsarnaev Ghostofnemo (talk) 06:10, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

• Yes to a section on civil liberties, but this one needs to be almost totally rewritten. Civil liberties objections are a major aspect in virtually all coverage of the topic; the idea that it could be omitted entirely doesn't seem remotely defensible. That said, the previous version strikes me as completely useless as a starting point - I just reviewed it, and only the very first cite to the ACLU seemed remotely usable (the others were either to sources that fail WP:RS, make no mention of militarization, make no mention of civil liberties, or all three.) I'll put together a list of sources below. --Aquillion (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
• Absolutely yes -- There is no good reason for it having been removed. The material is 100% in accord with the extant article and it's well referenced with citations. Not seeing any reason why it was removed that has any legitimacy. Damotclese (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes agree with above comments that it is well-sourced - there may be some problems with a few sources but on the whole the sources are WP:RS and ontopic - I had never heard of nefirstamendment.org but googling them shows they have been quoted by Boston Globe, CBS, NY Times - the section should be included and improved through normal editing. Seraphim System ^(talk) 02:23, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes Might have to be rewritten though. Stikkyy (talk) (contributions) 04:33, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
• Yes The section is relevant and well-sourced. It should be improved, not removed. Gouncbeatduke (talk) 17:39, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

References

Not a proper RfC, but...

Note that this was not a proper RfC because it completely failed to use the RfC header to draw the attention of wider users (see Wikipedia:Requests for comment) - you're expressly supposed to do that so that the bot notifies editors from the feedback request service. As an interested editor, I also should have been tagged or otherwise notified at the outset, and this wasn't done.

But, looking toward the future and not the past — many editors rightly pointed out that this section needs to be almost entirely rewritten because it is rife with WP:SYNTH (sources that make zero mention of militarization), reliable source problems, and so forth. I will try to work on this. Neutrality^talk 02:24, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

A Wikibot removed the expired template here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Militarization_of_police&diff=784035012&oldid=783345486 Please abide by the results of the RFC. Ghostofnemo (talk)

Thanks for that - didn't see it. As to the RfC, I agree with the consensus that we should include information about civil liberties, SWAT raids, etc. (and I support that). But the RfC did not ask about or make a judgment about specific citations or material, and the consensus in fact was that the content should be improved, and problems dealt with. That's exactly what I'm doing now — and I'm in fact expanding the article's points on civil liberties, the use of raids, etc.

If you have an issue about a specific point (such as a specific citation or specific sentence), I would be happy to talk about it. But note that there are serious WP:SYNTH concerns with some content - i.e., sources cited that never talk about militarization at all. In the spirit of the RfC, I'm working to replace and improve some of the content, rather than simply deleting it. Please read over what I've added and see if it is amenable to you. Neutrality^talk 03:54, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

---

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Militarization of police. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070714102208/http://www.factcheck.org/aclu_ad_on_sneak-and-peek_searches_overblown.html to http://www.factcheck.org/aclu_ad_on_sneak-and-peek_searches_overblown.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20031206083809/http://www.nasta.ws/New_Folder/Tactical%20Edge%20Article.doc to http://www.nasta.ws/New_Folder/Tactical%20Edge%20Article.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:09, 12 January 2018 (UTC)

General comments/inquiries

Hello Wikipedians,

As part of the Wikiedu program, the following are a few comments and questions regarding this article:

• Paragraph two, third sentence beginning with 'Tear gas' - a suggestion perhaps would be to cite and reference the exact source that can attest the claim of use of tear gas against protesters in the 2000s

• Point of observation: There are numerous, lengthy quotations directly from various sources throughout the piece; the tutorials in the Wikiedu program discourage this and thus curious if it is possible to paraphrase much of the information being cited

• Suggestion regarding the analysis of police militarization in the countries listed in subsections: is it plausible to do further analysis to emphasize the complexities of police militarization when considering the systematic oppression of Indigenous peoples (using specific militarized tactics) in many of the listed countries (or the inclusion of references to sources that provide this information) Peernet17 (talk) 16:56, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks everyone!

Question

Reading the article, i wondered about something in the section on the 1968 Chicago protests. It called the protesters "violent left-wing protesters" while neither the article on the convention nor the article on 1968 Democratic National Convention protest activity uses that description. How come they are described as such in this article? 91.49.91.163 (talk) 03:07, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

Removal of text sourced to study

A recently created SPA is removing text sourced to a study for the sole reason that this editor disagrees with the findings of the study. The text should be restored immediately. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:08, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

I too am wary of brand new SPA's that appear at an article to insist on an edit, but on closer inspection, it's a significant contention to add to the lead that police departments "borrowed tactics, techniques, and organizational templates from America’s imperial-military regime that had been developed to conquer and rule foreign populations," particularly when that's sourced to a single article by a sociology professor. Should be fine if it's included in the article body attributed to that academic, but frankly UNDUE to be the lead stated as a fact like that. On a separate note, because of the way the overall lead is set up, this article appears to really be focused on the United States, while some other countries appear with minuscule sections (Colombia, Germany, Mexico, and Indonesia especially). Do you know if this article is intended to be a worldwide view of "Militarization of police", and has somehow become skewed so that it's lead is all about the United States, or was the intent is for it to be something more like "Militarization of Police in the United States," and somewhere along the line some other countries got added in? Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 22:28, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Additional source for this article

I just came across this and it appears not to be yet used in this article: When local cops drive tanks: The deadly consequences of militarizing Mayberry - Equipping police with weapons of war doesn't make communities safer - Excerpted with permission from "I'm From the Government and I'm Here to Kill Your" by David T. Hardy.

https://www.salon.com/2017/10/21/when-local-cops-drive-tanks-the-deadly-consequences-of-militarizing-mayberry/

---Avatar317^(talk) 22:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)

RfC: Mention militarization of police in the US in the lead

Should the lead briefly summarize that (i) the U.S. is a prominent example of militarization of police in democracies, (ii) U.S. police departments were non-militaristic prior to the 20th century, and (iii) that influential police reformers (such as August Vollmer) introduced reforms in the early 20th century whereby US police departments adopted military tactics, techniques, and organizational templates? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes. Since this Wikipedia article covers militarization of police in the US at great length in the body, the lead should briefly summarize the content for our readers. Aside from summarizing the body, the US is a prominent example of militarization of police in democracies, so it's not undue or an example of US-centrism to mention the US briefly in the lead. The proposed text reflects the findings from this study, which is published in the top sociology journal by an award-winning expert[3]: Julian Go, "The Imperial Origins of American Policing: Militarization and Imperial Feedback in the Early 20th Century," American Journal of Sociology 125, no. 5 (March 2020): 1193-1254. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)

• No - None of this has enough article content to be WP:LEAD candidates. Also: (i) The United States is not particularly different from other nations in this and the article is supposed to be about the phenomenon, not about a contest for who is 'prominent example'. (ii) While the United States police were considerably more brutal in the 19th century, it's true that militarization methods is a 20th century phenomenon -- but that is universal, the U.S. is not unique nor notably different. (iii) The article is already flawed by the excess of US-events not explanatory of the article topic, and excess content about US-only events. Those are not explaining anything about the nature of militarization or the spread in various nations, it's just name-dropping and only doing so for United States examples. Perhaps the US-only content should be spun out, so that this article could focus better on Militarizatin of Police and the history of its development instead of militarization in the US. Perhaps all the national divisions should be just deleted, because thy don't seem significant except for the one running amok. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 07:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)

• No - Frankly this seems dangerously germane to the current political situation in the US and debates surrounding this rather than standing as a particular exemplar, as well put by Markbassett. VeritasVox (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• ^ Input from a single-purpose account whose near-entire editing history has been devoted to running interference for the fascist intellectual Julius Evola (before being topic-banned). On the few occasions when the editor has not edited the Evola page, he has taken part in RfCs for bigots and fascists. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:44, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• ^ Aside from my edits on Sumerian law codes, international markets, christian non-conformists, Ogham inscriptions, Rfcs on the Crusades, images of Alaska, DH Lawrence, etc, etc, meaning that your summary of my work here as 'RfCs for bigots and fascists' is really a personal attack. VeritasVox (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

• No - I agree with Markbassett. Smith0124 (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

• Comment. Why is this an RfC? If sources say the US police is as stated, then the article should (indeed, must) say so. If they don't, then we must not say so. If some do and some don't, then what the article says must follow WP:DUE. All the above attacking editors and their personal opinions on this is utterly pointless, as well contrary to Wikipedia's goals. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 00:51, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

• No This seems like content for the head of the US section, not the whole article. Tchouppy (talk) 14:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

• No Have to agree with Tchouppy above. Maybe the intro to the US section. Lede seems long enough without more detail for about the U.S. --Louis P. Boog (talk) 19:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC) (editor is a volunteer for Wikipedia:Feedback request service )

• No To be honest, I think that the mentioned sentence(s) seems to be more related/beneficial to be put for the head of the U.S.A. section not for the lead of the article. Ali Ahwazi (talk) 12:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

• No I think the current mention of the United States in the lede is appropriate as-is and doesn't need to be further expanded upon. Per other editors, I agree that such content could easily fit in the US section without any trouble. Arathald (talk) 21:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

• No – Per Markbassett. — Tartan357  ^(Talk) 10:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• French police motorcycle gun stopped street.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:46, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Split Militarization of police#United States into Militarization of police in the United States?

The United States section is big enough compared to other sections to split. Phillip Samuel (talk) 18:17, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Agree that Militarization of police - United States could be its own article. Lindenfall (talk) 18:38, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• French police motorcycle gun stopped street.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:24, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

BOPE

Should BOPE be included in Brazil article? AverroesII (talk) 07:14, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Warrior training for police

A new paper in the Indiana Law Journal has some interesting information about the rise of "warrior-style" police training that I thought might be useful for this article, if anyone is interested in incorporating it. Schazjmd (talk) 21:08, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

References