Militarization of Police Michael Collin Jesus

Collin Ferguson article: The thesis of this article is that the police of Ferguson reacted too late and overreacted. In this article they point out that the 1033 program makes suburban towns like Ferguson look like war zones. The article states that the police were shooting wooden pallets, using tear gas, and even arrested two journalists who were legally filming their actions. It also states that the police reacted 24 hours too late and let the protesters get out of control. Russel Honoré, a retired Lieutenant General states that "Any time we have policemen pointing weapons at American citizens, they need to go through retraining". The police should have gotten the crowd under control a different way and should have done it sooner before they got out of control. The tone of this article is aggressive. One reason why it is aggressive is because they think that the police of ferguson overreacted on the way they handled the crowd of protesters. The police of ferguson were aggressive for shooting a 18 year old kid who was unarmed. St. Louis County article: The central claim of this article is that the military equipment helped protect the police officers from the protesters. The police chief thinks that the armored vehicles protected the officers and the civilians, he states that "the heavy-armored trucks and some of the military-style equipment used by police in last month's unrest in Ferguson helped keep civilians and law enforcement officers safe." He also says that "Had we not had the ability to protect officers with those vehicles, I am afraid that we would have to engage people with our own gun fire. I really think having the armor gave us the ability not to have pulled one trigger…I think the military uses armor to be able to provide an offensive force, and police departments use trucks like that so they don't have to." The police chief thinks that the riot would have gotten a lot worse without the help of the military equipment. The tone of this article is the police chief defending the Ferguson police department.

Michael Emmel In the article “The Evolution of Police Militarization in Ferguson and Beyond” the news portrays a very negative stance toward police militarization. The author of this article did a good job of showing his tone in his writing. It is clear to see that he was displeased in the police use of force and brings up many points to support his argument. They use a situation in Ferguson to support their cause, using multiple pictures to show how the police were handling the situation. I personally feel that the pictures had the biggest impact on me. When reading the article a lot of what they said was negative about the Police Department and how they handled Ferguson. The pictures are what really made me realize what they meant when they said “the cops were all dressed in full camo and looked like paratroopers.” There are three pictures attached to this article, one is a picture of several officers all standing shoulder to shoulder. The most shocking pictures are the last two, smoke fills the streets and there are near thirty police officers all standing in a line with gas masks. All dressed in full camouflage with assault rifles. There are some standing on top of their armored vehicles while most stand with their hands on their weapons. The article claims that police were too quick to use their big equipment. Had officers spent the time to talk to the press and tried dealing with the crowds in a less “intimidating” way, things would have gone a lot differently. One of the biggest points brought up in the article is why do police departments need these military armored vehicles and gear.

The point of who takes the time to train the officers with the equipment is also brought into play. There is no way of knowing how things in Ferguson would have gone if the equipment wasn’t used or if was even used differently. One of the big reasons I believe that the press is making such a big deal about this is because it’s one of the first times we have seen “police militarization” on such a big scale. The article “St. Louis County chief defends militarization of police” talks about the positives that go with the police use of force in Ferguson. This article is much shorter in length and only has one picture, it’s not a picture that was included in the other article. This picture is just of two officers near their armored vehicle not wearing military camouflage. Already just by comparing pictures between the two articles, the picture in this second article sets a much calmer tone. It is not intimidating and shows control by the officers. The police chief talks in this article about how if the officers did not wear their riot gear and bring out the armored vehicles things would have escalated differently. He said “having the armored trucks provided safety for the officers and for the public.” He felt that things were handled properly in Ferguson saying they were lucky that things did not escalate further based on how many people were there. The smoke was used to disperse the crowd and get them to move back away from officers. Having this gap made things safer for officers and the crowd. It is all about how you word things, in this article he describes why the officers did what they did and how it helped. In the other article it got so focused on the amount of officers and the smoke that it distracted the reader from thinking about the fact that there must have been a reason for that show of force. Officers were developing there command presence and were handling things in a non- escalating manner.

Jesus - The title is pretty self explanatory but militarization of police forces is giving military grade equipment and weaponry to police forces to better handle certain situations. Articles: - St. Louis County chief defends militarization of police - The Evolution of Police Militarization in Ferguson and Beyond The article "The Evolution of Police Militarization in Ferguson and Beyond" sides with the negatives of police using force. It started out with a powerful statement of which caused all of the riots during Ferguson practically spurring readers. It then describes a scene of how the police were enforcing law on the civilians. It then showed some strong photographs making the police seem like they are in something of a war zone. The tone of this writer made sure you understood where she was coming from. She plainly opposed militarization of police and gave clear one sided descriptions slamming on the idea of it. Personally i feel the way she described the situations of police using such brutal tactics with the very powerful pictures hit me the most. The article later then explained the police did not respond to the building crowds quickly enough. It also described that the way the police handled the issues without attempting to go contact group leaders within these riot groups was wrong. It sounded as if the police strapped up and just expected the worst was going to happen and just left it at that.

The article "St. Louis County chief defends militarizing police" sides with positives of police militarization. Right away the article explaining how the use of military-style equipment kept civilians and officers safe during the Ferguson conflict. It uses personal opinions from police officers, a man named Col. Jon Belmar, both of which also siding with the use of military equipment. They all had the same opinion on the equipment protecting civilians and officers themselves during the chaos. The first section of the article did almost side with the pros of the military equipment but then it hinted towards negatives of having and using these equipment. Belmar the statement:"Does it look right if we have armored trucks in the West Florissant corridor in the Midwest United States, does it look right if we have TAC guys who are wearing military style fatigues. Is that appropriate? I think the answer is that we can provide explanation on why in certain circumstances that equipment is used." pretty much explaining how either way it would look bad to most people. But in the government side of the situation was the question of how is this equipment all being paid for? It spurred curiosity within the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee since the programs supplying the equipment can't actually track the federal dollars used on this equipment making things suspicious.

The article gave a sense of conflict. It opened situations and personal responses from people who use the equipment. The conflict was made when the Chief explains that it made things safer "which I do think it does" but later in the article describes that there is something hidden in how the equipment is even purchased making it seem like there's a dark secret. It gave readers openly two sides to pick from. The people who explained the reasons of having the equipment seemed stern and set on there opinions saying its either the equipment or everyone will be unsafe it seemed. The use of just the people who used the equipment though did make it a little one sided I think. The only fallacies I found: If police use military grade equipment on small civilian riots, the police will be safe from civilians in the end.

The Evolution,of Police Militarization in Ferguson and Beyond Ethos: Protesters, the author uses the extremes to try and get a reaction out of his audience. Speaking only about the negatives and use of force from officers. Hes trying to get them to look negatively on police militarization Pathos:The audience is the people against the police militarization in Ferguson, Missouri. People were angered by what happened in Ferguson saying that the police used to much force and it was unnecessary to use military equipment. Logos: In Ferguson, Missouri the police used military equipment and tactics against protestors. Protestors were angered by the way the officers handled this situation claiming they used to much force. This event brought up the debate about police militarization and whether or not officers should have access to this type of military equipment. Kairos:August 9-13, 2014 Ferguson Missouri Telos: To inform the readers of the aggressive action that police officers took against the protestors. Using military clothing and equipment, taking full advantage of there military grade resources

St. Louis County Chief Defends Militarization of Police Ethos: St. Louis County Police Chief, he has authority just because of his rank in the department. He talks calmly about why officers used there equipment and how it helped deescalate the situation Pathos: People for and against police militarization. This article is designed for both sides, those who support police militarization and those who do not. Based on what the police chief claims the armored vehicles and military equipment helped keep the situation from escalating. Logos In Ferguson, Missouri the police used military equipment and tactics against protestors. Officers explain why they used the equipment saying it helped to keep things from escalating. According to officers there armored vehicles were a necessity, it kept them safe. This event brought up the debate about police militarization and whether or not officers should have access to this type of military equipment. Kairos:August 9-13, 2014 Ferguson Missouri Telos:To explain to readers why they used the equipment and tactics during the Ferguson incident. Officers explain why police militarization is important and how the equipment helped give officers control during the protests.