Daliami 1

Blake Dailami Levi Negley November 25, 2013 P. 3B English 1010 Militarization of Law Enforcement Agencies, Bad or Bad? Policing has always been there for the people. They are the communitys protection from danger ranging from theft, assault, kidnapping, and murder. They are the first response to crisis whether it is minor or major. They protect us, but what if the police were too aggressive and did no such protecting, in fact what if they did the complete opposite and bullied the community. I have two articles that I will analyze about the controversial topic on paramilitary police forces being too aggressive to the citizens. Samir Chopra and Norm Stamper are both for raising awareness to unfair treatment of Law Agencies all across the country. While both give strategies on the topic, Stamper uses more emotion and personal experience strengthening his article, making it a more credible and relatable article for the reader. In "The Nation" newspaper online, one of the authors named Norm Stamper touches down a taboo topic society fails to bring to attention. The problem lies within the Local and State Law Enforcement. They are beginning to be too militarized and the community is starting to fear them. However who is Norm Stamper and what kind of background does he have that makes him a more influential writer on this topic. Norm Stamper was the police chief in Seattle during the WTO protest in the year of 1999. His background on police tactics makes him very knowledgeable when it comes to law enforcement. He is also the writer of his book Breaking Rank: A Top Cop's Expos of the Dark Side of American Policing." This article was published in November of 2011 and the title of the article is, "Paramilitary Policing from Seattle to Occupy

Daliami 2

Wall Street". He is trying to attract the readers that have some background knowledge on law enforcement. As I mentioned above, the article focuses on the aspect of militarized police forces being too aggressive in the community resulting in hatred of the police from the community and hatred of the community from the police. Some major points Norm brings up are the WTO riots in Seattle, talking about how the police used "what if" statements to justify their harsh responses of force. He also mentions the safety the, community feels when the police are acting like military forces; the community is scared and fearful of the aggressive behavior the police are showing. In the article Stamper, the author, uses many tactics of rhetorical strategies. One that is the most influential would have to be his own personal experience. In the article, he says, "Standing alone on the edge of the crowd, I, the chief of police, said to myself, We have to clear the intersection." This is a very great strategy because he makes the reader truly believe that the crisis was happening, it could also give the reader the effect of excitement and danger. In many ways does he use this strategy. Another example would be in the title alone, "As Seattle police chief in 1999, my disastrous response to the WTO protests should have been a cautionary tale. Yet, our police forces have only become more militarized." The reader now knows that this story is a firsthand experience giving the article more of a thrill and urge to be read. Another great strategy that Stamper used, are the "What if" statements, for example What if a fire breaks out in the Sheraton across the street? What if a woman goes into labor on the seventeenth floor of the hotel? What if a heart patient goes into cardiac arrest in the high-rise on the corner? What if theres a stabbing, a shooting, a serious-injury traffic accident?(Stamper) These statements are very powerful in the aspects of stealing the reader to

Daliami 3

his side and making his use of tear gas justified. The "what ifs" make the reader truly breakdown the issue and think about the consequences of the protesters and the law enforcement. It is a brilliant way to make the reader open his/her mind to the controversial topic. Samir Chopra, author of a popular blog titled Samir Chopra, blogs on taboo topics ranging from animal health to our current topic Para militarization in law enforcement. Samir is a Professor of the Department of Philosophy at the Graduate Center and Brooklyn College of the City University of New York. Samir addresses the situation on law enforcement agency becoming more and more aggressive to the lower class due to the militarization and the training they now receive. In the article titled The Police as Paramilitary Force: A Problematic Conception he touches down on the topic and hits the center of the argument trying to bend the readers thoughts and feelings toward the topic to sway with him and his picture. He is trying to attract the people in the public that are worried and afraid of law enforcement. In the article Samir mentions the fact that law enforcement agencies are no longer wanting to maintain or even have a cordial relationship between the public (Chopra). The cause to this poor treatment to the community is due to the corruption and militarization between law enforcement officers. They prosecute the low income people and protect the rich and powerful with their new tactics. He also uses the military language and compares it to the law enforcement language to make the Police sound harsh and cruel. Throughout the blog he tries to persuade the reader to his side with both feelings of the community and law enforcement officials. A strategy Chopra brings to his article, is the strategy involving the Government and the broken structures it possesses when it comes to corruption. This is the example of my reasoning Active repression, handing out rough justice tinged with brutality, all the while protecting the

Daliami 4

powerful, the wealthy, the corrupt, and oppressing the poor, the disenfranchised, and the politically weak (Chopra). He makes a move on the government which makes this article that much more controversial while at the same time attracting the reader and making him/her more aggravated about the situation. As many say he is simply turning the tides of the reader which then makes the reader want to look more into the situation. In another paragraph, Chopra is seen using fear along with comparing two entities, one being a force of good to the community (police) and one being a force for destruction and war to suppress the enemy (military). Police often use cars or scooters or motorbikes that bear the legend Interceptor... But interceptors in military parlance refers to vehicles used to disrupt and destroy enemy vehicles and forces making attacks on defended territory... These police vehicles are thus only interceptors in the mildest sense of the term. But when we designate a traffic police automobile with a term with far more offensive connotations than this ground reality, we reinforce an image of the police as engaged in warfare with hostiles; the police are now defending us against hostiles armed to the teeth; they are operating in hostile territory, where the slightest wrong move could cost them their lives. But the police are supposed to be policing communities, not war zones; the people they police are supposed to be their fellow community members (Chopra). In this example of using fear and contrast between the two entities, the reader recognizes the fact that Police Agency are undoubtedly getting more aggressive. With the usage of war zones and cost them their lives, Chopra makes the reader feel fear and nervousness, making the reader wants to protest for the true peace officers. Although both authors use similar rhetorical strategies, Stamper uses more of a personal tone toward the topic, which in a way leaves Chopra open for attack on why it would be a debatable topic. For example, in Stampers article, he says "And young people, poor people and

Daliami 5

people of color will forever experience the situation as an abusive, militaristic force- not just during demonstrations but every day, in neighborhoods across the country." By saying this he puts the reader at a cross road, first choice is whether or not the reader wants to be for the innocent civilians or the harsh militaristic forces of law. This strategy is very persuasive, Stamper knows this by using it yet again by saying, "The tragic resultsraids gone bad, wrong houses hit, innocent people and family pets shot and killed by police" if the reader has already joined the fight for a new lesser militarized law enforcement they will be now. Stamper is now molding the reader to fit his ways and wants.

Another great strategy Stamper used in the article is his use of Personal experience; now in Chopra's article he mentions no personal experience limiting his ability to convince the reader. For example "We have to clear the intersection..., Standing alone on the edge of the crowd, I, the chief of police, said to myself we have to clear the intersection" Using that statements tells the reader automatically that the writer, Stamper, has the experience about the issue, it also gives credibility to the writer. Chopra fails to use personal experiences and lessens his desired effect on the reader to get involved on the topic. Another example he gives on personal experience is when he says "But the chief in me should have vetoed it...he certainly should have forbidden the indiscriminate use of tear gas to accomplish it, no matter how many warnings we barked through the bullhorn." By Stamper saying this he is admitting the wrong while of course still reeling in the reader, by admitting the wrong he is also bringing more controversy into the subject. In today's society people have a voice, some are scholars that are credited with finding new ideas and cultures others are simply stay at home moms and dads wanting to share what

Daliami 6

they personally feel. So why am I saying this? If you were told to do research on a certain issue for example Police militarization, who's opinion would you take into consideration when it came to decision time, would you take the firsthand accounts of a former police chief or the blogger that is credited with discussing topics? The answer is the Police Chief. In life we look for answers: solid credible answers. The chief in the article I analyzed gives the cold solid facts, where the blogger is more opinionated. The reason I bring this up is because in our society, especially today, we must truly analyze the situation before picking sides, because you never know who has more experience on the topic. Breaking down topics not only helps you choose a side but it also makes you sound educated when defending the topic.