Myths, militarism and the police patrol rifle

Abstract

Violence and force have played an important role in the establishment and defence of democratic values, and myths are used to justify the violence. The use of state-sanctioned violence by the police has a long history in the defence of those values, and myths have played a significant role in justifying their ability to use force to protect those values. This article reviews policing myths, the development of Police Paramilitary Units, the role of firearms in policing and their application to the use of ‘patrol rifles’ by street-level police officers in the USA. Contemporary issues such as terrorism and active shooters regenerate several policing myths. The result is an increased application of patrol rifles to the standard equipment of street officers. This may be viewed as an amplified militarisation of policing. It might also be argued that police agencies are acting in a rational manner to satisfy the expectations of their external environment.

Keywords:

• patrol rifle
• Police Paramilitary Units
• myths

Notes

1. There is a distinct absence of scholarship examining the history of weapons used in policing. This is surprising considering how important guns are in police culture, their impact when used and the amount of scholarship dedicated to examining their use.

2. The Columbine High School shooting was not the first school shooting in the USA. These events can be traced back to 1974 (New York City Police Department, ‘Active Shooter: Recommendations and Analysis for Risk Mitigation’). See: http://www.nyc.gov/html/nypd/downloads/pdf/counterterrorism/ActiveShooter.pdf.

3. The procedural expectations for officers armed with patrol rifles may, in fact, require them to be more aggressive than PPU officers. Klinger and Grossman (2001 p. 820) described PPU's as utilising a ‘patient response’ to avoid the use of force. The units are expected to contain an incident and de-escalate the situation. Street officers responding to an incident with a patrol rifle ‘are trained to ignore the wounded and move rapidly towards the “sound of the guns” in order to stop the killings as quickly as possible’ (Klinger and Grossman 2001, p. 822).

4. As an example of normalisation, ‘standards’ and ‘best practice’ responses for mass shooting incidents are being developed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and law enforcement command staff from across the country. Also, FBI tactical instructors provide assistance to local, state, tribal and campus police in active shooter response protocols. See: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cirg/active-shooter-and-mass-casualty-incidents/alerrt-other-training-initiatives.