The federal government has threatened local and state police agencies: we will take your funding if you do not mandate body armor for your officers. And the threat seems to be working. According to a new Justice Department study, more than 90% of officers say their department has a mandatory body armor policy.
According to USA Today, 92 percent of officers are now required to wear body armor. This is a dramatic increase from 2005, where that number was merely 59 percent.
Attorney General Eric Holder warned law enforcement agencies in 2010 that they could lose millions in federal dollars if they didn’t put such policies in place. The Department of Justice says the need for such policies are apparent by the number of officers being killed by gunfire each year.
The number of cops killed by gunfire was reportedly up in both 2010 and 2011. Now, in 2012, it’s down 34% so far, though there is no information on the role that body armor played in this.
“Can we say there has been a cause and effect (related to the new mandatory policies)? No,” said Chuck Wexler of the Police Executive Research Forum. “But it is not unreasonable to say that these policies may be a contributing factor.”
There is little question that a bullet-proof vest can save a life and the officers know this. Of those who say they comply with their department’s body-armor requirements, 90% said they do so because of the safety reasons. Fourteen percent said they do so because of “family pressure.”
But, body armor isn’t without controversy. While the USA Today report cites heat-related concerns to be a top issue for cops who buck the requirements, no one seems to be addressing the cause of the increase in police shootings (despite lower crime rates) or the long term effects of body armor when the big picture of police militarization is considered.
Firstly, no one would suggest that police officers shouldn’t be protected. If a gunman shoots a cop, one would hope the officer’s life could be saved by safety gear such as a Kevlar vest. But, when you look at body armor as just one piece of the police militarization movement (along with tanks, assault rifles, shields, and more), you have to wonder if the body armor might be helping spur more violence.
If someone feels invincible, like they have a force field around them, wouldn’t they be more likely to take otherwise dangerous risks? Also, is there a cycle at play here—where the militarization of police creates more citizen-police violence, which creates a shoddy justification for even more militaristic police?
Too much of the criminal justice system and police policy is driven by casual, surface observations. It seems as if the system is scared to look more deeply and address the true causes of police violence, including the failed drug war, racial disparities in enforcement, and more.
About David Matson