Given the subject matter of this website, I’ve been trying to read all that I can about the recent events in Ferguson, Missouri. The facts of what exactly happened — both regarding the tragic death of a young man and its aftermath — are still emerging. (For example, I recently came across this Legal Insurrection blog post questioning earlier factual accounts of Michael Brown’s death.)

Police officers do an important job. I appreciate all that they do to keep my loved ones, friends, and me safe. But they also face tough judgment calls about how to respond to particular situations — sometimes in the blink of an eye. But  some also misuse their power, and they should be held responsible when they do. This case presents serious and troubling questions about police use of force — both regarding Brown’s death and at protests afterwards. Also of serious concern to me are news reports alleging use of tear gas at protests and about arrests of citizens for protesting peacefully and of journalists.

One policy question to be taken seriously in the wake of this particular tragedy: does the unfolding of events in Ferguson illustrate a broader problems with the increasing militarization of police?As Senator Rand Paul wrote in Time magazine: ” The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response. The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.”

Or, as Kevin Williamson of National Review colorfully put it: “The behavior of the Ferguson and St. Louis County police in this matter is illuminating. They are ridiculously militarized suburban police dressed up like characters from Starship Troopers and pointing rifles at people from atop armored vehicles, i.e. the worst sort of mall ninjas. They are arresting people for making videos of them at work in public places, which people are legally entitled to do, a habit they share with many other police departments. Protecting life, liberty, and property — which is the job of the police — does not require scooping people up for making phone videos; in fact, it requires not scooping people up for making phone videos.”

The federal Leviathan has played a crucial role in funding such quasi-military police programs throughout the country. As Walter Olson notes at Cato at Liberty, “Federal grants drive police militarization. In 2012, as I was able to establish in moments through an online search, St. Louis County (of which Ferguson is a part) got a Bearcat armored vehicle and other goodies this way. The practice can serve to dispose of military surplus (though I’m told the Bearcat is not military surplus, but typically purchased new) and it sometimes wins the gratitude of local governments, even if they are too strapped for cash to afford more ordinary civic supplies.”

Finally, I found valuable and worth reading John McWhorter’s reflections on Ferguson, race, and the War on Drugs.