Militarization of Civilian LE?

Few topics regarding law enforcement elicit more of an emotional response - both within and outside of the ranks - than the so-called militarization of civilian law enforcement. This specter is usually raised after a high-profile event in which police employ equipment and tactics that appear military-like. Waco and the Elian Gonzalez incident are two showcase events that acted as lightning rods for this emotion. This discussion is often confused because the distinction between means and ends is lost.

To mean anything scary, militarization would have to mean the adoption by civilian law enforcement of military goals and rules of engagement. Yet the goals and rules of engagement of these two organizations are very different indeed. Military goals are centered around the capture or destruction of assets, and any level of force may be used to accomplish these goals. Law enforcement goals center around the capture of criminal suspects in order to bring them to trial, and only reasonable force may be used, about which there are very strict rules. Military rules of engagement allow for the (accidental) killing of non-combatants, and have a restricted concept of "rights" for civilian populations. Law enforcement rules of engagement are strictly constrained by the constitutional rights of everyone involved - including the perpetrator, and they place paramount importance on saving lives - again, including the perpetrator's.

However, there is nothing wrong with civilian law enforcement sharing tactics and equipment with the military. Tools are just tools. It's the ends to which these tools are employed and the bounds that are put on their use that differentiate the military's use of equipment and tactics from civilian law enforcement's. The means may be the same, but the ends differ.

If civilian law enforcement were truly being militarized, then police officers would be adopting military goals and rules of engagement; they would be allowed to imprison citizens without cause, and to kill them without being threatened, to take but two examples. That is not happening. (While some might point to Ruby Ridge - another lightning rod for emotion - as a counter-example, I'd point out that was a single incident, and that there are many points of view about what happened there.)

If using tools similar to the military meant that civilian law enforcement was becoming militarized, then police could no longer even wear uniforms or carry guns without being militarized. If using techniques borrowed from the military implied militarization, then hostage rescue efforts - which we learned from the military - could not be undertaken by police. In fact, it is the threats that police and society face determine the tools and techniques best suited to resolve them. If the tactic least likely to cause the loss of innocent life is the use of a tank by a SWAT team, or simply a SWAT team itself, than thank heaven that tanks and SWAT teams are now available to the police. As criminal threats change in their nature and in the danger posed by them, so too should law enforcement tools and tactics change to deal with them. As new tactics and tools become available to better resolve these threats, then our oath demands that we adopt them.

Further, what some people regard as the militarization of law enforcement is actually the confusion of true militarization - adopting military goals and rules of engagement - with two other things:

1. the execution of law enforcement raids with poor judgment, or
2. the enforcement of laws that are viewed as unfair or unconstitutional.

Any particular law enforcement action can be described by the appropriate choice from each of the following reference:
Tools & Tactics Used: Military-like or NON-military-like
Judgment & Management: Good or Faulty
Laws Being Enforced: "Good" laws or "Bad" laws