TRENDS: Police Militarization and the Use of Lethal Force

• Date: 01 March 2019
• DOI: 10.1177/1065912918784209
• Published date: 01 March 2019
• Subject Matter: Articles

784209PRQXXX10.1177/1065912918784209Political Research QuarterlyLawson
research-article2018
Article
Political Research Quarterly
2019, Vol. 72(1) 177 –189
TRENDS: Police Militarization and the
© 2018 University of Utah
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
Use of Lethal Force
https://doi.org/10.1177/1065912918784209
DOI: 10.1177/1065912918784209
journals.sagepub.com/home/prq
Edward Lawson Jr.1
Abstract
In recent years, the killing of suspects by police and the “militarization” of police have drawn considerable public
attention, but there is little analysis of a relationship between the two. In this article, I investigate the possibility that
such militarization may lead to an increase in suspect deaths using data on police receipt of surplus military equipment
to measure militarization and a newly created database on suspect deaths in all fifty states quarterly from the fourth
quarter of 2014 through the fourth quarter of 2016. The data consist of more than eleven thousand agency-quarter
observations. I find a positive and significant association between militarization and the number of suspects killed,
controlling for several other possible explanations.
Keywords
police militarization, policing, law enforcement, lethal force, bureaucratic discretion
On August 9, 2014, a Ferguson, Missouri, police officer
have been necessary. On one side, leaders and representa-
shot and killed eighteen-year-old Michael Brown after an
tives of law enforcement claim that the use of lethal force
encounter, the details of which are still largely unclear.
against a suspect is a rare occurrence (Garner et al. 1996),
The incident ignited a national debate about police prac-
though sometimes unfortunately necessary, and media
tices in the United States that continues today. The after-
attention alone is responsible for the perception of exces-
math raised more questions about recent trends in
sive use of lethal force. Others have drawn a link between
policing, when police officers met protesters dressed in
the militarization of police departments and civilian
tactical riot gear, wielding automatic weapons, grenade
deaths. According to a Washington Post database, police
launchers, and tear gas, and confronting them with mili-
killed 995 people in 2015, 963 in 2016, and 987 in 2017
tary-style armored vehicles (Rahall 2015). This incident
(Kindy et al. 2015). Although there is only little apparent
brought attention to and raised questions about what is
fluctuation from year to year, there may be characteristics
sometimes called the “militarization” of police depart-
of police departments—such as militarization—that can
ments in the United States, as well as a possible connec-
predict a higher number of deaths within their
tion between militarization and the use of lethal violence
jurisdiction.
against suspects. In this paper, I examine the relationship
I construct a theoretical argument rooted in classic
between militarization and the use of lethal force.
political science and public administration research on
How police interact with the public is an important
street-level bureaucrats (Wilson 1989) and bureaucratic
question in a democracy, as the police are the embodi-
discretion (Brehm and Gates 1999). I argue that police
ment of the state’s power to deprive citizens of rights—up
have a great deal of discretion in deciding how to handle
to and including the right to life. Thus far, despite increas-
situations they encounter, and militarization affects the
ing attention toward the use of lethal force by police
decision making of police by moving their preferences
(“Don’t Shoot” 2014), there is little research among
toward more violent responses to suspects. Using data on
scholars of political science and public administration on
the acquisition of military equipment police departments
policing (though this trend seems to be changing; see
received through the 1033 military surplus program,
Delehanty et al. 2017; Jennings and Rubado 2017;
which I acquired through a Freedom of Information Act
Nicholson-Crotty, Nicholson-Crotty, and Fernandez
2017; Rivera and Ward 2017) or to determine the effects
1University of South Carolina, Columbia, USA
of militarization on police behavior. There is little empiri-
cal evidence to inform the contentious public debate
Corresponding Author:
Edward Lawson Jr., University of South Carolina, Gambrell 318, 817
about the behavior of police and the use of lethal force
Henderson St., Columbia, SC 29208, USA.
against suspects in situations where such force may not
Email: lawsone3@email.sc.edu

---

178
Political Research Quarterly 72(1)
request to the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA), and a
a simple change in ideology to organizational and psy-
new database on police killings of suspects in the United
chological changes in departments and police officers.
States, I demonstrate an apparent positive and statisti-
There are two potential mechanisms through which
cally significant association between militarization and
police may become militarized.
the use of lethal force. To be clear, however, my argument
The first mechanism is hierarchical, encouraged by the
is not that the acquisition of military hardware causes
language used by elected officials when discussing mat-
militarization or an increase in lethal force by itself.
ters of law enforcement and cues from leaders within law
Militarization is a psychological state, for which 1033
enforcement agencies. The use of warlike rhetoric can
equipment transfers are a proxy measure due to the diffi-
have strong impacts on public attitudes and behaviors
culty in capturing a police department’s collective men-
(Boggs 2005), and police are not immune to these effects.
tality. The 1033 transfers may cause militarization,
In the second half of the twentieth century and the begin-
militarization may cause an increase in 1033 transfers, or
ning of the twenty-first, the United States launched two
there may be some alternative variable that causes
major law-enforcement-related efforts: one to eliminate
increases in both. I argue simply that there is an associa-
drugs and the other terrorism. American political leaders
tion between the use of the 1033 program and militariza-
call both of these efforts wars and required the participa-
tion that makes the former a reasonable proxy variable for
tion of both the military and law enforcement in carrying
the latter. If this theory is correct, then more suspect
out these wars. For example, President George H. W.
deaths are a consequence of increased militarization.
Bush called for law enforcement to fight the drug war
This paper makes three important contributions. First,
house by house, neighborhood by neighborhood (Meeks
my findings provide empirical evidence to the debate on
2006). As drugs became more prevalent in communities,
police militarization. Specifically, I find a positive asso-
the military mind-set combined with antidrug, and more
ciation between increasing militarization and the fre-
generally the anticrime political rhetoric that referred to
quency of the use of lethal force against suspects.
war.
Second, introducing literature on bureaucratic behavior
Another part of the hierarchical mechanism may be
provides a link between police departments as organiza-
cues from police agencies themselves. Police culture
tions and police officers as individual, street-level actors,
appears to be the primary method of organizational con-
whereas prior work on police use of force focuses pri-
trol of police officers (Worden 2015). Research on the use
marily on either individual officers (Alpert and Dunham
of force by police find that officers adjust their behavior
2004) or specific subsets of officers attached to elite
according to what agency leaders consider to be appropri-
units (Kraska and Kappeler 1997). This paper provides a
ate (Alpert and Dunham 2004). Similar to other organiza-
theory and empirical measure of militarization that
tions, officers adapt to their roles and behave according to
applies to police departments as a whole but also pro-
rules within the organization, whether formal or informal
vides for differing behavior among individual officers.
(March 1994). They make decisions based on the cues
Third, I conduct what appears to be the first national,
they receive from police leaders and the socialization
large-N study of how militarization relates to the use of
they receive from more veteran officers. Over time, new
lethal force, using previously unavailable data to capture
officers adopt the perspectives and preferences of the
the concept of militarization.1
organization. Police training that emphasized the role of
The next section discusses the processes through
police officers as warriors (Stoughton 2014, 2016) could
which police departments may become militarized. Next,
have led to police officers seeing the communities they
I discuss the possible connection between militarization
served as enemy territory for them to occupy and control.
and the use of lethal force. I describe my data and meth-
Police leaders see the role of their agency as one of fight-
ods after that. Then I describe the results. Finally, the con-
ing against crime, drugs, and other undesirable elements
clusion offers some possible policy recommendations
rather than one of partnership with the community. The
and avenues...