The nation is holding its breath waiting on the grand jury's decision on whether or not to indict Ferguson Police Office Darren Wilson for the shooting death of Michael Brown. What is now known is law enforcement is ready to deploy. Missouri Governor Jay Nixon has already declared a state of emergency and Ferguson Mayor James Knowles warned authorities to "prepare for the worst." Maybe most telling on what the police response will be comes form St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson, who is preparing his city for the decision as well, stating that "we've had three months to prepare. . . . our intelligence is good . . . our tactics are good. A statement reminiscent of a general rallying his soldiers before the final push to engage and destroy the enemy. To be fair, Chief Dotson has been critical of the military style tactics utilized in Ferguson. Yet the question still remains: how can this even be a public debate in the United States? How can Americans tolerate the continuing mission creep of police crossing from law enforcement to soldiering? .
The small city of Ferguson, Missouri has brought to focus a problem that many citizens have felt for years, the militarization of state and local police departments in the United States. This is the link between 9/11, the wars on terror and drugs, and the rapid and substantial increase in military hardware and weaponry being placed in the hands of local police departments. The central problem posed by this shift emerges out of the distinction between the role and purpose of a police officer and the role and purpose of a soldier: police officers swear "to protect and serve" the citizens of their communities, while soldiers train to kill the enemy. No matter how well trained a police officer, if the officer is dressed like a soldier, armed like a soldier, and trained in military tactics, there is a very real concern that he or she will eventually begin to act like a soldier.
