[T]he further we remove officers from potentially deadly encounters, the less necessary it logically becomes to employ mortal force against aggressors.

Tweet

In harrowing and tragic detail, recent murders of police officers across the nation illustrate the mortal risks that our nation's police officers face every single time they leave for work. 

After ascending to strategic elevation on the second floor of a downtown school building, he proceeded to shoot out the glass and kill yet another officer standing in front of a 7-Eleven across the street before barricading himself for his final standoff.  In the subsequent hours, he taunted negotiators, said he aimed to "kill white people" and made clear that he hoped to take even more police with him. 

"We had negotiated with him for about two hours, and he just basically lied to us, playing games, laughing at us, singing, asking how many did he get and that he wanted to kill some more," according to Dallas Police Chief David Brown. 

When those efforts to negotiate a peaceful surrender reached an impasse around 2:30 a.m., a remote-control bomb disposal robot was deployed to kill the murderer with approximately one pound of C-4 explosive. 

Cue the false unease among some observers, naturally from behind the safety of a keyboard, over "mission creep" and "militarization of police" in America. 

Said one libertarian commentator, "there are concerns that with more and more automated tools at police disposal (NPR reported in 2014 that 479 bomb robots were distributed to law enforcement agencies through the Defense Department's 1033 Program), the risk of dehumanizing suspects through the use of such impersonal weaponry grows, as does the risk of mission creep." 

Another pundit told The New York Times that, "The further we remove the officer from the use of force and the consequences that come with it, the easier it becomes to use that tactic." 

In reality, the opposite appears far more likely. 

After all, the primary impetus for use of deadly force by police officers occurs when their own lives are threatened.  Accordingly, the further we remove officers from potentially deadly encounters, the less necessary it logically becomes to employ mortal force against aggressors. 

Although the Dallas experience ultimately required deadly force, there was simply no reasonable likelihood that outcome could be avoided.  The only question was whether additional officers beyond the five already killed would be forced to risk their own lives to accomplish the necessary task. 

Similarly, so-called "militarization of police" also proved critical in saving officers' lives in Orlando last month. 

As substantiated by a highly publicized photo, a Kevlar helmet saved the life of a SWAT team member responding to the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.  Shot directly in the forehead, the officer's helmet stopped the bullet and left only a severe contusion and eye injury.  "The Kevlar helmet saved his live," said Orlando Police Chief John Mina. 

During that same Orlando confrontation, an armored military vehicle was employed to end the standoff and save hostages' lives, as reported by The Washington Post: 

Police rammed the outside wall of the club about 5 a.m. with an armored BearCat vehicle and set off a 'controlled detonation' to distract the attacker.  BearCat stands for 'Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck,' and is the best-selling vehicle made by Lenco, an armored-vehicle maker with headquarters in Pittsfield, Mass.  The company has supplied vehicles to the U.S. military and police departments abroad and makes a variant of the mine-resistant vehicle commonly known as the MRAP. 

As in Dallas, to suggest that police in Orlando were under some sort of moral or legal duty to refrain from using the best available technology against an attacker who had already killed 50 people and wounded innumerable others, who was obviously committed to going down with guns blazing while refusing to surrender, who openly sought to kill as many more as he could, is preposterous.  Police possessed complete justification to use deadly force in both circumstances, so in what moral universe should they risk their own lives unnecessarily when they can instead deploy technology? 

Police work has always entailed risk, but recent events suggest a trend toward outright targeting and assassination. 

They're accordingly entitled to employ the best technology reasonably available as they protect and serve, irrational concern over "militarization of police" notwithstanding.