Banned in War, Permitted at Home: The Incoherent Use of Force Constraints on the Police and Military

Stories of militarized police and their use of force on the U.S. domestic population are nothing new, nor are U.S. police forces alone in their use of hollow-point bullets, or of tear gas and pepper spray, also known as "riot control agents." What makes these instances unique among other uses of force by U.S. police is that they represent acts of violence deemed too brutal for war, and thus illegal under international humanitarian law. Soldiers and police officers are the only two agents of the state authorized to use lethal force, though different bodies of law and regulatory regimes dictate that usage. In terms of weapons and tactics, less rigorous training, and weaker legal accountability, police generally have fewer constraints placed on the use of force, lethal or otherwise, than the military. Given this legal discrepancy, my research asks: How and why are U.S. domestic police forces authorized to use weapons and tactics against their own population that soldiers abroad are not? This question is especially puzzling given the rapid militarization of the police in recent decades and the ever-blurring line between the military and police in the U.S. While the militarization of the police accelerated, legal constraints lagged. The two institutions' de facto roles have merged significantly while their attendant legal regimes remain separate.