Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America’s Police Forces

Municipal Police are a relative modern innovation. While police did exist in ancient Rome, they fell out of favor in much of the world. They were not really established until decades after the founding of the United States. Prior to that, communities were mostly homogeneous and would carry out their own discipline. Police were needed only after the rise of larger, less homogeneous cities. Different approaches were used for police initially. Some cities made them very local patronage jobs. This had advantages in that they knew the community. However, it also was rife with corruption and discriminated against non-community members. The opposite extreme was a distant non-resident professionalized force. This eliminated the corruption and seemed to provide equal service. However, the police had little "skin in the game" and did not necessarily align with community needs.
An important point of police process is the "castle doctrine". A person's home is a castle and cannot be broached except under extreme circumstances. The third amendment to the constitution alludes to this. This concept was gradually broached as police powers expanded.
Slavery and reconstruction were both used to expand police powers. Ironically, laws used to capture fugitive slaves were later used to enforce rights of freed blacks in reconstruction. The rule of unintended consequences does seem to regularly play a roll in law enforcement.
The 1960s and the war on drugs saw a huge increase in police militarization. SWAT teams were created to help respond to extreme situations. On large police forces, there was often some justification for these teams to respond to some extreme situations. On smaller police forces, these teams were often forced to justify their uses. The police would use the SWAT team in places where it is not needed, simply because they had a team. No-knock search warrants also became favored by SWAT teams in drug raids. Even the "knock" warrant usually was followed quickly by break in, with the fear that drug evidence may be flushed down the toilet. SWAT team members often loved the thrill of the break in. Civil forfeiture laws further encouraged police to go after drugs in order to make money. The police were able to make money and have fun, but did little to help stop the drug trade. There was also collateral damage, with many cases of cops hitting the wrong house or killing innocent people.
The book does a great deal to support many of the "defund the police" arguments. However, there are many complexities that need to be explored. Especially with regards to drug police, there are federal laws that pre-empt some of the state laws. There are some cases where the militarized force is needed. (After all, it was an inability to properly respond to Austin sniper-shootings that helped lead to militarization.) It is a tough challenge.
The book is highly relevant to the current political debate. However, it also identifies some of the political challenges. The "party out of control" often tends to be the one against militarization of police. Thus, democrats seem to be the "saviors" today. However, Biden's name comes up repeatedly in this book as one of the key sponsors of legislation to increase the scope and militarization of police. If he becomes president will it just shift the police to the "left-wing enforces" and leave are country further divided?