Trump Reverses Restrictions on Military Hardware for Police

[GMDino]

And by "reverses" I mean he made it seem like they couldn't get everything anyway by following a few rules and then eliminated the rules so it seemed like he did more than he really did.

Surprise!

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/28/us/politics/trump-police-military-surplus-equipment.html

Quote: Police departments will now have access to military surplus equipment typically used in warfare, including grenade launchers, armored vehicles and bayonets, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced on Monday, describing it as “lifesaving gear.”


The move rescinds limits on the Pentagon handouts that were put in place by President Barack Obama in 2015 amid a national debate over policing touched off by a spate of high-profile deaths of black men at the hands of the police, including the shooting death in 2014 of 18-year-old Michael Brown, in Ferguson, Mo., by a white officer. Some local residents viewed police use of military equipment during the ensuing protests as an unnecessary show of force and intimidation.

In a speech to the Fraternal Order of Police in Nashville, Mr. Sessions said Mr. Obama had made it harder for the police to protect themselves and their neighborhoods.

“Those restrictions went too far,” Mr. Sessions said. “We will not put superficial concerns above public safety.”
Photo

“We will not put superficial concerns above public safety,” Attorney General Jeff Sessions said in a speech to the Fraternal Order of Police in Nashville on Monday. CreditMark Humphrey/Associated Press
Mr. Sessions said that President Trump would sign an executive order on Monday fully restoring the military program, called 1033, and that the president was doing “all he can to restore law and order and support our police across America.”


Mr. Sessions has rolled back a number of Obama-era efforts toward police reform. In April, he ordered a sweeping review of federal agreements with dozens of law enforcement agencies, including consent decrees with troubled police departments nationwide.

Mr. Obama ordered a review of the Pentagon program in late 2014 after the police responded to protests with armored vehicles, snipers and riot gear. The images of police officers with military gear squaring off against protesters around the country angered community activists who said law enforcement agencies were reacting disproportionately.

In addition to the prohibitions on certain military surplus gear, he added restrictions on transferring some weapons and devices, including explosives, battering rams, riot helmets and shields.

The Pentagon said 126 tracked armored vehicles, 138 grenade launchers and 1,623 bayonets had been returned since Mr. Obama prohibited their transfer.

The program was started in the 1990s as a way for the military to transfer surplus equipmentto federal, state and local police agencies fighting the drug war. More than $5 billion in surplus gear has been funneled to law enforcement agencies.

Local law enforcement officials have defended the program, saying that it is a way to acquire equipment that is useful in dangerous situations without stretching tight budgets. For example, the Harris County Sheriff’s Office in Texas, the site of severe flooding in recent days, received two armored vehicles under the program. One was used for high-risk operations and the other for high-water rescues.
Vanita Gupta, the former head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division under Mr. Obama, criticized Mr. Trump’s policy reversal. She said the limits were created to make sure police departments “had a guardian, not warrior, mentality.”

“Our communities are not the same as armed combatants in a war zone,” Ms. Gupta said in a statement. “It is especially troubling that some of this equipment can now again be used in schools where our children are sent to learn.”

Trump’s decision angered community activists and some Republicans. Senator Rand Paul of Kentucky said in a tweet: “I will oppose this move by the AG and administration. And I will continue to fight for our civil liberties and criminal justice reform.”
Photo

People were rescued from flood waters from Hurricane Harvey in an armored police vehicle in Dickinson, Tex., on Sunday. CreditRick Wilking/Reuters
After learning about changes to the program, an animated Representative Mark Sanford, Republican of South Carolina, said, “Are you kidding me?” Mr. Sanford recalled traveling to a small South Carolina county when he was governor and finding a sheriff taking helicopter lessons because, Mr. Sanford noted, the jurisdiction had “pulled about seven copters” thanks to the federal program.

“This makes my blood boil,” he said, from “both a taxpayer standpoint and a civil liberties standpoint.”

Administration officials defended the restoration of the program, saying the police need all the tools available to do their jobs.

In a set of talking points distributed ahead of the announcement, the Justice Department noted that a military-style helmet saved the life of an officer responding to last year’s mass shooting in Orlando, Fla., in which a gunman killed 49. Armored vehicles and military gear were also used to hunt the two terrorists who mounted an attack in San Bernardino, Calif., in 2015.

The document says much of the equipment provided through the 1033 program is “entirely defensive in nature.”
But it is not clear why the police need bayonets, which the talking points did not address. Even the Pentagon has said it does not understand why the police would require them. Trump administration officials said that the police believed bayonets were handy, for instance, in cutting seatbelts in an emergency.

[BmorePat87]

[GMDino]

(08-29-2017, 09:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

That...and image over substance.

[Benton]

(08-29-2017, 09:24 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

A local sheriff's department bought five Humvee's through the program a while back (maybe a decade or so now?). I noticed them parked out back and — looking for a story — asked one of the deputies about them. I'd never heard of the program. He told me they were surplus military units they bought in case the department needed them. I asked if they'd used them. He shrugged and said "I don't know why we would." All five units are in the same exact spot now. They've never moved.

Which as a taxpayer bugs the heck out of me. That same sheriff exceeds his budget by hundreds of thousands of dollars every year, and basically acts like the county is trying to murder people if they ask him to spend more responsibly. One year the guy went about 800% over on his "bullet allowance." His fuel expense is always over the budget, but he doesn't stop deputies from using public vehicles for personal use.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

When they use the term military hardware they apparently mean anything that the military used to use. So, by that definition a molle vest is "military hardware". One thing that really annoys me is when the media report that the police have "tanks" and they're referring to an armored infantry vehicle.

[GMDino]

(08-29-2017, 11:49 AM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: When they use the term military hardware they apparently mean anything that the military used to use.  So, by that definition a molle vest is "military hardware".  One thing that really annoys me is when the media report that the police have "tanks" and they're referring to an armored infantry vehicle.

And from the report I heard on NPR this morning a lot of that stuff wasn't restricted at all. Like vests and helmets.

[Millhouse]

Bayonets are handy for cutting seatbelts in an emergency... I mean, wouldn't it be safer to use a knife that you can buy at walmart?

I dont mind if police have gear handy for an extreme situation to help protect them better, like helmets and vests. But as noted above, this is a gateway for more taxpayers dollars being wasted overall.

Wouldn't it be more ideal to allow the state to buy extra military stuff for extreme situations, then they can deploy when needed which would be rare and at most a few hours away depending on the size of the state? As opposed to the local yocal cops getting it?

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

I have always felt conflicted on this topic.

Con: I don't like the idea of our police being equipped like a military group.
Pro: Some of that stuff would just be placed in storage or destroyed, so it's basically recycling.
Con: Like Benton said, it leads to them buying things they might not ever use.
Pro: If a large armed terrorist group attacks, or a country invades, our police will be able to hold on until support arrives.

I am probably more against it than for it.

[Bengalzona]

(08-29-2017, 12:02 PM)Millhouse Wrote: Bayonets are handy for cutting seatbelts in an emergency... I mean, wouldn't it be safer to use a knife that you can buy at walmart?

I dont mind if police have gear handy for an extreme situation to help protect them better, like helmets and vests. But as noted above, this is a gateway for more taxpayers dollars being wasted overall.

Wouldn't it be more ideal to allow the state to buy extra military stuff for extreme situations, then they can deploy when needed which would be rare and at most a few hours away depending on the size of the state? As opposed to the local yocal cops getting it?

Wasn't this the whole reason why many municipalities created SWAT teams?

Oh, well. Guess some folks need a police state to help them feel safe, eh.

[Benton]

(08-29-2017, 05:14 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I have always felt conflicted on this topic.

Con: I don't like the idea of our police being equipped like a military group.
Pro: Some of that stuff would just be placed in storage or destroyed, so it's basically recycling.
Con: Like Benton said, it leads to them buying things they might not ever use.
Pro: If a large armed terrorist group attacks, or a country invades, our police will be able to hold on until support arrives.

I am probably more against it than for it.

Maybe it's my lack of understanding their function or watching too many movies, but I always thought that was the function of the National Guard. Which, in my inexperienced opinion, should be armed as well as the military. I know some view them as 'temp workers' for the military, but they're supposed ot fit more into that role of an armed militia. 


All in all, I'm not opposed to some of it. If there's helmets, vests, or whatever that can protect an officer, even if it's not something the guy is likely to ever use, then it's better to have it and not need it. On the other hand, there's not reason for some municipalities to spend taxpayer money on something a department is likely to never need/use. Surplus it at that point.

[*PhilHos*]

Meh, better that American police departments get the military stuff than some third world dictator.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-30-2017, 11:42 AM)Benton Wrote: Maybe it's my lack of understanding their function or watching too many movies, but I always thought that was the function of the National Guard. Which, in my inexperienced opinion, should be armed as well as the military. I know some view them as 'temp workers' for the military, but they're supposed ot fit more into that role of an armed militia. 


All in all, I'm not opposed to some of it. If there's helmets, vests, or whatever that can protect an officer, even if it's not something the guy is likely to ever use, then it's better to have it and not need it. On the other hand, there's not reason for some municipalities to spend taxpayer money on something a department is likely to never need/use. Surplus it at that point.

Joe Blow from Cincinnati is sitting at his desk, doing TPS Report covers at work. An attack happens. Police respond, but find out it's too much for them to handle. They report that up the chain, and it reaches the Governor. They make the call to activate the National Guard. Joe Blow gets a call saying he needs to report. He leaves work and makes the 1 hour, 30 minute drive from Cincinnati to the Springfield National Guard Armory. His unit gets assembled, briefed, armed, and then has a however long drive to where the actual problem is. Total time, probably like 5+ hours.

I am not saying it's a frequent or reasonable need, but just one that I could see on my pro/con list. I wasn't saying that the NG couldn't handle it, I was more going off the time required to respond to something unexpected.

But yeah, I agree that the cost versus probability of actually needing it means it's probably a waste of money for anything other than things like vests, helmets, and maybe some rifles. Plus for cities, maybe some bomb suits and robots.

[Millhouse]

The tin-foil in me is saying this is a step to help enforce martial law when that time comes for the country.

[Benton]

(08-30-2017, 09:12 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Joe Blow from Cincinnati is sitting at his desk, doing TPS Report covers at work. An attack happens. Police respond, but find out it's too much for them to handle. They report that up the chain, and it reaches the Governor. They make the call to activate the National Guard. Joe Blow gets a call saying he needs to report. He leaves work and makes the 1 hour, 30 minute drive from Cincinnati to the Springfield National Guard Armory. His unit gets assembled, briefed, armed, and then has a however long drive to where the actual problem is. Total time, probably like 5+ hours.

I am not saying it's a frequent or reasonable need, but just one that I could see on my pro/con list. I wasn't saying that the NG couldn't handle it, I was more going off the time required to respond to something unexpected.

But yeah, I agree that the cost versus probability of actually needing it means it's probably a waste of money for anything other than things like vests, helmets, and maybe some rifles. Plus for cities, maybe some bomb suits and robots.

Balance that with:
Joe Blow sitting at his desk has military training versus the sheriffs deputy who -- with his personal revolver firearm -- in the course of three years managed to accidentally shoot another officer on scene and his own mother a wedding. No shit, it's a true story. Nice guy, but it's amazing he was ever given live ammunition.

But, according to the scenario here, he's more capable to utilize equipment because he ****s up with a better response time?