Obama Banning Further Issue Of Some Surplus To Police Forces

[Blackhawk2001]

While I admit my experience with the DRMO program is over a decade old, it was the case in 1992, when the US&R Task Force first started getting equipment through the program, one of the stipulations was that we had to track the clothing/equipment and would have to either dispose of it "properly" or return it to the government if they asked for it back. My understanding was that those stipulations were pretty much universal for the program - although somewhat lackadaisically enforced. For Robjps: yes, automatic weapons are a scarce commodity in the civilian community, so of course prices are higher, but they ARE available, as are military surplus vehicles, aircraft, and weaponry. You can own a damn TANK if you've got enough money and resources to get it from where it's available to where you are, and to restore it once you get it. The only thing stopping most people from owning an OH-58A (civilian Bell Jet Ranger) was the fact that the OH-58 had never been certified for civilian use and was pretty cost-prohibitive to convert for civilian use - as is the case with the UH-1s which the Army no longer uses. You can buy used Czech jet fighters if you've got the money (you can also buy an MI-24 gunship, I understand). So, no, they aren't available at the LGS and they're not "affordable" for most people (hell, I can't afford an AR-clone) but they're "available" if you've just really got to have an automatic weapon or an armored vehicle for your next riot or revolt.

 

[KellyinAvon]

That fact that ANYONE thinks this changes anything cracks me up. He is not disarming the PD and he is not "demilitarizing" the police (forgetting the debate on whether we are even militarized). He is banning tracked armor, weaponized aircraft, grenade launchers, bayonets, and camo uniforms...oh noooooo

Camo, this is a point I've made several times. What are the SWAT/Tactical/etc. guys blending in with, in multi-cam designed for Afghanistan? If you're in Kabul or Kandahar I'm cool with it. Near-east side of Indy? Not so much. Urban camo? Cool! OD green? I love OD green. Black fatigues? Awesome! BDU's? Are you in the woods?

 

[Blackhawk2001]

You don't have to "blend in" to have a use for a distinctive uniform; it can identify a "good guy" from the "bad guys" or by-standers. SWAT guys go through a fair amount of hard training and uniforms are expensive; military surplus may serve the needs of smaller departments by offering a cost-effective alternative to more expensive uniforms which are themselves subject to frequent hard wear conditions.

 

[roscott]

Everyone seems to think local police = government control. While I can't speak for the entire nation, in general local police departments tend to be much more "of the people" than federal agencies, or the federal government in general. I have no problem with local police stations getting increased tools, even if they are military surplus. (God forbid they wear military surplus cammies!)

I would find it more alarming when the federal government is LIMITING local ownership of weapons, whether by law enforcement or civilians.

 

[armedindy]

im always terrified that a police officer with an m79 launcher and plenty of tear gas is going ruin my looting spree....i was really hoping to get that gamerscore more respectable.......oh, wait, this isnt xbox...this is real life

 

[cobber]

Plan to use rocket launcher on Eustis police, church foiled, officials say | Latest News - Home

Who is going to stop the militarization of criminals?

Rambone. He will appeal to reason. That will win them over and he'll win the Nobel Prize. Then we can disarm the world, and harmony will prevail.

I think it's going to happen this time...

 

[phylodog]

Camo, this is a point I've made several times. What are the SWAT/Tactical/etc. guys blending in with, in multi-cam designed for Afghanistan? If you're in Kabul or Kandahar I'm cool with it. Near-east side of Indy? Not so much. Urban camo? Cool! OD green? I love OD green. Black fatigues? Awesome! BDU's? Are you in the woods?

We contemplated authorizing camo for the snipers while I was on the team. On occasion we would have hostage situations where the suspect would claim that if he saw the police he would harm the hostages. In those (pretty rare) instances we felt it would be advantageous to not be seen. There was never any discussion to have the entire team wearing camouflage, quite the opposite actually. We wanted as many patches, labels and badges as we could squeeze on the gear to reduce the chances of anyone claiming they didn't know we were the police. In 12 years I wore OD green and navy blue exclusively.

That said, those OD green and navy blue uniforms we wore were expensive. I tore up many hundreds of dollars worth during my time. Wearing surplus military uniforms to wear would have saved me quite a bit of money during that time.

 

[Drail]

A Pres. Exec. Order is not a law. We have a different branch of Govt. to enact laws.

 

[rambone]

Rambone. He will appeal to reason. That will win them over and he'll win the Nobel Prize. Then we can disarm the world, and harmony will prevail.

I think it's going to happen this time...

I've never remotely said police or anyone else should be disarmed. Thanks for keeping it honest.

 

[Robjps]

For Robjps: yes, automatic weapons are a scarce commodity in the civilian community, so of course prices are higher, but they ARE available, as are military surplus vehicles, aircraft, and weaponry. You can own a damn TANK if you've got enough money and resources to get it from where it's available to where you are, and to restore it once you get it. The only thing stopping most people from owning an OH-58A (civilian Bell Jet Ranger) was the fact that the OH-58 had never been certified for civilian use and was pretty cost-prohibitive to convert for civilian use - as is the case with the UH-1s which the Army no longer uses. You can buy used Czech jet fighters if you've got the money (you can also buy an MI-24 gunship, I understand). So, no, they aren't available at the LGS and they're not "affordable" for most people (hell, I can't afford an AR-clone) but they're "available" if you've just really got to have an automatic weapon or an armored vehicle for your next riot or revolt.

Banning through economics is still banning. Say they were deemed needed by the people even paying any price their isn't enough to come anywhere close to going around.

 

[cobber]

I've never remotely said police or anyone else should be disarmed. Thanks for keeping it honest.

But once the criminals have given up their weapons, why would die Polizei need their various weapons, militarized or no?

 

[deal me in]

So what exactly have you seen and experienced?

I've benefited from police racism. Cincinnati cops let me go on drinking in public because I was white, (their words). It was a long time ago. My friend was the victim of police racism. Pulled over and had his car towed for driving while black. Sheriff apologized and acknowledged he had some "cowboys" working for him. I'm a middle class, suburban white male, so my interactions have been limited.

The reason I think it's widespread and systemic is the overwhelming number of videos that we've seen over the years. My belief is that only a very small percentage of police abuse gets caught on tape as most interactions aren't recorded. In addition, many of the abuses that have been caught on tape are so over the top, it leads me to believe the offending officer has done it before. Another factor that makes me think it's systemic is that we rarely see cops intervene when one of their partners is out of control. They are either standing around watching or joining in. I would concede that the problems are probably much worse in big city police departments and that many smaller local forces are well run, professional outfits, but there are bad apples everywhere (thinking of the crazy Canton, Oh cop who went postal on the CCW guy he pulled over). I believe many of these corrupt bigger city departments are on the take from drug dealers/organized crime. Maybe I've seen too many movies.

Police are given a monopoly on violence by law. Because of this, they have to be held to a higher standard to ensure the public trust. I don't think they're being held to this standard internally, only when they get caught by the public. Even then, they often just lose their job for crimes that regular citizens would be prosecuted for.

 

[deal me in]

I want to tie my posts, which may seem to be off topic, to the OP. Basically, I believe that the war on drugs (and resulting militarized policing) has turned the police and people against each other and since I'm one of the people, I don't want them to have better guns than me. I don't trust police to do the right thing if they have to decide between enforcing government mandates during a crisis and protecting people's rights, so I want their ability to inflict harm on civilians reduced.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

Can we merge this thread with this thread?

 

[Mark 1911]

What they can make off-limits to police they can make off limits to everyone. Putting such bans in place for police would seem to make it that much easier to put an even wider variety of weapons and ammo bans in place for the rest of us.

 

[Liberty Sanders]

To me this is an idiotic move by Commiebomma that infers that somehow the Police are responsible for the "riots" by being equipped with "scary" military equipment. This is complete stupidity. If anything the cause of the riots are caused by the politicians, due to many factors. Some of these factors deal with our "justice" (sic) system, welfare programs and many other liberal causes. If I or anyone, regardless of race, engages in Arson, breaking into and destruction of private property, throwing (potentially deadly) missiles such as rocks and bottles, destruction of vehicles etc., I would expect to be either shot or on the wrong side of bars for a goodly portion of my (then worthless) life.

The police especially in major cities should have the equipment necessary to protect themselves and the law abiding citizens while safely quelling any violent riots in as short of time as possible. Certainly everyone in the USA has the right to PEACEFULLY assemble and protest anything they desire. When this assembly becomes violent, the police (and citizens) should have the equipment to end it immediately regardless to injury or death to the violent offenders.

IF and when, after a thorough, unbiased investigation, police are found to have committed illegal acts causing injury or death to citizens, they should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, possibly even more than non-police citizens, as they are trained, given more power then ordinary persons and are paid and entrusted to use those powers to protect people and property by arresting those responsible for illegal acts.

In no way do I see any correlation between the riots and the fact the police have some military equipment. In Baltimore during the violent riots it certainly appeared the police were ill equipped to deal with the violence. I would have liked to seen Abram tanks used if necessary (with active 30 cal guns), so the police could have been safe while dealing with the violent criminal element present.

Larry, you are correct that there is no correlation between the riots and the transfer of military equipment to law enforcement. That is not the problem.

The problem is that when you equip law enforcement agencies with military equipment they start looking for excuses to use it, and innocent people are being killed as a result.

We are seeing the scenario over and over again. A SWAT teams crashes into an American home in response to a minor crime, under circumstances where, during my law enforcement career, we simply would have gone up and knocked on the door. The occupants, unaware that the attackers are law enforcement, attempt to defend themselves and are killed.

The police department refuses to discipline the officers and the prosecutor fails to charge them with a crime because the dead citizens "resisted" the officers.

What is glossed over is the fact that if not for the completely inappropriate use of a SWAT Team there would have BEEN no resistance and the occupants of the home would still be alive.

For some reason when I was a cop we were able to handle warrant service AND quell civil disturbances WITHOUT military hardware.

I have been saying for years that if law enforcement did not clean up its own act that it would become necessary for government to step and in do it FOR them. Well, that time is here. They've been asking for it and now they're going to get it.

States are now passing laws to rein in law enforcement agencies that have become nothing but highway robbery gangs, stopping inoffensive citizens and stripping them of their cash. Now the POTUS has to step in and stop the transfer of military equipment which, if the agencies involved had used it PROPERLY instead of pretending to be Marine Raiders no one even would have noticed that they had.

It rankles to me to have to say that I agree with Obama on anything (I suspect his order has more to do with gaining political points than otherwise) but I do.

If I had my way the military equipment that has been distributed to law enforcement would be repossessed and they would be required to return to law enforcement work instead of seek-and-destroy missions.

 

[rambone]

But once the criminals have given up their weapons, why would die Polizei need their various weapons, militarized or no?

With all due respect, I am not someone who believes gun control works. Even if is illegal to own weapons, people (good intentions or bad) will still have them. Since gun control does not work, it only makes sense that people be encouraged to prioritize their own self-defense.

Tying this back to the OP, the president has in no way proposed disarming police. Obama is slightly modifying a Clinton subsidy program.

 

[OWGEM]

Larry, you are correct that there is no correlation between the riots and the transfer of military equipment to law enforcement. That is not the problem.

The problem is that when you equip law enforcement agencies with military equipment they start looking for excuses to use it, and innocent people are being killed as a result.

We are seeing the scenario over and over again. A SWAT teams crashes into an American home in response to a minor crime, under circumstances where, during my law enforcement career, we simply would have gone up and knocked on the door. The occupants, unaware that the attackers are law enforcement, attempt to defend themselves and are killed.

The police department refuses to discipline the officers and the prosecutor fails to charge them with a crime because the dead citizens "resisted" the officers.

What is glossed over is the fact that if not for the completely inappropriate use of a SWAT Team there would have BEEN no resistance and the occupants of the home would still be alive.

For some reason when I was a cop we were able to handle warrant service AND quell civil disturbances WITHOUT military hardware.

I have been saying for years that if law enforcement did not clean up its own act that it would become necessary for government to step and in do it FOR them. Well, that time is here. They've been asking for it and now they're going to get it.

States are now passing laws to rein in law enforcement agencies that have become nothing but highway robbery gangs, stopping inoffensive citizens and stripping them of their cash. Now the POTUS has to step in and stop the transfer of military equipment which, if the agencies involved had used it PROPERLY instead of pretending to be Marine Raiders no one even would have noticed that they had.

It rankles to me to have to say that I agree with Obama on anything (I suspect his order has more to do with gaining political points than otherwise) but I do.

If I had my way the military equipment that has been distributed to law enforcement would be repossessed and they would be required to return to law enforcement work instead of seek-and-destroy missions.

QFT