• Trump prepares to lift limits on military gear for police
    81 replies, posted
[url=https://www.apnews.com/ff3edeeb44c84c348a620df08481f211?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=AP]Source[/url] [QUOTE]The Trump administration is preparing to restore the flow of surplus military equipment to local law enforcement agencies under a program that had been sharply curtailed amid an outcry over police use of armored vehicles and other war-fighting gear to confront protesters. Documents obtained by The Associated Press indicate President Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order undoing an Obama administration directive that restricted police agencies’ access to the gear that includes grenade launchers, bullet-proof vests, riot shields, firearms and ammunition. Trump’s order would fully restore the program under which “assets that would otherwise be scrapped can be repurposed to help state, local, and tribal law enforcement better protect public safety and reduce crime,” according to the documents. Attorney General Jeff Sessions could outline the changes during a Monday speech to the national conference of the Fraternal Order of Police in Nashville, Tennessee, a person familiar with the matter said. The person insisted on anonymity to discuss the plan ahead of an official announcement. The changes would be another way in which Trump and Sessions are enacting a law-and-order agenda that views federal support of local police as a way to drive down violent crime. National police organizations have long been pushing Trump to hold his promise to once again make the equipment available to local and state police departments, many of which see it as needed to ensure officers aren’t put in danger when responding to active shooter calls and terrorist attacks. An armored vehicle played a key role in the police response to the December 2015 mass shooting in San Bernardino, California. In 1990, Congress authorized the Pentagon to give surplus equipment to police to help fight drugs, which then gave way to the fight against terrorism. Groups across the political spectrum have expressed concern about the militarization of police, arguing that the equipment encourages and escalates confrontations with officers. President Barack Obama issued an executive order in 2015 that severely limited the surplus program, partly triggered by public outrage over the use of military gear when during protests in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown. Police responded in riot gear and deployed tear gas, dogs and armored vehicles. At times they also pointed assault rifles at protesters. Obama’s order prohibited the federal government from providing grenade launchers, bayonets, tracked armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, and firearms and ammunition of .50-caliber or greater to police. As of December, the agency overseeing the program had recalled at least 100 grenade launchers, more than 1,600 bayonets and 126 tracked vehicles — those that run on continuous, tank-like tracks instead of wheels — that were provided through the program. Trump vowed to rescind the executive order in a written response to a Fraternal Order of Police questionnaire that helped him win an endorsement from the organization of rank-and-file officers. He reiterated his promise during a gathering of police officers in July, saying the equipment still on the streets is being put to good use. “In fact, that stuff is disappearing so fast we have none left,” Trump said. The NAACP Legal Defense Fund said in a statement Sunday night that it is “exceptionally dangerous and irresponsible” for the administration to lift the ban. “Just a few summers ago, our nation watched as Ferguson raised the specter of increased police militarization. The law enforcement response there and in too many places across the country demonstrated how perilous, especially for Black and Brown communities, a militarized police force can be,” the LDF said. “The President’s decision to make this change in the wake of the tragedy in Charlottesville and against a backdrop of frayed relations between police and communities of color further reflects this administration’s now open effort to escalate racial tensions in our country,” the organization said.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]undoing an Obama administration directive [/QUOTE] So I'm just gonna assume that this is the reason he did it
So, we give small arms to Police Departments that need them, give them the ability to request MRAPs for their SWAT teams, and possibly get rid of a few military UAVs for simple traffic monitoring purposes. What's the big deal? Do you guys seem to forget that we live in a country with 350 million firearms?
TBH if the police force is well trained, disciplined and accountability is A-OK, then I'm completely okay with this. The problem is that America's police force isn't trained as much in de-escalation or conflict resolution, but in utilization of force. The acceptance standards are (afaik) more lax than in Europe as well.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52621460]So, we give small arms to Police Departments that need them, give them the ability to request MRAPs for their SWAT teams, and possibly get rid of a few military UAVs for simple traffic monitoring purposes. What's the big deal? Do you guys seem to forget that we live in a country with 350 million firearms?[/QUOTE] Assuming this is unironic, the issue is that the police is being granted [I]military hardware[/I]. You know, [I]weapons and vehicles designed to be used [B]in a warzone[/B][/I], not against thugs.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52621461]I'd argue that grenade launchers, bullet-proof vests and riot shields are required for crowd control during any violent protest[/QUOTE] Vests and shields I can see, but grenade launchers? That's just begging for innocent deaths and stuff
[t]https://c1.staticflickr.com/9/8392/8477200991_f12a80350f_b.jpg[/t] Maybe Trump is just a closet cyberpunk fan.
[QUOTE=Dave_Parker;52621461]I'm sure that's the only reason[/QUOTE] Well, given that Trump has a hate-boner for Obama that's probably only comparable to the hate-boner that most people had for Bieber when he became mainstream, yeah. But I also wanna guess that Trump has a picture book about how to seem as authtarian as possible
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52621474]Vests and shields I can see, but grenade launchers? That's just begging for innocent deaths and stuff[/QUOTE] It's [I]supposed[/I] to be for launching tear gas. Doesn't mean it's a good thing.
[I]Military state in 5 easy steps! Just add water![/I]
Given the events of the past few weeks this is disturbing to say the least. Bad enough he encouraged police to be 'tougher' on 'illegals', but outfitting them with mil surp seems like it could be bad news down the line.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52621460]So, we give small arms to Police Departments that need them, give them the ability to request MRAPs for their SWAT teams, and possibly get rid of a few military UAVs for simple traffic monitoring purposes. What's the big deal? Do you guys seem to forget that we live in a country with 350 million firearms?[/QUOTE] well if you're alright with your small-town police having the federal and bureaucratic accountability of a military, then militarize away. always plenty of popguns and batons if not.
I get the feeling something has gone very wrong if your police force needs access to military hardware.
[QUOTE=Alxnotorious;52621506][I]Military state in 5 easy steps! Just add water![/I][/QUOTE] [I]in the form of a riot suppression cannon! [/I]
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52621545]I get the feeling something has gone very wrong if your police force needs access to military hardware.[/QUOTE] The problem is they don't need it. What's the one thing a fascist likes more than most things? A heavily armed police force.
Why does Trump's answer to all problems - both domestic and foreign - seem to be through sheer brute force? That is, of course, a rhetorical question.
Waiting for the speech where he says "50 cal to the head of everyone who opposes our forces"
[QUOTE=Rocâ„¢;52621649]Waiting for the speech where he says "50 cal to the head of everyone who opposes our forces"[/QUOTE] Except, that's not an unrealistic thing for him to say. Remember that his idea of dealing with terrorists was to target their families.
[QUOTE=JoeSkylynx;52621460]So, we give small arms to Police Departments that need them, give them the ability to request MRAPs for their SWAT teams, and possibly get rid of a few military UAVs for simple traffic monitoring purposes. What's the big deal? Do you guys seem to forget that we live in a country with 350 million firearms?[/QUOTE] So the police need more military equipment right.... Because 350 million firearms means we should equip them with equipment that the public can't get.
Kevlar vests and spare M4/shotgun/sidearm shipments I can understand. Police already have these things and getting replacements from milsurp stashes is saving me, a taxpayer, money. But they dont need AFVs, grenade launchers, et al. SWAT units are already well enough equipped and if anything doesnt give in to SWAT we have an entire branch of the army sitting idle for that exact reason: The Nat Guard. As amusing as it would be to watch Metro PD curbstomp the crips, bloods, ms13, et al with an M60A3 and a couple Bradley IFV's, they do not need such vehicles and the power will corrupt.
[QUOTE=TestECull;52621670]Kevlar vests and spare M4/shotgun/sidearm shipments I can understand. Police already have these things and getting replacements from milsurp stashes is saving me, a taxpayer, money. But they dont need AFVs, grenade launchers, et al. SWAT units are already well enough equipped and if anything doesnt give in to SWAT we have an entire branch of the army sitting idle for that exact reason: The Nat Guard. As amusing as it would be to watch Metro PD curbstomp the crips, bloods, ms13, et al with an M60A3 and a couple Bradley IFV's, they do not need such vehicles and the power will corrupt.[/QUOTE] Well for one, surplus vehicles from Afghanistan can be used. But wasn't it already implemented?
[QUOTE=RainbowStalin;52621545]I get the feeling something has gone very wrong if your police force needs access to military hardware.[/QUOTE] What went wrong? Lack of funding. The large majority of police departments in this country have less than 10 officers. They [I]need[/I] the surplus vests and rifles and handguns. Even for large departments they need the equipment. Patrol rifles and optics are common items claimed. Grenade launchers too for crowd control. There's no funding for it. MRAP for $1 is better than a Bearcat for $200,000+ But there's still no reason for tracked vehicles or .50 cal weapons. This wouldn't be an issue if people actually funded their departments and raised taxes.
I don't see too much of an issue with the shields imo
[QUOTE=gokiyono;52621474]Vests and shields I can see, but grenade launchers? That's just begging for innocent deaths and stuff[/QUOTE] Grenade =/= high explosive, necessarily. Baton rounds and CN/CS gas being examples of less-lethal options. [QUOTE=Spetsnaz95;52621470]Assuming this is unironic, the issue is that the police is being granted [I]military hardware[/I]. You know, [I]weapons and vehicles designed to be used [B]in a warzone[/B][/I], not against thugs.[/QUOTE] You mean like the AR-15, M113 and other countless examples of military-grade hardware that're designed or ideal for scenarios that occur in both warfare and law enforcement? In some instances the only thing distinguishing a police action from a military one is the location and uniforms
[QUOTE=Code3Response;52621822]What went wrong? Lack of funding. The large majority of police departments in this country have less than 10 officers. They [I]need[/I] the surplus vests and rifles and handguns. Even for large departments they need the equipment. Patrol rifles and optics are common items claimed. Grenade launchers too for crowd control. There's no funding for it. MRAP for $1 is better than a Bearcat for $200,000+ But there's still no reason for tracked vehicles or .50 cal weapons. This wouldn't be an issue if people actually funded their departments and raised taxes.[/QUOTE] It would be especially good if they could get handgun ammunition cheap, I think. Training ammo is a recurring cost, especially in large departments. Either free up budget for shit like salaries and overtime pay, or use it to give officers more frequent firearms training.
How long until Goosestepping is mandatory? :v:
Oh yeah that's what this country needs right now
Lol all the knee jerk reactions in this thread. You guys do know they already have or can get the majority of this stuff without it being "military surplus" right? (oooooo scary buzzwords) It's just cheaper for the departments and the town to buy surplus gear from people who don't need it anymore. The problem isn't how they are able to acquire this gear, but more how they intend to use it. The problem isn't going away with a quick bandaid fix of "ban x because it looks scary"
Next we'll see him replacing the ol' toupee with a beret.
Trump obviously only did this because it was an Obama directive [I]but[/I] this was one of the few things I didn't really agree with Obama on to begin with. I don't really see the issue with making these resources available to police. They aren't going to be patrolling in tanks, Humvee aren't going to replace squad cars. A good bit of our current military gear is pretty well suited to police work, even moreso than outright combat, considering the nature of the wars we've been fighting. If we just go "xyz dictator did this thing so we can't do it ever under any circumstances" we'll quickly back ourselves into a really stupid corner. It's more about how this equipment is deployed and utilized than whether or not they have it. If the Nazis go ballistic and actually begin the mass violence campaign they've been threatening, you guys (and me, for that matter) are gonna be really happy this equipment was made available to police. Currently civilians have more ready access to this gear than cops (that goes for much of Europe too). That's not a good thing if a group decides to go to war on police or other civilians.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.