Two Years of Data On What Military Equipment the Pentagon Gave To Local Police

v3rgEz writes: Wondering how the St. Louis County Police ended up armed with surplus military gear, and what equipment other departments have? A FOIA request at MuckRock has turned up every item given to local law enforcement under the Pentagon's 1022 program, the mechanism by which local law enforcement can apply for surplus or used military gear.

Comments

No

[Anonymous Coward]

Military surplus doesn't kill people, cops kill people....

Re:No

[diamondmagic]

Military surplus makes such tyranny especially cheap, cheaper than it would otherwise be. Also something about the law of demand.

Re:No

[JDAustin]

When you give the police weapons of war then they will find someone to go to war with. Unfortunately, that is the general populace.

Re:No

[gmuslera]

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Now police's only tool are military-grade weapons, intended to kill.

And sometimes the situation changes how people is, like in this Standford prison experiment

Add to that how police cover up miscarriages and that you can't film the police, is not just who watches the watchers, but who watches the watchers that have military-grade weapons in the streets and are abusing of them.

Re:No

[theshowmecanuck]

When you give everyone guns they will find someone to shoot. And if you listen to the NRA, then you know that just isn't true. So your statement can't be true either.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not really the weapons that make the police act this way, it's the lack of accountability.

Re:No

[cold fjord]

When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Now police's only tool are military-grade weapons, intended to kill.

Really? What makes you think that? The additional weapons are available as additional contingency weapons, not as a solitary replacement for all tools, weapons, technology, and methods that they used before.

You also overlook that police departments started substituting rifles for shotguns long ago due do demonstrated need, and the experience of being outgunned.

National Geographic Situation Critical Hollywood Shootout

Re:No

[erikkemperman]

I think the point is that when the police are shooting people in great numbers -- I don't think the US has a peer in that dept -- then it might not be a great idea to give them even more destructive weaponry. Sure it would be "contingency" equipment when anyone asks, but sooner or later it'll be standard issue.

Remember those billions (!) of rounds of ammo that DHS bought?

In combination with the, shall we say, questionable record of accountability of police actions, tooling up to this extent seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

Re:No

[hodagacz]

Private citizens are under far more accountability and surveillance than law enforcement.

Re:No

[DigiShaman]

The police don't want war. In fact, they typically go after the low hanging fruit in offenders. You could be downloading an illegal copy of a movie from Starbucks and be busted while simultaneously a drug addict and a pimp are engaged in some sort of dispute across the street. Yeah, fuck that. Too much trouble. But hey, easy quota right?

Re:No

[shutdown -p now]

So pray tell, what kind of contingency requires grenade launchers? They're on that list.

Re:No

[Travis Mansbridge]

Actually, the drug addicts are the low hanging fruit, and the war on drugs is precisely why the US has imprisoned a far higher percentage of its population than any other first world nation.

Re:No

[PopeRatzo]

You could be downloading an illegal copy of a movie from Starbucks and be busted while simultaneously a drug addict and a pimp are engaged in some sort of dispute across the street.

It is not illegal for a "drug addict and a pimp" to be engaged in some sort of dispute.

Re:No

[Shawndeisi]

Launching rubber bullets and tear gas, which share the 40mm platform.

Re:No

[Rhywden]

Irrelevant. Cops are SUPPOSED to shoot people because that's what they are paid for.

There's something very, very wrong with your views on what the cops are supposed to do.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the lack of a constitutional right to gun ownership automatically leads to a totalitarian state. That is why Canada,France, Germany, and the Netherlands are all totalitarian states. /sarcasm

Re:No

[Dare nMc]

When you give everyone guns they will find someone to shoot. And if you listen to the NRA, then you know that just isn't true. So your statement can't be true either.

I think the issue is more the "giving" part. Because the police departments were given the military weapons, when they have a 1000 people protesting, they look at the tools on hand, a pistol, a machine gun, and a assault tank. They are then given the task of breaking up the protesters, stopping and apprehending looters, and not taught how to do that. Had they not been given the military weaponry, they would have had to gone to their accounting dept, local legislators... and said we need military weapons to handle rioters. Then the question would be asked, are military weapons the correct path, or should we buy batons and shields instead? If they needed the M-16, the accountants would likely point out, we need money for training... to go with them. When someone gives the weapons to the dept, even if they do ask accounting for riot shields, their response is more likely to be, can't you use the weapons you have? The civilian equivalent would be if I want a old bard torn down, and I offer 2 teenagers a couple AR's and box's of ammo in exchange for tearing down the shed while I leave for the weekend (and don't allow them to sell the weapons), and then hand them the weapons, it is allot more likely to be real ugly when I come back on Monday. While it is true If I instead give them $5000 to do the same job, they could go buy the AR's, but are much more likely to rent the correct tools, or buy a sledge hammer.

Re:No

[erikkemperman]

Actually, the drug addicts are the low hanging fruit, and the war on drugs is precisely why the US has imprisoned a far higher percentage of its population than any other first world nation.

Re:No

[erikkemperman]

Crap, hit submit prematurely by accident. I wanted to point out that the "first world" qualifier is not even necessary.

Re:No

[hey!]

Irrelevant. Cops are SUPPOSED to shoot people because that's what they are paid for.

No they are not supposed to, nor is that what they are paid for. Sometimes they *have* to shoot people, but that is and should be regarded as a failure, albeit sometimes an avoidable one.

Modern policing is governed by the "Peelian Principles" (for Sir Robert Peel). The very first principle: "To prevent crime and disorder, as an alternative to repression by military force and severity of legal punishment." Furthermore, the principles state that policing is only effective if it can secure the respect and cooperation of the public and "the extent to which the co-operation of the public can be secured diminishes proportionately the necessity of the use of physical force and compulsion for achieving police objectives." (principle 4)

So the idea that it's part of a cop's job description to shoot people is rubbish. It's a cop's job to keep the peace, and if a good cop shoots someone it's because it's the lesser of two failures.

Re:No

[j35ter]

Thats a bullshit argument! Even the nazis armed the German population, shortly after coming to power - contrary to what NRA idiots keep repeating! Armed citizens are the backbone of every totalitarian state because the most violent ones will be the first to shoot with the states blessing!

Re:No

[DanielRavenNest]

> When you give everyone guns

The U.S. has approximately one gun per person, including children (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number_of_guns_per_capita_by_country). They are not evenly distributed, but to a first approximation we already reached the "everyone has guns" level.

Re:No

[Anonymous Coward]

Those grenade launchers fire more than just grenades. Smoke, flares, tear gas, bean bag rounds, breaching rounds, even a taser like device. They're fairly common in cities for riot police to have them, as they are used for crowd control during riots by firing tear gas and smoke grenades to cordon off areas and create a barrier between frequently-violent "protesters" and innocent people or law enforcement officers.

Seriously, of all the things the police have been issued recently through this program, 40mm grenade launchers are the least of our worries.

Here's my list in order of "they shouldn't have these."

1. Camo uniforms. It may not sound like it should be at the top, but the saying "dress for the job you want," applies here. Once officers start dressing like soldiers, they're more likely to act like soldiers. The weapons themselves are useless without the mindset that they should be used and dressing like a tier one operator is the first step to acting like one. Also, police officers should be highly visible, cops not seeing other cops is how cops wind up shooting other cops. It happens fairly frequently.

2. Baclavas. No, these aren't the greek deserts, these are face masks designed to hide the wearer's identity. Just as the internet's anonymity has given rise to internet trolls, giving armed individuals anonymity increases the chances that they will act without regard to the law. After all, you can't punish someone if you don't know who they are.

3. Bayonets. This should be completely obvious. There is zero defensive use for a bayonet, and their usage is so rare in actual combat that most units don't equip soldiers with them anymore. As it is drilled into the mind of every infantry soldier the purpose of a bayonet is to "KILL, KILL, KILL WITH THE COLD BLUE STEEL." That's not what I want those who are supposed to "serve and protect" chanting in their heads during times of distress.

4. M84 Charging Handles. If you need the charging handle to an M84, it means you most likely have an M84. For those who don't know, this is a variant of the AKM belt-fed light machine gun used by the Russian military. I'm all for arming officers with handguns, shotguns, and even rifles; but a belt-fed LMG? Umm, no. There has never been a time in the history of this country where law enforcement officers EVER had the need for a weapon that was designed to allow one man to kill dozens of men in seconds.

5. MRAP and other armored vehicles. This goes to the bottom of the list because there is a true need for these from time to time. During the North Hollywood shootout, officers died waiting on rescue because gunmen armed with illegally modified, fully automatic rifles had responding officers pinned down under cover. It wasn't until fire and emt got on scene that those officers could be rescued. Armored vehicles allow officers to close the gap between themselves and violent criminals safely. Recently, however, the trend has been for them to be used as an intimidation factor or as battering rams during raids, even for non-violent criminals. Last year, in my small home town of about 20,000 residents, two of these MRAPs were called to aid in the arrest of a prominent lawyer who was being arrested for filing a false police report. It was determined that since he had an active concealed carry permit that he was a serious enough threat that vehicles built to resist landmines and IEDs were sent to park in front of his front door. To my knowledge, there has never been a landmine attack in the US and the only IED's I've heard about were found in someone's underpants 40k feet in the air where no MRAP can go.

There's a reason I placed clothing before weapons in my list. As an infantry soldier with multiple deployments to some of the most dangerous warzones on earth, I've seen firsthand that it's the warrior's mindset that is dangerous, not his weapons. A man can kill with his bare hands if he wants to, or he can live in peace his entire life while heavily armed if that is h

Re:No

[rubycodez]

the militarization of our police goes beyond equipment, there is training according to an agenda

Re:No

[wwphx]

While the number of guns has increased, the number of households and people with guns have decreased. What you have is a small(ish) group of individuals buying as many guns as they can possibly afford while the broad public sentiment seems to be eschewing gun ownership.

And I have owned probably 20 guns cumulatively and over 10 at the same time at one point. I haven't owned any in over a decade for various reasons. And I don't feel particularly uncomfortable not owning any, though I do miss target and trap & skeet shooting at the range. Still, I have plenty of other entertainments and hobbies to keep me occupied.

Re: No

[DigiShaman]

Probable cause is exercised at police discretion. But yes I agree, even that would be a bullshit scenario. Well, not unless they're disrupting the peace, but I digress.

Re:No

[cold fjord]

I think the point is that when the police are shooting people in great numbers -- I don't think the US has a peer in that dept -- then it might not be a great idea to give them even more destructive weaponry.

That is nonsense. Police in the US aren't routinely engaging in massacres, nor do they just shoot at random people as a standard practice. The question isn't do they have weapons, but are those weapons being used inappropriately?

Remember those billions (!) of rounds of ammo that DHS bought?

That didn't actually happen. But even if it did, the actual question is still whether they are using that supply appropriately.

In combination with the, shall we say, questionable record of accountability of police actions, tooling up to this extent seems like a disaster waiting to happen.

Maybe by routinely providing US police machine pistols (submachine guns ) as is common in Europe would help bring greater peace to society? What do you say, an MP-5 for every patrol officer?

Where do you come up with this "shall we say, questionable record of accountability of police actions" nonsense? There have been particular police departments or teams with a problem, but are you trying to claim this is a universal condition? That is nonsense.

Re:No

[shutdown -p now]

Okay, that's a valid point. How about a vehicle-mounted .50 BMG machine gun?

Re:No

[Shawndeisi]

I've got nothin'. Are they on the req list?

Re:No

[BitZtream]

Stopping a bulldozer or other heavy vehicle stolen by some mentally ill person on a suicide binge.

Re:No

[shutdown -p now]

It's not in this list, because it only goes back two years, but it made newspaper headlines when a SWAT team in South Carolina got themselves an M113A1 with an MG turret back in 2008. It was also on the 1033 program, so we should see it there once they get more data (their FOIA request goes all the way back to 2001).

Of course, maybe there are more there, and on that list, but it's hard to tell because they don't list models. E.g. what is "ONLY COMPLETE COMBAT/ASSAULT/TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES"? or "MINE RESISTANT VEHICLE"? And I don't think that the MG would have a separate line item if it's mounted in standard configuration...

On a side note, try searching for "MACHINE GUN" in the list.

Re:No

[shutdown -p now]

And because something happened once in the history of this country, every police department in every count should have one?

I wonder what they're going to do with it when the mentally ill person in a bulldozer doesn't show up? Kids with toys get bored.

Re:No

[marcgvky]

You're a complete retard and have not studied the History of Nazi Germany. The citizens where systematically disarmed, so that they could pose no credible threat to the Reich. The ONLY time that citizens were armed was during the pinch on Berlin, at which time anyone who could carry a Panzerfaust or rifle was pressed into service (at gunpoint) to serve until death or victory. Go crawl under your rock, liberal loser.

Re:No

[q4Fry]

I am completely with you on the "every police department" question. I am solidly against police militarization in general (and in any sort of local setting), but I think that there occasional situations that require a regional team to have some kind of SWAT capability. (How large a region is up for debate.)

With respect to BitZ, I am not saying this is typical, but his/her hypothetical has happened with a tank.

Re:No

[shutdown -p now]

For those very rare kinds of scenarios, I would actually be okay with just calling in the military (they should have some people trained in crowd control etc anyway, since that's a large part of overseas deployments these days). The problem with police SWAT teams is that they're, well, police. They don't have anything else to do, but you have to keep them around, so you find them something to do. And if you don't, they'll do it themselves.

Reducing the number and making one responsible for a larger geographic area would work in theory (so long as it's large enough that they are not out of proper work), but then people might start complaining about reaction times.

Re:No

[q4Fry]

Agreed on the reaction time trade-off for region size. What do you think about the National Guard for the rare cases? Each state has one, and the Governor can call "emergency" to bring them in.

(Full disclosure: I don't know much about what Guard duty and training these days beyond supplementing troops abroad, laying sandbags, and what I just read on Wikipedia.)

Re:No

[shutdown -p now]

I don't think it really matters much who does it, so long as it's not the force that has to be maintained in the permanent state of thinking of other citizens as their potential enemy (since when they're deployed, it's always in the country). I suppose from a Constitutional perspective, National Guard makes sense since you want it to be a state-level force, otherwise it will be shot down as Federal overreach. There are also State Defense Forces, at least in some states.

Re:No

[crywalt]

I hope you're modded down below -1 into some minus infinity where we can never see your typing again. I've been to Newark, Philadelphia, Harlem, Bedford-Stuyvesant, and similar places many, many times. I am a white man who grew up in New York City and went to high school in Alphabet City. I've seen more of what passes for bad neighborhoods in America than you've had hot dinners, asshole. And I have never once been threatened, let alone menaced, attacked, mugged, beaten, shot, stabbed, or anything. The people of Ferguson are not animals. They're human. They're people. They deserve more respect than you do, Anonymous Coward, with your ridiculous racist views.

Re:No

[j35ter]

Ich bin geborener Deutscher du Amerikanischer Sack voller Scheiße! Try google translate you fucking imbecile

Re:No

[marcgvky]

Go fuck yourself, liberal loser. No translator required.

Re:No

[j35ter]

You are a Nazi but not aware of it. I pity your people for having to put up with shit like you,
Have a nice day!

Re:No

[marcgvky]

Wrong, they generally find rioting idiots to put down. By the way, the people you have to worry about, are not the people in uniforms. Generally, it's the dirt bags with no morals or ethics... aka the rioters in Furgeson. When's the last time you saw a bunch of white people rioting and destroying their own neighborhoods.... tick tock tick tock tick tock..... NHHHHHHHHH never.

Re:No

[MichaelJ]

In some countries, the penalty for drug offenses is not prison, it's execution.

Re:No

[cold fjord]

Weapons aren't part of the M113, and many different types of weapons can be mounted on an M113 besides the M2 .50 machinegun.

Re:No

[shutdown -p now]

Nevertheless, this one came with the M2.

Re: No

[Esteanil]

Mod parent up

Re:No

[BancBoy]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com... First thing that sprang to mind...

Re:No

[BancBoy]

Wrong link... http://www.thehockeynews.com/a...

Re:No

[Rich0]

In some countries, the penalty for drug offenses is not prison, it's execution.

Yup. We really need to crack down. If we keep up this laxity before we know it people will feel like it is OK to change religions, marry somebody of a different religion, or teach a girl how to read.

Re:No

[pnutjam]

create a barrier between frequently-violent "protesters" and
create a barrier between frequently "violent" protesters and
FTFY

Re:No

[pnutjam]

You clueless fuckwits who don't protest how awful the police are have yet to experience what it is like to be a victim of them.

Re:No

[Robb Swanson]

^ +1 this

Re:No

[Robb Swanson]

Call me racist if you like, I don't care.

OK... You're a racist.

Re:No

[Kiwikwi]

the war on drugs is precisely why the US has imprisoned a far higher percentage of its population than any other first world nation.

To be specific, the US incarcerates more people than any nation, first-world or not. That's not only by percentages, but also by absolute numbers. Roughly one in four prisoners worldwide sits in a US prison.

Re:No

[crywalt]

I've talked shit like I'm some kind of tough guy? Really? I'm posting under my real name. Because I'm not afraid. And I don't talk shit.

Re:No

[Lord Kano]

This has been one of my names for over 20 years. I even receive mail under this name.

If you know where to look, there's a clear enough connection between this name and the one on my driver's license.

If anyone is looking for me, I'm not hard to find.

LK

Re:No

[dffuller]

Name five. Also, outgunned isn't merely being opposed with a weapon with higher killing potential. The police can quickly assemble overwhelming "mass" (something on the order of SUM(count(i)*weapon(i).killing_potential), even with less capable weapons.

Re:No

[cold fjord]

I'll give you a freebie - the North Hollywood shoot out. It certainly isn't the only one. "Overwhelming mass" by itself didn't really work out well there. Far fewer people would have been injured if the police had been armed then as they are now.

Too much surplus

[halltk1983]

If we have this much surplus, clearly we're buying too much. I know that if I find myself giving away cans of green beans, I make sure I don't buy a whole pallet the next time I'm at Costco.

Re:Too much surplus

[jd2112]

If we have this much surplus, clearly we're buying too much. I know that if I find myself giving away cans of green beans, I make sure I don't buy a whole pallet the next time I'm at Costco.

Perhaps, but unlike the military you don't have some Senator from a state with a lot of green bean farms and canning plants telling you that you must purchase pallets of green beans regardless of whether you want or need them.

Re:Too much surplus

[Firethorn]

Have you never bought something that it turned out that you didn't need? Amplify that to the scale the DoD operates on and you get some serious amounts of 'surplus'.

Add in that the military has to operate on the principal of being prepared, and thus have stocks in case of danger, it makes sense for durable goods to still be useful when declared surplus.

For example, rather than having eight types of truck around, cut it down to 2 and surplus the rest. Individual departments with ONE armored vehicle can worry about the parts it needs, and if it breaks down it's not normally that big of a deal. Meanwhile the Army has to worry about hundreds of them, and if they break down too often due to age it's just not worth it.

Re:Too much surplus

[flyingsquid]

If we have this much surplus, clearly we're buying too much. I know that if I find myself giving away cans of green beans, I make sure I don't buy a whole pallet the next time I'm at Costco.

Not necessarily. Following 9/11, the U.S. began two major wars in Afghanistan and Iraq under the Bush administration. Under the Obama administration, the U.S. has withdrawn from Iraq, wound down operations in Afghanistan, and begun to reduce the size of the army. As a result there is going to be a lot of equipment that simply isn't needed anymore; if we're not longer engaged in counterinsurgency operations in Iraq for example, we don't need all those MRAP vehicles anymore. So what do you do with all this crap? One solution is to give it to the local police, but as we seen if you arm them with the tools of an occupying military force, they start acting like one. Another would be to give it to the Iraqis and Afghans or whatever regime we're trying to prop up this week... but as we've seen in Iraq, these weapons have a way of changing hands and now we've got ISIS militants armed with M-16s and driving humvees.

It seems logical to try to find a use for all this material but arguably giving people weaponry tends to fuel conflict. We saw something similar happen after the end of the Cold War. The USSR and Warsaw Pact countries produced millions of AK-47s with the idea that they could hand them out to peasants in case they ever got in a fight with NATO. After the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR, you had all these extra guns nobody needed. Enterprising people figured you could make a lot of money flying them into conflict zones in places like Africa, fueling civil wars and militias.

Eisenhower said that war was humanity hanging on a cross of iron- that "every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." But its worse than that- those billions of dollars spent after 9/11 in the name of defending our freedoms are not just stolen from the American people, but are now being used to oppress them and spy on them.

Re:Too much surplus

[LynnwoodRooster]

Finished? We're sending more troops to Iraq, as well as increasing airstrikes. Hardly over, it's escalating back up...

Re:Too much surplus

[ShanghaiBill]

We just finished with two useless wars.

Those wars were NOT useless. They generated enough ethnic hatred, extremism, and anti-Americanism to ensure generous defense budgets for decades to come. From the point of view of the MIC, these wars were a big success.

Re:Too much surplus

[rtb61]

There is your biggest problem right there, "LAW ENFORCEMENT". You keep letting that term slide through and your problems will only continue to get worse. They are not law enforcement, their duty is not to force the law, they are not the courts, the place where judge and jury enforce the law upon those that they have proven to have broken it. Police Officer are there to assist the public in upholding the law. When a police officer 'believes' a member of the public has broken the law, they arrest them and arraign them for trial. Where the claim is substantiated and the court enforces the law and applies a penalty.

What you have now is something wildly out of control, where Law Enforcement officers enforce contempt of cop laws by brutalising them or publicly executing them on the spot. What change then start by publicly banning and legislating against the term 'Law Enforcement' because that term direct implies the role of police, judge, jury, execution and is in fact contrary to constitutional laws and is a gross and huge over reach.

Re:Too much surplus

[cold fjord]

We just finished with two useless wars.

Which wars are you referring to?

Re:Too much surplus

[smittyoneeach]

Useless? You must be new to this Military-Industrial Complex concept.

Re:Too much surplus

[cold fjord]

You don't really have that quite right. The police do engage in law enforcement. When they either observe or have other evidence of a breach of the law they enforce it by arresting or ticketing the person believed to be in breach of the law. But they are only part of the process. Prosecutors make decisions about whether or not to prosecute, and bring a case to the courts to be judged. Judges and juries decide if the accused is guilty, and what punishment to inflict. You will note that judges don't arrest, or make charging decisions. When the judge issues a guilty verdict it is up to the police and jailors to hold someone in jail, it isn't the judge. There are many parts of the criminal justice system, and each have a role. There doesn't tend to be a lot of overlap in the US system. And no, this isn't contrary to the Constitution.

Re:Too much surplus

[rtb61]

No you are most emphatically wrong. The police are required by law to use minimum force to undertake an arrest and that arrest leads to further interaction where the law is enforced. The police are not entitled to beat submission out of a person, the police are not entitled to physically punish a person, the police are not entitled to use force in any manner except as minimum force to undertake an arrest. All anti-protest activities are largely illegal and an abuse of constitutional rights, this abuse slides through because it is not challenged often enough in the courts and most often the abuse passes because the government is unwilling to prosecute it's own illegal actions. Forcing all prosecution of wrong doing to be pursed in civil court, so even though the government ends up repeatedly paying out millions upon millions of dollars, they government can still claim it's actions as legal because they were not prosecuted in a criminal court. This is a flagrant and public abuse of the law and shows the level of corruption within government and policing agencies and their willingness to blatantly lie and deceive the public in failing to criminally prosecute individuals where the civil court by making a payout has providing a proof of wrong doing and the need to pursue criminal prosecution. You are horribly wrong and likely should have faced prosecution upon many instances.

Re:Too much surplus

[Bing Tsher E]

Most people focus on Eisenhower's reference to the 'Military-Industrial Complex' and for some reason omit, or are not aware of this additional warning that was part of the same farewell speech:

Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

Re:Too much surplus

[cold fjord]

Complaining about actual or alleged abuses by this or that police officer or department doesn't change the role of the police in the criminal justice system and their function of law enforcement.

Re:Too much surplus

[riverat1]

Don't you think the inability to negotiate a status of forces agreement that gave US soldiers immunity from Iraqi law had something to do with it? Should we have forced ourselves on them and violated their sovereignty?

Re:Too much surplus

[riverat1]

Some part of the surplus is probably stuff that's been replaced by newer upgraded stuff, not just excess inventory.

Re:Too much surplus

[erikkemperman]

US Defense budgets and military personnel strength are in steep decline and will be for years to come due to sequestration and other cuts.

I assume you mean the 2013 cuts -- those have been matched, basically dollar for dollar, by increasing the "temporary" budget for Afghanistan. US military spending remains outrageous, at about the level of the rest of the world put together.

The US was attacked on 9/11 because of existing religious extremism and anti-Americanism, not the other way around, the US didn't cause it.

Fundamentalism is a part of it, yes, but would never amount to anything like what we've seen were it not for widespread anti-US sentiments stemming from more pragmatic reasons, such as US foreign policy for the last, oh, seven decades. 911 was a scandalous crime, no doubt about it, but to state that it is completely unrelated to your own actions is patently false.

It is baffling how you could get such simple questions so wrong. Substituting slogans for facts and thinking?

Coming from someone who apparently still believes the Iraq war had anything to do with 911 other than rhetoric, and somehow still manages to delude himself that anti-American sentiment somehow thrives in complete isolation of its international posturing -- yeah, baffling is what that is.

Re:Too much surplus

[DigiShaman]

I won't convert, and for her to do the same would at minimum be disowned by her family, or at worst "honor killed". They're not the most tolerant of the bunch. Besides, I prefer women that weren't conditioned to be nothing more than "human ovens to bake loaves". That relationship would get pretty boring pretty fast.

Re:Too much surplus

[erikkemperman]

I think you will find most Muslims are not actually preoccupied with world domination. It is kind if like how the average American probably doesn't really support their government's foreign policy aimed at global hegemony, by any means, at any cost.

Re:Too much surplus

[dbIII]

It's sort of a new one just like the last Iraq thing was a new one despite a lot of military action related to the no-fly zones in the time span between Bush one and Bush two. The mission was accomplished in time for the 2003 election after all, so this must be a "new" war.

Re:Too much surplus

[smittyoneeach]

Blaspheme ye not our secular scientific expert priesthood, scoundrel!

Re:Too much surplus

[ultranova]

If we have this much surplus, clearly we're buying too much.

Not really. US's tactic is limiting casualties through high-tech warfare, and technology marches on. If you want to stay on the cutting edge, you'll constantly be replacing still-functional hardware with newer. This isn't limited to the military, of course, but is something all too familiar from the PC world.

A bigger problem is that giving military hardware to the police will eventually make the police into a domestic army. Is this desirable?

Re:Too much surplus

[anmre]

They also generated a butt-load of cash for the makers of said equipment.

Re:Too much surplus

[ultranova]

Fuck the muslims! Seriously. FUCK THE MUSLIMS! They want global domination, from the Middle East, to Europe, the Americas, Russia and yes, China too.

How is that any different from, say, evangelical christians? Stop exporting your own brand of religious evil before you start casting stones on other people.

Anti-american muslims? That sir is a badge of honor!

Depends. Is it because they "hate your freedom"? Or is it because you keep propping up dictatorships and meddling in bloody wars in Middle-East? Which one do you think is more likely?

Re:Too much surplus

[dlt074]

"How is that any different from, say, evangelical christians? Stop exporting your own brand of religious evil before you start casting stones on other people."

last i checked, evangelical's are not conducting suicide attacks and using children as human shields in order to convert people to their side.

until you and your kind can see the huge differences between peaceful religions who have reformed and can play well with others, and the religions who say convert or die, we will continue to have needless death at the hands of these extremists.

Re:Too much surplus

[NormalVisual]

Complaining about actual or alleged abuses by this or that police officer or department doesn't change the role of the police in the criminal justice system and their function of law enforcement.

It doesn't change the intended role. In reality, that role is often not adhered to, and when it's not, there is usually precious little the populace can do about it while remaining within the confines of the law.

Re:Too much surplus

[cold fjord]

You mean other than lawsuits, formal complaints to the department, complaints to the mayor, the state, the Federal government, newspaper stories? Political campaigns to change the government that supervises the police? Demonstrations? Investigative journalism?

Re:Too much surplus

[NormalVisual]

I meant effective measures, as in holding those in law enforcement personally accountable. Not their departments, not the city, but personally. This business of giving police officers, district attorneys, and judges near-absolute immunity for their actions needs to be looked at a lot more closely.

Re:Too much surplus

[cold fjord]

It isn't hard to find examples of police officers that engaged in various forms of misconduct being sent to jail or personally sued.

Re:Too much surplus

[TimboJones]

Likewise, it isn't hard to find examples of police officers that engaged in various forms of misconduct being sent home with pay for a week or personally shielded from any accountability for their actions.

Re:Too much surplus

[mean pun]

The Pakistani lady I dated for a few months would find that supposed conditioning highly amusing. She had a PhD in a technical subject, had a responsible job in the Pakistani defence industry, and called the Taliban retarded clowns. Sure, there are areas of Pakistan where you better not say this kind of thing, but those are the independent mountainous regions, where the central government never had much influence. Most people in the large cities of Pakistan are just as worldly in their views as people in first-world countries. Nevertheless, she, and all those people, consider themselves muslims. Just like plenty of worldly people in other countries consider themselves Christians, despite the narrow-minded fundamentalist that share their religion.

Unfortunately my relation with her didn't work, but I hope that she has found someone nice, and certainly not someone as narrow-minded as you come across here.

Re:Too much surplus

[BitZtream]

Had we finished the job, we'd have helped stabilize two countries that needed it badly and ended up with a few more with 'ethnic hatred' towards America ... and a whole lot more that were thankful to America.

Instead, people like yourself demanded that an ignorant president rush the exit because ... well I don't have any fucking idea why other than your own ignorance about the way the world works. God forbid we actually stuck around and helped them deal with the fact they've years of hatred against each other that needs to be quelled.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan need to be in the state they are in, our leaving his why the are, we could have helped them.

But hey, now you get to be a smug asshole, which is way more important, right?

Re:Too much surplus

[the eric conspiracy]

What makes you so arrogant to think that you can sort out thousands of years of hatred that is built into the culture by bombing people and trying to impose a foreign style of government?

Sorry, but this is something that these people are going to have to sort out themselves.

Nobody has EVER solved this sort of issue long term from outside.

Re:Too much surplus

[the eric conspiracy]

Evangelicals are famous for sending out missionaries to try to convert other people to their religion, and supporting military adventures of governments they elect.

Any hypothesis that evangelicals are peaceful has to explain away their unswerving support of Israel.

Re:Too much surplus

[cold fjord]

US military spending remains outrageous, at about the level of the rest of the world put together.

That is irrelevant to the question regarding the US defense budget rising or falling.

I assume you mean the 2013 cuts -- those have been matched, basically dollar for dollar, by increasing the "temporary" budget for Afghanistan.

Sorry, but no. US defense spending has been falling since 2010. For 2015 it will probably end up being about $120 billion less than 2010.

Major personnel cuts are happening too.

Pentagon Set to Slash Military to Pre-World War II Levels

Fundamentalism is a part of it, yes, but would never amount to anything like what we've seen were it not for widespread anti-US sentiments stemming from more pragmatic reasons

Islamist insurrections have been on-going since at least the 1950s (ignoring the earlier ones) and have been aimed at taking control of the local nation. They have nothing to do with the US. You don't know what you are talking about.

Coming from someone who apparently still believes the Iraq war had anything to do with 911 ...

Please provide some evidence for this. You are simply engaging in cheap, misleading rhetoric.

somehow still manages to delude himself that anti-American sentiment somehow thrives in complete isolation of its international posturing

Enjoy your illusions while you still can.

Intelligence Report: Number of Islamists in Germany Grows
Germany: Islamists Infiltrating Schools in Hamburg

German interior minister warns of threat of lethal attacks by Islamists

On Wednesday, German interior minister Thomas de Maizière (Christian Democratic Union, CDU) warned of an imminent threat of terrorist attacks by Islamist “religious warriors” in Germany and throughout Europe.

“An abstract danger has become a concrete, lethal threat in Europe, with an impact on Germany,” the interior minister said at the presentation of the domestic intelligence agency’s 2013 report in Berlin. The attack at the Jewish museum in Brussels, where four people were killed by a jihadi at the end of May, had “made clear that the possibility of an attack by such forces returning from Syria has become a deadly reality,” de Maizière explained.

Domestic intelligence chief Hans-Georg Maaßen added, “Islamist terrorism represents the greatest threat to society. Germany is not far from terrorism. We continue to be a target for the planning of attacks.”

Officials Say Islamic Terrorism Is Germany's Big Domestic Security Risk

Re:Too much surplus

[cold fjord]

Maybe you haven't heard, but most Iraqis say they want peace and democracy. The Al Qaida inspired Islamist extremists are a small percentage of society, but they are willing to bomb and kill to get their way. They formed their own terrorist army to try to overthrow the peaceful democracy in Iraq. Why are you opposed to bombing the terrorist army trying to overthrow that peaceful democracy?

You might have a point though, that whole "democracy" thing does seem to have failed badly in Japan, Germany, and Italy.

Re:Too much surplus

[dlt074]

you actually use Israel as an example? you are proving my point. Israel bends over backwards to warn their enemy, they are going to destroy weapons and facilities used to kill Israelies.

Israelies do not use suicide anything, they don't use human shields and they along with evangelicals do not say convert or die.

having been in the army of the governments they elect and having first hand interaction with the muslims in occupied countries. there is zero intention or incentive for them to convert.

And the links on MuckRock

[karvec]

Are already down (to the pdf files of the agencies...) I wonder if they already got a takedown request from our friendly neighborhood federal government.

Re:And the links on MuckRock

[OhPlz]

Yes, the stepladders and multi-meters that my local force may have received could threaten national security.

The spreadsheets were there in the article with their own viewers. Froze my browser for a bit, I'm sure it's doing wonders for their web hosting.

Re:And the links on MuckRock

[Bing Tsher E]

The danger isn't really in the Law Enforcement agencies getting the equipment. It's the very militarization that is dangerous. The police should always see themselves as part of the community. Giving them the appearance of being a military, or allowing them to feel like a military force, separates them from 'the civilians.' No police force should refer to the ordinary citizens around them as 'the civilians' yet this is common language for police forces. Giving the police big lumbering military vehicles and promoting paramilitary SWAT teams to pose around in military-like uniforms is hazardous to our freedoms.

This sort of separation from the community they work in is a big part of the problem right now in Ferguson, MO.

Re:And the links on MuckRock

[OhPlz]

I have mixed feelings on this. I do believe the people who are there to protect us need to have the right equipment to do the job as safely as possible, for both them and for the community. A Bearcat is a ridiculous vehicle for police to have, but.. there are rare instances where I can see it being useful without treading on our rights. If you've got wounded people dying and someone sniping at police from a building, an armored vehicle can help evacuate the wounded. Such a thing happened in my state a few months back. At the same time, that's a very occurrence, and for most any other task, absolute overkill. Yet, minutes count. If only the county (for example) had access, it could show up on-scene far too late to save people.

There's a lot going on in Ferguson. Militarization is only a part of that mess. The police have explaining to do, but that doesn't justify looting and destruction of property. I bet that a lot of the people involved in the nightly riots are not residents of that community. The residents are going to have to deal with this for a long time. No one is going to want to start a business or live in an area that has the appearance of being a powder-keg. Let alone wanting to move in to an area where the police appear to be out of control. It's not like NYC, where the benefits still out-weigh the negatives. I don't think they have enough people to be involved in the community, hard to do if you're always running from call to call.

Re:Real Problem

[lsllll]

Actually many (not all) of the policemen and policewomen in the U.S. are ex military. They've been trained on the equipment that was donated to the police departments. What we should be asking is why have we come to a time/place that we think we need a swat team knocking on a door for an eviction, or even a low profile drug related arrest.

Re:Real Problem

[CohibaVancouver]

Actually many (not all) of the policemen and policewomen in the U.S. are ex military.

That in itself can be a problem. Take a person who has been trained to shoot first and ask questions later and then make them into civilian law enforcement.

What could possibly go wrong?

Re:Real Problem

[Wookie Monster]

Citation Needed. I suppose I can search for it, but I assume you already have data which backs up your claim regarding the number of ex-military police.

Arms merchants are the real problem

[istartedi]

Arms merchants are the real problem. They should all be sho...umm. We should bomb their factorie.... ummm... Let's just nuke all the... umm..

Lemme get back to you on this.

Re:Arms merchants are the real problem

[rubycodez]

No, the lawmakers and law executives in the pockets of arms merchants and other big corporations that profit from war and war mongering are the problem

Re:Arms merchants are the real problem

[istartedi]

No, the lawmakers and law executives in the pockets of arms merchants and other big corporations that profit from war and war mongering are the problem

Yeah, lawyers. There out to be a umm... there ought to be some kind of text that says something about lawyers, and we could have ummm.... some kind of enforcement that makes it stick. "That Text That We Wrote Enforcement" we'd call it. Hey, I think that needs some more work too. Like I say, lemme get back to you.

Who cares?

[Gothmolly]

After all, only criminals have anything to fear from the police, right?

Re:Who cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, everyone should fear every interaction with the police. We are all always breaking laws the only thing that is saving us from them is remaining unnoticed.

“Did you really think we want those laws observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them to be broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against... We're after power and we mean it... There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced or objectively interpreted – and you create a nation of law-breakers – and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Reardon, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.”
  Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Re:Who cares?

[rubycodez]

One of the building blocks of a police state is to assume and act if the populace are criminals; they are to be monitored, intimidated, controlled, brain washed. This is the agenda of the federal government of the United States, and militarization of the police is a part of that.

Checked my own state

[gman003]

For Virginia, I skimmed through and found:
* Basically every county, city and even college police were involved. Specifically which department got each thing isn't listed.
* 2 "laser range-finder/target designators". They listed laser range-finders with a different name, so these are definitely ones that could illuminate a target for bombing. Scary.
* 4 explosive ordnance disposal robots
* 1 mine-resistant vehicle
* 23 5.56mm rifles, 14 7.62mm rifles, 4 .45 pistols and 3 12ga "riot-type" shotguns. I did not notice any other arms, specifically .50 rifles. Interestingly, there were no multiple transfers of weapons - either only one gun was given to each department, or they're logging individual serial numbers, or they're lying their ass off.
* On a lighter note, a single electronic calculator, a bicycle, two golf carts and a "mule" were also listed. Whether that mule was an M274 truck or an actual mule is unspecified - the M274 was obsoleted in the '80s while mules continue to be used in Afghanistan, so an actual mule isn't that implausible.

Re:Checked my own state

[Firethorn]

Considering that any police department can purchase those firearms from almost any gun store, or off the internet using department letterhead if they want full-auto operation, I'm not too worried about those. I'm not going to say that an officer shouldn't have a patrol rifle or shotgun 'just in case'. $499 isn't much anyways. Looking it up, the NSN for the 7.62 rifle valued at $138 identifies it as an M-14. Most are probably shot to heck, but if you get one in good condition it can be a good pick for a designated marksman role.

The target designators might be weird but, they can also be used for spotting purposes - IE it can be used to point something out to a helicopter with the right equipment.

EOD bots? Again, not too worried, it's not like they're useful for oppressing civilian populations unless you're really creative, and it's something many departments should have if they're big enough to have a bomb unit. This ends up being most county and larger police departments due to the constant danger of idiot teens and pipe bombs. Same deal with a MRAP. It's not really useful for it's intended role, but if I was the police I'd use it as a rolling barricade if I have one or more people holed up in a building taking shots at my officers. It'd enable me to get people closer to the building, maybe even burst in if necessary.

One incident I remember where an armored vehicle would have been handy was were they had a shot officer bleeding out, but they couldn't get anybody there to rescue him because there was an active shooter with a rifle trying to kill anybody who tried. With an armored vehicle you pull it between the shooter and the person you're trying to rescue.

For mule - it might not be a M274 truck, but a Kawasaki 'Mule', IE a sort of ATV mini-truck. They're handy for tooling around on military bases.

Re:Checked my own state

[jtownatpunk.net]

"Mule" is kind of a Kleenexed term these days. It's probably what kids today call a "UTV".

Funny story, a friend's dad had an old M274 out in the barn. We never managed to get it running. I guess that wasn't much of a story.

Re:Checked my own state

[sconeu]

MULE also stands for Modular Universal Laser Equipment, which is a tripod mounted laser designator. It's essentially the USMC equivalent of the Army's G/VLLD.

http://usmilitary.about.com/library/milinfo/marinefacts/blmule.htm

Re:Checked my own state

[Rich0]

Yeah, I can't complain about the EOD bots. Actually, I'd think those would also be ideal for some kinds of wacko-with-a-gun situations. If the wacko is alone you can send in the robot to talk to him, and the guy could surrender the gun to the robot. That lets you disarm the wacko while reducing the risk of a situation where a cop would have to shoot the wacko in self-defense. Sure, it won't be able to subdue him on its own, but that isn't the point - you want to talk to them, calm them down, and get them to put the gun on the floor and walk away from it. This lets you do it without putting a person in harms way, which means you can be more patient and not fire as soon as the guy twitches.

Re:Checked my own state

[Firethorn]

The problem I see is that the wacko isn't likely to be calmed down by a robot, even with a person talking on a screen with it.

A tossed cell phone probably does as well as a really expensive robot. You just have the wacko exit the building/shelter without the weapon.

Take away the police's guns!

[penguinoid]

Maybe it's time to apply some gun restrictions on cops. I know what you'll say, "If you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns." But I'm OK with people who go to jail if they should shoot an innocent person, having guns. It's the people who can shoot someone without facing the consequences who have the most potential to abuse their guns.

Wonderful

[Dereck1701]

Oh wonderful, at least three of my area police departments are participating in the program. It would be nice to see what they're getting, I wouldn't complain about most of the stuff on the materials list (coats, hydration kits, rope, etc), even a few guns wouldn't be out of the question. But if your local PD begins equipping all of their officers with riot shields/assault rifles, body armor, & armored vehicles they've ceased to be "peace officers". If these records went back a few more years I could be sure of one thing, from what I understand one of the local departments received a treaded APC a few years back through this program. It was only brought out for parades and I think one or two minor incidents. It became a major boondoggle when it broke down several times, caused damage to a road, didn't have a trailer to transport it, and was burning through $10,000 a year in insurance. I don't think they have gotten rid of it yet but they've also kept it out of sight, probably because it's broken down again.

Only allowed to have civilian firearms ...

[drnb]

Sort of ... only allow police to have firearms that civilians are allowed to have. Solves two problems. The militarization of police and the disarming of the civilian populace.

Re:Only allowed to have civilian firearms ...

[penguinoid]

Better idea -- should a civilian shoots someone, they should get treated exactly the same whether they are police or not. Also, police are civilians.

Re:Only allowed to have civilian firearms ...

[IamTheRealMike]

At the cost of ensuring any attempt to enforce the law results in a massive and relatively even firefight that is likely to result in a whole lot more blood spilled?

Generally, sane countries want police to have a systematic advantage over criminals when it comes to basic things like weaponry and ability to drive fast. The UK is able to have a mostly disarmed police force because the population is also mostly disarmed. So you can solve it in both directions.

Re:Only allowed to have civilian firearms ...

[drnb]

At the cost of ensuring any attempt to enforce the law results in a massive and relatively even firefight that is likely to result in a whole lot more blood spilled?

You are woefully misinformed. It won't be even. Tactics, training and skill will give law enforcement the edge.

Plus the semi-auto high powered rifles you see law enforcement carrying on the TV, they are legal for civilians in most jurisdictions. Keep in mind that even in jurisdictions with "assault weapon" bans these are nearly always based on cosmetics, these bans are "placebos" that make some feel good but factually accomplish nothing since functionally equivalent substitutes are still available. Various hunting and target shooting rifles are are semi-auto and fire the exact same ammunition as the M-16/M-4. Before all the post-911 giveaways many police departments would purchase the civilian semi-autos rather than M-16/M-4. Exact same functionality, half the price.

Keep in mind that "assault weapon" and regular civilian rifles are functionally identical. Put a 5-round magazine into the M-16 and it is has the exact same performance as popular deer rifles. Put a 30-round magazine into various deer riles and they have the exact same performance as the M-4 you see police carrying on TV. Many departments did the later before pre-911 giveaways. They only used M-16/M-4 for the SWAT team, and that had more to do with intimidation because of the "look" of the rifle.

Re: Only allowed to have civilian firearms ...

[drnb]

All that would do is keep them from using CS or flash bangs.

No, in various jurisdictions they would also not have "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines. Which they basically have nowadays purely for intimidation, not any tactical need. They can have a rifle that looks like an ordinary semi-auto deer rifle, they can have 10-round magazines. Which is basically what they did when they were spending their own department's money pre-911. Pre-911 my local Sheriff's department had a 12-guage Remington 870 shotgun and a Ruger Mini-14 rifle with a 20-round magazine in patrol cars, the county had sizable rural sections so occasionally they needed a little more range than the shotgun provided. They considered M-16/M-4 but they determined the Mini-14 with a high capacity magazine had the exact same performance at half the price. Once the federal money and surplus became available post-911 they switched to M-4 since they were now free/cheaper.

Plus they would be prohibited from full-auto.

Re:Only allowed to have civilian firearms ...

[penguinoid]

I'd much prefer that cops get treated like a civilian when they shoot somebody.

Glad you agree with me.

Re:Real Problem

[Mashiki]

There probably isn't much of any. And if the US is anything like Canada the rate will probably be double. In Canada, it's around 7% across the board. Most ex-military here, can latterly transfer to the RCMP as long as they pass the "snap" test. Which is to see if they're ready for reintegration into civilian life as a peace officer.

And while I can't give much insight into US policing, there are a few things I can add. Back about 10 years ago, you guys had a serious shortage of police officers. So bad, that many cities would hire ex-criminals, even those with felony convictions. Detroit was probably the most famous for this, but many other large cities did as well. There's was a rather large article on this in several of the policing mags(like blueline) in Canada on it.

With that, over the last 6 years the US has followed Canada on methods of hiring peace officers. Those are: Highly educated(college, or university grads), who have high or very high education levels but next to zero life experience. My personal favorite, was what a few of my friends told me. They were ex-hiring officers at two of the largest police services in Canada. They had one applicant who had a doctorate, had never lived on his own, was aged 32. And had never held a job. He marked them for "not qualified" the upper management which has become highly political overrode his objections and hired him on anyway.

The state of policing on both sides of the border is this: Fucked up, especially with the policy of hiring people with zero life experience.

Update on the mule

[Firethorn]

Okay, had a brain fart - I look up the rifle by NSN, and forget to check the mule, merely guessing.

Well, it's a Kawasaki mule model KAF400A per the NSN*

Going by the state that I remember us operating them in, I'd guess that the thing was probably a non-functioning worn out POS by the time the military lets go of it.

*National Stock Number.

National Stock Numbers

[Ann Coulter]

Here is a table of National Stock Numbers: http://www.gsa.gov/dg/NSN_DATA...

If anyone is interested, I can import both spreadsheets into a PostgreSQL database, join by the NSNs, and post a dump/query/something.

Re:Real Problem

[ShanghaiBill]

Police departments across the USA are typically under staffed

There is little evidence that America is under-policed. Most studies have found a weak correlation between numbers of cops, and property crimes, and NO correlation with violent crimes. A meta-study found that a 10 per cent increase in officers will lead to a reduction in crime of around 3 per cent. There are far more cost effective ways to reduce crime, such as better prenatal and early childhood nutrition, better vocational training for teenagers, etc.

College and school police involved

[timrod]

Here's what I don't get: why are so many college and school police officers applying for militarized gear? I could understand the police wanting a SWAT team in case of a school shooting, but giving college campus police military-grade firearms sounds like a very good way to have a second Kent State Massacre occur. Why can't they just leave the military stuff in the hands of the SWAT teams?

Re:College and school police involved

[Zeek40]

Because college and university police departments are full of petulant man-children who were rejected by city and county police departments and who whine like 8 year olds: But mom! All the cool kids are getting issued M-16's and tear gas launchers!

Re:College and school police involved

[shutdown -p now]

All police departments are full of petulant man-children. Your city and county cops don't need a .50 BMG machine gun mounted on an APC, either.

Re:College and school police involved

[dbIII]

I don't even get the concept of college and school police officers - such a thing should be a State level thing IMHO so there's enough people in the process to get some sort of professionalism. Even having at the city level is insane and resulted in things like the Terry Childs debacle due to the city being able to instruct a cop to arrest someone over an employment dispute and then sort out a reason for the arrest later. It's like medieval fucking city states instead of a modern society that's supposed to pay some attention to the rule of law.

Re:College and school police involved

[astrodoom]

The majority of the stuff in this database is boots and other gear, not guns and armored vehicles. You even get stuff like printers and fax machines from this program. If you scroll through Alaska's list almost all of it is cold weather gear.

This program is used to get a second use out of any military surplus, it is not some sort of "arm the cops" program. That's just what people are focusing on right now because it's news-worthy. This program has almost jack-squat to do with how police forces are armed (they buy most of their stuff new), it just has the combined words "military" and "police" which gets hits on websites.

Re:College and school police involved

[sociocapitalist]

Here's what I don't get: why are so many college and school police officers applying for militarized gear? I could understand the police wanting a SWAT team in case of a school shooting, but giving college campus police military-grade firearms sounds like a very good way to have a second Kent State Massacre occur. Why can't they just leave the military stuff in the hands of the SWAT teams?

The Kent State Massacre was done by the army national guard, not school police.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K...

I guess now the school police don't have to call in the army to 'get the job done'.

In Utah...

[arthurh3535]

We somehow need a ton of 5.62 rifles and 7.62 rifles, bayonets, a blowdart, a grenade launcher and a Hellfire High Intensity (something?).

And considering the SLC Metro area isn't _that_ rough and tumble, I'm wondering who they are planning to go to war against?

US cops need to grow a set.

[TapeCutter]

equipping all of their officers with riot shields/assault rifles, body armor, & armored vehicles they've ceased to be "peace officers".

Indeed, one of the first acts in the Irish/UK peace process in N Ireland was a military order for all UK soldiers to remove their helmets while on street patrol as a gesture of trust. The simple act of removing a helmet requires a hell of a lot more courage than shooting into a crowd with rubber bullets from atop of armored vehicles. Sure, the macho swat stuff must remain an option for serious incidents, but calling in a swat team with riot gear and snipers for a routine suburban drug bust is the hallmark of a coward.

Militiarization of police...

[bayankaran]

US has a serious problem with militarization of police. Its ironical that the "munitions" - what an inventive word by the way - are now targeted against your own citizens. The images coming from Ferguson remind you of Ukraine and/or other war torn nations.
All those police snipers/SWAT teams pointing laser weapons at protestors...one mistake by an adrenaline junkie will happen and you will get FPS action against your own citizens broadcast live around the world.
The superheroes, the best and brightest who planned putting military gear into the hands of police should be sent to GITMO.

Re:Militiarization of police...

[cold fjord]

The images coming from Ferguson remind you of Ukraine and/or other war torn nations.

Not really. More like plenty of other riots that have taken place in the US over the years.

US has a serious problem with militarization of police.

Not really. The actual problem is the overuse and careless use of SWAT teams to serve mundane warrants.

All those police snipers/SWAT teams pointing laser weapons at protestors...one mistake by an adrenaline junkie will happen and you will get FPS action against your own citizens broadcast live around the world.

In other words, nothing has changed.

The superheroes, the best and brightest who planned putting military gear into the hands of police should be sent to GITMO.

Will you be among the best and brightest serving arrest warrants in barricaded drug houses to heavily armed drug dealers?

Re:Militiarization of police...

[drolli]

If they remind you of Ukraine, then you are an idiot without any sense of respect for about 2000 deaths. In Ukraine they use artillery and air strikes. Already in the bery beginning of the conflict snipers shot into protesters.

IMHO the problem in the US is not the police. The problem is that the police needs to be more heavily armed than the civiliangs. If i should control driver licenses as a policeman in a country where a significant fraction of the population has firearms, and a non-negligible part of the population has a acceptance for anti-state/anti-government ideolody (tea party), i would be freaking nervous.

Re:Militiarization of police...

[shutdown -p now]

Not really. The actual problem is the overuse and careless use of SWAT teams to serve mundane warrants.

It's not "overuse", it's literally 99% of what they do. Look up the stats that Maryland released after they passed a law mandating collection and public release of statistics on SWAT use. At this point we might as well conclude it's what those teams are created for.

Will you be among the best and brightest serving arrest warrants in barricaded drug houses to heavily armed drug dealers?

Can you give a single example of such a thing? This is often bandied around as a hypothetical scenario for why you need SWAT, but how often does it actually happens, if at all?

In other words, nothing has changed.

The things that changed, started to change in late 70s, and the militarization was mostly already completed under Reagan. Since then, not much has changed, indeed - it's just a slow but steady encroachment.

Re:Militiarization of police...

[sudon't]

Will you be among the best and brightest serving arrest warrants in barricaded drug houses to heavily armed drug dealers?

The cops think they're in a Steven Seagal movie, too. Allow me to excerpt one paragraph:

In 2010 a massive Maricopa County SWAT team, including a tank and several armored vehicles, raided the home of Jesus Llovera. The tank in fact drove straight into Llovera’s living room. Driving the tank? Action movie star Steven Seagal, whom Sheriff Joe Arpaio had recently deputized. Seagal had also been putting on the camouflage to help Arpaio with his controversial immigration raids. All of this, by the way, was getting caught on film. Seagal’s adventures in Maricopa County would make up the next season of the A&E TV series Steven Seagal, Lawman.
Llovera’s suspected crime? Cockfighting.

Believe me, there's a lot more where that came from. If you have the attention span and the interest, the whole article is worth reading. But the truth is, it's almost never a "barricaded" anything, just people living their lives. Especially in these sleepy southern towns, where a lot of this SWAT nonsense goes on.

Re:Militiarization of police...

[thelexx]

Dirty Harry killed the Blue Knight.

Re:Militiarization of police...

[cold fjord]

It's not "overuse", it's literally 99% of what they do.... At this point we might as well conclude it's what those teams are created for.

We know why they were created so there is no reason to make up things. Were cars invented as transports to deliver pizza and kids to soccer matches?

It's not "overuse", it's literally 99% of what they do. Look up the stats that Maryland released after they passed a law mandating collection and public release of statistics on SWAT use. At this point we might as well conclude it's what those teams are created for.

From what I read about the situation in Maryland the SWAT teams were used for their originally intended functions 6% of the time, not 1%. The fact that they were used to serve other warrants doesn't negate that they also fulfilled their original purpose. It also doesn't necessarily make those other uses illegitimate.

How about if I kill two birds with one stone - here is an example of a SWAT team in action, and the reason why many police departments traded in their shotguns for AR-15s.

National Geographic Situation Critical Hollywood Shootout

Can you give a single example of such a thing? This is often bandied around as a hypothetical scenario for why you need SWAT, but how often does it actually happens, if at all?

Oh, I know! When in the last 45 years in a country of 300,000,000 people could that have happened? It's like the search for a pink unicorn, who ever heard of a SWAT team raiding a drug dealer armed with automatic weapons?

Drug Dealer Opens Fire on a SWAT Team

The things that changed, started to change in late 70s, and the militarization was mostly already completed under Reagan. Since then, not much has changed, indeed - it's just a slow but steady encroachment.

Nonsense. The US doesn't even have a gendarme as many European countries have. That is real police militarization, not the existence of a local SWAT team.

Re:Militiarization of police...

[shutdown -p now]

We know why they were created so there is no reason to make up things.

We do indeed. They were created because Republicans (and in particular, Nixon) needed a new thing to harp on for the election, and they went for "tough on crime".

From what I read about the situation in Maryland the SWAT teams were used for their originally intended functions 6% of the time, not 1%.

And what are those "originally intended functions"?

Oh, I know! When in the last 45 years in a country of 300,000,000 people could that have happened? It's like the search for a pink unicorn, who ever heard of a SWAT team raiding a drug dealer armed with automatic weapons?

I do not dispute that sheer statistics would make it likely that it happens at some point. The question is, how often does it happen? You managed to find one instance - congratulations! How long did it take? How many more have you found?

Unless this is a routine occurrence in all parts of the country, there's no justification for having every police department, even those on university campuses or in cities of 400 people somewhere in the boonies, have their own SWAT team complete with MRAPs and .50 caliber anti-material rifles.

Nonsense. The US doesn't even have a gendarme as many European countries have. That is real police militarization, not the existence of a local SWAT team.

And when was the last time that a European "gendarmerie" did a no-knock raid wrong house, kill all the dogs inside, and permanently injured a baby in a crib with a flash grenade?

Heck, how often does said "gendarmerie" use forcible entry and flashbangs in raids which are at the right target?

Re:Militiarization of police...

[cold fjord]

We do indeed. They were created because Republicans (and in particular, Nixon) needed a new thing to harp on for the election, and they went for "tough on crime".

Not even close. You could just as well have answered "khrushchev" with no loss of accuracy.

Attorney General’s Commission on Special Weapons and Tactics (S.W.A.T.)

Beginning in the 1960’s, local police were confronted by increasingly well-armed individuals and groups who were willing to engage in armed confrontations with the police. The traditional method of response by uniformed patrol officers placed both officers and innocent bystanders at increased risk.

In many nations of the world, such situations would likely be handled by national police forces. However, the American people have historically been very wary of deployment of federal forces within local boundaries.

It became clear that a new method of response to such complex, high-risk and often high-energy situations was needed. Such a response required expertise and weaponry beyond the normal capability of local law enforcement agencies. Thus, the concept of SWAT (Special Weapons and Tactics) was developed by the Los Angeles Police Department.

Originally, the SWAT concept was for counter-sniper and other high-risk situations that in the past would have provoked an inordinate number of shots being fired, often with injuries to innocent persons. Over the years, SWAT has evolved into the management of barricaded suspect situations, the service of high-risk warrants, dignitary protection, and the actual rescue of hostages.

Under the SWAT model, verbal techniques and physical tactics would combine for seamless management of volatile situations confronting local police. The primary purpose behind this concept was to reduce risk to the police forces involved, to the suspects, and to the community at large.
Most of these situations are resolved with verbal tactics utilized by trained hostage negotiators who are frequently an integral component of SWAT teams. Seldom are physical tactics necessary, and even then the actual firing of shots rarely occurs.

------

And what are those "originally intended functions"?

I think that is answered above.

... there's no justification for having every police department, even those on university campuses ...

Whoever heard of shootings at schools or college campuses?

I'll leave it up to you to track down statistics on the practices of European gendarmes.

Re:Real Problem

[stephanruby]

Actually many (not all) of the policemen and policewomen in the U.S. are ex military. They've been trained on the equipment that was donated to the police departments. What we should be asking is why have we come to a time/place that we think we need a swat team knocking on a door for an eviction, or even a low profile drug related arrest.

Actually you would go in with SWAT too, when the person you're invading the house of is ex-military.

Re:Real Problem

[cold fjord]

Take a person who has been trained to shoot first and ask questions later and then make them into civilian law enforcement.

  What could possibly go wrong?

What makes you think they have been "trained to shoot first and ask questions later"? I take it you've never heard of the term "Rules of Engagement"?

What could go wrong? Apparently people making thoughtless, uninformed comments?

Re:Real Problem

[serviscope_minor]

There are far more cost effective ways to reduce crime, such as better prenatal and early childhood nutrition, better vocational training for teenagers, etc.

Yep, but there's a certain large segment of the voting population who would rather spend 10x the money on police and prisons and be "tough on crime" than spend 2x the money on social programs and actually reduce the total amount of crime.

Re:Real Problem

[Xest]

Interestingly since the UK changed governments to an austerity oriented government in 2010 and since the police saw large reductions in funding crime in the UK has actually dropped to the lowest point it's ever been in recorded history such that the UK is now one of the lowest crime countries in Europe (just over 10 years on from it being the highest).

Now, it's not that the cuts were the cause of this - it was trending in that direction anyway, but it's pretty clear that the cuts didn't stop or reverse the trend - a reduction in funding did not translate to a reduction in policing effectiveness.

Re:Real Problem

[shutdown -p now]

I don't know about the number (and I'm not OP). But there are actually programs in place that directs military veterans to LEO jobs. E.g. this.

Depends on a few things

[dbIII]

Especially after Rumsfeld tried to dumb down the military to turn them into "warriors" instead of professional soldiers. He didn't quite succeed but he did shut down a lot of the sort of training previously considered essential for occupying forces, things like being able to communicate with people instead of just shooting everything that moves. They apparently had to learn that "on the job" from older soldiers that got their training before it was cut.
Military police used to get well rounded training and fit in well with civilian police, but with other branches and post-Rumsfeld with minimal police training later I've been told it's a bit of a worry.

Re:Depends on a few things

[Slider451]

Citation, please. I served before, during, and after Rumsfeld's tenure and have no idea what you're talking about.

Re:Depends on a few things

[dbIII]

It's a bit hard to link to stuff derived from dozens of newspaper articles from 2001-2003 but there's bound to be a book on that "armchair warrior" about how he fucked things up TWICE. What I'm referring to is his drastic cutbacks and closures that started in 2001 and continued after September, then his hiring of "Blackwater" and similar when professional soldiers were still far too professional for him.
Closing anything that had to do with reconstruction, communication, running towns/cities as a military authority etc is the main example I'm referring to here. The US used to have a lot of expertise in those areas and training courses to pass it on. Some Australian troops I know benefited from those US courses pre-Rumsfeld and one I know put it to good use in Afganistan to keep the locals off everyone's backs and only having to worry about the guys coming down from nearby mountains.

Not a Real Problem

[dbIII]

Somehow everyone coped in the 1950s without that when a large chunk of the population was ex-military with extensive combat experience and souvenir weapons.
Too many idiots watching fucking Rambo movies and thinking it's real.

Surplus gear vs. demographics

[swb]

All the stories I've read about this emphasize the borderline irrational decisions to send stuff like MRAPs to some small town whose biggest problems seem to be parking on the wrong side of the street and overdue library books. I think some of the real high-end hardware has gone to places like New York City where some kind of claim can be made for being an actual terrorism target.

What I'm curious about, though, is whether you could do any kind of analysis of hardware distribution vs. demographics to see if there was any large-scale logic to who got what or how much equipment.

Was equipment concentrated in areas of high concentrations of minorities? Areas considered at risk of significant rioting or civil insurrection? Any ties between equipment distribution and crime rate (which may be considered an indicator of civil insurrection)?

My guess is no to all of it, like most government free stuff programs it went with bureaucratic logic -- political considerations, places who were fast/good at filling out request forms, etc.

Re:Real Problem

[IamTheRealMike]

It's been well established that the long term fall in violent crime is primarily (or totally?) due to the removal of lead from petrol, not due to changes in any policing policies. Also, the UK has extremely strict and well enforced gun prohibition which makes it very hard to engage in violent crime, gun crimes have been falling for the last 15 years or so.

Re:Well let's temper our anger a bit

[Dereck1701]

No one with half a brain is suggesting that police shouldn't have a few high powered rifles, body armor and other items for dealing with extreme situations. But 99.9999% of police work involves minor theft, non violent drug use, traffic violations, domestic violence & scuffles. Most departments probably only need a few officers equipped and trained for use of such equipment, maybe 2% of on duty officers for large departments and 3 or 4 people for smaller departments. What we're seeing today however are entire police departments being outfitted with military gear. Departments with only a dozen or so officers are getting their own Armored personnel carriers, every squad car has ARs in the trunk, etc. It doesn't make any sense when most departments maybe have a single incident in a generation where those tools/tactics would be significantly needed (barricaded hostage situation, heavily armed bank robbery, sniper, etc) and even then you're likely only going to need a small tactical team with regular officers as support. It makes even less sense when you consider that the standard tactic these days is to "surround and hold" until a SWAT team is brought in.

Re:Real Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

What makes you think they have been "trained to shoot first and ask questions later"?

One example off the top of my head is the three dozen or so bullet holes that Margie Carranza's pickup truck ended up with, the two bullets in her 71-year old mother, and the dozen or so bullet holes in other neighborhood vehicles, trees, and houses. There are plenty of others that can be found via a cursory search. You shouldn't accuse people of "thoughtless, uninformed comments" when reality shows your argument to be uninformed itself.

Re:Real Problem

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually you would go in with SWAT too, when the person you're invading the house of is ex-military.

Please explain, in detail, what "ex-military" has to do with the appropriateness of Pima County's response, especially the part where the victim was denied medical attention?

Re:Real Problem

[misexistentialist]

Rules of Engagement can certainly be to kill everything that moves, and then kill it again when it stops moving. And maintaining order in the elite's backyard is more high-stakes than military adventures. Even if the Rules were more restrained, where is the discipline to enforce them? When's the last time a cop faced the death penalty for misconduct?

Re:Real Problem

[cold fjord]

Rules of Engagement can certainly be to kill everything that moves, and then kill it again when it stops moving.

By the same token Rules of Engagement can be to not shoot anything even if it results in you being killed.

Should we stick to facts, or just make up BS?

And maintaining order in the elite's backyard is more high-stakes than military adventures.

I'm pretty sure that policing in the US involves more than patrolling the perimeter of the estates of billionaires.

. Even if the Rules were more restrained, where is the discipline to enforce them? When's the last time a cop faced the death penalty for misconduct?

Do you bother to check any of your wild ideas against the facts? Police officers are disciplined for misconduct, including being sent to prison when the crime is serious enough.

Does this help?

Jurors sentence ex-HPD cop to life in prison for raping waitress

Re:Omission

[hey!]

I think you're mixing up programs. The mobile command center is probably not military surplus, it was likely purchased and customized under a homeland security grant.

These things aren't unreasonable purchases for a medium-sized city like Milford. They aren't military vehicles, the're basically mobile office space.

Re:Real Problem

[chihowa]

"Ex-military" doesn't mean "unhinged violent psychopath". If an overwhelming show of force isn't necessary, like when you're serving a warrant for a nonviolent crime, kicking in doors and invading homes is more likely to cause a bad outcome than just knocking on the door. If the person who's home you're invading has been trained to deal with a similar situation and invading their home isn't necessary, you shouldn't go in with SWAT unless you really want a bad outcome.

Re:Real Problem

[lsllll]

It's hard to come by any hard stats for this, but here's an article that may shed some light on the issue.

According to the article, out of 800 positions created under DOJ's COPS program, 629 MUST go to veterans who have served at least 180 days of active duty since 9/11. Although this does not provide statistics for the existing law enforcement population, it does provide some insight. There are also numerous articles on the web that talk about transitioning veterans to local police forces.

Re:Real Problem

[chihowa]

An arms race between the police and who else? Crimes in the US are not committed with the "latest and greatest assault rifles". They're committed with handguns (mostly crappy old Saturday night specials). The last arms race between US police and citizens was in the 1920's, when assault rifles were banned (as they still are).

Citation Please

[wwphx]

I'm not being sarcastic, I'd just like some more info. It's hard for me to do research myself right now as I had cataract surgery and certain types of computer work can be intensely frustrating.

Re:Citation Please

[j35ter]

I'm not being sarcastic, I'd just like some more info. It's hard for me to do research myself right now as I had cataract surgery and certain types of computer work can be intensely frustrating.

I'll try!
In 1922 all weapon purchases were banned and private weapons had to be confiscated

In a law passed 1928 all guns had to be registered and only permit holders were allowed to posess a weapon, no exemption!

NAZI RULE:
After disarming Jews, using an edict from the former German Weimar republic, the Nazi government passed a law in 1938 that allowed law abiding citizens the possession of weapons without the need for a permit.
All long barreled weapons and ammo were free for purchase and needed no registration (Austria still retains this law!) Only sidearm were regulated.
Members of gun clubs (Schützenvereine) were exempt from needing any permit - most gun clubs were (and today still are) considered right wing organizations.
Members of the NSDAP Nazi party were exempt of the need to apply for a weapons permit to possess and carry weapons.
Weapons were forbidden to Jews, Gypsies, convicted felons, homosexuals and members of subversive groups (socialists and communists). They were not allowed any kind of weapons or ammo - including knives and swords!

The general German population has been encouraged to arm themselves and at the same time, the opposition has been disarmed. Most political enemies of the Nazis have by then been convicted or set on a list disallowing them any kind of armament.

The Wikipedia entry in English is missing the interesting part. Try the German one with Google translate:
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/W...

P.S. The guy modding me a troll deserves to burn in hell! :)

Re:Citation Please

[wwphx]

Thank you for the post! Very interesting stuff.

Forget what they got, look what they *DO*

[hsthompson69]

http://www.cato.org/publicatio...

Radley Balko has been writing about the militarization of our police for years.

This map of botched police raids is especially scary:

http://www.cato.org/raidmap

Frankly, I'd rather have my law abiding neighbors armed than the cops.

Re:Forget what they got, look what they *DO*

[hsthompson69]

From this year: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/news...

"On Friday, Fort, a Wisconsin state senator, a Phonesavanh's family spokesperson and the child's attorney provided an update on the boy's legal fight and condition.
"His face still bares from scars that are going to take a number of reconstructive surgeries," said family spokesman Marcus Coleman.
"We have been informed by the family that every single night, every single night, this child wakes up screaming and holding his face," said Coleman."

All because some hyped up macho SWAT team wanted to bust some low level dealer.

Re:Real Problem

[cold fjord]

Your comment is the one that is flawed. The number of bullets fired doesn't really say much about how the circumstances under which they were trained to open fire in that case specifically, let alone a more general condemnation of the police. I assume you aren't even considering the possibility that they weren't doing what they were trained to do, or may have overreacted?

The police in the U.S.

[pigsycyberbully]

The U.S. is a dangerous place. The British, used to make a joke about it a a long time ago it started off with New York, and John Lennon, when he said "you do not! ask a policeman for directions in New York." ( Old fashion tradition word-of-mouth taught to English and Welsh children by parents at a very early age "if in doubt or need directions always ask a policeman" ). They the British consider U.S. police people to be ignorant and bigmouths with big guns and no brains. The equivalent of giving a roadsweeper law-enforcement powers with handguns and machine guns, for their lack of brains and courage. In Deutschland recently they have started using the phrase Europeans, likewise with the French, when referring to multiple different nationalities in Europe as anybody noticed? So what I have written above would become ( Europeans used to make a joke about it a long time ago. ) But hey that is off topic more to do with media and government manipulation. Back on topic I have never liked people carrying guns around me whether they are the authority or members of the public. Putting total trust in a complete stranger is absurd who is to say that they are mentally stable on such and such a day, and do not begin shooting you because they burnt the toast at breakfast time or argued with their wife. The police in the U.S. need guns but that is no reason to give aggressive mentally unstable uneducated ex-roadsweepers cowboy film enthusiasts, guns and machine guns and law-enforcement uniforms. That is just asking for trouble. Clint cunt Eastwood, and John dead Wayne, are just geriatric actors to normal people but not to these mentally defectives in uniform. Do not give Down's syndrome people uniforms and guns you must draw a line somewhere with this equal opportunity in the workplace it has its limits.. In happy slappyy Jappy land they would have just jumped on him loads of them would have jumped on him and thus no need to murder members of the public. I've been to the U.S. I don't know who to worry about most the police or the blacks.

Military surplus to Cops. So handy. So profitable!

[gestalt_n_pepper]

A militarized police is so handy! You can:

1) Get around that annoying "Posse comitatus" thing.

2) You can use them to fight the national guard, should they become unccoperative.

3) You can field them for both local OR national coups against EITHER the Feds or the State authorities (Texas, you wanted to secede? Your chance is coming...).

4) You can ramp up civil forfeiture (i.e. Theft by law enforcement) and take a cut!

They slice! They dice! You can even Julliane freedom fries! Militarized by military surplus cops. Whoo Hoo!

MULE designation

[Firethorn]

Except that I checked the NSN number and found that I was correct.

Where this started

[kevink707]

According to a cop I know, this program came about as a result of North Hollywood shootout where the local cops were seriously outgunned by the robbers.

Re:Where this started

[LifesABeach]

I believe that utter horse shit can be applied here.

Kent State?

[LifesABeach]

I remember.

Re:Well let's temper our anger a bit

[LifesABeach]

There are times when on a hot sunny day filled with gun shots and screaming; the finest law enforcement action is to offer a bottle of water. It's public record for the curious.

Re:Real Problem

[Xest]

Sure but it's not merely violent crime I'm talking about, even things like burglary of empty homes has decreased. The only real increases have been sexual offences and most of these are because of mass revelations of historic abuse in the 70s/80s such that much of the increase is actual down to historic crimes, rather than recent crimes.