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

[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

[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

[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

[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.

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

[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

[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

[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

[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: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?

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.

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

[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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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...

[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: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.

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.

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.

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.

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!