June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
I assume that no actual nuclear weapons are sold to the Police because
1) They're not something you just "auction of"
2) Why does God need a spaceship the police need a nuclear weapon?
3) They seem kinda expensive to buy, Is there even a city that could afford one?
Now Mines, and ballistic missiles, that's the ticket.
"Citizen, Disperse and Retreat to the 1st Amendment zone, we cannot protect you on these public roads where we placed "pop-up deterrents". Ignoring this warning can lead to arrest after death from being blown up"
I wonder how far they got through the list though, Does the Miami PD have torpedoes to stop drug smuggling boats?
Do Detroit cops have Sarin "suppression" gas?
What district will buy Blackhawks, and is it appropriate to play "Ride of the Valkyries" when hovering over a crowd, or doesn't that fall under fair-use?
Dibbit on
0
Options
Just_Bri_ThanksSeething with ragefrom a handbasket.Registered User, ClubPAregular
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
More a general emergency services use, and lacking an emergency I would default them to the jurisdiction of the office that handles traffic study and management.
...and when you are done with that; take a folding
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
Yeah, and the list doesn't even prevent a PD from acquiring a lot of the stuff that Ferguson PD used on their citizenry. I don't think they need to scrap the whole military surplus sale program, because there are things that it makes a lot of sense for the military to pass off to state/local governments for use when they are no longer needed*. But limiting their access to the tools of war seems like a pretty swell idea to me.
*For example, see this response to a FOIA request to learn what the Seattle PD has acquired through the program. Things they've bought include: tents, coveralls, life vests, pistol holsters, some utility trucks, a radiation detector, etc.
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
Problem is, there are too many police departments who would abuse the fuck out of them.
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
I assume that no actual nuclear weapons are sold to the Police because
1) They're not something you just "auction of"
2) Why does God need a spaceship the police need a nuclear weapon?
3) They seem kinda expensive to buy, Is there even a city that could afford one?
Now Mines, and ballistic missiles, that's the ticket.
"Citizen, Disperse and Retreat to the 1st Amendment zone, we cannot protect you on these public roads where we placed "pop-up deterrents". Ignoring this warning can lead to arrest after death from being blown up"
I wonder how far they got through the list though, Does the Miami PD have torpedoes to stop drug smuggling boats?
Do Detroit cops have Sarin "suppression" gas?
What district will buy Blackhawks, and is it appropriate to play "Ride of the Valkyries" when hovering over a crowd, or doesn't that fall under fair-use?
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
Yeah, and the list doesn't even prevent a PD from acquiring a lot of the stuff that Ferguson PD used on their citizenry. I don't think they need to scrap the whole military surplus sale program, because there are things that it makes a lot of sense for the military to pass off to state/local governments for use when they are no longer needed*. But limiting their access to the tools of war seems like a pretty swell idea to me.
*For example, see this response to a FOIA request to learn what the Seattle PD has acquired through the program. Things they've bought include: tents, coveralls, life vests, pistol holsters, some utility trucks, a radiation detector, etc.
The list in the newly proposed bill doesn't include any of that, does it?
0
Options
ShadowenSnores in the morningLoserdomRegistered Userregular
Also I'm pretty sure Ride of the Valkyries is public domain.
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
Yeah, and the list doesn't even prevent a PD from acquiring a lot of the stuff that Ferguson PD used on their citizenry. I don't think they need to scrap the whole military surplus sale program, because there are things that it makes a lot of sense for the military to pass off to state/local governments for use when they are no longer needed*. But limiting their access to the tools of war seems like a pretty swell idea to me.
*For example, see this response to a FOIA request to learn what the Seattle PD has acquired through the program. Things they've bought include: tents, coveralls, life vests, pistol holsters, some utility trucks, a radiation detector, etc.
That all seems like pretty reasonable reuse of military surplus gear. Replenishing/supplying gear the cops basically already used just on the cheap via surplus is absolutely what the the military gear program should be for. I'm not quite sure what the cops use the tents for, but whatever, it's a tent. Whoopdeeshit.
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
Yeah, and the list doesn't even prevent a PD from acquiring a lot of the stuff that Ferguson PD used on their citizenry. I don't think they need to scrap the whole military surplus sale program, because there are things that it makes a lot of sense for the military to pass off to state/local governments for use when they are no longer needed*. But limiting their access to the tools of war seems like a pretty swell idea to me.
*For example, see this response to a FOIA request to learn what the Seattle PD has acquired through the program. Things they've bought include: tents, coveralls, life vests, pistol holsters, some utility trucks, a radiation detector, etc.
The list in the newly proposed bill doesn't include any of that, does it?
Yeah, here's what's in the bill:
(f) LIMITATIONS ON TRANSFERS.—(1) The Sec-
22 retary may not transfer the following arms and ammuni-
23 tion under this section:
24 ‘‘(A) Automatic weapons not generally recog-
25 nized as particularly suitable for law enforcement
1 purposes, including those that are .50 caliber or
2 greater.
3 ‘‘(B) Tactical vehicles, including highly mobile
4 multi-wheeled vehicles, armored vehicles, and mine-
5 resistant ambush-protected vehicles.
6 ‘‘(C) Armored drones.
7 ‘‘(D) Aircraft.
8 ‘‘(E) Flash-bang or stun grenades.
9 ‘‘(F) Silencers.
Sorry about the formatting, I copied this out of a PDF of the bill. It might change before it actually gets introduced in Congress in September.
I could see this bit getting contested as legitimate SWAT teams could make a case for having access to surplus crowd control grenades to more cheaply replace ones used in training/field work. Assuming, of course, that the stuff the SWAT guys use was already on par with the ones the military use.
I could see this bit getting contested as legitimate SWAT teams could make a case for having access to surplus crowd control grenades to more cheaply replace ones used in training/field work. Assuming, of course, that the stuff the SWAT guys use was already on par with the ones the military use.
I presume, (not being an expert) that military grade grenades are different from civilian use ones. And if possible, you want to use the same stuff during practice as in the field, otherwise you've spend all these hours training with something that produces a different effect.
I could see this bit getting contested as legitimate SWAT teams could make a case for having access to surplus crowd control grenades to more cheaply replace ones used in training/field work. Assuming, of course, that the stuff the SWAT guys use was already on par with the ones the military use.
I presume, (not being an expert) that military grade grenades are different from civilian use ones. And if possible, you want to use the same stuff during practice as in the field, otherwise you've spend all these hours training with something that produces a different effect.
Yeah, I dunno either way what the SWAT guys use on a regular basis. I can't imagine flash and stun grenades being terribly different but I am not a soldier nor am I a LEO.
0
Options
frenetic_ferretwildest weaselEast Coast is Best CoastRegistered Userregular
it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
Because in cases like OWS people "record" the cops by getting in the way of them clearing out people who are obstructing traffic and then scream in their face while recording them. Thus they are doing something wrong and get treated correctly. Having a camera does not give you a wavier to break all sorts of other laws, just as "I'm protesting" does not let you break other laws. But wide swaths of fresh out of college white hipsters seem to think it does, see libertarians and progressives for this level of idiocy (and I'm not sure which group is more bonkers when it comes to these things).
0
Options
frenetic_ferretwildest weaselEast Coast is Best CoastRegistered Userregular
I could see this bit getting contested as legitimate SWAT teams could make a case for having access to surplus crowd control grenades to more cheaply replace ones used in training/field work. Assuming, of course, that the stuff the SWAT guys use was already on par with the ones the military use.
I presume, (not being an expert) that military grade grenades are different from civilian use ones. And if possible, you want to use the same stuff during practice as in the field, otherwise you've spend all these hours training with something that produces a different effect.
Giving SWAT military stuff is a budget issue. You know how many guns it takes to train, equip, and deploy your average service member? It takes dozens. So when we "scale back the military" there's no reason or funds to maintain that stuff. Rather than throwing it away we sell it off to allies or give it to domestic groups to save some of the cost.
I could see this bit getting contested as legitimate SWAT teams could make a case for having access to surplus crowd control grenades to more cheaply replace ones used in training/field work. Assuming, of course, that the stuff the SWAT guys use was already on par with the ones the military use.
I presume, (not being an expert) that military grade grenades are different from civilian use ones. And if possible, you want to use the same stuff during practice as in the field, otherwise you've spend all these hours training with something that produces a different effect.
Giving SWAT military stuff is a budget issue. You know how many guns it takes to train, equip, and deploy your average service member? It takes dozens. So when we "scale back the military" there's no reason or funds to maintain that stuff. Rather than throwing it away we sell it off to allies or give it to domestic groups to save some of the cost.
Nonsense. The police weren't riding around in surplus army equipment after any other major war. This was caused entirely by people freaking out after 9/11 and suddenly every locality had an increased budget.
+8
Options
Favlaudjust straight up awfulRegistered Userregular
I could see this bit getting contested as legitimate SWAT teams could make a case for having access to surplus crowd control grenades to more cheaply replace ones used in training/field work. Assuming, of course, that the stuff the SWAT guys use was already on par with the ones the military use.
I presume, (not being an expert) that military grade grenades are different from civilian use ones. And if possible, you want to use the same stuff during practice as in the field, otherwise you've spend all these hours training with something that produces a different effect.
Giving SWAT military stuff is a budget issue. You know how many guns it takes to train, equip, and deploy your average service member? It takes dozens. So when we "scale back the military" there's no reason or funds to maintain that stuff. Rather than throwing it away we sell it off to allies or give it to domestic groups to save some of the cost.
Nonsense. The police weren't riding around in surplus army equipment after any other major war. This was caused entirely by people freaking out after 9/11 and suddenly every locality had an increased budget.
America's military-industrial complex is very well-entrenched, and has been for a while. What else are you gonna do when the old models get made obsolete? Sell, or give them to the cops. Why else on earth are small towns getting MRAPS?
+1
Options
frenetic_ferretwildest weaselEast Coast is Best CoastRegistered Userregular
I could see this bit getting contested as legitimate SWAT teams could make a case for having access to surplus crowd control grenades to more cheaply replace ones used in training/field work. Assuming, of course, that the stuff the SWAT guys use was already on par with the ones the military use.
I presume, (not being an expert) that military grade grenades are different from civilian use ones. And if possible, you want to use the same stuff during practice as in the field, otherwise you've spend all these hours training with something that produces a different effect.
Giving SWAT military stuff is a budget issue. You know how many guns it takes to train, equip, and deploy your average service member? It takes dozens. So when we "scale back the military" there's no reason or funds to maintain that stuff. Rather than throwing it away we sell it off to allies or give it to domestic groups to save some of the cost.
Nonsense. The police weren't riding around in surplus army equipment after any other major war. This was caused entirely by people freaking out after 9/11 and suddenly every locality had an increased budget.
Actually we did arm them with surplus in the past as well. It's just old stuff like the M1 was also sold to civilians as well. That doesn't happen now because civilians can't really buy MP5s and M4s that can do fully auto. So it all needs to go to the cops and foreign aid.
it's illegal to record the police if they decide so
at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact
It's not illegal for you to record the police, even if they decide to arrest you for it. There's a big tasty pile of case law on this issue lately, all going against the cops.
Just don't get in their way or obstruct them or traffic.
The problem is when they take (or break) your phone. Even if you can get up enough evidence for a wrongful arrest and possibly destruction of property, you'll never get them for what you were trying to record.
Because in cases like OWS people "record" the cops by getting in the way of them clearing out people who are obstructing traffic and then scream in their face while recording them. Thus they are doing something wrong and get treated correctly. Having a camera does not give you a wavier to break all sorts of other laws, just as "I'm protesting" does not let you break other laws. But wide swaths of fresh out of college white hipsters seem to think it does, see libertarians and progressives for this level of idiocy (and I'm not sure which group is more bonkers when it comes to these things).
And oops, if they're breaking the law by doing that..the police are destroying evidence by destroying the phone. There is never any reason for the police to destroy a camera.
Also seriously look at the court cases that have been decided in favor of recording. In most of them the person involved is in no way obstructing the officer, yet they get shit on anyway.
Budgets are probably less of a thing as you think -- for any equipment acquired through the 1033 program, the PD that gets it only needs to pay the cost of shipping the surplus goods to them (and, of course, whatever costs are required to maintain that equipment after they acquire it. certainly substantial if you happened to "buy", say, an MRAP). But it's gotta be vastly cheaper than procuring new goods for the same purpose.
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
Yeah, and the list doesn't even prevent a PD from acquiring a lot of the stuff that Ferguson PD used on their citizenry. I don't think they need to scrap the whole military surplus sale program, because there are things that it makes a lot of sense for the military to pass off to state/local governments for use when they are no longer needed*. But limiting their access to the tools of war seems like a pretty swell idea to me.
*For example, see this response to a FOIA request to learn what the Seattle PD has acquired through the program. Things they've bought include: tents, coveralls, life vests, pistol holsters, some utility trucks, a radiation detector, etc.
That all seems like pretty reasonable reuse of military surplus gear. Replenishing/supplying gear the cops basically already used just on the cheap via surplus is absolutely what the the military gear program should be for. I'm not quite sure what the cops use the tents for, but whatever, it's a tent. Whoopdeeshit.
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
Yeah, and the list doesn't even prevent a PD from acquiring a lot of the stuff that Ferguson PD used on their citizenry. I don't think they need to scrap the whole military surplus sale program, because there are things that it makes a lot of sense for the military to pass off to state/local governments for use when they are no longer needed*. But limiting their access to the tools of war seems like a pretty swell idea to me.
*For example, see this response to a FOIA request to learn what the Seattle PD has acquired through the program. Things they've bought include: tents, coveralls, life vests, pistol holsters, some utility trucks, a radiation detector, etc.
That all seems like pretty reasonable reuse of military surplus gear. Replenishing/supplying gear the cops basically already used just on the cheap via surplus is absolutely what the the military gear program should be for. I'm not quite sure what the cops use the tents for, but whatever, it's a tent. Whoopdeeshit.
tent city
Eh, I'm sure they're useful in national parks, or something.
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
Yeah, and the list doesn't even prevent a PD from acquiring a lot of the stuff that Ferguson PD used on their citizenry. I don't think they need to scrap the whole military surplus sale program, because there are things that it makes a lot of sense for the military to pass off to state/local governments for use when they are no longer needed*. But limiting their access to the tools of war seems like a pretty swell idea to me.
*For example, see this response to a FOIA request to learn what the Seattle PD has acquired through the program. Things they've bought include: tents, coveralls, life vests, pistol holsters, some utility trucks, a radiation detector, etc.
That all seems like pretty reasonable reuse of military surplus gear. Replenishing/supplying gear the cops basically already used just on the cheap via surplus is absolutely what the the military gear program should be for. I'm not quite sure what the cops use the tents for, but whatever, it's a tent. Whoopdeeshit.
tent city
Eh, I'm sure they're useful in national parks, or something.
I'm not 100% sure what makes them special, but they're listed as ventilated "shelter systems" and have a unit cost of $25,500. So, there's something fancy about them. Maybe they have a full environmental system -- that is, they are tents that you could use to quarantine people in the event of a contagion?
I could see this bit getting contested as legitimate SWAT teams could make a case for having access to surplus crowd control grenades to more cheaply replace ones used in training/field work. Assuming, of course, that the stuff the SWAT guys use was already on par with the ones the military use.
I presume, (not being an expert) that military grade grenades are different from civilian use ones. And if possible, you want to use the same stuff during practice as in the field, otherwise you've spend all these hours training with something that produces a different effect.
Yeah, I dunno either way what the SWAT guys use on a regular basis. I can't imagine flash and stun grenades being terribly different but I am not a soldier nor am I a LEO.
The US Army does not use flashbangs. Everything the US army uses is intended to kill or wound maximum people.
EDIT: before non service people jump on me with the wiki links about army flashbangs...those are never used.
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
Yeah, and the list doesn't even prevent a PD from acquiring a lot of the stuff that Ferguson PD used on their citizenry. I don't think they need to scrap the whole military surplus sale program, because there are things that it makes a lot of sense for the military to pass off to state/local governments for use when they are no longer needed*. But limiting their access to the tools of war seems like a pretty swell idea to me.
*For example, see this response to a FOIA request to learn what the Seattle PD has acquired through the program. Things they've bought include: tents, coveralls, life vests, pistol holsters, some utility trucks, a radiation detector, etc.
That all seems like pretty reasonable reuse of military surplus gear. Replenishing/supplying gear the cops basically already used just on the cheap via surplus is absolutely what the the military gear program should be for. I'm not quite sure what the cops use the tents for, but whatever, it's a tent. Whoopdeeshit.
tent city
Eh, I'm sure they're useful in national parks, or something.
I'm not 100% sure what makes them special, but they're listed as ventilated "shelter systems" and have a unit cost of $25,500. So, there's something fancy about them. Maybe they have a full environmental system -- that is, they are tents that you could use to quarantine people in the event of a contagion?
If you start to need quarantining people in large numbers, it's time to call in the national guard.
I can't really think of a reason why a police force would need $25k tents
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
Yeah, and the list doesn't even prevent a PD from acquiring a lot of the stuff that Ferguson PD used on their citizenry. I don't think they need to scrap the whole military surplus sale program, because there are things that it makes a lot of sense for the military to pass off to state/local governments for use when they are no longer needed*. But limiting their access to the tools of war seems like a pretty swell idea to me.
*For example, see this response to a FOIA request to learn what the Seattle PD has acquired through the program. Things they've bought include: tents, coveralls, life vests, pistol holsters, some utility trucks, a radiation detector, etc.
That all seems like pretty reasonable reuse of military surplus gear. Replenishing/supplying gear the cops basically already used just on the cheap via surplus is absolutely what the the military gear program should be for. I'm not quite sure what the cops use the tents for, but whatever, it's a tent. Whoopdeeshit.
tent city
Eh, I'm sure they're useful in national parks, or something.
I'm not 100% sure what makes them special, but they're listed as ventilated "shelter systems" and have a unit cost of $25,500. So, there's something fancy about them. Maybe they have a full environmental system -- that is, they are tents that you could use to quarantine people in the event of a contagion?
they cleared him today but they were probably gonna be used to contain beast mode if it came to it
June 19, 2014
Roll call number 329 in the House Question On Agreeing to the Amendment: Amendment 52 to H R 4870
Bill: H.R. 4870: Department of Defense Appropriations Act, 2015
Amendment: H.Amdt 918
Amendment purpose: An amendment to prohibit use of funds to transfer aircraft (including unmanned aerial vehicles), armored vehicles, grenade launchers, silencers, toxicological agents, launch vehicles, guided missiles, ballistic missiles, rockets, torpedoes, bombs, mines, or nuclear weapons through the DOD Excess Personal Property Program established pursuant to the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997.
I really, really don't want to portray this as a Republican bashing post. Both parties at the level where it matters (Congress) have got this absolutely wrong. This amendment doesn't even cover all the military gear that's been transferred to civilian law enforcement, just things like grenade launchers, bombs, and nuclear weapons and it got barely any traction among Democrats and even less among Republicans.
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
Yeah, and the list doesn't even prevent a PD from acquiring a lot of the stuff that Ferguson PD used on their citizenry. I don't think they need to scrap the whole military surplus sale program, because there are things that it makes a lot of sense for the military to pass off to state/local governments for use when they are no longer needed*. But limiting their access to the tools of war seems like a pretty swell idea to me.
*For example, see this response to a FOIA request to learn what the Seattle PD has acquired through the program. Things they've bought include: tents, coveralls, life vests, pistol holsters, some utility trucks, a radiation detector, etc.
That all seems like pretty reasonable reuse of military surplus gear. Replenishing/supplying gear the cops basically already used just on the cheap via surplus is absolutely what the the military gear program should be for. I'm not quite sure what the cops use the tents for, but whatever, it's a tent. Whoopdeeshit.
tent city
Eh, I'm sure they're useful in national parks, or something.
I'm not 100% sure what makes them special, but they're listed as ventilated "shelter systems" and have a unit cost of $25,500. So, there's something fancy about them. Maybe they have a full environmental system -- that is, they are tents that you could use to quarantine people in the event of a contagion?
If you start to need quarantining people in large numbers, it's time to call in the national guard.
I can't really think of a reason why a police force would need $25k tents
Always the possibility that they're intended as more permanent structure than the stereotypical army poles-and-a-thick-tarp style tent, I guess. The document includes the national stock number for each piece of equipment but I have no idea how to turn that into information about what model of equipment it is.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
I could see this bit getting contested as legitimate SWAT teams could make a case for having access to surplus crowd control grenades to more cheaply replace ones used in training/field work. Assuming, of course, that the stuff the SWAT guys use was already on par with the ones the military use.
I presume, (not being an expert) that military grade grenades are different from civilian use ones. And if possible, you want to use the same stuff during practice as in the field, otherwise you've spend all these hours training with something that produces a different effect.
Yeah, I dunno either way what the SWAT guys use on a regular basis. I can't imagine flash and stun grenades being terribly different but I am not a soldier nor am I a LEO.
The US Army does not use flashbangs. Everything the US army uses is intended to kill or wound maximum people.
EDIT: before non service people jump on me with the wiki links about army flashbangs...those are never used.
The M84, also known as a flashbang or stun grenade, is the currently-issued stun grenade of the United States Army. Upon detonation, it emits an intensely loud "bang" of 170–180 decibels and a blinding flash of more than one million candela within five feet of initiation, sufficient to cause immediate flash blindness, deafness, tinnitus, and inner ear disturbance.[1] Exposed personnel experience disorientation, confusion and loss of coordination and balance. While these effects are all intended to be temporary, there is risk of permanent injury or even death. Consequently, the M84 is classified as a Less-lethal weapon.[2][3]
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I could see this bit getting contested as legitimate SWAT teams could make a case for having access to surplus crowd control grenades to more cheaply replace ones used in training/field work. Assuming, of course, that the stuff the SWAT guys use was already on par with the ones the military use.
I presume, (not being an expert) that military grade grenades are different from civilian use ones. And if possible, you want to use the same stuff during practice as in the field, otherwise you've spend all these hours training with something that produces a different effect.
Yeah, I dunno either way what the SWAT guys use on a regular basis. I can't imagine flash and stun grenades being terribly different but I am not a soldier nor am I a LEO.
The US Army does not use flashbangs. Everything the US army uses is intended to kill or wound maximum people.
EDIT: before non service people jump on me with the wiki links about army flashbangs...those are never used.
The M84, also known as a flashbang or stun grenade, is the currently-issued stun grenade of the United States Army. Upon detonation, it emits an intensely loud "bang" of 170–180 decibels and a blinding flash of more than one million candela within five feet of initiation, sufficient to cause immediate flash blindness, deafness, tinnitus, and inner ear disturbance.[1] Exposed personnel experience disorientation, confusion and loss of coordination and balance. While these effects are all intended to be temporary, there is risk of permanent injury or even death. Consequently, the M84 is classified as a Less-lethal weapon.[2][3]
He was joking.
0
Options
knitdanIn ur baseKillin ur guysRegistered Userregular
Damn ninja edit...
“I was quick when I came in here, I’m twice as quick now”
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
I don't know what just happened..but I do know that police SWAT or whatever receive far less training than US military folks when it comes to deadly weapons systems...or what I like to call guns. Hell, in most police forces there's not even a physical standard and you only shoot your weapon once a year at a range. If the USA police force was to become truly militarized...it would be a great improvement.
Militarized police is a bad phrase to use, it's actually dumbass local cops using military grade equipment, without the discipline or training US Army soldiers receive.
To expand on that...the discipline USA Soldiers are expected to maintain is magnitudes beyond what he average cop is required. It's like comparing high school football to the NFL. I wasn't infantry but I saw how those guys trained and lived, I've also seen how cops train....it's not even the same game.
From that Met Commissioner arresting a dude in the middle of an interview.
After the pursuit and arrest in Tottenham earlier, the commissioner said: "The important thing for today, at least for me, is that I have made an arrest at every rank as a police officer, so as chief constable at Merseyside, but never as commissioner, and I have been here three years.
"That's very slack, it's a disgrace, but today we have put it right."
Posts
That's a crazy list.
But unmanned aerial vehicles is something I can see having a police purpose.
It’s not a very important country most of the time
http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
Corrupt everything really. It's Russia, even their currency is out to screw you.
EDIT: Geth just won't quit stalking me. >_<
I assume that no actual nuclear weapons are sold to the Police because
1) They're not something you just "auction of"
2) Why does God need a spaceship the police need a nuclear weapon?
3) They seem kinda expensive to buy, Is there even a city that could afford one?
Now Mines, and ballistic missiles, that's the ticket.
"Citizen, Disperse and Retreat to the 1st Amendment zone, we cannot protect you on these public roads where we placed "pop-up deterrents". Ignoring this warning can lead to arrest after death from being blown up"
I wonder how far they got through the list though, Does the Miami PD have torpedoes to stop drug smuggling boats?
Do Detroit cops have Sarin "suppression" gas?
What district will buy Blackhawks, and is it appropriate to play "Ride of the Valkyries" when hovering over a crowd, or doesn't that fall under fair-use?
More a general emergency services use, and lacking an emergency I would default them to the jurisdiction of the office that handles traffic study and management.
chair to Creation and then suplex the Void.
London Firearms Units testing bodyworn cameras in largest pilot across the world.
Results are to evaluated by a non-police body (Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime).
And for something else, Commisioner of the Metropolitan Police stops interview to arrest a thief.
Yeah, and the list doesn't even prevent a PD from acquiring a lot of the stuff that Ferguson PD used on their citizenry. I don't think they need to scrap the whole military surplus sale program, because there are things that it makes a lot of sense for the military to pass off to state/local governments for use when they are no longer needed*. But limiting their access to the tools of war seems like a pretty swell idea to me.
*For example, see this response to a FOIA request to learn what the Seattle PD has acquired through the program. Things they've bought include: tents, coveralls, life vests, pistol holsters, some utility trucks, a radiation detector, etc.
Problem is, there are too many police departments who would abuse the fuck out of them.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties/9-frightening-things-about-americas-biggest-police-force
The list in the newly proposed bill doesn't include any of that, does it?
That all seems like pretty reasonable reuse of military surplus gear. Replenishing/supplying gear the cops basically already used just on the cheap via surplus is absolutely what the the military gear program should be for. I'm not quite sure what the cops use the tents for, but whatever, it's a tent. Whoopdeeshit.
Yeah, here's what's in the bill:
Sorry about the formatting, I copied this out of a PDF of the bill. It might change before it actually gets introduced in Congress in September.
Well, there go our chances of stopping evil with evil....
I could see this bit getting contested as legitimate SWAT teams could make a case for having access to surplus crowd control grenades to more cheaply replace ones used in training/field work. Assuming, of course, that the stuff the SWAT guys use was already on par with the ones the military use.
I presume, (not being an expert) that military grade grenades are different from civilian use ones. And if possible, you want to use the same stuff during practice as in the field, otherwise you've spend all these hours training with something that produces a different effect.
There is a Seperate thread about Ferguson over here.
This thread is about general policing.
Yeah, I dunno either way what the SWAT guys use on a regular basis. I can't imagine flash and stun grenades being terribly different but I am not a soldier nor am I a LEO.
Because in cases like OWS people "record" the cops by getting in the way of them clearing out people who are obstructing traffic and then scream in their face while recording them. Thus they are doing something wrong and get treated correctly. Having a camera does not give you a wavier to break all sorts of other laws, just as "I'm protesting" does not let you break other laws. But wide swaths of fresh out of college white hipsters seem to think it does, see libertarians and progressives for this level of idiocy (and I'm not sure which group is more bonkers when it comes to these things).
Giving SWAT military stuff is a budget issue. You know how many guns it takes to train, equip, and deploy your average service member? It takes dozens. So when we "scale back the military" there's no reason or funds to maintain that stuff. Rather than throwing it away we sell it off to allies or give it to domestic groups to save some of the cost.
It is, along with essentially all classical music, due to age and not having governments who kept extending copyright lengths.
A particular recording of it may not, however, as that constitutes a separate creative work from the musical score itself.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Nonsense. The police weren't riding around in surplus army equipment after any other major war. This was caused entirely by people freaking out after 9/11 and suddenly every locality had an increased budget.
America's military-industrial complex is very well-entrenched, and has been for a while. What else are you gonna do when the old models get made obsolete? Sell, or give them to the cops. Why else on earth are small towns getting MRAPS?
Actually we did arm them with surplus in the past as well. It's just old stuff like the M1 was also sold to civilians as well. That doesn't happen now because civilians can't really buy MP5s and M4s that can do fully auto. So it all needs to go to the cops and foreign aid.
And oops, if they're breaking the law by doing that..the police are destroying evidence by destroying the phone. There is never any reason for the police to destroy a camera.
Also seriously look at the court cases that have been decided in favor of recording. In most of them the person involved is in no way obstructing the officer, yet they get shit on anyway.
The NYPD are corralling protestors. The crowd, in response, is chanting "are we being detained or are we free to go?"
tent city
Eh, I'm sure they're useful in national parks, or something.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
I'm not 100% sure what makes them special, but they're listed as ventilated "shelter systems" and have a unit cost of $25,500. So, there's something fancy about them. Maybe they have a full environmental system -- that is, they are tents that you could use to quarantine people in the event of a contagion?
The US Army does not use flashbangs. Everything the US army uses is intended to kill or wound maximum people.
EDIT: before non service people jump on me with the wiki links about army flashbangs...those are never used.
If you start to need quarantining people in large numbers, it's time to call in the national guard.
I can't really think of a reason why a police force would need $25k tents
they cleared him today but they were probably gonna be used to contain beast mode if it came to it
Always the possibility that they're intended as more permanent structure than the stereotypical army poles-and-a-thick-tarp style tent, I guess. The document includes the national stock number for each piece of equipment but I have no idea how to turn that into information about what model of equipment it is.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
He was joking.
-Indiana Solo, runner of blades
Militarized police is a bad phrase to use, it's actually dumbass local cops using military grade equipment, without the discipline or training US Army soldiers receive.
Got to keep your hand in.
Choose Your Own Chat 1 Choose Your Own Chat 2 Choose Your Own Chat 3