# Obama announces restrictions on distribution of military-style equipment to police



## kwflatbed (Dec 29, 2004)

*Obama announces restrictions on distribution of military-style equipment to police*
Published May 18, 2015
FoxNews.com
Facebook1173 Twitter416 Email Print









Aug. 13, 2014: A member of the St. Louis County Police Department trains his weapon on a relatively small group of protesters in Ferguson, Mo. (AP)

WASHINGTON - President Obama is banning local police departments from receiving a range of military-style equipment from the federal government -- from grenade launchers to bayonets to certain armored vehicles -- as he implements the recommendations of a panel that examined the controversial gear giveaways in the wake of the Ferguson riots.

The White House announced Monday that Washington would no longer provide some military-style gear while putting stricter controls on other weapons and equipment distributed to law enforcement. The details were released as Obama prepares to travel to Camden, N.J., Monday afternoon to meet with youth and law enforcement, and give a speech.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...tribution-military-style-equipment-to-police/


----------



## pahapoika (Nov 5, 2006)

Wouldn't want that stuff used on his biggest supporters and constituents.


----------



## Killjoy (Jun 23, 2003)

Good to see Obama is cutting support for law-enforcement....wouldn't expect anything less from our activist-in-chief! My question is so were these armored vehicle mowing down "protesters"? Were the police bayoneting these "protesters"? Were the police firing indiscriminately into these "protesters"? So what exactly is the purpose of disarming police of special-purpose surplus equipment that can be utilized at specialized call outs, like riots for instance? Questions that become difficult to answer when the light of logic shines on all this ignorance....


----------



## Pvt. Cowboy (Jan 26, 2005)

Looking at the list, it's not really that nuts. No tracked vehicles, no grenades, bayonets (the horror!) or ammo .50 cal or greater, or weaponized aircraft. No more camo either... Good thing there's plenty of army surplus stores... 

Still humvees, mraps, night vision. 

And it's STILL, the jackass in the office taking sides with the dregs of society, who are "intimidated by police." 

Don't commit crime, you won't deal with them. Very simple concept.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

I was hoping my department was going to get an Abrams tank. I work with a guy who commanded one in the Gulf War, so we HAVE a qualified person. Now....

In all seriousness, I don't think too many departments ask for anything outrageous. If it's requested, there's more often than not a very valid reason. A NON-L.E. schmuck like Obama should STFU and keep his nose out of what L.E. needs and does not need.

I just reread what I wrote and choked back a tear. He hasn't kept his nose out of L.E. business in his entire life, he just got more power and could interfere more since being elected president. Schmuck.


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Killjoy said:


> So what exactly is the purpose of disarming police of special-purpose surplus equipment that can be utilized at specialized call outs, like riots for instance?


Because they're scary. We wouldn't want the protesters pooping their depends they might end up with a rash and everyone knows rioters are just enthusiastic protesters.


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

Kilvinsky said:


> I was hoping my department was going to get an Abrams tank. I work with a guy who commanded one in the Gulf War, so we HAVE a qualified person. Now....


Knowing where you work brother, that is downright fucking hilarious. Panties would get so twisted there that even the male staff would virtually turn into feminists.


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

HistoryHound said:


> Because they're scary. We wouldn't want the protesters pooping their depends they might end up with a rash and everyone knows rioters are just enthusiastic protesters.


They'd get the runs during a riot they shouldn't be participating in in the first place...I wonder if there is a track record of Depends being looted.


----------



## Kilvinsky (Jan 15, 2007)

Goose said:


> They'd get the runs during a riot they shouldn't be participating in in the first place...I wonder if there is a track record of Depends being looted.


When a Rudy Vallee film festival was cancelled one night in 1998 outside of Miami, local seniors went on a rampage and shoplifted a box of Depends. The riot lasted all of 20 minutes and was finally broken up when the store security guard said, "PUT 'EM BACK AND GO HOME!" They were exhausted at that point anyway, but they had actually taken TWO boxes and when they got away from the store with the one the guard hadn't noticed, they knew they had put it to THE MAN!


----------



## PPD54 (Apr 28, 2011)

If his constituents didn't act like the citizens of a third world country the police wouldn't need this stuff, but they do, so it's needed.


----------



## Johnny Law (Aug 8, 2008)

No free 1033 camo? No problem, I've got departmental accounts at Chief Supply and Galls, I can get whatever I desire, if I want it. 

This guy is a fuckin joke


----------



## Goose (Dec 1, 2004)

I'll just leave this here...


----------



## USM C-2 (Oct 27, 2010)

Well, could anyone point any department ANYWHERE that has actually gotten "weaponized aircraft?"

Tracked vehicles? Wonder how the roads department loves you after that...


----------



## HistoryHound (Aug 30, 2008)

Kilvinsky said:


> When a Rudy Vallee film festival was cancelled one night in 1998 outside of Miami, local seniors went on a rampage and shoplifted a box of Depends. The riot lasted all of 20 minutes and was finally broken up when the store security guard said, "PUT 'EM BACK AND GO HOME!" They were exhausted at that point anyway, but they had actually taken TWO boxes and when they got away from the store with the one the guard hadn't noticed, they knew they had put it to THE MAN!


I was talking about this group










Not this one


----------



## Mr Scribbles (Jul 7, 2012)

Dammit! Now I'll NEVER get to be like the cool kids....I hate you...I hate you ...I HATE YOU Nanny Gub'mint


----------



## Mr Scribbles (Jul 7, 2012)

On a more serious note, I hope you all caught his reference to LE as "an occupying force"
This guy can't leave soon enough.


----------



## k12kop (May 24, 2005)

My department didn't get any of this free stuff, I feel ripped off!


----------



## Fuzzywuzzy (Aug 15, 2013)

Bayonets? Really?


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

I'm not a fan of tinfoil hats but it's difficult to believe that he's not the enemy when he has consistently attacked LE (those who fight the war within our boarders). It's really no wonder why the SS is essentially on sabbatical.


----------



## LGriffin (Apr 2, 2009)

*3 crucial points about Obama's evisceration of the 1033 Program*
*1. The Feds: "Give Back Our Stuff"*
What is a little surprising is the fact that the "federal government is exploring ways to recall prohibited equipment already distributed."

One must wonder how that equipment will be collected, and how police agencies will fund the acquisition of replacement gear essential to missions like crowd control, high-risk warrant service, barricaded subjects, hostage situations, searching for suspects like the Boston Marathon bombers, and responding to violent crimes in progress like armed robberies and active-shooter incidents?

*2. MRAPs Apparently Not Included*
One piece of equipment police agencies have acquired under the 1033 Program - which has been the target of much criticism - is the MRAP. Oddly, under the new restrictions, the MRAP remains an available item, as the order reads that "vehicles that provide ballistic protection to their occupants and utilize a tracked system instead of wheels for forward motion" will be prohibited.

MRAPs have wheels, not tracks, so under these new rules, agencies can seemingly keep them - a wrinkle that is more than a little ironic.

Regardless, let's assume the Feds _have_ come and taken your MRAP. If we're truly honest with ourselves, we must concede that police agencies really should have purpose-built police-armored vehicles. When you have nothing else, the MRAP is a viable option, but the it's not the optimal solution as an armored police vehicle.

Recall that the MRAP was purpose-built for the theater of war in Iraq and Afghanistan when our soldiers were being killed and maimed because the Humvees and M35/deuce-and-a-halfs were being shredded like wet cardboard. The design of the MRAP is specific to answer the threat of an IED constructed from unexploded military ordinance. The possibility that ISIS will be laying such traps here is relatively low because there are not a lot of unexploded bombs lying about on American streets.

Further, having an MRAP may put a drain on your training budget. As PoliceOne Contributor Steve Rabinovich wrote back in November, "MRAPs feel, drive, and act unlike anything most drivers and teams are used to - to simply put them to use without proper training is asking for people to get hurt or killed."

So, Mr. President, you can have your tracked-vehicles (they're loud, hot, smelly, and just chew up the pavement anyway) and your MRAPs. How will you help agencies get funding to obtain the protection they need and deserve?

Vehicles from companies like The Armored Group, Lenco, Farber Specialty Vehicles, SVI Trucks, Sirchie Vehicle Division, Lynch Diversified Vehicles, and International Armored Group are specifically designed with the police mission in mind, but they do not come cheap. What will you do, Mr. President, to help our cops protect themselves with vehicles like these?

*3. Will the National Guard Take Place of Police?*
Police officers are often required to enter hostile environments during the course of duty. They need - and deserve - the life-saving equipment they use to ensure that the streets are safe. If crowds are allowed to run amok because police don't have the necessary protective equipment to safely stop a riot, we know who gets the callout: the National Guard - the actual military. Anyone who fails to see the irony in that is just not paying attention.

What critics fail to comprehend is that the gear they so vilify is almost entirely defensive in nature.

Imagine asking our officers to approach a barricaded subject with one or more hostages - who is known to be armed with a .50 caliber rifle and other weapons - in a vehicle that's not armored. What if those hostages were kids in a school in a Beslan-like scenario with hardened terrorists poised to shoot any approaching officers? Sending cops into the scene without adequate armor would be akin to ushering those officers to their deaths.

Those officers would be forced to stay back, and let the hostage-taker have his/their way with the hostages.

Citizens would be howling at the top of their lungs for law enforcement to do something about it.

But with what? With their armored vehicles are taken away, officers cannot - and should not - go back to the bad-old-days of loading into a delivery truck and calling it protection from gunfire.

The DOJ loves its community policing initiatives. While certainly a valuable strategy to answer *some *specific needs in the law enforcement universe, community policing does not solve the barricaded suspect scenario. It doesn't work when a peaceful gathering turns into a calamity causing millions of dollars of damage to an already beleaguered community.

The administration must answer the question it has raised with its so-called answer to this "militarization" debate. Do agencies now have to write funding proposals for their replacement armored vehicles under the COPS Grants? The irony of that would be almost too much to bear.
http://www.policeone.com/police-pro...out-Obama-s-evisceration-of-the-1033-Program/


----------

