Results 1 to 8 of 8

Thread: 1033 Program Partially Rescinded

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797

    1033 Program Partially Rescinded

    I can't believe that I'm agreeing with someone that the President has done.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015...l?intcmp=hpbt1

    ...President Obama issued Executive Order 13688 in January after the 2014 riots in Ferguson, Mo., amid concerns about the “militarization” of the police fueling a heavy-handed response...

    ...Items on the prohibited list include armored tracked vehicles, weaponized aircraft and vehicles, .50-caliber firearms and ammo, bayonets, and camouflage...

    ...The vehicles themselves aren’t banned, only those distributed under the 1033 program. However, many counties received their vehicles free-of-charge, and won’t be able to afford to buy one of their own – something they say makes their officers less safe...
    There's obviously more to the article, but I found these to be the primary things of note. While I agree that it "can" make the officers less safe, it also removes the chance/ability for the equipment to be misused/abused/stolen. After all I'm sure most people here have heard the saying that "All problems begin to look like nails when your only tool is a hammer."

  2. #2
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Posts
    97
    I'm not actually that concerned with the police having any of that stuff as long as the population is armed (even with basic semi AR15's). Over and over we see the best equipped military struggle to control a population that has basic arms. When the populace is armed and threats can blend in with everyone else, you can only rule by consent of the people (or by killing everyone, but they don't have the stomach for that in mass).

    That being said, read the ultimate intention here. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Weaken police. Get more of them shot. Use those shootings to build a case for more gun control.

  3. #3
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    California
    Posts
    1,797
    Quote Originally Posted by STLDaniel View Post
    I'm not actually that concerned with the police having any of that stuff as long as the population is armed (even with basic semi AR15's). Over and over we see the best equipped military struggle to control a population that has basic arms. When the populace is armed and threats can blend in with everyone else, you can only rule by consent of the people (or by killing everyone, but they don't have the stomach for that in mass).

    That being said, read the ultimate intention here. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Weaken police. Get more of them shot. Use those shootings to build a case for more gun control.
    The flip side of that (not that I think this is what he was thinking) is that by "weakening" the police they're less likely to use the equipment which means that the citizenry is less likely to see them as an occupying force and less likely to lead to future issues. Also with what was listed I don't see this weakening police in the majority of situations, while at the same time I see it as preventing potential abuse. How often does a police force REALLY need a 50cal weapon? Or camouflage uniforms instead of the standard stuff? Or an armored vehicle? And yet we've seen in the news various forces around the country using this stuff when there was no real need to do so. Not to mention that they aren't banned from buying it themselves, it just isn't being given to them any more free of charge. So if they feel that they have a legitimate need for such things they can work it into their budget and justify the cost to their community.

    So just as how the use of SWAT has needlessly increased as more places have gotten their own SWAT teams (have to justify having it after all), so too was the use of this equipment needlessly increasing. Thus I see the reigning in of such use as a good thing regardless of the actual reason it was being done.

  4. #4
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    2nd time he has done something with the 1033 program .. if I recall correctly (and I could be wrong) he halted the program 'cause towns were getting stuff free and then turning around and selling the items.


    Curious to know who got what?

    https://www.muckrock.com/news/archiv...cops-giveaway/

    Website has it ^^^

  5. #5
    Campaign Veteran since9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
    Posts
    6,787
    Quote Originally Posted by STLDaniel View Post
    That being said, read the ultimate intention here. Don't look a gift horse in the mouth. Weaken police. Get more of them shot. Use those shootings to build a case for more gun control.
    The fact that Obama supports a police state has long been known to anyone who has every studied what he says and does. That he is (or at least was) in tight with Jackson and Sharpton is also a given, as is the abundant evidence of external agitators bused in to Ferguson. Was Obama's plan to create turmoil then turn around and argue for a stronger police state? Absolutely on the latter, although we have yet to directly connect him to creating turmoil (other than his myopic or carefully planning inflammatory remarks in the media).

    If I might posit another theory: Obama learned that many police departments and most sheriff offices would never side with him no matter how much hardware they received from the feds. Ergo, that hardware would be used to defend the people against the feds, if push came to shove. Can't have that, so he pulled the plug.
    The First protects the Second, and the Second protects the First. Together, they protect the rest of our Bill of Rights and our United States Constitution, and help We the People protect ourselves in the spirit of our Declaration of Independence.

  6. #6
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2015
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Posts
    97
    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    The flip side of that (not that I think this is what he was thinking) is that by "weakening" the police they're less likely to use the equipment which means that the citizenry is less likely to see them as an occupying force and less likely to lead to future issues.
    IMO, I haven't seen any of that equipment leading to problems because the citizenry saw them as an occupying force. Ferguson is probably a prime example, where it didn't matter whether they rolled that stuff out or not, they continued to "protest" by looting and arsen. When LEO's where ordered to disarm down to the basics and show up in standard dress, they just took advantage and the mob violence got worse.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Also with what was listed I don't see this weakening police in the majority of situations, while at the same time I see it as preventing potential abuse. How often does a police force REALLY need a 50cal weapon? Or camouflage uniforms instead of the standard stuff? Or an armored vehicle?
    Just watching the videos of the standoff at Planned Parenthood, the police where using an armored vehicle to evacuate wounded. Hope that's one they purchased and isn't on the recall list.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    And yet we've seen in the news various forces around the country using this stuff when there was no real need to do so.
    "Need" can be very hard to define. Looking at an individual situations outcome, you may say it wasn't needed. yet without it, the outcome may have been much worse. A suspect maybe very cooperative faced with a large show of force, prompting outrage over the "agressive" tactics, so less agressive tactics are employed and the next time there's a shootout.


    Quote Originally Posted by Aknazer View Post
    Not to mention that they aren't banned from buying it themselves, it just isn't being given to them any more free of charge.
    Probably my best argument to allow this program. If they shouldn't have them, ban them from having them. But if it's ok for them to buy them, and we've got the equipment from federal left overs, why just let them go to waste?

  7. #7
    Regular Member sudden valley gunner's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Whatcom County
    Posts
    17,338
    Just because one can name a few times they used them for good does not mean the continue militarization of the local yokels is not wrong.
    I am not anti Cop I am just pro Citizen.

    U.S. v. Minker, 350 US 179, at page 187
    "Because of what appears to be a lawful command on the surface, many citizens, because
    of their respect for what only appears to be a law, are cunningly coerced into waiving their
    rights, due to ignorance." (Paraphrased)

  8. #8
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Quote Originally Posted by STLDaniel View Post
    <snip>



    Just watching the videos of the standoff at Planned Parenthood, the police where using an armored vehicle to evacuate wounded. Hope that's one they purchased and isn't on the recall list.

    $426,123.00 vehicle. I think that they could have used some cheaper...

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •