• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

1033 Program Partially Rescinded

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
I can't believe that I'm agreeing with someone that the President has done.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...fficers-in-wake-obama-order.html?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."
 

STLDaniel

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
86
Location
Saint Louis
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.
 

Aknazer

Regular Member
Joined
Mar 6, 2011
Messages
1,760
Location
California
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.
 

since9

Campaign Veteran
Joined
Jan 14, 2010
Messages
6,964
Location
Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA
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.
 

STLDaniel

Regular Member
Joined
Jun 14, 2015
Messages
86
Location
Saint Louis
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.


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.


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.


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?
 

davidmcbeth

Banned
Joined
Jan 14, 2012
Messages
16,167
Location
earth's crust
<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...
 
Top