How Did the Ferguson Police Get Such Sophisticated Weaponry?

Anyone who watched news reports of the Ferguson riots last night was likely shocked to see images that appeared to be from a foreign war zone. Police units from the 21,000-resident suburb wielded rifles, tear gas and riot gear, stood next to Ballistic Engineered Armored Response Counter Attack Truck (known as a BearCat) and wore camouflage, solidifying their image as a militarized force.

The Ferguson Police Department is part of a federal program 1033 that distributes hundreds of millions of dollars of surplus military gear to police forces across the country and touts the motto “From Warfighter to Crimefighter.” According to the program’s website, the 1033 program has redistributed more than $4.3 billion worth of property since it began in 1997, and $449,309,003.71 worth of property just last year, the most money ever given as part of this program.

source


Although the above article says this program began in 1997, if you dig a little deeper, we find that it actually began in 1972:

A congressional report in 1972 recommended centralizing the disposal of United States Department of Defense (DoD) property for better accountability. In response, on September 12, 1972, the Defense Supply Agency (now known as the Defense Logistics Agency) established the Defense Property Disposal Service (renamed the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service in 1985) in Battle Creek, Michigan, as a primary-level field activity. On July 19, 2010, as part of a "We Are DLA" initiative, the Defense Reutilization and Marketing Service was renamed the Defense Logistics Agency Disposition Services.

The DoD Excess Property Program (1033 program, formerly the 1208 program[5]) is a Defense Logistics Agency program to transfer leftover military materiel (supplies and equipment) to U.S. state and local civilian law enforcement agencies. The surplus equipment includes grenade launchers, helicopters, military robots, M-16 assault rifles, armored vehicles, riverboats, Battle Dress Uniform clothing, and information technology equipment.[6] In 2011, the program resulted in the DoD giving away nearly $500 million worth of equipment, while in 2010, $212 million in gear were distributed.[

Source

So, the militarization of our law enforcement agencies across the country appears to be a problem created by Congress ca. 1972. If, like me, you feel the equipment given to these law enforcement agencies is overkill, then I suggest you contact your local and state representatives and demand that they create legislation outlawing the 1033 Program.

I'll just leave you with two last quotes:

“The militarization itself is part of a larger trend … It is a mentality that sees the people they are supposed to be serving not as citizens with rights but as potential threats.”

“As the saying goes, if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.”

Take these hammers away form our law enforcement because as things stand, we all look like potential threats to them; not citizens with rights whom they are paid to serve.

There is not one thing that I can think of that the police department owns that a citizen can't own.

So you do not feel that police departments (Im not speaking of just Ferguson) should have shields, helmets, batons, less lethal weapons, AR-15's and armored vehicles?

a reply to: LeatherNLace
Nation wide they seem to be Militarizing the Police as an Army against the People. They must be working on their sh•t attitudes as well.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
There is not one thing that I can think of that the police department owns that a citizen can't own.

So you do not feel that police departments (Im not speaking of just Ferguson) should have shields, helmets, batons, less lethal weapons, AR-15's and armored vehicles?

I'll say this: I have yet to see a protest in which the protesters were in full riot gear, heavily armed with armored vehicles. I don't see protesters with tear gas, rubber bullets, etc. What I see is law enforcement agencies time and time again instigate and escalate otherwise peaceful protests. So, to answer your question, no I don't think law enforcement should be using equipment that the protesters are not using; even if that equipment is available to the public, it's not the public that is using it. But just wait and see, now people will feel the need to obtain such equipment so as to "level the playing field".

If LEO want's to have these things, then they must restrict it to serious criminals who pose a substantial threat. They should be banned from using it to violate constitutional rights of ordinary citizens.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
There is not one thing that I can think of that the police department owns that a citizen can't own.

So you do not feel that police departments (Im not speaking of just Ferguson) should have shields, helmets, batons, less lethal weapons, AR-15's and armored vehicles?

i don't know what state you live in but here in NY common civilians aren't allowed to buy a quarter of the things that the police have access to after recent legislation.

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

When speaking of free states I don't count NY and CA. A few others fit on that list too.

I am sorry you live there. I do not believe or support draconian gun control laws.

I live in Florida and in most states a citizen can own a short barreled rifle, a fully auto rifle, a suppressor, body armor, forms of CS style gas, pepper spray, pepper launchers and even armored vehicles.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

Oh I thought they were wearing that gear because of all the looters and vandals.

Perhaps you can get out there and show them how it is done. No helmet and shield for you though.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

When speaking of free states I don't count NY and CA. A few others fit on that list too.

I am sorry you live there. I do not believe or support draconian gun control laws.

I live in Florida and in most states a citizen can own a short barreled rifle, a fully auto rifle, a suppressor, body armor, forms of CS style gas, pepper spray, pepper launchers and even armored vehicles.

thank you. stupid f'n "new york safe act". makes want to get the hell out of this state.

Those police had more PPE than we ever had in Afghanistan.
Also, we would never had been permitted to use those crowd control tactics on the unarmed locals.
Now, why is it that police on US soil have more brutal tactics than soldiers in a war zone?

a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

Yeah I can see why.

I used to want to visit there but no longer.

Just to note I don't even agree with the NFA laws in regards to paying a tax stamp for a suppressor or a short barreled rifle.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

Perhaps you can get out there and show them how it is done. No helmet and shield for you though.

My guess is if he got there he wouldn't be shooting an unarmed kid in the streets and be provided anonymity from the powers that be after he killed him. That is your reason for the looters.

Nor would he be shooting tear gas at the Media (Al Jazeera in this case.)

www.abovetopsecret.com...

a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

You are comparing apples to oranges man.

In Iraq a drone strike would of just been called in and the hundreds of dead innocents would of been considered collateral damage.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: EyesOpenMouthShut

You are comparing apples to oranges man.

In Iraq a drone strike would of just been called in and the hundreds of dead innocents would of been considered collateral damage.

i just don't know about all that.
this seems a fairly close comparison

ATS' very own AMA guest, Col. John B. Alexander, has been one of the biggest proponents and architects of the increasing militarization of police forces.

He's written rather extensively on the subject in addition to having been active in this pursuit. I detail some of my own somewhat troubling experience in accessing his writings in his AMA thread here:

Col. John B. Alexander AMA

If any here should access those writings, I'm sure it will give some pause for reflection on an "us vs. them" mentality that is--surprisingly--finally becoming an issue covered by the MSM.

And TPTB accuse us of paranoia, sheesh…

Even more detail here:

link

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: CallmeRaskolnikov

When speaking of free states I don't count NY and CA. A few others fit on that list too.

I am sorry you live there. I do not believe or support draconian gun control laws.

I live in Florida and in most states a citizen can own a short barreled rifle, a fully auto rifle, a suppressor, body armor, forms of CS style gas, pepper spray, pepper launchers and even armored vehicles.

I didnt see any protesters with anything like this kind of equiptment. What are they so scared of, it makes em look a little pathetic when facing these protesters like that.

It wouldnt be out of place in a monty python movie its so stupid.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

Seriously?

Acoustic Weaponry?

a reply to: LeatherNLace

I'll say this: I have yet to see a protest in which the protesters were in full riot gear, heavily armed with armored vehicles.

Preach, this speaks volumes to me. Of course the answer from those that support what the cops are doing will say they always need to be one level of force above, which of course means go all out.
The average arsenal that everyday cops carry can handle protestors that are not even armed.

Rep. Hank Johnson to introduce bill to stop providing military equipment to local police forces

As a consequence of the war zone police have turned Ferguson, Missouri, into during the past few days, Democratic Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia's 4th Congressional District will introduce a bill to end the federal government's program of providing billions of dollars worth of military equipment free to local police.

Well, it looks like at least one Congressman is already on top of this. Contact your representative and encourage them to vote in favor of the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act.

a reply to: LeatherNLace

I think the key word in that statement, unfortunately, is free. It doesn't state that they will no longer be providing weapons and equipment, however. So really... I don't like this one bit. Guess who will end up paying higher taxes, so that our police can continue to get military equipment?