Tag: militarization
How Teenagers Got Police To Back Down And Remove Military-Grade Weaponry From Their High Schools

How Teenagers Got Police To Back Down And Remove Military-Grade Weaponry From Their High Schools

Published with permission from Alternet

A coalition of Los Angeles high school students and grassroots organizers just accomplished the unthinkable. After nearly two years of sit-ins and protests, they forced the police department for the second-largest public school district in the United States to remove grenade launchers, M-16 rifles, a mine-resistant ambush protected (MRAP) vehicle and other military-grade weaponry from its arsenal.

But the coalition did not stop there. Members took over a Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) board meeting in February to call for proof that the arms had been returned to the Department of Defense—a demand they eventually won in the form of an itemized invoice for every weapon sent back to the DoD.

Going further, the coalition successfully pressed board members of the school district to apologize for greenlighting the policing of K-12 students with weapons of war.

“I now understand that especially in the context of the many conflicts between law enforcement and communities of color across the nation, our participation in this program may have created perceptions about the role of our district and our school police that my silence exacerbated,” Steve Zimmer, the president of the board of education, wrote in a May 19 letter to the groups Fight for the Soul of the Cities and Labor Community Strategy Center, which played a key role in the campaign. “Please accept my apology for any and all of my actions that contributed to feelings of betrayal and injury and interrupted our important collaborative efforts for equity and justice in all aspects of public education.”

Perhaps most stunningly, the coalition eventually persuaded the Los Angeles School Police Department to issue its own apology. “The LASPD recognizes the sensitive historical aspect of associating ‘military-like’ equipment and military presence within a civilian setting,” wrote Chief Steven Zipperman in a letter dated May 18. “We recognize that this sensitive historical component may not have been considered when originally procuring these type of logistics within a civilian or K-12 public school setting.”

The resounding victories were won in a district where the vast majority of students are Black and Latino. In the era of Ferguson, they have seen images of young people who look like them being shot and killed by police. Amid mounting nationwide outrage over police use of weapons of war to patrol civilian neighborhoods, the win marks an unprecedented stride toward the demilitarization of public schools.

“I know that this will transcend my school district and state,” Bryan Cantero, a senior at Augustus F. Hawkins High School, told AlterNet. “I feel like I was part of something that is bigger than me. I prevented something terrible from happening to someone’s brother, sister, friend or daughter. We prevented a tragedy. We prevented a war. When the police got those weapons it was a call to war. Am I viewed as a student or prey? What do they think I am? At the end of the day, something had to be done, and we took charge.”

‘Not a War Zone’

The Strategy Center describes itself as a movement-building think tank “rooted in working-class communities of color.” According to director Eric Mann, the organization first discovered that the Los Angeles Police Department possessed an arsenal of military-grade weapons two years ago. At the time, Mann and his colleagues had just returned from a solidarity delegation to Ferguson in 2014, where they witnessed the deployment of tanks and assault rifles against civilian protesters. Mann said the delegation “understood this was part of the war against Black people.”

The revelation that Los Angeles school cops were in possession of military arms immediately provoked a civil rights uproar. Yet, in September 2014, the school district and police department refused to return all of the weapons, agreeing to hand back grenade launchers but insisting they needed armored vehicles and rifles. “While we recognize, this armored vehicle is ‘military-grade,’ it is nevertheless a life-saving piece of equipment that the District would not otherwise have,” the school district stated.

The subsequent campaign “took a lot of work and time,” Ashley Franklin, lead organizer for the Strategy Center, told AlterNet. “We organized on each of the blocks we work in, organized in different high school campuses, going in and doing classroom presentations at the school about how this is rooted in institutional racism. We had phone call campaigns, turned in 3,000 petitions and made over 300 calls to school board members. It was a long campaign, and those were just the easy tactics.”

Taking Action clubs at multiple high schools in the district played a critical role. “Young people decided to put their bodies on the line, following after Malcolm X and Fannie Lou Hamer,” Franklin said. “They did multiple sit-ins at the school board and disrupted meetings, declaring that this should not be business as usual.”

At the early February school board meeting takeover, students and activists refused to leave until their demands were heard, leading to a charged scene described in the L.A. Times. “Asst. Supt Earl Perkins hurried forward and motioned to camera operators, with a hand slashing across his throat, to cut the live video feed while meeting chairman and board member George McKenna tried to establish order,” wrote journalists Sonali Kohli and Howard Blume. When administrators eventually left the meeting, students and activists remained, declaring the gathering a ‘people’s school board.'”

Monique Jones, a junior at Augustus F. Hawkins High School, was one of the young people who took action. “I believe the campaign was important because every day somebody of color, Black or Latino, is being shot by police officers,” she told AlterNet. “Why would you bring those types of weapons into school campuses? It’s not a war zone. You’re not going to war with your own citizens and people who are in kindergarten through 12th grade.”

Some board members appear chastened by the exchanges they have had with students like Jones. In an apology letter dated April 22, LAUSD school board member Monica Garcia declared, “The need for safety is a collective responsibility that must balance our lessons learned from history, our present challenges and our vision for the future… Together, with community partners, LAUSD has come a long way. And to use the words of the great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., ‘we have a long way to go.’”

‘We Want Police Military Weapons Destroyed’

Despite the Los Angeles victory, police departments nationwide remain heavily militarized. This is largely because of the federal program that allows police agencies to acquire weapons of war. The current iteration of the initiative dates back to 1990 and was escalated by the 1997 National Defense Authorization Act, which established that, under the “1033 program,” Department of Defense may transfer “excess” military equipment to state and local law enforcement agencies. According to the Defense Logistics Agency, the program has transferred at least “$5.4 billion worth of property” since its inception.

In 2014, the same year Black Lives Matter protests gripped the country, “$980 million worth of property (based on initial acquisition cost) was transferred to law enforcement agencies” the agency concludes, noting that more than 8,000 law enforcement agencies count themselves among the program’s enrollees.

However, the actual amount of public dollars that have been funneled into this program is far higher. A report from the Center for Investigative Reporting in 2011 found that since 9/11, “$34 billion in federal government grants” has gone toward the purchasing of military-grade weaponry for police departments. As in Los Angeles, many of these weapons have found their way into school police departments. The police department for San Diego’s public schools revealed in 2014 that it had also purchased its own MRAP, a piece of equipment that has become a fixture of the U.S. military’s occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan.

The 1033 program is just one facet of the militarization of police departments nationwide, which also includes SWAT deployments for drug searchers and collaborations between police agencies, arms manufacturers and foreign militaries. An ACLU report released in 2014 found that the “use of hyper-aggressive tools and tactics results in tragedy for civilians and police officers, escalates the risk of needless violence, destroys property, and undermines individual liberties.” Poor people and communities of color disproportionately see their neighborhoods turned into war zones by police, the investigation determines.

Last year, President Obama issued an executive order placing some limits on the transfer of certain kinds of military weapons, referencing the demands of civil rights leaders and Ferguson protesters. However, he declined to eradicate the program or immediately recall all of the heavy arms that have been distributed to police departments across the country.

High school senior Cantero believes Obama’s order does not go nearly far enough. “The 1033 federal program still exists in the nation, and I think the following step is to abolish the program in its entirety,” he said. “No school should have military-grade weapons. We want police military weapons destroyed.”

“When you are a teen you feel like you have no control over anything,” he continued. “But what is amazing to me is that there were so many teenagers all over the city who felt the same way we did and stood up together. Power in numbers is an amazing thing. This is a national problem at the end of the day, because this is what the youth is going through. We’re not going to stop.”

Sarah Lazare is a staff writer for AlterNet. A former staff writer for Common Dreams, she coedited the book About Face: Military Resisters Turn Against War. Follow her on Twitter at @sarahlazare.

Photo: REUTERS/Ricardo Arduengo 

Can States Slow The Flow Of Military Equipment To Police?

Can States Slow The Flow Of Military Equipment To Police?

By Jake Grovum, Stateline.org (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Police in Minneapolis-St. Paul trained military-grade launchers and used flash bang and tear gas grenades on protesters at the 2008 Republican National Convention. The Richland County, S.C., Sheriff’s Department got an armored personnel carrier to help fight drug and gambling crime. And Ohio State University police acquired a 19-ton armored truck that can withstand mine blasts.

These are just a few examples of the growing militarization of police in America. It’s been ongoing for more than a decade, but rarely grabbed the nation’s attention until civil unrest erupted in Ferguson, Missouri, last August after the killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager shot by a white police officer.

Now, eight months after the confrontations in Ferguson between heavily armed police and protesters, lawmakers in more than a half-dozen states are trying to rein in the militarization of their own police forces. They point to Ferguson and say they want to prevent similar highly weaponized responses in their states.

The legislative response — backed by Democrats and Republicans, in red states and blue states — is a reaction to what one sponsor of such a bill calls the “law enforcement-industrial complex,” a play on the “military-industrial complex” term first used by President Dwight D. Eisenhower.

“You get these pictures that just shock the conscience,” said Republican state Senator Branden Petersen of Minnesota, referring to news footage of heavily armed police patrolling streets or carrying out sting operations. His bill would bar law enforcement in the state from accepting gear that’s “designed to primarily have a military purpose or offensive capability.”

But Petersen and those backing similar efforts in other states — they’ve come up in California, Connecticut, Indiana, Montana, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Vermont — face an uphill climb, partly because of the way law enforcement acquires the gear.

The equipment flows through a Pentagon surplus operation known as the 1033 Program, which makes available gear that the military no longer wants. Local agencies — including state and local police, and others such as natural resources departments — make requests through a designated state coordinator, who with Defense Department officials, has final say. There’s no federal requirement for state or local lawmaker approval or oversight, and any gear distributed is free of charge. About $5.4 billion worth has been distributed since the program began in 1997.

The program is a key source of tactical equipment, along with clothing (everything from parkas to mittens), office supplies, exercise equipment, and appliances. Police say it’s invaluable in providing supplies they cannot afford and gear that can save officers’ lives.

But others call it a shadowy program that lacks oversight and lets police request anything they want, regardless of whether they need it. Some say it even tramples the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act, which prohibits the U.S. military from operating on American soil.

As Petersen put it: “The 1033 Program is a workaround.”

One reason the reaction to images of militarized police in Ferguson has reverberated in other states is the 1033 Program has been an equal-opportunity distributor, sending equipment all over the country to satisfy law enforcement requests.

A Stateline analysis of 1033 Program data shows that the 50 states hold nearly $1.7 billion worth of equipment, an average of nearly $34 million per state. Per capita, equipment values held by states range from less than $1 for Alaska, Pennsylvania, and Hawaii to more than $14 for Alabama, Florida, New Mexico, and Tennessee.

The type of gear the states have also varies widely. Alaska law enforcement, for example, has 165 rifles and almost $170,000 in night vision equipment, among other items.

But law enforcement in Florida, has 47 mine-resistant vehicles, 36 grenade launchers, and more than 7,540 rifles. In Texas, there are 73 mine-resistant vehicles and a $24.3 million aircraft. In Tennessee, there are 31 mine-resistant vehicles and seven grenade launchers. North Carolina has 16 helicopters and 22 grenade launchers.

The steady flow of gear has made the program popular among law enforcement, some of which say it’s necessary to combat criminals who have access to ever-more-powerful weaponry.

“Our chiefs used the program to obtain both practical and tactical equipment. They called it a really vital resource for acquiring vital public safety tools especially in a time of tight budgets,” said Andy Skoogman of the Minnesota Chiefs of Police Association.

He said police have found ways to repurpose battlefield gear, including armored vehicles, for civilian law enforcement needs.

“Those vehicles have been used to transport citizens, officers, and equipment when the roads are closed due to snow, flooding, and severe weather,” Skoogman said. “This program has really helped acquire key equipment.”

National police groups sound similar notes.

“This equipment has undoubtedly improved the safety of our nation’s law enforcement officers and enhanced their abilities to protect citizens and communities from harm,” Yost Zakhary, then-president of the International Association of Chiefs of Police, said in a statement last year as criticism of the program mounted. “I have seen firsthand the life-saving benefit of the 1033 program.”

The Pentagon also defends the program. “Ninety-five percent of the property that is transferred to local law enforcement through this program is not tactical,” Pentagon press secretary Rear Admiral John Kirby said last August. “It’s not weapons. It’s shelving, office equipment, communications gear, that kind of thing — furniture. I think it’s important to keep this thing in perspective.”

None of that has stymied the push to reform the program. Last year, President Barack Obama’s administration released a review, which called for more local engagement and transparency, better federal coordination, and additional training requirements.

That’s the tack many state lawmakers have taken in proposing bills to change the program. New Jersey became the first state to do so earlier this month, when Republican Governor Chris Christie signed a bill increasing local oversight of the 1033 Program after it passed unanimously in both legislative chambers. (Christie vetoed a separate bill that would have given the state’s attorney general oversight of the program.)

In California, a bill introduced would also give local governments a say over what law enforcement can receive. In Tennessee, a bipartisan bill would limit the type of offensive weapons law enforcement can receive. Another bill there would provide more local control.

Some bills simply aim for transparency. A bill in Montana, sponsored by Republican Representative Nicholas Schwaderer, would require local authorities to notify citizens of any request for equipment — even a Facebook post would satisfy the requirement.

The Montana bill also would bar some types of equipment. But Schwaderer said the reporting requirement as “the most helpful part of this bill,” which is his top legislative priority this session. He said he’s alarmed by the way some agencies have amassed gear in the last decade without input from the public.

“This foundation sets a massive precedent in Montana and the country as to what kind of society we want to have,” Schwaderer said of his bill. “If you get to the point where you need a grenade launcher, we’ve got the National Guard.”

Whether any other state follows New Jersey’s lead in changing the program this year is uncertain. Some sponsors admit they face tough opposition from law enforcement officials and lawmakers who support them.

There’s little interstate coordination among lawmakers pushing the measures, although groups like the 10th Amendment Center, a think tank focused on limited government and states’ rights, have tracked some of the bills, and the American Civil Liberties Union has fought the militarization of police departments for years.

Some localities already have taken steps to pare down or roll back military weapons and equipment. In Minneapolis, the police department stopped bringing it in several years ago, and is trying to return or destroy what it still has.

And because of Ferguson, some citizens’ groups say they are more aware of how their police departments have been transformed and of the possible dangers an overly militarized police force poses.

As Anthony Newby, director of the Minneapolis-based Neighborhoods Organizing for Change, put it: “Ferguson really shed light on the fact that we are really just one or two decisions away from being in that position. It was just a reminder for us to really track it, and see if there’s a way to stop that from ever being an issue.”

MRAP, Maxx, And The Militarization Of Our Local Police Forces

MRAP, Maxx, And The Militarization Of Our Local Police Forces

What a Christmas little Bastrop had! It’s still a mystery how Santa Claus got it down the chimney, but Bastrop got a nifty present that most children could only dream about: A big honkin’, steel-clad, war toy called MRAP.

But Bastrop is not a 6-year-old child, and an MRAP is not a toy. Bastrop is a Texas county of some 75,000 people, and MRAP stands for “Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected.” It’s a heavily-armored military vehicle weighing about 15 tons — one of several versions of fighting machines that have become the hot, must-have playthings of police departments all across the country.

Are the good people of Bastrop facing some imminent terrorist threat that warrants military equipment? No, it’s a very pleasant, laid-back place. And while the county is named for a 19th century land developer and accused embezzler, it’s never been a haven for particularly dangerous criminals — indeed, the relatively few crimes in Bastrop today don’t rise above the level of routine police work.

Even the sheriff’s department, which is the proud owner of the MRAP tank, says it doesn’t have a specific use for the machine, but “It’s here if we need it.” Well, yeah … but that same feeble rational would apply if the county decided to get an atom bomb — you just never know when a big mushroom cloud might come in handy!

What we have here is the absurdly dangerous militarization of America’s police departments. Our sprawling Department of Homeland Security and the Pentagon (which gave the MRAP to Bastrop) are haphazardly spreading war equipment, war techniques and a war mentality to what are supposed to be our communities’ peacekeepers and crime solvers.

Having the technology and mindset for military actions, local authorities will find excuses to substitute them for honest police work, turning common citizens into “enemies.” As a spokesman for the Bastrop sheriff’s department said of the MRAP, “With today’s society … there’s no way the thing won’t be used.” How comforting is that?

But now, let’s turn from the battlefield to the gridiron.

In the ever-escalating competition to be the No. 1 big-time college football program in the nation, Ohio State University bulked up last fall with a monster recruit named Maxx.

Actually, it’s not the coaching staff that signed up this brute, but the OSU campus police department. And the recruit’s full name is MaxxPro — not a player, but a 19-ton armored fighting vehicle built by a pentagon contractor to withstand “ballistic arms fire, mine fields, IEDs, and Nuclear, Biological and Chemical environments.” Wow, college games really have gotten rough!

But the campus PD, which received the MaxxPro as a gift from the Pentagon (ie, us taxpayers), says it’s not just playing games, but deploying Maxx for things like hostage scenarios, killers loose on campus, and extreme flooding of up to three feet. Well, have such things been a problem at OSU? Uh … no. Would a huge, slow, gas-guzzling vehicle designed for warfare be effective if any of the above were actually to occur? No response.

Oh, by the way, operating these machines requires specially trained personnel — is anyone in the department qualified? Again, no answer. Also, the vehicles are subject to frequent rollovers, and they lack the ability to go off-road or to maneuver in confined areas. That doesn’t sound ideal for a college campus. Not to worry, though, for the gendarmes said they were adjusting Maxx to fit their needs. How? Removing the top gun turret and repainting the vehicle.

OSU police finally admitted that Maxx would mostly be used to drive them around campus and provide a police “presence” on football game days. Great — police authorities now believe they need a show of military force to keep tailgaters in check.

To find out more about Jim Hightower, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit the Creators Web page at www.creators.com.

Photo: U.S. Army via Flickr