Police Militarization and Civil Rights Act (Passed)

[Deus Naturae]

T don't think this bill would give money to Regional governments. To my knowledge, DoD surplus equipment transfers go straight to local police departments, so they're the ones who would be getting the compensation cash, not the Regions, so this bill wouldn't really affect Regional innovation.

Since Northeast PD's already have cameras, we can just not give them new funds, and only distribute funds to non-Northeastern PD's.

[Deus Naturae]

Then what is to be done with the money the northeast local police forces have been given to spend on military surplus?

Now that I think about it, I don't think there are any funds at all that we can reallocate. I'm pretty sure the DoD just gives out equipment for free. Or, if it sells it to police departments, the money they use to purchase it doesn't come from the Federal government. I mean, why would the Federal government give local PD's money with which to buy military surplus...from the Federal government?

I'm of the view that the surplus transfers should be ended entirely, but if we want to pay for the police to be equipped with cameras, the money for that will have to come out of the general budget or from the sale of existing equipment.

[Deus Naturae]

Polnut, what have communities done to "one up" the police? If you're going to try and lay any of the blame for police militarization on communities themselves rather than the actual police, you need to provide some actual evidence.

[Deus Naturae]

I appreciate this debate about police and why they exist but lets not forget the funding issue.

First is scraping surplus and using the money to pay for this feasible? Only one has responded so far on this matter.

Second, what about the NE, considering the Public Means Public Act, how do we go about distributing the money as this is a similar instance of one region already doing this?

I see no reason to waste additional funds on cameras Northeast PD's don't need. I say we should just include a clause stipulating that any department already equipped with cameras won't receive new funds.

[Deus Naturae]

What do we do with surplus weapons that we can't sell to NATO?

Well, we can accumulate it somewhere?

I mean, destroying weapons, that's nos fiscal responsible!

Since the President has tossed my name around as a candidate for a SecDef role, I assume it'd be appropriate to provide my input here: if there is surplus weaponry that cannot be sold to a foreign buyer (as a side note, if you wanted to get the most money you could for it, you could broaden the number of countries we can sell to - Australia and Japan, for example, aren't NATO members) and serves no foreseeable military purpose I'd assume the most fiscally prudent course would be to sell it for scrap and recoup at least some of its value.

I'd also warn the Senate more generally about adopting legislation with such broad language as this. There is no reasonable case of any sort against the vast majority of surplus military equipment that is sold at discounted prices to local police departments - 95% of all transfers are non-weapons. All the data is here, and as you can see most of it is things like "wet weather poncho", "flat panel monitor", "electric lighting fixtures", and "stethoscope". In the interests of minimizing taxpayer burdens I'd urge the Senate to reconsider its language in this case - perhaps spelling out what specifically is prohibited would be more helpful (automatic or .50+ caliber weapons, tactical vehicles, drones, combat aircraft, grenades, silencers, LRADs, etc.)

Why shouldn't local taxpayers pay for local police equipment (assuming anyone should pay for it in the first place)? Handing out Federal goodies to local PD's just seems wasteful and makes officers less accountable to the local communities they're supposed to be serving.

[Deus Naturae]

Nay

[Deus Naturae]

Aye