The 1033 Program and the Militarization of American Police Forces

Let's open this posting with three videos.  The first shows a recent confrontation between Denver police forces and a non-protesting civilian vehicle containing a pregnant woman (second video):

Denver. Police were firing pepper bullets and tear gas at cars stopped at an intersection, targeting a car with a pregnant woman.

A man yells at them “You’re shooting my car with my girlfriend in it? My pregnant girlfriend in it?”

The cops open fire on him with pepper rounds. pic.twitter.com/MrJjqo4ETB

— Chad Loder (@chadloder) May 31, 2020

Here is what happened to an elderly man with a cane when he got in the way of Salt Lake City's Rescue Team (aka SWAT Team) when they arrive on the scene of a burned out police vehicle (21 minute 45 second mark):

Lastly, this is what happened to 75 year-old Martin Gugino who received some special treatment from Buffalo's finest:



Notice how none of those who are employed to "serve and protect" came to the man's assistance when it was clear that he hit his head hard enough that he was bleeding from his ear?

With these recent events in mind, let's look at one of the main reasons behind the increasing violence meted out on America's civilian population by its police forces; militarization.

Let's look at some background first.  Back in 1997, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the 1033 program was enacted to allow the Department of Defense to offload excess equipment to local law enforcement agencies for no cost (except for shipping costs which are borne by the law enforcement agency) though the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) division of the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA) as shown here:  

According to LESO, since its inception, the 1033 program has transferred more than $7.2 billion worth of property to local law enforcement with $293 million worth of equipment being transferred in fiscal year 2019 alone (values are based on initial acquisition costs).  Requisitions cover a very wide spectrum; from clothing and office supplies, tools and reduce equipment up to small arms and tactical vehicles which have benefited more than 8,000 law enforcement agencies across the United States.  Of the transfers, only five percent are small arms ($360 million worth) and one percent are tactical vehicles ($72 million worth).

On the DLA's High Visibility Property webpages we find these two pages:

1.) Small Arms (under .50 caliber):

LESO states that small arms obtained though the 1033 program are on loan from the Department of Defense and may not be permanently modified; when arms are returned to the DoD, they must be restored to their original configuration.

2.) Tactical Vehicles:

The 1033 program certainly looks like "one-stop shopping" for all of civilian law enforcement's military needs, doesn't it?  

LESO is required to release data of its "accountable property" on a quarterly basis since fiscal year 2016. Since Minnesota is the source of the most recent policing "issues", let's look at what the state has acquired through the 1033 program.  In total, Minnesota state law enforcement agencies have acquired 5,651 items with acquisition values ranging from $0.41 for a dust and moisture sealed protective cap to $865,000 for mine resistant vehicles.   Here is a complete listing of the Mine Resistant Vehicles that have been acquired by Minnesota's law enforcement agencies and which agencies have acquired this equipment because, after all, you can never have enough mine resistant vehicles:

In total, the state of Minnesota's law enforcement agencies have received at least $10,203,112 worth of DoD castoffs since the program began.

According to Campaign Zero, a police reform campaign that seeks to end police violence, one of the issues that has led to the increasing conflict between police and citizens is the militarization of America's law enforcement agencies.  They have the following recommendations:

1.) End the federal government's 1033 program.

2.) Establish local restrictions to prevent law enforcement agencies from purchasing or utilizing military weaponry as follows:

a) prevent police from using federal grant money to purchase military equipment.

b.) prevent police from deploying armored vehicles, weaponized aircraft, drones, Stingray surveillance equipment, camouflage uniforms, and grenade launchers.

c) prevent police from using SWAT teams unless there is an emergency situation or imminent threat to life and high-ranking officers have given approval.

d) prevent police from conducting no-knock raids.

e) prevent police from accessing federal grant money or purchasing military equipment if the department has been recently found to demonstrate a "pattern or practice" of discriminatory policing.

f) wherever possible agencies should seek to return to the federal government the military equipment that has already been received.

Over the past decade, it has become increasingly clear that America's law enforcement officials have taken an "us against them" philosophy when dealing with the citizens who pay their salaries.  The militarization of America's police has led to a scenario where the use of deadly force is just part of the business plan that is being used when dealing with the public, a business plan that has led to the deaths of thousands of innocent Americans at the hands of those that are hired to protect us. 

Let's close with this statement from the New York Civil Liberties Union regarding the gentleman that hit his head after being pushed by a Buffalo police officer:

Serve and protect indeed.

Police Use of Deadly Force - Part 2 - Solving the Problem

In yesterday's posting, I looked at the use of excessive and deadly force by America's police forces and some of the reasons behind why police are no longer regarded by many Americans as their protectors in time of need.  In this posting, I want to look at actions that could be taken to reduce police violence across the United States.

With America's police forces once again coming under severe public scrutiny for their actions in Minneapolis, a group called Campaign Zero believes that:

"We can live in a world where the police don't kill people by limiting police interventions, improving community interactions and ensuring accountability."

Campaign Zero notes that over 1,000 Americans are killed by police every year.  Here is a graphic showing the basic policies that need to be implemented to change the way that police forces deal with the communities that pay their salaries:

I'd like to focus on one policy that could positively impact interactions with America's policemen and policewomen; limiting the use of force.  Here are the recommendations of Campaign Zero:

A.) Establish standards and reporting of police use of deadly force:

1.) Authorize the used of deadly force only when there is an imminent threat to an officer's life or the life of another person and used only when all other reasonable alternatives have been exhausted.  

Here is a look at an excerpt from the Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Officials :

"Law enforcement officials, in carrying out their duty, shall, as far as possible, apply non-violent means before resorting to the use of force and firearms. They may use force and firearms only if other means remain ineffective or without any promise of achieving the intended result.

Whenever the lawful use of force and firearms is unavoidable, law enforcement officials shall:

(a) Exercise restraint in such use and act in proportion to the seriousness of the offence and the legitimate objective to be achieved;

(b) Minimize damage and injury, and respect and preserve human life;

(c) Ensure that assistance and medical aid are rendered to any injured or affected persons at the earliest possible moment;

(d) Ensure that relatives or close friends of the injured or affected person are notified at the earliest possible moment.

Where injury or death is caused by the use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials, they shall report the incident promptly to their superiors, in accordance with principle 

Governments shall ensure that arbitrary or abusive use of force and firearms by law enforcement officials is punished as a criminal offence under their law."

Exceptional circumstances such as internal political instability or any other public emergency may not be invoked to justify any departure from these basic principles.

Law enforcement officials shall not use firearms against persons except in self-defence or defence of others against the imminent threat of death or serious injury, to prevent the perpetration of a particularly serious crime involving grave threat to life, to arrest a person presenting such a danger and resisting their authority, or to prevent his or her escape, and only when less extreme means are insufficient to achieve these objectives. In any event, intentional lethal use of firearms may only be made when strictly unavoidable in order to protect life." (my bolds)

According to Amnesty International, nine states allow police to use deadly force to suppress a riot and no states have laws that meet international standards for police use of deadly force.

2.) Require that an officer's tactical conduct and decisions leading up to using deadly force be considered in judgements of whether such force was necessary.  Here is an example from the Los Angeles Police Department Policy on the Use of Force - Revised (2017):

3.) Require officers to give a verbal warning, when possible, before using deadly force and give people a reasonable amount of time to comply with the warning.  Here is an example from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department:

4.) Require reporting of police killings and serious injuries of civilians.  Here is an excerpt from the Police Reporting, Information, Data and Evidence Act of 2015 (PRIDE Act):

5.) Require the names of both the officer or officers involved and the victim or victims within 72 hours of a deadly force incident.  Here is an example from the Philadelphia Police Department Use of Force - Involving the Discharge of Firearms guidelines:

B.) Revise and strengthen police use of force policies:

1.) restrict officers from using deadly force unless all reasonable alternatives have been exhausted.

2.) use a minimum amount of force to apprehend a subject with specific guidelines regarding the types and levels of force that can be used for various levels of resistance to arrest.

3.) utilization of de-escalation techniques including creating distance, tactical repositioning and verbalization.

4.) equip police with less-lethal weapons.

5.) ban using force on persons for talking back or running away.

6.) ban chokeholds, strangleholds, hog-tying and transporting persons in a face-down position.

7.) intervene to stop other officers who are using excessive force and report them to a supervisor.

8.) equip police with first aid kits and train them to render medical assistance to any person in police custody who is injured.

In addition, Campaign Zero recommends that an early intervention system should be put in place to correct officers who use excessive force as such:

1.) report officers who receive two or more complaints in the past month.

2.) report officers who have two or more use of force incidents or complaints in the past quarter.

3.) require officers to attend re-training and be monitored by an immediate supervisor after their first quarterly report and terminate an officer following multiple reports.

Campaign Zero has some very well thought out solutions to the problem of the use of deadly force by America's police forces.  Unfortunately, decades of police "military-style corporate culture" and the "blue wall of silence" means that meaningful changes to the policies regarding the use of deadly force will continue to be ignored despite the fact that an average of three Americans die at the hands of police officers every day. 

Police Use of Deadly Force in America - Part 1 - A Statistical Examination

With America's police forces once again coming under severe public scrutiny for their actions in Minneapolis, Americans are once again facing the facts about their police forces and their use of force against the taxpayers that pay their salaries.  In part one of this two part posting, I will look at some key statistics that provide us with a stark viewpoint of how many Americans are killed by police and how many police forces across the United States have policies in place that do not provide protection for America's civilians.  In part two, we'l look at some suggested options by Campaign Zero for reducing police violence.  

Let's start with an examination of police killings in America.  From Mapping Police Violence we find the following data:

1.) Here is a calendar for 2019 showing the days that people were killed by police in the United States and the 27 days (in grey) where police did not kill anyone:

2.) Armed and unarmed Black people are more likely to be killed by police than Whites or Hispanics:

While Blacks make up 13 percent of the population, they make up 24 percent of those killed by police.

3.) Levels of violent crime in the United States do not determine the rate of police killings:

4.) Out of the total number of police killings in the United States between 2013 and 2019, only 1 percent of officers were charged with a crime.

5.) Here is a graphic showing rates of police killings by state for all people (in blue) and black people (in red) between January 2013 and December 2019:

6.) Here is a graphic showing the rate of police killings per million residents by major city between January 2013 and December 2019:

Why are police overusing force in some situations?  The Use of Force Project outlines police use of force policies that lack basic civilian protections against police violence as follows:

1.) Failing to require officers to de-escalate situations, where possible, by communicating with subjects, maintaining distance, and otherwise eliminating the need to use force.

2.) Allowing officers to choke or strangle civilians, in many cases where less lethal force could be used instead, resulting in the unnecessary death or serious injury of civilians.

3.) Failing to require officers to intervene and stop excessive force used by other officers and report these incidents immediately to a supervisor. 

4.) Failing to restrict officers from shooting at moving vehicles, which is regarded as a particularly dangerous and ineffective tactic.

5.) Failing to develop a Force Continuum that limits the types of force and/or weapons that can be used to respond to specific types of resistance.

6.) Failing to require officers to exhaust all other reasonable means before resorting to deadly force.

7.) Failing to require officers to give a verbal warning, when possible, before shooting at a civilian.

8.) Failing to require officers to report each time they use force or threaten to use force against civilians.

Use of Force found the following when they examined the use of force policies in America's 100 largest cities (click here for the American cities that provided data for the study):

1.) 44 out of the 100 police departments require officers to de-escalate situations, when possible, before using force.

2.) 84 out of the 100 police departments have a Force Continuum or Matrix included in their use of force policy:

3.) 28 of the 100 police departments explicitly prohibit the use of chokeholds and strangle holds or limit these tactics to situations where deadly force is authorized

4.) 67 out of the 100 police departments require police officers to give a verbal warning, where possible, before using deadly force.

5.) 17 out of the 100 police departments prohibit officers from shooting at people in moving vehicles unless the person poses a deadly threat by means other than the vehicle (i.e. drive-by shooting).

6.) 42 out of the 100 police departments require officers to exhaust all other reasonable alternatives before resorting to the use of deadly force.

7.) 48 out of the 100 police departments require officers to intervene to stop another officer from using excessive force.

8.) 25 out of the 100 police departments require officers to report all uses of force including threatening a civilian with a firearm.

You can see from this information that a very significant percentage of America's largest police forces do not have policies in place that protect civilians from the use of deadly force by law enforcement officials.

I believe that is enough information to digest for one posting.  In part 2, we will examine potential solutions to this long-term problem of police violence and how they might be implemented.  

COVID-19 and the Police State

While the rest of Canada is distracted with what is passing for the 2020 Easter weekend, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been busy as shown here:

You will notice that I have highlighted the most pertinent section of the press release.  I am wondering just how many Canadians could afford to pay a fine of up to $1 million?  There's nothing like the punishment not fitting the severity of the crime, is there?

While the RCMP claims that they are going to use a measured approach and that arrest will be a last resort, Canadian police forces across the nation have not shown a measured approach despite this press release from the Canadian Association of Police Chiefs:

Here are some examples of how Canadian police have focussed on public education rather than using their ability to enforce through the issuance of tickets:

1.) Ottawa, Ontario - 

2.) Hamilton, Ontario - 

3.) Montreal, Quebec - 

4.) Montreal, Quebec - 

5.) Calgary and Cochrane, Alberta - 

Please note that the ticket issued to two teenagers was issued by the same RCMP that are supposed to be using a measured approach.  Thanks to public pressure, the tickets were cancelled.

Let's close with this letter from the Canadian Civil Liberties Association to the Ottawa Police Force:

Whether we want to admit it or not, many of us are living under martial law of the medical variety thanks to the imposition of emergency laws.  This has become quite apparent in Canada where the mainstream press is increasingly reporting on the provincial government's "rat lines" which are put in place so that Canadians can report on other Canadians' behaviours during this "crisis".  We all need to remember that, when police forces are given power, they rarely shirk from exercising the full power of the law, measured approach and public education be damned.

How to Reduce the Use of Deadly Force by American Police Forces

Updated May 2020

The seemingly endless coverage of deadly police including the most recent death of George Floyd is telling us that something is broken in law enforcement.  Thanks to the Use of Force Project and Campaign Zero , there are some polices that could be adopted by police forces across America that are likely to at least partially solve the problem of police-related civilian deaths along with reducing retributive violence toward police.

As background, here is some interesting data from Mapping Police Violence:

The Campaign Zero Planning Team reviewed the use of deadly force policies of 91 of America's 100 largest police departments to see if they had any meaningful protections against police violence and what percentage of police forces had each policy in place.  These policies include:

1.) Requiring de-escalation - 31 of the departments required that police officers de-escalate situations where possible prior to using deadly force.

2.) A use of force continuum - Here is an example of a use of force continuum which is required by 77 of the departments:

3.) A ban on chokeholds and strangleholds - 21 of the departments have an explicit ban on chokeholds and strangleholds and limit their use to situations where deadly force is authorized.

4.) Requiring a warning before using deadly force - 56 of the departments required the officer to give a verbal warning where possible 

5.) A restriction on firing at moving vehicles - 19 of the departments prohibit officers from shooting at moving vehicles unless that vehicle is posing a deadly threat (i.e. the occupants are shooting at bystanders).

6.) Requiring that all other means be exhausted before shooting - 31 of the departments required officers to exhaust all other reasonable options before using deadly force.

7.) A duty to intervene when deadly force is being misused by another officer - 30 of the departments required that officers intervene to stop another officer from using excessive force.

8.) Requiring comprehensive reporting - 15 of the departments required officers to report all uses of force including threatening a civilian with a firearm.

On average, of the 91 departments reviewed, only three out of the eight listed policies were adopted with no police departments adopting all eight.

How important are these policies?  Here is a graphic showing how the restricted use of force policies are associated with a drop in the number of civilian killings by police forces:

Basically, for each of the eight policies, police departments that had implemented the policies saw a drop in the number of civilians killed than police departments that had not adopted the policies.  Each additional use of force policy was associated with a 15 percent drop in killings.  Since, as I noted above, the average police department has adopted three out of the eight policies, implementing all eight policies would result in a very significant 54 percent drop in killings on average.  Here is a graphic that shows how the rate  of civilian killings drops as more policies are adopted:

With either zero or one policy, the civilian death rate at the hands of police averages just over 12 per million population.  With four or more policies adopted, the civilian death rate drops to just under 8 per million population which is still high but a significant drop from the death rate in non-adoptive jurisdictions. 

While one might think that the adoption of more rigid police use of force policies would result in a rising assault against and death rate for police, in fact that is not the case.  Where there are zero or one of the aforementioned policies in place, the assault rate on officers is 18 per 100 officers; this drops to less than 10 per 100 officers when 4 or more policies are in place.  Where there are zero or one of the aforementioned policies in place, the death rate of officers is just under .12 per 1000 officers; this drops to just over 0.02 per 1000 officers when 4 or more policies are in place.

Obviously, the current law enforcement situation in America's large and small urban areas is not working.   Universal adoption of the eight use of deadly force policies recommended by the Campaign Zero Planning Team would go a long way to improving the rapidly deteriorating relationship between the taxpaying public and their police departments in America's largest cities.