Obama's Ban on Military Gear for Police Won't Fix the Real Problem

Illustration for article titled Obamas Ban on Military Gear for Police Wont Fix the Real Problem

American cities resemble war zones during times of protest. Now, Washington’s going to try to fix this problem by rolling back a 25-year-old program that supplied local police forces with free surplus military gear. It’s about damn time—but unfortunately, it’s not going to solve America’s police problems.

Advertisement

President Obama just issued a ban on giving certain military-style gear to police, effective immediately. However, these reforms will not ban police from using military gear entirely. The ban applies only to gear like grenade launchers, firearms of .50-caliber or higher, weaponized aircraft, vehicles with tank treads, bayonets, and certain types of camouflage. But there is a loophole. If officers get extra training and practice tighter record-keeping, the federal government will continue to give local police departments things like wheeled armored vehicles, specialized weaponry, manned aircraft, battering rams, drones, helmets, riot batons, and explosives. So the police will still be militarized. They’ll just be a little less militarized and, hopefully, a little better trained.

Illustration for article titled Obamas Ban on Military Gear for Police Wont Fix the Real Problem
Advertisement

The president is scaling back Section 1033 of the National Defense Authorization Act, the policy that enabled the Defense Department to punt surplus military equipment to local police. However, since it went into effect in 1997, the 1033 Program has given police over $4.3 billion in gear. And since the ban starts now, there’s no reason to believe that police departments will be forced to surrender any of the equipment already in their arsenals.

But here’s the real problem. Police haven’t been using bayonets and rocket launchers to kill unarmed civilians—usually black men. They’re using handguns. But the issue isn’t handguns either — it’s handguns combined with poor training, institutional racism, lack of accountability, counterinsurgency techniques, and bad decision-making.

Many people, including President Obama, believe that requiring police to wear body cameras will help matters. This attempt at a fix gets closer to the core of America’s police problem. An indisputable visual record of every incident should hold officers accountable for bad behavior, some say. That’s why the president just set aside $20 million to buy (a small number) of body cams for cops.

Illustration for article titled Obamas Ban on Military Gear for Police Wont Fix the Real Problem
Advertisement

However, as researchers have argued many times in the past, the short- and longterm benefit of body cams remains entirely unclear. The footage has never lead to the conviction of an officer, and more often than not, body cams become a tool that enable cops to get off the hook.

Like increased funding for body cams, Obama’s new ban on military-style equipment sounds like political posturing. Obama is taking action so that he appears to be solving a problem without actually addressing the underlying issues. It’s a start, but it’s only a start.

Advertisement

Based on his remarks in Camden, New Jersey, just a few hours after news of the ban made headlines, the military weapons ban is only part of the president’s agenda for police reform. Obama talked talked about how police need to “get out of their squad cars into the communities they should be serving.”

At the root of America’s police problem lies a toxic lack of trust between cops and citizens. Body cams and military gear aside, police need better training and better integration into the communities they’re protecting. Police need to adopt better ways to use non-lethal weapons and, quite frankly, how to avoid using weapons at all costs. Police reform has to begin and end with better training and community relations. As Obama said, “We can’t just focus on the problems when there’s a disturbance.”

Advertisement

In an ideal world, our longterm plan might involve a more dramatic solution, like allowing officers to carry guns only in special circumstances. That’s how it works in England and Wales, where police recently went two years without fatally shooting anyone. Last year, Gawker reported that police shot and killed 22 unarmed people of color during the same time period. But this isn’t a practical solution in the United States right now, where our citizens are frequently armed. We’d need to disarm the entire nation before thinking about disarming police. And that is beyond the scope of these reforms — and this article.

Illustration for article titled Obamas Ban on Military Gear for Police Wont Fix the Real Problem
Advertisement

Obama glossed over the military weapons ban, and emphasized real problems that prevent police from working more closely with those communities. It’s worth quoting him at length:

We can’t just expect police departments to solve these problems. If communities are being isolated and segregated without opportunity and without investment and without jobs; if we politicians are just ramping up long sentences for nonviolent drug crimes… if we’re spending a whole lot of money on prisons and not on schools and books… we’re being counterproductive. It’s not a good strategy.

Advertisement

In Obama’s words, “We’ve all got to step up. We’ve all got to care about what happens.” We can’t reform policing in any meaningful way without involving everyone else.

Images via Getty / AP

Advertisement

Share This Story

Get our newsletter

DISCUSSION

bigfatpartyanimal
BigFatPartyAnimal

Adam, I’m usually a huge fan of your writing here and I usually agree with you. I particularly like your thoughts and opinions on subjects like NSA spying and privacy and property rights.

However I respectfully disagree with you with regard to disarming the citizenry. If anything proves the point more that we need an armed citizenry it’s in response to how the authorities themselves are so heavily armed.

Sure it would be great if we lived in a world where we had no need to protect or defend ourselves. I would love to be able to leave my house without my gun, but sadly I do. I refuse to let myself or my family become a helpless victim at the mercy of some sick individual. Personal protection is your responsibility and yours alone. When you have an invader in your home threatening to kill you, you cannot count on the law to help you in time.

And Adam, please please please don’t compare the US to the UK. It’s absolutely ridiculous to look at their statics vs ours. Sure their cops did not shoot as many people, but what about the rate of violent crime? It’s far higher than ours. Some might argue in favor of disarming by looking at Japan. Again, you can’t do that. Japan is very unique, their culture is very different than ours and Americans like it or not will never be like the Japanese people.

In conclusion I do have to say I agree with limiting the police to military weapons. Access to this type of equipment IS part of the problem. When you train officers with military style tactics and equipment it changes their prospective on how they do their job. They no longer associated themselves as being part of the community but above it. I have to believe that somewhere in their psyche that having an armored vehicle with a .50 cal machine gun can’t but make them feel but in a position of ultimate power even if they never use it in real situations. Have you ever read the book Government of Wolves? If not, and you are interested in this subject at all please do read it. It’s very insightful with accurate statistics that show why our country is the way it is today.

Keep up the good work!