Brian O’Neill: Militarization of police has its hidden costs

Share with others:


Print Email Read Later

The military has trans­ferred bil­lions of dol­lars of hard­ware to the na­tion’s po­lice de­part­ments, and Pitts­burgh’s been part of that, but the po­lice brass won’t say what kind of weap­onry we have.

Events in Fer­gu­son, Mo., where cam­ou­flaged po­lice have looked more like sol­diers than cops, have got­ten a lot of peo­ple think­ing about the mil­i­tariza­tion of po­lice. But some here be­gan think­ing about it five years ago when the G-20 Con­fer­ence turned Pitts­burgh into a po­lice state for the worst part of a week. (City’s Sep­tem­ber 2009 motto: We won’t let any an­ar­chists shut down our city; we’ll do it!)

We had 4,000 cops and more than 2,000 Na­tional Guards­men tell­ing peo­ple where they could and couldn’t go. Hours af­ter the con­fer­ence bless­edly ended, po­lice ar­rested van­loads of peo­ple in Oak­land for be­ing out­side, mak­ing some of us long for those days when only crime was against the law.

Later, the city rather qui­etly paid close to a mil­lion dol­lars in set­tle­ments to peo­ple who sued af­ter be­ing ar­rested, the Amer­i­can Civil Lib­er­ties Union es­ti­mated.

Back in 2009, I didn’t think Amer­ica could ever be­come a per­ma­nent po­lice state be­cause we couldn’t af­ford it. There were hov­er­ing he­li­cop­ters, pha­lanxes of po­lice on mo­tor­cy­cles and of­fi­cers in heavy Star Wars-esque ar­mor Down­town, all to take on what turned out to be a mot­ley crew that wasn’t very good at win­dow break­ing or Dump­ster mov­ing (but were the ones de­serv­edly ar­rested).

Since then, the fed­eral gov­ern­ment has sent bil­lions of dol­lars of mil­i­tary hard­ware to po­lice across the coun­try. Even Pres­i­dent Dwight D. Ei­sen­hower might have been shocked at this, though he pre­sciently warned of the mil­i­tary-in­dus­trial com­plex and its “po­ten­tial for the di­sas­trous use of mis­placed power.”

The Depart­ment of De­fense doles out these sur­plus goods, roughly a third of which have never been used. Some $5.1 bil­lion in ve­hi­cles, equip­ment, weap­onry and other mil­i­tary prop­erty has been trans­ferred since the pro­gram be­gan in 1990, in­clud­ing nearly $450 mil­lion worth in 2013. Lo­cal­i­ties need only pay for ship­ping.

Pref­er­ence is given to counter­drug and coun­ter­ter­ror­ism re­quests, so some mu­nic­i­pal­i­ties have made rather comic reaches in that di­rec­tion. An ACLU re­port notes Un­cle Sam granted three New Hamp­shire towns just 30 miles apart an ar­mored per­son­nel car­rier apiece, with Keene, N.H., cit­ing its an­nual pump­kin fes­ti­val as a po­ten­tial ter­ror­ism tar­get. (But, hey, who among us has never stretched the truth when try­ing to get a cool toy out of a rich un­cle?)

The ACLU com­piled its re­port us­ing data from de­part­ments across the coun­try, but Pitts­burgh po­lice de­nied the re­quest for in­for­ma­tion. The ACLU is ap­peal­ing that de­ci­sion in court.

Some peo­ple see “ACLU” and think “lib­eral,” but Pres­i­dent Ei­sen­hower wasn’t the last con­ser­va­tive to ques­tion mil­i­tary over­reach on the home front. Lib­er­tar­i­ans and fis­cal con­ser­va­tives with an eye on the def­i­cit have ques­tioned why big gov­ern­ment has “in­cen­tivized the mil­i­tariza­tion of lo­cal po­lice,” as Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., wrote.

The ACLU sought its info be­cause heav­ily armed SWAT teams across the coun­try have made raids that have killed or harmed in­no­cents. (A Car­rick woman, Geor­geia Moreno, sued the city in fed­eral court af­ter around a dozen of­fi­cers in SWAT gear raided her home in 2010 look­ing for her hus­band, who had been in a bar fight with an off-duty of­fi­cer the night be­fore. Ms. Moreno said po­lice point­ing “as­sault ri­fles’’ broke down the bath­room door and pulled her 10-year-old son from the shower and ques­tioned him while he was na­ked. Trial is set for Oc­to­ber.)

At a min­i­mum, we ought to know what kind of mil­i­tary hard­ware Amer­i­can tax­pay­ers have put into the hands of lo­cal law en­force­ment. De­fense Depart­ment data show ev­ery­thing from bay­o­nets ($25.69) to a mine-re­sis­tant ve­hi­cle ($733,000) shipped to de­part­ments in Al­le­gheny County, but the city told the ACLU last year that “the re­quested records, to the ex­tent they ex­ist, are not pub­lic.”

It’s hard to see why.

“Do you think peo­ple aren’t go­ing to do some­thing just be­cause you have a $733,000 ar­mored per­son­nel car­rier?” Vic Wal­czak, le­gal di­rec­tor of the Penn­syl­va­nia ACLU, asked.

Ste­phen Bu­car, Mayor Bill Peduto’s pub­lic safety di­rec­tor who be­gan work in June, isn’t any more forth­com­ing than his pre­de­ces­sor. Mr. Bu­car said through a spokes­woman last week that it’s in­ap­pro­pri­ate to com­ment while the ACLU is ap­peal­ing in court.

Mr. Peduto, who pledged an open gov­ern­ment, could make that ap­peal moot by re­leas­ing info in the way that fed­eral, state and other city gov­ern­ments have.


Brian O’Neill: boneill@post-ga­zette.com or 412-263-1947.

Join the conversation:

Commenting policy | How to report abuse
To report inappropriate comments, abuse and/or repeat offenders, please send an email to socialmedia@post-gazette.com and include a link to the article and a copy of the comment. Your report will be reviewed in a timely manner. Thank you.
Commenting policy | How to report abuse

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

You have 2 remaining free articles this month

Try unlimited digital access

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here

You’ve reached the limit of free articles this month.

To continue unlimited reading

If you are an existing subscriber,
link your account for free access. Start here