Capstone Final Submission

Loftus 1

Should Congress overturn the 1033 program by passing the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act in order to put an end to the police’s use of excessive force and disconnection from their communities?

Prepared by Caitlin Loftus Submitted to Beth Eakman CAPS 4360.20 Fall 2015

ABSTRACT Police militarization and police brutality were thrust into the public eye over the past couple of years. 2014 was the biggest year of the public scrutinizing police, and for good reason. 18 year-old African American, Michael Brown, was shot and killed in 2014. The Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act, a policy looking to overturn the 1990s’ 1033 program, came to be amid the aftermath of the Michael Brown shooting, which gained supporters and people that opposed the new policy. This project will analyze the two sides of the controversy, as well as the background leading up to the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act, and what the country should do in order to help the people.

Loftus 2

Table of Contents Capstone Final Submission End Notes Work Cited Bibliography

4 11 13 15

Previous Submissions

17

Submission Submission Submission Submission Submission

18 32 41 47 59

1 2 3 4 5 rev. 1

Appendices Civic Engagement Email Exchange Professor Brian Withrow Interview Transcript Brian Flannery Interview Transcript Professor Mijares Interview Transcript

65 66 69 73 76

Loftus 3

Should Congress overturn the 1033 program by passing the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act in order to put an end the police’s use of excessive force and disconnection from their communities?

Capstone Final Submission

Loftus 4

Imagine you are asleep in your bed. You had a long day at work and have been asleep for maybe two or three hours when you hear it: a door being kicked in. Next thing you know, your bedroom door is kicked in and you have a light shining in your face, blinding you. Someone is yelling at you but your mind is still in sleep-mode, so you only catch every other word. Words like “police,” “drugs” and “hands up.” You see them tossing something in the room but you can’t make out what it is. There’s a sudden bright flash of light and noises that knocks you back. There’s more yelling but your senses are dulled because of what was just thrown into your room, when suddenly you are on the ground with a force on your back. You feel the cold metal of handcuffs on your wrists, followed by being forcefully pulled up to stand. Your senses have come back to you and you see six men standing in your bedroom, decked out in military-like armor with weapons in each of their hands.

Confused, you ask the first and only sentence to them that night; “Why are you here?”

They respond with “Where is your cousin? He is wanted for dealing drugs. We were informed that he had been staying with you. Now, where is he?”

They give you a shove towards the doorway as the one who put you in handcuffs asks the questions. Before you can respond, you and the police officers hear the front door open. You knew it was your cousin. Your heart is beating as you here his footsteps ascend the stairs and all you could think of is why did he do this? Your cousin reaches the top of the stairs and freezes when he sees the scene before him. Before the police officers can react, he starts yelling at them to let you go. When they refuse, he advances towards them while reaching behind him to grab something from the back of his jeans.

BANG. He never even got to the police officer before he fell to the ground with a bullet in him. Time froze for you as the police officers start talking on their radios and pulling you out of your house and down the street to their cars, not normal police cars. They put you in the backseat and they drive off with you looking back at the house, thinking of your dead cousin’s body that was left to the devices of those you call policemeni.

The scene above is an imaginary scene created through different cases that have happened in drug searches. Some of these cases were in the film, Peace Officer, while others were from the American Liberties Civil Union data and case filesii.

Loftus 5

As of 2014, the police’s use of force and disconnection with their community has been a big issue in America. America has had these issues in the past, but the events at Ferguson were what made the issues of police force and police militarization come to light, and for politicians to want a solution to be found. The events at Ferguson is referring to the riots that appeared after the shooting of Michael Brown, an eighteen year-old African American male, on August 9, 2014iii. When news and information about the shooting broke out, the people of Ferguson started a protest on the West Florissant Avenueiv. The protest was a peaceful one, however some citizens saw the protest as an excuse for rioting, violence and looting. The riots got so bad that the Missouri governor had to call in the Missouri National Guard. Tension kept on building over the course of the weekend until it hit a boiling point in the weeks following the shootingv. People started getting restless and some people started to throw bottles and other objects at the policevi. The police’s response was to throw tear gas at them, aggravating the crowd even more and resulting in the violent protesters to raid a convenience store to throw objects at the policevii. The peaceful protestors tried to keep the tension down by creating a human-chain to separate the police and violent protestors, but did not succeedviii. The following Sunday evening (August 17th, 2014), the National Guard heard sounds that were similar to gunshots. In response, the National Guard threw tear gas canisters at a group of protestors and shot at the protestors with rubber bulletsixx. After the events in Ferguson, and the way that the police handled themselves has opened the minds of politicians, American citizens, and the world’s view of police militarization.

The roots of police militarization and force come from many different sources but one of them is a program created by the federal government to help the police, when it really only gave them more power. In 1997, the Department of Defense created the 1033 program; a program that gives local law enforcements military equipment. The 1033 program was created to fight the War on Drugs. The War on Drugs was a movement in the 1980s and 1990s, started by President Ronald Reaganxi, to end the use of drugs in the United States. The War on Drugs was handled through raids and harsh crackdowns on drug crimes, which became worse when military equipment was added with the 1033 programxii. The military equipment that is sent through the 1033 includes grenade launchers, grenades and other explosives, long-range acoustic devices, weaponized drones, military vehicles (like MRAPs or MineResistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, and military weapons, such as assault riflesxiii. The Department of Defense has spent over $5 billion dollars on the 1033 program since its inceptionxiv.

Loftus 6

While the information about the 1033 program has been around since its inception, the Ferguson riots in 2014 were what really set off the United States on a campaign to After the events at Ferguson in 2014, Representative Hank Johnson created the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act to put restrictions on the 1033 program. These restrictions involve getting rid of the 1033 program, creating a log chain to keep track of where the equipment goes, and to limit the military grade equipment sent to local law enforcementsxv. The Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act is currently being looked at by the Armed Forces Committee before it can move on to the House of Representatives, and then the Senatexvi. This paper’s main focus on the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act is the policy getting rid of the 1033 program’s “Use-It-or-LoseIt” clause. The “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause is a rule in the 1033 program, in which law enforcement must use the equipment that they receive in a year or else it will be taken awayxvii. By getting rid of the “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause, law enforcements are not allowed to use the equipment that they request for whatever they want, which mostly applies to the use of equipment on drug searches, which this paper focuses on.

The Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act has a various number of supporters. Hank Johnson is obviously the biggest supporter since he was the one to create the bill. He currently has forty-nine cosponsors in the House of Representatives, in which two are from Texas. He also has a number of organizations behind him, including American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Bill of Rights Committee and many othersxviii. The ACLU and the NAACP are big supporters of the bill. The ACLU’s office in Washington has written to the Armed Forces Committee about the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act, showing their support of the bill, while also giving their own opinions on what needs to be changed about the 1033 programxix. The NAACP’s president, Hilary Shelton, has been taking an active role in regards to the social problem. He has spoken at the Senate Committee of Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs regarding the oversight of military equipment and local law enforcementsxx.

On the opposing side of the bill, the Fraternal Order of Police is against the bill being passed. Chuck Canterbury, the president of the Fraternal Order of Police even wrote a letter to the Armed Forces Committee, the committee overlooking the bill before deciding to pass it on to Congress, stating how the Fraternal Order of Police does not support the bill and that the members do not want it to be passedxxi. Retired SWAT leaders, such as Charles “Sid” Heal and other retired police officers are against the bill being passed as well. Heal has

Loftus 7

been advocating that police use “non-lethal” weapons and has taken a permanent stance in regards to the controversies regarding police and the arguments. His stance is all about how police are not doing anything wrong, legally or morallyxxii. The opposing side of the bill hasn’t been very forth coming with their opinions and evidence regarding their arguments against the passing of the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act, which is shown while analyzing the critical aspect of the supporters’ and opposers’ arguments.

The two major sides that are arguing over the bill have different views on the issues that the bill is bringing forward. The first issue is whether or not it is legally possible to pass a bill that interferes with police funds. The side supporting the bill says that it is okay to pass this bill because the bill does not cut the funds completely, and that the police have their initial funds to work withxxiiixxiv . The supporting side also says that the police do not need all of the funds and equipment that they are receiving from the 1033 program. The opposing side of the bill argues that their departments need the funds and equipment that is given to them by the 1033 programxxv . Some officers, and several of my interviewees, have argued that law enforcement funding does not always cover the costs of the equipment they need after salaries and other costs have been calculated out for the year, however they do not have the evidence to prove thisxxvi.

However, Professor Brian Withrow of the Criminal Justice Department at Texas State University talked about what would happen if the 1033 were taken away. He said that the industries, who creates the equipment for the 1033 program and our military stationed in Afghanistan, would go to the law enforcements to sell their equipment because they will need to keep their stock up for their shareholders, and the law enforcements would buy whatever they could, and some of it could be worse then what they are receiving from the 1033 program because it is unregulatedxxvii. This issue, when looked at closely, does not have an ethical point that can be analyzed. The issue is too criteria based to form an ethical argument for either side, much less analyze in an ethical standpoint.

Another argument that has come forth is whether or not the bill is for the safety of the people. The argument over safety is more of an argument on terms. The opposing side of the bill feels that by taking away the equipment law enforcements receive from the 1033 program will be putting the police’s lives in danger, and thus, civilian lives. What the opposing side says is true for there is evidence that shows how civilians that commit crimes can gain the same type of equipment, flack jackets, bullet proof vests and assault rifles,

Loftus 8

which have been used against police officers. An example of this was a bank robbery turned shootout that occurred in North Hollywood in 1997xxviii. The robbers shot “1,100 armor-piercing bullets” and wore “reinforced military-grade body armor” xxix. In the end, only the two robbers died but six civilians and eleven officers were injured as a result of the shootingxxx. The supporting side of the bill argues that the bill is put in place to keep the civilians safe, and have the 1033 equipment regulatedxxxi . Ethically, the supporters’ of the bill have more of a grasp. This issue holds the communitarian social justice theory and the supporters of the bill hold arguments that fit more into the communitarian theory. The communitarian social justice theory focuses on the well being of the community as opposed to the well being of the individual or the socioeconomic welfare. Their arguments fit better due to the fact that the supporters are looking out for the equality and liberties of the people who have been affected by police brutality due to police militarizationxxxii .

Hank Johnson cites a case were a SWAT team entered a family’s home looking for a cousin who had connections to drugsxxxiii . During the operation, the SWAT team threw a flash bang grenade into a room where it landed a twoyear-old’s cribxxxiv . It went off in said crib and hurt the child immensely, however the SWAT team did not get convicted for itxxxv . An argument that has been brewing between the two sides of the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act is whether or not the War on Drugs needs to be fought. The supporting side of the bill says that the use of SWAT teams to fight the War on Drugs is access.

Professor Brian Withrow even went as far as to say that we lost the War on Drugs and he isn’t wrongxxxvi. Three states have already legalized marijuana and lawmakers are beginning to look into releasing people who were convicted on small drug crimes. Drugs are not going to go away, especially with the cartel knocking at our backdoor in Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Peter Kraska, a professor at Eastern Kentucky University and leading researcher on police militarization, has even stated that he doesn’t think it was wise to wage war on drugsxxxvii. Looking at what happened to the two-year-old, who was hit by a flash bang grenade, doesn’t that case show how pathetic we have become fighting the War on Drugs?

The opposing side of the argument says that these are still dangerous criminals that need to be dealt with that only SWAT teams can handle. An example of this would be a case that happened in Ogden, Utah. During a drug raid, an officer was shot and killed by an Army veteran, while five other officers were injuredxxxviii. Another professor from the Criminal Justice Department at Texas State University, Professor Tomas Mijares, says that the bill is interfering

Loftus 9

with previous court rulings. Professor Mijares is referring to the Downes vs.

The United States, a Supreme Court case that occurred following a plane hijacking by terrorists (not 9/11) and the FBI couldn’t fix the hostage situation.

Professor Mijares says that this case is the reason that the police need so many different SWAT teams and equipment. While Professor Mijares makes a point, the case is not regarding local law enforcement but the FBI, nor did he answer the question about drugs during our interviewxxxix .

The research and evidence show that the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act should be passed, however I do agree with several my interviews that more needs to be done. When I interview them, I asked how would it help for the law enforcements and the communities that they work in be able to mend the rift between them before another explosion, like Ferguson, happens. Several of my interviewers stated that civilians needed to realize that they have the power to control the police. The term “police militarization” is just a term that comes to people’s minds when they see how the police act like a military. The police gain a “militaristic,” or elitist, mindset where they believe that they hold more power than the people, which causes excessive force when the police feel like they aren’t being listened to and creates distrust with the communities they are suppose to be servingxl. To knock the police down a peg, civilians need to play an active role in keeping the police in line because their taxes are what are paying for their funding and salaries. Brian Flannery, a retired police officer who now works for the DEA, also said that the police needed to be more involved with the communities by talking to peoplexli. He did mention that the police are spread very thin and so it is harder for law enforcement to form these bonds.

When I went to the St. Edward’s University Black Student Alliance to speak, I told them at the end to not only spread word of the bill but to also get involved more with the police community. When asked how, I said to just talk with them at most. Other ways to get involved are to join the civilian police academy and work with police officers, as well as seeing what they do on a regular day. By doing this, civilians are showing police officers that they are interested in their jobs and, in a way, thanking them for what they have donexlii.

Another part of improving the social problem that needs to be considered is to make sure that the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act actually changes how police are run, or at least start the wave of policy-changing. Peter Kraska stated in his interview that situations like this have happened before, most recently in the 1960s, and the way that the government “fixed it” was

Â

Â

Loftus 10

through image improvement of the policexliii. Kraska makes good points about the fact that nothing will be done unless the people and politicians take an interest in policies actually being changed, instead of just an image that could go away in a few years.

As some closing thoughts, I came into this paper with a neutral standpoint on this issue. I am the granddaughter of a police officer, which gives me bias but I also have a strong sense of right from wrong. I knew going into this paper that the police were in the wrong, but a little part of me thought that their arguments would give the police a good reason to be committing the acts that they have been doing over the years. I was wrong. The side that opposed the bill did not have enough evidence to support their arguments. I think I wanted to see what my grandfather and great-grandfather were doing as something that is honorable. The police are still honorable, in a sense, just not to the extent that they were back before the police held all of this military grade equipment. Back when they had only a gun and their wits about themxliv. The research that I looked through really did shift my perspective, more than I would have thought.

Loftus 11

End Notes

i This

point of view towards the end is reflecting the feelings that people feel towards police officers after situations like these. Refer to Peace Officer for more details on how someone feels after. ii Since there are numerous cases of police brutality that have occurred since the start of the paper, I have only chosen to use a few as a guideline to my opening. iii For more information, see Davey et al. iv See Buchanan et al. v See Buchanan et al. vi See Davey et al. vii See Davey et al. viii See Davey et al. ix See Davey et al. x The account of what happened in Ferguson is a paraphrase of what is in Davey’s article with some of my words. I was just trying to get the facts across, and I tried to word it differently. xi Refer to Submission 4, Peter Kraska Interview Transcript, pg. 54-56 xii Refer to Submission 4, Peter Kraska Interview Transcript, pg. 54-56 xiii See “Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police” xiv See Defense Logistics Agency xv See “Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police” xvi See “H.R. 1321” xvii See “Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police” xviii See “Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police” xix See Macdonald-Bell and Bennett xx See Shelton xxi See Canterbury xxii See Heal xxiii See “H.R 1321” xxiv It is also to be noted that it has never been strictly said that the policy would cut into police funds. The policy itself is only covering the equipment given to law enforcements. The opposing side made the argument about it cutting into funds, and equipment/office supplies that the police receive from

Loftus 12

the 1033 program. For more details on what is being sent to law enforcement refer to Musgrave. xxv See Dudley xxvi See Dudley and Charles “Sid” Heal’s letter to CQ Researcher xxvii Refer to Submission 4, Interview with Brian Withrow, pg. 48-50 xxviii See Orlov xxix See Orlov xxx See Orlov xxxi See “Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police” xxxii For more information, refer to Submission 3, Issue #2, pg. 43 xxxiii See “Representative Hank Johnson Addresses Police Militarization in HASC Hearing” xxxiv See “Representative Hank Johnson Addresses Police Militarization in HASC Hearing” xxxv See “Representative Hank Johnson Addresses Police Militarization in HASC Hearing” xxxvi See Submission 4, Interview with Brian Withrow, pg. 48-50 xxxvii Refer to Submission 4, Peter Kraska Interview Transcript, pg. 54-56 xxxviii See Carlisle xxxix For more information, refer to Submission 4, Interview with Tomas Mijares, pg. 52-53 xl Refer to Submission 4, Interview with Brian Withrow, pg. 48-50 xli Refer to Submission 4, Interview with Brian Flannery, pg. 50-52 xlii For more information, refer to my Civic Engagement in Submission 4 on pg.

57 xliii Refer to Submission 4, Peter Kraska Interview Transcript, pg. 54-56 xliv Reference from Brian Flannery Interview, see Submission 4, pg. 50-52

Loftus 13

Works Cited ACLU. “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing.”

ACLU Website. ACLU Foundation, 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Buchanan, Larry et al. “What Happened in Ferguson?.” New York Times Website. The New York Times Company, 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

Canterbury, Chuck. “Letter to Armed Forces Committee.” Fraternal Order of Police Website. Fraternal Order of Police, 3 Oct. 2014. Web. 8 Sept. 2015.

Carlisle, Nate et al. “Ogden officer killed in firefight ‘doing exactly what he wanted to do.’” The Salt Lake Tribune Website. The Salt Lake Tribune, 6 Jan. 2012. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

Davey, Monica and et al. “National Guard Troops in Ferguson Fail to Quell Disorder.” The New York Times Website. The New York Times Company, 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Aug. 2015.

Defense Logistics Agency. “Fiscal Year Budget Estimates 2016.” Department of Defense Website. Department of Defense Logistics Agency, Feb. 2015.

Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

Flannery, Brian. Personal interview. 16 Oct. 2015.

Heal, Charles “Sid”. "Letter to CQ Researcher about Police Tactics.” CQ Researcher 12 Dec. 2014: 1033-60. Web. 9 Sept. 2015.

“H.R. 1232.” Congress.gov. Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 3 Sept. 2015.

Kraska, Peter B. "Militarization And Policing—Its Relevance To 21St Century Police." Policing: A Journal Of Policy & Practice 1.4 (2007): 501. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

Kraska, Peter B. Personal interview via email and audio. 15 Nov. 2015.

Macleod-Bell, Michael W. and Bennett, Kanya. “ACLU Letter to NASC re 1033 Program in NDAA FY16.” American Civil Liberties Union Website. ACLU Washington Legislative Office, 28 Apr. 2015. Web. 8 Sept. 2015.

Mijaries, Tomas. Personal interview. 21 Oct. 2015.

Loftus 14

Musgrave, Shawn et al. “The Pentagon Finally Details its Weapons-for-Cops Giveaway.” The Marshall Project. The Marshall Project, 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

Orlov, Rick. “North Hollywood shootout, 15 years later.” Los Angles Daily News Website. LA Daily News, 27 February 2012. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

Peace Officer. Dir. Scott Christopherson and Brad Barber. Peace Officer LLC, 2015.

“Representative Hank Johnson Addresses Police Militarization in HASC Hearing.” House of Representatives’ Hank Johnson Official Website. Press Release, 20 Nov. 2014. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

“Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police.” House of Representatives’ Hank Johnson Official Website. Press Release, 4 Mar. 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

Shelton, Hilary O. “Testimony of Hilary O. Shelton Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on ‘Oversight of Federal Programs for Equipping State and Local Law Enforcement.” NAACP, 9 Sept. 2014. Web. 9 Sept. 2015.

Withrow, Brian. Personal interview. 14 Oct. 2015.

Loftus 15

Bibliography “About ACLU.” American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU, 2015. Web. 3 Sept. 2015.

“About the Department of Defense.” Department of Defense Website.

Department of Defense, 27 Aug. 2015. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

“About Me - Full Biography.” House of Representatives’ Hank Johnson Official Website. n.p., n.d. Web. 3 Sept. 2015.

ACLU. “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing.”

ACLU Website. ACLU Foundation, 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

“About the Department of Defense.” Department of Defense Website.

Department of Defense, 27 Aug. 2015. Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

Andreas, Peter, and Richard Price. “From War Fighting to Crime Fighting: Transforming the American National Security State”. International Studies Review 3.3 (2001): 31–52. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

Buchanan, Larry et al. “What Happened in Ferguson?.” The New York Times Website. The New York Times Company, 13 Aug. 2015. Web. 3 Dec. 2015.

Canterbury, Chuck. “Letter to Armed Forces Committee.” Fraternal Order of Police Website. Fraternal Order of Police, 3 Oct. 2014. Web. 8 Sept. 2015.

Davey, Monica and et al. “National Guard Troops in Ferguson Fail to Quell Disorder.” The New York Times Website. The New York Times Company, 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Aug. 2015.

Davey, Monica and Fernandaz, Manny. “Security in Ferguson Is Tightened After Night of Unrest.” The New York Times Website. The New York Times Company, 25 Nov. 2015. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

Defense Logistics Agency. “Fiscal Year Budget Estimates 2016.” Department of Defense Website. Department of Defense Logistics Agency, Feb. 2015.

Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

Dudley, James I. “Why Police Agencies are Well Served by the 1033 Program.”

Policeone.com. Policeone.com, 23 Oct. 2014. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

“H.R. 1232.” Congress.gov. Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 3 Sept. 2015.

Loftus 16

Heal, Charles “Sid”. "Letter to CQ Researcher about Police Tactics.” CQ Researcher 12 Dec. 2014: 1033-60. Web. 9 Sept. 2015.

Kraska, Peter B. "Militarization And Policing—Its Relevance To 21St Century Police." Policing: A Journal Of Policy & Practice 1.4 (2007): 501. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

Macleod-Bell, Michael W. and Bennett, Kanya. “ACLU Letter to NASC re 1033 Program in NDAA FY16.” American Civil Liberties Union Website. ACLU Washington Legislative Office, 28 Apr. 2015. Web. 8 Sept. 2015.

Musgrave, Shawn et al. “The Pentagon Finally Details its Weapons-for-Cops Giveaway.” The Marshall Project. The Marshall Project, 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

Orlov, Rick. “North Hollywood shootout, 15 years later.” Los Angles Daily News Website. LA Daily News, 27 February 2012. Web. 7 Dec. 2015.

Peace Officer. Dir. Scott Christopherson and Brad Barber. Peace Officer LLC, 2015.

“Representative Hank Johnson Addresses Police Militarization in HASC Hearing.” House of Representatives’ Hank Johnson Official Website. Press Release, 20 Nov. 2014. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

“Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police.” House of Representatives’ Hank Johnson Official Website. Press Release, 4 Mar. 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

Ruppert, Madison. “The Pentagon’s 1033 Program giving Free Military Equipment to Police Departments Around the U.S.” Activist Post. Activist Post, 6 Dec. 2011. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

Shelton, Hilary O. “Testimony of Hilary O. Shelton Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on ‘Oversight of Federal Programs for Equipping State and Local Law Enforcement.” NAACP, 9 Sept. 2014. Web. 9 Sept. 2015.

Previous Submissions

Loftus 17

Submission 1

Loftus 18

Loftus 19

Caitlin Loftus Professor Eakman Capstone 15 September 2015 Foundational Research Outline I. Topic Question: Should the Armed Forces Committee overturn the 1033 program by passing the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act in order to stop the police’s use of excessive force and disconnection from the community?

II. Underlying Social Problems: A. Social Problems: The social problems that mainly steam from police militarization are police brutality and the police’s disconnection to the community. As police become more militarized, they gain an elitist mindset and believe that the police are better than the civilians they are protecting.

B. Scope of the Social Problems: The power that the police have has grown since the 1980s. Police preliminary units have shot up since the 1980s and by the end of the 1990s, 89% of small town law enforcements (according to Kraska towns with around 25-50,000 people in it) have a PPU, which is double from the 1980s (Kraska 506). These preliminary units sprung up more because the government started the “War on Drugs” campaign in the 1980s, which ultimately lead to the 1033 program being created in 1997 causing more power to be transferred to the police via weapons and equipment.

III. Proponent Stakeholders A. Proponents’ Position B. General pro stakeholders (use qualifiers) 1. Equality protestors 2. Minorities 3. Civilians C. Specific pro stakeholders 1. Hank Johnson

Loftus 20

2. American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) 3. National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) IV. Proponents’ Issues, Arguments, Evidence, and Plans/Actions A. Issue 1: Cost 1. Argument: By agreeing to pass this bill, stakeholders argue that the program is spending too much on equipment for no charge.

B. Issue 2: Increasing Fighting the War on Drugs 1. Argument: The proponent stakeholders said yes to passing the bill because they believe that SWAT teams are being used for small drug raids, which is wrong for the kind of equipment (the uniforms, weapons, and other equipment) they hold in their possession that is to be used for hostage situations only.

C. Issue 3: Safety 1. Argument: Stakeholders who want to pass the bill argue that the equipment and weapons are not suitable for what law enforcement does on a day-to-day basis.

D. Examples of Pro Plans/Actions 1. Johnson is gaining cosponsors in the House of Representatives.

2. ACLU is lobbying to get the bill passed to the House and to the Senate.

3. NAACP is arguing that the funding needs to end by making testimonies.

V. Examples of Proponents’ Values (i.e. self-reliance, security, equality, liberty) A. Pro Stakeholder Values: Equality B. Pro Stakeholder Values: Liberty C. Pro Stakeholder Values: Security VI. Opponent Stakeholders

Loftus 21

A. Opponents’ Position B. General con stakeholders (use qualifiers) 1. Retired SWAT leaders 2. Military Weapon Industry 3. Active Police Forces C. Specific con stakeholders 1. Fraternal Order of Police 2. Department of Defense 3. Charles “Sid” Heal VII. Opponents’ Issues, Arguments, Evidence, and Plans/Actions A. Issue 1: Cost 1. Argument: Stakeholders have said no to the bill passing because of the cost it would do to the police departments.

B. Issue 2: Fighting the War on Drugs 1. Argument: The 1033 program was created for the War on Drugs in the first place. Some retired cops believe we need SWAT teams for all different reasons (hostage situations, drug searches/raids).

C. Issue 3: Safety 1. Argument: Stakeholders have said no to the bill have stated that the police also need protection and the 1033 program gives them the protection they may need for different situations.

D. Examples of Opponents’ Plans/Actions 1. The Fraternal Order of Police are lobbying to not have the policy passed by sending letters to the Special Armed Forces Committee.

2. Heal is voicing his opinion on the matter and trying to get the view shown that the weapons are non-lethal and talk about the cost of what would happen if the bill was passed.

Loftus 22

3. Some have stated their opinions in articles and given examples of why police officers need the 1033 program as it is, while some have moved to a middle ground in the controversy.

VIII. Examples of Opponents’ Values (i.e. self-reliance, security, equality, liberty) A. Con Stakeholder: Values: Security B. Con Stakeholder: Values: Justice C. Con Stakeholder: Values: Efficiency IX. Definitions/Explanations: A. Police Militarization: Police militarization is when the B. MRAPs: Mine Resistant, Ambushed-Protected vehicles.

C. 1033 Program: A program introduced by the Department of Defense in the 1990s that gives leftover military funds and equipment to U.S. law enforcements.

X. Limits: My paper will focus more on the police brutality aspect. I will mention hints of racial profiling as well, but not as much as police brutality. I will also only be focusing on the “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause and how it plays into the War on Drugs and SWAT team use for drug searches, connecting that to police brutality.

Loftus 23

Annotated Bibliography

“About ACLU.” American Civil Liberties Union. ACLU, 2015. Web. 3 Sept. 2015.

The American Civil Liberties Union, or ACLU, is a non-profit organization that wants to defend each American’s civil right, and their equality. This site is credible because they have a BBB Accredited Charity stamp and as I was going through sites, such as CQ, I found that the ACLU was mentioned a lot, even in my Google searches, this organization came up a lot.

The About ACLU page shows a lot about what the ACLU stands for. The ACLU fights to get help for people; that is their main thesis, or objective, with the site, and this page goes into a brief depth for people wanting a quick understanding of what they do, with a little bit of history. They have staffed attorneys that people can use, as well as volunteer attorneys. The group started, according to this page, during the 1920s and has evolved into a major non-profit organization today. The page also talks about how they are willing to defend everyone’s rights, and that includes extreme groups such as the Ku Klux Klan. They state that the most extreme groups are the ones that feel like their freedom is feeling threatened. The page also talks about how they have legislative offices in D.C. that help push laws that they see for the good of the people of America as a whole. These lobbyists appear before the Supreme Court to appeal when it comes to these laws that they want pushed or they want not passed because they find that those laws violate citizens’ freedoms.

I plan on using this page to get information about ACLU for my outline, and for my paper in general. It lets me look at what issues and values they hold for the values section of my outline and my paper.

“About the Department of Defense.” Department of Defense Website.

Department of Defense, 27 Aug. 2015. Web. 10 September 2015.

The Department of Defense is who is funding the 1033 program, thus funding the police forces and giving them their equipment. There site is credible because it is up to date and well organized, and it is a government website.

Loftus 24

The About the DoD page is very simple. It talks about what the DoD does, which is to give funding and other means to the different parts of defense that the United States has, such as the military sanctions and the law enforcement. The DoD is in the Pentagon and is one of our oldest and biggest government departments. The page talks about how the department gives benefits to retired veterans and their families, along with how many active soldiers and civilian staff they have. The page also has the mission statement of the Department and the site, which is to ensure the U.S.’s security via military force and that the site can give out the information that can be viewed by everyone.

I plan on using this section to get the values that the DoD has, which is mainly the security of our country; especially against terrorism.

“About Me - Full Biography.” House of Representatives’ Hank Johnson Official Website. n.p., n.d. Web. 3 Sept. 2015.

Hank Johnson was one of the pro specific stakeholders that I researched first, since he was the one who was the main sponsor of the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act. His site is a reliable source because it is a government website that is very well updated and maintained. The main thesis of Johnson’s biography is to show people that visit it his values and some of the more important issues he believes are worth fighting.

Hank Johnson is “one of the most effective Democrats in Congress,” Johnson has set his career on making the playing field equal for all Americans. Johnson is a part of the Armed Services Committee, the same committee that he presented the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act. He has also filed and sponsored two other bills regarding police and police brutality (Police Accountability Act and the Grand Jury Act) when police shooting black men began to rise up. John was a criminal lawyer for 27 years, followed by careers as a magistrate judge and a county commissioner. Under the issues page, there are press releases of Johnson’s thoughts on issues.

I plan on using this information to show why Johnson is pro stakeholder, and to show what his values are in regards to the controversy at hand.

Loftus 25

Canterbury, Chuck. “Letter to Armed Forces Committee.” Fraternal Order of Police Website. Fraternal Order of Police, 3 Oct. 2014. Web. 8 Sept. 2015.

The Fraternal Order of Police made it difficult to find out if they were opposed to the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act. However the site is trustworthy because they are very upfront about what they believe in and they keep there data pretty up-to-date. This letter, written by the national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, showed that they are opposed to the policy.

The letter opens up stating that the Order is not in favor of the bill.

Canterbury states that by passing the bill, the law enforcement would have a limit amount of equipment each year, both for State and local.

Canterbury includes that the law enforcement gains the equipment after having filled out an application, stating why such equipment is needed.

He says that the program is not militarizing the law enforcement, but instead “provides equipment that the DoD (Department of Defense) has bought but cannot use.” He goes on to explain that the equipment provided by the DoD helps keep citizens and police officers safe in situations that need them (referring to the MRAPs and SWAT issued equipment).

I will use this letter in my outline and paper to show why the Fraternal Order of Police opposes the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act.

Defense Logistics Agency. “Fiscal Year Budget Estimates 2016.” Department of Defense Website. Department of Defense Logistics Agency, Feb. 2015.

Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

The Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act mentions a program 1033 provided by the Department of Defense (DoD). I checked the website and found the 2016 Fiscal Year estimated budget that the Department thinks will be needed for the following year. This site is credible because it is a government website and if they were to forge their documents, it would be taken down immediately and there would be an investigation.

I looked through the government document and found the budget plan for the 1033 program and how much local and state law enforcements would be receiving for their programs. The entire report goes over the

Loftus 26

number and what each department or program would be getting, which includes both funding and equipment. 1033 program is mentioned in the Law Enforcement Support Office (LESO) and it talks about how this department would be receiving $2.470 million in funds and that more than 8,000 police/law enforcements participate in this program. The report also states that the 1033 program has transferred $5.1 billion since the program started during the war on drugs and the war on terror.

I will use this report as evidence to show how much is being spent in the 1033 program. I will also use this to show that the DoD is an opponent to the policy.

Dudley, James I. “Why Police Agencies are Well Served by the 1033 Program.”

Policeone.com. Policeone.com, 23 Oct. 2014. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

James I. Dudley is a retired Deputy Chief in the San Francisco Bay Area.

This piece’s main purpose is to give the cops’ view on police militarization. It is opinionated but it is also cited on the information he is criticizing.

Dudley’s piece goes into detail on how the 1033 program works with cops and address questions that people have had about the program and police. He says that most of law enforcement funding goes into salaries and benefits for the officers and employees. He says that the 1033 program gives them more than they need but it is better to have more than you need than none at all. He gives examples of situations where the civilians they are arresting have had just as much military equipment and are shooting at the cops. He claims this is why they need Kevlar protection and MRAPs, for those types of situations. Dudley goes on to give a compromise and even side with the fact that the program should be more monitored but that the police still gain the equipment they need for certain situations.

I will use this information to show that some police officers want to keep the 1033 program but make a compromise. I will also use this to show the police officer’s view on police militarization.

“H.R. 1232.” Congress.gov. Library of Congress, n.d. Web. 3 Sept. 2015.

Loftus 27

To write about the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act, I had to read the actual policy that was presented to the Armed Forces Committee.

Congress.gov was a great site for people to see the text of bills that they want to learn more about because it gives the people all of the information they need. Congress.gov is also reliable because it is a site under the Library of Congress, which keeps a record of everything. The sites main focus is to keep people informed and to give them the information in which they seek, which is what I will be doing with H.R. 1232 (The Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act).

The bill introduces under what grounds do they think this bill will be stopping. The bill states the amount of money used in giving the police forces “military merchandise.” They also state what is considered the “military merchandise” and how none of it was charged during 2011. The bill then goes on to state what they would change so that the funds that they find are being wasted can be minimized for the rare cases that they are need.

I will use the information provide from this site to talk about what the policy plans on doing if it were passed. I will also use it to keep an eye on the track of the bill, in case it makes any progress during the writing of my Capstone, or if any new cosponsors join.

Heal, Charles “Sid”. "Letter to CQ Researcher about Police Tactics.” CQ Researcher 12 Dec. 2014: 1033-60. Web. 9 Sept. 2015.

Charles “Sid” Heal is a retired SWAT leader and a writer of tactics; he has several books on the matter. He is apart of the National Association for Tactical Officers and is the president of the Californian Association for Tactical Officers. He has also been said to be an expert on non-lethal weapons and tactics.

The main point of this piece is Charles Heal’ opinion on the controversy at hand. The focus will be the letter that Charles “Sid” Heal wrote to the site about police tactics and militarization. In his letter, under the con side, he states that what one group of cops did should not reflect other cops. He states that even calling the weapons and equipment that the police departments receive as “militaristic” is like calling something ugly because you do not like it. He goes on to talk about how the 1033 program is reviewed yearly and that if the police did not have the funds

Loftus 28

or equipment from this program then the police would have to go and get costly equipment from civilian weapon shops/manufactures. Heal says that the police were actually the first to criticize the movement, known as “War on Terror,” that was forced upon them after 9/11. He says that when the “War on Terror” had started, the police only had equipment meant to fight the “War on Crime” (or War on Drugs, I am guessing). Heal wraps up his piece by saying that the equipment is not used against any particular race, only the people that show criminal behavior, and that people are oversimplifying the matter at hand.

I will use this piece to help show Heal’s side as a specific stakeholder and what his values and issues are as an opponent of the policy.

Kraska, Peter B. "Militarization And Policing—Its Relevance To 21St Century Police." Policing: A Journal Of Policy & Practice 1.4 (2007): 501. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

Peter B. Kraska is professor at Eastern Kentucky University and a Senior Research Fellow. He has been researching militarization of police since the 1980s. He is a credible source because he is the one who researched his material (and others of his field for reference) for the past 30 years and has not been deemed unreliable. He is a primary source due to his research.

Kraska’s article talks about police militarization in an academic form. He dives into the fact that the police, since its existence, have been militarized. However he says that it was since law enforcement stem from the military. He does say however, that the police should not militarize more than they should. Kraska breaks down militarization into four categories: material, cultural, organizational, and operational. Kraska goes on to talk about the number of police paramilitary units (PPUs) and SWAT team numbers deployed over the 1900s and early 2000s, which was an increase (89% of police stations had PPUs of towns greater than 25 people residing in it). Kraska also talks about police views on police militarization. He says that only a certain part of civilian police appeal to the SWAT and its culture. Kraska also states that the SWAT teams view themselves as elite police. Kraska’s data says that there is 45,000 SWAT deploys yearly (this is in 2007). Kraska goes on to talk about different cases of police militarization over the years.

Loftus 29

I will use this source as evidence to show that the police have been militarizing over the years. I will also use this for definitions and terminology.

Macleod-Bell, Michael W. and Bennett, Kanya. “ACLU Letter to NASC re 1033 Program in NDAA FY16.” American Civil Liberties Union Website. ACLU Washington Legislative Office, 28 Apr. 2015. Web. 8 Sept. 2015.

The ACLU writes letters to Congress on certain bills that they support.

They do this for the legislative policies that they are for and against. The organization wrote a letter for the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act in support of it being passed.

The letter is addressed to Mac Thornberry, the Chairman of the NASC, and a Ranking member named Adam Smith, with the rest of the members of the committee mention in the cc. The letter talks about 1033 program, the program that the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act is trying to make changes to. The letter praises what the committee has done to make 1033 program more accessible for the public. The letter states that more change needs to be made, which brings up the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act as a solution. The authors of the letter then add in their own “reform priorities” that go hand in hand with Johnson’s policy. These include no transfer of MRAPs, eliminating the requirement of law enforcement having to use the military weapons and equipment they are given within a year upon gaining them, and a report by the Secretary of Defense that states all of the annual accounts regarding transfers of military weapons and equipment.

I will use this letter to show the ACLU’s backing of the policy as a proponent. I will also use this to sight the 1033 program, and how it is mentioned by all of the sources.

“Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police.” House of Representatives’ Hank Johnson Official Website. Press Release, 4 Mar. 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

The main purpose of this page is to release a statement to the press and public that Hank Johnson was trying to get the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement to pass when it did not the previous year. The press release

Loftus 30

goes over what the bill will do to the 1033 program. The bill will prevent the transfer of military equipment, such as weaponized drones, military weapons, grenade launchers, MRAPs, and other military equipment. The release also discloses that the bill will introduce a chain of account so that the military equipment does not get misplaced or misused. The bill will also eliminate the 1-year requirement rule and have the equipment used as necessary and not just for convenience. Johnson has his opinion stated that our founding fathers would not want our streets patrolled by the military, which is why he is trying to get the bill passed. The press release also shows who is cosponsoring the bill and supporting organizations.

I will use this to show the values that Johnson holds and the summarized information on what the bill is truly doing.

Ruppert, Madison. “The Pentagon’s 1033 Program giving Free Military Equipment to Police Departments Around the U.S.” Activist Post. Activist Post, 6 Dec. 2011. Web. 17 Sept. 2015.

Madison Ruppert is a contributing writer for the activist post, and is owner/operator of the End the Lie alternate news and analysis database.

While this post is in his point of view, I like that I gain a look at what a protestor and citizen views regarding the 1033 program.

Ruppert’s entire article is discussing the 1033 program and what was known about it back in 2011. During this time, as is stated in the article, people had found out that the 1033 program was giving over $500 million in leftover military equipment and weapons to the police departments all across the United States. Ruppert’s article talks about how the 1033 program could lead to Martial law and the military taking over the country. He then goes on to talking about why police have the weapons by going into the background of the program, followed by citing what different police chiefs and SWAT team leaders have said on the matter.

I will use this article to show where the civilians and equality protesters fall on the matter. The article also talks about which equipment is mainly used, which will be useful. I will also use it to determine what the Department of Defense has said on the issue at the time.

Loftus 31

Shelton, Hilary O. “Testimony of Hilary O. Shelton Before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs on ‘Oversight of Federal Programs for Equipping State and Local Law Enforcement.” NAACP, 9 Sept. 2014. Web. 9 Sept. 2015.

The NAACP is a big non-profit organization that supports colored people and their rights. They are a trusted source due to their work and reputation. This document of Hilary Shelton’s testimony, which is downloadable, on the NAACP website is trusted due to the fact that it has the NAACP seal and there are footnotes at the bottom of the pages with sources.

Hilary Shelton is appealing to the Senate Committee because of the use of military grade weapons on the police forces. The testimony starts out with Shelton giving a brief history of why the police use such weapons.

He talks about how it was suppose to be for a short while in the late1980s and early 1990s to fight the “War on Drugs.” However, the transfer of equipment did not end and 1033 program came into being, which is how the police get the military grade equipment today. Shelton goes on to discuss how this program, along with other ones such as JAG, are given to the police to fight drugs and to counter terrorism but there is no proof that they are helping. He says that for the departments to get the funding or more, they need to catch more drug-dealers and the likes of them.

Shelton also brings up that the ways that the equipment is being distributed and used is based on race. He then ties this in with Ferguson and the shooting of Michael Brown, where he talks about how the people were peaceful (this account was taken by many who reported on it) but the police went at them with military weapons and equipment that, Shelton says, were not needed. Shelton ends his testimony by stating that the NAACP would recommend that the local and state law enforcements receive non-lethal equipment and weapons. They do not ask that the 1033 program be removed but to be changed so that there is no military weapons at the disposal for flawed reasons (War on Drugs, War on Terrorism, protests, etc.)

I will use this testimony to show that the NAACP is a proponent for the passing of the policy and to show that minorities and equal rights advocates are general stakeholders for the proponent side.

Submission 2

Loftus 32

Loftus 33

Caitlin Loftus Professor Eakman Capstone 23 September 2015

Submission Two Introduction My Capstone project is about police militarization, which is a major controversy and social problem in the United States. The 1033 program funded by the Department of Defense has fueled police militarization. The program basically gives the leftover funds and military equipment, including weapons, to the U.S. law enforcement. After the Ferguson riots, which showcased these funds and equipment, the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act was introduced and did not pass in 2014, but has since been reintroduced this year. Ferguson showed the police brutality that has come hand-in-hand with police militarization, as well as how disconnected police are to the communities that they serve. My Capstone project question is: Should the Armed Forces Committee overturn the 1033 program by passing the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act in order to stop the police’s use of excessive force and disconnection from the community? My focus will be on the 1033 program’s “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause and the idea of the police still fighting the War on Drugs. My project will dig deeper into the issue and come to a solution on whether or not the bill should be allowed to pass.

Exigence The topic of stopping police militarization is important at this time in the United States due to how much federal money is being spent on 1033 Program and the way the police use it. Since the program was created almost two decades ago, the Department of Defense (DoD) has used over $5 billion (Defense Logistics Agency 281). Some claim that the equipment and funds are not taxed or the law enforcements don’t have to pay the DoD back. Some of the equipment used is MRAPs and weapons. Such equipment was seen in Ferguson when the police were trying to stop the riots that were happening.

However the police were against rioters who were becoming out of control by throwing bottles at police officers. However, things became worse when on

Loftus 34

August 17, police heard firebombs and gunshots coming from the crowd and responded with tear gas and rubber bullets. Ferguson at this time was also under 12 am – 5 am curfew and the Missouri National Guard was in place at Ferguson. All of what was happening in Ferguson was plastered across social media, which shows how our technology shows the different sides of what happens. Ferguson brought up the issue of what was happening with our police and the equipment they can get their hands on. We had never really seen anything like it until this happened, at least not to the extent we saw at Ferguson. Ferguson showed how much of a controversy the topic of police militarization was, due to the fact that no one knows what had really happened during the Michael Brown shooting on August 9, 2014 and there had been different reports about his autopsy (Davey). The Ferguson riots helped bring forward an issue that has been growing and has helped shed light on what needs to be fixed. However, Ferguson was not the only important issue that has come forward through police militarization. Other important issues have been building around police militarization. ACLU has been questioning whether or not police should be fighting the War on Drugs or not, and have extensive research to show how brutal the police SWAT teams are when issues involve drugs and how the police use the equipment they receive from the 1033 program to for drug raids so they can get past the “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause, so the police could keep whatever equipment they want. These issues will be highlighted more in my final submission.

Key Terms The terms listed below are taken from various sources that can be found on my annotated bibliography.

•

• • • •

Police militarization: a term to define the change in culture and way of police, in which the police gain more of a militaristic mindset.

1033 Program: The program that gives law enforcement the military equipment and weapons, and remaining military funding.

Department of Defense: DoD, the government department that started the 1033 program.

American Civil Liberties Union: ACLU, one of my proponent stakeholders that is lobbying to have the bill passed.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People: NAACP, one of my proponent stakeholders, they have stated their view to have it passed and have talked to the Armed Services Committee.

• •

Loftus 35

MRAPs: Mine Resistant, Ambush-Protected Vehicles Ferguson Protests: The peaceful protests that started after Michael Brown was shot and killed by a cop. The protests later became riots and the police brought in military equipment and weapons with rubber bullets as ammunition.

Scope I am going to be including different issues that came out of Ferguson. I will cover police brutality a little bit (just from what was seen in Ferguson) and I will be talking about racial profiling, however it will be minimal to none at all.

I will mainly be covering police militarization and the events that come with it (situations that they need the equipment and the instances that they don’t need it but they use it). I won’t focus on cop cams because cop cams are more in focus on police brutality on a daily-basis. I might mention Eric Garner, for his death came right after Michael Brown’s but it also focuses on police brutality and not militarization. Michael Brown’s death might have happened because of racial profiling and police brutality, which is why I will mention it for that case only. I will also focus on situations that cops have been killed in the line of duty and show that there might be a need for the equipment they have (for the opponents’ view only).

Narrative* The shot heard around the world. Over one year ago, Michael Brown, an eighteen-year-old African American, was shot and killed by an officer. This young man’s death shook the small town of Ferguson, Missouri. The young man’s death became a sign that something needed to be done, for he was not the first teenage African American man to be killed by someone with a gun and power. The town started out with peaceful protests, chanting about how Michael Brown was wronged, while others took a more violent method. Riots erupted across the city, and people started to loot and damage the town stores and hurt people. The Missouri governor had the police force decked out in military gear and called in the Missouri National Guard. Both forces had military outfits and equipment, which included armed vehicles, rubber bullets and tear gas. All of these weapons were used on the people when the cops thought they heard firebombs and gunfire (Davey). The use of these types of equipment shocked America.

Loftus 36

About a month after the riots, House Representative Hank Johnson introduced a bill called Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act. The bill did not pass in 2014, so he reintroduced it in 2015 (“Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police”). Johnson wants this bill to pass so that things could never get as bad as they did in Ferguson. The Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act goes after a program called the 1033 Program that was passed in the 1990s by the Department of Defense, or DoD, to help fight the war on drugs, and later, the war on terror. 1033 Program, in basic form, sends U.S. law enforcement the leftover military funds and equipment, which includes weapons. Since the program’s inception, the program has sent over $5 billion to law enforcement without tax (Defense Logistics Agency 281).

They also have a rule, which Johnson’s bill wants to revise, in which they have a year to use the funds and equipment, and if they don’t use it then they get less next year. The policy will also make sure that the program does not send equipment that is not needed for the situations that law enforcements may have to face, such as militarized drones and explosives. The policy will also introduce a chain of equipment that shows who has what when they receive their equipment from the program, this is so the equipment is not lost or hidden and is held accounted for (“Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police”).

The bill holds support from ACLU and the NAACP (“Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police”), as well as minorities, equal rights activists and civilians that have experienced police militarization, as well as a number or politicians. These groups value equality, liberty and security for all of American civilians. Those opposed to the policy include the Fraternal Order of Police (Canterbury 1), Charles “Sid” Heal (Heal), and the Department of Defense. Retired SWAT leaders and officers (but not all) are opposed, along with military weapons and equipment manufacturers, and active police forces. This side’s values are the same as the proponent’s side but they are more focused on the police. Both sides share equal arguments over the same thing. The biggest issue is cost. The pro-side of the police argue that the 1033 Program gives too much to the law enforcements, much more than they believe is needed need. The opposing side argues that the funds and equipment is beneficial to the law enforcement because they do not have much in the funding after paying for salaries and benefits (Dudley). The second argument is the issue of whether or not the police are increasing in militarization.

Proponents’ side believes the police are militarizing while the other side doesn’t believe so and that the opposing side is taking it out of proportion (Heal). The final argument is over the issue of safety. The proponent side views the military

Loftus 37

equipment as not suitable for day-to-day use and the equipment is not used properly in situations, while the opposing side views that the police needs the weapons to go against criminals who have weapons (Canterbury 1).

Both sides are taking a stand on their views. ACLU has written to the Armed Forces Committee (Macleod-Bell and Bennett 1), who is currently looking over the document, and have done their own research on the use of SWAT teams in America, which includes data about the raids and things to take into account such as race and state (ACLU 1-90). There has also been research founded that has supported the pro side of the argument by a Kentucky professor named Peter Kraska, who has been researching police militarization since the 1980s and 1990s (Kraska). The Fraternal Order of Police has also written to the Armed Forces Committee (Canterbury 1). Charles “Sid” Heal has also been voicing his opinion on the matter, along with other cops (Heal). The NAACP has gone and testified about the subject of police militarization (Shelton 1-8) to various committees after Ferguson. The Department of Defense has stayed hushed but released their fiscal yearly plan for 2016 in February and had the amount they think was needed for the program on the report, showing that they believe it will still be in effect next year (Defense Logistics Agency 281).

This is the basic explaining of what is happening with my argument and these are just the facts. In my next submission I will go over the morals of both sides as I make my conclusions on the answer. *This narrative is just stating the some of the facts I found earlier in my research and as I was narrowing my subject. These facts will still be mentioned but the way in which my narrative will be has as well. This narrative was VERY early in the process of writing this paper.

Plan of Work Dear Beth, This letter is to present an overview of my work plan to complete my Capstone project for the fall semester of 2015. I need to accomplish finishing the rest of my submissions by their due dates, set up my interview dates, interviewing my interviewees, researching, going to the Writing Center if needed, and having meetings with you over the course of the next 11 weeks. The rest of the letter will go into more detail about

Loftus 38

what my project is about, my tasks, what have completed, what I have not completed, and my discussion on how I am doing so far on the project.

Project Overview: My Capstone project is over police militarization and has the question: Should the federal government pass the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act? Police militarization has been around and been growing for several decades, thanks to the 1033 Program. The program is what gives the funds and military equipment to the law enforcement. The program was shown in effect during the Ferguson riots, which is what caused the bill to be created. The Stop Militarizing the Law Enforcement Act will put more restrictions on the 1033 Program by rewriting it.

However, opponents think that by putting on restrictions, the law enforcement agencies won’t have the means to fight the “War on Drugs” and “War on Terrorism,” or use the equipment to stop certain situations.

Tasks: My tasks for this Capstone project include: securing interviews, formulating interview questions, interviewing, research, Submissions 3, 4 and 5, my civic engagement, meeting with you, setting up Writing Center appointments when necessary, editing my final paper, turning in all of my submissions on the correct due date, uploading the final document to issuu.com and turnitin.com, and keeping all of my files and websites in order.

Work Completed: I have started my research, which I am continuing to do, and I have turned in Submission 1. I have also started contacting possible perspectives to interview. I have also finished Submission two. I am also keeping track of the files and websites I’ve used and I have gone to the Writing Center for help.

Work Remaining: I still have the remaining submissions left to due (3, 4, and 5). I still have to interview my secured interviewees, when I get the appointments set up. I still have to upload the document when it finishes and having my scheduled meetings with you that are on the calendar. I also have to

Â

Â

Loftus 39

make Writing Center appointments, if needed, and see them about what I might need help on in my paper/project.

Discussion: I think for the most part I am on track. I only feel a bit behind in the securing interviews part because my proponent interviewees have not gotten back to me. Being more persistent in getting their attention will catch me up. Although I could use some help find alternatives, I am sure I can get it done. I almost have the Austin Police Department secured; I am just waiting to hear back from them about the questions I sent them on Friday (I followed up with them yesterday to remind them and they thought they lost them but found them). I make sure that I start far enough so that I have time to pace my self with the project, and am not stressed and freaking out at the last minute. It also gives me time to be flexible incase something comes up that I have to take care of and I can get my other classes’ work done as well.

Conclusion: As you can see, I am at a good place in my project. I am reaching out to people to interview and I am aware of my time limit. I already have a narrative focus for my project, which is the Ferguson riots, which is tied with the war on drugs and racial profiling, since that event is what caused the bill to be created in the first place. I will keep you updated on my progress and go to you if I have any question. The only issue I can see myself going to you about (other than clarifications) is to talk about my interviews, depending on the interview sources.

Sincerely, Caitlin Loftus

Loftus 40

Works Cited ACLU. “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing.”

ACLU Website. ACLU Foundation, 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Canterbury, Chuck. “Letter to Armed Forces Committee.” Fraternal Order of Police Website. Fraternal Order of Police, 3 Oct. 2014. Web. 8 Sept. 2015.

Davey, Monica and et al. “National Guard Troops in Ferguson Fail to Quell Disorder.” The New York Times. The New York Times Company, 19 Aug. 2014. Web. 28 Aug. 2015.

Defense Logistics Agency. “Fiscal Year Budget Estimates 2016.” Department of Defense Website. Department of Defense Logistics Agency, Feb. 2015.

Web. 10 Sept. 2015.

Dudley, James I. “Why Police Agencies are Well Served by the 1033 Program.”

Policeone.com. Policeone.com, 23 Oct. 2014. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

Kraska, Peter B. Personal Interview.

Kraska, Peter B. "Militarization And Policing—Its Relevance To 21St Century Police." Policing: A Journal Of Policy & Practice 1.4 (2007): 501. Publisher Provided Full Text Searching File. Web. 16 Sept. 2015.

“Representative Hank Johnson Reintroduces Bipartisan Bill to Demilitarize Police.” House of Representatives’ Hank Johnson Official Website. Press Release, 4 Mar. 2015. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

Submission 3

Loftus 41

Loftus 42

Sub 3 Worksheet Name: Caitlin Loftus Normative question: Should Congress overturn the 1033 program by passing the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act in order to put an end the police’s use of excessive force and disconnection from their communities?

Issue #1: Is it okay to pass a bill that interferes with police funds?

Proponents (of the bill) argue: Proponents of the bill say it is okay to pass the bill because the bill does not cut into all of the funds, and the police have their initial funds to work with. Proponents also argue that the police do not need as much of what the funds give them for the situations that they face on a regular basis and that by getting rid of the one year “Use-It-or-Lose-It” police would only need what is truly needed and less equipment would be needed.

Opponents (of the bill) argue: The opponents’ side argues that by overturning the 1033 program, their departments will have fewer funds and equipment.

With fewer funds, it will be harder to have the equipment they need, such as guns. Some have argued that the law enforcements’ original funding sometimes only covers paying for peoples’ salaries and benefits that it never comes to the equipment they need and it would be more expensive to buy their equipment from local gun stores than get them free from the government.

Critical analysis: Proponents have more evidence than the opponents’ side does. The DoD’s records show that the department has spent over $5 billion dollars on 1033 program. There have also been instances where the funds have been used for means that are not needed, like buying materials and equipment that will never be used or doesn’t have a day-to-day mean. On the flip side, police officers have never shown evidence to what they are saying. They just say that they know what they know because they are cops/retired cops. If the “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause were overturned, then the federal government would be saving money because they wouldn’t just be giving out equipment left and right. However, the police would also get the same material from the industries that give the DoD their equipment, they would just have to pay for it. One of my interviews even stated that the police would go out and get the equipment that they need from these industries, so it doesn’t make sense to interfere with what equipment they get.

Ethical analysis: This issue is more of a critical argument than an ethical argument.

Loftus 43

Issue #2: Is the bill for the safety of the people?

Proponents (of the bill) argue: Proponents argue that the bill will help keep people safe by regulating what the law enforcements’ can use for the safety of the people. Proponents believe that people are not safe with how the law enforcement has so many means they can use and that civilians don’t have the same protection that the police do.

Opponents (of the bill) argue: Opponents argue that the bill is not looking out for the law enforcements and that the funds and equipment give them the means to help keep people and themselves safe. If the “Use-It-Lose-It” clause were overturned then the police would not get the equipment that they might need for situations that arise, according to them. They view that if you have the right equipment for the police situation (such as how big the city/town is, it is for the department, etc.) then they can keep people safe and themselves safe as well. There have been cases were the police were killed via civilians in situations that involve the civilian holding more firepower than the cops, and that civilian is also wearing protective gear while the police aren’t.

Critical analysis: Ferguson showed how the equipment (tear gas grenades, MRAPs, “non-lethal” weapons, etc.) is used against civilians in a hostile situation, in which both sides have hostility. However there have been situations where law enforcement has used their equipment, high-class equipment (grenades, “non-lethal” weapons used in the military field, etc.), for menial things, such as drug raids. Most SWAT teams are used for drug raids on small time violations (ACLU). Police have evidence of cops being killed by armed civilians and, at the time, they did not have the materials to deal with the situation, which resulted in several officers dead. Both sides have good arguments for each side that hold evidence for their arguments.

Ethical analysis: The social justice theory that I will be applying for this issue is the communitarian view. The communitarian view focuses on the well being of the community instead of the individual and the social welfare of the members of the community. Looking at the definition of what a communitarian view is and what the issue is, the proponent side of the bill seems to fit in the most. The proponents are looking out for the well being of everyone in the community as a whole, while the police are looking after only the police. The opponents’ side does think that the community’s well being is important but they view the police as more important for the police protect the community.

Police are not executing equality to some of the cases that police are investigating about drugs. The police put people’s lives in danger when it comes

Loftus 44

to getting justice, especially in situations that do not have hostility on the civilian’s side, or the criminal’s side. The proponents want the criminals to have equality when they are not being hostile to the police, instead of the police just reacting to the smallest thing. This shows how the proponent side holds the communitarian view more to heart.

Issue #3: Does the “War on Drugs” still need to be fought?

Proponents (of the bill) argue: Proponents argue that the “War on Drugs,” which the 1033 program was founded on, is a misguided effort and the equipment should not be used for this purpose. ACLU has conducted research regarding the SWAT teams use in police forces and found that they are mainly used for drug searches. There was a case in Georgia where a baby was badly injured from a flash grenade that landed in its crib when the SWAT team was in the house on a drug raid. Another case was of a grandfather being killed in a raid on his own house. ACLU’s data says that SWAT teams were originally created for situations that involved hostages, snipers or terrorist, according to Peter B. Kraska’s research that they cited.

Opponents (of the bill) argue: Opponents argue that the SWAT teams are necessary for drug searches because the people they are arresting are dangerous criminals. The opponents state that the criminal have the possibility of being equipped with deadly force and the SWAT teams are equipped to handle those situations.

Critical analysis: Looking at the issue, I ask the question “Did the 1033 program do its job of stopping the War on Drugs?” The answer is no. America is still fighting a societal war for twenty-five years, and the plan that was implemented to stop it has not done its job. The opponents’ side does not hold a valid argument because they do not have evidence to support their argument.

The opponents are just trying to make an argument that will defend the police’s actions of reacting too fast in a situation that they deemed hostile, which might not be the case.

Ethical analysis: This issue is more of a critical argument than an ethical argument.

Discussion and Conclusion: Looking at the different sides, I can see what each side is saying. However, by looking at the facts and logic, the proponent side of the bill makes more sense. I can understand where the police are coming from. They have dangerous jobs, however they do not need the equipment to help them for small situations. They also did not have as much

Loftus 45

information, data, or facts that hold up their arguments, which is another issue. I also think, after talking with two of my interviewees, that the police also need to become more involved in the communities that they are working in because it would also help their images and help keep them more in balance with their jobs. As Professor Withrow told me, “The police need to be reminded that they are there at the will of the people.”

So in conclusion, I will be in the support of the bill. However I will be adding in my solution/conclusion a the end of my paper, the idea of the police trying to get more in touch with their community. Taking away/restricting the equipment is one thing, but it won’t completely end the social problem unless the police make those ties with their community and the community itself was getting involved.

Loftus 46

Bibliography ACLU. “War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of American Policing.”

ACLU Website. ACLU Foundation, 2014. Web. 29 Sept. 2015.

Dudley, James I. “Why Police Agencies are Well Served by the 1033 Program.”

Policeone.com. Policeone.com, 23 Oc. 2014. Web. 20 Sept. 2015.

“Representative Hank Johnson Addresses Police Militarization in HASC Hearing.” House of Representatives’ Hank Johnson Official Website. Press Release, 20 Nov. 2014. Web. 18 Oct. 2015.

Withrow, Brian. Personal interview. 14 Oct. 2015.

Submission 4

Loftus 47

Loftus 48

Caitlin Loftus Professor Eakman Capstone 10/22/2015

Interview with Brian Withrow Brian Withrow is a Criminal Justice professor at Texas State University, who focuses on police systems and practices and police decision-making, according to the Texas State website. I contacted Professor Withrow on Monday, October 12, via email for an interview, which he responded to right away. We agreed to the time of 4:30 pm that following Wednesday. Professor Withrow and I decided to meet at a Krispy Crème on the edge of Texas State University. We meet, and I got my things set up and informed Professor Withrow of the recording and that only I and possibly my professor would hear it. I was a little worried that I wouldn’t catch his voice on the recording because he talks very low and the music in the background was a little too loud for my taste. However, the recording turned out just fine when I went back to it. As soon as I was done setting up and he had made sure I didn’t want anything to eat or drink, we got started.

Right off the bat, I explained the police and my focus of it to him. My first question called for his opinion on the 1033 program, mainly the “Use-It-orLose-It” clause. Professor Withrow expressed that he felt the program was wonderful for law enforcements, especially since the police can get equipment the police really need for little or no cost. I expressed the downside to that and he responded that it was not the equipment that is doing the harm, but how the police are using it. Withrow explained that if the police are not using it when it is appropriate than it is a problem. I then when on to ask about why he thought the police need such extreme equipment. Withrow said that it is not safe to assume that the police do not use their equipment and that even though “99% of a time a cop doesn’t need his gun, have a gun for the 1% makes a difference.” Withrow went on to use the UT Massacre in 1969 as an example, stating that if the police force had a sniper then not as many people would have died. Withrow did concede to say that while the equipment isn’t an issue, the police are. He said, “The problem is police take the equipment and believe they are the military.” Police also using the equipment on small

Loftus 49

situations where the equipment isn’t need is wrong as well, according to Professor Withrow. During the first two questions, Professor Withrow had polished off his two doughnuts, as I wrote furiously in my notebook, just jotting down notes over what he had said.

My third and fourth questions regarded his opinion on the term “police militarization” along with how the police will gain the trust and connections back with their communities. For the third question, he talked about how the military uniforms give off that impression but the police have always been militarized. However the police present themselves as a military form with the uniforms. Professor Withrow gave the example of the police visiting a school in the military garb to talk about police. It gives a message when it done like that.

It sends an aggressive message. Withrow said that if he didn’t know anyone from the police, he would be less likely to approach a police officer (dressed in military garb) because of how intimidating the police look to an average person when the police are in that garb. For the fourth question I told him to think of Ferguson, which he said was going to be a point of change in history. Withrow said that there had been distrust long before the riots, so what happened had been building up for years because the people didn’t get involved with their police force and the police force didn’t get to know their community. Withrow also said that the police have to realize that they, the police, do what they do because of the consent of the public.

My fifth and sixth questions were about the violence, drug searches and the 1033 program. For my fifth question, he said that the equipment did not bring the violence, the police did. He also expressed that the police will still find ways to get their hands on the equipment. Professor Withrow talked about how he had a meeting that involved a military equipment company here in Texas.

The company expressed how they wanted to show their equipment to the police because the company itself needs to keep their stocks up as an obligation to their stockowners and their stocks will go down when the war with Afghanistan is over. Professor Withrow told me that the police would jump on that opportunity if law enforcement didn’t have the 1033 program. My sixth and final question involved the War on Terror and the 1033 program, and whether or not we should still be fighting this war. Professor Withrow’s response was plan and simple. “We have lost the War on Drugs,” he said. He went on to explain that the drug problem might not be a police problem; parts of it were the police problem but not all of it. He said it was more of a social, medical and military issue. I followed up with a question on the program being used for War on Terror and he said that the War on Terror was more of a military and federal

Loftus 50

issue instead of a police issue. The military was built to keep out terrorism and the federal government had it so that it grew home-based.

As we finished, we had a small conversation about ourselves. I told him what major I was in and he talked about how he actually lived in Kansas and only taught at Texas State every two weeks. He told the story of how he came to live in Kansas, on a farm. We talked about writing and other things before I headed out. As we were saying our goodbyes, he gave me his phone number incase I had any questions and the name of a newly retired police officer that worked at Texas State University. The interview went over well and I gained more insight. I view Withrow as a neutral side to the policy based on his answer, especially compared to the two most recent interviews of mine.

Interview with Brian Flannery I met with Brian Flannery at a Starbucks off of Highway 26 in Colleyville, Texas, thirty minutes away from Fort Worth. We both ordered coffees and decided to sit outside since it was a nice day. Flannery had researched the bill a little bit before meeting me, however it turned out to be the first version of the bill, which caused some difficulties later on in the questioning. He did have me go over the police again before we started, so that he could finish the food he had gotten.

I started by asking his view on the term of police militarization. Flannery was neutral to the term and found that police militarization was not a good description of police but adept. He says that the police have become more militarized over the years but the military has also become more like a police force in turn. He says that a lot of the reason the police are called militarized is through their reaction to what is happening around them, but also some of that reaction is within their control. He did view that there was a difference between what the police were fighting back in the day, when police officers only need a revolver and a nightstick, compared to what the police are facing today, such as more guns and equipment that rivals what the police have. During my second question was along the lines of the police militarizing over recent years, or his opinion if the police are. He felt that the equipment was not making the police more militarized. He thinks that cops have shitty jobs and expected to perform in inhuman ways and still get the job done (he used an example of a crime and how long the crime takes compared to how long the cops take to react, and the public’s view of how cops don’t get anything done if the police aren’t there in time). He thinks it’s a good thing that the police can gain control

Loftus 51

of surplus equipment, for certain situations. He doesn’t think getting military grade equipment does not make the police militarized or an occupying force.

Normal people can get the equipment easy, so the police need the same equipment to fight it and protect the citizens. During the second question, I mentioned Ferguson and he said he did not want to talk about Ferguson because that was just people acting crazy.

My third question involved Flannery’s view/position on the use of SWAT teams for drug warrants. Flannery currently works for the DEA, so he got on his “soapbox” as he put it. He said that not all drug searches require drug warrants. He said that cops are very reactive. Since the bill he looked at was the first version of the bill, he found that the bill excluded drug counter measures, which I later looked at again and Hank Johnson and his team changed it for the 2015 bill. For my fourth question, I asked about the “Use-Itor-Lose-It” clause and whether or not we needed it. We first went over the list of the equipment that the program sends. He didn’t understand why the police need drones and we had to look up what one of the equipment was and we found it was basically a really high-definition speaker for hostage situations.

He understood why there was a need for MRAPs and that equipment differs based on location.

For my fifth question, I asked about how the police had a good connection with the community when he was a cop. I brought up that this question was because of how the cops didn’t have a good relationship with the community in Ferguson. He said that both sides made mistakes in Ferguson, which I agreed. Pertaining to the question, he said that community policing was popular back when he was a cop. He made connections to the neighborhoods that he patrolled and he got to know the families of some of the people he arrested because it was passed down from parent to kid, so he would be arresting more than one person from the same family. He also said that cops need to make those connections again, but it is hard because cops are being run ragged these days. Police departments need more cops to get the job done and so that the police can all interact with the community.

My sixth question was about what he saw of the 1033 program when he was a cop, more specifically what equipment police received. He said that he didn’t see it, he wasn’t a cop very long after the program was passed. He said that the police had the “We-Don’t-See-It” grant which was to handle dope cases. My seventh and final question was whether or not the 1033 program should be used to handle drug cases/counter drug measures. He said yes because the funding shouldn’t be taken away because someone misused it.

Loftus 52

After all of the questions had finished, Flannery and I sat and talked for another thirty minutes before we both had to head out. The entire interview took a little over an hour and was productive nonetheless.

Interview with Tomas Mijares On October 12, I contacted two professors at Texas State University. One of them was Professor Tomas Mijares, who specializes in police tactics.

Professor Mijares is a retired cop from Brooklyn. We didn’t have our interview until October 21st, where we meet at an Applebee’s in Austin. He was sitting at the table before me, and when I sat down, he told me to look at the menu. I didn’t want anything, so I let him order before we got started. Mijares did not know anything about the bill, so I explained what it was and what it did.

My first question asked his position on the 1033 program and its “Use-Itor-Lose-It” clause, to which he responded that it is a great source for vehicles and office venture. I then pointed out that it was also used to gain military equipment, and went on to list and he refuted my claim. Mijares said that it was mostly for suburban vehicles and a few helicopters, for when the helicopters were needed. My second question was his opinion on the term “police militarization” and if he thought the police was militarized. Mijares bluntly said no, and only gave a little more detail when I prompted him. He said that most cops today have been in the military but these ex-military police officers also know that the police are not military.

My third question was about how he thought the police would gain back connections to their communities after the violence police have shown with military grade equipment. I told him to think of what happened in Ferguson.

Right off the bat, Mijares said that the police officers do not have military grade weapons. I then brought up the grenades that were thrown at rioters and protestors in Ferguson. I called the grenades flash bang grenades but he quickly corrected me and said that the flash bang grenades were actually canisters of tear gas. He then went on to describe what a flash bang grenade was. My fourth question was over if the thought that by overturning the 1033 program would the police begin to demilitarize (and there would be less violence) or would more need to be done and what he thought should be done, if need be. Mijares said that the police need to be trained properly in order to get things done right. He then went on a monologue about how the training is what really makes the difference, and that is why we don’t have these problems in Texas because he was the one to help create the training curriculum.

Loftus 53

My fifth question was about fighting the War on Drugs and Terror, and how the 1033 program played into fighting it, and whether or not we should keep fighting the War on Drugs through militarized methods. He immediately said that the police don’t use military methods and it is misleading to say so and that it is up to the politicians to make the decisions, not the police. I also mentioned how a child was injured in a raid on a house, where the police thought a relative, who was doing drugs, was staying. He said that what happened was a result of poor training, not the policy. My sixth question was about how the bill will have the DoD not send military equipment for counter drug issues, and whether or not this would help lower the use of SWAT teams.

I also asked if we should leave the drug issues to the DEA. He said that the DEA only handles issues that cross state lines. He also said to no have the different versions of SWAT teams would violate the terms of Downes vs. the United States and that when people create these bills the politicians don’t think of past cases/laws that interfere with that; which I don’t believe since it is a politicians’ job to know but also situations change over time and those laws might not be valid with the circumstances of police today. However, he said that the law enforcement that caused the case to make it to the Supreme Court was the FBI, not local law enforcement. The bill affects local law enforcements and other federal law enforcements, except for the FBI and CIA. I didn’t understand why he brought that up since I was talking specifically about SWAT teams used for drug issues, and just having them not be used for those cases. I also looked up the Downes vs. the United States and Professor Mijares wrote all of the top searches.

The entire meeting was a bit confusing. I felt like he didn’t want to listen to the other view that I was putting out, and I tried to not get annoyed at his answers. We did also talk about the Peace Officer film, where he said that it was biased for the non-police side. He also questioned the main interviewee of the documentary because of his choices as police chief and creating a SWAT team and not giving it the proper training. I did agree with him that the movie did focus more on the victims’ side, but the victims did have compelling evidence in the end. We ended the interview with him saying he would love to read my paper when it was done, and that I had the power to get the true side of police shown.

Loftus 54

Peter Kraska Interview Transcript* *I couldn’t meet with Peter Kraska in person, and we couldn’t Skype, so he sent me an audio file with his answers to my questions. The answers are paraphrased.

1. What is your position on the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act (H.R. 1232)?

[Mentions how police militarization has been going on for 25 years and that it is only since Ferguson that people are trying to change things] My position is, that after Ferguson, if there wasn’t the political will to change the 1033 program, and then we are never going to see it. It’s not gonna happen. I’ve had both a Democrat and a Republican have me come talk to the Senate, and even the White House has asked for my advice. To me its really simple, not that long ago we didn’t have the transfer of military grade gear and weapons to local and civilian law enforcements. It started during the Reagan administration. The practices that are being talked about being put in place are not gonna quite accomplish anything. [He goes on to talk about how some of the equipment is being used, bayonets as decorations]. These policies amount to nothing and are more of a practice of symbolic politics.

2. What is your opinion on the 1033 Program and its "Use-It-or-Lose-It" clause?

It’s silly that anything like that would exist. It just goes to show how little over site is shown by the people who are creating the policies, how they know very little history about the subject. I don’t think it was consequential anyway because there wasn’t enough oversight in order to lose anything. There was very little accountability for what happened to the stuff once it got into the hands of police department.

3. How do you think the police will gain back the trust they have lost due to the police militarization that has been building over the years? Should communities get involved as well and meet the police halfway?

Loftus 55

I don’t know what you mean by meet the police halfway. If you mean community accountability, I think that’s important. But the police and politicians are making it a local accountability when there’s already local accountability and its happened anyway. The city counsels listen to the chief of police, who tell them that they need this stuff. There’s a lack of oversight, but until recently no one has cared. And so community accountability means nothing if there is just going to be a rubber stamp for everything that the police department do, which is generally what happens, especially when it comes to free stuff. As for police gaining back the communities trust – in marginalized communities, communities of color, I’m not sure there’s trust to regain. We’ve seen a certain increase in angst and it all coming to a head, and what has been done over the last thirty years has been overkill and has devastating consequences on these communities. I don’t think the trust was there to begin with, in regards to gaining trust back. The attempts to gain back the trust are like what happened in the 1960s. During that time, the campaign was changing the image of the police, instead of policies. It doesn’t get to the heart of the problem and ends up being more of a fix their image issue than the policies and actions.

4. What is your position on the police fighting the "War on Drugs" and "War on Terror," which is why police get equipment from the 1033 program?

Do you the need to still be fighting these, especially the "War on Drugs"?

The War on Drugs was only a part of the trend. It would have been something else if not drugs. It was created under the War on Crime and it brought police militarization forward. It’s a mixture of all of the different practices that was happening during the time. I don’t think it was ever wise to wage a war on drugs, and especially unwise to wage a war on terror. These are the kinds of things that lead to overkill and the sort of problems we have now. The knee-jerk response is to fix the image of these issues. I’m skeptical. I don’t think we are gonna change what we are doing because we have an invested interest in keeping what we are doing going; economic interest, political interest, and cultural interest.

5. What is your position on police having SWAT teams to deal with drug warrants and searches? Are we overusing SWAT teams?

Yes. We overuse them. It’s like we are sending in Navy Seals to collect evidence from peoples’ private residence for not even murder but for low-

Â

Â

Loftus 56

level drug crimes. It puts the police in situations where they put themselves and citizens at risk. We are overusing SWAT teams. Over 85% of SWAT calls are for drug related instances. Probably 5% of those should be occurring.

6. What equipment do you think police should be allowed to have access to all the time from the 1033 program?

Get the US Military out of the business of policing. Any form of equipment ties a connection to the US Military.

Loftus 57

Civic Engagement For my civic engagement, I decided to speak to the St. Edward’s University Black Student Alliance club. I emailed them several times, and after some trial and errors of when I was to speak, I was finally able to on November 11th. My speech was accompanied by a power point, which held the vital details to my policy.

The meeting was taking place at six pm in Moody Hall. I arrived ten minutes early so that I could set up and talk with the girl who allowed me to come, Penny Driver. I do think that some of the people were confused as to why I was there, since I do not believe that Penny told the club members that I was going to be talking about my policy. The club members’ reaction made my nerves spike and they climbed even higher as more people showed up. Once six pm hit, I allowed Penny to introduce me before I began.

The presentation took about 15 minutes to do, and I tried my best to get across the information I thought was relevant and would capture my audience’s interest. I started off talking about the bill and what it would be doing, while also explaining what the 1033 program is and the “Use-It-or-LoseIt” clause. I went into the history of the 1033 program and how much has been spent on it since its inception, along with what types of equipment the 1033 program was giving to law enforcements (weaponized drones, MRAPs, grenade launchers, etc.). I also talked about the proponents and opponents, along with some of the arguments that they raise. I included information that I received from my interviews. In my conclusion, I stated that I believe the bill should be passed, but that we, the community, should also be more involved with the police, since we are the ones who have more of the power. I then told them that another way to be involved was to see the movie “Peace Officer,” and I showed them the trailer for the film.

Before I was finished, I allowed questions. The first question I got was in regards to the “Peace Officer” film. The student wanted to know what was happening in the trailer. I told him how the film was laid out, and that the film followed three films. I proceeded to give a little background on these stories, just telling the club members what was actually happening in some of the scenes that they saw.

The second question I got was about how they could get more involved with the police in their communities. This question was hard to answer since I hadn’t really thought of it but I tried my best to give a good response. I told the woman that just by talking with the police that you see, and forming bonds will

Â

Â

Loftus 58

help because then the police and civilians are making a connection, which is better than no connection at all. I also said to show the cops that you appreciate what they do might help as well, but that the cops also have to be willing and the cops have a bigger role in connecting to the communities.

The final question, I received was in regards to the psychology behind police when they are militarized. I explained that the police have always had militaristic parts, since the police were based off of the military, but when militarized the police gain an elitist mindset, where they believe that they are better than the civilians they are protecting. I then explained that the elitist mindset is why civilians need to be more involved with the police.

All in all, I think that the civic engagement went over really well. My residential director for my dorm was at the meeting and told me that if I ever wanted to do a dorm event about this, I could just go and talk to him and we could bounce ideas off of each other. I think that some of the club members had a genuine interest in my policy, which is more than I could have ever asked for because then it shows that this policy has more people who stand by it.

Submission 5 rev. 1

Loftus 59

Loftus 60

Caitlin Loftus Professor Eakman Capstone 12 October 2015

Submission 5 Rough Draft Question: Should the Armed Forces Committee overturn the 1033 program by passing the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act in order to stop the police’s use of excessive force and disconnection from the community?

Imagine you are asleep in your bed. You had a long day at work and have been asleep for maybe two or three hours when you hear it: a door banging in.

Next thing you know, your bedroom door is kicked in and you have a light shining in your face, blinding you. Someone is yelling at you but your mind is still in sleep-mode, so you only catch every other word. Words like “police,” “drugs” and “hands up.” You see them tossing something in the room but you can’t make out what it is. There’s a sudden bright flash of light and noises that knocks you back. There’s more yelling but your senses are dulled because of what was just thrown into your room, when suddenly you are on the ground with a force on your back. You feel the cold metal of handcuffs on your wrists, followed by being forcefully pulled up to stand. Your senses have come back to you and you see six men standing in your bedroom, decked out in military-like armor with weapons in each of their hands. Confused, you ask the first and only sentence to them that night; “Why are you here?” They respond with “Where is your cousin? He is wanted for dealing drugs. We were informed that he had been staying with you. Now, where is he?” They give you a shove towards the doorway as the one who put you in handcuffs asks the questions.

Before you can respond, you and the cops here the front door open. You knew it was your cousin. Your heart is beating as you here his footsteps ascend the stairs and all you could think of is why did he do this? Your cousin reaches the top of the stairs and freezes when he sees the scene before him. Before the cops can react, he starts yelling at them to let you go. When they refuse, he advances towards them while reaching behind him to grab something from the back of his jeans. BANG. He never even got to the cop before he fell to the ground with a bullet in him. Time froze for you as the cops start talking on their radios and pulling you out of your house and down the street to their

Loftus 61

cars, not normal police cars. They put you in the backseat and they drive off with you looking back at the house, thinking of your dead cousin’s body that was left to the devices of those you used to call policemen.

As of late, the police’s use of force and disconnection with their community has been a big issue in America. America has had these issues in the past, but the events at Ferguson were what made the issues of police force and police militarization come to light, and for politicians to want a solution to be found. The roots of police militarization and force come from many different sources but one of them is a program created by the federal government to help the police, when it really only gave them more power. In 1997, the Department of Defense created the 1033 program; a program that gives local law enforcements military equipment. The military equipment that is sent through the 1033 includes grenade launchers, grenades and other explosives, longrange acoustic devices, weaponized drones, military vehicles (like MRAPs or Mine-Resistant Ambush Protected Vehicles, and military weapons, such as assault rifles. The Department of Defense has spent over $5 billion dollars on the 1033 program since its inception. After the events at Ferguson in 2014, Representative Hank Johnson created the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act to put a restriction on the 1033 program. My main focus on the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act is the policy getting rid of the 1033 program’s “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause. By getting rid of the “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause, law enforcements are not allowed to use the equipment that they request for whatever they want, which mostly applies to the use of equipment on drug searches, which I will be focusing on.

The Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act has a various number of supporters. Hank Johnson is obviously the biggest supporter since he was the one to create the bill. He currently has forty-nine cosponsors in the House of Representatives, in which two are from Texas. He also has a number of organizations behind him, including American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, Bill of Rights Committee and many others. On the opposing side of the bill, the Fraternal Order of Police is against the bill being passed. Retired SWAT leaders, such as Charles “Sid” Heal and other retired cops are against the bill being passed as well.

The two arguing sides have different views on the issues that the bill is bringing forward. The first issue is whether or not it is legally possible to pass a bill that interferes with police funds. The side supporting the bill says that it is okay to pass this bill because the bill does not cut the funds completely, and

Loftus 62

that the police have their initial funds to work with. The supporting side also says that the police do not need all of the funds and equipment that they are receiving from the 1033 program. The opposing side of the bill argues that their departments need the funds and equipment that is given to them by the 1033 program. Some officers, and several of my interviewees, have argued that law enforcement funding does not always cover the costs of the equipment they need after salaries and other costs have been calculated out for the year, however they do not have the evidence to prove this. However, Professor Brian Withrow of the Criminal Justice Department at Texas State University talked about what would happen if the 1033 was taken away. He said that the industries, who creates the equipment for the 1033 program and our military stationed in Afghanistan, would go to the law enforcements to sell their equipment because they will need to keep their stock up for their shareholders, and the law enforcements would buy whatever they could, and some of it could be worse then what they are receiving from the 1033 program because it is unregulated. [Enter Critical Analysis and Ethical Analysis or Endnote for them] Another argument that has come forth is whether or not the bill is for the safety of the people. The argument over safety is more of an argument on terms. The opposing side of the bill feels that by taking away the equipment law enforcements receive from the 1033 program will be putting the police’s lives in danger, and thus, civilian lives. What the opposing side says is true for there is evidence that shows how civilians that commit crimes can gain the same type of equipment, flack jackets, bullet proof vests and assault rifles, which have been used against cops. The supporting side of the bill argues that the bill is put in place to keep the civilians safe, and have the 1033 equipment regulated. [Enter Critical Analysis and Ethical Analysis or the endnotes to refer to them.

Hank Johnson cites a case were a SWAT team entered a family’s home looking for a cousin who had connections to drugs. During the operation, the SWAT team threw a flashbang grenade into a room where it landed a two-yearold’s crib. It went off in said crib and hurt the child immensely, however the SWAT team did not get convicted for it. An argument that has been brewing between the two sides of the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act is whether or not the War on Drugs needs to be fought. The supporting side of the bill says that the use of SWAT teams to fight the War on Drugs is access. Professor Brian Withrow even went as far as to say that we lost the War on Drugs and he isn’t wrong. Three states have already legalized marijuana and lawmakers are

Loftus 63

beginning to look into releasing people who were convicted on small drug crimes. Drugs are not going to go away, especially with the cartel knocking at our backdoor in Mexico and the rest of Latin America. Looking at what happened to the two-year-old, who was hit by a flash bang grenade, doesn’t that case show how pathetic we have become fighting the War on Drugs. The opposing side of the argument says that these are still dangerous criminals that need to be dealt with. I say that this needs to be left to the Drug Enforcement Administration, for it is their job to do it. [Enter Critical Analysis and Ethical Analysis or add the endnotes to refer to (leave a comment on what I should do for this and which paragraph works best for my paper and I will go back and format/style the other two to look like it)] I believe that the bill should be passed, however I do agree with several my interviews that more needs to be done. When I interview them, I asked how would it help for the law enforcements and the communities that they work in be able to mend the rift between them before another explosion, like Ferguson, happens. Several of my interviewers stated that civilians need to realize that they have the power to control the police. The term “police militarization” is just a term that comes to people’s minds when they see how the police act like a military. The police gain a “militaristic,” or elitist, mindset where they believe that they hold more power than the people, which causes excessive force when the police feel like they aren’t being listened to and creates distrust with the communities they are suppose to be serving. To knock the police down a peg, civilians need to play an active role in keeping the police in line because their taxes are what is paying for their funding and salaries. Brian Flannery, a retired cop who now works for the DEA, also said that the police need to be more involved with the communities by talking to people. He did mention that the police are spread very thin and so it is harder for law enforcement to form these bonds. When I went to the St. Edward’s University Black Student Alliance to speak, I told them at the end to not only spread word of the bill but to also get involved more with the cop community. When asked how, I said to just talk with them at most. Other ways to get involved are to join the civilian police academy and work with cops, as well as seeing what they do on a regular day. By doing this, civilians are showing cops that they are interested in their jobs and, in a way, thanking them for what they have done.

In conclusion, the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act is a bill that should be passed to help stop excess police force and to form bonds with the communities that the police work in. By restricting the equipment, law enforcements won’t have as much equipment for drug searches and the War on

Â

Â

Loftus 64

Drugs will come to an end, after a long drawn out war that we were never going to win in the first place. Police and civilians should also take part in gaining trust with one another so that people stop seeing everything the police do as militaristic and so the people have more of a hand in what goes on in law enforcement.

Appendices

Loftus 65

Loftus 66

Civic Engagement Email Exchange

Â

Â

Civic Engagement

Loftus 67

November 4, 2015 3:58 PM

From: Caitlin A. Loftus To: Penny Driver Black Student Alliance SEU

Dear Penny, I was wondering about if/when I would be allowed to speak at the Black Student Alliance meeting. I'm sorry that I couldn't make it last week, as I had a previous engagement. I tried to email you back 24 hours before the meeting because I wanted to see if I could get out of that engagement, but alias, I could not. Please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you and have a good evening.

Sincerely, Caitlin Loftus November 5, 2015 1:26 PM Re: Civic Engagement

From: Black Student Alliance SEU To: Caitlin A. Loftus

Hi Caitlin, Our next meeting will be next Wednesday, November 11, at 6pm in Moody Hall 205. Looking forward to seeing you there!

Best, Penny Driver Public Relations Chair Black Students Association St. Edward's University 2015-2016 ----- Original Message ----From: Caitlin A. Loftus <cloftus@stedwards.edu> To: Penny Driver <pdriver@stedwards.edu>, Black Student Alliance SEU <bsa@stedwards.edu> Sent: Wed, 04 Nov 2015 15:58:31 -0600 (CST) Subject: Civic Engagement Dear Penny, I was wondering about if/when I would be allowed to speak at the Black Student Alliance meeting. I'm sorry that I couldn't make it last week, as I had a previous engagement. I tried to email you back 24 hours before the

Â

Â

Loftus 68

meeting because I wanted to see if I could get out of that engagement, but alias, I could not. Please let me know as soon as possible. Thank you and have a good evening.

Sincerely, Caitlin Loftus Contact Information Student Email: cloftus@stedwards.edu Professional Email: caitlinaloftus@gmail.com Telephone #: (817)975-1321 Website: http://cloftus.seufolios.org/

Loftus 69

Professor Brian Withrow Interview Transcript

Loftus 70

Caitlin Loftus Professor Eakman Capstone 3 December 2015 Professor Brian Withrow Interview Transcript (Q&A style)*

*The transcript just has the answers to the question, not the entire conversation. Some parts are paraphrased as well.

1. What is your opinion o the 1033 program and it’s “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause?

I feel the program was wonderful for law enforcements, especially since the police can get equipment the police really need for little or no cost.

It’s not the equipment that is doing the harm, but how the police are using it. If the police are not using it when it is appropriate than it is a problem.

2. Why do police ask for the equipment we see (such as MRAPs, etc.), in your opinion?

It is not safe to assume that the police do not use their equipment and that even though 99% of a time a cop doesn’t need his gun, have a gun for the 1% makes a difference. Look at the UT Massacre in 1969. If the police force had a sniper then not as many people would have died that day. The problem is police take the equipment and believe they are the military. Police also using the equipment on small situations where the equipment isn’t need is wrong as well.

3. What is your opinion on the term “police militarization?” Do you think the police are militarized?

However the police present themselves as a military form with the uniforms. For example, what if the police visited a school in the military garb to talk about police. It sends an aggressive message. If I didn’t know

Loftus 71

anyone from the police force, then I wouldn’t approach a police officer wearing that militaristic uniform because I would be intimidated by how they look. To a normal civilian, the uniforms are intimidating.

4. How do you think the police will gain back the connection and trust lost due to the violence they have shown recently with military grade equipment (think Ferguson)?

Ferguson is going to be a point of change in history. There had been [in Ferguson] distrust long before the riots, so what happened had been building up for years because the people didn’t get involved with their police force and the police force didn’t get to know their community. The police have to realize that they, the police, do what they do because of the consent of the public.

5. Do you think that by over-turning the 1033 program, more specifically the “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause, the police will begin to demilitarize and there would be less violence? Or does more need to be done, and if so, what should be done?

The equipment did not bring the violence, the police did. The police will still find ways to get their hands on the equipment. I had a meeting with a few colleagues and a company that creates military equipment and weapons. The company expressed how they wanted to show their equipment to the police because the company itself needs to keep their stocks up as an obligation to their stockowners and their stocks will go down when the war with Afghanistan is over. The police will also pay for the equipment if they can’t get it through the 1033 program.

6. The 1033 program was created to help fight the War on Drugs and later the War on Terror. Should we stop fighting the War on Drugs through militarized methods and violence? Why or why not?

We have lost the War on Drugs. The drug problem is not a police problem; it is a social, possibly medical, and military issue.

[I followed up with question about the War on Terror]

Â

Â

Loftus 72

The War on Terror is more of a military and federal issue instead of a police issue. The military was built to keep out terrorism and the federal government had it so that terrorism ended up growing home-based.

Loftus 73

Brian Flannery Interview Transcript

Loftus 74

Caitlin Loftus Professor Eakman Capstone 3 December 2015 Brian Flannery Interview Transcript (Q&A style)*

*The transcript just has the answers to the question, not the entire conversation. Some parts are paraphrased as well.

1. What is your view on the term “police militarization?”

The police have become more militarized over the years but the military has also become more like a police force in turn. A lot of the reason the police are called militarized is through their reaction to what is happening around them, but also some of that reaction is within their control. There is a difference between what the police were fighting back in the day, when police officers only need a revolver and a nightstick, compared to what the police are facing today, such as more guns and equipment that rivals what the police have.

2. Do you think the police are becoming more militarized in recent years?

I think that the equipment is not making the police more militarized.

Cops have shitty jobs and are expected to perform in inhuman ways and still get the job done. The time the call comes in, to the time the cops can get out to the scene is slim. I think it’s a good thing that the police can gain control of surplus equipment, for certain situations.

3. What is your view on the use of SWAT teams for drug warrants/searches?

Not all drug searches require drug warrants. Cops are very reactive.

4. Do you believe we need the “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause? Why or why not?

Loftus 75

I don’t understand why the police need drones. I understand why there was a need for MRAPs and that equipment differs based on location.

5. When you were on the police force, how did the police have a good connection with the community compared to now? (Think Ferguson) Both sides made mistakes in Ferguson. Community policing was popular back when I was a cop. I made connections to the neighborhoods that I patrolled and I got to know the families of some of the people I arrested because it was passed down from parent to kid, so I would be arresting more than one person from the same family. Cops need to make those connections again, but it is hard because cops are being run ragged these days. Police departments need more cops to get the job done and so that the police can all interact with the community.

6. How did the police use the equipment and/or funds given to them by the 1033 program when you were on the police force?

I didn’t see it. I wasn’t a cop very long after the program was passed. The police had, at the time, the “We-Don’t-See-It” grant which was to handle dope cases.

7. Do you think we should still use the 1033 program to fund the counterdrug problem?

Yes, because the funding shouldn’t be taken away because someone misused it.

Loftus 76

Tomas Mijares Interview Transcript

Loftus 77

Caitlin Loftus Professor Eakman Capstone 3 December 2015 Tomas Mijares Interview Transcript (Q&A style)*

*The transcript just has the answers to the question, not the entire conversation. Some parts are paraphrased as well.

1. What is your opinion on the 1033 program and the “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause?

It is a great source for vehicles and office venture.

2. What is your opinion on the term “police militarization?” Do you think they police are militarized?

No. Most cops today have been in the military but these ex-military police officers also know that the police are not military.

3. How do you think the police will gain back the connection and trust lost due to the violence they have shown recently with military grade equipment? (Think Ferguson) Police officers do not have military grade weapons.

4. Do you think that by over-turning the 1033 program, more specifically the “Use-It-or-Lose-It” clause, the police will begin to demilitarize and there would be less violence? Or does more need to be done, and if so, what should be done?

The police need to be trained properly in order to get things done right.

Loftus 78

5. The 1033 program was created to help fight the War on Drugs and later the War on Terror. Should we still be fighting the War on Drugs through militarized methods and violence? Why or why not?

The police don’t use military methods and it is misleading to say so and that it is up to the politicians to make the decisions, not the police.

6. The Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act has a clause where the DoD cannot send equipment for counter-drug issues. Will this help stop the police’s, in your opinion, excessive use of SWAT teams? And should we leave the drug issues with the DEA? The DEA only handles issues that cross state lines. To no have the different versions of SWAT teams would violate the terms of Downes vs. the United States and that when people create these bills the politicians don’t think of past cases/laws that interfere with that.