Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
The Military Crime

Every Weapon, Armored Truck, and Plane the Pentagon Gave To Local Police 191

v3rgEz writes You may have heard that the image-conscious Los Angeles Unified School District chose to return the grenade launchers it received from the Defense Department's surplus equipment program. You probably have not heard about some of the more obscure beneficiaries of the Pentagon giveaway, but now you can after MuckRock got the Department of Defense to release the full database, letting anyone browse what gear their local department has received.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Every Weapon, Armored Truck, and Plane the Pentagon Gave To Local Police

Comments Filter:
  • Why only to police? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mi ( 197448 ) <slashdot-2017q4@virtual-estates.net> on Thursday December 04, 2014 @07:42PM (#48527309) Homepage Journal

    Per the Second Amendment, we all have the right to keep and bear arms. So, why are they only giving these to police? I'd like at least a token weapon (like a single pistol or rifle) for my share of taxes, that went to research, develop, and produce them...

    • So, why are they only giving these to police?

      It's probably worth pointing out that these are not "given" to police. They are "loaned".

      Therefore police depts that accept this gear are required to pay for maintenance (which on some of the vehicles can be more than the value of the vehicle) and are forbidden from selling them if they become surplus to requirements.

      • It's probably worth pointing out that these are not "given" to police. They are "loaned".

        Therefore police depts that accept this gear are required to pay for maintenance [...] and are forbidden from selling them [...]

        And they are required by 1033 to use the equipment [wikipedia.org] and (according to that wikipedia entry) are allowed to sell some of it.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Per the Second Amendment, we all have the right to keep and bear arms. So, why are they only giving these to police? I'd like at least a token weapon (like a single pistol or rifle) for my share of taxes, that went to research, develop, and produce them...

      Well, actually, you can.

      Civilian Marksmanship Program. After fulfilling a set of requirements, you can purchase certain surplus military firearms. Most notably, semi-auto M1 Garands in a variety of conditions for very good prices. Modern military rifles today are select fire or full auto, so there's no way they could transfer to civilians.

      Unfortunately, Secretary of Defense Robert Macnamara, under President Johnson, had all the M14s melted down after the switch to M16s. Oh how I wish he hadn't done that

    • Why only to police?

      Because 9/11.

      No, really. This was just another piece of police state bullshit rammed through by Republicans after 9/11, along with warrantless surveillance by the NSA, the Patriot Act, and civil forfeiture laws http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/videos/john-oliver-amplifies-the-absurdity-of-civil-forfeitures-20141006 [rollingstone.com], which allow police to seize your property with only an accusation.

      Remember this next time the Republicans get on their soapbox pretending to be Libertarians.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        The Republicans (many of them) are Statists, not Libertarians.

        Now, the Romans and Greeks of the ancient world understood that in the immediate aftermath of a big event, poor law was made. They left us cautionary examples and quotes. Then again, nobody in politics today reads the classics and neither does the public generally.

        And thus, we generate new cautionary tales.

      • by mi ( 197448 )

        This was just another piece of police state bullshit rammed through by Republicans after 9/11

        I seem to remember a vastly bipartisan support for these laws after 9/11... I don't think, you can plausibly single RethugliKKKans out.

        Worse, Democrats had 4 years of majority in both Chambers of Congress — two of those years with a fellow Democrat in the White House. If they have not abolished these laws during the times, they are just as a guilty.

        Back to my original point of the Second Amendment right

        • by dave420 ( 699308 )
          It's incredibly troubling that you spend so much time and energy trying to defend one shit from another because your pet shit smells ever so slightly better to you. You're defending shit like it's worth defending. Stop it, and the world might just be a better place.
        • by bouldin ( 828821 )

          I didn't actually say anything about the Democrats, but I would agree that they are NOT our last bastion of personal freedoms.

          I also would not say Clinton or Obama are especially liberal. To a first approximation, the modern Democratic party is almost exactly like the modern Republican party.

          Yeah, you certainly have forgotten everything, that inconveniences your lie-telling...

          I appreciate that I may have ruffled your feathers, but you have not come close to proving I've said any lies.

          The way to prove or di

          • by mi ( 197448 )

            but you have not come close to proving I've said any lies.

            The untruths consisted of:

            1. Accusing Republicans of passing the Patriot Act in 2000 — the stupid law passed Congress 357 to 66, and Senate — 98 to 1.
            2. Accusing Republicans of introducing the civil forfeiture laws — a mistake you've already acknowledged since.
            3. Implying, Republicans are the reason, our Second Amendment right is trampled — and, at best, is treated as a mere privilege at best. You said nothing on this explicitly, b
            • by bouldin ( 828821 )

              The untruths consisted of:

              Accusing Republicans of passing the Patriot Act in 2000 â" the stupid law passed Congress 357 to 66, and Senate â" 98 to 1.

              No, I said they rammed it through, which is different. The act was introduced by a Republican, and all House Repubs except 3 voted for it. For comparison, 62 Democrats opposed it.

              Part of how Republicans rammed it through is by accusing Democrats of being weak on national security. I think you have an idea what I meant.

              Accusing Republicans of introd

              • by mi ( 197448 )

                The act was introduced by a Republican, and all House Repubs except 3 voted for it. For comparison, 62 Democrats opposed it.

                And how do you explain away the 98:1 votes for the law in Senate? Or the fact, that the law — originally meant to automatically expire — was just extended by everybody's favorite Democrat [huffingtonpost.com]? He said:

                "It's an important tool for us to continue dealing with an ongoing terrorist threat"

                It's interesting that you omitted the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984 [...]

                You were r

  • $1000 Flashlights? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04, 2014 @07:55PM (#48527355)

    And why did they give our local PD 145 flashlights worth $130K? What does a thousand-dollar flashlight even /look/ like?

    • by sabri ( 584428 )

      And why did they give our local PD 145 flashlights worth $130K? What does a thousand-dollar flashlight even /look/ like?

      I was going to post exactly the same thing, so you must be from Santa Clara County as well.

      $896 for a flashlight... But what about the 6 camouflage sets for $26k? Do they fly?

      • by ColdWetDog ( 752185 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @10:22PM (#48528147) Homepage

        Camouflage netting seems to be a biggy. The Anchorage, Alaska DEA got a $26,000 radar evading camo net system for some bizarre reason. Perhaps they're fighting an onslaught of radar equipped meth labs hidden in Polar Bear dens above the Arctic Circle. Who knows.

        Night vision systems are also popular. That makes sense, but boy am I jealous.

    • by Marginal Coward ( 3557951 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @08:14PM (#48527465)

      They must look pretty darn good - otherwise, the folks who would pay $1000 for a flashlight must not be too bright...

    • Not sure what kind they are, but they might look something like this: (price $900) http://www.foxfury.com/product... [foxfury.com]

      I've seen many tactical and weapon light systems in the big sporting good stores going for anywhere between $200-$500. I'm sure the military could find a way to pay twice that on dang flashlight somehow.

      They may also be using non-standard UV or IR flashlights too, those seem to cost a lot for some reason as well.
    • What I'm curious about is how in the hell two disposable cups cost $127.30
      Or how 220 gauze bandages comes to $424.60
      Or 17 rolls of "pressure sensitive adhesive tape" (read: likely duct tape or equivalent) is $281.69
      And a single plastic bag listed at $194.75

      Does the US military electroplate their gear with precious metals before selling it, or what? I'm not even a US citizen, but those prices - sans a reasonable explanation - seem obscene.

      PS: Taken from the MO Department of Public Safety.

    • And why did they give our local PD 145 flashlights worth $130K? What does a thousand-dollar flashlight even /look/ like?

      They're probably flashlights designed to be mounted onto weapons that put out incredible recoil. A lot of cheap flashlights will break somehow on the first shot because the forces involved are just massive so building a flashlight that can withstand these forces and be reliable takes some quality materials and engineering.

      Though to be honest I still can't imagine even the finest built flashlight being worth $1000 but it's not out of character for our government to like to overpay for everything.

    • At least flashlights are something police departments can use. My county police department got a mine resistant truck. Are there mines buried all over my county that I don't know about?!!! *carefully watches where I step*

  • by Karmashock ( 2415832 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @07:55PM (#48527363)

    ... to the people.

    This limits what you'll sell to the police because a lot of this hardware you don't want in "civilian" hands... the police ARE civilians. They are not military.

    Anything the police are able to buy, should be something the average citizen can buy.

    Pistols?
    Rifles?
    Shotguns?
    Body armor?
    Tear gas?
    Gas masks?
    Flash bangs?
    Tasers?

    All of that can be sold to civilians already. No issue there.

    Tanks?
    Machine guns?

    THAT crosses a line.

    If I can't buy a tank then I don't want to see the police using them either. Both the police and the general public must operate under the same rules.

    If police are getting out gunned by people that have automatic weapons, then we can look at that situation and see how that happened. From what I've seen, that mostly happens with the cartels if it happens at all. And in those cases, you're dealing with a failure of the border patrol etc. Regardless, you can bring in the FBI if you really want to bring some firepower down on their heads.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 04, 2014 @08:39PM (#48527633)

      Tanks [milweb.net] for sale. Some even nearly affordable.

      Machine guns made before 1986 can easily be bought. Those made after require a class 3 FFL, which isn't impossible to get, but you have to follow the rules and it takes a while.

      As far as I know there is only 1 case of a legal machiene gun being used in a crime, and it was owned by a police officer.

      • Apply the same rules to the police that you apply to regular civilians and I am fine with it.

        If I can own and USE a tank... driving it down the street... then by all means... let the police do the same. That includes any weapons applied to the tank. If you mount machine guns on it or a 180 mil bore main gun... then I want to be able to have one as well... including the ability to buy ammo for it if they can do the same.

        As to machine guns, I am aware of the situation. My stance remains the same there. If the

        • by asylumx ( 881307 )
          I don't want any citizens police or otherwise driving tanks down the street. Our streets here in Michigan are bad enough just with the weather, we really don't need tanks tearing them up!
      • by pr0t0 ( 216378 )

        Bookmarked in the event of zombie apocalypse!

      • From my understanding you needed to have a class 3 FFL to be able to sell machines guns but that still doesn't allow you to own ones made after 1986. Also from my understanding it is a $500 tax stamp that needs to be acquired to own one and the government can search your home at any time. Then again I don't really know the laws all that well on machine guns since the most powerful firearm I own, were the receiver made 2 years earlier, would be completely unregulated.

        As far as tanks yes you can own them b
    • I know a guy who owns an armoured car. it is unarmed, but he takes it out at times and drives around.

      So you can own an armoured vehicle.

      One of the issues of tanks and other modern armoured vehicles is that they are *integrated systems* and the manufacturer may be able to sell you a tank, but not if it contains defense department secret technologies like range finders, sighting systems, computer driven stabilization systems, EW and comms gear, etc.

      So, although perhaps you could buy such a vehicle as a raw ve

      • It's a short (and lethal) time where patrol officers with pistols, limited armour, and unarmoured patrol cars are engaged by high velocity portable weapons systems.

        So any hunting rifle then. Seriously, standard police body armor or a car door doesn't do much of anything against common deer round even like low end .30-30 let alone something like a .303, .308, .30-06, 7.62x54r, 8mm Mauser, 7.5x55mm Swiss which are all fairly common round going back over the last 70 or so years. Now add in that a semi-automatic, self loading, rifle like the M1 Garand were basically handed out like candy [wikipedia.org] after WWII so the police would have been outgunned even then more so without modern

      • The LA Bank thing was a bad deal,

        but my little town of 5500 people has never had something like that happen in it. Ever. A police officer in my community, has never been killed in the line of duty, in our town. We had one killed in 1947 when he provided mutual aid to a neighboring town.

        But our local police chief is currently trying to convince our Mayor that he really needs to upgrade to Armored Vehicles and riot gear. "Look what happened in Ferguson MO, that could happen here."

        We have a training cul

      • So long as the police have to follow the exact same rules, I'm fine with it.

        They are not military. Police ARE civilians.

    • If I can't buy a tank then I don't want to see the police using them either. Both the police and the general public must operate under the same rules.

      You can buy a tank. However, in this day and age, the US military will no longer sell it to you, not even after disabling the weapon system, and not even if it's old, outdated, and no longer classified secret. You'd have to buy it from another country, then ship it to its destination since it won't be legal to drive it on many public roads, even with capped treads.

      OTOH, you can't buy a machine gun, and cops have long been permitted to have automatic weapons. So yeah, I'm with you there. Short automatic weap

    • by LWATCDR ( 28044 )

      Not a single tank was sold to the police. I also did not see a single machine gun offered to police. Automatic weapons yes but not a single machine gun that I saw.
      Also no the police and population do not have to work under the same rules! Show me that in law. Show that to me in a nation on earth.
      And sometimes you do not have time get the FBI to a location..
      It is called Military surplus. Many of the items are offered for less than value of the metal in them. So your local police get a mine resistant truck th

      • Equality under the law.

        Or

        A police state.

        Choose.

        I am not asking that civilians be given tanks and automatic weapons. I am demanding that the police be denied them.

        They don't need them. If you run into a situation where you need automatic weapons then call in the national guard because your country just got invaded.

        Tear gas, sniper rifles, and old fashioned police tactics work just fine to drop anything short of an invasion. You do not need military hardware.

  • $900 Flashlight? (Score:4, Interesting)

    by hawguy ( 1600213 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @07:56PM (#48527367)

    I'd like to know what kind of Flashlights Santa Clara, CA received at $900 each. ($130K for 145 of them).

    They received a utility truck worth $47K - if they put just 53 of their flashlights in the back of the truck, they'd be worth more than the truck itself.

    What makes these flashlights worth $900?

    • by 50000BTU_barbecue ( 588132 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @08:04PM (#48527403) Journal

      The 850$ kickback.

    • Re:$900 Flashlight? (Score:4, Informative)

      by Dereck1701 ( 1922824 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @08:16PM (#48527475)

      http://www.amazon.com/Surefire... [amazon.com]

      Not quite there but close, some of the weapon mount flashlights are pretty expensive. I'm sure some of it is government procurement kickbacks, some of it is probably the 24 hour on call assistance military contracts demand, but the lights themselves have to be built insanely tough as well. I once bought a cheap knock off flashlight/laser combo just to try out on my shotgun. It shook itself apart before I fired the fifth round.

    • by AK Marc ( 707885 )
      Over $2000 each for a pile of target holders. I presume for target practice. Alaskan Troopers. They also got a $460,000 vehicle, not sure what kind.
  • I'm happy to say that none of my local police departments received anything too crazy (grenade launchers, APC's, etc). Mostly it was pretty reasonable stuff like rifles, pistols, gear, trucks, etc. I am a tad concerned with the number of weapons some of them received, most of the departments seemed to want an assault rifle for every single officer and enough pistols for every employee in their department. I realize that police need to keep up with some of the stuff used by the exceedingly rare nutcase bu

    • by pavon ( 30274 )

      Yeah same here. The only bad thing I saw were the MRAPs [slashdot.org] which have already been in the local news. I can't imagine that there are enough situations where such a vehicle would be needed to justify the high maintenance costs. They are mostly used for show, as projections of power.

      Other than that, it's a bunch of useful items. The larger police departments got explosive ordinance disposal robots, scopes, utility trucks, helicopter. The forest service got a bunch of night vision supplies. The department of corr

    • There are some WTFs still when you look beyond just the police agencies. For example, the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has acquired 130 5.56 rifles. Why?

  • All this means is that we got the crap scared out of us at various points in recent history (roughly 5 years after the end of the cold war and 9/11, respectively) and we ended up "recouping" some of the costs incurred by the original freakouts by sending the crap we bought for the defense department to local police departments in the hopes that it might be useful for something. Want a less militarized police force? Don't fund the military to the point of embarrassing overkill, folks.
  • by Jim Sadler ( 3430529 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @10:24PM (#48528153)
    As far as i know it was 1961 when the city of Ft. Lauderdale got the first police tank. It was in fear of the dreaded college students on Ft. Lauderdale beach on spring break. It was stored underneath the local public swimming pool. It featured such things as tear gas sprays and rubber bullets. But the heavy, tracked vehicle was a threat as our beach road was normally covered with students. We had as many as 500,000 at one time. About 1962 colleges started to stagger their spring breaks to avoid crowding at resort areas and the FT. Lauderdale police and officials were ugly enough to cause less kids to come to Ft. Lauderdale anyway. And yes, kids really were assaulted for no reason by over worked cops. I was there and saw it first hand. Oh Lord save us from the hordes of scholars descending upon us.
  • by fhage ( 596871 ) on Thursday December 04, 2014 @10:52PM (#48528281)
    Gotta love our Florence Colorado (pop 3881) and their ability to do federal paperwork. Their police dept received $3.7M including;
    • 1 MINE RESISTANT VEHICLE
    • 2 COMBAT/ASSAULT/TACTICAL WHEELED VEHICLES
    • 1 Ordinance disposal robot
    • Lost count at 22 Trucks, including 3 fork lifts, a Bus and a Self propelled Vacuum.
    • 7 Trailers, including a recreational camper
    • Welding equipment, woodworking machines, bending machine
    • Earth Moving equipment, tractors, spreaders
    • 26 spotlights, 12 IR aiming systems
    • 10 night vision systems
    • 6 Shop Vacs, 2 lawn mowers, 5 TV's
    • and... 4 Mules

    Who can beat their 120+ line items of largess in a town with less than 5000 people? The Florence Facebook photos page is to die for. It took me 5 minutes to recover. Looks like a total LE staff around 12. (including the dog). I want pictures of Florence Cops on Mules!

    • Who can beat their 120+ line items of largess in a town with less than 5000 people? The Florence Facebook photos page is to die for. It took me 5 minutes to recover. Looks like a total LE staff around 12. (including the dog). I want pictures of Florence Cops on Mules!

      While they may have been live mules the MULE was a also a mechanical device. Could have been a museum piece or maybe an M-Gator?

  • It's amazing that our tax dollars pay for the equipment to be bought on DOD contracts on the federal level, and then our state tax dollars turn around to pay for it a second time. What a complete fucking sham.
  • John Oliver did a funny yet sad piece on Fergusson, MO and police militarization. My favorite part is the two stoners in Saginaw, MI filming the sheriff's armored truck; particularly when one has a moment of clarity and wonders how bad their city really is.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • A couple examples from my home county:

    LAMP,INCANDESCENT 15 $5,096.70
    LIFE PRESERVER,YOKE 12 $11,908.32

    It seems like someone is scamming someone here. Or, is Uncle Sam actually paying over $300 each for light bulbs (maybe complete lamps)? $1,000 for a life preserver?

    This concern is aside from the county's acquisition of a tank, APC's, mine resistant vehicle, dozens of assault rifles, etc.
  • I'm curious why my local Agriculture Department needs a bunch of M-16s.

    I know that the "5.56mm rifle" is an M-16, and the ".45 cal pistol" would be a 1911, but what is the "7.62mm rifle"? I'm hoping it's an old M-14 rifle. I'm hoping these are not M-60s!

    • The sniper rifle is still 30 caliber. The question you should be asking is why your agriculture department needs sniper weapons.

  • 1600 Snow Parkas

    was this just a 'HAHA beat you to it Alaska"

  • The 'USFS GIFFORD PINCHOT NAT'L FOREST' received over $1.4 million in items. It's a sizable place in southern Washington, but that still seems high. Turns out that $1.1 million of that was for FOUR rugged PDAs. Most everything they got were tools. US DOJ ATF RENTON recieved 5 multimeters valued at over $60k apiece, and other things like weather stations and oscilloscopes. PULLMAN POLICE DEPT got $22 of items: 6 pairs of sun/wind/dust goggles. KING COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE took in over 2 million, includ

When you are working hard, get up and retch every so often.

Working...