|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The Pleasanton Police Department’s biannual update to the City Council last week included a brief reference to AB 481: Military Equipment Funding, Acquisition, and Use.
AB 481 opens with the statement, “The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare, including increased risk of civilian deaths, significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well-being, and incurment of significant financial costs.”
The legislation requires that an approval process by a governing body like the City Council for the use of military equipment acquired before January 1, 2022, by municipal agencies like the PPD must begin by May 1, 2022.
Since AB 481 states that military equipment does not keep us safe, but does the opposite, and since the commencement of the approval process is almost here, it got me to thinking about the question: What military equipment does the PPD currently possess?
I know about the department’s armored rescue vehicle, but that’s all, so I submitted this question to the council ahead of their meeting and copied PPD Chief David Swing.
During the Q&A following the department’s update presentation, Chief Swing responded that the PPD has a number of items that qualify under the state’s “expansive list” of military equipment.
I appreciate Chief Swing’s candor in his response, although the fact that our police department possesses that much military equipment that under current legislation “adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare” also causes me concern.
The provisions of AB 481 do set a high bar if the PPD, and the City Council, want to retain the current inventory of military equipment or add to it. Specifically, any military equipment use policy submitted by the PPD must demonstrate that:
* The military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
* The proposed military equipment will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights and civil liberties.
* If purchasing the equipment, the equipment is reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.
My expectation as a citizen of Pleasanton is that the City Council will ensure that the PPD provides a comprehensive policy to meet the requirements of AB 481 so that, as the bill further states, “safeguards, including transparency, oversight, and accountability measures (are) in place to protect the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties before military equipment is funded, acquired, or used.”
I urge other citizens to also follow up on this subject. You can email the members of the City Council at citycouncil@cityofpleasantonca.gov.
Editor’s note: Ward Kanowsky is a 28-year Pleasanton resident, and he and his wife, LeAnn, have raised three children locally. He is a longtime, active volunteer in the community.
I disagree. I do not want the criminal element in our region out gunning our police department. I want the Pleasanton police department to have over whelming resources to counter what there is out there in the hands of the criminals.
“Since AB 481 states that military equipment does not keep us safe, but does the opposite, and since the commencement of the approval process is almost here, it got me to thinking…”
How about getting to thinking that the left wing, which runs the state with super majorities in the legislature, seems to endlessly find fault with law enforcement personnel no matter what the circumstances – and at the same time treats criminals as victims? If you want a safer society, vote the progressives out.
Energy spent in seeking Sheriff Candidates (it’s too late this year, probably) that recognize and support the Constitutional Sheriff Movement https://americanpoliceofficersalliance.com/what-is-a-constitutional-sheriff/ I believe, would far better serve our communities than worrying over the weapons of war in our city armories.
The heart of the Constitutional Sheriff Movement is derived from the fact that local Sheriff’s are elected to enforce the law, police departments are hired to keep the peace, it’s why we call police, peace officers.
Constitutional Sheriff’s hold our vote to enforce the law…. but they swear to do so through the filter of constitutionality. This become a huge deal when the Sheriff feels a government directive is an overreach of government. The Constitutional Sheriff and deputies becomes a sworn, independent layer between citizens and government overreach. The Sheriff is the highest officer in the land locally, county by county, no higher agency can come into the Sheriff’s district and enforce law if the Sheriff does not allow it. Their movement is growing.
Our current list of Sheriff candidates have not answered the question, “Do you support the Constitutional Sheriff Movement?’
But it is coming.
This bill defines an overly-broad 15 Categories of tools these nuts claim are “Military” weapons…that have safely and effectively been used by local law enforcement for 50+ years BTW. Non-lethal tools used to deescalate dangerous situations and protect the lives of our officers…such as breaching tools, rubber or bean bag or pepperball projectiles, flashbang distraction devices, tear gas, and armored vehicles designed to provide ballistic protection. Oh, and also included are unmanned, remotely piloted aerial vehicles. I have my own DJI camera drone…do I own “Military Equipment?!?” Nope! The CA state legislature, our beloved governor, and maybe this guest have their own agendas…and they are NOT providing protection and necessary safety tools to our valuable public servants. I do not object to oversight by local governing bodies and/or transparency to our community at large. But I do not agree these tools “adversely impact the public’s safety and welfare,” just the opposite. And it should be noted EVERY police department in the Bay Area is heavily recruiting for new police officers (zero experience required), you should consider applying!
The original article poster also fails to note the clear politicized component of this bill as well contained in the very few next sentences. ANother reason why police are leaving. Just look at how long Pleasanton has had that job opportunity up on their facebook page. Oversight isn’t bad, but this seems to overstep the bounds of the public reach. With some crimes, proliferation of ghost guns etc, let the police do their job so they can protect us. DOn’t forget the violent shootout from the bank robbery, rifle rounds from an apartment etc. If we take away tools to make them do their job bravely, which is what this bill aims to do, we will feel the effect of that shortsightedness.
So what specific equipment is this ‘Pleasanton Citizen’ so upset about? He did not provide a list of any military items that would cause him or us any consternation. Furthermore, he didn’t provide one incident by the Pleasanton Police utilizing any ‘Military Equipment’ that supposedly endangered us. Liberals are really cashing in on the ‘Mass Formation Psychosis’ phenomenon in the last two years. I suggest if this contributor has a need to feel fear he should contact our legislators regarding the following:
The hole in the southern boarder
Soros DA’s that are soft on crime.
Fentanyl coming across the boarder in unprecedented amounts.
Interference in our voting process.
Inflation out of control.
Shutdown of our energy production.
Out of control spending by this administration.
Continual requirement of mask wearing for our kids.
Forced vaccinations for our kids.
An administration that is itching to get our kids in another war.
I can do this all day long. You have more to worry about then a few tools that the Police Department has acquired from the military to keep our officers safe.
The police need to be prepared for the unexpected. They have a right to have the best equipment available for the unexpected things that come up because they have a right to go home to their families after their shift. Anyone one that thinks the police have too much protection, need to do some ride alongs and see how quickly things can go south. This guy just wants to get some press.
The July 5, 2014, or 2015 Pleasanton police shooting in the Deming incident, the Livermore police force was on site at that incident assisting the Pleasanton police force.
Again, 2/17/2022 the Livermore police force was on site at the incident with their armored vehicle assisting the Pleasanton police force take down that bad man.
Those two incidents alone tend to indicate the Pleasanton police force did not have the necessary resources available, that the Livermore police force and resources was necessary to help in each of those incidents.
The posts above demonstrate that the conservative answer to law enforcement is more weapons for the police. It has not worked and will not work. Texas Governor has put their National Guard on the border and it has not made a dent into the number of immigrants crossing the border. Let’s get to the root of these problems as opposed to buying more guns.
Kevin you should read the bill, it’s about much more than guns. By conservative you mean wanting my police to be able to protect my family and friends when its needed without thought about how militarized they appear to get that job done? That I value pragmatism over my feelings? Your post demonstrates so much more than the conservative answer to law enforcement ones.
States along Mexican border:
Texas – 1,241 miles of border.
California – 140 miles of border.
New Mexico – 180 miles of border.
Arizona – 373 miles of border.
In recent years Texas had 650,000 illegal immigrants in its jails.
350,000 of those illegal immigrants were criminal illegals.
The Biden administration has ignored their open border and is flying and bussing illegals all across this nation.
Sounds like some folks missed the point of my opinion piece. I understand that a lot of people may not like AB 481, but it is now a bill that the PPD is accountable to follow. If you don’t like this, talk to your legislators because lack of compliance with the bill now that it has passed is not an option for the PPD. Telling them otherwise is saying it’s OK not to follow the law.
And to the commenter who asked about why I didn’t provide a specific list of military items, no such list was provided by the PPD.
No one missed what you wrote.
I for one disagree with this extreme overreach law.
It is liberal democrat political majority party control out of control.
The liberal majority political party do not know what they put into law.
You asked for a list? The liberal political party you support did not provide a list.
You should write and ask what your party voted for.