Non-military federal agencies’ purchases of guns, ammunition, etc (2016)(openthebooks.com)
openthebooks.com
Non-military federal agencies’ purchases of guns, ammunition, etc (2016)
https://www.openthebooks.com/assets/1/7/Oversight_TheMilitarizationOfAmerica_06102016.pdf
137 comments
Budgetary reasons. Why would the FBI spend their own money and resources to enforce FDA regulations? That's money coming out of their budget. There would need to be in place a central federal police force that would be funded by the various agencies that require X number of hours of law enforcement per year. But this might create even greater costs due to the overhead in running this federal police force. You would need offices all over the country alongside the current federal agency offices like FDA, FBI, DEA, etc.
It would probably be easier to have the FBI setup as a federal police force which it pretty much almost is. Agencies could send part of their budget to the FBI to essentially purchase law enforcement hours. Factor in the cost of hourly rate of officer + hourly rate of overhead for officer + usage of resources + any other expenses incurred and then bill that to the agency that requires the police work. This would help smaller agencies by reducing the costs they would have to spend on maintaining a police force of their own 24/7. The only issue would be that the FBI would need to maintain a force large enough to enforce anything the other agencies would require of it. Things like DEA work and regular FBI work would require much more man power than things like DOE work so smaller agencies might not get the representation and priority they would get by maintaining their own force.
It would probably be easier to have the FBI setup as a federal police force which it pretty much almost is. Agencies could send part of their budget to the FBI to essentially purchase law enforcement hours. Factor in the cost of hourly rate of officer + hourly rate of overhead for officer + usage of resources + any other expenses incurred and then bill that to the agency that requires the police work. This would help smaller agencies by reducing the costs they would have to spend on maintaining a police force of their own 24/7. The only issue would be that the FBI would need to maintain a force large enough to enforce anything the other agencies would require of it. Things like DEA work and regular FBI work would require much more man power than things like DOE work so smaller agencies might not get the representation and priority they would get by maintaining their own force.
> Budgetary reasons. Why would the FBI spend their own money and resources to enforce FDA regulations? That's money coming out of their budget.
Businesses have been charging internal departments budgetary expenses for ages. That's what an overhead department - often IT, for example - does.
Thinking of these as separate agencies is just an easy way to hide that they are all federal government agencies.
Even working with charging state agencies wouldn't be that difficult to work out.
Businesses have been charging internal departments budgetary expenses for ages. That's what an overhead department - often IT, for example - does.
Thinking of these as separate agencies is just an easy way to hide that they are all federal government agencies.
Even working with charging state agencies wouldn't be that difficult to work out.
> campus police
This one I've always found bizarre. What is it about American university students in particular that requires there to be an on-site police force?
This one I've always found bizarre. What is it about American university students in particular that requires there to be an on-site police force?
A university campus is like a microcity with thousands of people, its own economy separate from the surrounding area, facilities, and rules. Instead of sending off reports and requests to city police (and how many students, staff, and faculty are locals, again?), they can have a single, centralised, limited office to handle public safety and policing.
Put another way, it's so everything that happens within the university doesn't eat into municipal or county time and resources, but they can still interoperate with some parity.
Look into the Clery Act for more.
Put another way, it's so everything that happens within the university doesn't eat into municipal or county time and resources, but they can still interoperate with some parity.
Look into the Clery Act for more.
Jurisdiction issues in America were already pointed out, but I'd also remind that in the Old World, universities and their campuses traditionally enjoyed certain kinds of autonomy. This could even extend to immunity from prosecution by regular authorities, with the university as its own jurisdiction handling at least some offences autonomically.
This is, I believe, now completely a thing of the past almost everywhere, but America being rather conservative, there could be echoes of it around.
This is, I believe, now completely a thing of the past almost everywhere, but America being rather conservative, there could be echoes of it around.
>immunity from prosecution by regular authorities
This is still the case at many universities. Offenses which would be classified as criminal (i.e. public intoxication) are handled internally by the university. From one perspective, handling the mistakes of students like this is a way of protecting the university's revenue stream, as parents often withdraw their children from the university after a criminal offense.
This is still the case at many universities. Offenses which would be classified as criminal (i.e. public intoxication) are handled internally by the university. From one perspective, handling the mistakes of students like this is a way of protecting the university's revenue stream, as parents often withdraw their children from the university after a criminal offense.
I was going to reply and mention that protecting the revenue stream is a cynical outlook, given that campus PD can also protect students from graduating college and having a "criminal record" for public intoxication or other petty charges.
But then I recalled an article earlier this year about how "campus PD" have been intervening in sexual assault cases and trying to get them handled by the university instead of the justice system, where there's public record and of course publicity.
But then I recalled an article earlier this year about how "campus PD" have been intervening in sexual assault cases and trying to get them handled by the university instead of the justice system, where there's public record and of course publicity.
There's no doubt that the school I went wins over students and their 70K/year with a reputation of being a 'party school'.
And there's no doubt that it could not have this reputation with more lenient policing than you'll see anywhere else. Certainly moreso than the policing in the inner city ghetto a mile away.
I've seen campus police consistently do nothing over drug possession issues that would, without question get jail time anywhere else in the city.
The dissonance is disturbing to me.
And there's no doubt that it could not have this reputation with more lenient policing than you'll see anywhere else. Certainly moreso than the policing in the inner city ghetto a mile away.
I've seen campus police consistently do nothing over drug possession issues that would, without question get jail time anywhere else in the city.
The dissonance is disturbing to me.
The University of Melbourne in Australia has a similar carry over. The majority of the university is on crown land, in an arrangement where most state laws do not apply (however federal law does). The state police have a standing invitation to go on campus if it's in reply to a "violent crime", but otherwise should never be there. However... the university does not have it's own police force: they just have clueless Wilson's Security personnel like any normal industrial site.
I've heard things along the lines of "most state laws do not apply (however federal law does)" before, but never with a citation. Pretty sure that's just urban legend.
> Pretty sure that's just urban legend.
It might be. I just had a look around for a citation and didn't find much. However I do recall a law student finding something in the university by-laws about it (however that shouldn't overrule state law... unless it does). I found http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLawRw/2002/3.html but the University of Melbourne seems to be victorian crown land (since at least 2000 http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubP...) rather than commonwealth crown land. I don't know enough about property and title in Victoria to make a call here.
It might be. I just had a look around for a citation and didn't find much. However I do recall a law student finding something in the university by-laws about it (however that shouldn't overrule state law... unless it does). I found http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/UWSLawRw/2002/3.html but the University of Melbourne seems to be victorian crown land (since at least 2000 http://www.legislation.vic.gov.au/domino/Web_Notes/LDMS/PubP...) rather than commonwealth crown land. I don't know enough about property and title in Victoria to make a call here.
There's still one relic of this in England: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Constabul...
(AFAIK, the regular police don't have any jurisdictional limits stopping them from acting within university premises, but the University of Cambridge can appoint its own additional officers.)
(AFAIK, the regular police don't have any jurisdictional limits stopping them from acting within university premises, but the University of Cambridge can appoint its own additional officers.)
I think the CU constabulary are largely ceremonial nowadays. The Proctors are still responsible for a bunch of disciplinary things, but probably not legal matters (more like exam rules, plagiarism and keeping a vehicle in Cambridge).
For universities in metropolitan areas, the advantage is in having police that are specialised to handling issues more common to universities (drinking/drug use), implementing policies like a good samaritan policy around drug overdose reporting, being a closer part of the community, and taking part in planning exercises for on-campus emergencies.
Source: When I studied at MIT, I volunteered with two different organisations that liaised with the police. I observed an active shooter tabletop roleplaying exercise. (no, it did not involve dice)
Source: When I studied at MIT, I volunteered with two different organisations that liaised with the police. I observed an active shooter tabletop roleplaying exercise. (no, it did not involve dice)
This is also the reason the National Park Service has its own law enforcement rangers, various state fish and game organizations have game wardens, and likely the EPA had its own special agents, among others. Not only are the issues specialized, the laws are as well.
"Campus policing originated with the establishment of the Yale Campus Police Department in 1894. Yale, located in New Haven, Connecticut, began an agreement with the New Haven Police Department to have two of their officers assigned exclusively to the campus as a means to deter crime on campus, and to better student-police relations. Shortly thereafter these two officers were hired by Yale to keep law and order on the campus. It was not until 73 years later that most college and university security departments became police departments. With the protest of the Vietnam War, the Kent State incident, and crime increasing on college campuses all over America, most of the 50 states did not pass laws authorizing colleges to have their own campus police department until the late 1960's."
Davis, R. (1967). History Of Campus Policing. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://www.oocities.org/odupd/
Davis, R. (1967). History Of Campus Policing. Retrieved February 2, 2017, from http://www.oocities.org/odupd/
Most large American Universities are not part of the surrounding town or city. They are in effect their own municipalities.
Some of the literally are their own municipalities.
Two examples: The University of Notre Dame is in Notre Dame, Indiana, which happens to be surrounded by South Bend, Indiana. Same with Stanford... which is technically in Stanford, California.
Two examples: The University of Notre Dame is in Notre Dame, Indiana, which happens to be surrounded by South Bend, Indiana. Same with Stanford... which is technically in Stanford, California.
Even more literally, the city of College Station, Texas, is a city built around the main campus of Texas A&M. Thus the name.
Ah, interesting - thank you! So it's the civic structure rather than a particularly lawless student base. :) Not so bizarre then - just different!
Is there anywhere else that has the US model? I worked on a UK university campus for a few years and I don't think they had any security guards (certainly I never met any and I was in and out of buildings at all hours) let alone armed police!
The really ancient ones: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_University_Constabul... (I think that may be the last left).
I think UK universities mostly include limited security in their general pastoral support, rather than having dedicated security guards. So there's someone who can e.g. ask a stranger loitering on campus at night what they're doing, but anything serious will be handled by the police.
[deleted]
In general, it's not about the students, it's about the surrounding public. I know at my university there were several assaults over the 4 years I attended. Every last one was caused by someone from the outside coming onto campus to commit a crime.
If, for instance, sexual assault is your thing - a college campus is a pretty good place to find lots of young women who are potentially vulnerable (walking home alone/potentially inebriated). Furthermore, if you're in that approximate age range, it's pretty easy to get lost in the crowd.
If, for instance, sexual assault is your thing - a college campus is a pretty good place to find lots of young women who are potentially vulnerable (walking home alone/potentially inebriated). Furthermore, if you're in that approximate age range, it's pretty easy to get lost in the crowd.
The one that caused me to do a double take was the "postal police"... the postal service, at least in New York, appears to have its own police force.
The USPS is a federal agency so it's not limited to NY, USPS police are federal agents.
I believe they traditionally have dealt with a lot of mail fraud and child pornography investigations.
I believe they traditionally have dealt with a lot of mail fraud and child pornography investigations.
Another fun one, the Supreme Court has their own police force with 145 members. There are quite a few of these micro-police forces in the US system.
Railroad police are even more interesting. Private security given full arrest powers.
That depends on the state and what kind of railroad police you're talking about. In California they are full sworn officers who have general police powers (i.e., they're not limited to operating on railroad property). In other states it's different.
Amtrak police are federal agents with nationwide jurisdiction. That makes some degree of sense when you realize that pursuit might easily cover several states. The crime itself might even cover several states -- imagine someone burglarizing sleeping compartments on the train. When he hits the first one the train is in Minnesota, but by the time he finishes, the train is in Wisconsin. Having federal jurisdiction avoids pissing contests about which state has authority.
The situation is similar for the sky marshals on planes.
Amtrak police are federal agents with nationwide jurisdiction. That makes some degree of sense when you realize that pursuit might easily cover several states. The crime itself might even cover several states -- imagine someone burglarizing sleeping compartments on the train. When he hits the first one the train is in Minnesota, but by the time he finishes, the train is in Wisconsin. Having federal jurisdiction avoids pissing contests about which state has authority.
The situation is similar for the sky marshals on planes.
I've always found this bizarre too, but then all alcohol is prohibited until 21 quite unlike other places.
I guess someone has to enforce that, too ?
And there is an ABC store right next to the campus that specialises in cheap vodka.
Don't forget the Boston bombers ran to MIT and killed a security guard.
While this is an extreme case some University are in urban environments. Take GaTech for example, every year someone is robbed or even murdered walking near campus. The campus police usually have to fend off vagrants or drug addicts from nearby.
While this is an extreme case some University are in urban environments. Take GaTech for example, every year someone is robbed or even murdered walking near campus. The campus police usually have to fend off vagrants or drug addicts from nearby.
I used to go to Temple in Philadelphia and the amount of crime that took place on or near campus definitely warranted its own police department.
North Philadelphia isn't the safest place to begin with, but 28,000+ college students fresh out of the nest make easy targets for criminals. There's likely around a dozen "incidents" almost daily. Of the 2 or 3 years I was there, two students were murdered, another committed suicide in the middle of campus, and a few others were shot and survived. The campus police department does its best to make a safe zone around campus with either uniformed officers and/or safety officers on the corners every few blocks outside of campus.
North Philadelphia isn't the safest place to begin with, but 28,000+ college students fresh out of the nest make easy targets for criminals. There's likely around a dozen "incidents" almost daily. Of the 2 or 3 years I was there, two students were murdered, another committed suicide in the middle of campus, and a few others were shot and survived. The campus police department does its best to make a safe zone around campus with either uniformed officers and/or safety officers on the corners every few blocks outside of campus.
> Of the 2 or 3 years I was there, [...] another committed suicide in the middle of campus,
Why does this health problem require police attendance?
Why does this health problem require police attendance?
Police are sometimes different from Campus security.
Who else is the front line for mental health problems? A medical doctor or psychiatrist isn't going to be on standby rushing waiting for a student to become sucicidal.
Campus faculty aren't likely to be trained on this stuff.
Who else is the front line for mental health problems? A medical doctor or psychiatrist isn't going to be on standby rushing waiting for a student to become sucicidal.
Campus faculty aren't likely to be trained on this stuff.
> A medical doctor or psychiatrist isn't going to be on standby rushing waiting for a student to become sucicidal.
It actually is and is what they are for. Psychiatrists do clinics etc but occasionally end up absent if a call comes through. It's a bit easier if a big hospital for a big city is near the uni however.
It actually is and is what they are for. Psychiatrists do clinics etc but occasionally end up absent if a call comes through. It's a bit easier if a big hospital for a big city is near the uni however.
Perhaps I shouldn't have mentioned that particular incident; the rest of my points still warrant a higher police presence.
Sean Collier was a sworn MIT Police Officer, not a security guard.
> In the rest of the world, police is much more centralised... New Zealand (admittedly a small country)
The US is broken into "normal" country size blocks - i.e. States. Kiwis have a lot more faith in centralized government though. Many aspects of American society have significant duplication due to a perceived loss in autonomy if resources are consolidated. For example, I live in a metro area of 4 million people that has over 100 local government entities (each suburb has it's own council etc), most with their own emergency services, public works departments, and own set of regulations. It's insane.
> The police don't have fancy equipment, if they need an APC, or helicopters They have one helicopter (http://www.police.govt.nz/contact-us/station/air-support-uni...), it used to be called the "Eagle" when I was a kid growing up in Auckland.
The US is broken into "normal" country size blocks - i.e. States. Kiwis have a lot more faith in centralized government though. Many aspects of American society have significant duplication due to a perceived loss in autonomy if resources are consolidated. For example, I live in a metro area of 4 million people that has over 100 local government entities (each suburb has it's own council etc), most with their own emergency services, public works departments, and own set of regulations. It's insane.
> The police don't have fancy equipment, if they need an APC, or helicopters They have one helicopter (http://www.police.govt.nz/contact-us/station/air-support-uni...), it used to be called the "Eagle" when I was a kid growing up in Auckland.
This accounts for our federal / state / local breakdown, but what is a legitimate question is why does the FDA or IRS need a law enforcement division? Why can't there be a federal law enforcement division that works on behalf of federal agencies with a need?
> Why can't there be a federal law enforcement division that works on behalf of federal agencies with a need?
Because a substantial portion of the work of many agencies involves specialized law enforcement in the domain of responsibility, and it's organizationally inefficient for that to invo love coordinating units where the lowest common level of management is the President of the United States.
Because a substantial portion of the work of many agencies involves specialized law enforcement in the domain of responsibility, and it's organizationally inefficient for that to invo love coordinating units where the lowest common level of management is the President of the United States.
Exactly - the IRS and the DEA and the ATF have very different law enforcement objectives and domains but all have legitimate law enforcement requirements.
The spotty history of the FBI notwithstanding, it makes more sense to have smaller decentralized law enforcement units specialized in their given area than to have one large agency made up of the same specialized groups.
The spotty history of the FBI notwithstanding, it makes more sense to have smaller decentralized law enforcement units specialized in their given area than to have one large agency made up of the same specialized groups.
Would it not be possible to have relevant domain experts as a part of the relevant organization working in tandem with the actual "force" of some sort of white label federal law enforcement? I realize police work involves more than kicking in doors and shooting bad guys, but surely most of these organizations do not need folks running around with guns.
> Would it not be possible to have relevant domain experts as a part of the relevant organization working in tandem with the actual "force" of some sort of white label federal law enforcement?
So, instead of specialized law enforcement for agencies like the park service and forest service, you want to have generic federal cops accompanying unarmed park/forest specialists, and so on throughout the government? That sounds like it would be somewhere between merely grossly inefficient and utterly disastrous in practice in many cases.
> I realize police work involves more than kicking in doors and shooting bad guys, but surely most of these organizations do not need folks running around with guns.
Maybe some of them don't, and I'd like to hear specific arguments for specific agencies as to how things would be better if they didn't.
But in my working career I've seen enough of people distant from a particular organizations work deciding "surely they don't need <resource> in that organization" and producing bad results thereby that I'm highly.skeptical of such claims without some kind of specific, convincing analysis of why the alternative actually is superior for the specific case.
So, instead of specialized law enforcement for agencies like the park service and forest service, you want to have generic federal cops accompanying unarmed park/forest specialists, and so on throughout the government? That sounds like it would be somewhere between merely grossly inefficient and utterly disastrous in practice in many cases.
> I realize police work involves more than kicking in doors and shooting bad guys, but surely most of these organizations do not need folks running around with guns.
Maybe some of them don't, and I'd like to hear specific arguments for specific agencies as to how things would be better if they didn't.
But in my working career I've seen enough of people distant from a particular organizations work deciding "surely they don't need <resource> in that organization" and producing bad results thereby that I'm highly.skeptical of such claims without some kind of specific, convincing analysis of why the alternative actually is superior for the specific case.
The domain experts could be cops themselves, in a specialist department of a broader police force. I'm sure a lot of the basic training and equipment required is the same across agencies.
In any case, the current hyper-local US system for both police and other services is disastrous in practice for many groups of people, and has its own gross inefficiencies (economies of scale are smaller, weaker bargaining positions when purchasing things, etc.).
In any case, the current hyper-local US system for both police and other services is disastrous in practice for many groups of people, and has its own gross inefficiencies (economies of scale are smaller, weaker bargaining positions when purchasing things, etc.).
> The domain experts could be cops themselves, in a specialist department of a broader police force. I'm sure a lot of the basic training and equipment required is the same across agencies.
To the degree that that's true, the basic non-domain specialized training is already shared. [0] There are also, I believe, jointly-developed shard equipment standards and mutiagency equipment purchasing. Even if there weren't, you don't need to put operational authority in a central LE agency to achieve that.
What is the specific benefit to be gained by centralization?
> In any case, the current hyper-local US system for both police and other services is disastrous in practice for many groups of people
A specific argument on this point, particularly about how this is relevant to the subject-matter division of federal agencies rather than the territorial divides of city/county/state general-purpose option policing agencies would be welcome.
[0] https://www.fletc.gov/learn-about-fletc
To the degree that that's true, the basic non-domain specialized training is already shared. [0] There are also, I believe, jointly-developed shard equipment standards and mutiagency equipment purchasing. Even if there weren't, you don't need to put operational authority in a central LE agency to achieve that.
What is the specific benefit to be gained by centralization?
> In any case, the current hyper-local US system for both police and other services is disastrous in practice for many groups of people
A specific argument on this point, particularly about how this is relevant to the subject-matter division of federal agencies rather than the territorial divides of city/county/state general-purpose option policing agencies would be welcome.
[0] https://www.fletc.gov/learn-about-fletc
It may be inefficient, but as I mentioned up-thread, I like that it's more localized.
I've had a neighbor call the cops (in this case sheriff's office) because our horses got out at night. I much prefer dealing with the local deputy who might have a few head of beef cattle himself (and so understand the issues with keeping large animals where you want them to be) vs. a cop from the nearest city who's never had to personally deal with anything other than his cat running around the backyard.
Think of it as community policing on a larger scale.
I've had a neighbor call the cops (in this case sheriff's office) because our horses got out at night. I much prefer dealing with the local deputy who might have a few head of beef cattle himself (and so understand the issues with keeping large animals where you want them to be) vs. a cop from the nearest city who's never had to personally deal with anything other than his cat running around the backyard.
Think of it as community policing on a larger scale.
[deleted]
> Why can't there be a federal law enforcement division that works on behalf of federal agencies with a need?
This may be efficient, but we should consider whether inefficiency may actually be a feature. Each individual enforcement arm is weaker, less easily coordinated with others, and less likely to be commandeered in pursuit of overarching federal goals. A common federal law enforcement entity could come to disconcertingly resemble a domestically deployed military.
This may be efficient, but we should consider whether inefficiency may actually be a feature. Each individual enforcement arm is weaker, less easily coordinated with others, and less likely to be commandeered in pursuit of overarching federal goals. A common federal law enforcement entity could come to disconcertingly resemble a domestically deployed military.
In addition to the other reasons given, the interactions are significantly different because they're specialized. e.g., one day a Park Ranger came up to me when I was photographing a snake. He waited patiently until I was done, we had a conversation about it (informed me that it was a "banded water snake"), talked about how the trout stocking program was going and at the he end said, "oh, by the way, can I see your fishing license?"
A normal state or local cop would have likely just said "hi, good morning, where's your fishing license?" A completely different, though not unpleasant, interaction that would have left me with a different "feeling" about how it happened.
And yes, he was armed. Sidearm in a holster and likely at least one shotgun in the car.
A normal state or local cop would have likely just said "hi, good morning, where's your fishing license?" A completely different, though not unpleasant, interaction that would have left me with a different "feeling" about how it happened.
And yes, he was armed. Sidearm in a holster and likely at least one shotgun in the car.
Maybe it's because I'm not American, but why do you need a handgun to check fishing licences? Are people inclined to start shooting game wardens/park rangers?
>Are people inclined to start shooting game wardens/park rangers?
It might be a small factor, but not really. Legal gun owners aren't typically the ones using them against law enforcement anyway (it's not much different than Europe).
Remember that you (as US wildlife enforcement) are a long way away from civilization and medical aid. As such, the chance that you'll potentially be dealing with animals with sharp teeth, claws, and fangs is substantially higher than the average person going fishing on Saturday once every few months. This is the reason geological survey crews (like the USGS) tend to be armed as well.
Contrast this to Western Europe, where any animal of sufficient size to harm a human is endangered if not already extinct. The density of civilization is much greater than it is in the US; if you are injured by something a gun can defend against it's much more likely you'll be quickly rescued. The requirement you be armed out there is much less.
It might be a small factor, but not really. Legal gun owners aren't typically the ones using them against law enforcement anyway (it's not much different than Europe).
Remember that you (as US wildlife enforcement) are a long way away from civilization and medical aid. As such, the chance that you'll potentially be dealing with animals with sharp teeth, claws, and fangs is substantially higher than the average person going fishing on Saturday once every few months. This is the reason geological survey crews (like the USGS) tend to be armed as well.
Contrast this to Western Europe, where any animal of sufficient size to harm a human is endangered if not already extinct. The density of civilization is much greater than it is in the US; if you are injured by something a gun can defend against it's much more likely you'll be quickly rescued. The requirement you be armed out there is much less.
History probably plays a role, and that some of the people they'll encounter will be legally armed, perhaps animal control. Their job is more than just checking fishing licenses.
Why did you need a fishing license to photograph a snake?
All of those police forces are unrecognized by the Constitution except the Sheriff
Where are sheriffs mentions in the Constitution?
GP is not completely wrong. Many state constitutions do indeed create the office of Sheriff. The federal one does not, of course, because there is no federal sheriff.
Each state Constitution will have him listed. He is an officer of the state but sworn to uphold and defend both the state Constitution and the federal Constitution. Answerable only to the people of his county.
His job is to protect the law AND the rights of the people from federal law that would strip their rights away.
His job is to protect the law AND the rights of the people from federal law that would strip their rights away.
1. If you use the phrase "the Constitution" without first referencing a specific one, the overwhelming majority of Americans will assume you're referring to the US Constitution.
2. Women can be Sheriffs.
2. Women can be Sheriffs.
Most of these agencies have some statutory responsibility to enforce law and investigate crimes under their purview. This includes enforcing court orders and arresting suspects in unknown and potentially dangerous situations. The report actually explains these things all the while sneering at the fact that these agencies need to employ investigative and enforcement personnel as part of their core mission.
Many of these agencies maintain large facilities to serve their core purposes and have to provide security for their facilities.
Little in this report is anywhere as alarming as the reports authors would like to make it out to be. OpenTheBooks.com seems to take the view that all government spending is wasteful, and by describing it out of context seeks to present it as abuse. For instance they present research grants to Ivy League schools as government subsidy of those schools [1] and The US Government employing a lot of lawyers as somehow suspect [2].
[1] http://www.openthebooks.com/openthebooks_oversight_report_%E...
[2] http://www.openthebooks.com/openthebooks_snapshot_oversight_...
Many of these agencies maintain large facilities to serve their core purposes and have to provide security for their facilities.
Little in this report is anywhere as alarming as the reports authors would like to make it out to be. OpenTheBooks.com seems to take the view that all government spending is wasteful, and by describing it out of context seeks to present it as abuse. For instance they present research grants to Ivy League schools as government subsidy of those schools [1] and The US Government employing a lot of lawyers as somehow suspect [2].
[1] http://www.openthebooks.com/openthebooks_oversight_report_%E...
[2] http://www.openthebooks.com/openthebooks_snapshot_oversight_...
>
Most of these agencies have some statutory responsibility to enforce law and investigate crimes under their purview. This includes enforcing court orders and arresting suspects in unknown and potentially dangerous situations. The report actually explains these things all the while sneering at the fact that these agencies need to employ investigative and enforcement personnel as part of their core mission.
In Germany, we have solved this massive waste of money and resources by having police help other agencies. We call this "Amtshilfe". So for example if the tax office wants to raid a business in order to seize records, they request appropriate police assistance.
Basically we have three different kind of police: some "border cops" (former Bundesgrenzschutz, now Bundespolizei; these care about border protection and security on train stations/airports), a massive amount of state cops caring for literally everything from the ordinary bar fight to arresting terrorists, and in some rare cities there are "city cops" (Stadtpolizei) taking care about enforcing parking tickets and other city regulations.
But individual agencies do not have their own police powers (okay, maybe except the military - they have the Feldjäger, but these have only authority over military personnel and are rarely seen outside barracks).
In Germany, we have solved this massive waste of money and resources by having police help other agencies. We call this "Amtshilfe". So for example if the tax office wants to raid a business in order to seize records, they request appropriate police assistance.
Basically we have three different kind of police: some "border cops" (former Bundesgrenzschutz, now Bundespolizei; these care about border protection and security on train stations/airports), a massive amount of state cops caring for literally everything from the ordinary bar fight to arresting terrorists, and in some rare cities there are "city cops" (Stadtpolizei) taking care about enforcing parking tickets and other city regulations.
But individual agencies do not have their own police powers (okay, maybe except the military - they have the Feldjäger, but these have only authority over military personnel and are rarely seen outside barracks).
One question: are there police offices dedicated to particular agencies, or do the agencies rely on "general police" with no special experience with the laws and issues of the agency? If the equivalent of a National Park Service employee finds evidence of poaching, does she call in an officer with experience arresting poachers?
And do the majority of cities not enforce parking tickets?
And do the majority of cities not enforce parking tickets?
Here in the UK many government agencies have investigation and enforcement responsibilities and personnel, but they are 'civilians'. There just isn't any expectation that these people are ever likely to get into a situation where they might need to be armed or ever even encounter someone who is armed. If they got into a potentially dangerous situation they'd run a mile and call the police.
The situation is a bit different in some places in continental Europe. Building security at several offices I visited in Italy were armed and when I first encountered that I found that quite shocking, but firearms are generally more available and of course they have a particular problem with organized crime.
The situation is a bit different in some places in continental Europe. Building security at several offices I visited in Italy were armed and when I first encountered that I found that quite shocking, but firearms are generally more available and of course they have a particular problem with organized crime.
Yes, European police are more likely to be armed. Italy has its Carabinieri as a national-level armed police in addition to a separate set of regular police.
The key to UK policing's low violence rate compared to the US is, bluntly, that people care when members of the public are shot by police. It's regarded as a failure of the alternative methods. Whereas in the US people go beyond merely defending the police into practically cheering the street execution of a "criminal".
The key to UK policing's low violence rate compared to the US is, bluntly, that people care when members of the public are shot by police. It's regarded as a failure of the alternative methods. Whereas in the US people go beyond merely defending the police into practically cheering the street execution of a "criminal".
Also strict gun control. It's the single most effective population-scale de-escalation technique.
The UK has plenty of police violence -- a (disappointingly) high rate of tasering for compliance (where previously we'd see a bit of truncheon action). We just don't kill 'em because they're not going to be killing us.
The UK has plenty of police violence -- a (disappointingly) high rate of tasering for compliance (where previously we'd see a bit of truncheon action). We just don't kill 'em because they're not going to be killing us.
Department of Homeland Security is equivalent to Carabinieri.
[deleted]
Even MI5 get the police to actually make arrests - there are a few other organisations are armed the Nuke police and I suspect MI5 and MI6 must have PPW.
>I suspect MI5 and MI6 must have PPW
I very much doubt it, they're civilians. Why would they need to be armed?
I very much doubt it, they're civilians. Why would they need to be armed?
[deleted]
> and arresting suspects in unknown and potentially dangerous situations.
This just leads to Alcohol Beverage Commission "agents" pulling guns on a young woman buying a crate of water.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/sideshow/uva-girl-water-bee...
It's fucking stupid for a gang of out of uniform people to approach her and pull guns, and then charge her when she panics.
Take the guns off those people. Give the guns to police. Give the police rigorous training to use the guns, but also a lot more training in de-escalation.
This just leads to Alcohol Beverage Commission "agents" pulling guns on a young woman buying a crate of water.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/blogs/sideshow/uva-girl-water-bee...
It's fucking stupid for a gang of out of uniform people to approach her and pull guns, and then charge her when she panics.
Take the guns off those people. Give the guns to police. Give the police rigorous training to use the guns, but also a lot more training in de-escalation.
The fact is those girls could have had guns in their purses and it's entirely plausible that if so one of them might have reached for it in order to exercise her constitutional right to defend herself and 'stand her ground'. In a heavily armed society, the rational solution is that all government officials that might ever have to challenge the public need to be armed and assume hostile intent at all times. Hence pulling guns on kids buying water is the expected result. It's all for the best, in the best of all possible worlds.
That's not at all the case. I live in very "red" state in the US where firearm ownership and concealed carry rates are among the highest in the nation. Law enforcement officials are more polite and friendly here than they have been in any other part of the country that I have lived including NYC and the Bay Area. Unfortunately, there appears to be little correlation between the degree of aggression shown by law enforcement and the likelihood that they will face armed resistance.
> those girls could have had guns in their purses
So could I. And with the right equipment pigs might fly.
But really how likely is it?
So could I. And with the right equipment pigs might fly.
But really how likely is it?
I suspect that the comment from simonh may have contained a degree of sarcasm.
True, but that particular part of it was written with an absolutely straight face. There could have been a gun in the car, in the glove compartment, etc. In an entire career as an enforcement officer, there's a real chance at some point you will encounter a situation like that. In which case, rationally you have to treat every situation like that. My comment was sarcastic to a point, but these are the real actual, even necessary consequences of near ubiquitous access to guns in a society.
I remember seeing a clip of a cop walking up to a car only to get a shotgun unloaded into him as he reached the window to ask for license etc.
Next time he does a traffic stop you can bet he's going to be humourless and aggressive in making sure that the drivers hands are visible - probably with his hand on his weapon. I expect most of the colleagues who spoke to him would also let this influence their attitude.
Being from the UK probably helps - but I have tremendous sympathy for anyone policing under those conditions and how hard it must be to maintain balance.
Next time he does a traffic stop you can bet he's going to be humourless and aggressive in making sure that the drivers hands are visible - probably with his hand on his weapon. I expect most of the colleagues who spoke to him would also let this influence their attitude.
Being from the UK probably helps - but I have tremendous sympathy for anyone policing under those conditions and how hard it must be to maintain balance.
Well... in the past week, I've been in that particular shopping center four times that I can recall. All four of those times I was armed.
I'd say the odds a random person on the street in Charlottesville, VA is legally armed is probably 3-5%, given the number of CHPs issued by the state.
It's also interesting to note that no license or permit is required in Virginia to carry a loaded handgun in the glovebox of your vehicle.
I'd say the odds a random person on the street in Charlottesville, VA is legally armed is probably 3-5%, given the number of CHPs issued by the state.
It's also interesting to note that no license or permit is required in Virginia to carry a loaded handgun in the glovebox of your vehicle.
>Most of these agencies have some statutory responsibility to enforce law and investigate crimes under their purview.
The report states spending jumped 106% from 55 million to 106 million over the period. I would like to know what benefit was garnered from doubling spending on arming these agencies with deadly weapons (and paintball guns, apparently).
The report states spending jumped 106% from 55 million to 106 million over the period. I would like to know what benefit was garnered from doubling spending on arming these agencies with deadly weapons (and paintball guns, apparently).
> paintball guns,
Paintball guns are a less lethal weapon used by both border control agents and by animal control agencies.
2011: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2011/04/border-patrol-re...
http://www.nelsonpaintball.com/animal-control/
I'm not sure how many paintball guns you get for $300,000.
The benefit is hopefully fewer incidents like this where US border agents shot across the border, killing a Mexican child in Mexico. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/12/us-border-patrol-age... (Throwing rocks at people is obviously illegal and needs to be dealt with. I struggle to understand why extra judicial killing is an appropriate punishment for this crime.)
Paintball guns are a less lethal weapon used by both border control agents and by animal control agencies.
2011: http://bulletin.accurateshooter.com/2011/04/border-patrol-re...
http://www.nelsonpaintball.com/animal-control/
I'm not sure how many paintball guns you get for $300,000.
The benefit is hopefully fewer incidents like this where US border agents shot across the border, killing a Mexican child in Mexico. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2012/10/12/us-border-patrol-age... (Throwing rocks at people is obviously illegal and needs to be dealt with. I struggle to understand why extra judicial killing is an appropriate punishment for this crime.)
I grew up playing paintball. They're just liquid balls in a thin plastic. With a jacket on they won't bother you too much. At 50 ft the rental guns will start to stop breaking, especially on soft clothing. At 100ft the best guns you can buy will start to stop breaking even on bare skin. I have a hard time imagining them being effective outside of a very small set of circumstances.
You can shoot mace filled paintballs though. Releases a cloud of pepperspray on contact.
As others have said, paintball guns are use to dispense pepperballs (mace filled paintballs), amongst other Less than lethal materials
In addition to the aforementioned less lethal use case, paintball guns are also a training tool for police forces
I find the context in this report to be thorough enough to understand that a fair amount of the money being spent is entirely necessary. I'm intimately familiar with the costs of maintaining and upgrading military equipment and the costs of training (10 year USMC Box Kicker here). The amount of rounds a single person has to go through in order to stay sharp is insane.
However... The context in this report is also enough to highlight the obvious misspending and mistakes in reporting as well. The HHS being unable to account for ~6 million dollars labeled as military spending is scary. For 6 million dollars, someone could obtain some pretty nasty stuff. There are several more things that don't add up as well... If you look up the number of personnel authorized to carry firearms, and graph that against the number of rounds purchased, it's a fairly linear graph... Except for a few agencies, who are spending millions of dollars each year on ammo for a very small number of agents. It doesn't add up, and it's likely becoming pocket change for some Dick or Jane who's living high off of your tax dollars.
Reports like this are important because they take a pessimistic look at a budget (which is how you should ALWAYS look at a budget in business), and the inconsistencies rise to the top where we can all see them.
However... The context in this report is also enough to highlight the obvious misspending and mistakes in reporting as well. The HHS being unable to account for ~6 million dollars labeled as military spending is scary. For 6 million dollars, someone could obtain some pretty nasty stuff. There are several more things that don't add up as well... If you look up the number of personnel authorized to carry firearms, and graph that against the number of rounds purchased, it's a fairly linear graph... Except for a few agencies, who are spending millions of dollars each year on ammo for a very small number of agents. It doesn't add up, and it's likely becoming pocket change for some Dick or Jane who's living high off of your tax dollars.
Reports like this are important because they take a pessimistic look at a budget (which is how you should ALWAYS look at a budget in business), and the inconsistencies rise to the top where we can all see them.
Regarding their contention that research grants to Ivy League schools are subsidies, aren't they exactly that? Don't get me wrong, those are definitely the kind of subsidies I think the government should be providing, but what is wrong with labeling them as such?
in the UK, when government agencies need to enforce a law under their purview, they defer to the court system and bring in a public prosecutor. This seems more sensible to me.
The public prosecutor performs arrests?
(Dang it.)
(Dang it.)
it's quite common to see gangs of roving lawyers hunting for their next takedown - there was a whole David Attenborough series on it.
Ingenious work around to the Posse Comitatus Act. Turn the police into the military!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
The rampant expansion and use of SWAT is disgusting.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_Comitatus_Act
The rampant expansion and use of SWAT is disgusting.
it's because they are scared we will try to overthrow them
they are justified in that fear these days
they are justified in that fear these days
If you're familiar with the use and types of firearms, this budget doesn't seem so odd. The alarmist nature of the paper gives the authors away. If they divided the cost per officer or the assets or notional value they presumably are protecting, it'd look like a fair budget!
I am reasonable familiar (though admittedly not an expert) with the types and use of the items outlined here and I can't come to the same conclusion. Perhaps I am missing something. I don't want you to scrutinize the entire PDF but can you pick out one example and dive into the calculations?
"What guns, ammunition and military-style equipment did the IRS purchase?
FY2006-FY2014"
"...Fire resistant safes..."
"...Fire resistant safes..."
I read the entire report and I find nothing particular exceptional about it, except the HHS shouldn't be involved in DOD purchases and everything seems gold plated. And no I'm not a gun owner or NRA member.
There has been an increase, but most of it is essentially due to post 911 mindset that every facility needs armed guards. In other countries that would just be unarmed (possibly contracted) guards, who ring the police if there are any problems. But then, other countries have fewer guns. Also, the fragmentation of policing in the States almost requires having an agency force, because of jurisdiction and funding wars.
There has been an increase, but most of it is essentially due to post 911 mindset that every facility needs armed guards. In other countries that would just be unarmed (possibly contracted) guards, who ring the police if there are any problems. But then, other countries have fewer guns. Also, the fragmentation of policing in the States almost requires having an agency force, because of jurisdiction and funding wars.
Hmm, FDA stockpiling weapons... It looks like it fits actions of food corporations in "Daemon" and "Freedom" by Daniel Suarez.
I think the title is a little misleading. The report states that the findings are from 2006-2014 and that is when the rapid militarization of police forces with DHS funds was widely reported.
I fear that HN attributes all these to the current political atmosphere and how the foundation laid by the previous administration.
I fear that HN attributes all these to the current political atmosphere and how the foundation laid by the previous administration.
Sounded suspicious until I saw the list on page 5.
The Department of State, FBI, prison system, DEA, secret service, ICE, customs/border patrol, etc. are all on the top of the list, and I'd expect them to spend a lot of money on guns, ammo, and "military-style equipment".
A few of them are higher than I'd expect, but most of them seem reasonable. Any agency that uses armed security guards is going to spend some amount of money on guns, ammo, training, etc.
The Department of State, FBI, prison system, DEA, secret service, ICE, customs/border patrol, etc. are all on the top of the list, and I'd expect them to spend a lot of money on guns, ammo, and "military-style equipment".
A few of them are higher than I'd expect, but most of them seem reasonable. Any agency that uses armed security guards is going to spend some amount of money on guns, ammo, training, etc.
>The Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service spent
$4.77 million
purchasing shotguns, .308 caliber rifles,
night vision goggles, propane cannons, liquid explosives, pyro supplies, buckshot, LP gas cannons, drones,
remote controlled helicopters, thermal cameras, military waterproof thermal infrared scopes, and more.
In their defence, it would appear on first glance at the sample purchases that a lot of the weapons purchased are hunting rifles and shotguns, useful for pest destruction/culling and putting down sick animals.
LP gas cannons are used for scaring birds and making them take flight, night vision equipment is very useful for culling animals, same goes for thermal cameras/scopes.
LP gas cannons are used for scaring birds and making them take flight, night vision equipment is very useful for culling animals, same goes for thermal cameras/scopes.
Take a look at that agencies responsibilities[1]. There's a lot there that could necessitate that sort of materiel. Including monitoring wildlife, enforcing bans in trade of various species, and enforcing animal welfare.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_and_Plant_Health_Inspec...
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_and_Plant_Health_Inspec...
Seems appropriate for an agency dealing with exotic animal smuggling.
Is that so strange?
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
I thought the US Coast Guard was considered Military? If you want to have your mind blown by the shear number of federal law enforcement agencies check out the Wikipedia list below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_t...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_law_enforcement_in_t...
They're part of Homeland Security now.
I don't have the energy to get angry about this stuff anymore. I need to pay my bills and put food on the table, which requires me to work.
> which requires me to work.
...which will feed the government via taxes to sustain the lavish spending you object to.
Just pointing out that you'd have more time to read articles on misspending if your government wouldn't misspend so much money.
...which will feed the government via taxes to sustain the lavish spending you object to.
Just pointing out that you'd have more time to read articles on misspending if your government wouldn't misspend so much money.
I know. Sad set of circumstances.
I feel humanity will always be riddled with the 'lowest common denominator' problem. I don't know if that's the best name for it, maybe there's another. It's the reason for this CGP Grey video(1). Current events at the moment really bother me. I don't know if I'm being cynical or if things are really as bad as they seem.
1-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
I feel humanity will always be riddled with the 'lowest common denominator' problem. I don't know if that's the best name for it, maybe there's another. It's the reason for this CGP Grey video(1). Current events at the moment really bother me. I don't know if I'm being cynical or if things are really as bad as they seem.
1-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rStL7niR7gs
Looking at the Customs and Border Protection case, did the CBP change standard-issued handguns during the period? The P2000, which they bought a bunch of, was introduced in 2001, and changing the standard issue is going to involve buying a lot of new guns.
Likewise, did ICE switch from some other caliber to .40S&W?
Likewise, did ICE switch from some other caliber to .40S&W?
I seem to remember an article some time ago about the feds standardizing handgun calibers to .40 to try to lower the unit cost of ammunition.
Also very interesting: ARtworks purchased by Veterans Affairs - http://www.openthebooks.com/the_vas_luxury_art_obsession/
I'm as big an opponent of the militarization of police in the US as anyone, but I'm not sure consolidating police powers into one organization is going to immi the situation.
> 6000: RAILROAD RETIREMENT BOARD $40,465.91
That's one way to 'retire' people. Take old Yeller out back...
That's one way to 'retire' people. Take old Yeller out back...
With every passing day, my decision to leave the United States looks more and more like a permanent one.
Where did you go? I'm very interested in this, but really where else do you have:
- Nearly unrestricted freedom of speech
- For the time being, no constant surveillance state
- Comparatively low taxes for the services provided
- Nearly unrestricted freedom of speech
- For the time being, no constant surveillance state
- Comparatively low taxes for the services provided
America has none of those things, for what it's worth.
> > - Nearly unrestricted freedom of speech
There's very little you can say in the US that has a legal penalty associated with it. Short of inciting violence or advocating for a government official's assassination, I can say whatever stupid thing(s) I want and the only repercussions will be that people think I'm an idiot.
Contrast to say, Germany, where saying something objectively wrong but still harmless like the Holocaust didn't happen will land you in prison.
> > - For the time being, no constant surveillance state
Compared to the UK with cameras everywhere and your every move recorded? If being tracked is a legitimate concern of yours it's possible to live largely off the grid in the US.
> > - Comparatively low taxes for the services provided
I'll concede some places have lower taxes but as a software developer I can't earn nearly what I can earn in the US (even in the middle of nowhere rural US where I am now) anywhere else. Any move, even with a lower marginal/effective tax rate, will leave me with less money in my pocket.
There's very little you can say in the US that has a legal penalty associated with it. Short of inciting violence or advocating for a government official's assassination, I can say whatever stupid thing(s) I want and the only repercussions will be that people think I'm an idiot.
Contrast to say, Germany, where saying something objectively wrong but still harmless like the Holocaust didn't happen will land you in prison.
> > - For the time being, no constant surveillance state
Compared to the UK with cameras everywhere and your every move recorded? If being tracked is a legitimate concern of yours it's possible to live largely off the grid in the US.
> > - Comparatively low taxes for the services provided
I'll concede some places have lower taxes but as a software developer I can't earn nearly what I can earn in the US (even in the middle of nowhere rural US where I am now) anywhere else. Any move, even with a lower marginal/effective tax rate, will leave me with less money in my pocket.
> Contrast to say, Germany, where saying something objectively wrong but still harmless like the Holocaust didn't happen will land you in prison.
Is this a problem?
> I'll concede some places have lower taxes
I believe this won't help you, as you will have to pay the US rate at a minimum. It's hard to to say something sarcastic about that rule, because maybe other countries do it too?
Is this a problem?
> I'll concede some places have lower taxes
I believe this won't help you, as you will have to pay the US rate at a minimum. It's hard to to say something sarcastic about that rule, because maybe other countries do it too?
> > > - For the time being, no constant surveillance state
> Compared to the UK with cameras everywhere and your every move recorded
Uh... have you heard about the NSA lately?
> Compared to the UK with cameras everywhere and your every move recorded
Uh... have you heard about the NSA lately?
I would happily discuss the topic - if I could access the article :(
Strange, works here (and I don't think it is supposed to be paywalled or something). Archive.org has a copy, does that work for you? https://web.archive.org/web/20170201035533/https://www.opent...
it didn't work for me on phone, the popup close button was off-screen, and site was not properly zoomable. On PC i could read the article.
Link works ok for me. Chrome 55.0.2883 on Windows.
Click web above, then open in private tab.
>"2005 to present the US Geological Survey agency spent $1,333,202.85 on guns, ammo and other military style equipment."
Citizens, pick up that rock.
Citizens, pick up that rock.
Every department and authority has their own law enforcement branch. You've got county sheriffs, state police, highway patrol, campus police, transport police etc. on a local authority level.
Then on a federal level, as the paper points out, everyone from the IRS to the Department of Education have their own law enforcement officers.
In the rest of the world, police is much more centralised.
Here in New Zealand (admittedly a small country), the Police are the only agency with general powers of arrest, and the only department outside the military with firearms.
The police don't have fancy equipment, if they need an APC, or helicopters or whatever (the police do have one), they'll borrow it from the Defence Force. It's not like they need to pay for and maintain their own stock to use once in a blue moon.
If an agency like the IRD (our tax department) need to raid or arrest someone, they'll get the police to do it.
I don't fully understand why the USA isn't like this. I understand why there's federal and local law enforcement, but if the FDA needs to raid and arrest people, why don't they second some FBI agents when they're needed?