Advertisement
U.S. markets open in 1 hour 41 minutes
  • S&P Futures

    5,191.00
    -23.75 (-0.46%)
     
  • Dow Futures

    39,132.00
    -91.00 (-0.23%)
     
  • Nasdaq Futures

    18,112.25
    -119.25 (-0.65%)
     
  • Russell 2000 Futures

    2,040.50
    -9.30 (-0.45%)
     
  • Crude Oil

    82.80
    +0.08 (+0.10%)
     
  • Gold

    2,157.80
    -6.50 (-0.30%)
     
  • Silver

    25.15
    -0.12 (-0.47%)
     
  • EUR/USD

    1.0854
    -0.0022 (-0.21%)
     
  • 10-Yr Bond

    4.3400
    0.0000 (0.00%)
     
  • Vix

    14.84
    +0.51 (+3.56%)
     
  • GBP/USD

    1.2693
    -0.0036 (-0.28%)
     
  • USD/JPY

    150.4200
    +1.3220 (+0.89%)
     
  • Bitcoin USD

    63,037.29
    -5,217.71 (-7.64%)
     
  • CMC Crypto 200

    885.54
    0.00 (0.00%)
     
  • FTSE 100

    7,700.16
    -22.39 (-0.29%)
     
  • Nikkei 225

    40,003.60
    +263.20 (+0.66%)
     

Lawmakers eye halting police access to military-style gear

Cato Institute Senior Fellow Walter Olson joins Yahoo Finance’s Zack Guzman to discuss how some lawmakers are beginning to make a bipartisan push to stop police access to military-style equipment.

Video Transcript

ZACK GUZMAN: We've been continuing to track protests around the country following the death of George Floyd in Minneapolis. And if the scenes of military equipment on city streets playing out seem very reminiscent of Ferguson back in 2014, that might be by design. The Pentagon's so-called 1033 Program has been around since about the '90s and allows military equipment to be redistributed on the cheap from the military to police forces around the country.

And after Ferguson, President Barack Obama attempted to curtail that program, which has distributed billions of dollars worth of equipment to police. But interestingly, under the Trump administration, the program has received renewed support, and we have continued to see a stream of that equipment to police forces around the country. So joining us now for more on that program and how military equipment continues to get passed to police officers around the US is Walter Olson. He is a senior fellow at libertarian think tank the Cato Institute.

And Mr. Olson, appreciate you taking the time to chat with us. I guess first, I just wanted to chat about the way that it might be enticing for local officials to accept this equipment, because any time you offer anything at a discount, people are going to jump at the opportunity to take it. But what are the implications of actually giving this equipment to police forces, and how does that shift maybe the way they police in communities across the country?

WALTER OLSON: If you offer people free or cheap stuff, they will take it. And this is typically stuff that they weren't buying on their own. They wouldn't consider it a budget priority. And once you've got the gear, the temptation is to use it rather than letting it just sit there and have to maintain it.

And we have seen the results. We've seen armored vehicles in situations where they were probably not needed. We've seen grenade launchers, helicopters that turn protest sins into something closer to a warzone.

ZACK GUZMAN: Yeah, I mean, that is-- you say grenade launchers, and a lot of people out there might not actually believe that, but that was the case. And you look at the 2017 report that President Obama ordered into all of this when we think about what happened-- he ordered the report to be done-- the research to be done.

And you look at the number of things that were distribute, 138 grenade launchers and 126 tracked armored vehicles getting distributed there. It is noteworthy when you think about that equipment. But I guess if that's been in the trend for so long, and we had seen efforts to curtail it, what has it been like when we think about both parties maybe trying to address that issue and fixing that?

WALTER OLSON: Well, for a long time there was bipartisan support for these programs because local police departments liked the free stuff, and they have a powerful voice. But more recently, there has been this partisan divide in which Obama and the Democrats have grown skeptical, have been listening to people who say that this changes the dynamic.

It changes from a kind of neighbors facing off against neighbors into something more like, you know, these are strangers. We can't tell who they are because they're, you know, behind uniforms, Robocop uniforms, and they're-- they are more like-- and this is charged language, but more like an occupying army. And we never, never want that to be the relationship between the military and the populace, or between police and the populace in the United States. That's never been what America has aspired to be like.

ZACK GUZMAN: Yeah, and you raise that aspect of the military force. We did here, interestingly, from former Defense Secretary Jim Mattis weighing in on this issue, highlighting exactly what you're talking about. I just want to read what he said there. "Militarizing our response, as we witnessed in Washington, DC, sets off a conflict-- a false conflict between the military and civilian society," is what he said. "It erodes the moral ground that ensures a trusted bond between men and women in uniform and the society they are sworn to protect, and of which they themselves are a part."

Walter, when you hear that from a man who worked closely with President Trump and you see what kind of force President Trump is advocating for here, and then you add in the element of all this military equipment, how do you break that down in terms of a man who is normally quiet weighing in and finally taking the stance to say, look, this is a problem?

WALTER OLSON: I hope everyone listens to what General Mattis said because I don't think anyone could have put it better or with more credibility. And, you know, we've seen violence and disorder. We've seen crownds spin out of control. And sometimes the government has to respond with force.

If they are burning down a police precinct, as in Minneapolis, yes, they've got to use a lot of force. So many other times we've seen the tension diffused because the police got out there and talked to the demonstrators, and they began realizing that they agreed on some things and this was one community together.

It's harder to do that when you're militarized. And that's one of the big prices we pay.

ZACK GUZMAN: Yeah. And as you noted, I mean, there are points made by the other side advocating for this equipment. You can talk about military helmets that have saved police officers' lives before. But there are these separate issues that we've been discussing here in terms of the overall implications of actually using that equipment for maybe more nefarious reasons.

But I want to appreciate the fact that you chatted with us on it. Walter Olson, Cato Institute senior fellow, I appreciate you taking the time.

WALTER OLSON: Thank you.

Advertisement