BEGIN:VCALENDAR
VERSION:2.0
X-WR-CALNAME:www.indybay.org
PRODID:-//indybay/ical// v1.0//EN
BEGIN:VEVENT
UID:Indybay-18764939
SEQUENCE:18882667
CREATED:20141202T172900Z
DESCRIPTION:12/6 Town Hall Meeting-From Ferguson to San Francisco: The "Militarization 
 of the Police” And Labor\n\nFrom Ferguson to San Francisco: The 
 "Militarization of the Police” And Labor\n\nProgram:  Town Hall Meeting\n 
               \n“From Ferguson to San Francisco: The Militarization of 
 the Police” And Labor\nAgenda: Human Rights, Jobs, Free Public Education, 
 Housing, and a Future for Youth\nSan Francisco Public Library: Bayview 
 Branch\n5035 3rd St. San Francisco\n\nDecember 6, 
 2014\n\n10:15-10:30\nIntroduction/Overview\n\n\n10:30-11:30\nPresentation 
 #1: \nThe Militarization of the Police and Black Rage, Trauma, and Mental 
 Health in the Black & Latino Community\n(Dorothy Gilmore/Cedric 
 Jackson/George Wright/)\n\n11:45-12:30\nPresentation #2\nBullying and 
 Racism in Unions and the Work Place\n(Jo Elias-Jackson/Cheryl Jackson/ 
 Terry Kenneth James)\n\n12:30-1:00 
 provided\nLUNCH\n\n1:00-2:00\nPresentation #3\nPrivatization of the Public 
 Sector,  and Race\n(Brenda Barros/Dorian Maxwell/George 
 Wright)\n\n2:15-2:45\nPresentation #4\nAttacks on The Communities\nJR 
 Valrey/Adriana Camarena\n\n2:45\nReport from Ferguson\n(Live 
 Updates)\n\n3:15-4:00\nWhat Must Be Done: Action Agenda\n\nEndorsed by 
 Sponsors: Coalition for Labor and Community Relations, SEIU Local 1021 
 -AFRAM and SEJ; Labor Video Project  \n, United Public Workers for Action; 
 Officers for Justice; Labor Video Project  \n\nContact Numbers.: (925) 
 437-0593;  (415) 282-1908\n\nGearing up for 
 war\nhttp://www.sfbg.com/print/2014/08/26/gearing-war\nBy Kate 
 Conger\nCreated 08/26/2014 - 2:54pm\nThe SFPD and police departments across 
 the country get free military equipment, but does it make us safer or 
 provoke violence?\n\n\njoe@sfbg.com [1]\n\nA tear gas canister explodes as 
 citizens flee from the gun-toting warriors, safely guarded behind their 
 armored vehicles. Dressed in patterned camo and body armor, they form a 
 skirmish line as they fire projectiles into the crowd. Flash bang 
 explosions echo down the city's streets.\n\nSuch clashes between police and 
 protesters have been common in Ferguson, Mo., in the past few weeks since 
 the death of Michael Brown, an unarmed black teenager killed by a police 
 officer. But it's also a scene familiar to anyone from Occupy Oakland, 
 where Iraq veteran Scott Olsen suffered permanent brain damage after police 
 shot a less-than-lethal weapon into his head, or similar standoffs in other 
 cities.\n\nAs the country watched Ferguson police mobilize against its 
 citizens while donning military fatigues and body armor and driving in 
 armored vehicles, many began drawing comparisons to soldiers in Iraq or 
 Afghanistan — indeed, viral photos featuring side-by-side comparisons 
 made it difficult to distinguish peace officers from wartime 
 soldiers.\n\nSo how did law enforcement officers in police departments 
 across the country come to resemble the military? And what impact is that 
 escalation of armaments having on otherwise peaceful demonstrations? Some 
 experts say the militarization of police actually encourages 
 violence.\n\nSince the '90s, the federal Department of Defense has served 
 as a gun-running Santa Claus for the country's local police departments. 
 Military surplus left over from wars in the Middle East are now 
 hand-me-downs for local police across the country, including here in the 
 Bay Area.\n\nA grenade launcher, armored command vehicles, camera-mounted 
 SWAT robots, mounted helicopter weapons, and military grade body armor — 
 these are just some of the weapons and equipment obtained by San Francisco 
 law enforcement agencies since the '90s. They come from two main sources: 
 the Department of Defense Excess Property Program, also known as the 1033 
 loan program, and a multitude of federal grants used to purchase military 
 equipment and vehicles.\n\nA recent report from the American Civil 
 Liberties Union, "The War Comes Home: The Excessive Militarization of 
 American Policing," slammed the practice of arming local police with 
 military gear. ACLU spokesperson Will Matthews told us the problem is stark 
 in the Bay Area.\n\n"There was no more profound example of this than [the 
 response to] Occupy," he told the Guardian. He said that military gear 
 "serves usually only to escalate tensions, where the real goal of police is 
 to de-escalate tension."\n\nThe ACLU, National Lawyers Guild, and others 
 are calling for less provocative weaponry in response to peaceful 
 demonstrations, as well as more data to track the activities of SWAT teams 
 that regularly use weaponry from the military.\n\nThe call for change comes 
 as a growing body of research shows the cycle of police violence often 
 begins not with a raised baton, but with the military-style armor and 
 vehicles that police confront their communities with.\n\n \n\nPREPARING FOR 
 BATTLE\n\nWhat motivation does the federal government have to arm local 
 police? Ex-Los Angeles Police Department Deputy Chief Stephen Downing told 
 the Guardian, "I put this at the feet of the drug war."\n\nThe initial 
 round of funding in the '90s was spurred by the federal government's 
 so-called War on Drugs, he said, and the argument that police needed 
 weaponry to match well-armed gangs trafficking in narcotics. That 
 justification was referenced in the ACLU's report.\n\nAfter 9/11, the 
 desire to protect against unknown terrorist threats also spurred the 
 militarization of police, providing a rationale for the change, whether or 
 not it was ever justified. But a problem arises when local police start to 
 use the tactics and gear the military uses, Downing told us.\n\nWhen the 
 LAPD officials first formed military-like SWAT teams, he said, "they always 
 kept uppermost in their mind the police mission versus the military 
 mission. The military has an enemy. A police officer, who is a peace 
 officer, has no enemies."\n\n"The military aims to kill," he said, "and the 
 police officer aims to preserve life."\n\nAnd when police departments have 
 lots of cool new toys, there is a tendency to want to use them.\n\nWhen we 
 contacted the SFPD for this story, spokesperson Albie Esparza told us, 
 "Chief [Greg Suhr] will be the only one to speak in regards to this. He is 
 not available for the next week or two. You may try afterwards."\n\n 
 \n\n"CRAIGSLIST OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT"\n\nLocal law enforcement agencies 
 looking to gear up have two ways to do it: One is free and the other is 
 low-cost. The first of those methods has been heavily covered by national 
 news outlets following the Ferguson protests: the Department of Defense's 
 1033 loan program.\n\nThe program permanently loans gear from the federal 
 government, with strings attached. For instance, local police can't resell 
 any weapons they're given.\n\nTo get the gear, first an agency must apply 
 for it through the national Defense Logistics Agency in Fort Belvoir, Va. 
 In California, the Governor's Office of Emergency Services is the 
 go-between when local police file grant applications to the DLA.\n\nThe bar 
 to apply is low. A New Hampshire law enforcement agency applied for an 
 armored vehicle by citing that community's Pumpkin Festival as a possible 
 terrorism target, according to the ACLU's report. But the report shows such 
 gear is more likely to be used against protestors or drug dealers than 
 festival-targeting terrorists.\n\n"It's like the Craigslist of military 
 equipment, only the people getting this stuff are law enforcement 
 agencies," Kelly Huston, a spokesperson of OEMS, told the Guardian. "They 
 don't have to pay for this equipment, they just have to come get 
 it."\n\nTroublingly, where and why the gear goes to local law enforcement 
 is not tracked in a database at the state level. The Guardian made a public 
 records requests of the SFPD and the OEMS, which have yet to be fulfilled. 
 Huston told us the OEMS is slammed with records requests for this 
 information.\n\n"The majority of the documents we have are paper in boxes," 
 Huston told us, describing the agency's problem with a rapid response. 
 "This is not an automated system."\n\nThe Guardian obtained federal grant 
 data through 2011 from the OEMS, but with a caveat: Some of the grants only 
 describe San Francisco County, and not the specific agency that requested 
 equipment.\n\nSome data of police gear requested under the 1033 loan 
 program up to 2011 is available thanks to records requests from California 
 Watch. The New York Times obtained more recent 1033 loan requests for the 
 entire country, but it does not delineate specific agencies, only 
 states.\n\nAvailable data shows equipment requested by local law 
 enforcement, which gravitates from the benign to the frightening.\n\n 
 \n\nTOYS FOR COPS\n\nAn Armament Subsystem is one of the first weapons 
 listed in the 1033 data, ordered by the SFPD in 1996. This can describe 
 mounted machine guns for helicopters (though the SFPD informed us it has 
 since disbanded its aero-unit). From 1995 to 1997, the SFPD ordered over 
 100 sets of fragmentation body armor valued at $45,000, all obtained for 
 free. In 1996, the SFPD also ordered one grenade launcher, valued at 
 $2,007.\n\nWhy would the SFPD need a grenade launcher in an urban setting? 
 Chief Suhr wouldn't answer that question, but Downing told us it was 
 troubling.\n\n"It's a pretty serious piece of military hardware," he said. 
 "I'll tell you a tiny, quick story. One of the first big deployments of 
 SWAT (in Los Angeles) was the Black Panthers in the '60s. They were holed 
 up in a building, well armed and we knew they had a lot of weapons in 
 there," he said. "They barricaded the place with sandbags. Several people 
 were wounded in the shooting, as I recall. The officers with military 
 experience said the only way we'll breach those sandbags and doors is with 
 a grenade launcher."\n\nIn those days, they didn't have a grenade launcher 
 at the ready, and had to go through a maze of official channels to get 
 one.\n\n"They had to go through the Governor's Office to the Pentagon, and 
 then to Camp Pendleton to get the grenade launcher," Downing told us. "[The 
 acting LAPD chief] said at the time, 'Let's go ahead and ask for it.' It 
 was a tough decision, because it was using military equipment against our 
 citizens."\n\nBut the chief never had to use the grenade launcher, Downing 
 said. "They resolved the situation before needing it, and we said 'thank 
 god.'"\n\nThe grenade launcher was the most extreme of the equipment 
 procured by local law enforcement, but there were also helicopter parts, 
 gun sights, and multitudes of armored vehicles, like those seen in 
 Ferguson.\n\nBy contrast, the grants programs are harder to track 
 specifically to the SFPD, but instead encompass funds given to the San 
 Francisco Municipal Transportation Agency, the Sheriff's Department, and 
 even some schools. That's because the grants cover not only allow the 
 purchase of military surplus vehicles and riot gear, but also chemical 
 protective suits and disaster-related supplies.\n\nBut much of the 
 requested gear and training has more to do with active police work than 
 emergency response.\n\nSan Francisco County agencies used federal loans to 
 purchase $113,000 "command vehicles" (which are often armored). In 2010, 
 the SFPD purchased a $5,000 SWAT robot (which often comes equipped with 
 cameras and a remote control), as well as $15,000 in Battle Dress Uniforms, 
 and $48,000 for a Mobile Communications Command Vehicle.\n\nIn 2008, the 
 SFPD ordered a Bearcat Military Counterattack Vehicle for $306,000.\n\nThe 
 Lenco website, which manufactures Bearcats, says it "may also be equipped 
 with our optional Mechanical Rotating Turret with Cupola (Tub) and Weapon 
 Ready Mounting System, suitable for the M60, 240B and Mark 19 weapons 
 system."\n\nIts essentially an armored Humvee that can be mounted with 
 rotating gun turrets.\n\n\n\nDepartment of Homeland Security grants were 
 used to purchase Type 2 Mobile Field Training, which Department of Homeland 
 Security documentation describes as involving eight grenadiers, two 
 counter-snipers, two prisoner transportation vans, and 14 patrol 
 vehicles.\n\nAll told, the Bay Area's many agencies were awarded more than 
 $386 million in federal grants between 2008 and 2011, with San Francisco 
 netting $48 million of those rewards. Through the 1033 loan program, San 
 Francisco obtained over $1.4 million in federal surplus gear from 1995 to 
 2011.\n\nBut much of that was received under the radar, and with little 
 oversight.\n\n"Anytime they're going to file for this equipment, we think 
 the police should hold a public hearing," Matthews, the ACLU spokesperson, 
 told us.\n\nIn San Francisco, there is a public hearing for the procurement 
 of military weapons, at the Police Commission. But a Guardian analysis of 
 agenda documents from the commission shows these hearings are often held 
 after the equipment has already been ordered.\n\nSqueezed between a "status 
 report" and "routine administrative business," a March 2010 agenda from the 
 commission shows a request to "retroactively accept and expend a grant in 
 the amount of $1,000,000.00 from the U.S. Department of Justice."\n\nThis 
 is not a new trend. In 2007, the Police Commission retroactively approved 
 three separate grants totaling over $2 million in funding from the federal 
 government through the OEMS, which was then called the Emergency Management 
 Agency.\n\nPolice Commission President Anthony Mazzucco did not respond to 
 the Guardian's emails requesting an interview before our press time, but 
 one thing is clear: The SFPD requests federal grants for military surplus, 
 then sometimes asks the Police Commission to approve the funding after the 
 fact.\n\nMany are already critiquing this call to arms, saying violent gear 
 begets violent behavior.\n\n \n\nPROVOCATIVE GEAR\n\nA UC Berkeley 
 sociologist, with his small but driven team and an army of automatic 
 computer programs, are now combing more than 8,000 news articles on the 
 Occupy movement in search of a pattern: What causes police violence against 
 protesters, and protester violence against police?\n\nNicholas Adams and 
 his team, Deciding Force, already have a number of findings.\n\n"The police 
 have an incredible ability to set the tone for reactions," Adams told us. 
 "Showing up in riot gear drastically increases the chances of violence from 
 protesters. The use of skirmish lines also increases chances of 
 violence."\n\nAdams's research uses what he calls a "buffet of information" 
 provided by the Occupy movement, allowing him to study over 200 cities' 
 police responses to protesters. Often, as in Ferguson, protesters were met 
 by police donned in equipment and gear resembling wartime 
 soldiers.\n\nRachel Lederman is a warrior in her own right. An attorney in 
 San Francisco litigating against police for over 20 years, and now the 
 president of the National Lawyers Guild Bay Area chapter, she's long waged 
 legal war against police violence.\n\nLederman is quick to note that the 
 SFPD in recent years has been much less aggressive than the Oakland Police 
 Department, which injured her client, Scott Olsen, in an Occupy protest 
 three years ago.\n\n"If you compare OPD with the San Francisco Police on 
 the other side of the bay," she told us, "the SFPD do have some impact 
 munitions they bring at demonstrations, but they've never used 
 them."\n\nMuch of this is due to the SFPD's vast experience in ensuring 
 free speech, an SFPD spokesperson told us. San Francisco is a town that 
 knows protests, so the SFPD understands how to peacefully negotiate with 
 different parties beforehand to ensure a minimum of hassle, hence the more 
 peaceful reaction to Occupy San Francisco.\n\nConversely, in Oakland, the 
 Occupy movement was met by a hellfire of tear gas and flash bang grenades. 
 Protesters vomited into the sidewalk from the fumes as others bled from 
 rubber bullet wounds.\n\nBut some protesters the Guardian talked to noted 
 that the night SFPD officers marched on Occupy San Francisco, members of 
 the city's Board of Supervisors and other prominent allies stood between 
 Occupiers and police, calling for peace. We may never know what tactics the 
 SFPD would have used to oust the protesters without that 
 intervention.\n\nAs Lederman pointed out, the SFPD has used reactive 
 tactics in other protests since.\n\n"We've had some problems with SFPD 
 recently, so I'm reluctant to totally praise them," she said, recalling a 
 recent incident where SFPD and City College police pepper-sprayed one 
 student protester, and allegedly broke the wrists and concussed another. 
 Photos of this student, Otto Pippenger, show a black eye and many 
 bruises.\n\nIn San Francisco, a city where protesting is as common as the 
 pigeons, that is especially distressing.\n\n"It's an essential part of 
 democracy for people to be able to demonstrate in the street," Lederman 
 said. "If police have access to tanks, and tear gas and dogs, it threatens 
 the essential fabric of democracy."\n 
 https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/02/18764939.php
SUMMARY:SF Town Hall Meeting-From Ferguson to San Francisco: The "Militarization of the Police”
LOCATION:San Francisco Public Library: Bayview Branch\n5035 3rd St. San Francisco
URL:https://www.indybay.org/newsitems/2014/12/02/18764939.php
DTSTART:20141206T181500Z
DTEND:20141207T001500Z
END:VEVENT
END:VCALENDAR