Excerpt: "Police groups helping to shape President Donald Trump's law-and-order agenda have their eyes on big prizes: military equipment banned by the previous administration and tougher laws on violence against officers."
Police move to disperse protesters in 2014. The Obama administration issued an order that banned local police from acquiring military-style gear; President Donald Trump, as a candidate, vowed to reverse the order, and police groups are expecting him to do it. (photo: Jeff Roberson/AP)
31 March 17
They also sense receptivity to tougher laws on violence against officers; ‘What a difference six months makes’
olice groups helping to shape President Donald Trump’s law-and-order agenda have their eyes on big prizes: military equipment banned by the previous administration and tougher laws on violence against officers.
In a contrast with the past eight years, the nation’s biggest police unions say they now have the ear of the White House. If their advocacy is successful, it would represent a return to more aggressive policing tactics of the past.
Police unions expect the Trump administration to rescind former President Barack Obama’s 2015 executive order that banned local police from acquiring tank-like armored vehicles, grenade launchers and other equipment from the federal government. Last year, Mr. Trump said he would rescind the Obama order.
“We’re going to remind him of that promise and ask him to deliver,” said Chuck Canterbury, national president of the Fraternal Order of Police, the nation’s largest police union, with more than 333,000 members, according to its website.
The union’s executive board met Tuesday morning at the White House with Mr. Trump, Vice President Mike Pence and Attorney General Jeff Sessions.
An executive order issued by Mr. Trump’s last month called for stiffer penalties for harming officers, echoing recommendations made by police unions to the Trump transition team, according to William Johnson, executive director of the National Association of Police Organizations, a coalition of unions and associations representing about 240,000 officers.
“To see that you’re like, ‘Wow,’ they really listened to what we said and they’re trying to put it in place,” said Mr. Johnson. “For eight years we were beating our heads against the wall.”
In the Obama era, law-enforcement unions chafed over criticism they felt was overly broad and disparaging following several police shootings of unarmed minorities, some of which triggered large community protests. Some felt Mr. Obama wasn’t supportive enough after police were killed in targeted shootings, and was partly to blame for inflaming tensions between police and minority communities.
Now, they feel they have Mr. Trump’s full backing as the new administration prepares to crack down on crime tied to gangs, guns and illegal immigration, citing a surge in murders in some big cities.
The administration’s approach is unnerving civil-rights advocates and even some police chiefs. They say more aggressive law enforcement won’t necessarily improve public safety and could worsen tensions with minority communities. While homicides rose in most big American cities in 2016 (with notable exceptions including New York), they note that overall crime rates are at historic lows.
Charles Ramsey, a former Philadelphia police chief who was a co-chairman of an Obama task force on policing after the events in Ferguson, Mo., where an officer in August 2014 fatally shot an unarmed 18-year-old black man in an altercation, warned of dangers if police unions become the leading voice in shaping policy.
“They have one constituency—that’s the rank-and-file officer and that’s going to be their priority, not necessarily what’s in the best interest of the public,” he said. “Should they be at the table? Of course. But I don’t think they should be the people that a president or a mayor goes to first when they go to set policy.”
The White House declined to comment specifically on the union’s involvement in the executive order. “In general, we listen to law enforcement organizations about what they think works and doesn’t work, and we take their recommendations seriously,” said spokeswoman Kelly Love.
Much of law enforcement have fought to reverse tighter controls put in place under Mr. Obama on riot gear and other items after images of officers wearing fatigues, carrying military-style weapons and traveling in armored vehicles at protests in Ferguson sparked concern that the police seemed more like an occupying army.
Police unions and the country’s sheriffs have cited examples such as an Alabama sheriff who used tracked armored vehicles to search for armed suspects in the woods. Some argued that criminals had access to more sophisticated armor and weaponry.
Jonathan Thompson, executive director of the National Sheriffs Association, said administration officials had been in touch with his organization for input on the restrictions on military equipment, something he said didn’t often occur under Mr. Obama. “What a difference six months makes,” he said.
As of last summer, police departments had returned 126 tracked armored vehicles, which look like tanks without guns, 138 grenade launchers and 1,623 bayonets to the federal government.
Kanya Bennett, legislative counsel for the ACLU, said she worries about what will happen during the next big protest if police once again have access to military equipment. “The nation was able to see how this equipment can be used to sort of quell speech and assembly in Ferguson,” said Ms. Bennett.
Ms. Love, the White House spokeswoman, said it was premature to comment on the military-equipment program or any legislation on enhanced sentences.
Mr. Sessions last month announced a “pull back” on the probes of police departments accused of civil-rights abuses that unions said interfered with their crime-fighting abilities. The Obama administration investigated a record number of law-enforcement agencies.
Mr. Obama’s task force on policing, which included civil rights leaders, police chiefs, academics and a police union leader, recommended a variety of changes to curb racial bias and excessive force by police.
