by Aamer Madhani, USA TODAY
click here for original article
CHICAGO – St. Louis County’s top police officer said on Tuesday that the heavy-armored trucks and some of the military-style equipment used by police in last month’s unrest in Ferguson helped keep civilians and law enforcement officers safe.
Col. Jon Belmar’s defense comes as the actions of his officers in Ferguson have been broadly criticized and spurred a national debate about the militarization of local law enforcement agencies. The military build-up began after the federal government doled out increased funding in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks.
“I think we have to look at this from another vantage point,” said Belmar, in an interview with USA TODAY after addressing 200 top law enforcement officers from across the country gathered in Chicago by the Police Executive Research Forum.
“Had we not had the ability to protect officers with those vehicles, I am afraid that we would have to engage people with our own gun fire. I really think having the armor gave us the ability not to have pulled one trigger…I think the military uses armor to be able to provide an offensive force, and police departments use trucks like that so they don’t have to.”
St. Louis County Police Department led the law enforcement response during the first week of protests following the shooting death of unarmed teenager Michael Brown.
But the agency eventually relinquished the lead to Missouri State Highway Patrol at the order of Gov. Jay Nixon as county officers faced criticism for its handling of the unrest. The Justice Department announced earlier this month that it would conduct a review of the St. Louis County Police Department, as well as the Ferguson Police Department’s response to the protests.
Belmar noted that during the protests, his officers used heavy-armored equipment to help retrieve a gunshot victim. The county chief also noted that there were five shootings in a six-block area near where the protests occurred, and there were several incidents where police and armored vehicles were struck by gunfire during the unrest.
“I don’t know how we can responsibly as police administrators not provide our young officers some protection,” Belmar said.
“Does it look right if we have armored trucks in the West Florissant corridor in the Midwest United States,” Belmar added. “Does it look right if we have TAC guys who are wearing military style fatigues. Is that appropriate? I think the answer is that we can provide explanation on why in certain circumstances that equipment is used.”
Since the Ferguson protests, Sen. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and other lawmakers have questioned how the federal government goes about distributing more than $1 billion a year to police departments across the country in equipment and grants.
Last week, during a hearing a hearing of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, federal officials who oversee the programs testified they had no way to track any military-grade equipment supplied by the government, or purchased with federal dollars.
“How in the world can anyone say that this program has one lick of oversight?” McCaskill said, referring to a Pentagon program that gives surplus military equipment to local police at little or no cost.
In the closed-door session in Chicago about the Ferguson response that was led by Belmar and St. Louis Police Chief Sam Dotson, there was consensus that police departments need to establish strict guidelines for when and how military-equipment is used, said Chuck Wexler, the executive director of the Police Executive Research Forum.
“When there is a Virginia Tech, when there is a Beltway sniper, when there is a Mumbai, the first responders are going to be American police and they need to know what they are doing with that stuff,” said Milwaukee Police Chief Ed Flynn. “That is going to remain a tension in this business that’s not easily solved by knee-jerk responses to terms like militarization.”
Philadelphia Police Commissioner Charles Ramsey raised concerns that the national conversation is shifting to an “all-or-nothing” frame.
“You can’t make the argument that you need zero equipment other than a patrol car and a baton,” Ramsey said. “At the same time, the issue is around policies and training and it’s about justifying. And in the end, there is probably some military equipment we don’t need.”
