As a result of the police response to the
protests in Ferguson, Missouri, President Barack Obama has ordered a review of
the distribution of military equipment to local and state police, to determine three
things: (1) whether the federal/military
surplus programs are appropriate; (2) whether the amount of training provided
for that equipment is sufficient, and (3) how well the government audits the
use of the money and equipment provided to our police departments.
I strongly believe that there is a clear
justification for local, state and federal police agencies in the United States
to be well equipped, well trained, and be prepared for the threats of violence
and terrorism that we face today and in the future.
To eliminate or diminish these types of
units because of mistakes that may have been made in Ferguson may be a
temporary "feel good" solution, but that will only last until the
first time an extremely violent act or terrorist attack occurs and those units
do not have the equipment or weapons necessary to defend themselves or protect
the communities they serve.
Then they will either fail and be
criticized for not doing their job, or far worse, they will die trying.
I believe President Obama’s concerns are
justified and understandable, but I just hope that those responsible for the
review, as well as our congressional leaders are fair, objective and think this
out long and hard before they make a decision either way.
We cannot ask our local and state police
to put their lives on the line, yet not give them the tools, training,
resources and support they need to do the very jobs we expect of them.
According to reports, the review will be
led by the President’s Domestic Policy Council, the National Security Council,
the Office of Management and Budget, and relevant U.S. agencies including the
Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, Justice and Treasury, and will also
be carried out in coordination with the U.S. Congress.
Given what we saw in the immediate
aftermath of the shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown, where unarmed peaceful
protesters were confronted by armored vehicles, assault weapons and, as one
former military commander said, "more gear than I wore in Iraq or
Afghanistan,” I under the President’s concern. I understand the questions.
Personally, I believe the initial police
response, however well intended, was an over-reaction under those specific
circumstances. We saw unarmed peaceful protesters, standing with their hands in
the air, met by officers pointing assault weapons at them. That response only
exacerbated an already difficult and painful situation.
However, when provocateurs, most of whom
came from outside of Ferguson, infiltrated the peaceful protests in the nights
that followed, they threw Molotov cocktails, looted and destroyed businesses
and private property, and fired guns among the protesters.
The police had no option but to act, and
act with force.
A crowd can, at any moment, turn from
peaceful to dangerous. Law enforcement has to hope for the best, but be
prepared for the worst, and never be afraid to do their job. When they do their
job, their political leadership and superiors MUST support them.
History has taught me that at every turn
in life, we must try to make good from a bad situation. In this case, I am sure
there are many lessons to be learned from Michael Brown’s death. And we owe it to Michael Brown, his family,
the community of Ferguson and really all of America to do our best as a society
to learn everything we possibly can from this tragic event.
Was the show of force with war-like
weapons necessary? Could it have been handled differently? Do local and state
police require the weapons and equipment we saw in Ferguson?
After 35 years in law enforcement and
running two of the largest law enforcement agencies in America, overseeing the
rescue, recovery and investigation of the attacks of 9/11, and being extremely
familiar with the threats we face in this country from ISIS and radical Islamic
extremist terrorists, I offer the following historical perspective.
In the 80s and 90s, the drug cartels and
violent criminals were outgunning local, state and federal law enforcement
officers. Bad guys went from carrying revolvers to semi-automatic pistols to
semi-automatic rifles to fully automatic assault weapons.
Then came 9/11 and the threats of radical
Islamic terror, which changed the dynamics of law enforcement all across our
country, including at the state, local, and even small community levels.
Let’s remember that New York City has
been the target of at least 13 terror attacks over the past 12 years. Radical
Islamic extremists targeted the Prudential Building in Newark, NJ, and others
around the country. Two brothers planted a bomb at the Boston Marathon. A group
of men planned to blow up a synagogue. I
could go on and on.
In addition, in the past four years, we
have witnessed mass murders on our military bases, in our colleges and
elementary schools as well as shootings in our malls, either by Islamic
extremists or some deranged lunatic.
Our local and state police are
responsible for responding to these attacks and the increasing threats of
terror and violence we face in America today.
In the most violent and extreme
circumstances, there are specialized teams of highly trained men and women,
some of which are referred to as Emergency Service Units (ESU), Special Weapons
and Tactics Teams (SWAT), Emergency Response Teams (ERT), Hostage Rescue Teams
(HRT).
When civilians need help, they call the
police. When the police need help, they
call ESU, ERT or SWAT.
When these units respond, they have to be
prepared for anything and everything - a deranged gunmen with assault weapons,
a suicidal bomber, IEDs, a suspect wanted for murder, a hostage taker or
barricaded suspect, or an emotionally disturbed person who wants to jump off of
a building or bridge and is willing to take the life of anyone who attempts to
stop them.
This is what these specialized units do
day in, day out. Their primary mission: SAVING LIVES.
You would have to be either naïve or in
complete denial not to admit that these teams are extremely important and play
a vital role in securing and responding to threats of violence or terrorism in
our cities and communities.
We should have a national debate on the
response to Ferguson’s demonstrations, and rightfully so. We can look at who
receives equipment from the federal government or military, what equipment is
necessary, and most importantly – more than anything else, whether the units
receiving this equipment are not only adequately trained, but funded for
training long term.
Local and state government leaders are
quick to create these units to keep their communities safe, but then fail, and
at times outright refuse, to fund them for the necessary training which is
quite often more important than the equipment itself.
You can have the best equipment in the
world, but if you do not know how to use it, or consistently train with it, or
conduct mock drills and table top exercises as a cohesive team, then you are
putting the men and women in those units, as well as the citizens in the
communities they serve, in danger.
If we are going to look at these types of
issues, I think we should also begin to look at many of our regulatory
agencies.
In the past year or so, I have read about
U.S. Health & Human Services raiding doctors' offices for fraud with
heavily armed police, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency raiding a guitar
company with a SWAT team, and U.S. Department of Education booming down a
family's door in a morning raid in search of someone who failed to pay off his
student loan.
If these reports are true, why do these
and other federal regulatory agencies require that sort of firepower, when the
U.S. Justice Department – FBI, DEA and Marshal's Service – has some of the best
trained and most qualified non-military special weapons and operations teams in
the world?
If a regulatory agency requires that sort
of firepower, why not leave it to the real professionals, those who do it for a
living?
There is a lot on the line for our
country and all Americans as it relates to this issue. We need real debate, not
knee-jerk reactions. Weapons of war on America’s streets are not needed every
day, in every circumstance. However, we must be prudent in our preparations for
the worst possible scenarios while at the same time protecting our citizens,
our communities, and our freedoms.
Just in the past few days, we have heard
one threat after another from the newly-formed Islamic extremist army called
ISIS. This barbaric and savage army claims to be in the United States, has
threatened imminent attacks, and even boasted that they intend to raise their
flag above the White House. We must be
ready should their threats become reality.
There are no easy answers in a world
where a man in black garb and a hood covering all but his eyes and mouth
beheads an American and posts the video on the Internet for the entire world to
see.
Yes, there is a lot for us to learn from
what happened to Michael Brown. And
there is a lot for us to learn from what happened to James Foley.
May the circumstances of their deaths
cause all Americans, especially our government leaders, to pause and dig deep
for answers about how we arm and prepare our communities in the face of such
realities.
Let this be Michael Brown and James
Foley’s legacies. Their deaths can cause us to be better prepared and to help
save lives. We must make that so.
May they both rest in peace.