States cp — vs Death Penalty —

NC—Solvency—AT Federal Action Key

Download 161.94 Kb.
Size161.94 Kb.
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   55
States CP
the gutters, 2nc Lansing Rnd5, 1AC Practice 10-20, Speech 1ac Ag runoff 8-31 12AM, Speech 1AC CAFOs personal, send cards, 2nr , Con Side, Movements DA, Marijuana Neg, Federalism DA, Court Packing DA, Death Penalty Negative, Death Penalty Affirmative, Aff AT Movements DA

2NC—Solvency—AT Federal Action Key

The counterplan solves – states can impose restrictions on local access to grants

Misra 17 - a writer and multimedia journalist who covers issues related to immigration, cities, and criminal justice
(Tanvi, August 31, 2017, “The Local Fight to Demilitarize the Police” IB
On Monday, Attorney General Jeff Sessions announced a new executive order lifting an Obama-era ban on the transfer of certain types of military equipment, like grenade launchers and bayonets, to local police departments. “Those restrictions went too far,” Sessions said in a speech to the Fraternal Order of Police. “We will not put superficial concerns above public safety.” The move has elicited grave concern from civil rights groups and criminal justice experts. Not only is it unclear whether these weapons are actually effective in reducing crime and protecting officers, they argue, it’s also likely to lead to rights’ violations, worsening the already-frayed relations between law enforcement and communities of color. “Our communities are not the same as armed combatants in a war zone,”said Vanita Gupta, former head of Department of Justice’s civil rights division who now leads the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights. That means it’s up to cities and local governments to step in—either say “no, thanks” to such weaponry or lay out a transparent, public process by which these acquisitions will be made by their law enforcement agency. In the absence of leadership from this administration, state and local governments must create their own guidelines for limiting the acquisition of military equipment, and how it can be used,” Gupta added in a statement. Police militarization garnered renewed scrutiny after images of a heavily militarized police response emerged in Ferguson, Missouri, in the wake of Michael Brown’s shooting death: armored vehicles and heavy machine guns stood pointed at protesters. Rubber bullets, tear gas, smoke bombs, and stun grenades were fired. Journalists were arrested. The Obama administration, in its broader effort to improve police accountability, decided to place restrictions on certain types of equipment available through the “1033 program”: weaponized vehicles and aircrafts, grenade launchers, high-calibre firearms, and bayonets. Other equipment, including Humvees, helicopters, and M-16 assault rifles, were allowed under certain conditions. Amid heightened scrutiny, Ferguson and other police departments had to return some of their miitary equipment. But in recent years, police chiefs have been nudging the government to review these rules. Some small U.S. counties, in particular, have been eager to get military vehicles and weapons, only to soon realize that they have no use for it other than publicity stunts to demonstrate to taxpayers that their money was well-spent. A survey conducted by the libertarian Cato Institute and YouGov found that 54 percent of Americans think the militarization of police is “going too far.” But now that the federal government has lifted these restrictions, the best way to reverse the tide is at the local level, civil rights advocates say. Some jurisdictions have already passed laws banning particular kinds of military equipment for police use, or setting hurdles for their approval. They’re attempts to make the acquisitions less opaque, and for local governing bodies to weigh in on the appropriateness of new police department gear. And it’s not just liberal cities either. “This is an issue that transcends party lines,” says Kanya Bennett of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). Montana is a good example. In 2014, Bozeman City purchased a BearCat through a federal grant, much to the surprise and consternation of residents and city representatives. The incident prompted the state to pass a law with bipartisan support prohibiting the acquisition or purchase of equipment like drones, armored vehicles, silencers, and grenades. Any other military equipment requested through federal programs had to be made public. New Jersey has a similar law on the books, requiring the explicit approval of local governing bodies to approve any acquisition of military equipment. Similar legislation limiting police militarization has cropped up in other parts of the country—from liberal California to conservative Tennessee. These laws, like Montana’s, have surfaced after local lawmakers realized the extent of militarization in their police departments.

Download 161.94 Kb.

Share with your friends:
1   2   3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10   ...   55

The database is protected by copyright © 2022
send message

    Main page