"Chips Loral" wrote in message news:v8gpes$2c0ud$10@dont-email.me...
>
>Mitchell Holman wrote:
>> What president defunded what police?
>
>
>BIDEN!
>
>https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/senators-condemn-biden-plan-to-defund-deprive-police-of-critical-lifesaving-resources-by-executive-fiat
>
>01.21.2022
>Senators Condemn Biden Plan to Defund, Deprive Police of Critical
>Lifesaving Resources by Executive Fiat
>WASHINGTON – A group of Senate Republicans, led by Senate Judiciary
>Committee Ranking Member Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), today are expressing
>serious concern about a proposed executive order (EO) by the Biden
>Administration that would limit law enforcement access to nonlethal and
>lifesaving resources, and impose greater restrictions on federal grant
>dollars. The planned executive order comes amid a national surge in violent
>crime while the “defund the police” movement has eroded morale and curbed
>recruiting in police departments across the country.
>
>“Police officers will face a grim reality if this EO is enacted and their
>lifesaving equipment is restricted from them. Violent crime will continue
>to skyrocket when police officers are unable to stop these crimes and save
>innocent lives. We cannot understand why any elected official would want to
>stop law enforcement from safely doing their jobs other than to be able to
>tell their base of voters they are defunding the police,” the senators
>wrote.
>
>The EO would prohibit the transfer of nonlethal tools, such as armored
>vehicles and flash-bang devices, which are frequently used to de-escalate
>potentially violent situations and protect law enforcement and community
>members. It would also tie critical federal grant funding to onerous
>conditions that Congress hasn’t enacted.
>
>“We cannot and should not burden state and local grants with conditions
>that are not reasonably related to the purposes of those grants, often
>making it impossible for departments to obtain them. The federal government
>should not be hamstringing them into conditions that Congress has not
>passed into law,” the senators wrote. “Putting grant-making authority into
>the hands of the Attorney General and imposing arduous conditions on grant
>applications is the essence of defunding the police, hindering the success
>of our officers before they can even begin.”
>
>The EO coincides with a violent crime wave sweeping the nation. Homicides
>in U.S. cities reached near record highs in 2021. According to the FBI, the
>number of law enforcement officers who were intentionally killed in the
>line of duty was the highest since the 9/11 attacks 20 years ago. The
>Fraternal Order of Police reports that ambush-style attacks on law
>enforcement increased 115 percent in 2021.
>
>Along with Grassley, the letter was signed by Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), a
>leader in efforts to safely and reasonably reform policing, and Judiciary
>Committee members Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Cornyn (R-Texas), Ted Cruz
>(R-Texas), Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) and Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).
>
>Full text of the letter follows.
>
>January 21, 2022
>
>VIA ELECTRONIC TRANSMISSION
>President Joseph R. Biden Jr.
>The White House
>1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
>Washington, DC, 20500
>
>Mr. President:
>
>According to recent news reports, the White House is working with the
>Department of Justice on an executive order (hereinafter, “EO”) that would
>impose various police reforms and criminal-justice reforms on federal law
>enforcement, and possibly on state and local law enforcement, without
>Congress passing police reform or criminal justice reform legislation.[1]
>Specifically, according to screenshots[2] of a draft of such EO, the
>Administration would unilaterally impose the following new policies on law
>enforcement: restrictions to the 1033 program, expanding pattern and
>practice authority, planned expansion of 18 U.S.C § 242 prosecutions, and
>conditioning state and local law enforcement grants.
>
>We understand the screenshots of this draft order to be authentic and we
>read it with the understanding that the Administration would be
>implementing police reform efforts Congress cannot agree on. To put it
>simply, this appears to be an attempt to defund the police through
>increased federal prosecutions, stripping them of necessary lifesaving
>equipment, and conditioning essential grants for local law-enforcement
>agencies.
>
>First, it is a myth that the program known as “the 1033 program”[3]
>militarizes the police. This program helps state and local police
>departments obtain necessary life-saving tools including safety equipment,
>personal protective equipment, and even communications systems. Yet the EO
>proposes to reduce the 1033 program by eliminating the transfer of the most
>basic of equipment and tools our state and local police officers need to
>keep us safe. The “banned” list in the 1033 program is based on knee-jerk
>reactions to ban equipment based on aesthetics, not on its actual function.
>The EO would eliminate the transfer of “any vehicles, including all tracked
>and armored vehicles…” Armored vehicles do not mean “armed” but rather a
>vehicle that can protect against heavy fire. Heroic police officers have
>proven time and time again the use of these vehicles save lives.
>
>For example, in Arkansas, the Fort Smith SWAT team credited their armored
>vehicle to saving both civilians and police officers in a deadly shootout
>that had already killed one officer. The assailant had pinned down other
>officers who were unable to enter the active-shooter situation without the
>armored vehicle.[4] In Wisconsin, a suspect opened fire in a neighborhood–
>endangering citizens throughout the area. Officers were able to use their
>armored vehicle to evacuate innocents from the kill zone and safely set up
>for negotiations. Negotiators convinced the suspects to surrender without
>loss of life.[5] Given the alarming rise in violence, including homicides
>and carjackings, the federal government should be looking for any and all
>reasonable ways to help state and local law enforcement keep our
>communities safe rather than making their jobs harder.
>
>The EO would also ban the transfer of stun and flashbang grenades. These
>items might sound dangerous and perhaps militaristic because they include
>the nomenclature “grenade,” but they are not. They are non-lethal
>life-saving tools designed to minimize otherwise-lethal encounters between
>police and criminal suspects. Restrictions on such non-deadly use-of-force
>options for officers would make no sense, and we should not force officers
>to only have a single use-of-force option, namely firearms, in tense
>hard-to-read situations. Escalating dangerous situations would increase the
>risk of loss of life for both officers and civilians and could increase the
>number of officers walking away from the job.
>
>Such potential restrictions on the 1033 program would come at a time when
>law enforcement needs our support more than ever. We have spoken about the
>unprecedented 30-percent spike in murders that began in the summer of 2020.
>It continues to this day. In 2021, police officers recorded the highest
>number of on-duty deaths on record. According to the Fraternal Order of
>Police, 63 officers were murdered and 346 officers were shot.[6] They also
>reported ambush-style attacks on law enforcement officers spiked 115
>percent in 2021.[7] Police officers will face a grim reality if this EO is
>enacted and their lifesaving equipment is restricted from them. Violent
>crime will continue to skyrocket when police officers are unable to stop
>these crimes and save innocent lives. We cannot understand why any elected
>official would want to stop law enforcement from safely doing their jobs
>other than to be able to tell their base of voters they are defunding the
>police.
>
>The EO also refers to 18 U.S.C § 242, the statute pertaining to deprivation
>of rights under color of law, as an “obstacle” to lasting reform. It
>discusses “assessing the steps necessary” to enhance the Department of
>Justice’s ability to prosecute cases of the deprivation of rights under
>color of law.[8] Make no mistake, an abuse of power used in furtherance of
>a crime should be punished, but states are well equipped to prosecute these
>cases on their own and have successfully done so. Statutes already exist at
>the state level to hold anyone who commits a deprivation of rights under
>color of law accountable. Expanding Section 242 and overstepping federal
>authority to prosecute officers for state-level offenses may chill law
>enforcement and hamper the already struggling recruiting efforts
>departments across the country are facing.
>
>Lastly, the EO’s section on grant-making authority, after laying out
>requirements for federal law enforcement, states “the Attorney General and
>the Secretary of Homeland Security shall also use all tools at their
>disposal to promote adoption of the provisions of this executive order.”
>[9]
>This section is extremely concerning. It clearly lays out the groundwork
>for the Attorney General to strip power from the states and force them to
>comply with conditions on grants. Grants such as Byrne JAG and COPS are
>essential for police departments across the country and are used for
>important purposes such as hiring and recruiting and mental health. We
>cannot and should not burden state and local grants with conditions that
>are not reasonably related to the purposes of those grants, often making it
>impossible for departments to obtain them. The federal government should
>not be hamstringing them into conditions that Congress has not passed into
>law. The federal government should also be looking for ways to help
>departments who otherwise would not be able to apply for funding to have
>access and opportunity to these invaluable grants. Putting grant-making
>authority into the hands of the Attorney General and imposing arduous
>conditions on grant applications is the essence of defunding the police,
>hindering the success of our officers before they can even begin.
>
>The examples above only begin to discuss the serious problems with the EO,
>which we understand also contemplates housing biologically male prisoners
>with female prisoners.
>
>These hard-left policies are extremely ill-advised, dangerous to Americans,
>and would only further demoralize law enforcement. Along with the alarming
>rise in violence against officers, police departments continue to report
>low morale among officers that is directly related to the dangerous “defund
>the police” rhetoric. This is careless rhetoric that has lasting
>consequences to the men and women who risk their lives every day to keep
>our communities safe, and the EO’s policies are simply an extension of that
>rhetoric.
>
>We are baffled as to why this Administration would want to implement this
>EO, which is tantamount to defunding the police. You stated in the past as
>both a candidate and as President he has no intention of defunding the
>police. Yet this executive order threatens to move our country backwards
>towards crippling police budgets, skyrocketing crime, and deteriorating
>morale among our officers.
>
>The EO attempts to legislate significant issues that should require debate
>and consensus from Congress as well as our law enforcement community. You
>should reconsider the troubling provisions and provide next steps if there
>are plans for a formal introduction.
>

<cue the crickets>

Holman and others are clueless so they'll respond with nothing. They only
know what the MSM tells them.

--
Definition of an idiot/ignoramus: Someone who gets their information from
the mainstream media and calls it facts and evidence.

http://www.rumormillnews.com - The best alternative news site