McMillan, Acquanette (Netta)
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Margaret Starbuck
Monday, June 13, 2022 1:41 PM
PublicComment-AutoResponse; Rivas, Jessica
Public Comment 6/13 City Council Meeting
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more....
Dear City Council Members,
I am writing in support of the ordinance receiving a first read in agenda item 21.1 support the City adopting a military equipment policy and after having read the Police Departments 711 Policy relating to acquiring military equipment I am mostly in support of it. I am heartened to see that the police department will now require approval to purchase military equipment and that there will be increased reporting and transparency around what equipment the police department has already in its inventory and what it purchases annually. However, while reviewing the equipment listed that the department ah-eady has, I became really scared because many of the items on the list especially the chemical agents and noise making devices are most often used on civilians in a protest situation, as we saw in the summer of 2020, and my first thought was, those could one day be used on me. I encourage the City Council and the police department to seriously consider on an ongoing basis whether equipment is truly necessary and tmly contributing to public safety, or whether it is actually contributing to making the relationship between the police and the community more hostile and fearful.
I am also writing in general public comment to encourage the City Council Public Safety Committee to reappoint the Police Oversight Commissioners who represent community organizations. These commissioners represent a direct Imk to the community and act as a vital voice for the community on the commission.
Sincerely,
Margaret Starbuck
District 5 Resident
06/13/2022
Item 21
1 Iraheta, Alba
From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:
Monday, June 13, 2022 3:14 PM
Gordo, Victor; Madison, Steve; Rivas, Jessica; Masuda, Gene; Williams, Felicia; Hampton, Tyron; Kennedy, John J.; PublicComment-AutoResponse;
[email protected]
Item #21: authorizing a 50 calibre military rifel
CAUTION: This email was delivered from the Internet. Do not click links or open attachments unless you know the content is safe. Report phish using the Phish Alert Button. Learn more-..
Dear Mayor Gordo and Council members,
I confess that I'm appalled that this Council feels that it's necessary for the police to possess a 50 calibre rifle as long as the police agree not to use it on people, unless they feel they must. I am not familiar with military hardware so I looked up 50 calibre rifle and discovered it has the fire power of a mini cannon.
The 50 caliber rifle is a powerful gun. Widely used in the military, its rounds can "penetrate light armor, down helicopters, destroy commercial aircraft, and blast through rail cars," according to a report from the Violence Policy Center, a gun safety group.
The revised ordinance states: "The primary purpose of this equipment is not for use against individual persons, except if necessary in exigent circumstances." The words in italics provide a loophole that could drive a tank through. Who determines "exigent circumstances"? The police? Most likely. And we know that when the police kill someone, whether it's with a hand gun or a military weapon, they always justify it.. Therefore this revision is meaningless.
I wanted to know more about what happens when someone is hit by a 50 calibre bullet. Here's a report by
Richard Hoppe
who worked at U.S. Army (1975-1995):
I've seen two who were hit by .50 cal BMG rounds. One was hit by a sniper at about 400 yards. I was watching as he was hit, probably middle of the body. His entire thoracic cavity was almost emptied, and his ribs were opened out. Also, all of his lower back on the left side was blown out. DRT.
The other was hit in the upper right thigh, and all the muscle was stripped off from hip to knee, and the leg was held on by a strip of bone.
Though I don't have a lot of experience, it would appear that a solid hit by a .50 BMG round is, at a minimum, a traumatic amputation, and a hit on the torso is probably instantaneous death. Though, again, I've only seen two victims.
Bullets are funny things, ballistics are crazy and hydrostatic shock waves are intensely variable.
I hope you'll ponder the question: Why do we need to equip our police with weapons of war like this? hlow will this make our city safer?
l Item 21
Sincerely,
Anthony Manousos
y <»
iffk ^«.
•^M.
s-•*•
4^S
^«i>
»» •
w»,y %
%;<«
f«a
< I'
»®
1».
y»
^ k9^ •<
<(>*
•""tnl»t|iBl,1»
1^
\lit ^s
lsi .»',* t.
^Wfe :»»»
1 k
<1 . ^"'.^
.* •>^'
^Si^MM B!
awf
^
j<UNNN**»tei»
^
i^. g
ffi: * <x
IJiB
1t'% ^
'
Jl^ ^f*r <« Mi* f
mri* s<'
?
!*w
/
^B
^^^ »'
te \\
^ ^
-I
"K
„.:»
k
t
^r-JNfc-; ,<• '*
r.^.^^
^
m%:<1
y
*•»
^ f,
^ ',/
f- "%4. '?»
^
•rniir ^aitira
2