5PM City Council
Meeting Time: 09-13-22 17:00
eComments Report
Meetings Meeting
Time
Agenda
Items
Comments Support Oppose Neutral
5PM City Council 09-13-22
17:00
28 15 1 14 0
Sentiments for All Meetings
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
5PM City Council
09-13-22 17:00
Agenda Name Comments Support Oppose Neutral
07. Adopt an Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 2021-0034 and Adopting a New Military Equipment Use Policy and Receive the Annual Military Equipment Use Report [In Lieu of Pass for Publication Ordinance to be Published in its Entirety] File ID: 2022-01479
14 0 14 0
Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda 1 1 0 0
Sentiments for All Agenda Items
The following graphs display sentiments for comments that have location data. Only locations of users who have commented will be shown.
Overall Sentiment
Agenda Item: eComments for 07. Adopt an Ordinance Rescinding Ordinance No. 2021-0034 and Adopting a New Military Equipment Use Policy and Receive the Annual Military Equipment Use Report [In Lieu of Pass for Publication Ordinance to be Published in its Entirety] File ID: 2022-01479
Overall Sentiment
Diane Rosenblum
Location:
Submitted At: 9:18am 09-13-22
I am writing to express my opposition to approving Agenda item #7 during the September 13 meeting and urge you to oppose it too.
The Military Equipment Use Plan is not complete and needs further work.
We want our police to have a Guardian Mentality, not a Warrior Mentality. Let’s look at ALL our citizens as people who are part of our community, not seen first as a possible threat.
AB 481 requires SPD to identify an independent oversight entity. The proposed policy only lists oversight by offices within the Police Department, which is not the “independent” intent of AB 481.
This Use Policy states: “When stocks of military equipment have reached significantly low levels or have been exhausted, the Department may order up to 10% of stock in a calendar year without city council approval to maintain essential availability for the Department’s needs.” This section does not comply with AB 481, which requires ALL military equipment acquisitions by a law enforcement agency be approved by the governing body without exception.
The proposed policy should not include acquisition of the ROOK this year, which is completely unsuited for our city needs and expensive to maintain ($8,000 a year). The County owns a ROOK.
There is still contradictory information about the use of LRAD’s in the Sac PD Military Equipment Use Plan between item # 7 and the SPD General Order 580.17. The LRAD policy 580.17 must be updated to indicate that it is not to be used as a dangerous warning tone before this Use Plan is approved! The plan cannot be approved until the referenced Less Lethal Weapons Systems document (GO 580.12) is fixed:
There are still many redacted words in 580.12, making it useless to the public. This policy is referred to in the Military Equipment Use Policy and is therefore tied to it.
The phrase “may include, but are not limited to”, applied to uses of a weapon, is so broad that SPD could authorize it for any situation. While “less lethal”, these weapons can still seriously harm or kill someone. In light of Sacramento’s history with projectile use during demonstrations, and ongoing lawsuits, this is important state when it can and cannot be used! This is to safeguard both citizens and police.
I object to the inclusion of the phrase riot/crowd control for so many of the items, especially projectiles and chemicals that can be shot into a crowd. Please remove this phrase from all items or change it to simply “riot”.
This must be done before approval.
The Use Report at the end of this document, meant to show the military equipment usage between December 2021 and April 2022, does not list how and when and where the equipment was deployed as required. In the text of Law AB481, it states that a Military Use Report will include “a summary of how the military equipment was used and the purpose of its use.”
We need policies and procedures that recognize the danger implicit in use of weaponry and provide thoughtful guidance in minimizing risk.
Thank you for helping us achieve this!
Diane Rosenblum, Sacramento
Robert Scofield
Location:
Submitted At: 8:30am 09-13-22
I am writing to submit public comment for Agenda Item 7 of the City Council Meeting today. I am writing to urge you to reject the proposal set forth to you today by the Sacramento Police Department for the city’s Military Equipment Use Policy. The police department has not shown the military equipment is necessary. The new law AB 481 requires that “law enforcement must determine that military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.” I do not see the need for armor piercing ammunition, among other things.
Bob Scofield
Woodland
Jeannette Eagan
Location:
Submitted At: 12:19am 09-13-22
PLEASE STOP the adoption of this PROPOSED Military Equipment Use Plan, at this time, because the policy is deficient in following rules of the law that it is intended to fulfill, it still has troubling "allowed uses" of the military equipment included, and it promotes a Military/Warrior mentality in our police force instead of a Helper/Guardian mentality.
PLEASE read the last paragraph for some of my personal observations from the community outreach sessions.
PLEASE pay attention to and implement Sacramento Police Review Commission’s Recommendations as follows:
1) Add specific language to GO 410.06 requiring SPD to produce its annual report using Comparative Reporting and Demographic Reporting. 2) Add specific language to GO 410.06 stating the limits and conditions for when military equipment can be used and cannot be used in compliance with AB 48 and AB 481. 3) Add specific language to designate independent oversight authority to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector General, and the SCPRC to ensure SPD’s compliance with GO 410.06 and AB 481. 4) Add specific language to GO 410.06 requiring SPD to seek City Council approval before any public or private funding may be spent. 5) Amend GO 410.06 to limit SPD’s military equipment stockpile and require City Council approval for all annual procurements, acquisitions, or purchases separately from its annual report or policy updates.
PLEASE pay attention to the fact that the proposed policy doesn’t identify who will exercise INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT over the policy and uses of military equipment policy. AB 481 requires SPD to identify such an independent oversight entity. The proposed policy only lists oversight by offices within the Police Department, which is not the “independent” intent of AB 481. This is a grave omission and I URGE that the Office of Public Safety, the Inspector General and the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission be appointed to provide independent oversight of this policy and uses.
PLEASE consider that any use of military-style equipment that is likely to be interpreted as threatening can escalate a situation. Seeing a tank at a demonstration or in a neighborhood, observing officers wearing riot gear when no obvious crime or violence is in view, seeing guns held or pointed without knowing whether they will shoot bullets or less lethal ammunition can cause panic or encourage aggressive behavior from those in the area. We must be informed of any deployment of military-style weapons AND the area where it was deployed, not just actual use. And we must be informed of the race/ethnicity of those it was deployed against. Without this data, law enforcement can continue to say (as officers said in one of the community meetings) that it's not true that these weapons are being or will be used predominantly against people of color. -----------
I attended 2 of the 3 Cops and Coffee community events (and watched video of the other) and I now have more concerns about the policy AND the process than can fit into 10k characters, but I'll abbreviate. The policy is the main concern, but also is the lack of transparency in the process of getting input from those who the SPD serves...its citizens. I don't feel heard. I got the impression that SPD saw this as a formality. Public website comments ended May 20 for a document not due for review until Aug/Sep. Unless you knew to go to the SPD website and had access to internet, you wouldn't be able to participate. This excludes many citizens, myself included. I believe it most excluded the people most likely to be the target of these weapons, people of color. The meetings themselves were triggering to attendees and not productive. There was no format or moderation, they were not well advertised, locations were not sufficient to host more than a dozen people and one was changed last minute to a park in 100 degree heat. One meeting included an officer currently on administrative leave while his action that killed a black citizen from that community in his line of duty is investigated. In the first meeting the lead officer stated the he didn't have to be there. True, he personally didn't have to be there but this meeting process was required by the law. How did it deteriorate to this point? This is only a small fraction of problematic things I observed in the meetings I attended.
Jeannette Eagan <[email protected]>
To:
[email protected]
,
[email protected]
,
[email protected]
,
[email protected]
,
[email protected]
and 5 more...
Tue, Sep 13 at 12:05 AM
Dear Council,
-I submitted this comment on 9/11/22 through the site's e-comments but for some reason it wasn't posted. I hope you will consider it. Jeannette Eagan
PLEASE STOP the adoption of this PROPOSED Military Equipment Use Plan, at this time, because the policy is deficient in following rules of the law that it is intended to fulfill, it still has troubling "allowed uses" of the military equipment included, and it promotes a Military/Warrior mentality in our police force instead of a Helper/Guardian mentality.
PLEASE read the last paragraph for some of my personal observations from the community outreach sessions.
PLEASE pay attention to and implement Sacramento Police Review Commission’s Recommendations as follows:
1) Add specific language to GO 410.06 requiring SPD to produce its annual report using Comparative Reporting and Demographic Reporting. 2) Add specific language to GO 410.06 stating the limits and conditions for when military equipment can be used and cannot be used in compliance with AB 48 and AB 481. 3) Add specific language to designate independent oversight authority to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector General, and the SCPRC to ensure SPD’s compliance with GO 410.06 and AB 481. 4) Add specific language to GO 410.06 requiring SPD to seek City Council approval before any public or private funding may be spent. 5) Amend GO 410.06 to limit SPD’s military equipment stockpile and require City Council approval for all annual procurements, acquisitions, or purchases separately from its annual report or policy updates.
PLEASE pay attention to the fact that the proposed policy doesn’t identify who will exercise INDEPENDENT OVERSIGHT over the policy and uses of military equipment policy. AB 481 requires SPD to identify such an independent oversight entity. The proposed policy only lists oversight by offices within the Police Department, which is not the “independent” intent of AB 481. This is a grave omission and I URGE that the Office of Public Safety, the Inspector General and the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission be appointed to provide independent oversight of this policy and uses.
PLEASE consider that any use of military-style equipment that is likely to be interpreted as threatening can escalate a situation. Seeing a tank at a demonstration or in a neighborhood, observing officers wearing riot gear when no obvious crime or violence is in view, seeing guns held or pointed without knowing whether they will shoot bullets or less lethal ammunition can cause panic or encourage aggressive behavior from those in the area. We must be informed of any deployment of military-style weapons AND the area where it was deployed, not just actual use. And we must be informed of the race/ethnicity of those it was deployed against. Without this data, law enforcement can continue to say (as officers said in one of the community meetings) that it's not true that these weapons are being or will be used predominantly against people of color. -----------
I attended 2 of the 3 Cops and Coffee community events (and watched video of the other) and I now have more concerns about the policy AND the process than can fit into 10k characters, but I'll abbreviate. The policy is the main concern, but also is the lack of transparency in the process of getting input from those who the SPD serves...its citizens. I don't feel heard. I got the impression that SPD saw this as a formality. Public website comments ended May 20 for a document not due for review until Aug/Sep. Unless you knew to go to the SPD website and had access to internet, you wouldn't be able to participate. This excludes many citizens, myself included. I believe it most excluded the people most likely to be the target of these weapons, people of color. The meetings themselves were triggering to attendees and not productive. There was no format or moderation, they were not well advertised, locations were not sufficient to host more than a dozen people and one was changed last minute to a park in 100 degree heat. One meeting included an officer currently on administrative leave while his action that killed a black citizen from that community in his line of duty is investigated. In the first meeting the lead officer stated that he didn't have to be there. True, he personally didn't have to be there but this meeting process was required by the law. How did it deteriorate to this point? This is only a small fraction of problematic things I observed in the meetings I attended.
Courtney Poole
Location:
Submitted At: 10:25pm 09-12-22
I urge you to oppose this policy as it is written. AB 481 was created in order to protect community members from further harm of this equipment and allow constituents to participate in meaningful community input. This policy is currently out of compliance in so many ways, including the lack of meaning input, lack of an independent body to provide oversight around the policy, and many more. Reject this policy and demand that the Police Review Commission's recommendations be incorporated into the policy:
-Add specific language to GO 410.06 requiring SPD to produce its annual report using Comparative Reporting and Demographic Reporting.
-Add specific language to GO 410.06 stating the limits and conditions for when military equipment can be used and cannot be used in
compliance with AB 48 and AB 481.
-Add specific language to designate independent oversight authority to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector
General, and the SCPRC to ensure SPD’s compliance with GO 410.06 and AB 481. -Add specific language to GO 410.06 requiring SPD to seek City Council approval before any public or private funding may be spent.
Amend GO 410.06 to limit SPD’s military equipment stockpile and require City Council approval for all annual procurements,
acquisitions, or purchases separately from its annual report or policy updates.
Community members lives and well-beings are at stake here. Do the right thing.
Anne Fey
Location:
Submitted At: 10:09pm 09-12-22
As this policy is not in compliance with AB 481, I urge the mayor and council members to reject this proposal. The police department has failed to sufficiently explain why they require the weapons, as requirement 1 states, and there is not sufficient evidence that the proposed military equipment will make our communities safer, as requirement 2 states. I support taking the Sacramento Community Police Review Commission’s recommendations seriously. Implementing these recommendations is an important and easily achievable step in ensuring meaningful transparency in the military equipment owned.
Nicholas McConnell
Location:
Submitted At: 9:42pm 09-12-22
Dear Mayor and City Council Members:
I urge you to reject the proposal by the Sacramento Police Department for the city’s Military Equipment Use Policy. This policy is out of compliance with AB 481, and I am deeply concerned about the harmful outcomes that will result in passing the policy as it is written today.
Requirement 1: AB 481 requires that “law enforcement must determine that military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.” The police department has not satisfied category 1, because SPD’s policy simply restates the legal requirement without providing any explanation for why Sacramento’s police require the weapons. Simply restating the law is insufficient and does not comply with AB 481.
Requirement 2: AB 481 requires that “the proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.” Sacramento residents and victims of police violence have repeatedly declared they feel less safe with the presence of heavily armed law enforcement. Studies also confirm Police officer’s possession of military weapons have escalated situations rather than mitigated any harm, often resulting in serious preventable injuries most notably during the George Floyd protests of 2020.
Requirement 3: AB 481 requires the police department’s equipment purchases to be “reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.” Though SPD publicly stated its policy only includes the equipment it already has and will not cost the city additional money, it is requesting over $500,000 in new equipment that carries additional costs for maintenance. As written, SPD does not include accurate estimations of the maintenance, replacement, and training for military equipment over multiple years.
Requirement 4: AB 481 requires the Police Department’s “prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.” But SPD’s prior uses violated federal law that prohibited police officers from shooting at people acting peacefully in a crowd, as it was shown doing during the 2020 George Floyd protests. Rather than implementing corrective action to address these nonconforming uses, SPD denied their misuse and refused to detail any remedies it took to ensure future compliance.
In addition, I am deeply disappointed about the process of community engagement that took place around the policy. Sac PD received over 1200 comments from community members stating concerns with the use of military equipment due to past harm committed against members. These comments were discounted. The three “Cops and Coffee” community discussions were not accessible to many residents and did not have any moderation, which resulted in a discussion in which community concerns were discounted.
Finally, the City’s Community Police Review Commission’s recommendations, which were thoughtfully crafted by knowledgeable community members who sit on this commission, were completely ignored by Sac PD. Please consider these recommendations when voting tonight:
- Add specific language to GO 410.06 requiring SPD to produce its annual report using Comparative Reporting and Demographic Reporting.
- Add specific language to GO 410.06 stating the limits and conditions for when military equipment can be used and cannot be used in compliance with AB 48 and AB 481. - Add specific language to designate independent oversight authority to the Office of Public Safety and Accountability (OPSA), the Inspector General, and the SCPRC to ensure SPD’s compliance with GO 410.06 and AB 481.
- Add specific language to GO 410.06 requiring SPD to seek City Council approval before any public or private funding may be spent.
- Amend GO 410.06 to limit SPD’s military equipment stockpile and require City Council approval for all annual procurements, acquisitions, or purchases separately from its annual report or policy updates.
Thank you,
Nicholas McConnell
Timothy Irvine
Location:
Submitted At: 8:42pm 09-12-22
I OPPOSE the proposed SPD policy and urge city council to reject the proposal today.
The Police Department is Not in Compliance with the Law (AB 481): We acknowledge SPD’s improvements in updating the policy, creating community listening sessions, and providing the public portal feedback option. This indicates change can be made. However, there are still more improvements to be made since SPD is not in compliance with AB 481.
The Police Department’s Policy does not meet the four requirements of AB 481: AB 481 states the City Council can only approve a Military Equipment Use Policy if it determines that four specific requirements have been satisfied. The police department has not met any requirement, which means it is not in compliance with AB 481.
For example, [Choose one of the below following requirements as an example:] Requirement 1: The police department has not shown the military equipment is necessary. The new law AB 481 requires that “law enforcement must determine that military equipment is necessary because there is no reasonable alternative that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.” The police department has not satisfied category 1, because SPD’s policy simply restates the legal requirement without providing any explanation for why Sacramento’s police require the weapons. Simply restating the law is insufficient and does not comply with AB 481.
Requirement 2: The police department has not shown the military equipment will safeguard the public’s welfare, civil rights, or civil liberties. The new law AB 481 requires that “the proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties.” As Sacramento residents and victims of police violence have repeatedly declared they feel less safe with the presence of heavily armed law enforcement.
As studies also confirm Police officer’s possession of military weapons have escalated situations rather than mitigated any harm, often resulting in serious preventable injuries most notably during the George Floyd protests of 2020, SPD has not proven its policy complies with AB 481.
Requirement 3: The police department has not shown the military equipment is cost-effective or that they have tried available alternatives. The new law AB 481 requires the police department’s equipment purchases to be “reasonably cost effective compared to available alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety.” Though SPD publicly stated its policy only includes the equipment it already has and will not cost the city additional money, it is requesting over $500,000 in new equipment that carries additional costs for maintenance. As written, SPD does not include accurate estimations of the maintenance, replacement, and training for military equipment over multiple years, this policy does not comply with AB 481.
Requirement 4: The police department has not shown that is has complied with its own military weapon’s policies in the past. The new law AB 481 requires the Police Department’s “prior military equipment use complied with the military equipment use policy that was in effect at the time, or if prior uses did not comply with the accompanying military equipment use policy, corrective action has been taken to remedy nonconforming uses and ensure future compliance.” But SPD’s prior uses violated federal law that prohibited police officers from shooting at people acting peacefully in a crowd, as it was shown doing during 2020 Henry Gordon
Location:
Submitted At: 6:53pm 09-12-22
Please consider my comments on the proposed Military Equipment Use Policy. I read previous versions of the policy as well the latest version that the City Council will consider for approval.
I appreciate that this policy addresses some of the previous criticism from the public but it still has glaring deficiencies and the Policy should be rejected.
While I recognize the need for effective police law enforcement and public safety, we need policies and procedures that recognize the dangers in new weapons and technology and provide guidance to minimize risks.
AB481 requires independent oversight of the policy; this proposal only identifies oversight by police authorities.
The policy allows use of military-type weapons for “crowd control” and “crowd management”. Such language enables dangerous police actions in response to legal protests and other situations where the public has gathered. Those terms must be removed.
The Use Report at the end of this document, meant to show the military equipment usage between December 2021 and April 2022, does not list how and when the equipment was deployed, a requirement of AB481.
The report lacks specificity on what situations warrant the use of items such as chemical agents, projectiles & sound blasts. There must be clear guidelines when such weapons are NOT to be used because of danger to bystanders and the public.
The proposed policy should not include acquisition of the ROOK, an armored bulldozer used by SWAT teams that is dangerous and inappropriate for use in our city.
Because of these and other problems I urge you to reject the proposal and send it back for major revision.
Meg White
Location:
Submitted At: 6:36pm 09-12-22
The current SPD Military Use Policy does not meet the guidelines of AB-481.
1. This policy must be based on meaningful public input. A few meetings, mostly during work hours, with no
2. There has to be an independent oversight body - namely SCPRC, OPSA, and the AG. - tax payers shell out millions each year in law suits, we can't afford to not have more accountability measures
3. Demographic Reports is necessary for transparency. AB-481 specifically calls out that military equipment is used most in Black and Brown communities.
4. There also must be limits for prohibition of use
The current Military Use Policy leaves tax payers on the hook for tons of lawsuits, and communities open for more death and trauma.
Lindsey Ayala
Location:
Submitted At: 5:19pm 09-12-22
Hello, my name is Dr. Lindsey Ayala, and I am a clinical psychologist in the Sacramento area. I reside in Councilmember Katie Valenzuela's District 4. I am writing to strongly oppose SPD's policy as written. I watched one of the recordings of the Cops and Coffee events where public comments and questions were supposed to be addressed by the police department. I was disheartened to see the manner in which public concerns were not adequately understood and acknowledged.
As a mental health proffesional, I am cocnerned that further use of Sacramento's budget is being requwsted to use towards fruther military equpiment under the guise that it is needed to make our community safer. What is needed to make our community safer is more investment in community programs that support low in-come families and communities, such as investment in mental health programs, social services, childcare services, and substance use support services. These types of programs support individuals from the ground up and aid in crime reduction and prevention, instead of further reliance on weapons that do not make our community safer. I am also concerned that at the community meetings there was no acknowledgement of research that shows how BIPOC individuals experience higher levels of policy violence/weaponry used on them, than non-BIPOC, which will be continue to be problematic with more weaponry and militarization of police.
I urgerntly opose this new policy and urge the City Council to review and take appropriate action to actually protect and advocate for the Sacramento community.
Dr. Lindsey Ayala
Rhonda Rios Kravitz
Location:
Submitted At: 1:19pm 09-12-22
Dear City Council Members and Mayor Steinberg,
My name is Rhonda Rios Kravitz and I reside in Councilmember Jennings’ District 7. I write to strongly oppose SPD’s policy as written and urge the City Council to reject the proposal.
Researchers from Harvard, Stanford, and other universities concluded in 2017 that allowing local law enforcement agencies access to military-style weapons has the net effect of increasing violence, not of decreasing or preventing it. As the report stated: “The results confirm our argument: the receipt of more military equipment increases both the expected number of civilians killed by police (_ = 0.055; p = 0.016) and the change in civilian deaths (_ = 0.017; p = 0.082.”
The experience of policing in the United States has been shaped for Black and Brown Americans by its association with white supremacy. Advancing racial equity must be one of the highest priorities for the city not militarizing the police. Meaningful police reform requires trust in the City’s law enforcement. This must be achieved by holding police accountable and effectively deterring police misconduct and by rebuilding the community trust.
The use of military equipment conjures the vision that policing is not oriented to crime prevention and public safety, but rather to racialized control. If we are to be a resilient city driven by a policing-reform movement to remedy the abuses, excesses, and systemic discriminatory practices in American policing, then militarization is not the answer. It is time for police to be guardians who protect the people not soldiers at war with them. A critical step towards rebuilding trust in the City’s law enforcement is to stop the use of spending monies and resources for military equipment. It is time to reinvest monies and resources into the community need for mental health care, housing, drug treatment, health, employment, and reparations.
Also of note is that the Police Department is not in Compliance with the Law (AB 481) and its current policy does not meet the four requirements of AB 481, including a rationale that demonstrates that the police department needs the military equipment.
Sincerely,
Dr. Rhonda Rios Kravitz, Dean Emerita
Rowen Rayneharte
Location:
Submitted At: 12:14pm 09-12-22
The police budget does not need more money. It definitely does not need more money and support for military grade equipment. I’ve seen the harm the police inflict on citizens with “non-lethal” weaponry and do not want them to have higher grade weaponry to inflict this harm further. We don’t need more police and police equipment.
We do not need more funding nor policies supporting police efforts. What we need is ideas, policy, and funding towards supporting our city and its citizens. Invest in community services instead. The money that goes towards training officers, maintaining and purchasing equipment, etc would be better put towards our unhoused crisis, school funding, and community services. The police are not a solution for the unhoused crisis either. They just shuffle people around and throw away their stuff. We need this focus to be redirected towards decriminalizing poverty and creating safer communities by supporting those communities.
Moiz Mir
Location:
Submitted At: 5:55am 09-12-22
There is no justification for a municipal police department to require access to military equipment. Sac PD received over 1200 comments from community members stating concerns with the use of military equipment, for reasons including past harm committed against members. Disappointingly, these comments were discounted.
AB 481 has the following 4 requirements for compliance (Section 2: add chapter 12.8, section 7071(d)(1)A-D), each of which this iteration of the MEU policy fails to meet.
Requirement 1: The police department has not shown the military equipment is necessary with no reasonable alternative to achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety Requirement 2: The police department has not shown the military equipment will safeguard the public’s welfare, civil rights, or civil liberties.
Requirement 3: The police department has not shown the military equipment is cost-effective or that they have tried available alternatives.
Requirement 4: The police department has not shown that it has complied with its own military weapon’s policies in the past.
This MEU as proposed is a policy that: claims a grenade launcher is somehow an effective tool of "de"-escalation, purports that Long Range Acoustic Devices (commonly known to cause permanent hearing damage, aka sound cannon weapons) are merely communication tools, lacks any evidence or data-based positions to support military equipment as an effective* approach to municipal encounters, and recommends weapons for use on our own population in a manner that would constitute war crimes if used by a military.
This is not a sound policy for a city's law enforcement department. *The text of AB 481 specifies the explicit intent to PREVENT a situation such that, "law enforcement is seen as an occupying force rather than a public safety service" (Section 1(e)). It is clear from this proposed MEU policy that there is a deeper question to address of what "effective" means, to the City Council, to SacPD, and most importantly to the Sacramentans who will have to live with the decisions made. Every person who lives in and visits this City, and the spheres of influence its police department conducts work in, should be able to feel confident that the agents of our local law enforcement view us as members of a dynamic community to 'protect and serve', not as an opposing force to be quelled.
Further, AB 481 BEGINS in Section 1(a) with the evidence-backed statement: "The acquisition of military equipment and its deployment in our communities adversely impacts the public’s safety and welfare, including increased risk of civilian deaths, significant risks to civil rights, civil liberties, and physical and psychological well- being, and incurment of significant financial costs. Military equipment is more frequently deployed in low-income Black and Brown communities, meaning the risks and impacts of police militarization are experienced most acutely in marginalized communities."
In an absence of any reason to justify how the acquisition and deployment of military equipment in our community could outweigh these adverse impacts, for this Council to approve this proposed MEU policy would be not just out of compliance with the requirements set forth by AB 481 but also in direct contradiction with the very purpose of AB 481.
Please do not move forward with the proposed MEU as it is written. Instead, start with addressing the recommendations developed by this City's own Community Police Review Commission.
Dr. Corrine McIntosh Sako
Location:
Submitted At: 1:02pm 09-09-22
AB 481 states the City Council can only approve a Military Equipment Use Policy if it determines that four specific requirements have been satisfied. SPD has yet to met any requirement, which means it is not in compliance with AB 481. For example, SPD has failed to show that the military equipment will safeguard the public’s welfare, civil rights, or civil liberties. The new law AB 481 requires that “the proposed military equipment use policy will safeguard the public’s welfare, safety, civil rights, and civil liberties. Sacramento residents and victims of police violence have repeatedly declared they feel less safe with the presence of heavily armed law enforcement and this sentiment was repeated in every single community listening session held by SPD. As studies also confirm, police officers' possession of military weapons have escalated situations rather than mitigated any harm, often resulting in serious preventable injuries - most notably during the George Floyd protests of 2020. SPD has not proven its policy complies with AB 481.
I urge you to ask yourself the hard questions about SPD’s policy when comparing it to AB 481, listen to community feedback, and to consider that some of the money used to provide SPD weapons can be reinvested into community needs for mental health care, housing, drug treatment, health, employment, and reparations. By strengthening preventative care systems that create racial and health equity, instead of continuing to cause harm, so that we can all enjoy safe and healthy Sacramento.
Agenda Item: eComments for Public Comments-Matters Not on the Agenda Overall Sentiment
Muriel Strand
Location: 95820, Sacramento
Submitted At: 6:02pm 09-12-22
As the council considers resuming in-person meetings, they should start offering free parking for attendees at council and commission meetings. We hear that 'government should be run like a business.' Well, businesses validate for free parking.
Just because the city used public money to help pay for Golden1 arena is not a good reason to make citizens pay to participate in local government.