Headlines can be deceiving. They can be especially deceiving is there is no subsequent context given. And they can be more deceiving when some are playing politics with the headline. So it was for me on Wednesday when the top-of-fold front page of the Daily Journal blared "Sheriff's Office details $2M in military equipment". The usual suspects in the defund, defang the police movement jumped all over it, but I was left to ask, "Is that a lot or not enough?" Hard to say. The DJ notes
The San Mateo County Sheriff’s Office released its first annual Military Equipment Use Policy, detailing the more than $2 million worth of equipment in its ownership as part of a state mandate process aimed at expanding transparency around the stock of military-grade weapons held by any given jurisdiction. During the required update from the Sheriff’s Office on the policy, Allen noted the Sheriff’s Office does not currently own any equipment directly handed down by the military or that is from companies who supply the military with equipment.
But the department does own equipment that falls under what the state defines as military equipment, based on interpretations of Assembly Bill 481, which took effect this January. In total, acquiring and maintaining the equipment has cost the department more than $2 million.
So it would have been nice to see the headline use "military" in quotes like I did above. If you click through to the article I'm not the only one questioning the terminology, but the piece is helpful in that it details the gear
According to the report, the county currently owns:
- a Lanco Bearcat armed vehicle
- a mobile command vehicle
- two bean bag launchers and bean bag munition
- three bomb squad robots
- four .50 caliber semi-automatic rifles and ammunition
- four 37 millimeter tear gas launchers and tear gas grenades
- 10 pepperball launchers
- 11 drones
- 41 stingball grenades, 42 flashbang devices and 114 less-lethal launchers used to fire rounds of soft rubber bullets.
“This equipment is necessary because there are no reasonable alternatives that can achieve the same objective of officer and civilian safety,” Sheriff Carlos Bolanos said.
In search of some context, I reminded myself that the County is about 450 square miles and has about three-quarters of a million residents. It's home to a decent chunk of Silicon Valley tech offices and data centers. Bio tech, including labs, is booming in the County so much that San Carlos just put a moratorium on new bio building applications. We've got a lot of potential targets. And as I look at the list, you would be hard-pressed to make a decent Schwarzenegger movie with what we have. One Bearcat for the whole County? One mobile command vehicle? It seems to me AB 481 that required releasing this info "for transparency" may be causing too much transparency to all the wrong people. Let's hope not.
Having just one of anything mechanical and important is plain stupid.
Posted by: resident | April 23, 2022 at 07:38 PM
This Storey reminded me of the Theft of Firearms and Explosives that were kept in a "Bunker" of the San Mateo County Sheriff's Dept.
The Magazine could be seen from 92.
Whatever happened to that "event?"
What happened to the former Sherrif Munk?
I don't really care one way or another. However, it is our "local history." Funny too.
Posted by: hollyroller@ gmail.com | April 23, 2022 at 07:56 PM
Not as funny as Munks and Bolanos getting caught in the raid on the illegal brothel in Vegas. But I do remember the theft from the bunker, though not in detail anymore.
Posted by: HMB | April 24, 2022 at 01:29 PM
A quick search turned up this story -- at least the guys were caught and sentenced https://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/OAKLAND-37-month-sentence-in-explosives-case-2733225.php
Posted by: HMB | April 24, 2022 at 01:37 PM