Torrance Council affirms police military‑equipment report and renews equipment policy; public urges civilian oversight

The Torrance City Council on June 10 reviewed the Torrance Police Department’s 2024–25 military equipment annual report and voted to affirm that listed equipment meets the standards in Government Code section 7071(d) and to renew the ordinance approving the department’s military equipment use policy.

Sergeant Michael Estrada, representing the Torrance Police Department, told the council the annual report was prepared in accordance with state law and noted the department has received no complaints related to the equipment. “As of this state of this report, we have received no complaints related to the military equipment,” Estrada said. He added that none of the equipment currently in the department’s possession nor any proposed for acquisition was sourced from military or Department of Defense channels, and that the department held a community engagement meeting on June 10, 2025, at the Torrance Cultural Arts Center to present the report in accordance with Government Code section 7072(b).

Members of the public spoke at length. A resident who identified herself as Carrie said, “You neglected to say that 16 people showed up to that community engagement meeting and all — most people had questions and didn't like the idea of military‑grade weapons being used.” Another commenter, who identified herself as Mary Anne, referenced violent and racist text messages she had seen and asked how the city could approve “giving these folks military‑like great weapons” without an independent civilian oversight commission.

Councilwoman Lewis asked staff to clarify whether the department owned any tanks. An officer on the dais replied, “No, ma'am. We don't have a tank.” A department officer described the difference between a tank and a tactical response vehicle such as a BearCat, saying tanks generally carry armament while Torrance’s vehicles are for a defensive posture and closer approaches during incidents to support negotiation and de‑escalation.

The council voted to accept the department’s recommendation and to renew the existing ordinance that governs the department’s military equipment use policy; the motion carried with Council Member Sheikh absent. The clerk did not provide a roll‑call tally in the transcript beyond that notation.

Several public speakers urged the creation of an independent civilian oversight commission and sought limits on items such as tear gas; others asked the council to limit the quantities of chemical agents retained for training and specified “worst‑case” hostage scenarios rather than broader inventory. The department’s written report, per the meeting record, reported zero complaints to date and stated a public input mechanism was available via an email link on the department’s website.

The council’s action keeps the department’s policy in force and affirms the report as meeting state standards. Citizens who testified said they will press the council and staff for additional oversight mechanisms and clearer limits on specific items such as chemical agents used for training or operations.