Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Equipment Inventory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Berkeley council to pull military-equipment report from consent amid concerns about tear gas and rifles
Summary
Numerous public commenters asked the council to remove item 10 (annual military-equipment report) from the consent calendar for fuller review, citing inventory counts of rifles, launchers and tear-gas canisters and alleging misuse and procurement inconsistent with Berkeley policy.
Get email alerts on the Police Equipment Inventory topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
On July 23, many callers and in-person public commenters urged the Berkeley City Council to remove item 10 (the Berkeley Police Department annual military-equipment report) from the consent calendar so the inventory and procurement could be fully discussed.
Councilmember Luna Parra and several public commenters called attention to the item during consent highlights; commenters and former councilmember Cheryl Davila questioned why the police department has items such as M4-style rifles, a Barrett .50-caliber rifle, LRADs, tactical robots and hundreds of rounds of related ammunition. Speakers also asked why the department purchased tear-gas canisters despite a local tear-gas prohibition.
‘‘Why do they have all this? We are not enemy combatants,’’ former councilmember Cheryl Davila said during public comment. Other speakers cited specific numbers from the inventory, including an inventory that was read into the record listing dozens of rifles, thousands of rounds of ammunition, launchers and diversionary devices.
Multiple residents asked the council to remove the item from consent and place it on the action calendar for detailed review by the Police Accountability Board and the council. Commenters urged redirecting funds to community investments and voiced concerns about racial disparities in policing.
The consent calendar, including item 10, was adopted in the consent vote later in the meeting. Some speakers said they will continue to press for the item to be taken up in a separate session for public review and for the council to pursue oversight and accountability measures.
