AG Holder Announces $1 Billion in Grants to Local Law Enforcement

Attorney General Eric Holder today announced the Government will provide $1 billion in grants to local law enforcment.

The announcement was made at the National League of Cities' (NLC) Congressional City Conference.

In announcing the funding for the Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) grants, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the $1 billion is part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and is intended to create jobs as well as enhance public safety.

According to the DOJ COPS website, this is in addition to the $550 million the program got for fiscal year 2009 in the Omnibus Appropriations Act that President Obama signed into law on March 11.

< Fannie And Freddie Bonuses Coming Next Furor | Bill Introduced to End Mandatory Minimums in All Drug Cases >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Just what we need.... (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:27:51 PM EST
    more speed traps, more checkpoints, more tasers, more arrests, more SWAT home invasions, more prisoners...we have such a shortage of these things:)

    There is positive job creation, such as hiring more folks to clean parks or plant trees...and there is negative job creation, such as hiring more folks to arrest and fine us.  Our leaders seem to prefer the negative.

    Starting to get the idea that the (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:07:41 PM EST
    wealthy are happy to take care of the underpriviledged only as long as they are kept in cages.

    The Clash says it better than I ever could.... (none / 0) (#9)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:14:44 PM EST
    I suspect, rather. . . (none / 0) (#2)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:39:00 PM EST
    Our leaders seem to prefer the negative.

    that a very good percentage of the citizenry prefers a lot of cops for the perceived (if not real) effect on public safety.

    Personally, where I live they could use a few more of whoever it was who was enforcing the anti-graffiti laws.  Call me fascist if you like, but I'm tired of seeing folks spray paint the apartment buildings near me.


    Take some of my neighborhoods... (none / 0) (#3)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:51:36 PM EST
    please, they've got nothing to do except bust balls.  I hope none of this dough trickles down to my local precint...you can have it friend.  Where in NY btw?  I'm not aware of any part of this city that is understaffed when it comes to cops.

    Tell those graffiti artists to get their arse to Queens Larry...we could use their talents at the new Shea Stadium covering up all mention of "Citi":)  


    Harlem. (none / 0) (#7)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:14:02 PM EST
    A very drastic increase in graffiti in the last two years.  I'm not sure whether it's due to decreased police staffing or not -- I do notice that the local precinct (the former Dirty 30) which is right around the corner from me has taken over another half block for the officer's private and reserved parking.

    Probably... (none / 0) (#10)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:17:46 PM EST
    as simple as deprioritized and property owners can'r or don't want to spend the money to clean it up.

    I'm more offended by billboards and logos myself, though I hear ya, most graffiti is ugly, but it can be beautiful.


    I think graffitti is amazing (none / 0) (#11)
    by jbindc on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:45:55 PM EST
    That doesn't, however, excuse people for doing it on other people's property.

    Of course not... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by kdog on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 05:58:59 PM EST
    there should be a law against defacing others property, no doubt.  I just don't have to get worked up about it or advocate for harsher penalties:)

    If somebody sprayed Porky Pig on AIG headquarters I'd stand up and clap, and I wouldn't be alone.  


    Graffiti. . . (none / 0) (#14)
    by LarryInNYC on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 08:09:18 PM EST
    can be attractive, I suppose.  This isn't.  And there is a great deal of truth, I think, in the broken windows theory of graffiti.

    By an odd coincidence, this evening also marks the first time I've ever heard gunfire in the city -- when my seven-year-old daughter and I were almost shot walking to the pizza parlor.


    Glad it was "almost"... (none / 0) (#17)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 09:40:18 AM EST
    ...and everyone is OK?  Still an unnerving, frightening experience, I'm sure.  

    My kids are pretty scared. . . (none / 0) (#21)
    by LarryInNYC on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 01:04:24 PM EST
    and didn't get a lot of sleep last night.  We're all still processing the event.

    I am glad to see this, myself. (none / 0) (#4)
    by jeffinalabama on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 03:56:01 PM EST
    First, it will create jobs, and second, having worked in law enforcement, I think that new hires are less likely to indulge in 'busting balls.'

    In many cities, the attempt is to professionalize the police departments, and this makes a difference... educated officers, who might still be tough, but at least understand what they are doing.

    My experience (none / 0) (#6)
    by Bemused on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:08:52 PM EST
     has been almost uniformly exactly the opposite. "Rookies" are far more gung ho.

       This ranges from the understandable lack of perspective in that what seems to them  a big, important case requiring going balls to the wall in the investigation  prosecution, is just another routine case for the experienced cops to the less defensible deriving satisfaction  exerting authority like petty tyrants on the street.

      Give me older, wiser, calmer cops any day.


    Hire older folks. (5.00 / 0) (#18)
    by jeffinalabama on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 10:12:38 AM EST
    when I worked at a police dartment while in grad school (statistician, not officer) a lot of retired military were being hired. Older, calmer, even though new to law enforcement.

    good point (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 10:32:08 AM EST
      It likely is the youth even more than the inexperience that cause many of the problems. you also have significant numbers of people who were MPs in the service so not even new to law enforcement.

    The community (none / 0) (#8)
    by SOS on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    I live in has a good relationship with our patrol division.

    There is rarely trouble because the Police have created numerous tools for people to be the eyes and ears. We have cell phone numbers and email capability to send an email right into a patrol car on duty. We know the officers they appreciate it and it makes their life easier. They much prefer business being "slow" instead of being shot three times a day in hot spot areas.

    The word has gotten around and the "bad guys" have pretty much decided so stay out of this hood.

    I hope some of this money goes to things like this and educating people about "how not to raise a child who ends up becoming a blood thirsty killer."

    that's not the whole thing... (none / 0) (#13)
    by JamesTX on Wed Mar 18, 2009 at 06:40:59 PM EST
    I hope some of this money goes to things like this and educating people about "how not to raise a child who ends up becoming a blood thirsty killer."

    ...yeah...maybe a little of it could go to providing an adequate stable source of income from a job so that those parents actually had an opportunity to raise their kids instead of working 24/7 for some corporation, a few bucks to be sure the only adults the kids have any time with (teachers) know something about development, a few bucks to make sure the first cops they encounter don't abuse them for fun, and maybe a place for them to go after school.


    need help... (none / 0) (#15)
    by fly on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 01:54:33 AM EST
    has anyone heard about this?? is this a joke??or false??


    please tell me it is a joke!!

    Good (none / 0) (#16)
    by Mikeb302000 on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 05:50:36 AM EST
    Maybe with these additional resources, the police will be able to do their jobs and there won't be such a need for law abiding citizens to carry guns to defend themselves. I keep hearing that's the rationale for concealed carry permits.

    Police (none / 0) (#20)
    by Bemused on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 10:37:51 AM EST
     are  not personal bodyguards. More and better cops might have some effect on reducing crime but, even if that is so, the effect that would have on individuals' actual, let alone perceived sense of, security in likely very neglible.

      Having more police doesn't even translate very efficiently into greater rates of solving reported crimes after the fact. Given the way police are deployed it likely would have more impact on the number of prosecutions which are not reported by victims such as drug offenses.


    Meanwhile (none / 0) (#22)
    by reslez on Thu Mar 19, 2009 at 02:30:07 PM EST
    The local fire department is undergoing layoffs; police have not been touched. Politically it's far easier to cut EMS than police -- a side effect of our hysterical drug war and the war against the inner cities. I'd rather have paramedics and firefighters who actually help you when you need it.