pages: CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf, 2
This data as json
body | date | page | text | path |
---|---|---|---|---|
CityCouncil | 2021-03-30 | 2 | The Interim Police Chief responded staff believes the policy shown in the correspondence is consistent with use of the vehicle; stated staff has no problem expanding the policy to the proposed Berkeley policy. Discussed the Council meeting of June 2020 referencing selling the armored vehicle; stated that he is surprised to see the matter come up nine months later; discussed the staff report and vehicle use; stated the vehicle has only been used three times in Alameda with two of the three times using it as a loud speaker; the matter reads as mildly deceptive; noted Berkeley has purchased a bullet-proof van: Zac Bowling, Alameda. Stated the three vehicle uses in Alameda were for protection or cover instances and none were related to active shooter incidents; that she does not see using the vehicle for de- escalation; noted two incidents from 2016 are missing from the detailed report; the vehicle has been overwhelmingly used in other cities; questioned the training costs for medics; stated medically trained professionals should respond to mental health situations; discussed a recent shooting in Colorado: Jenice Anderson, Alameda. Discussed his experience as a Berkeley Police Reserve Officer during a shooting at Henry's Pub; stated law enforcement tactics have had to adjust to lessons learned from several mass shootings; an Officer has to go out and engage to reports of an active shooter; if an Officer fails, Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) team and Ballistic Armored Tactica Transport (BATT) are deployed to end the shooting; expressed concern about giving up local control of the equipment; stated taking away the equipment sends the wrong message; urged Council to tighten up the use policy: Michael Robles-Wong, Alameda. Discussed the June 24, 2020 Council meeting; stated the decision to sell the vehicle has been tested; urged Council to have the integrity to do what is right and stand up for racial justice; stated the Alameda Police Department (APD) has used the vehicle three times in eight years; discussed the three vehicle uses; stated the choice is clear: Erin Fraser, Alameda. Stated that she is confused why the vehicle is still present and questioned how APD is able to push to keep the vehicle; the vehicle is unnecessary, is a waste of taxpayer dollars and is not used as intended; discussed vehicle incident reports; stated the arguments to keep the vehicle are irrelevant due to previous Council discussion, debate and vote; discussed the recent event of a man waiving a gun at protestors; stated the vehicle is subjectively used; urged Council to keep its word and ensure the vehicle is sold: Alexia Arocha, Alameda. Urged Council to follow through on the unanimous recommendation from June 2020 to sell the armored vehicle; stated the vehicle is a symbol and is not used often; outlined an incident of a man with a gun during the Martin Luther King (MLK) Day protest; urged the City to have actions speak louder than words and follow through on the previous promise: Laura Cutrona, Alameda. Urged Council to retain the vehicle, not sell; stated the lives of Officers and citizens can be saved in extraordinary situations and conditions; discussed the example of an Officer or citizen being shot during an active shooter situation; stated the vehicle is the only and safest way to attempt rescuing injured victims; the vehicle is not used often; however, it is handy Continued March 16, 2021 Regular Meeting Alameda City Council 2 March 30, 2021 | CityCouncil/2021-03-30.pdf |