Yesterday we discussed the announcement from the White House which set forth new restrictions on issuing excess military equipment to local police forces. At the time I reached the following conclusion:

This is a public relations stunt to show that they are “on the side of the people” against the evil, out of control cops. Unfortunately we still have areas in this country – generally in large urban centers or contested border regions in the southwest – where police work can border on combat zone scenarios. Everyone would prefer it to be otherwise, but if you’re living in the real world you need to bring the best tools available to the job you have in front of you.

It seems that I wasn’t the only one holding that particular suspicion. The Fraternal Order of Police has come down hard on the Obama administration and they are voicing essentially the same concerns, if somewhat more politely stated.

The nation’s largest police union is fighting back against a White House plan to restrict local police forces’ ability to acquire military-style gear, accusing President Barack Obama’s task force of politicizing officers’ safety.

The White House on Monday announced that bayonets, weaponized vehicles and grenade launchers will no longer be available to local police and that other equipment such as riot gear and other types of armored vehicles would be subject to a more onerous approval process…

James Pasco, executive director of the Fraternal Order of Police, told POLITICO on Monday that he hopes to have a White House meeting as soon as Tuesday to discuss his concerns about how the plans could put cops at risk.

He said in particular he objects to a measure that would require police departments to get permission from city governments to acquire certain equipment, including riot batons, helmets and shields, through federal programs…

“We need to only look back to Baltimore to see what happens when officers are sent out ill-equipped in a disturbance situation,” he said. “Because you don’t like the optics, you can’t send police officers out to be hurt or killed.”

It sound like Pasco is concerned over the same distinctions I raised questions about yesterday. There are shades of gray in this discussion, because a grenade launcher is a fairly serious hammer to bring against any nail and the use of one in a riot situation could result in all sorts of collateral damage, particularly in the hands of someone without full military training in its use. But seeing batons, shield and helmets on the list of things which might even be questioned should have anyone’s hackles raised. The FOP is focusing on Baltimore at the moment, which is understandable because the events are fresh in the minds of the public. But the many nights of gunfire, Molotov cocktails and bricks flying through the air in Ferguson are probably a more apt example.

We saw a microcosm of this confrontation in New York City when the mayor there found himself facing the backs of most of his police force. He was perceived – with great justification in my eyes – as taking the side of the lawless against the law enforcers in the name of quelling an uprising and, most likely, scoring political points with a key electoral demographic. But the cops on the street – with very few, post-retirement exceptions – are not running for office. They can’t afford to worry about what the polls say next week. They are charged with maintaining the rule of law, providing order and safety for the lawful, and still finding a way to make it home safely to their families each night.

Politicizing something so fundamental to the future and security of the nation is callous, reckless and self-serving. The executive branch of the civilian government – at all levels – owes it to their law enforcement entities to provide them support unless individual members are found to have gone rogue and stepped outside the law. Sweeping policies such as the one under discussion here help nobody except those seeking to foment violence.