Anyone surprised? Pelosi’s ‘updated’ stimulus plan doesn’t include planned $600m grant to law enforcement


As the public became sick and tired of the destructive “protests” and riots taking place across the country, Democrats have also begun to backtrack on their calls to “defund the police”. 

Unfortunately, this does not mean that Democrats now support the police…no, it just means that they are not publicly speaking out against them, in order to retain the current and popular vote. 

This was extremely evident in the disgraceful stunt that House Democrats pulled on Wednesday, September 30th, with their newly updated coronavirus relief package. 

The much debated, and much needed relief package was missing one crucial thing, the planned $600 million in emergency funding for law enforcement officers. This funding would have protected first responders in various ways when it came to the virus. 

According to TheDailyWire, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) unveiled the “stripped down” $2.2 trillion HEROES Act Wednesday morning, telling colleagues in a statement that the bill is designed to “avert catastrophe for schools, small businesses, restaurants, performance spaces, airline workers and others,” and that passing the bill is necessary “to protect lives, livelihoods, and the life of our democracy over the coming months.”

The new version of the bill that was proposed on Wednesday, is about $1 trillion cheaper than the previous version, as Democrats are hoping Republicans make up the difference with the $1 trillion they offered to contribute to the bill back in August.

The Speaker said that she hopes their willingness to “come up with a trillion dollars” inspires Senate Republican’s to “come up with a trillion dollars.”.

This bill was named the HEROES Act, which should tell you all you need to know about who it is aiding.

Instead, the HEROES Act, was completely stripped for law enforcement, it was stripped in half in terms of the relief it was intended to offer states and cities to help their homeowners and renters, and instead of a full bailout for the United States Postal Service, they were just given $15 million. 

As per Fox News. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) noted Wednesday, though, that the cuts include a $600 million in planned grants to law enforcement:

“$300 million for Community Oriented Police Services Programs (COPS) that helps hire and rehire additional officers and $300 million for Byrne Justice Assistance Grants to help law enforcement purchase personal protective equipment and to cover costs to control coronavirus in prisons,” 

Scalise told the network in a statement:

“House Democrats have fully embraced the radical left’s movement to defund the police,

“Democrats’ so-called ‘Heroes Act’ removes $600 million from a previous version of the bill that was intended for real heroes: state and local law enforcement.”

In a true display of irony, Scalise pointed out that the decision to cut the $600 million expense from the bill comes amid a nationwide spike in violent crime. Well, that is interesting, considering the major cities experiencing the uptick in violent crime, are the cities who coincidentally decided to CUT police budgets.

There appears to be a correlation here, don’t ya think?

Scalise added:

“In the face of violent rioting and looting, our law enforcement officers need our help more than ever, but Speaker Pelosi and her liberal lieutenants are abandoning these officers in plain sight,” 

Finally saying:

“Instead, Democrats decided to work in direct stimulus payments to illegal immigrants and blanket releases for certain federal prisoners. Democrats have no respect for law and order in our communities. It’s shameful.”

Democrats also told Fox News that cities and states are allowed to redistribute their handouts as they see fit and that some of that $400 billion could go to outfitting first responders with personal protective equipment or funding COPS grants.

Do you want to join our private family of first responders and supporters?  Get unprecedented access to some of the most powerful stories that the media refuses to show you.  Proceeds get reinvested into having active, retired and wounded officers, their families and supporters tell more of these stories.  Click to check it out.

LET Unity

Here is another example that Law Enforcement Today brought you of lawmakers hanging police officers out to dry. 

BALTIMORE, MD – Lawmakers in the State of Maryland are contemplating ending the Law Enforcement Officers Bill of Rights in a move to placate protesters and members of Black Lives Matter.

Opponents of the Bill of Rights claim that the protections that are built in unfairly shield police officers from discipline.  They also believe that the measure allows officers who have committed misconduct in some way be able to keep their job with little to no penalty. 

Democratic Baltimore City Senator Jill Carter is one of the main lawmakers in the city pushing for the bill to be repealed.  She said:

“We’ve had people, families, mothers, entire communities come before this body year after year talking of their stories. Their biggest issue is that they have been in some way victimized and there has been no relief, there is no justice and they have been unable to find relief and a lot of the reason for that is the lack of accountability and transparency that exists in the institution of law enforcement.

“We would no longer endorse a two-tiered system, one set of bill of rights for everyone and another specific bill or rights for law enforcement.  We should all be equal. The people should be the police, and the police should be the people.”

Police unions in the state do not seem opposed by some sort of tweaking of the language in the Bill of Rights, however, they are concerned if the state removes the bill altogether without any clear replacement, it may end up being a detriment.  The Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 3 attorney Michael Davey said:

“If the LEOBR is simply repealed under JPR 15, each of the 148 law enforcement agencies in this state will have the ability to create their own disciplinary process with no oversight or control by your General Assembly.”

However, Carter, and her allies, have proposed some changes to the Bill of Rights. 

They are that formal complaints would no longer be protected as part of an employee’s record, something that has been happening in other states for years.  For example, in the State of Florida, if you want to know an officer’s disciplinary record, all you have to do is file the request and pay for the copying fees.

Carter also wants to extend the time frame in which a citizen has to file a formal complaint on an officer.  Currently, in Maryland, it is 366 days from the time the alleged grievance occurred.  Meaning, on day 367, a formal complaint cannot be filed against an officer. 

In Carter’s plan, citizens would have up to three years from the date of the alleged grievance to file a formal complaint.  In addition, she would like a civilian police employee to do the investigation instead of a sworn internal affairs officer.  She also wants to reduce the amount of time in which a subject officer can obtain an employee. 

In the most absurd move, Carter actually thinks it is a good idea that a citizen filing a formal complaint should not have to sign and/or swear under oath that what they are telling is the truth.  What this measure would do is effectively vastly increase the amount of false complaints against officers with no legal recourse against them.

How it is now is that if a person comes in to file a formal complaint against an officer, they must first provide a sworn written statement that what they are alleging is the truth.  If it is able to be proven later that they lied, they are subject to arrest in order to deter people from lying and tarnishing someone’s good name and bogging down the system. 

If Carter’s measure passes, anyone can walk in, file a fraudulent complaint, without fear of repercussions.  Not sure what Carter is thinking here and the Baltimore County State Attorney Scott Shellenberger seems to agree.  He said:

“People should continue to sign under oath and swear what they say is true and a sustained finding, which would allow it to become public.” 

David Rocah, an attorney for the American Civil Liberties Union of Maryland claims that the procedure proposed by Carter is the same used by other public employees.  One would think, as an attorney for the ACLU, he would know for certain, which would make on suspect.  Rocah said:

“We think the procedure to replace the LEOBR is the same as the procedure that is used for other public employees.”


Want to make sure you never miss a story from Law Enforcement Today? With so much “stuff” happening in the world on social media, it’s easy for things to get lost.

Make sure you click “following” and then click “see first” so you don’t miss a thing! (See image below.) Thanks for being a part of the LET family!

Facebook Follow First


Related Posts