The only way this could be more absurd is if you threw in alien mind control.Eri said:
If his job is literally only survival, yes.
Rampant Police Brutality and Media censorship in Ferguson Missouri
- Thread starter Ratty
- Start date
I heard the protests were peaceful then the police fired on them anyways; then things turned violent.
Let's remember the protests were because the police killed a man for no actual reason (unless the reason is that he was black). It's almost like if the police didn't murder civilians we wouldn't have a problem.
Let's remember the protests were because the police killed a man for no actual reason (unless the reason is that he was black). It's almost like if the police didn't murder civilians we wouldn't have a problem.
Except it wasn't for no reason. You're just assuming that. He had literally just committed a robbery and assault of a gas station clerk. I have a feeling that once all is over and done with, you'll find he is not some innocent butterfly.Weaver said:
LOL, like any of that makes a difference...
Fact- Humans can not get air if they can't breath.
Fact- The average human can stay conscious without air for about 2-3 minutes.
Fact- The human brain can survive without air for approximately 6 minutes.
Fact- This man was lying and was fine.
I heard they were arrested for trespassing. It is a crime, you CAN get arrested for it, and you can do it peacefully.Ratty said:
If you have your hands behind your back but do not literally go limp, you are resisting arrest. Cops are trained to feel muscle groups tense up in preparation for an attack.
If that was indeed the case the reporters would have officially filed a police brutality lawsuit causing Internal Affairs and the courts to review the surveillance tapes from McDonalds.
So he only began screaming he was in life threating danger when the doors of the van were open and more people were being loaded in? Suspicious, no?
Fact- Humans can not make vocal noises without air.
Fact- Humans can not get air if they can't breath.
Fact- The average human can stay conscious without air for about 2-3 minutes.
Fact- The human brain can survive without air for approximately 6 minutes.
Fact- This man was lying and was fine.
Incorrect, that's how they treat criminals. Press or not they were committing an illegal act.
I wouldn't be surprised if this was actually the rioters because cell phone jammers also jam emergency response radio bands. In short, they kill the cop's radios. Very useful if you are fighting a more advanced and organized foe...
Lies, damn lies, and statistics. If one white person is searched and found to be carrying illegal substances then 100% of whites searched do. If 1000 blacks are searched and 500 are found carrying illegal substances than only 50% of blacks searched do. See? If the town is 60% black then by the laws of probability of course more blacks are going to have contact with the police than whites. As for black cops, civil members, and school board members I have to ask THE question. How many blacks TRY to get these positions? I can't hold it against a town if they don't have a racially diverse and competitive workforce to choose from...
Having your hands up means neither of those things. Weapons can be stowed and many hand to hand combat styles teach you how to disarm and/or attack an opponent from the "surrender position".
Mocking? I see one cop with his hands up and he appears to be looking at the camera. Is he waving? Is he stretching? He's not holding a gun so is it a sign of mutual peace? A picture is colored by the lenses we view it through. People would do well to remember that.
Context missing that I'm filling in as a county resident:
Pulling in the county cops was the biggest mistake. Stl County PD is HATED due to it being standard operating procedure to be complete asswipes all the time. So yah, county cops would have been rioted against just for them being there. The whole "teargas the innocent arrest the reporters" thing was just icing.
StL county has a massive, massive institutional racism problem. We're talking a history of red-lining, white flight, bias in hiring, the whole nine.
Oh, on the subject. Overt racism has been going up. It seems to be a side-effect of the "us vs them" going on with the politics of the country.
Missouri as a whole has been going on a "screw the poor we have money" kick. You may not know it, but the MO legislature is one of if not the most corrupt in the country. They keep protecting... PUPPY MILLS... and lowering corporate taxes and to make it up they make up regressive taxes. It leads to there being two counties, the rich part like Chesterfield, Town and Country and the rest of the place rotting. Ferguson is the latter, and the reason is because of the institutional racism.
If you didn't know StL County != StL city. It gets weird with statistics, which is why you keep hearing that the city has such a violent crime problem: because other cities have the outskirts rolled in.
Oh, and we have to remember that this whole thing started peacefully. Then the county cops *Facepalm* tried to shut it down. The fact that they didn't consult with Creve Coeur (Monstanto HQ, daily protests) PD over keeping it peaceful was pretty stupid.
Pulling in the county cops was the biggest mistake. Stl County PD is HATED due to it being standard operating procedure to be complete asswipes all the time. So yah, county cops would have been rioted against just for them being there. The whole "teargas the innocent arrest the reporters" thing was just icing.
StL county has a massive, massive institutional racism problem. We're talking a history of red-lining, white flight, bias in hiring, the whole nine.
Oh, on the subject. Overt racism has been going up. It seems to be a side-effect of the "us vs them" going on with the politics of the country.
Missouri as a whole has been going on a "screw the poor we have money" kick. You may not know it, but the MO legislature is one of if not the most corrupt in the country. They keep protecting... PUPPY MILLS... and lowering corporate taxes and to make it up they make up regressive taxes. It leads to there being two counties, the rich part like Chesterfield, Town and Country and the rest of the place rotting. Ferguson is the latter, and the reason is because of the institutional racism.
If you didn't know StL County != StL city. It gets weird with statistics, which is why you keep hearing that the city has such a violent crime problem: because other cities have the outskirts rolled in.
Oh, and we have to remember that this whole thing started peacefully. Then the county cops *Facepalm* tried to shut it down. The fact that they didn't consult with Creve Coeur (Monstanto HQ, daily protests) PD over keeping it peaceful was pretty stupid.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't the police themselves commented that the police officer wasn't aware of the robbery? If I recall correctly, the police officer stopped Micheal Brown and his friend because they were walking down the middle of the road and thus potentially blocking traffic.Eri said:
Correct, but remember, Brown had just done the robbery. He likely was not expecting to see a cop. Since he saw one, he probably assumed the cop knew what had just transpired and became belligerent due to that fact. The cop probably went on the defensive quite quickly after he noticed Brown's odd demeanor.Zetatrain said:
The bottom line here is that the media, in pursuit of sensational stories, is making the problem worse. The bottom line in this case is pretty straightforward. A black thug was walking with some friends in the middle of the street, holding up traffic. They did this right in front of a police cruiser. When the cop told them to get out of the street, one of the guys, a 6' 4" black man attempted to grab the police officer's sidearm through the window of the car. The police officer understandably fired on him. Nobody denies these basic facts. The part of the story where things become touchy is whether or not the guy in question was trying to surrender when the police officer got out of the car and shot him again.
The rest of this is pretty much icing on the cake. Apparently the guy in question was just involved in a violent crime shortly before he was told to get out of the middle of the street. The cop involved however had no idea about that, and simply told him and his friend(s) to remove themselves.
The major point of the case comes down to whether the cop had control of the situation and executed the guy when he was surrendering, or if the situation was out of control and the cop acted reasonably under the "continuum of force". To explain that situation understand that there is more involved than just the police officer and the guy in question, the reaction of the guy's friends also play into this. After all if your facing multiple potential opponents it skyrockets the continuum of force quickly because the more people your facing the less likely you can control the situation with anything less than lethal force as you can only do so much with Mace and a PR-25, even a Stun Gun is generally only good for one dude. This is why so much effort is being made in checking out these witnesses, after all if the cop had a reasonable belief that the people this thug was with were going to back him up, he was perfectly justified in dropping the guy, even while he was surrendering, and turning his attention (and firearm) to cover other potential threats. After all just because a guy has been wounded and says "I surrender" doesn't mean he's not going to turn around and tackle you when your busy with his friends. Understand lethal force was already attempted (going after the sidearm of the police officer counts) in the situation, and the big question comes down to how the other people on the scene were acting, and whether any threats were made.
Before your quick to judge, understand as a police officer you want to go home alive at the end of the day, and your putting your butt on the line to ensure law and order. If any one of us were in a similar situation we might have done the same thing if we believed other people on scene presented an immediate threat and we could not otherwise secure a guy who already attempted to grab our gun.
At the end of the day this is all about a bunch of rabble rousing black racists screaming "OMG a white police officer shot a black guy" and demanding the cop basically be sent up the creek immediately. The authorities in the meantime have been investigating the situation, like they are supposed to do. Mob justice is the exact opposite of what the law is supposed to do. In protest of reasonable action, the black community decided to engage in massive scale looting and vandalism, which warranted a police crackdown. Continued rioting has of course lead to the establishment of a curfew. Despite claims of "non violent demonstrations" the bottom line is that the desired attention was gained (internationally in fact) and what's more these demonstrations are doing little but riling people up to engage in yet more violence. The right to free assembly does not include your ability to riot, or cause havoc, it generally exists to prevent the police from busting up gatherings on private property, deciding that someone's meeting/club/party makes them nervous because there are too many people and deciding to shut it down. When it comes to demonstrations on public property, there are rules and regulations for that. The US tends to be fairly open minded when it comes to un-registered protests and such, but when it turns into this kind of violence and havoc the laws are brought out. Chanting "we're here non-violently" in a way to cause confrontation with something like a police curfew in no way justifies it.
Likewise there is such a thing as freedom of the press, but at the same time there are laws against using the press to do things like incite riots, violence, interfere with due process, and provide a platform for slander and libel. The bottom line is the media has not really been impartial on this. The authorities, like usual, are remaining fairly quiet about their side and their findings until the actual hearing/trials. In the mean time your looking at what amounts to a media echo chamber where person after person is brought out to pretty much attack the police or the situation, when really nothing has been done or decided yet. The media is more or less taking an approach that the police should immediately cruicify this officer or something in the way it's been covering the case. Neutral coverage would encourage patience until the investigations are complete, and to fully hear the other side when it's presented. As it is the attention garnered has already brought in higher levels of authority (both state and federal) to double check things to an extent you normally don't see happen, so it's not like the system isn't responding.
If your a reporter that doesn't give you the right to stir up a tense situation, and try and cause more riots, and frankly trotting out there so you can make a scene of being taken into custody for the sake of sensationalism serves no one's interests but your own. As much as a lot of people would like to think of the press as the good guys, understand it's a business nowadays, and there is more money and coverage in turmoil and controversy than in peace. At a certain point you do have to take some action against the media... that becomes a touchy subject, but that's the way it's always been. A press pass does not mean you have free reign to engage in libel and pour fuel onto the flames, and quite possibly get more people hurt and killed. I'd agree with claims of a "media blackout" or interfering with the right to a free press if we weren't already painfully aware of the situation, but we are.
As far as issues with a mostly white police force, arrest statistics, etc... none of that is especially relevant. Just like the fact that the guy who was shot was a thug who just attempted a strong arm robbery is irrelevant, because the cop in question was not aware of that at the time. You can throw characterizations around back and forth, in the end a lot of this is likely to come down to whether or not this guy's friend, and the witnesses, were visibly hostile towards the cop when this all went down. On a lot of levels these racial tensions that the media is stirring up could very well see the cop aquitted, or found innocent, because a lot of anti-white bigotry is on display, combined with a lot of people citing a "history" or views of the police force being discriminatory. That could have motivated other people at the scene, and honestly it doesn't matter if maybe the force has been discriminatory in the past, all that matters is what happened in that specific incident. The cop in question is not under investigation for anything other than when and why he pulled that trigger right then and there, meta-issues, and politics have nothing to do with it.
Do I think the cop is innocent? I honestly have no idea. I merely understand why this situation has turned out like it has. Like most investigations it's being kept quiet for obvious reasons. A lot of factors have to be looked at in how things went down, it's not a simple matter of "did the cop shoot the guy" or "did the cop shoot the guy while he was surrendering" it comes down to other things that might have been happening that affected the entire incident.
I'll also say that it's nice to throw around statistics and unassociated "facts" which are so loaded by the situation as to be more or less pointless and act as just more gasoline on the fire. At the end of the day affirmative action in law enforcement is a bad idea. The big question I've had in this case is how many members of that black community have sought a career in law enforcement? I point this out because I was a Criminal Justice major, albeit with a focus on Forensics as opposed to going for regular law enforcement. The days where you just show up at the station and say "I want to be a cop" are pretty much gone (though I guess it can happen in some places) they look for very specific things. When I took my various classes there were a few people of color involved, but not a lot of them. If you look at the breakdown for this situation I doubt you'll find many black guys around that area with Criminal Justice training from college, who tried and failed to get into the police department. What's more another thing you'll probably find is that a lot of people on the force were probably selected because of training, and probably came/were recruited from different areas. I can't guarantee that, but the bottom line is people wanting to do law enforcement usually have to travel to where they are going to work, and police departments increasingly need things like job fairs and/or to recruit through schools (encouraging people to take Criminal Justice, or cut some kind of deal with a Police Academy for education in some areas). If you really look at the situation you'll probably find that despite there being few black guys in the local police department, most of those guys weren't exactly hired from the local area initially, which is why they aren't representative of it, you have to get who you can from *qualified* people. What's more it's interesting to note that the "more diverse" cops they made a show of bringing in are State Troopers, for the most part being a State Trooper is a far better, and more prestigious job than being a local cop (though this can vary depending on how generous a given town or district is). Ask a lot of the black guys who showed up for the state if they would like to work for the town instead, they will probably say "no". Indeed it's quite possible that a lot of the dudes who work for that local PD are guys who for whatever reason didn't qualify or get accepted for the State Troopers. While it's going into rambling territory (and again like everything it varies from place to place) one other thing you see happen is for State law enforcement to semi-retire for a higher rank in local law enforcement. For example you might put 20 years into the state and hit a wall where your not going to advance anymore, but then take a job where you can be a Captain or even a Chief and run the show for a whole local department. That's how a lot of towns also recruit, looking for people retiring or getting stonewalled in other departments.
At the end of the day time will tell how it's going to turn out, it's a bad situation, but honestly I think the problem is that the press has gone well beyond coverage and being "impartial" to trying to leverage the situation and ensure they can get as much "sensational" stuff to broadcast as possible.
The rest of this is pretty much icing on the cake. Apparently the guy in question was just involved in a violent crime shortly before he was told to get out of the middle of the street. The cop involved however had no idea about that, and simply told him and his friend(s) to remove themselves.
The major point of the case comes down to whether the cop had control of the situation and executed the guy when he was surrendering, or if the situation was out of control and the cop acted reasonably under the "continuum of force". To explain that situation understand that there is more involved than just the police officer and the guy in question, the reaction of the guy's friends also play into this. After all if your facing multiple potential opponents it skyrockets the continuum of force quickly because the more people your facing the less likely you can control the situation with anything less than lethal force as you can only do so much with Mace and a PR-25, even a Stun Gun is generally only good for one dude. This is why so much effort is being made in checking out these witnesses, after all if the cop had a reasonable belief that the people this thug was with were going to back him up, he was perfectly justified in dropping the guy, even while he was surrendering, and turning his attention (and firearm) to cover other potential threats. After all just because a guy has been wounded and says "I surrender" doesn't mean he's not going to turn around and tackle you when your busy with his friends. Understand lethal force was already attempted (going after the sidearm of the police officer counts) in the situation, and the big question comes down to how the other people on the scene were acting, and whether any threats were made.
Before your quick to judge, understand as a police officer you want to go home alive at the end of the day, and your putting your butt on the line to ensure law and order. If any one of us were in a similar situation we might have done the same thing if we believed other people on scene presented an immediate threat and we could not otherwise secure a guy who already attempted to grab our gun.
At the end of the day this is all about a bunch of rabble rousing black racists screaming "OMG a white police officer shot a black guy" and demanding the cop basically be sent up the creek immediately. The authorities in the meantime have been investigating the situation, like they are supposed to do. Mob justice is the exact opposite of what the law is supposed to do. In protest of reasonable action, the black community decided to engage in massive scale looting and vandalism, which warranted a police crackdown. Continued rioting has of course lead to the establishment of a curfew. Despite claims of "non violent demonstrations" the bottom line is that the desired attention was gained (internationally in fact) and what's more these demonstrations are doing little but riling people up to engage in yet more violence. The right to free assembly does not include your ability to riot, or cause havoc, it generally exists to prevent the police from busting up gatherings on private property, deciding that someone's meeting/club/party makes them nervous because there are too many people and deciding to shut it down. When it comes to demonstrations on public property, there are rules and regulations for that. The US tends to be fairly open minded when it comes to un-registered protests and such, but when it turns into this kind of violence and havoc the laws are brought out. Chanting "we're here non-violently" in a way to cause confrontation with something like a police curfew in no way justifies it.
Likewise there is such a thing as freedom of the press, but at the same time there are laws against using the press to do things like incite riots, violence, interfere with due process, and provide a platform for slander and libel. The bottom line is the media has not really been impartial on this. The authorities, like usual, are remaining fairly quiet about their side and their findings until the actual hearing/trials. In the mean time your looking at what amounts to a media echo chamber where person after person is brought out to pretty much attack the police or the situation, when really nothing has been done or decided yet. The media is more or less taking an approach that the police should immediately cruicify this officer or something in the way it's been covering the case. Neutral coverage would encourage patience until the investigations are complete, and to fully hear the other side when it's presented. As it is the attention garnered has already brought in higher levels of authority (both state and federal) to double check things to an extent you normally don't see happen, so it's not like the system isn't responding.
If your a reporter that doesn't give you the right to stir up a tense situation, and try and cause more riots, and frankly trotting out there so you can make a scene of being taken into custody for the sake of sensationalism serves no one's interests but your own. As much as a lot of people would like to think of the press as the good guys, understand it's a business nowadays, and there is more money and coverage in turmoil and controversy than in peace. At a certain point you do have to take some action against the media... that becomes a touchy subject, but that's the way it's always been. A press pass does not mean you have free reign to engage in libel and pour fuel onto the flames, and quite possibly get more people hurt and killed. I'd agree with claims of a "media blackout" or interfering with the right to a free press if we weren't already painfully aware of the situation, but we are.
As far as issues with a mostly white police force, arrest statistics, etc... none of that is especially relevant. Just like the fact that the guy who was shot was a thug who just attempted a strong arm robbery is irrelevant, because the cop in question was not aware of that at the time. You can throw characterizations around back and forth, in the end a lot of this is likely to come down to whether or not this guy's friend, and the witnesses, were visibly hostile towards the cop when this all went down. On a lot of levels these racial tensions that the media is stirring up could very well see the cop aquitted, or found innocent, because a lot of anti-white bigotry is on display, combined with a lot of people citing a "history" or views of the police force being discriminatory. That could have motivated other people at the scene, and honestly it doesn't matter if maybe the force has been discriminatory in the past, all that matters is what happened in that specific incident. The cop in question is not under investigation for anything other than when and why he pulled that trigger right then and there, meta-issues, and politics have nothing to do with it.
Do I think the cop is innocent? I honestly have no idea. I merely understand why this situation has turned out like it has. Like most investigations it's being kept quiet for obvious reasons. A lot of factors have to be looked at in how things went down, it's not a simple matter of "did the cop shoot the guy" or "did the cop shoot the guy while he was surrendering" it comes down to other things that might have been happening that affected the entire incident.
I'll also say that it's nice to throw around statistics and unassociated "facts" which are so loaded by the situation as to be more or less pointless and act as just more gasoline on the fire. At the end of the day affirmative action in law enforcement is a bad idea. The big question I've had in this case is how many members of that black community have sought a career in law enforcement? I point this out because I was a Criminal Justice major, albeit with a focus on Forensics as opposed to going for regular law enforcement. The days where you just show up at the station and say "I want to be a cop" are pretty much gone (though I guess it can happen in some places) they look for very specific things. When I took my various classes there were a few people of color involved, but not a lot of them. If you look at the breakdown for this situation I doubt you'll find many black guys around that area with Criminal Justice training from college, who tried and failed to get into the police department. What's more another thing you'll probably find is that a lot of people on the force were probably selected because of training, and probably came/were recruited from different areas. I can't guarantee that, but the bottom line is people wanting to do law enforcement usually have to travel to where they are going to work, and police departments increasingly need things like job fairs and/or to recruit through schools (encouraging people to take Criminal Justice, or cut some kind of deal with a Police Academy for education in some areas). If you really look at the situation you'll probably find that despite there being few black guys in the local police department, most of those guys weren't exactly hired from the local area initially, which is why they aren't representative of it, you have to get who you can from *qualified* people. What's more it's interesting to note that the "more diverse" cops they made a show of bringing in are State Troopers, for the most part being a State Trooper is a far better, and more prestigious job than being a local cop (though this can vary depending on how generous a given town or district is). Ask a lot of the black guys who showed up for the state if they would like to work for the town instead, they will probably say "no". Indeed it's quite possible that a lot of the dudes who work for that local PD are guys who for whatever reason didn't qualify or get accepted for the State Troopers. While it's going into rambling territory (and again like everything it varies from place to place) one other thing you see happen is for State law enforcement to semi-retire for a higher rank in local law enforcement. For example you might put 20 years into the state and hit a wall where your not going to advance anymore, but then take a job where you can be a Captain or even a Chief and run the show for a whole local department. That's how a lot of towns also recruit, looking for people retiring or getting stonewalled in other departments.
At the end of the day time will tell how it's going to turn out, it's a bad situation, but honestly I think the problem is that the press has gone well beyond coverage and being "impartial" to trying to leverage the situation and ensure they can get as much "sensational" stuff to broadcast as possible.
They were arrested for trespassing after the officers told them to leave, and then blocked the exit. Before the police showed up to clear out the restaurant, they were not trespassing. You cannot be charged with a crime if you committed it before it was a crime.Sarge034 said:
The officers refused to give their badge numbers out, making filing a brutality charge impossible. In their own words,
"After being placed in a holding cell, he was released with no charges and no explanation. He was denied information about the names and badge numbers of those who arrested him."
In my opinion, the man was having a panic attack, and he was calling out for help from the people getting carted away, not the police. Of course, this part is incredibly vague, so anything could of happened
I already covered this, but I'll add that they were charged with nothing, and released the next day.
Also, how do you justify the reporters who were tear-gassed and had their cameras illegally dismantled? What crime did they commit?
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/14/police_in_ferguson_tear_gas_tv_reporters_al_jazeera_camera_crew_flees.html
I always tell people to do their research for a reason.Cowabungaa said:
To explain this one and how you can "easily" find an explanation, understand that the law works the same for everyone, it is effectively neutral. When people want to set up a picket line or protest as a general rule they need to get permission and a permit, with the town telling them when and where it's okay to demonstrate as to not interfere with anyone.
The place to look with information with things like this is actually at things like KKK protests and various biker rallies and such. Cases where these organizations have basically approached the town, gotten a lawful permit (pushing the point that they can't legally discriminate) and then showed up in force at the allotted time, and received police protection and such. Hence why in some cases you've pretty much had hundreds of guys from the Klan thumbing their nose at crowds while they spread their propaganda, and the police actually protect them as it's a lawful demonstration.
If you assemble *in Public* (a key point) and don't have permission from the custodians of that public property (say the local government) you are breaking the law. For the most part this is ignored unless there are problems, but you've seen the police step in on all kinds of rallies, break up spontaneous concerts if the crowds got too big and started obstructing things or risking damage to the property (ie the town has to pay to clean up the park, re-plant and fix all the grass, etc... too many people show up at once and that's a big bill for them, which is also why some towns charge people for the permits).
In this case the people assembled illegally, but were largely ignored until they started to cause problems, and become increasingly rowdy and belligerent. It turned into rioting and of course the authorities decided they were going to enforce the law on public rallies on this issue in order to maintain order. Understand that being a "non violent" protestor doesn't matter if the issue your representing is going to inspire violence, vandalism, etc. Part of the factor here is also that they already achieved the stated goal of a non-violent protest, so there is no real need to keep pushing the issue (the state, and even federal government are all over this, and the media noticed).
The right to free assembly pretty much protects you in your own home or on private property. The point of the law is that the government can't say raid someone's house because him and a bunch of friends are discussing how much they hate the government. Ditto for say raiding a party on someone's ranch or whatever simply because the authorities don't like how many people are all hanging out there. This was to prevent things like you saw happening in Europe where the authorities were all psyched up to raid "Anarchists" and anyone who tried to organize anything against the government or to protest certain properties. Guys like Ben Franklin were part of organizations like "The Hellfire Club" (the organization the Marvel villain group is named after, it had a sort of colonial theme for a reason) that were being chased around by the governments of Europe because they disagreed with various social norms of the time. Basically if you form a private club get 200 people together in your personal ballroom to discuss how much you hate government policies and what can be done about them, your safe. You take those 200 people to the public green outside of town hall and start yelling and screaming about the policies, your no longer safe, unless you were given permission to demonstrate. Of course in most cases in the US you'll simply be ignored, unless say your 200 turns into a couple thousand and people start talking about say forcing the Mayor to resign on the spot or whatever. Freedom to assemble does not mean the ability to create a mob and lead a revolution any time you feel like it, society could never hold together.
A principle in the US is however that if the government ever abuses it's power to the extent where you are say having nation wide oppression, with say demonstrators against the government being put down in pretty much every state and every town, we have a right to keep and bear arms so inevitably the people CAN rebel. The idea being that even a large, isolated, group of people can do very little to the government, but a popular rebellion, or one where your dealing with truly huge groups of people will destroy the country. Sure, technically the government could call in the military (assuming it's not also divided... we have a military of volunteers for that reason, with drafts only being called in times of war) but even if it succeeded in stopping the revolt with massive-scale firepower, it would in the process level the entire country and it's people in the process and thus everyone loses.... meaning the government has little motivation to fight it's own people since when the people are armed it will never be able to have total control.
Well, sometimes the job of the police is to be brutal, as they have to maintain order. The bottom line is that when the police tell people 'no' or to do something they need to be able to enforce it. As a general rule, when a person, or groups of people, resist doing what they are told forcing them is never going to be pleasant. What's more the police themselves are the ones putting themselves into a very dangerous situation by being the ones to do this, and it makes sense for them to be as best equipped as they can be to handle these kinds of situations.Ratty said:
The thing is the police are supposed to enforce order and control situations, not to give those disobeying the law a fair chance. The whole idea of this military-level ordinance, armor, etc... is to give those told to disperse as little chance as possible in fact, while ensuring the police are as safe as possible in doing so. Sure, nobody wants to be tear gassed, shot with rubber bullets, or slammed with beanbag rounds, they can cause serious injury or kill in fact, but the bottom line is that if you don't want to face that, you do what your told when your told to do it.
As a general rule if a bunch of cops show up in tactical gear and tell you to disperse, that's not the point where you go "no, we're non-violent and we're leaving" or start throwing rocks and crap, that's the point where you leave. If you do not do so, then that's on you, and I can on some levels respect people who are willing to take this for a cause, but they have no right to be complaining about getting what they asked for. Basically if you decide to stare down a riot line, chain yourself to a fence or pole, or whatever else, more power to you, but don't go crying about it when you get your butt kicked. Most of the protestors I've actually respected understood this, and don't go crying like little babies when someone tear gasses them or knocks them on their ass, they know the price, and think it's worth paying.
For a lot of the people sitting far away from the situation, comfortably in front of their keyboard, and decrying police "brutality" in a general sense, I'll just say if you ever actually have a riot or situation like this on your doorstep you'll be damn happy when the police have the ability to put it down. It's another face of the whole "everyone hates the cops, until they need one".
To me, REAL police brutality would be if they decided to start executing everyone and anyone on the spot, say firing into the crowds with live ammo when there is little actual danger to the police, and they have the situation under control. Firing into a crowd, using grenades, and similar thing all have their place, as does shooting looters on sight, but it's a matter of extremes. In your typical riot like this where the police have it contained, the area is local, and the "issue" ultimately comes down to the fate of one investigation, there is no real need for anything more than tear gas and rubber bullets. On the other hand if the protestors have people in the crowd say throwing pipe bombs, molotovs, or even a few shooting with guns, then that kind of situation changes, as does a case where say the rioting is over such a large scale that the police simply can't contain it or implement and enforce a curfew. I for example believe the police should have used a LOT more lethal force in New Orleans after the Hurricaine Katrina disaster and it would have improved things. That was however a case where you had an almost complete breakdown of control, and people were doing things like shooting at Aid/Rescue choppers to prevent the relief efforts from coming in. I believe the authorities could have handled Katrina a lot better, and I think it took so long to fix because the problem elements were treated with kid gloves. When your firing on FEMA and the Red Cross in a civil disaster, I have no sympathy for you. Likewise while we don't see it much in the US, the safety of the people keeping order have to be paramount as they have a lot more riding on them (and are taking more risks) than the people on the other side. If you have militants/insurgents using a riot/crowd/protest as a human shield, sometimes you need to fire into the crowd and take down the civilians to control the situation. After all if your sitting there with a wall of riot shields and some dudes are throwing pipe bombs or molotovs at you, you do what you need to in order to survive. Especially seeing as all those dead "peaceful protestors" who may or may not have known what was going to happen might be tragic on some levels, but are a small price to pay compared to the damage if a riot, especially with militants operating in it, breaks containment. Kill 5000 people here, the media cries because with detachment comes a lack of understanding, don't kill those 5000 dudes firing into the crowd and the riot moves into the rest of the region, a lot more people die than a few thousand (starting with the authorities trying to contain it) and you might lose the entire area. There is no good ways of handling that, just one that is less bad than the other.
The point of the above is that I think the level of force being used for this riot is reasonable. If anything it makes a point of exactly why the police should have this kind of tactical gear, they are controlling the situation, and taking few injuries themselves in the process. Some of the people getting hammered and hurt aren't happy, but hey... they can just stay inside until this blows over and let the investigation happen.
The problem with what you are saying is the fact that the Ferguson Police are not actually the ones stopping the rioting looters.Therumancer said:
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-ferguson-protest-police-20140815-story.html
This article details how an ACTUAL riot was not dispersed by the police, with them remaining back and shouting while shops are being robbed.
Meanwhile, peaceful protesters attempt to stop looters, actively confronting them and peacefully trying to stop them.
The fact is it that they were not controlling the situation. The Police allowed actual riots to take place while using their expensive gear to intimidate peaceful protesters and illegally silence reporters. No wonder they were relieved of duty.
You might want to check the dates on that. It's the state police that were allowing the looting to happen, not the Ferguson Police Department.Wolfe M. Howler said:
However, rioters have started firing on the police and another protester has been shot. [http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/08/17/police-try-to-disperse-protesters-defying-ferguson-curfew/] So, yeah. [footnote]If you have a problem with Fox News as a source, LA times also has an article on the same event (Which is the site where the article you linked is from)[/footnote]
I'm not sure how it works in the US (I'm Canadian) but here, if its a peaceful protest and the protesters have a legal permit, then it is illegal for the police to break it up. Doing so is a crime and no one is above the law, especially those who enforce it. That's the difference between lawful rule and tyranny.Therumancer said:
Something you might also want to think about (and was mentioned earlier in the thread) is the potential for a heavy handed police response to actually escalate the situation; turning otherwise peaceful protests into full blown riots. Believe it or not, the presence of a heavily armed and organized group wearing gas-masks and threatening violence tends to trigger most people's fight or flight instincts. Had the situation been handled more delicately, more violence could probably have been prevented.