Ferguson, Missouri... What next?

[kylie]

          By now probably many (in the US anyway) are aware of the shooting of Michael Brown by police and ongoing protests and rioting (sample timeline) in Ferguson, Missouri.

If you haven't caught it, a swing at summary

            Brown was a Black youth reportedly shot on the street as police investigated a robbery in a convenience store.   According to the police, Brown was found to have no weapons on his person at the time he was shot.  A friend also on the street who observed the shooting, and the police have given differing accounts about whether Brown was fleeing or turning, facing or not facing the police in the end and about what his posture was at that moment. 

            There has been over a week of protests against the use of lethal force with bursts of violence -- both civil unrest and an often militarized police response and later attempts to set a curfew.  This is now about to be followed by deployment of the Missouri National Guard (state-level, largely part-time citizen soldiers) in support of the police.  Meanwhile, while the state process continues as I understand it, the federal government plans an additional federal autopsy on Brown and parallel (federal) criminal investigations of both Brown's death and the police response in civil rights terms.   

           The string of events has again (see Rodney King, Trayvon Martin..) developed to highlight a disconnect that exists in many American cities between predominantly Black, generally poorer communities with little state investment, versus police forces that rarely patrol those communities so much as they very actively protect the property of wealthier districts and neighborhoods.  And with Ferguson in particular, something of an extreme case perhaps of general trends:  The Ferguson police force is not only somewhat to much better off financially than many in the immediately aggrieved Black community, and again perhaps drawn from a population that tends to live in separate neighborhoods of the city, but it also happens to be a police force of almost no Blacks and vastly majority White.  I expect these three items -- net wealth, separate homes, and race -- quite often go together to a noticeable degree, but they are reported to be especially pronounced in Ferguson.

           While there is, I suppose (hopefully), still the possibility that a more cohesive bundle of evidence will be assembled on the particular situation of Brown's death...  It's all very frustrating and trying that these explosive, racially thick situations seem to be just as inevitable and recurring in American history as say, increasing gaps between the middle and working class from the later 20th century on...  Which are certainly not only along ethnic lines, though that also does often overlap. 

         I also feel a deepening pathos and grinding cynicism about this week when Palestinians in Gaza, very recently themselves shelled by an American-sponsored occupying military to the tune of hundreds of dead children, show up posting tear gas endurance advice for Black protesters facing police equipped with surplus military vehicles unloaded by the federal government to state police in the wake of the (umm, previous) Iraq conflict. 

        I am a world away from all this, except well...  I will walk into the college classrooms in about a week, and I doubt a week will pass before the usual periodic questions running "Did you own a gun in the US?  Have you ever fired a gun?  Have you ever shot anyone?"  come along with probably, some understandable added earnest.  I could possibly make some allusion to the Chinese government's handling of the Uighur and Tibetan populations, but that does not change the fact that much of the world often sees America as both replete with quasi-military quantities (if not quality!) of weaponry starting from private households to local police on up, and chronically locked in racial abuses.  And you know, sitting in a country where almost no one has a firearm in the home and most have been taught to insist they are each oh so "normal" members of "common" society (for better and worse and despite some histories of serious differences, but still?)...  That diagnosis seems to have quite a lot going for it.  Of course there are serious exploitation problems here too.  But there is a difference in those specific types of violence and division many of us here simply do not need worry about day to day.

------------------------

          A couple questions to bounce:

         About using the military:  I was rather young and busy at the time of the 1992 LA rioting.  In that case, as I understand it (I plead desire for quick idea here and consulted a Wiki right off -- but hey, point me to something else manageable summary level if ya got it)...  The federal government sent in not only some Guard but moreover the full-time military (some of them even Marines) and did it under federal command.  Does anyone have opinions about this case?  Is deploying the National Guard and having them sent under state command, a good move?  Would federal troops, a federal command structure, or more regular troops perhaps be better?  Or if you like...  Would you agree the troops are necessary?

          Do you think the federal government (or some organization perhaps?) should be involved in some way that hasn't been discussed much in all the reporting?  Has something perhaps been overlooked?

           Again, I don't know enough of what happened in LA.  I suppose it was a much larger urban area to manage?  (Ferguson is population 32,000 or maybe somewhat less, seeing different numbers...)  I am wondering though, how exactly the conflict petered out there.  While I'm sure there are various reports somewhere online, I'd also be curious if people who were perhaps in the area have some take on it.  What was done militarily -- or was that basically an occupation of troubled districts? -- and how long did it take to matter.  Or was it more a matter of exhaustion, political settlements, or more.  Again, even if the summary report is out there...  What did it feel like to be there?  Were things really settled?

            Finally...  If people will errm, "humor" me but I can't help asking.  How does something like this go on for over a week, and nobody makes a thread about it?  Is the Elliquiy demographic just so dramatically removed from the experiences of people in those neighborhoods?  Have we perhaps gotten ourselves into some corner where people hold back from discussing it, based on how previous threads about race or armed conflict have played out (or maybe just how/how far they have/not been allowed to play out)?  Or is this not acceptable summer Politics fare?  Ahem.  I know I've taken some time to get around to it myself, wondering if this would end sooner.  And I know there have been a few police shootings of Black youths over the past couple years that have drawn a lot of media attention.  But I'm still kinda surprised this one hasn't gathered visible interest here sooner.

[consortium11]

I'm in the UK so I'm a few steps removed from the event and the debate around it; it's made the news over here and got a fair amount of attention but it isn't completely dominating the airwaves.

Why hasn't the story got more traction on E?

I'd suggest at this point because there's not actually a huge amount to talk about.

With the shooting itself there's still so few concrete facts established that the majority of what is written (whether eventually proven true or not) is going to be a combination of guesswork and gossip. At this point all we really know for certain is that Michael Brown was shot multiple times and killed, that shortly before he'd helped commit a robbery but that the police officer in question didn't know about the robbery when he interacted with Brown. It's been suggested that there are few signs of a struggle and that Brown was likely shot from over two feet away but that's from a pathologist hired by one of the sides in question and thus should be taken with a pinch of salt for the moment. Without more facts and evidence being presented it's pretty much impossible to debate anything about the shooting without having to rely on stuff that right now cannot be proven.

With the rioting and general disturbance it seems to me that any debate will be limited because the positions are rather common sense. People of course have the right to protest (and I don't intend to get into a jurisprudential debate about the right to protest etc etc) and assemble but they do not have the right to loot. Much like with the UK's own Tottenham Riots it appears quite clear that while the demonstrations began legitimately and contained those with good intentions others are simply using it as an excuse to indulge in a bit of anarchy (used colloquially rather than politically) and to steal with much less risk of getting caught (which could probably also filter into why the LA Riots died down; those simply interested in personal enrichment and merryment are far less likely to keep looting when instead of facing an overstretched police department they instead find the army and national guard... as well as an organised and armed group of shopkeepers).

Now, one could use this tragedy as a jumping off point for a wider debate about race, state control etc etc in the US but with so few facts that can be established one runs the risk of looking a fool and undermining one's wider points if the shooting doesn't follow the narrative. One can look at the Duke Lacrosse Case and the number of people who tried to use it as part of a wider point about racism and sexism only to find themselves looking rather foolish when the case fell apart. Moreover it also strikes me as somewhat... unfortunate... to take an individual's death and essentially remove all individuality from it from viewing it entirely as part of a supposed wider context. For either side to use Michael Brown's death to make a point, be it about racism in general and/or specifically in the police or about the dangers of "thug" culture means pretty much removing Michael Brown from the story. Wait until you hear the first "it could have happened to anyone" or "it could have happened to any black child"... that's the point where the people making that statement are openly saying that Michael Brown doesn't matter anymore, what matters is this wider point. And that strikes me as rather sad and dehumanising.

[Devilyn Sydhe]

I would like to echo Consortium's points as I live in the same state that this is happening in and I fully agree it is far too early to know exactly what took place.  Some reports now are claiming an initial scuffle occurred and that the kid was shot as he charged at the officer.  No one really knows for sure yet but what I find a shame is the rush to judgment from the media and those who gain from inflaming racial tensions.  America is not perfect but we have come such a long way in race relations.  It is a real shame that some of our own citizens would have the world think we are stuck in the 1800's.

As for the looting, it is always wrong.  Destroying the property of those with nothing to do with the situation does nothing constructive and,I believe, it dishonors the memory of the victim and his family.  Our governor recently called in the National Guard though so far they are only standing by.

[Euron Greyjoy]

With the rioting and general disturbance it seems to me that any debate will be limited because the positions are rather common sense. People of course have the right to protest (and I don't intend to get into a jurisprudential debate about the right to protest etc etc) and assemble but they do have the right to loot.

Who gave them this undeniable right Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? :P To say a whole group of people is allowed to riot and loot whenever they don't get their way or is mad, is baffling. While I hate how the police have become the second military, I do believe they should be there to keep the peace. I mean whats the alternative? Having no police and letting Ferguson burn?

[Avis habilis]

Who gave them this undeniable right Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton?

My money's on whatever deity's in charge of typos.

[consortium11]

My money's on whatever deity's in charge of typos.

Indeed

*Ninja edit*

[Mathim]

I'm just so burned out on this kind of thing it just never crossed my mind to make a thread or comment about it. I mean, don't situations like this happen fairly frequently? It's just that some in particular get more special attention than others for whatever reason? Stuff is messed up and it's not really looking like it'll get any better so talking about a specific incident rather than what's wrong in general doesn't seem like the logical step to me. Maybe I'm missing the point...

[Valthazar]

It is sad how divided the US is now.  Even the protesters are making generalizations of what a black cop would do, or a white cop would do, even though very little facts are out.

That's why I avoid these discussions, just like the Trayvon Martin one.  Just the media up to their usual tricks, trying to divide people even more.

Black on black violence is by far a greater hazard in inner cities, yet so little media attention is devoted to that. 

[Rogue]

Who gave them this undeniable right Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? :P To say a whole group of people is allowed to riot and loot whenever they don't get their way or is mad, is baffling. While I hate how the police have become the second military, I do believe they should be there to keep the peace. I mean whats the alternative? Having no police and letting Ferguson burn?

So let's talk about some riots that weren't handled with this sort of violence.

Let's talk about all of these riots. Or how about this one. Let's talk about how none of these have been answered with potentially deadly force. But I suppose because it's for sports and not civil rights that's okay.

Let's talk about how at first those stores that were supposed to be protected by the police were protected by the citizens depicted...

here

Let's talk about how similar these pictures look:

1960's

Ferguson

How the demographics in Ferguson look like this:

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

How the guy who was robbed didn't even report the robbery!

That a kid about to start college was EXECUTED for walking in the middle of the street (the now official reason he was pulled over).

How their petition only asks that cops stop being capable of killing people and not being punished for it when it's unnecessary force. And that they be punished when they do.

How it's messed up that people protesting that police brutality are criminalized by the media and only requesting basic human rights, while the police officer is making money off of this.

Let's talk about how messed up it is that people can still be shot dead in the middle of the street for nothing more than walking down the middle of it because a cop said they would.

I am not anti-cop. There are some amazing cops out there. There's a cop who bought a woman's groceries when they could have arrested her so that she could feed her kids. There are many other stories out there. But this is a tragedy that was handled extremely incorrectly by the police on every account. It's getting better, but by no means is this fixed. I just hope this finally fixes it because it'll be safer for everyone. Literally, EVERYONE. Even the police officers.

The way the police have handled this riot from beginning to now (save the couple nights of peace) has been terrifying. When a government official, who was being peaceful gets tear gassed, you know there is a big issue.

[Cycle]

Tell me if these images look similar in any way.




Two are from Ferguson.  Two are from Baghdad. 

When police militarize, it escalates a problem.  It doesn't solve it.  Whether they realized it or not, the local police in Ferguson tried to force control over the situation.  That was a mistake.  It is not the police's place to force control over a general population.  The police are the servants.  The civilians are the masters.  Try to invert that and you have chaos.

Then someone decided to replace the local police with the highway patrol.  Who didn't go in riding armored vehicles with machine guns.  Surprisingly, that seemed to cool the population down.

[Rogue]

Just ran across this and thought I'd add it to my thoughts on the matter.

[Lux12]

To be honest, this is a bad situation all around. On one hand, you can't let people just run around hurting other people like that, but calling in the guard is probably only going to aggravate their fears. They might be able to stop the rioting, but it won't fix the mess that led to it in the first place. Just because a wound closes up doesn't mean won't leave a nasty scar.

If anything has been overlooked, it's the systemic issues that led helped create the events that led up to this  social tragedy. There were a series of news stories about black people being assaulted for relatively minor offenses before the riots, one of them was killed. Another was beaten severely by an officer for what amounted to jay walking. The fact that people are still miffed about what happened to Trayvon only further contributed. Americans don't like to talk about race or the long and troubled history our nation has with ethnic issues and when they do, they seem to assume the kkk, skinheads, and other such groups are the only facilitators and the only kind of racism is the overt kind. The truth is, that unwillingness to acknowledge that other manifestations exist feeds the monster. People would rather fight the most obvious symptoms that get the proper treatment. If America had listened before these events took place, we would have far fewer people rioting.

Am I saying they should be rioting or that I like that they're rioting? No. It saddens me that the protesters did resort to violence. I would rather the protests remained peaceful, but it doesn't change that it's going on and what fans the flames anger. I may not be black but when you learn a bit about someone else's perspective, it gets easier to understand.

All I can tell you is that a lot of people want to think all manners of prejudice, systemic oppression, and bias are dead, but they aren't. Pretending they are keeps them alive. It's like living in a political version of samsara. Unless people are finally willing to admit the problem exists and then work to end it in a more meaningful way, society cannot metaphorically reincarnate into a better, more peaceable state.

[DorothyGale]

I'm just going to drop this here...

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/18/us/michael-brown-autopsy-shows-he-was-shot-at-least-6-times.html?_r=0

[Euron Greyjoy]

My money's on whatever deity's in charge of typos.

Care to point out the typo?

quote author=Rogue of TimeyWimey Stuff link=topic=211565.msg10397437#msg10397437 date=1408482437]
So let's talk about some riots that weren't handled with this sort of violence.

Let's talk about all of these riots. Or how about this one. Let's talk about how none of these have been answered with potentially deadly force. But I suppose because it's for sports and not civil rights that's okay.

Let's talk about how at first those stores that were supposed to be protected by the police were protected by the citizens depicted...

here

Let's talk about how similar these pictures look:

1960's

Ferguson

How the demographics in Ferguson look like this:

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

How the guy who was robbed didn't even report the robbery!

That a kid about to start college was EXECUTED for walking in the middle of the street (the now official reason he was pulled over).

How their petition only asks that cops stop being capable of killing people and not being punished for it when it's unnecessary force. And that they be punished when they do.

How it's messed up that people protesting that police brutality are criminalized by the media and only requesting basic human rights, while the police officer is making money off of this.

Let's talk about how messed up it is that people can still be shot dead in the middle of the street for nothing more than walking down the middle of it because a cop said they would.

I am not anti-cop. There are some amazing cops out there. There's a cop who bought a woman's groceries when they could have arrested her so that she could feed her kids. There are many other stories out there. But this is a tragedy that was handled extremely incorrectly by the police on every account. It's getting better, but by no means is this fixed. I just hope this finally fixes it because it'll be safer for everyone. Literally, EVERYONE. Even the police officers.

The way the police have handled this riot from beginning to now (save the couple nights of peace) has been terrifying. When a government official, who was being peaceful gets tear gassed, you know there is a big issue.
[/quote]
The sports rights are different because they are spontaneous and  are short lived, compared to whats going on in Ferguson. The peaceful protesting has been going on for ten days now, but every night there is violence. The citizens started to protect areas days after the violence begun. Tell me if the peaceful protestors are the majority, why cant they keep the so called minority in check? I get it police brutality is common amongst black people, no body here yet is trying to deny that. However, police brutality isn't a race issue because it affects everyone. Like you said the majority of the people of Ferguson are black and most of the cops are white, so it goes without saying they're only going after black people. All I'm saying is no race has the right/excuse to riot.

[gaggedLouise]

Care to point out the typo?

Guess the reference was to "but they do have the right to loot" - a fairly clear typo but a sneaky one because it didn't make the sentence look disjointed, just kind of...odd, it cracked the line of argument (and it has since been fixed).

[Retribution]

Alright I was born and raised in the Metro East. I have not lived there for 25 years now, but it is pretty much where I refer to as "home." Race issues in the area are nothing new and while I have not been to Ferguson more than a time or two it is nothing special in the St. Louis area. I am reserving judgement on the entire situation until more details come out because well there have been no hard facts released for the most part. So I will wait until the end of the investigation.

Having said that law enforcement is handed a rotten job in which every split second life or death decision will be second guessed. And going for an officers gun is serious, I know this with family who work in law enforcement and I think this article demonstrates http://www.fedsprotection.com/news.asp?page=1701

Next peaceful protest ends when riots start. People do not like militarized police there is a simple freaking answer, do not riot. If it turns to riots and looting then there are few other options for the police.

Lastly both sides are polarized and jumping to conclusions. A little meet in the middle would go a really long way. I suspect police are a little guilty of profiling and I suspect the African American community are a little guilty of assuming if an officer is forced to use force he is racist. I do not know what happened here like I said I will wait till the investigation results come out. As for number of shots fired if an officer really feared for his life well then I doubt he is going to stop firing until the target is on the ground....heck in St. Louis proper a few years back there were peaceful protests over an officer involved shooting on the Landing. The officer was being drug by the suspect's car when he fired the fatal shot. I am sorry in my world that is an officer left with no other choice. On the other side of the coin things like the Rodney King beating years ago show when the officers were in the wrong. Like I said I will wait for the investigation results.

As for tensions there are social and economic issues at play. I am not smart enough to say how to fix them and repair say income gap or the like. But in my opinion those concerns are belittled one protests turn to violence. If someone is trying to turn this into a gun control issue that is ludicrous and idiotic because I do not see the police being disarmed anytime soon or that ever being practical. Guns were not involved otherwise so anything else trying to say this shows we need more gun control is comparing apples and oranges and using tragedy to make political hay. This is why I will fight in the very literal sense of the word anyone trying to impinge on my second amendment rights.

So all I really know about all of this for sure is the rioters can stop the violence anytime they like. Just cease rioting.

[RedEve]

It is sad how divided the US is now.  Even the protesters are making generalizations of what a black cop would do, or a white cop would do, even though very little facts are out.

That's why I avoid these discussions, just like the Trayvon Martin one.  Just the media up to their usual tricks, trying to divide people even more.

Black on black violence is by far a greater hazard in inner cities, yet so little media attention is devoted to that.

Not sure how black on black violence justifies unwarranted use of extreme force by the police?

Also, unless it was misreported, there had not been a single homicide in the neighborhood where the killing of Michael Brown happened for a long time.
So even the notion that this was some extreme hotbed of violence is a construct (that I'm sure the Ferguson PD would love everyone to believe).

I'm inclined to believe the witnesses, just because the PD has been so little forthcoming with information and so ultra-defensive in general. That is not how an entity that knows it is 100% in the right behaves.

[Valthazar]

Not sure how black on black violence justifies unwarranted use of extreme force by the police?

I was not commenting on anything regarding the police, since the investigation is still under way.  My statement was more rewarding the ensuing violent riot, which we can all agree has done nothing productive for anyone. It is certainly not helping to encourage a thorough investigation.

My statement was more a commentary on the type of news stories that make national headlines in the American mainstream media.  The shooting of one man makes national headlines, because of people inferring facts based on suggestive speculation.  Yet a much greater epidemic of violence, black on black violence, a true reality of life, will not elicit the same passion.

[gaggedLouise]

I was not commenting on anything regarding the police, since the investigation is still under way.  My statement was more rewarding the ensuing violent riot, which we can all agree has done nothing productive for anyone. It is certainly not helping to encourage a thorough investigation.

My statement was more a commentary on the type of news stories that make national headlines in the American mainstream media.  The shooting of one man makes national headlines, because of people inferring facts based on suggestive speculation.  Yet a much greater epidemic of violence, black on black violence, a true reality of life, will not elicit the same passion.

I suppose the reasoning behind it is that people think the police ought to live up to much higher standards of good judgment and of not jumping at random persons, (alleged) harassment, shooting a man and leaving him to die in the street (as some people claim happened in the incident that started things off) etc...than criminal gangs, burglars, drug pushers/addicts and looters. We've given the cops the right to enforce some kinds of things and to haul people in for questioning or drag them off to the arrest cell, then we expect them to show themselves worthy of those prerogatives (plus that in many countries, though not in the US, they are the only ones allowed to settle matters with a gun in public without nearly always risking to go to court for it afterwards). Crooks are crooks, you can certainly be rightfully angry with them or bring them into the hands of the police, but it's not as if they have pledged to us to show consideration, judgment or even mercy.

Like Retribution, I wish to personally suspend judgment so far on what's happened and the reasons behind it, because the reporting has been a bit vague and I don't really know anything about the area.

[Passion and Desire]

Next peaceful protest ends when riots start. People do not like militarized police there is a simple freaking answer, do not riot. If it turns to riots and looting then there are few other options for the police.

[...]

So all I really know about all of this for sure is the rioters can stop the violence anytime they like. Just cease rioting.

Wow...

In that case I guess the German police must be some sort of miracle worker, because they manage to deal with riots without fucking tanks and machine guns. ;)

[consortium11]

I'm inclined to believe the witnesses, just because the PD has been so little forthcoming with information and so ultra-defensive in general. That is not how an entity that knows it is 100% in the right behaves.

I tend to dislike trial by public opinion and argument by press release for this exact reason.

Michael Brown was killed 11 days ago. In terms of an investigation that's very little time. Facts are still being gathered, reports prepared, statements compared etc etc. I'd much rather the police/investigators went about their job as best they can without feeling the need to give each new "development" (which may or may be true) a public airing and contribute to the "he said, she said" aspect that is already fueling the news media.

It could also be that the last time they released high-profile information relating to Michael Brown the response was an resumption of rioting after a day (and night) of relative calm. Knowing that offering any new information could inflame tensions once again I'm not going to hold their reluctance to reveal every detail to the press against them. At the end of the day, however entitled we feel, the police's duty isn't to keep the news media fully informed of everything that goes into their investigation or each piece of information they discover.

[Retribution]

Wow...

In that case I guess the German police must be some sort of miracle worker, because they manage to deal with riots without fucking tanks and machine guns. ;)

Please show me a link that has tanks in Ferguson? There are not any. There are also not machine guns in Ferguson. Now I will admit there are M16s and AR15s but those are not machine guns. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US since 1934 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act  Even the military issues few fully auto firearms these days since on full auto the weapon is hard to control. Three round bursts are a more common setting http://www.city-data.com/forum/history/326668-why-no-full-auto-m16.html

But thank you for illustrating how a lot of misinformation gets spread.

[Retribution]

And while we are speaking of bogus rumors here is a whole link dedicated to them! http://twitchy.com/2014/08/11/best-rumor-of-the-night-column-of-tanks-headed-to-ferguson-mo/

consortium11 well thought out and reasonable as ever  :-) as I said I am withholding judgement until the full report is out.

[Cycle]

Yeah, it's not columns of tanks.  Just men in body armor, toting assault rifles, during the day when there is no rioting, with at least one person aiming some kind of firearm that was mounted on a tripod on top of an armored vehicle.

It makes sense to reserve judgment on whether Brian Brown was killed illegally until after we see the autopsy, and the Brown family gets a copy of the police report.  But there's no reason to hold off passing judgment on what the police did over the last several days.  You can see it for yourself.

In my opinion, they made a fundamental mistake when they brought in that much weaponry.  Police do not have power because they have guns.  Police have power because they are trusted.  Trust is earned.  Not demanded.  Not taken.  When someone decided that the solution to the protesting is to bring in the heavy gear, they presumably thought that would scare the citizenry into disbursing.  But they failed to account for the fact that fear can do two things:  it can cause people to run--or it can cause them to fight.  The latter makes a riot much more likely to happen.

Now consider what the change in approach (i.e., when they rolled back the armored vehicles) has done to the situation.  Last night?  Riots?  No.  The police talked to the civilians.  They made agreements on when to protest, and how to work together to prevent rioting.  Talk, not guns.  That is how you solve this problem.

[RedEve]

Wow...

In that case I guess the German police must be some sort of miracle worker, because they manage to deal with riots without fucking tanks and machine guns. ;)

It's a basic de-escalation tactic to precisely not use any grandiose displays of force.

[RedEve]

Now consider what the change in approach (i.e., when they rolled back the armored vehicles) has done to the situation.  Last night?  Riots?  No.  The police talked to the civilians.  They made agreements on when to protest, and how to work together to prevent rioting.  Talk, not guns.  That is how you solve this problem.

This precise concept is what police forces all over Europe have started realizing since the 1980s when it came to their dealing with football hooligans.
Now the violence is not entirely gone, but it's gone down by a significant amount. And this was not achieved by buying more water canons, batons and training more German shepherds.

[consortium11]

In my opinion, they made a fundamental mistake when they brought in that much weaponry.  Police do not have power because they have guns.  Police have power because they are trusted.  Trust is earned.  Not demanded.  Not taken.  When someone decided that the solution to the protesting is to bring in the heavy gear, they presumably thought that would scare the citizenry into disbursing.  But they failed to account for the fact that fear can do two things:  it can cause people to run--or it can cause them to fight.  The latter makes a riot much more likely to happen.

Now consider what the change in approach (i.e., when they rolled back the armored vehicles) has done to the situation.  Last night?  Riots?  No.  The police talked to the civilians.  They made agreements on when to protest, and how to work together to prevent rioting.  Talk, not guns.  That is how you solve this problem.

Hopefully you're right, but I'm putting a "wait and see" here.

Remember when Ronald Johnson was put in charge of policing the protests and his softer touch approach saw him hailed the "King of Ferguson" while getting almost universal praise? Remember when that was considered the turning point?

What happened the next night?



The looting started again... with the police letting it happen. The fact that we're having to praise armed citizens for protecting their store (which had already been looted) rather than having the police do their jobs strikes me as pretty worrying.



As a final point, I'm incredibly wary of any argument that seems to follow the line "well, it's someone's fault because the clothes they wore/things they carried made the other party do something".

That sounds suspiciously like the sort of language we see in another type of case and pretty much universally condemned as victim blaming. Now, I'm not suggesting anyone here subscribes to that point of view... but the similarities in language and the form of argument are disturbingly similar.

[Cycle]

What happened the next night?

According to the New York Times, last night was a deescalation:

Captain Johnson, whose agency is overseeing security here, said there were only sporadic problems on Tuesday night, and none of the wide-scale looting and confrontations that had erupted on other nights. Still, the police did make 47 arrests overnight.

As the tension on the street seemed to ease, the focus turned to the investigation into the shooting death of Michael Brown.

[consortium11]

On the topic of German vs US Policing...

They may not be carrying guns but I wouldn't exactly call this "touchy feely" policing either...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/23/article-0-1A3D063200000578-77_638x393.jpg

Let's also remember how the police were equipped when trouble first started. The heavier equipment came followed the trouble, not pre-empted it.

This precise concept is what police forces all over Europe have started realizing since the 1980s when it came to their dealing with football hooligans.
Now the violence is not entirely gone, but it's gone down by a significant amount. And this was not achieved by buying more water canons, batons and training more German shepherds.

That's a rather... unique... take on how football hooliganism (at least in the UK) was diminished. I'd suggest that the reason football violence went down was because the number of officers at and around games was massively increased, they pre-emptively wore riot gear (rather than relying on "normal" police and only sending in the riot squad later), more horses were used from the start, fans were kept almost entirely seperate, drinking was largely banned at and around the stadiums and the main troublemakers were arrested and hit with football banning orders.

In places where the police, clubs and authorities have taken a less aggressive position with hooliganism like Italy you get scenes like the ultras stopping matches and demanding players remove their shirts or the captain of a team having to negotiate with the leader of the hooligans in the hope the match will be allowed to happen.

[Cycle]

Let's also remember how the police were equipped when trouble first started. The heavier equipment came followed the trouble, not pre-empted it.

SWAT was called in on the 10th, the same day as that Twitter photo, to respond to rioting.  They brought in more gear during the day on the 11th, when there wasn't rioting.  And then they stayed and went around with their weapons, which, in my opinion, increased tension unnecessarily and likely contributed to the civilian population's anger level.

Here's a quote from that gentleman who served in the Army:  "In the military, ... 'your force posture matches the threat. You only raise your weapon if there is a threat that requires lethal force.'" 


Edit:  Now watch this (language warning) and decide if his force posture is called for given the threat level.  Personally, I can't think of a situation where a police officer legitimately needs to say the words "I'm going to f*cking kill you..."

[Retribution]

I agree a de-escalation in tensions is a good thing. Having said that I tend to think it is kind of hard to ask an officer to be kinder and gentler when faced with what is a situation that is dangerous to them and say the shops being looted and citizens they are sworn to protect. Yeah, I am sure some cops said some harsh things, but I do not know about others out there but personally I have been in tense situations in my life. When the tension gets up there people react as they would not during other times. The alternative is well let the whole place burn. Difficult situations all the way around. It is all academic with us, but I would say when faced with a situation one is wondering if they are going to live through they might react a tad bit differently.

Having said all of that I do not know what the right answer is. I simply was not there and am loath to jump to conclusions because both sides have a tendency to toss out the rhetoric that is more "sexy" and plays better for their side. I am sure the police made some mistakes, but I am not buying the argument that riots happened because there was a response. Then toss in a side of rumor and misinformation like the whole allegations about tanks and things get even more muddy. But when I try and put myself as an officer when there was violence the night before and now it is supposedly calmed down I would still vote to carry the biggest gun I could get my hands on because I want to go home at the end of my watch.

As I think about it both sides bring a lot of baggage into the whole situation. And it is pretty presumptuous for me to make a call on either side without having walked a mile in their shoes. But I cannot think of a situation when I would think burning the whole dam town down is the right response for some other wrong. Thus why I say the rioters can stop it anytime they like. All they have to do is cease rioting and protest peacefully.

[kylie]

Now, one could use this tragedy as a jumping off point for a wider debate about race, state control etc etc in the US but with so few facts that can be established one runs the risk of looking a fool and undermining one's wider points if the shooting doesn't follow the narrative.

        I think that totally depends what exactly you have in mind when you say narrative.  It's also possible to set the bar for seeing relationships between events over time so high, that well none of us are related to anything I suppose.  If one wishes to. 

       And the idea that someone in a particular conflict case has to be squeaky clean to be an actual victim of racism or oppression, as it were, is a handy "out" if one wishes to avoid seeing that oppression generally.  Or even to further it, as we've heard often from the Syrian government for example:  "But you can't blame us for killing our people and shelling cities (with chemical weapons no less), because look the opposition are all terrorists..."  It's basically the same idea:  Don't look here,  where oh who could say maybe the people I support are actually in the process of abusing by the way, but hey that doesn't matter cause if I can find anything in your particular example to make anyone say "Oh they didn't play by the rules" in some respect sometime or other -- well then, all is fair game and we'll just carry right on, no one will care about that whole human tragedy anymore.

        It isn't analytically sound to use this sort of standard and hold everything in lieu of angelic paragons.  Not if the discussion is about understanding what keeps happening in the structure of that society.

Wait until you hear the first "it could have happened to anyone" or "it could have happened to any black child"... that's the point where the people making that statement are openly saying that Michael Brown doesn't matter anymore, what matters is this wider point. And that strikes me as rather sad and dehumanising.

       I'm not sure what your particular standard is there for Brown himself "mattering."  But you can look at the statistics and research on who police stop how often, who gets what crime sentences how often.  You might look into how much of a White city government budget is coming from police citations on a largely Black population for very minor violations, matters that might often go unattended in other communities.  And at least in Ferguson, you could also see who the state itself found actually deserving of more police attention in terms of the chance of actually finding contraband (they said, Whites). 

      There are quite a few telling summary data figures about this context, not to mention the broader state of Black community economics in the region in the wake of the recession, in multiple articles that have come out in the Guardian recently.  And some in some US sources which I've only peeked at more casually -- even CNN mentioned at least the differences between police and local situations, as I linked earlier.  But I think it's telling that it usually takes just this sort of event (or series of events, if you would prefer) to make that kind of data material 'of interest' for regular news media.   

       Now, to me it makes no sense to turn around and say all that has nothing important to do with the chances of what actually happened to Brown, going down in that setting.  The guy doesn't have to be an angel to look and say, hmm the chances of someone who looks like him, unarmed getting shot on the street at night in that area probably have quite a bit to do with how race and class have been playing out there.

[kylie]

Who gave them this undeniable right [to loot,] Jesse Jackson or Al Sharpton? :P

        Maybe I missed it, but did you or someone provide a quotation from Jackson or Sharpton here?  I don't have the text of statements by either handy to actually break down.

        What I see from just one one Guardian article mentioning him right off:  Jackson has said at least two things:

     1)  They only paraphrase him briefly about it there, but he apparently said that the looting of businesses should stop. 

      ...  Which appears to directly contradict what you suggest.  But again, you've made a big sweeping claim about his position without quoting anything specific that I can see in this post.

and also:

      2)  that there is another form of "looting" going on in how Blacks have been systematically manipulated and barred from economic opportunities, and wow, why doesn't anyone panic more about that second kind?  Cause from the point of view of Black communities such as Ferguson, it's pretty telling that store losses get them a little attention but their day to day desperation hardly ever does (except perhaps in shows that make them all out to be doing it to themselves).  And I think if you look at the system seriously, it's hard to argue with him there.

To say a whole group of people is allowed to riot and loot whenever they don't get their way or is mad, is baffling.

         Would you say the same thing of say, the Boston Tea Party?  I'm curious.  What makes this baffling here, precisely?

While I hate how the police have become the second military, I do believe they should be there to keep the peace. I mean whats the alternative? Having no police and letting Ferguson burn?

        Well, speaking of seeking some control rather than deciding everything by the most force available:  It was the state governor who did a couple things.

         First, he put the local police under command of the Highway Patrol after considerable mayhem.  For which the very county prosecutor who will be formally investigating Brown's murder in the face of repeated criticism of his record of consistently siding with the police in controversial situations, apparently said it was "shameful" to do anything that even suggested the police had failed in any way...  The Highway Patrol, with a Black captain who happened to take a much more restrained posture, seemed to have some effect (there was the night of calm)...  That was before the police publicly discussed the store video -- apparently in an effort to defend the department, but in the face of advice by federal investigators against further biasing the inquiry and inflaming the Black community with that to them very familiar appearance of "assumed guilt before due process." 

       And then the governor brought in the National Guard, which I'd say most consider the military rather than police.  So unless you see the National Guard as a natural adjunct police force rather than a separate military culture, I think one might say it's all moved to some extent beyond simply having a civilian police force.  Maybe we can agree on that regardless of what you make of the police employing uniforms, weapons and vehicles funneled to them directly from the Pentagon post-Iraq.

         Basically on this part:  I was very curious what people thought would come of actually deploying military troops...  Would it work, would it take more than the Guard, and how or when exactly do you get them out again.  What kind of situation do you have with the police and community when they finally leave?  Which was why I mentioned LA.

[Cycle]

Second night of relative calm in Ferguson.  Hopefully this means we're moving in the right direction.

[Retribution]

      2)  that there is another form of "looting" going on in how Blacks have been systematically manipulated and barred from economic opportunities, and wow, why doesn't anyone panic more about that second kind?  Cause from the point of view of Black communities such as Ferguson, it's pretty telling that store losses get them a little attention but their day to day desperation hardly ever does (except perhaps in shows that make them all out to be doing it to themselves).  And I think if you look at the system seriously, it's hard to argue with him there.

       

I tried, really I did but this statement is just so wrong, on so many levels I cannot let it pass. I am not denying the plight of poverty and it's affect on the African American community. It is real, it is out there, and it is tragic. But just because someone is in a bad situation it DOES NOT give them the right to destroy something someone else has and has worked for. That is wrong in every way, shape, and form that is within rational comprehension. If say someone mugs you, it does not give you the right to say mug someone else.

When I was a kid and I got mad about something I would throw a temper tantrum. My wise parents would then beat my ass for it and tell me that behavior was not acceptable. I feel the same way when it comes to riots and looting in this case. If you are arguing as it seems that they are a rational response then you clearly do not live on the same planet I do because that sort of thought process is just plain flawed.

[Passion and Desire]

Please show me a link that has tanks in Ferguson? There are not any. There are also not machine guns in Ferguson. Now I will admit there are M16s and AR15s but those are not machine guns. Fully automatic weapons have been illegal in the US since 1934 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act  Even the military issues few fully auto firearms these days since on full auto the weapon is hard to control. Three round bursts are a more common setting http://www.city-data.com/forum/history/326668-why-no-full-auto-m16.html

But thank you for illustrating how a lot of misinformation gets spread.

Oh yeah, right. I should have said "heavy military grade armored vehicles and automatic weapons that had been deployed in war zones before." That's totally different. I mean, the photos of said vehicles and weapons are all over the internet recently, it's really hard to actually miss it.

But thanks for arguing semantics and completely missing the point.

They may not be carrying guns but I wouldn't exactly call this "touchy feely" policing either...

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/12/23/article-0-1A3D063200000578-77_638x393.jpg

Of course. But the most heavy equipment German police is ever going to carry when dealing with protesters is

• riot gear
• standard issue 9mm pistol
• baton
• can of mace

If shit's really about to hit the fan, units mounted on horse will be employed, perhaps even a water cannon. Still, that absolutely can't be compared to the military grade weapons and armored vehicles used in Ferguson.

[Retribution]

Yes, because the vehicle this water cannon is on totally does not look military. I mean what was I thinking?

https://www.google.com/search?q=water+cannon&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qzb2U4vRN86BygS9rYK4Dw&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQsAQ&biw=1093&bih=508#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=MCEZPmUcgc3MzM%253A%3BcrQHga8OZMK_-M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.metrojournalist.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2014%252F05%252Fp11c.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.metrojournalist.com%252Fget-ready-to-face-water-cannon-while-peeing-in-public-place%252F%3B450%3B272

[Passion and Desire]

Yes, because the vehicle this water cannon is on totally does not look military. I mean what was I thinking?

https://www.google.com/search?q=water+cannon&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=qzb2U4vRN86BygS9rYK4Dw&sqi=2&ved=0CFMQsAQ&biw=1093&bih=508#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=MCEZPmUcgc3MzM%253A%3BcrQHga8OZMK_-M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.metrojournalist.com%252Fwp-content%252Fuploads%252F2014%252F05%252Fp11c.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.metrojournalist.com%252Fget-ready-to-face-water-cannon-while-peeing-in-public-place%252F%3B450%3B272

Please tell me how many water cannons the US or UK military have used in Iraq and Afghanistan.

[Retribution]

This is where I bow out gracefully because we are not going to agree. All we really are going to accomplish is pissing each other off. Having said that, as I said in posts further up I am not saying the police handled everything right. In fact I think they screwed up in many cases. I just have a fundamental problem with saying riots and looting is a proper means of protest.

[Passion and Desire]

I just have a fundamental problem with saying riots and looting is a proper means of protest.

And I never said that. What I said is that the militarization of law enforcement is utterly stupid and counterproductive on the highest scale. If you push the arms race between population and police, if you try to intimidate and shock the people you're sworn to protect, then you gain nothing and everyone loses.

Case in point. To think that an escalating tactic of more and more police force will result in a better result takes a very special kind of retard as governour and/or police chief. Especially when disproportionate police force was the spark that ignited this whole powder keg in the first place.

It's exactly that sort of behavior that is responsible for the USA's reputation as a bunch of gun-toting, trigger-happy, stupid right-wing NRA rednecks. Too many people making the decisions think that all problems can be solved with more weapons, while that actually makes it only even worse. But they are either too ignorant to notice, or too arogant to care.

[Cycle]

Right, I think it is fairly clear that no one is saying that rioting is a valid form of protest.

I also think most of us agree that it is too early to decide whether the killing of Michael Brown is illegal or not.

I don't even think anyone is saying that militarization of the police is the sole and only cause of the Ferguson rioting.

But there are some of us who feel that militarization was not helping the situation, and possibly/likely contributed--as one of multiple factors--to a riot erupting.  And as such, I, for one, don't think that police should do that when facing the potential for a riot--as local police did from the 11th onward.  Rather, not lugging out the heavy gear but engaging in talks with the people instead is a more effective way to deescalate, in my opinion. 

This--talking, without big guns--is what they have been doing recently.  And now, we've had two days without massive rioting.  So, it seems that there is some merit to the idea that militarizing the police is not the best way to respond to the potential for rioting.

[Valthazar]

Right, I think it is fairly clear that no one is saying that rioting is a valid form of protest.

I think Retribution was referring to the OP who was seemingly justifying the looting in Ferguson, and drawing parallels to the Boston Tea Party :

2)  that there is another form of "looting" going on in how Blacks have been systematically manipulated and barred from economic opportunities, and wow, why doesn't anyone panic more about that second kind?  Cause from the point of view of Black communities such as Ferguson, it's pretty telling that store losses get them a little attention but their day to day desperation hardly ever does (except perhaps in shows that make them all out to be doing it to themselves).  And I think if you look at the system seriously, it's hard to argue with him there.

         Would you say the same thing of say, the Boston Tea Party?  I'm curious.  What makes this baffling here, precisely?

[Oniya]

Just as a point of comparison - for all the 'lauding' that the Boston Tea Party gets, back in the day it was far from the 'shining example of patriotism' that it is put forth as being.

Governor Thomas Hutchinson had been urging London to take a hard line with the Sons of Liberty. If he had done what the other royal governors had done and let the ship owners and captains resolve the issue with the colonists, the Dartmouth, Eleanor and the Beaver would have left without unloading any tea.

So - talking about it instead of escalating would have resulted in no rioting and looting.

In Britain, even those politicians considered friends of the colonies were appalled and this act united all parties there against the colonies. The Prime Minister Lord North said, "Whatever may be the consequence, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over".  The British government felt this action could not remain unpunished, and responded by closing the port of Boston and putting in place other laws known as the "Coercive Acts".

Once the looting had occurred, even those sympathetic to the colonists pulled back their support, and things only got worse.

In the colonies, Benjamin Franklin stated that the destroyed tea must be paid for, all 90,000 pounds (which, at two shillings per pound, came to £9,000, or £998 thousand today [nearly $1.7 million US]).  Robert Murray, a New York merchant, went to Lord North with three other merchants and offered to pay for the losses, but the offer was turned down.

And even the people we lionize as champions of the cause were saying that amends should be made.

[Cycle]

I think Retribution was referring to the OP who was seemingly justifying the looting in Ferguson, and drawing parallels to the Boston Tea Party

Fair enough.  I guess I should have said "most of us are not" rather than "no one."

[consortium11]

To think that an escalating tactic of more and more police force will result in a better result takes a very special kind of retard as governour and/or police chief. Especially when disproportionate police force was the spark that ignited this whole powder keg in the first place.

But, at least nationwide, the stats disagree.

Since 1991 (when violent crime rates hit their peak) violent crime has been dramatically reduced and is now lower than it's been since the 1970's. That reduction corresponds pretty closely with an increase in police militarization and a change in tactics to pre-emptively target "hot spots" even before crimes occur. The logic used to argue this is fairly simple; if you put more, better equipped (and that also means better armed) officers into the areas where you expect trouble to be, there is less chance of there being trouble in the first place. It may not always work, but the evidence suggests it tends to.

Now, of course, correlation does not mean causation and there are many other suggestions for why the crime rate fell; longer prison sentences, a generally aging population, less lead in water, a generation of young people growing up having seen the impact of drugs and crime on their elders and not wanting that for themselves etc etc. But to discount the change in policing tactics strikes me as extremely naive.

Politically I lean towards a sort of anti-authoritarian libertarianism... I'm not fan of the state or the heavy hand it wields. But I don't think dismissing evidence on the basis of my ideals is a strong position to take. As much as I dislike it, the evidence suggests that putting lots of heavily armed police officers into location if you think there might be trouble... even if there hasn't been any yet... reduces crime as a whole and violent crime in particular.

[Formless]

I may be unaware of the whole law structure in the United States.

But am I the only one who notices the store owners' plight during these events?

I wouldn't comment on the death of Michael Brown. But seeing how some of these store owners were affected by this?

Now to each one who said that using force against riots isn't the right thing to do. I would agree with you ...

But have you ever taken it from the perspective of a business owner whose store was looted , damaged and burned?

Such as this example :

http://america.aljazeera.com/watch/shows/america-tonight/articles/2014/8/19/amid-protests-andlootingfergusonbusinessownersseekamiddlegrounda.html ( basic google search result )

Now forget about militarization of the police , and forget about the death of a single individual and focus on that one man who had nothing to do with either of these two. How do you think he feels? Would the lack of police force solved his problem?

Do you think he'll agree with you that because the police put on some heavy gear that they ruined his store?

It is easy to lose sight of right or wrong when you judge something from a bystander's point. But it is so much worse to base an opinion and an argument without considering the real results of your suggestions.

That is all I have to say about this matter. The unfortunate individual has passed away , may he rest in peace, and I trust that justice will be served.

[Cycle]

It is easy to lose sight of right or wrong when you judge something from a bystander's point. But it is so much worse to base an opinion and an argument without considering the real results of your suggestions.

I believe I have considered the real results of my suggestions.  My suggestions mirror what the police in Ferguson have done recently.  Note the real results that followed:  lack of rioting.  Now, compare this against the real results of the period when police were toting about the bigger guns:  not lack of rioting.

I don't think anyone here wants store owners to be hurt in a riot.  (Or at least, most of us don't.)  To the contrary, I think we're trying figure out the best way to prevent the next group of store owners from being hurt in a preventable riot.  Some folks seem to think bigger guns is the way to prevent riots.  Others think more talking and defusing is the way to prevent riots.  There's the difference.

Once the riot occurs, and people are getting hurt, of course the police need to act.  But that's not the point.  The point is, what can we do to try to eliminate the elements that caused things to ever get to this point.

Now, on the subject of statistics, could someone provide a link?  I can't seem to find any reports that say giving police armored vehicles and tripod mounted assault weapons has reduced the potential for rioting.  The best I found was the ACLU study suggesting the opposite.

[Tairis]

Here's the thing: why does it matter what the police are equipped with. You know what De-escalates the situation? Not fucking rioting. Amazing how that works. It boggles my mind how everyone worries about how 'militaristic' the police are... the police are doing their jobs. The problem are the parasites that somewhere along the way decided that 'protesting' meant 'I have a right to break the law, endanger lives, and steal the property of others'.

Now on the other hand I don't approve of the way that the police are being equipped these days, but that's an entirely different discussion. It has nothing to do with the current riots or the death of Brown and everything to do with finances, politics, and poorly run civil services. But if you have mobs of people burning and looting I can't really see where its fair to get mad at the cops for being equipped to handle deadly situations. To quote Men in Black 'A person is smart, people are dumb, panicky, and dangerous'.

[consortium11]

Now, on the subject of statistics, could someone provide a link?  I can't seem to find any reports that say giving police armored vehicles and tripod mounted assault weapons has reduced the potential for rioting.  The best I found was the ACLU study suggesting the opposite.

As the ACLU report says, the main driver behind the militarisation of the police is the 1033 program which was started in 1990 and took till about 1991/1992 to really get going.

Violent crime peaked in 1991 and has been steadily dropping since, with the 2012 figures the lowest it's been since 1970.

Again, correlation does not = causation, so it could be that it's simply a coincidence that the two timelines are so closely aligned and, as mentioned previously, there are lots of other factors that could contribute to why the US is currently in a historically low crime era (property crimes are also lower than any time since 1968). But to dismiss the changes in the police's approach and tactics entirely... or to argue that they actually inflame the situation... seems naive to me.

[Cycle]

Again, correlation does not = causation, so it could be that it's simply a coincidence that the two timelines are so closely aligned and, as mentioned previously, there are lots of other factors that could contribute to why the US is currently in a historically low crime era (property crimes are also lower than any time since 1968). But to dismiss the changes in the police's approach and tactics entirely... or to argue that they actually inflame the situation... seems naive to me.

There are two flaws in this position.

First, as you admit, the tables do not prove causation.

Second, and more importantly, it compares apples to oranges.  My point is that bringing "the big guns" before a riot happens can create an increased risk of riots happening.  Nothing in these tables discuss that.  There is no data on riots, or potential riots. 

That video of the officer walking around sticking his assault weapon in people's faces yelling "I'm going to f*cking kill you" suggests that at least some officers do not know how to properly use "the big guns."  I don't see how it is naive to suggest that, instead of mixing such individuals with a group of people who may potentially riot, we should talk to the group instead to try to defuse the situation.

The fundamental flaw here seems to be that some police are looking at the protestors/potential rioters with an "us versus them" mentality.  That the protestors/potential rioters are the enemy and they must be defeated.  But that isn't how police should work.  Their motto is "to protect and serve" not "shock and awe."  Rather than look at the protestors/potential rioters as a group to defeat, I think they should look at them as a group to protect and bring back into the fold.  If violence erupts, fine, do what you need to to protect yourself.  But don't go into the situation with the preconceived notion that you have to "f*cking kill" everyone.

[Retribution]

The fundamental flaw here seems to be that some police are looking at the protestors/potential rioters with an "us versus them" mentality.  That the protestors/potential rioters are the enemy and they must be defeated.  But that isn't how police should work. 

Sir, while I am not a sworn or armed officer thank god I am employed in law enforcement as a civil authority. I have nearly been killed in the line of duty four times over the course of a 24 year career. Those who are friends and family and work as sworn officers have had it much worse than me. Let me direct you back to the link I posted in my initial response to this thread about the officer who was killed along with his k9 partner when an assailant got his hands on his weapon.

Come back and lecture me on proper behavior when you have nearly died in the line.

Good day ~R~

EDIT now that my blood pressure has lowered some. I understand a softer approach very well may have been the proper answer in Ferguson. In fact fellow law enforcement types have called out the chief http://www.al.com/news/mobile/index.ssf/2014/08/gulf_shores_police_chief_calls.html So my above response was a bit harsh and I am sorry for loosing my temper. The fact remains though that not all of the people out there in the world are rational, kind, thoughtful, or even nice for that matter. It sadly leaves us with the fact that kinder and gentler does not always work. It is put in very stark perspective when one finds themselves in a position of wondering if they are going home at the end of the shift.]

[Cycle]

I am employed in law enforcement as a civil authority. ...  It is put in very stark perspective when one finds themselves in a position of wondering if they are going home at the end of the shift.

Retribution, I thank you for your contribution. 

I did not mean to offend.  But I did, and for that, I apologize.

I think I've said my share on this issue and will refrain from further postings.

[Retribution]

It is all good Cycle I find your responses thought out even if I do not agree. There was no need for my temper it just hit pretty darn close to home. And thank you as well.

[Neysha]

Wooo red herrings and hyperbole for the win!

Oh yeah, right. I should have said "heavy military grade armored vehicles and automatic weapons that had been deployed in war zones before."

Of course. But the most heavy equipment German police is ever going to carry when dealing with protesters is

• riot gear
• standard issue 9mm pistol
• baton
• can of mace

If shit's really about to hit the fan, units mounted on horse will be employed, perhaps even a water cannon. Still, that absolutely can't be compared to the military grade weapons and armored vehicles used in Ferguson.

*looks harmless*

















And other Europeans are even more formidable!

[Passion and Desire]

A mobile water cannon. Not used by the military. Never been to a war zone. Unlike humvees and bearcats.

A picture of a German policeman in riot gear with a Tac700 launcer (a glorified paintball marker with 20-50m range). Any bets how that compares to tactical body armor, M4 carbine rifles, and 37mm grenade launchers?

Nice find, didn't know about that vehicle before. That image is from 2007, and the event was an ASEM meeting in Hamburg. You'd expect "something" when the foreign secretaries of about 50 nations meet in a city, don't you?

Ah well, the always popular CASTOR transports. A tiresome and controversal topic for sure. Yes, that vehicle was imo neither appropriate nor necessary in that situation.

So you say that a host nation shouldn't take security measures when 28 heads of state/goverment (including the president of the USA) meet in a single location? Because that's where that image is from - NATO summit 2009 in Strasbourg/Kehl.

Did you really just google for "German police weapons" or something, without reading a single word about the images' backgrounds? This image is from 2010, when the Reichstag (seat of the German parliament) was closed after thought to be targeted by an islamic terrorist cell. The weapon is an MP5, a submachine gun, which is nothing extra-ordinary for police officers guarding parts of the goverment during a threat situation.

Riot gear? Check.
Water cannon? Check.
Military hardware you'd expect in a war zone? Nope.

See comment above.

Members of the SEK, a special response unit that deals with hostage situations, sieges, and raids, not with protesters or rioters. The image supposedly shows SEK members after a man took a hostage in a Cologne nursery last year (the building was eventually stormed and the kidnapper stopped with a single shot to the shoulder).



All in all: nice attempt, but I've seen better. Several of the pictures you've posted were either taken out of context (NATO summit, ASEM meeting, ...), or didn't show police dealing with protesters (SEK members, police guarding the seat of the parliament, ...).

Please try again. :P And while you're at it, please reread my words. I never said the German police was unarmed. I never said the German police wasn't capable of getting rough. I did say that the German police doesn't use military grade equipment (assault rifles, grenade launchers, ...) when dealing with protesters. Mobile water cannons aren't military grade, no matter how bulky the trucks look.

The only image that shows a military-grade vehicle being employed reactively as a response against protesters is the one about the CASTOR transport. Those transports were a controversial topic whenever they came up, and reactions on both sides of the fence typically went overboard. Nevertheless, even those incidents and the equipment displayed and employed there are not comparable to the militarization of US law enforcement in the wake of the 1033 program. Not. Comparable. At. All.

[Neysha]

A mobile water cannon. Not used by the military. Never been to a war zone. Unlike humvees and bearcats.

Oh yeah, right. I should have said "heavy military grade armored vehicles and automatic weapons that had been deployed in war zones before."

Of course. But the most heavy equipment German police is ever going to carry when dealing with protesters is

    riot gear
    standard issue 9mm pistol
    baton
    can of mace

If shit's really about to hit the fan, units mounted on horse will be employed, perhaps even a water cannon. Still, that absolutely can't be compared to the military grade weapons and armored vehicles used in Ferguson.

A picture of a German policeman in riot gear with a Tac700 launcer (a glorified paintball marker with 20-50m range). Any bets how that compares to tactical body armor, M4 carbine rifles, and 37mm grenade launchers?

Oh yeah, right. I should have said "heavy military grade armored vehicles and automatic weapons that had been deployed in war zones before."

Of course. But the most heavy equipment German police is ever going to carry when dealing with protesters is

    riot gear
    standard issue 9mm pistol
    baton
    can of mace

If shit's really about to hit the fan, units mounted on horse will be employed, perhaps even a water cannon. Still, that absolutely can't be compared to the military grade weapons and armored vehicles used in Ferguson.

Not covered on your list. :(

Nice find, didn't know about that vehicle before. That image is from 2007, and the event was an ASEM meeting in Hamburg. You'd expect "something" when the foreign secretaries of about 50 nations meet in a city, don't you?

And I never said that. What I said is that the militarization of law enforcement is utterly stupid and counterproductive on the highest scale. If you push the arms race between population and police, if you try to intimidate and shock the people you're sworn to protect, then you gain nothing and everyone loses.

Case in point. To think that an escalating tactic of more and more police force will result in a better result takes a very special kind of retard as governour and/or police chief. Especially when disproportionate police force was the spark that ignited this whole powder keg in the first place.

Why escalate a situation when fifty heads of state will be at risk???  ??? Is your government and police full of retards?

Ah well, the always popular CASTOR transports. A tiresome and controversal topic for sure. Yes, that vehicle was imo neither appropriate nor necessary in that situation.

Your personal opinion is irrelevant when you are fabricating lies... after all you said...

Oh yeah, right. I should have said "heavy military grade armored vehicles and automatic weapons that had been deployed in war zones before."

Of course. But the most heavy equipment German police is ever going to carry when dealing with protesters is

    riot gear
    standard issue 9mm pistol
    baton
    can of mace

If shit's really about to hit the fan, units mounted on horse will be employed, perhaps even a water cannon. Still, that absolutely can't be compared to the military grade weapons and armored vehicles used in Ferguson.

So you say that a host nation shouldn't take security measures when 28 heads of state/goverment (including the president of the USA) meet in a single location? Because that's where that image is from - NATO summit 2009 in Strasbourg/Kehl.

Stop putting words in my mouth. Your attempts at strawmanning aren't productive. I'm merely posting pictures in response to this statement...

Oh yeah, right. I should have said "heavy military grade armored vehicles and automatic weapons that had been deployed in war zones before."

Of course. But the most heavy equipment German police is ever going to carry when dealing with protesters is

    riot gear
    standard issue 9mm pistol
    baton
    can of mace

If shit's really about to hit the fan, units mounted on horse will be employed, perhaps even a water cannon. Still, that absolutely can't be compared to the military grade weapons and armored vehicles used in Ferguson.

Perhaps you should refrain from making reckless and provocative comments in the future?  ???

Did you really just google for "German police weapons" or something, without reading a single word about the images' backgrounds? This image is from 2010, when the Reichstag (seat of the German parliament) was closed after thought to be targeted by an islamic terrorist cell. The weapon is an MP5, a submachine gun, which is nothing extra-ordinary for police officers guarding parts of the goverment during a threat situation.

What I said is that the militarization of law enforcement is utterly stupid and counterproductive on the highest scale. If you push the arms race between population and police, if you try to intimidate and shock the people you're sworn to protect, then you gain nothing and everyone loses.

Case in point. To think that an escalating tactic of more and more police force will result in a better result takes a very special kind of retard as governour and/or police chief. Especially when disproportionate police force was the spark that ignited this whole powder keg in the first place.

To think that an escalating tactic of more and more police force will result in a better result takes a very special kind of retard as (German and anti-Muslim and Islamophobic) governour and/or police chief giving into race and religious based fear mongering.

Riot gear? Check.
Water cannon? Check.
Military hardware you'd expect in a war zone? Nope.

You've never seen riot gear deployed in a war zone? Would you like to stand by that statement or retract it?? :)

See comment above.

See ignorance above.

Members of the SEK, a special response unit that deals with hostage situations, sieges, and raids, not with protesters or rioters. The image supposedly shows SEK members after a man took a hostage in a Cologne nursery last year (the building was eventually stormed and the kidnapper stopped with a single shot to the shoulder).

What I said is that the militarization of law enforcement is utterly stupid and counterproductive on the highest scale. If you push the arms race between population and police, if you try to intimidate and shock the people you're sworn to protect, then you gain nothing and everyone loses.

Case in point. To think that an escalating tactic of more and more police force will result in a better result takes a very special kind of retard as governour and/or police chief. Especially when disproportionate police force was the spark that ignited this whole powder keg in the first place.

I'm glad the nursery crisis was resolved safely but to think that an escalating tactic of more and more police force will result in a better result takes a very special kind of retard as (German and anti-Muslim) governour and/or police chief

All in all: nice attempt, but I've seen better. Several of the pictures you've posted were either taken out of context (NATO summit, ASEM meeting, ...), or didn't show police dealing with protesters (SEK members, police guarding the seat of the parliament, ...).

What I said is that the militarization of law enforcement is utterly stupid and counterproductive on the highest scale. If you push the arms race between population and police, if you try to intimidate and shock the people you're sworn to protect, then you gain nothing and everyone loses.

Case in point. To think that an escalating tactic of more and more police force will result in a better result takes a very special kind of retard as governour and/or police chief. Especially when disproportionate police force was the spark that ignited this whole powder keg in the first place.

To think that an escalating tactic of more and more police force will result in a better result takes a very special kind of retard as (German and anti-Muslim Islamophobic) governour and/or police chief giving into race and religious based fear mongering.

Please try again. :P And while you're at it, please reread my words. I never said the German police was unarmed. I never said the German police wasn't capable of getting rough. I did say that the German police doesn't use military grade equipment (assault rifles, grenade launchers, ...) when dealing with protesters. Mobile water cannons aren't military grade, no matter how bulky the trucks look.

I quoted what you said in my post, stop strawmanning.

Oh yeah, right. I should have said "heavy military grade armored vehicles and automatic weapons that had been deployed in war zones before."

Of course. But the most heavy equipment German police is ever going to carry when dealing with protesters is

    riot gear
    standard issue 9mm pistol
    baton
    can of mace

If shit's really about to hit the fan, units mounted on horse will be employed, perhaps even a water cannon. Still, that absolutely can't be compared to the military grade weapons and armored vehicles used in Ferguson.

The only image that shows a military-grade vehicle being employed reactively as a response against protesters is the one about the CASTOR transport. Those transports were a controversial topic whenever they came up, and reactions on both sides of the fence typically went overboard. Nevertheless, even those incidents and the equipment displayed and employed there are not comparable to the militarization of US law enforcement in the wake of the 1033 program. Not. Comparable. At. All.

It is perfectly comparable. The United States doesn't have a proper national police force that isn't devoted to a specialized protective or investigative function unlike many European countries with National Police Force equivalents via Gendarmes, Carabineiri, Federal Police or others who can fulfill paramilitary functions. That is usually handled at the local, municipal, county and state level as Federal intervention is restrained due to various laws and regulations based on civil liberties as well as constitutional law. The lack of a paramilitary police force at a national level means it has to be handled by smaller jurisdictions.

Also... you missed some of my other points... so again, please stop strawmanning in a vain effort to obfuscate the fact you are making reckless statements and falsehoods in an effort to engage in provocation in what I was assuming was a civil conversation.

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

Please try again. :P

I look forward to your next try that will take several hours to write up so I can respond to it in twenty minutes again. :p

[Passion and Desire]

[...]

Since apparanetly copy-paste replying is a thing here now, let me help you understand.

I did say that the German police doesn't use military grade equipment (assault rifles, grenade launchers, ...) when dealing with protesters.

I did say that the German police doesn't use military grade equipment (assault rifles, grenade launchers, ...) when dealing with protesters.

I did say that the German police doesn't use military grade equipment (assault rifles, grenade launchers, ...) when dealing with protesters.

I did say that the German police doesn't use military grade equipment (assault rifles, grenade launchers, ...) when dealing with protesters.

and

Mobile water cannons aren't military grade, no matter how bulky the trucks look.

Mobile water cannons aren't military grade, no matter how bulky the trucks look.

Mobile water cannons aren't military grade, no matter how bulky the trucks look.

Mobile water cannons aren't military grade, no matter how bulky the trucks look.

Perhaps you get it now. And no, riot gear is also not comparable to tactical body armor soldiers use. One is designed to protect against impact and (perhaps) cuts/stabs, the other against impact, cuts/stabs, and grenade fragments/small calibre bullets. They are similar but on a different level - similar to how a kitchen knife and a katana both have blades, but no one would seriously argue that a katana is not more dangerous than a kitchen knife.

Think about this as a benchmark: would any soldier willingly use police gear in a war zone instead of military gear, when military gear is equally available? If the answer is yes, then the police hardware is military grade. If the answer is no, then the gear isn't military grade. Would a soldier wear riot gear instead of a tactical armor vest? Would a soldier use a water cannon instead of a real tank/APC? Would a soldier use a pepperball launcher instead of an assault rifle?

Edit: and fix your quotes, seriously. Your post is a mess. -.-

[Neysha]

I'm sorry but this:

I did say that the German police doesn't use military grade equipment (assault rifles, grenade launchers, ...) when dealing with protesters.

does not conflate with this...

Oh yeah, right. I should have said "heavy military grade armored vehicles and automatic weapons that had been deployed in war zones before."

Of course. But the most heavy equipment German police is ever going to carry when dealing with protesters is

    riot gear
    standard issue 9mm pistol
    baton
    can of mace

If shit's really about to hit the fan, units mounted on horse will be employed, perhaps even a water cannon. Still, that absolutely can't be compared to the military grade weapons and armored vehicles used in Ferguson.

or this...

Spoiler: Click to Show/Hide

*looks harmless*

















And other Europeans are even more formidable!

Looks like someone is [/spoiler]

Are you stating that your prior statements were just wrong, spoken out of ignorance or that you're simply engaging in provocative behavior. (because as we can tell from your posting history your obviously not on this board to RP ) :p

Also you haven't refuted this...

This image is from 2010, when the Reichstag (seat of the German parliament) was closed after thought to be targeted by an islamic terrorist cell. The weapon is an MP5, a submachine gun, which is nothing extra-ordinary for police officers guarding parts of the goverment during a threat situation.

So you say that a host nation shouldn't take security measures when 28 heads of state/goverment (including the president of the USA) meet in a single location? Because that's where that image is from - NATO summit 2009 in Strasbourg/Kehl.

the always popular CASTOR transports.

A picture of a German policeman in riot gear with a Tac700 launcer

with this...

What I said is that the militarization of law enforcement is utterly stupid and counterproductive on the highest scale. If you push the arms race between population and police, if you try to intimidate and shock the people you're sworn to protect, then you gain nothing and everyone loses.

Case in point. To think that an escalating tactic of more and more police force will result in a better result takes a very special kind of retard as governour and/or police chief. Especially when disproportionate police force was the spark that ignited this whole powder keg in the first place.

Also you failed to refute this:

It is perfectly comparable. The United States doesn't have a proper national police force that isn't devoted to a specialized protective or investigative function unlike many European countries with National Police Force equivalents via Gendarmes, Carabineiri, Federal Police or others who can fulfill paramilitary functions. That is usually handled at the local, municipal, county and state level as Federal intervention is restrained due to various laws and regulations based on civil liberties as well as constitutional law. The lack of a paramilitary police force at a national level means it has to be handled by smaller jurisdictions.

and this:

You've never seen riot gear deployed in a war zone? Would you like to stand by that statement or retract it?? :)

Also please stop strawmanning my arguments. My posts are laid out very simply and with diarrheatic verbiage for your convenience.

Edit: and fix your quotes, seriously. Your post is a mess. -.-

Fix your attitude and spelling then.  :D

You wanted an argument instead of a civil conversation, so I don't see any reason to reply in an extraordinary effort to your request. I've reviewed my previous post and the quotes seem fine. I'm trying to get clarification on why you are actively arguing against yourself and engaging in strawmanning. By laying out the quotes in that manner, it becomes more self evident.

Perhaps you get it now. And no, riot gear is also not comparable to tactical body armor soldiers use. One is designed to protect against impact and (perhaps) cuts/stabs, the other against impact, cuts/stabs, and grenade fragments/small calibre bullets. They are similar but on a different level - similar to how a kitchen knife and a katana both have blades, but no one would seriously argue that a katana is not more dangerous than a kitchen knife.

Think about this as a benchmark: would any soldier willingly use police gear in a war zone instead of military gear, when military gear is equally available? If the answer is yes, then the police hardware is military grade. If the answer is no, then the gear isn't military grade. Would a soldier wear riot gear instead of a tactical armor vest? Would a soldier use a water cannon instead of a real tank/APC? Would a soldier use a pepperball launcher instead of an assault rifle?

Immaterial red herring when your original point was this:

Wow...

In that case I guess the German police must be some sort of miracle worker, because they manage to deal with riots without fucking tanks and machine guns. ;)

Oh yeah, right. I should have said "heavy military grade armored vehicles and automatic weapons that had been deployed in war zones before." That's totally different. I mean, the photos of said vehicles and weapons are all over the internet recently, it's really hard to actually miss it.

But thanks for arguing semantics and completely missing the point.

And I never said that. What I said is that the militarization of law enforcement is utterly stupid and counterproductive on the highest scale. If you push the arms race between population and police, if you try to intimidate and shock the people you're sworn to protect, then you gain nothing and everyone loses.

Case in point. To think that an escalating tactic of more and more police force will result in a better result takes a very special kind of retard as governour and/or police chief. Especially when disproportionate police force was the spark that ignited this whole powder keg in the first place.

But thanks for arguing semantics and completely missing the point. You were engaging in hyperbole with tanks and machine gun statement and now are arguing from a completely literal and nuanced POV in stating oh... that might look shocking and intimidating to civilians, but hey... it wasn't exactly deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan... so obviously... it's not military grade.



We have evidence here of the Islamophobic German government and police engaging in stupid and counterproductive militarization of events on the highest scale, not only endangering their own citizens but even putting foreign heads of states and government officials at risk at numerous events. :(

[Nico]

Thread locked by E-Staff for at least 24 hours.