Ferguson Riots

[Buehrle>Wood]

@TheAnonMessage Bryan Willman is not even an officer with Ferguson or St. Louis County PD. Do not release more info on this random citizen.

[caulfield12]

What kind of neighborhood are they in? If it's "lawless" like parts of Chicago, I don't mind them being a little over the top. Shields and batons don't work against guns.

 

So everyone having a gun, instead of leading to more safety/security, is actually going to lead to more confrontation and violence, correct?

 

Seems like you're saying you have to come with equal or greater force to quell the threat, yes?

 

 

That trying to be reasonable....meeting with community leaders....negotiating....addressing the concerns of the rioter/protesters or making a public apology or statement expressing remorse....none of those tactics have even been attempted?

 

[caulfield12]

St. Louis County Police have been relieved of their duties in Ferguson

 

 

Army or National Guard? What's next? SWAT teams?

[bmags]

So you expect cops to go in basically unarmed to quell a protest/riot that turned to violence in an area where there could be guns (and not really "could be" in this case, because as I posted yesterday there was at least two shootings)?

 

Well there "could be" guns anywhere in the united states. So your point is basically that our police should always arrive at any protest dressed as the military.

[Jenksismyhero]

So everyone having a gun, instead of leading to more safety/security, is actually going to lead to more confrontation and violence, correct?

 

Seems like you're saying you have to come with equal or greater force to quell the threat, yes?

 

 

That trying to be reasonable....meeting with community leaders....negotiating....addressing the concerns of the rioter/protesters or making a public apology or statement expressing remorse....none of those tactics have even been attempted?

 

In areas known for violence and gang activity, yes. Again, i'm saying I have no idea what Ferguson is like and maybe none of this would apply and the cops were completely in the wrong. But if it is an area similar to Austin, Englewood, etc., well, I don't have a problem with cops using better riot gear than shields and batons when they're going up against an unruly mass of people who may or may not have guns and the will to use them. ESPECIALLY when they're rioting AGAINST the police. There's a legit possibility of being targeted.

 

I agree with your last point. They came in way too heavy, too quickly. And that escalated the whole situation. I hope the county police there is gutted as a result of this fiasco.

[Buehrle>Wood]

Army or National Guard? What's next? SWAT teams?

SWAT has been there since the beginning. It'll probably be state pd taking over.

[Jenksismyhero]

Well there "could be" guns anywhere in the united states. So your point is basically that our police should always arrive at any protest dressed as the military.

 

Please. Let's ignore that certain neighborhoods are worse than others and need a different method of policing.

Edited August 14, 2014 by Jenksismybitch

[bmags]

Please. Let's ignore that certain neighborhoods are worse than others and need a different method of policing.

 

For zero reason at all, you have jumped to the logic that this neighborhood is the equivalent of Englewood and that they should be met with military force. WHile it would even be debatable that protests in Englewood should be met with antimine vehicles, let's look at Ferguson:

 

Ferguson is slightly above average to the national norm, and for city suburbs looks pretty normal. Averages 2 murders per 100,000 people per year in 2012, but total crime is slightly above national average. It's hard to get neighborhood year breakdowns, but by all accounts Ferguson is safer than my home of Logan Square. I know that I would be livid if met with this type of force.

 

Englewood averages 2.6 violent crimes per 1,000 people per thirty days.

 

 

 

 

[Buehrle>Wood]

No idea where it ranks compared to other cities but the murder rate is 9.4 per 100k people as of 2012.

[bmags]

No idea where it ranks compared to other cities but the murder rate is 9.4 per 100k people as of 2012.

 

You are right, I read that wrong.

http://www.city-data.com/crime/crime-Ferguson-Missouri.html

 

2 murders in 2012, 9.4 per 100k

[cabiness42]

A radio report I heard had the police force being 25% black in Ferguson. But you have to look at WHY the makeup of the force is that way. Do they not have applicants or are they rejecting applicants. You know, snitches get stitches, and someone from the hood becoming a cop might not bode well for them. Maybe they don't WANT to be cops there.

 

Latest figure I heard was 3 of 80 Ferguson police officers are black. If they aren't getting enough black applicants then they need to recruit more aggressively. Look inside St. Louis city, or even look to other midwestern cities to find qualified black officers. You're just asking for all kinds of problems if the demographics of the police force are that much out of whack with the city.

 

[Chisoxfn]

Remember that this didn't start with some random, unprovoked riot but with the likely murder of Mike Brown, with leaving his body to rot in the sun for hours, with a stonewall from the police on what happened and who did it. In response to what is ultimately just property damage, they've turned the town into a police state.

Dude, do you even read. Nothing of the first part justifies the second actions. Both sides are incredibly wrong in this. Its disgusting how people rationalize that it is okay to effect innocent people and their property, etc. Looting solves nothing, rioting solves nothing. Peaceful protests solve problems and the Cops response to these protests have been terrible but it still doesn't justify the 2nd action. And I'm not saying that is what the majority are doing but two wrongs don't make a right.

[bmags]

the looting on Sunday night has been a reprehensible, but small portion of what has gone on. Peaceful protests have been met with snipers aiming on them.

 

I know the #bothsides crowd must always have their #bothsides needs met, but the government should and must be held to a higher standard, and the behavior and strategy to meet an outraged community with overwhelming force has been a disgusting chapter on a story that has been building for decades.

[cabiness42]

In areas known for violence and gang activity, yes. Again, i'm saying I have no idea what Ferguson is like and maybe none of this would apply and the cops were completely in the wrong. But if it is an area similar to Austin, Englewood, etc., well, I don't have a problem with cops using better riot gear than shields and batons when they're going up against an unruly mass of people who may or may not have guns and the will to use them. ESPECIALLY when they're rioting AGAINST the police. There's a legit possibility of being targeted.

 

I agree with your last point. They came in way too heavy, too quickly. And that escalated the whole situation. I hope the county police there is gutted as a result of this fiasco.

 

I was only in St. Louis the past four days, but from all the information on the news and discussions with locals, I would peg Ferguson to be much more like Bellwood in Proviso Twp than like Austin or Englewood.

[caulfield12]

Dude, do you even read. Nothing of the first part justifies the second actions. Both sides are incredibly wrong in this. Its disgusting how people rationalize that it is okay to effect innocent people and their property, etc. Looting solves nothing, rioting solves nothing. Peaceful protests solve problems and the Cops response to these protests have been terrible but it still doesn't justify the 2nd action. And I'm not saying that is what the majority are doing but two wrongs don't make a right.

 

 

The problem is if community leaders urge the people to respond with "turn the other cheek" Gandhian/MLK tactics, and they get mowed down by the police, then they risk losing their credibility forever.

 

It's a tough position to be in...try to de-escalate and preach patience.

 

What have the people in situations like this ever received in return? Are they going to increase the African-American presence in the police force, for example?

 

Imagine if an all-white suburban community was patrolled by a 90-95% African-American police force...how long do you think that would last? Why has that never happened? I would guess...never. So why would African-Americans or Mexican-Americans accept the idea that their neighborhood police forces in a variety of diverse areas of the US should be made up with all officers that look nothing like them, and can't relate to them? Is this result any surprise? If you don't have any credibility in a community, a situation like this is just as inevitable as rioting in South Africa when the Boers/de Klerk was in control of an 85-90% African country.

 

 

[greg775]

I like the response today from Obama and others.

I know the media situation is a minor part of this issue, but just watching the video of the asshole cop arresting the media member in a McDonald's showed me a lot of what I needed to know of how the cops have been behaving.

It was the middle of a sunny day, there was no threat and the cop was yelling at some media guy telling him to go out the door. The guy was unplugging his computer and phone and trying to get out as fast as he could. Cop kept yelling at him, which is ridiculous.

 

So the media member goes the way he's supposed to get out and the cop throws him against a coke machine and the guy drops his s***.

So the media member writes what happened. On the way to the police station, the reporter tells the cop, "You will be on the front page of the Washington Post tomorrow." The cop says, "You'll be in my jail cell tonight."

Of course the media member was let free as soon as the police chief found out what happened.

 

You can't make up the rules and throw teargas at media to get them to stop filming. You can't throw teargas at people behind a fence in their own yards when they are not armed or doing anything bad. I hope there are repercussions and mass firings. It shows you how people can be in mob mentality, yet so can police.

 

They also need to speed it up and arrest that cop who killed the kid if it looks like the cop killed an unarmed person in cold blood. The cop can get his day in court.

 

And I'm sick of incorrect things being reported on Twitter. Were there 3 black cops on that police force or 25 percent? Somebody is printing the wrong name of the cop who did the killing? That's insane and dangerous. More than EVER, we can't believe half of what is written or reported anywhere.

 

P.S. My final point is: The cops have been totally in the wrong the past couple days regarding the protests and have been total bullies and everybody at the top MUST be fired soon for the behavior of their troops.

Edited August 14, 2014 by greg775

[bmags]

Some good points there. But there was an absence of MSM reporting on Ferguson through much of the weekend (really, I think the overemphasis on the looting on Sunday night is due to that being the only coverage the MSM trotted out there)

 

Twitter while spreading some crap (and almost all of it from these anonymous themed twitter feeds) has been incredible for this story. Most of my friends are from Missouri, I feel like I know the ins and outs of this from Saturday afternoon. I think this is the best example of twitter even with the crap parts.

[greg775]

The alderman, Antonio French, who was arrested for no reason and released today without bail and paperwork (cause he did nothing wrong and was simply let free), tweeted this:

 

"Ferguson police chief promises a change in tactics tonight. Promises less aggressive, militaristic approach."

 

Well, no s***. The police were way out of line and immediately promise to change. But without the president and governor and other people getting involved, they'd have kept acting the way they were acting. This on a small scale, shows the mob mentality can take over a police force as well as a community. I think it indeed shows what can happen when police run amok. It's kind of scary. Makes u wonder what this means in the big picture for the future regarding citizens vs. cops.

[Jenksismyhero]

I was only in St. Louis the past four days, but from all the information on the news and discussions with locals, I would peg Ferguson to be much more like Bellwood in Proviso Twp than like Austin or Englewood.

 

OK, then I agree the snipers and whatnot was overkill. Still though, with reports of shootings, not sure I'd be comfortable sending cops out with just riot shields and batons. Maybe something in between that and full-scale military get up.

[bmags]

I think this was a great article from Vox speaking with the former Seattle chief of police (WTO protests era)

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/6002451/fergu...ttle/in/5757650

[greg775]

OK, then I agree the snipers and whatnot was overkill. Still though, with reports of shootings, not sure I'd be comfortable sending cops out with just riot shields and batons. Maybe something in between that and full-scale military get up.

 

How do you feel about them rounding up and arresting aldermen and ministers and keeping them all night when they did nothing wrong? These cops were scary bad last night.

 

I was thinking the other day about how minorities have the right to be upset about getting pulled over for no reason by cops (has nothing to do with this case).

Sometimes I get pulled over because I leave work at 1 a.m. and it's a college town and they are looking for drunks. They'll say I was driving erratically or something. They are looking for drunks and have always let me go with no ticket since I don't drink and I tell them where I was, etc., and they realize I'm not drunk, but it is annoying.

What do you guys think about cops pulling people over for no reason?

Edited August 14, 2014 by greg775

[Jenksismyhero]

How do you feel about them rounding up and arresting aldermen and ministers and keeping them all night when they did nothing wrong? These cops were scary bad last night.

 

Way over the top, as was the initial riot response when there was nothing but a protest going on. I could see a heavy response if the looting had begun, but that hadn't happened yet per the various reports.

 

[greg775]

I think this was a great article from Vox speaking with the former Seattle chief of police (WTO protests era)

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/6002451/fergu...ttle/in/5757650

 

Excellent interview. Thanks.

It makes me think about here. Tax dollars will build the cops a huge new headquarters. We are supposed to be in this together. Then you see the incident in Ferguson and want to say, "f*** you and your headquarters."

[Jenksismyhero]

If you guys are concerned about the police build-up, check out Homeland Security. Talk about militarization...

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ralphbenko/201...l-conversation/

 

The Denver Post, on February 15th, ran an Associated Press article entitled Homeland Security aims to buy 1.6b rounds of ammo, so far to little notice. It confirmed that the Department of Homeland Security has issued an open purchase order for 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition. As reported elsewhere, some of this purchase order is for hollow-point rounds, forbidden by international law for use in war, along with a frightening amount specialized for snipers. Also reported elsewhere, at the height of the Iraq War the Army was expending less than 6 million rounds a month. Therefore 1.6 billion rounds would be enough to sustain a hot war for 20+ years. In America.

 

Add to this perplexing outré purchase of ammo, DHS now is showing off its acquisition of heavily armored personnel carriers, repatriated from the Iraqi and Afghani theaters of operation. As observed by “paramilblogger” Ken Jorgustin last September:

 

[T]he Department of Homeland Security is apparently taking delivery (apparently through the Marine Corps Systems Command, Quantico VA, via the manufacturer – Navistar Defense LLC) of an undetermined number of the recently retrofitted 2,717 ‘Mine Resistant Protected’ MaxxPro MRAP vehicles for service on the streets of the United States.”

 

These MRAP’s ARE BEING SEEN ON U.S. STREETS all across America by verified observers with photos, videos, and descriptions.”

 

Regardless of the exact number of MRAP’s being delivered to DHS (and evidently some to POLICE via DHS, as has been observed), why would they need such over-the-top vehicles on U.S. streets to withstand IEDs, mine blasts, and 50 caliber hits to bullet-proof glass? In a war zone… yes, definitely. Let’s protect our men and women. On the streets of America… ?”

 

…

 

“They all have gun ports… Gun Ports? In the theater of war, yes. On the streets of America…?

 

Seriously, why would DHS need such a vehicle on our streets?”

 

Why indeed? It is utterly inconceivable that Department of Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is planning a coup d’etat against President Obama, and the Congress, to install herself as Supreme Ruler of the United States of America. There, however, are real signs that the Department bureaucrats are running amok. About 20 years ago this columnist worked, for two years, in the U.S. Department of Energy’s general counsel’s office in its procurement and finance division. And is wise to the ways. The answer to “why would DHS need such a vehicle?” almost certainly is this: it’s a cool toy and these (reportedly) million dollar toys are being recycled, without much of a impact on the DHS budget. So… why not?

 

Why, indeed, should the federal government not be deploying armored personnel carriers and stockpiling enough ammo for a 20-year war in the homeland? Because it’s wrong in every way. President Obama has an opportunity, now, to live up to some of his rhetoric by helping the federal government set a noble example in a matter very close to his heart (and that of his Progressive base), one not inimical to the Bill of Rights: gun control. The federal government can (for a nice change) begin practicing what it preaches by controlling itself.

 

Remember the Sequester? The president is claiming its budget cuts will inconvenience travelers by squeezing essential services provided by the (opulently armed and stylishly uniformed) DHS. Quality ammunition is not cheap. (Of course, news reports that DHS is about to spend $50 million on new uniforms suggests a certain cavalier attitude toward government frugality.)

 

Spending money this way is beyond absurd well into perverse. According to the AP story a DHS spokesperson justifies this acquisition to “help the government get a low price for a big purchase.” Peggy Dixon, spokeswoman for the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center: “The training center and others like it run by the Homeland Security Department use as many as 15 million rounds every year, mostly on shooting ranges and in training exercises.”

 

At 15 million rounds (which, in itself, is pretty extraordinary and sounds more like fun target-shooting-at-taxpayer-expense than a sensible training exercise) … that’s a stockpile that would last DHS over a century. To claim that it’s to “get a low price” for a ridiculously wasteful amount is an argument that could only fool a career civil servant.

 

Meanwhile, Senator Diane Feinstein, with the support of President Obama, is attempting to ban 100 capacity magazine clips. Doing a little apples-to-oranges comparison, here, 1.6 billion rounds is … 16 million times more objectionable.

 

Mr. Obama has a long history of disdain toward gun ownership. According to Prof. John Lott, in Debacle, a book he co-authored with iconic conservative strategist Grover Norquist,

 

“When I was first introduced to Obama (when both worked at the University of Chicago Law School, where Lott was famous for his analysis of firearms possession), he said, ‘Oh, you’re the gun guy.’

 

I responded: ‘Yes, I guess so.’

 

’I don’t believe that people should own guns,’ Obama replied.

 

I then replied that it might be fun to have lunch and talk about that statement some time.

 

He simply grimaced and turned away. …

 

Unlike other liberal academics who usually enjoyed discussing opposing ideas, Obama showed disdain.”

 

Mr. Obama? Where’s the disdain now? Cancelling, or at minimum, drastically scaling back — by 90% or even 99%, the DHS order for ammo, and its receipt and deployment of armored personnel carriers, would be a “fourfer.”

 

The federal government would set an example of restraint in the matter of weaponry.

It would reduce the deficit without squeezing essential services.

It would do both in a way that was palatable to liberals and conservatives, slightly depolarizing America.

It would somewhat defuse, by the government making itself less armed-to-the-teeth, the anxiety of those who mistrust the benevolence of the federales.

 

If Obama doesn’t show any leadership on this matter it’s an opportunity for Rep. Darrell Issa, chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, and Rep. Michael McCaul, chairman of the House Committee on Homeland Security, to summon Secretary Napolitano over for a little national conversation. Madame Secretary? Buying 1.6 billion rounds of ammo and deploying armored personnel carriers runs contrary, in every way, to what “homeland security” really means. Discuss.

[bmags]

How have purchases like that sustained itself among all the other cuts of the past 3 years.