My step-dad was a cop and I would like to be able to say the same thing, but at some point this diverges sharply from community policing. Who brings a sniper to a peaceful protest?

https://twitter.com/PDPJ/status/4993...529409/photo/1

That is crazy shit. Is that the local police or National Guard?

The question about what was said or done was rhetorical. It's obvious that there are pieces missing from this guy's story. Of course when the officer went back it was to "teach them a lesson" and not beause these folks made it clear that they intended to disregard what he had told them.

It's like they are preparing for the ZOMBAY APOCALYPSE. Not a peaceful protest.

People threw a ticker tape parade for this in Boston. I guess they figure this is what the populace wants? And sadly I'm not sure that it isn't the truth.

Storify really shines when it comes to these kinds of events.

Veterans on Ferguson (with images, tweets) · AthertonKD · Storify

@C#Ferguson 8-13-2014 (with images, tweets) · chronotope · Storify

Good and the bad to come out of this...

Good
* The media isn't a cheerleader for the police/government like they have been recently.

* Looks like police militarization is getting it's rightful questioning instead of the Hooray USA for the NY Subway Cops with machine guns or the over the top Boston shutdown

* People are at least talking about racial problems. That's the only way they are ever going to get over them.

* The shooting can't just get swept under the rug. Social media does have a lot of power.

Bad
* The FBI jumping in right away. So Ferguson was given no chance to let the process work on it's own. Now even if the cop is charged with murder and prosecuted people will still think that it required burning down a gas station and taking the city hostage to get due process. Sorry the shooting happened Sunday and the FBI took over Monday. I just think the wrong message is being sent and no matter the results people will still think it requires near anarchy to get a "fair shake".

* The cops thinking they need military weapons and tear gas to bring "peace". If they weren't there and the media wasn't there I'm guessing a lot of these protestors would find other avenues to explore. The police are definitely a BIG part of the continued problems.

jeffclement @jeffclement

A few people have pointed it out, but our ROE regarding who we could point weapons at in Afghanistan was more restrictive than cops in MO.
10:03 PM - 13 Aug 2014

Broken Handmic @13F2PL7

A lot of vets, me included, would go to Ferguson and gladly teach some classes on crowd control and patrolling You are fucking it up.

Tyrell Mayfield ‏@TyrellMayfield 15h
People really worried about getting shot do not sit exposed on top of armored cars. @PaulSzoldra @BmoreConetta pic.twitter.com/9NO3Nn5tMI

I think in a situation like this, having an investigation come from the outside is much more helpful. If the cop involved was cleared by local authorities, you know what we'd be hearing about next.

And Brown was shot Saturday, FYI.

Yeah I think the FBI or at least an outside agnecy did need to be involved. I guess my point was the FBI came in right after the riots and really there is no way the police would have been able to do anything in that short of a time period. So to the "masses" they likely think crime is the only way to get justice for crime. When for all we know Ferguson might have called in another agency anyways. I'm pretty sure even the smallest departments don't take officer involved shootings lightly.

Anonymous has already released the name of the officer, with his photo, address, and more documentation still to come. Also posted this:

We have video of Mike Brown's body being shoved into the back of a PD SUV. No EMS was on the scene at all as we first thought. #Ferguson

— TheAnonMessage (@TheAnonMessage) August 14, 2014

And now this:

Bloomberg: Missouri Gov. Nixon to announce St. Louis County police being taken out of situation. per Rep. Clay (D-Mo.). #Ferguson

— Jonathan Allen (@jonallendc) August 14, 2014

Yes. It seems like the national guard would be a better option. (My opinion only) Our governor is a Democrat in a red state and definitely has higher ambitions. I am guessing he is weary of sending "his guys" in and having possible blood on his hands. Though not doing anything could become his "Katrina".

EDIT: Looks like from Logan's post Nixon has finally decided to do something.

To Name and to Name Not | National Review Online


It's real when you have National Review railing against the police actions.

Cops are good people:

Video of Ferguson police gassing news crew and dismantling their equipment - Boing Boing

Fuck them. I don't believe the majority of police officers are good, I don't care the opinion of people on this board. The idea of being a police officer does not appeal to good people.

Tackling someone about to jump off a bridge doesn't do anything to make me think you are a swell human being. Being someone in that person's life that prevents him from wanting to jump? Yes. Luckily being in the right place at the right time? Not so much.

Edit: Just noticed this vid had been posted, missed a page since I last checked this thread.

Different situation - you had active shooters running around after a terrorist attack in that case, and the cops weren't pointing their guns at regular people.

I understand what you are saying but my point is more about Joe Schmoe from the St. Louis County Police Department. He sees the ticker tape parade for Boston, gets to wear fatigues and hold a sniper rifle without having to actually serve in a combat zone, and is held in high regard by most. I'm live in St. Louis in the suburbs and the police are the heroes in this mess to most of my coworkers and collegues. I don't think the outrage is really as widespread as most think it might be.

(Again not defending this point of view, I really hold both overzealous cops and looting rioters in very low regard but it is reality here in St. Louis)

Gotcha - misunderstood your point. Makes sense now.

Genie's out of the bottle on this one. How widespread the outrage is in St. Louis does not matter anymore. St. Louis cops would be wise to understand that.

Sounds like you have a decent group of coworkers & colleagues :)

i have stayed out of this until now, because i know my opinions are vastly different than most people here, but i am not gonna watch this one go by

i honestly feel bad that your view of a group of people that have dedicated their lives to risking it on a daily basis is so immensely fucked up.

i went to college with the thought of becoming a District Attorney...my plan was to become a cop so that i could finance law school without a mountain of debt.

i jacked up my shoulder my senior year and as a result, was unable to complete the physical portions of academy entrance tests for many years.

so what did i do instead...i became a 911 dispatcher...for 8 and a half years i became the first voice that thousands of people heard when they needed help.

and in case that wasnt enough, i became an EMT, so that when i wasnt picking up the phone, i was going to the peoples houses to try to save their lives.

the entire time i was doing that, i still wanted to be a cop.

but i guess that i am no a good person

unless you have done it, you have no idea what it is like to do a job where you are universally hated for doing it...for showing up for work KNOWING that you might not go home that night, and instead, some chief or captain will go tell your wife and children that their father is dead.

people like you are the EXACT reason that those cops are acting the way they are in Ferguson...because you think you have a right to hate them for their mere existence...and since there are alot more of you than there are of them, you then hate them more because they prepare themselves to defend each other...they have no idea who the enemy is, because it is everywhere when people like you exist.

i am not saying shitty, corrupt, and abusive cops dont exist...i have known some...had to work with them...and hated every second of it

but for every one that is a piece of crap, there are thousands that are doing showing up every day prepared to put themselves in harms way...yeah, they get a paycheck, but would you risk your life just for money...they do it for the same reason soldiers do it...because it means something to them.

you on the other hand, are a first class asshole, who means nothing to me...you are the first person to say "Fuck Them", but i am sure you would also be the first one to cry about them not being around if you needed them

I've known plenty of good cops. I'm sure there are plenty of bad ones too though.

I always go out of my way to be "nice" to cops. If I'm in Starbucks at the same time as one I'll buy them a drink, etc. Not because I want special treatment - I just figure that they get shit on most of their shift (esp. when they're doing traffic stops) so they could use a smile.

But then again I'm white and I spend most of my time in affluent suburbs. If I wasn't white and I lived in an area where there was more crime & a stronger, more intrusive police presence I have a feeling I'd feel differently.

This stuff doesn't really surprise anyone in this area. STL has always been a very polarized and segregated metro area. It's one of those things that everyone in that city knows, but they just won't admit to knowing it. It doesn't mean all STL people are bad, but this was bound to happen eventually.

That outlook makes sense, panerd. Because all 21,000 residents of Ferguson are looters.

(Silly me, of course they aren't. Just 70% of them.)

please note, i do not agree with everything that is going on in Ferguson right now...they are stepping over lines that make them no better than the rioters.

i was responding directly to Jeff's blanket and ignorant statement

Are these pictures from before or after the looting? If before, then I agree. If after, the "peaceful" part was long gone from these protests.

Yes they are, look at their baseball team for crying out loud! :devil:

My god, you sound like some kind of monster.

I wonder what jeff061's job is that makes him so morally superior to you. Probably runs an orphanage or something.

Probably because the cops are more likely to be your neighbors than the neighbors of anyone in Ferguson.

There's a really good book on this subject called Rise of the Warrior Cop by Radley Balko which I highly recommend. It's not a bash job, it puts forth the onus that bad policies make bad cops, and I think that's more accurate than taking extreme views of the people that become cops.

It's also just a great overview in general of the militarization over the last 40-50 years specifically.

I don't look at a thankless low paying job where everyone will hate me and take it anyways so I can have the authority I always wanted.

Seems like Senator McCaskill is doing a pretty good job conveying the message that the police need to de-militarize the situation.

I never said that or said I agreed with the viewpoint I see in my area but I also see no reason to put my head in the sand either and act like a lot of the residents of the county are outraged at the huge police presence. Go no futhur than the comments section of any St. Louis website and you will see what I am talking about.

I know this is the internet and everything, but this isn't helpful. There's no need to put forth such blanket statements during such a tense situation. It's posts like this that cause someone else to start a "when will the reign of terror end?" thread.

What do you do for a living? What makes you better than saldana? (and me, if people who work in law enforcement in any capacity are just as guilty)? Who do you help?

I think this is important to note - it's not that bad people become cops or all cops are bad - it's that the policies (and yes, the surplus military equipment) provided to cops has sent them down this path (obviously a blanket statement, not all cops are down it, and not all cops are good).

Fair enough.

yup...thats me...authoritarian zealot...i have no internal drive to help other people at all...thats why now i facilitate the distribution of clinical trial drugs to underdeveloped countries that have substandard health care.

i am a horrible horrible human being...douche.

Of course they're not outraged - they most likely do support the police here, because the police are serving to protect them by controlling and containing the black people in Ferguson.

In part of their coverage last night, NBC showed footage at a local gun shop, where sales were way up since the weekend. It sure as heck wasn't because people needed to arm themselves to protect themselves against government oppression. They wanted to arm themselves because oh shit, the blacks are getting riled up.

No one loses their rights to peaceful assembly after a riot has occured.

I don't know to what extent it's been attempted (I know it has is some places), but I've always thought police departments should more aggressively recruit in their own communities, particularly minority ones. Law enforcement is such a great career track for people who have societal and economic strikes against them, because you don't necessarily need a college degree, or to travel somewhere else, or to have gone to the greatest public school, etc, the qualifications are more practical. It's still not easy or anything but if someone manages to get through high school without getting in trouble, and has aptitude for law, and the right demeanor, and some of the tactical skills, they'd be a great candidate. And of course it would do wonders to break down some of the hostility in these communities. It's not about affirmative action, it's about more effective policing and better relationships with communities. Of course there will be resistance by a lot of people to join the police (and they'll be mocked by people like jeff061 for being poor), but even the recruiting process could make a difference in terms of positive outreach.

After one "peaceful protest" turns into a night of looting, you lose the benefit of the doubt.

Too many people in this country forget that with freedom comes responsibility, and if you don't use your freedoms responsibly, you tend to lose them.

Now, all the stuff about "turn off your cameras" I get, that's stupid on the police's part. Not defending everything they are doing, but as with nearly everything else involved in this and similar stories, the pictures posted here are missing an awful lot of context. The police do have the job of defending the town from the looters.

So if you loot a store I am no longer allowed to protest?

How far does this collective responsibility go? All the people in Ferguson? All blacks? All U.S. residents?

You don't lose your constitutional right to peaceably assemble. People rioting and looting do not invalidate those rights.

That doesn't even speak to the larger issue that we should not have guns drawn and pointed at peaceful protestors. We have context because unless every single reporter on the ground there is lying, this is what is happening there.

Oh come on. I'm exiting from this discussion as much as I can, because it's clear I posted with emotion and the end result was me unintentionally trolling.

But that is soooo far from the mark. I don't even know where you got it from.

I really hope you are never in a situation where you need the help of one of these authority craving lowlifes. I pray you never have a daughter get raped, or a son get stabbed, or any of the other countless number of situations a police presence would have prevented.

Maybe a more intrusive police presence is needed in those areas because so many of the residents are criminal scumbags who have no regard for the laws the rest of us live by? Yet that makes the police the bad guys. Got it.

If your protest seems likely to incur additional risk to the community given the volatility of the situation then your "right" does have some limitations. At some point you wander into "fire in a crowded theater" territory.

You do?!?!?

That's awesome!!!

You talked about the "low paying" job and how the only reason to take it was to get "authority".

What do you do for a living? What makes you morally superior to saldana? Let's get back to that.

No - that's not what I was saying.

I was saying that maybe if I grew up in that type of environment that I might have a different view of police and their presence.

Maybe not, but I'd certainly be more likely to then someone whose sole interactions with cops (since the whole "DARE" program in 5th grade) has been serving them coffee at Starbucks and getting pulled over like twice for speeding.

I didn't mean to infer you were saying that.

I think it is absurd that the same people who hate the police are generally the ones causing the most problems.

I don't do anything that registers on the morality spectrum, bad or good, and is not relevant to the discussion. There are several reasons to deter people from being a police offer, pay is just one of them and the lack of pay does not make up for the others. Just like the others do not make up for the lack of pay. However the authority that comes with the job does balance out all those negatives. My problem is with the type of person that statement applies to, which in my opinion is the majority of police officers. I get it, you disagree with that point, I do not.

Now if you want to tell me 2 cops out of every 10 do it for the right reasons. Fine. Maybe Saldana is one of those. I know I'm giving him every reason to take it personally, but I was not directing statements at him specifically. I don't know him.

Now, like I said. I'm stepping out.

Your perspective is so fucked it is mind blowing.

How do you feel about those low paid teachers just doing it so they can get the authority they crave?

Your job, and what you do to help others, if anything, is very relevant if you're going to throw around blanket accusations about the people in other professions as whole, and whether they do it for "the right reasons". What are the reasons you took your job? Why are they the "right reasons", in a moral sense? Statistically, you certainly believe you're morally superior to saldana (and me). You've now left open this possibility that maybe he's one of the rare good ones, but according to your odds, he's probably not. So for us, our jobs are on the table as far as our moral worth, and actually, your statistical presumption is that we're bad people based on those jobs. So your job (or whatever else you do to help others) shouldn't be off the table in that discussion.

Please. National Guard units don't have equipment that sophisticated or modern. Unless things have changed significantly from the Iraq War.

Someone made a list of a ton of military tweets which seemed to have the same message. These guys are not trained well enough to be handling this kind of weaponry.

The stuff with the press is disturbing. There are photos of the Al-Jazeera people being gassed away and then the cops running over and dismantling their equipment. That's shit you'd see in Russia, not here.

It's not a good showing by the local police. That and their refusal to release information is a good sign something is not right there.

The videos that came out last night (which I couldn't believe I could actually watch "live") were an army of police officers firing rubber bullets and tear gas canisters at a group of unarmed people standing in the street in protest.

Just saw this link and thought of your post.

Where police forces don't resemble the community - Washington Post

They've released like 3 different names over the last week. Their "big scoop" yesterday was releasing dispatch tapes from a city that wasn't involved in the shooting. Dispatch tapes that anyone with a scanner app on their smartphone could hear.

I wish people would stop giving these kids the attention they crave.

Better late than never.

Missouri to change tone of response to Ferguson unrest, governor says - LA Times

(caution to any teachers out there: I stopped counting typos early, guessing this was rushed to publication)

It's no different than any other criminal inquiry. That's one of the few types of government records that's fully exempted from public record request laws.

I was surprised the St. Louis DA's office was this blunt about it:

"St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch said Wednesday that details about the Brown shooting would not be released any time soon. He urged anyone with information to come forward and promised that every piece of evidence would be reviewed, presented to a grand jury and eventually made public.

By withholding details from the public during the criminal inquiry, investigators would be better able to gauge witnesses’ credibility, he said"

It's a criminal investigation, the officer is being investigated for criminal conduct. I know people get understandably frustrated when stuff with officers, (or with self-defense cases like Zimmerman/Martin) take more time than we're used to seeing for regular crimes. But they do take longer and it makes sense why. The inquiry isn't just about the facts of what happened, but also about whether the force that was obviously used was reasonable under all of the circumstances. You don't have to make those kinds of determinations in cases without police force and without self-defense components, so those things happen much faster.

Very fair point.

I fully agree with rainmaker's last two posts. I do not like over reactions (emotional or authoritative or otherwise). Seems like this has been a tragic series of over reactions and abusing authority since Saturday.

Had they been ordered to disperse?
And if so, did they obey that order in a timely fashion?

(I'm legit asking, haven't watched, searched out timelines, etc)

These are very fair points.

Still, in this day and age where everyone has access to twitter and a cell phone camera, and local government records are probably not all that secure--the local authorities are in a tough situation in terms of balancing protecting due process while maintaining control of the narrative (for example, in several of these cases, explaining why the policies they have implemented are justified especially in the situations like the journalist arrests, where citizen rights appear to be infringed).

The local leadership does not appear to be doing a good job of the later, and it is potentially hurting their ability to maintain the moral authority necessary to resolve the situation on their terms.

I honestly don't know. The only order I heard was for the media to stop filming (twice) including a final warning to turn off the cameras. That's when the rubber bullets and canisters started flying.

My response was in reference to gstelmack saying the police's job is to defend the town from looters. That clearly wasn't occurring.

edit: Thinking about it more, I know they had requested that all protests take place during daylight hours. I don't think it went as far as invoking a curfew.

I have never heard of a situation where a shooter's name was withheld for so long.

I understand the other details for the witness stuff, but there is no reason the name should still be withheld from the public.

Indeed. Overreactions to peaceful protest and then targeting the press makes it look like some Third World country.

And if so, was that order lawful?

I would just have released the name right away. Now that they haven't, they've risked an uptick in hostility in the protests once everyone has a name, and a face, and a background to comb through.

I can see how the error in judgment happens though. The courts have given them the power to temporarily hold back names, as long as its not a blanket rule, but when there's a particularized showing of some kind of threat. They do have that showing here with the threats online, so it's easy to leap too quickly from "we can" to "we will". I wonder what the union's role in all this is too (assuming these guys are unionized).

Regardless, that's not a debate you want to have in the middle of the street. Rarely does that end well.

Someone mentioned public reaction (or something along those lines earlier). I offer this totally as a random anecdote, obviously there are shortcomings with online polls, etc etc. And FTR, I stumbled across this looking for something totally unrelated. It was one of three random poll questions on the Macon, GA newspaper website (the other questions included one about the popularity of frozen yogurt marketed specifically to men)

Have the police in Ferguson, Missouri shown too much force in their actions against protestors?
12% Yes
76% No
12% I'm not sure

I wonder what that poll would be if you swapped in Waco or Ruby Ridge.

The Missouri Governor should have spoke earlier. He handles the media well.

{shrug} I point it out strictly as anecdotal since the topic came up.

Meanwhile, I'm kinda stunned that there's anybody who takes issue with federal actions in Waco. Hard to be more anti-Clinton than me but I hold no fault with the administration on that one.

It wasn't a knock on you. I just think the unwavering support police get from more conservative people is odd. There is so much talk about government getting too big, government getting too powerful, government taking away rights/freedom/guns in those circles. The Bundy Ranch was a huge right-wing cause despite the fact he was breaking the law.

I expect some levels of hypocrisy in politics but sometimes it gets a little ridiculous. There are a few people who have spoken out about it on the right but I'm surprised it's not a bigger issue for them.

I dunno how much of that was real & how much was manufactured though. I mean, you can imagine the political leanings of my social media audience. I was expecting flack for my comments on it (which was basically that he was a freeloader at best, an outright crook more likely). Instead I got quite a bit of agreement and only got grief from a couple of under-30 erstwhile hippies.

I think you are talking mainly about citizens and not the politicians. But in politics the anti-militarization of police movement has very few members of either party. So maybe the democratic reps might be saying more now but here is an example of how they vote...

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2014/roll329.xml

There is a big difference in having weapons and tools available and when/how they are used.

If a couple guys decide to go on a murder spree with assault rifles and body armor, cops don't stand much of a chance with only a Glock. Heck, your typical inner city gangs carry more firepower than what a standard police officer has on them at any time.

The Sheriff's department tells a different side to the "police gassing reporters and dismantling their equipment" rhetoric. I haven't read if the reporters involved confirm or deny whether they gave consent for the officers to move their stuff.

Gov. Nixon gives police control of Ferguson situation to Missouri State Highway Patrol : News

"Over the last few days, the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team has assisted in Ferguson at the request of the St. Louis County Police Department to help respond to looting and for protection of the property of Ferguson citizens and businesses. On Wednesday, August 13th, video footage was taken of St. Charles County SWAT officers handling media camera equipment. The position of the St. Charles County Sheriff’s Department is that the media has the right to cover these events and supports the freedom of the press, and the SWAT Team has not been any part of attempting to prevent media coverage. In fact, last night the SWAT Team officers were assisting the media in moving their camera equipment and media personnel to a safer area with their consent so that they could continue to cover the event. The Sheriff has notified St. Louis County Police that the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team is available to protect life and property but does not have a continued role in crowd control during this time of civil protest."

The Sheriff's Department is either lying or incredibly stupid. This doesn't look like helping them move with their consent. It looks like they fired a tear gas container right in front of them.

Tear gas forces Al Jazeera reporter to flee in Ferguson | Al Jazeera America

There's also a lot of video and reports of the police telling media to turn off their cameras besides this incident.

The St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team isn't necessarily the same entity that was involved in previous incidents involving interactions with the media. All police don't operate with a single mind. There's lots of agencies, lots of different individuals, some performing better than others.

Maybe things will be a little smoother now that that Missouri State Highway Patrol has official oversight of the whole thing.

From AP (quoting the local chief)

Didn't know that detail.

Then again I didn't realize that molotov cocktails were being thrown at police either.

And yet tear gas is "too much" of a response?

{shakes head}

We've truly lost our way.

Wait. We teachers have authority? :D

Yes....when its being thrown at innocent people its too much. When its thrown at reporters doing their constitutionally protected job its too much. When its affecting the innocent citizens in their homes, who it could kill if they have asthma by the way, then its too much. If its being thrown only at people rioting then i think fewer people get mad.

Dola -

Oh and the rubber bullets freaks me out...those arent exactly 100% non-lethal

If they're contributing to the situation, the environment for lawlessness then they should be dispersed. That's part of maintaining order, which is a higher priority in light of recent events.

The Patrol Captain in charge now seems to be doing a great job.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewir...son-protesters

I'm sure they love him. And he seems like quite the p.r. person.

Can anyone explain where the car is that he was supposedly struggling in? Why was their no ambulance at the scene. His parent are seen making it to the scene before an ambulance.

Also why was the body not covered up? The Ferguson police department basically left him uncovered in the streets as an example. Maybe I'm wrong and will be corrected but the video I posted is 10 mins long and tape had obviously been put around the scene so ask yourself why he was left in the street like this? Would the decency of placing a bag over the body screwed up any investigation?

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=537487053019061

“People really need to harshly judge the accuracy of this group, given that they’ve now given false information about several important things.”

So who is this group? Obviously it's Anonymous (statement made by Sgt. Colby Dolly) but you could also easily substitute "this group" with the Ferguson Police Department.

Do cops carry body bags? I mean, you mentioned there was no ambulance on the scene at that point, I always thought that was their thing (or the coroner's).

Or if you meant literally "a bag", like a Hefty or something ... OMG, I can only imagine the outcry about the insensitivity of such a thing.

On one of the other talking points

re: the naming/not-naming of the officer to this point. According to this local report -- a front page item today in fact -- it's uncommon for identity of officers involved in shooting to be revealed in the St.Louis area. Based on that, you might argue whether that's good policy or bad policy but it does not appear to be anything out of the ordinary.

They're releasing the name of the cop soon.

General question since I don't know the answer. Have they said how many times the kid was shot?