Jump to content
Merus

Ferguson

Recommended Posts

From the footage of the initial police response to protesters, it's abundantly clear that the local and county police are perfectly happy to point their guns at someone for no reason whatsoever. That's a huge red flag, as leveling a firearm at someone is an explicit threat of lethal force that vastly escalates any situation where that threat is not already present. That stuff needs to be reigned in immediately. The nonchalance with which police in this country threaten (and employ) lethal force is completely unacceptable and needs to be eradicated. I hope this issue is one where the Rand Paul wing of the Republican party and the Elizabeth Warren wing of the Democratic party can actually come together to change things from the federal level, because it sure seems to be too entrenched at the local level to change.

 

This in my opinion is the heart of the problem.  The DOD gave weapons to local police departments without first ensuring they had the discipline and training to use them effectively, or the knowledge of when to use them.  I imagine this is still happening today, since we only learn about it once it gets out of hand.  I would hope the first step in remedying this problem is reviewing the process by which local departments get these kinds of resources (or if they should get them), and even taking them away from departments that have overreached.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://animalnewyork.com/2014/ferguson/ Photo & audio journalism.

 

 

All of the "evidence" is ridiculously foggy. First off, Brown didn't match the description of the shoplifter as reported by the shopowner. Also, the released police report is timestamped for a minute before the actual crime was supposed to have taken place. Does that not seem crazy suspicious? Also also, all initial statements from Ferguson PD indicated that Brown was not stopped for being suspected of a crime, which they summarily backtracked on today.

 

https://twitter.com/newsneighbor/status/500341931516637184

 

"Why was #Ferguson PD still looking for the suspect 7 hours after Brown had been killed?"

 

There's another press conference or Q&A session (not sure which) going on with the police chief right now. There will be more reporting soon, if not more information.

 

e: Chief said the officer did not know about the robbery and Mike Brown was not (or was not stopped for being) a robbery suspect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Chief Jackson: When the officer stopped Michael brown he was NOT aware that Michael Brown was a robbery suspect

 

Jackson just said Brown was stopped because he was "walking down the street blocking traffic, that's it."

 

Oh, so they were just telling us about the shoplifting suspicion for the hell of it then. Got it. Great. Not a distraction. Sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This in my opinion is the heart of the problem.  The DOD gave weapons to local police departments without first ensuring they had the discipline and training to use them effectively, or the knowledge of when to use them.  I imagine this is still happening today, since we only learn about it once it gets out of hand.  I would hope the first step in remedying this problem is reviewing the process by which local departments get these kinds of resources (or if they should get them), and even taking them away from departments that have overreached.

 

The para-militarization of the police is an issue that also needs to be addressed (as does the completely broken acquisition process for DoD hardware to which it is closely entwined), but the more fundamental issue here is the nonchalance with which firearms are handled and employed by police, particularly in poor communities. A .38 caliber revolver will kill you just as dead as an M4 decked out with all the latest 'tactical' gadgets. I suspect handguns are used in the vast majority of shootings by police despite all the surplus military hardware they've received over recent years.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The para-militarization of the police is an issue that also needs to be addressed (as does the completely broken acquisition process for DoD hardware to which it is closely entwined), but the more fundamental issue here is the nonchalance with which firearms are handled and employed by police, particularly in poor communities. A .38 caliber revolver will kill you just as dead as an M4 decked out with all the latest 'tactical' gadgets. I suspect handguns are used in the vast majority of shootings by police despite all the surplus military hardware they've received over recent years.

 

Thanks for your thoughts from a military perspective on this, it's not a viewpoint that is widely accessible around here. 

 

I've known my share of cops over the years (for some reason I've had multiple cop neighbors), and my perception is that 20-30 years ago, pulling a gun was a BIG FUCKING DEAL.  But in the last 10-15 years, it feels like unholstering a gun has become a very common response.  I don't have data to back that up, but the attitude and expectation certainly seems to be changing.

 

And this is fucking nuts.  We do not know how many people US police kill a year.  Like, we don't have a clue.  Only 5 percent of law enforcement agencies report to a voluntary FBI database on "justifiable homicides", and for that 5 percent, an average of 400 killings a year are reported.  The report doesn't say what percentage of that population that the 5 percent covers (if it's mostly made up of large, metro agencies, it could easily be 50 percent of the population).  White police officers average killing almost a 100 black people a year, of which 18 percent are under 21. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've known my share of cops over the years (for some reason I've had multiple cop neighbors), and my perception is that 20-30 years ago, pulling a gun was a BIG FUCKING DEAL.  But in the last 10-15 years, it feels like unholstering a gun has become a very common response.  I don't have data to back that up, but the attitude and expectation certainly seems to be changing.

 

To piggyback on that point, I saw this

referenced in a newscast earlier today.  In the same program an ex-cop came on and said that over the course of his career training became less about de-escalation and prevention, and more about the justification of force after it had been used.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The para-militarization of the police is an issue that also needs to be addressed (as does the completely broken acquisition process for DoD hardware to which it is closely entwined), but the more fundamental issue here is the nonchalance with which firearms are handled and employed by police, particularly in poor communities. A .38 caliber revolver will kill you just as dead as an M4 decked out with all the latest 'tactical' gadgets. I suspect handguns are used in the vast majority of shootings by police despite all the surplus military hardware they've received over recent years.

 

That's a good point, and most likely correct that most police shootings happen with handguns, as was the case in Ferguson.  The scenario I imagine in my head is that an officer brings a .38 in case he/she needs it, but if that same officer is going through the trouble of suiting up in riot gear, fueling up an MRAP, etc, the decision to use that equipment has already been made.  I think you're right in saying that less military surplus going to local communities won't solve problem, but from the outside it seems as though access to military equipment is more likely to cause whatever problems are brewing under the surface to boil over.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems like they're mainly trying to deflect attention from the shooting. I'm sure the media will take the bait and quickly become distracted. Theft isn't a capital offense and police aren't judge, jury, and executioner. None of that is up for debate, but I'm sure media "experts" will waste everyone's time with that "debate" nonetheless.

 

Yeah it sounds like they are tying to re-paint Mike Brown as a thug, it feels weird that the chief would mention they found the stolen goods on him. I don't understand why you wouldn't just say 'we approached the suspect after the robbery, a struggle happened, etc). Why keep clinging on to the 'the officer did not know he was a suspect' thing? Do they think that makes it better if he has slightly less motive? They are definitely muddying the waters with this release and without any solid proof on either side I think the cop walks with a slap on the wrist and Mike Brown gets the Trayvon martin treatment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a good point, and most likely correct that most police shootings happen with handguns, as was the case in Ferguson.  The scenario I imagine in my head is that an officer brings a .38 in case he/she needs it, but if that same officer is going through the trouble of suiting up in riot gear, fueling up an MRAP, etc, the decision to use that equipment has already been made.  I think you're right in saying that less military surplus going to local communities won't solve problem, but from the outside it seems as though access to military equipment is more likely to cause whatever problems are brewing under the surface to boil over.

 

I wonder, is a part of the growing willingness for many in the police to accept escalation through violence the fact that a .38 revolver is seen as so much less "violent" than an M4, riot gear, and a MRAP? Not to mention that when you're given hammers by the government for free, every problem looks like a nail...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, is a part of the growing willingness for many in the police to accept escalation through violence the fact that a .38 revolver is seen as so much less "violent" than an M4, riot gear, and a MRAP? Not to mention that when you're given hammers by the government for free, every problem looks like a nail...

 

I actually wonder what the variety of non-lethal tools has done to the psychology of police interactions (both on police and civilian sides).  Non-lethal devices are still violent uses of force.  Tear gas, rubber bullets, tasers, dogs, pepper spray, bean bags, batons, etc.  A cop 30 years ago had a limited to non-existent supply of non-lethal tools.  Thus, the options were limited to de-escalate, hit someone with a baton or pull a gun.  But once you're trained to immediately fall back to violent, if non-lethal, tools, then you've been trained to go to violence much earlier than if the dominant options were de-escalation and death. 

 

I'm not arguing that non-lethal tools are bad, I would generally believe they are massively important.  But I wonder if there has been a cultural unintended consequence of the wide proliferation of them.  Police don't just have a hammer, they have a tool box full of a bunch of different colors of hammers. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that Less-than-lethal weapons also can be quite lethal in some cases. But yeah, it's better than going straight to the M4's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder, is a part of the growing willingness for many in the police to accept escalation through violence the fact that a .38 revolver is seen as so much less "violent" than an M4, riot gear, and a MRAP? Not to mention that when you're given hammers by the government for free, every problem looks like a nail...

I suspect it's in large part related to the War on Drugs. Going at least as far back as my childhood in the '80s up until 9/11, the threat of gangs and cartels involved with the illicit drug trade was always pointed to as the reason why SWAT teams needed to be established, why duty revolvers needed to be replaced with semiautomatic pistols, why no knock warrants were required (which prioritize the preservation of evidence over the lives of both suspects and law enforcement personnel), and why the police required armored vehicles. It seems like in the past decade the War on Terror and the glut of military hardware built for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan sped up a process that has been going on for awhile.

 

I actually wonder what the variety of non-lethal tools has done to the psychology of police interactions (both on police and civilian sides). Non-lethal devices are still violent uses of force. Tear gas, rubber bullets, tasers, dogs, pepper spray, bean bags, batons, etc. A cop 30 years ago had a limited to non-existent supply of non-lethal tools. Thus, the options were limited to de-escalate, hit someone with a baton or pull a gun. But once you're trained to immediately fall back to violent, if non-lethal, tools, then you've been trained to go to violence much earlier than if the dominant options were de-escalation and death.

I'm not arguing that non-lethal tools are bad, I would generally believe they are massively important. But I wonder if there has been a cultural unintended consequence of the wide proliferation of them. Police don't just have a hammer, they have a tool box full of a bunch of different colors of hammers.

It definitely complicates things. I know the US Navy and Marine Corps employ a fairly complicated use of force continuum (beginning on page 26 of this pdf) that outlines when the use of different levels of force is appropriate in a law enforcement / security context. The appropriate usage of a baton actually falls under a number of categories. If used in a

, it falls at one level, if used defensively or to strike non-vital areas (thighs, for example) it falls at another level, and if used to strike the head it's considered a use of deadly force equivalent to shooting someone. OC (pepper) spray is another can of worms. Deciding whether to employ it involves accounting for things like wind direction and intensity and the susceptibility of your fellow security personnel to it, all for a roll of the dice on whether or not the belligerent person or people you're employing it on will actually be affected enough to buy you time to subdue and restrain them. Those were two less-lethal tools I was issued and am personally familiar with. I'm sure once things like tasers, rubber bullets, and tear gas are introduced to the equation its an even more difficult calculus. And as you say, in addition to the complexity their presence creates, the threat or employment of any of those techniques is likely to escalate a situation at least temporarily.

To that end, I think it's worth noting one other area where the footage of the events in Ferguson are way outside my training or experience. As I was trained, the employment of less-lethal force was always a temporary measure designed to buy you time to gain control of a situation and de-escalate it. For example, OC spray is intended to buy you 5-10 seconds to handcuff someone and take them into custody. A baton is intended to tip the scales in a physical altercation (often through painfully blocking the unarmed strikes of an assailant) so that you can rapidly subdue them and take them into custody. There was always an end-game in mind that involved the situation being de-escalated. I don't understand what things like the indiscriminate use of CS gas and rubber bullets are even intended to accomplish. Disperse a crowd? For what, like ten minutes then rinse and repeat with an angrier crowd? I just don't understand the thinking involved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't gone through much of this thread yet, but really hoping I don't see any defense of the fucking cops or how the media reacted to this situation.

 

Also, important regarding media distortion based on race:

 

http://iftheygunnedmedown.tumblr.com/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if something like the compstat system in NY is widespread in the US. It seems to encourage immediate preemptive action over necessary reaction, and places the perception of effectiveness (and thus the value and funding of a precinct) on the number of arrests one can make.

 

Also I wonder how easy it is to dismiss officers based on their behavior, and if management is reluctant to replace sections of their force because it consumes too much time and energy . The police seem to be interested in protecting itself as an institution as cabal of individuals rather than an institution upholding an ethic of law enforcement, and passes that off as an interest in preserving a body responsible for law and order.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's not forget that Less-than-lethal weapons also can be quite lethal in some cases. But yeah, it's better than going straight to the M4's.

Even when not lethal they hurt like a motherfuck and can cause serious injury. There's a photo of a woman in Ferguson who got hit with a rubber bullet in her abdomen, and it looks like her skin is cratered.

 

Also back when I lived in Portland, OR there was an issue of police arresting a woman at a transit station, and when she was on the ground getting cuffed a cop put a beanbag shotgun up to her point blank and fired. She lived, didn't lose her arm or anything, but it was a wild abuse of the gear cops have.

 

Essentially what the country needs is Federal level guidelines of police training, especially geared toward when and how to use all the equipment at their disposal. Because they seem to carry whatever they want and use it in whatever fashion, even though it's meant for more extreme circumstances. They're too trigger happy and, worse yet, tend to get away with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Essentially what the country needs is Federal level guidelines of police training, especially geared toward when and how to use all the equipment at their disposal. Because they seem to carry whatever they want and use it in whatever fashion, even though it's meant for more extreme circumstances. They're too trigger happy and, worse yet, tend to get away with it.

I agree with this, but before that what the country needs is to stop handing out free military equipment to the police.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again there are probably legitimate, extremely rare times when military equipment to some extent is necessary, and maybe the best short term course of action is forcefully instilling a sense of discretion in police forces. Unlike an armed civilian population, regulating weaponry use in a police force should be easier and more direct, right?

 

...right?

 

I feel like even if these kinds of police just had billy clubs and tasers we would see the same frequency, if not magnitude, of violence and brutality. Also the tendency to take excessive force might have some internal, systemic cause next to the political and social ones. I'd be interested to see how separated from everything, just being a police officer with the pressure from implicit quotas, supervisors, and employment have to do with this kind of behavior.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Then again there are probably legitimate, extremely rare times when military equipment to some extent is necessary, and maybe the best short term course of action is forcefully instilling a sense of discretion in police forces. Unlike an armed civilian population, regulating weaponry use in a police force should be easier and more direct, right?

 

This was the way it was supposed to be set up though.  SWAT Teams were intended to be a police force that used military grade equipment and training to respond to extraordinary situations.   These forces are now deployed hundreds of times a week nationwide (some estimate it as much as 100 times a day).   And the origin of SWAT is tied into the suppression of protesting farm workers in California.  And look where we are almost 50 years later.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The "S" in SWAT stands for "Special". Deploying tanks, long rifles, automatic weapons and grenades against unarmed civilians where the best excuse is "someone threw a bottle" I guess is the special we deserve for looking the other way for 15 years, encouraging profiling, and allowing departments to investigate themselves, but not the special I expect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Remember that bank robbery in LA years ago where the two guys were decked out in body armor from head to toe, and the police firearms couldn't do shit to them? That's when higher-grade weapons can be useful for the police.

 

Now. How many times does that sort of things actually happen? (This isn't a trick question, it's not often.)

 

Edit - I mean, common sense would dictate that you bring this equipment out as needed. But for some reason there's a strong belief that brandishing it over any incident will act as a deterrent. It's bonkers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Things I'm hearing:

 

Camera footage and story about Michael Brown theft was released against explicit objections of the DoJ as irrelevant and inflammatory, and moreover doesn't address the FOIA request that they were supposedly complying with.

 

Ferguson PD's reappearance last night was due to the county prosecutor disagreeing with having jurisdiction handed over to the highway patrol

 

Governor just called 'state of emergency' and curfew in ferguson -- presumably due to the looting -- that is, the looting which the police, standing around in riot gear, did nothing to stop, and which the peaceful protestors stopped themselves by standing in the way of local businesses so looters couldn't enter

 

Protestors don't recognize any of the looters, and they seemed to be quite coordinated -- out of town opportunists rather than 'protestors turned violent', as is the story news media would apparently have us believe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Governor just called 'state of emergency' and curfew in ferguson -- presumably due to the looting -- that is, the looting which the police, standing around in riot gear, did nothing to stop, and which the peaceful protestors stopped themselves by standing in the way of local businesses so looters couldn't enter

 

I'm catching up on the new news, but to be fair here, it sounds like some of the protest organizers didn't want the police to try and stop the looting, for fear of an even greater escalation of violence. 

 

St. Louis Alderman Antonio French, who has been a fixture on Twitter and at nightly street demonstrations, spent early Saturday trying to pacify the protesters, most of them young men.

 

French tweeted later Saturday morning that he and another community activist had met with Missouri State Highway Patrol Capt. Ron Johnson, who is overseeing Ferguson security, and had agreed that police should not advance to stop the looting.

 

“I want to be clear,” French said later on Twitter. “Police not coming in at this point — even with the looting — was a good thing. It could have become very violent.”

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if they tried to stop it anything like the way they tried to stop a peaceful protest, yeah.

 

Yeah, it's because the protestors were afraid of what the police would do, which is terrible, but that does seem to be what played out with part of the looting last night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×