The Ferguson, MO Police Shooting

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

Tazing maybe, gassing not so much. If you don't want to get tear-gassed don't march next to the guy throwing rocks. If the guy next to you wasn't throwing rocks, and bends down to pick one up, it's time to go elsewhere.

This is a very valid point.

It should be noted that the police have said that 78 protesters/rioters have been arrested and 3 of them are from Ferguson.

Clear thinkers who rely on facts can see what's happening there.

None of this really has to do with Mike Brown or legitimate race relation concerns.

[BarryLee]

If you don't want to get tear-gassed don't march next to the guy throwing rocks.

Interestingly enough there was an incident last night where a group of people stole objects from a private lot and built a roadblock. The protesters then began to throw objects at the Police who responded with gas. As protesters in other areas heard the noise they began to run to that area. The reporter remarked how strange it was to see people actually running toward explosions and gas clouds.

[zincwarrior]

All the rioting would end if they just played Barney music over loudspeakers at any rioters. Alternatively a pack of barking wiener dogs. AS the old song goes "a bark so shrill, it will stop a riot..."

[Tom Servo]

All the rioting would end if they just played Barney music over loudspeakers at any rioters.

Again, we're confusing rioters with protesters. The latter group has every right to be there. Antagonizing them only creates more problems, which creates more of a justification for government overreach.

[BarryLee]

It should be noted that the police have said that 78 protesters/rioters have been arrested and 3 of them are from Ferguson.

I hate to sound like I’m racially stereotyping or something, but CNN showed several arrestees being loaded into transport vans. The vast majority were actually white and as I said earlier had the look of the professional anarchist WTO rioter type – whatever that is.

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I fear the longer these nightly protests go on the greater the likelihood of a major incident. Maybe the Police do need to back off and avoid provoking the protesters. While some businesses might suffer maybe after a night or two with no Police interaction everyone will just get tired and go home. I suspect the media will get tired of covering people holding signs and yelling.

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
All the rioting would end if they just played Barney music over loudspeakers at any rioters.

Again, we're confusing rioters with protesters. The latter group has every right to be there. Antagonizing them only creates more problems, which creates more of a justification for government overreach.

Nope. I was explicit in noting "rioters." Protesters are not doing anything illegal, and playing Barney music at them would just be cruel.

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
It should be noted that the police have said that 78 protesters/rioters have been arrested and 3 of them are from Ferguson.

I hate to sound like I’m racially stereotyping or something, but CNN showed several arrestees being loaded into transport vans. The vast majority were actually white and as I said earlier had the look of the professional anarchist WTO rioter type – whatever that is.

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I fear the longer these nightly protests go on the greater the likelihood of a major incident. Maybe the Police do need to back off and avoid provoking the protesters. While some businesses might suffer maybe after a night or two with no Police interaction everyone will just get tired and go home. I suspect the media will get tired of covering people holding signs and yelling.

Alternatively, act as if this is a natural disaster. Cordon off the area, and check everyone who wants to come in. If you want to come in, you have to be a resident.

[JimDandy]

Alternatively, act as if this is a natural disaster. Cordon off the area, and check everyone who wants to come in. If you want to come in, you have to be a resident.

And what basis do you have for restricting freedom of movement for non-residents? Is the guy who lives on the farm just outside town that needs groceries from the Wal Mart a resident?

Are the legitimate protesters from the next town over not free to protest?

Edit to Add: I feel for you. I don't have any answers, either. I only know there is no quick and easy answer. Anything that makes it harder to protest is going to touch on people's rights. Anything that makes it easier to protest is likely to make the rioting easier too.

Again, we're confusing rioters with protesters.

Protesters who riot are rioters. Protesters who continue to march next to rioters and provide them even tacit support could also be considered rioters.

That raises a question. This is the Legal forum. At what point does the protester become a rioter? Do they have to throw something? Do they have to hand something to someone to throw? Do they have to specifically tell someone to throw something? If the guy next to you is throwing rocks, is chanting the slogan that worked him up the first time enough to pass the imminent lawless action test?

[zincwarrior]

And what basis do you have for restricting freedom of movement for non-residents? Is the guy who lives on the farm just outside town that needs groceries from the Wal Mart a resident?

Are the legitimate protesters from the next town over not free to protest?

Similar requirements have been put in the place for natural disasters, including the entire Houston area after Ike. Same for smaller events such as fires, etc.

EDIT: looks like they might be doing some of this already.

But the hullabaloo — international media, National Guard, federal agents — has upended the lives of local residents. As Umana and I talk, word comes from his wife that the police are starting to shut down the streets near their house, and that he should head home soon. His son, also named Etefia, is home from college. He says they would need valid identification, with an address that shows they live in the area, to get past the checkpoints after a certain hour.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/...in-ferguson-mo

[JimDandy]

It's a bit different when the place is evacuated. If you want to Evacuate Ferguson, I suppose you could then make the case there's no freedom of movement or freedom of association impact by not letting non-residents in to visit the residents who are no longer there.

[Aguila Blanca]

Originally Posted by BarryLee

The protesters have made their point and gained attention, so let the process play out.

But if they just let it play out they can't control the outcome. Consider the fact that the process did play out in the Trayvon Martin shooting, and the shooter was ultimately found Not Guilty. So now Martin's parents are adding their voices to the lynch mob in THIS case ... because they weren't satisfied that there was justice done in the case of their son.

Reasonable people agree to trust the process, even accepting that the process is not (and cannot be) 100 percent perfect. Look at the numbers of old cases that have been re-opened and reversed based on DNA analysis that wasn't available at the time of the original crime and trial. But we have a Constitution, and it provides for trial by jury. But unreasonable people who are more interested in their own agenda than in true justice don't really care about the process. They want a lynching.

[Tom Servo]

At what point does the protester become a rioter? Do they have to throw something?

Let me turn that around. Pretend I'm at a peaceful protest. Riot police show up, and they throw a tear-gas canister at my position.

I really don't want to breathe that stuff in, and I haven't done anything...nuts to that--I'm throwing it back. Now we have escalation. Riot cops pull out the fire hoses or the rubber bullets and spray the crowd indiscriminately.

Then other people take action. Are they rioters? Perhaps they are now, but they didn't show up to be.

All through modern history, the presence of riot shields and helmets has served to escalate the very tensions they're supposed to control.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

I really don't want to breathe that stuff in, and I haven't done anything...nuts to that--I'm throwing it back.

I fully realize that that's what DOES happen. However, just as it is the armed citizens responsibility to avoid conflict when possible, it is the protester's responsibility to avoid conflict when possible.

The responsible and wise thing to do when the situation shows signs of escalating is to LEAVE. Don't want to breathe tear gas? Run away. Come back tomorrow.

[Tom Servo]

The responsible and wise thing to do when the situation shows signs of escalating is to LEAVE. Don't want to breathe tear gas? Run away. Come back tomorrow.

That's wise and prudent, but it misses the initial point: throwing the canister at a crowd of folks who are doing nothing but holding up signs and yelling. It's the indiscriminate usage of such means that bothers me. Might there be someone who was looting last night in the crowd? Perhaps, but that doesn't justify using force on everyone.

The most recent rounds of arrests have involved officers walking into the crowds and pulling out the suspects. The crowds have allowed it to happen without incident.

The whole point of a protest is conflict in a way. The question is who escalates it? In the Ferguson case, that blame lies with the mayor, police chief, and a lot of bad decisions on the ground.

[Brian Pfleuger]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

That's wise and prudent, but it misses the initial point: throwing the canister at a crowd of folks who are doing nothing but holding up signs and yelling. It's the indiscriminate usage of such means that bothers me. Might there be someone who was looting last night in the crowd? Perhaps, but that doesn't justify using force on everyone.

That's true, and I think it speaks to a much larger issue.

Still, under the circumstances in question, it would be wise and prudent to leave rather than escalate and/or risk arrest.

In fact, under these circumstances, I think wisdom and prudence dictates day-time only protests.

[Fishing_Cabin]

Originally Posted by JimDandy

Tazing maybe, gassing not so much. If you don't want to get tear-gassed don't march next to the guy throwing rocks. If the guy next to you wasn't throwing rocks, and bends down to pick one up, it's time to go elsewhere.

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

Still, under the circumstances in question, it would be wise and prudent to leave rather than escalate and/or risk arrest.

In fact, under these circumstances, I think wisdom and prudence dictates day-time only protests.

I agree with both thoughts. I seem to remember some talks about the McDuffie riots years ago, and (going from memory) it seems that they were criticized for being to soft early on, but yet there were still deaths/injuries during that incident as well as a fair amount of property damage. Looking at this incident in Ferguson, and the complaints about being too strict early on, I wonder if there is any middle ground really.

I support peaceful protest on issues. I draw the line at people looting, robbing, burning others property, and harming others. I actually think well of the few protesters who tried to protect some businesses at times during the protest. I dislike those who stand with the ones looting, throwing rocks or Molotov cocktails.

I feel that when this is over, no issues will be resolved, and the area may come out more economically depressed then before.

[Aguila Blanca]

Personally, I think protests should be protests against some sort of injustice. Here, NOBODY (except maybe the police officer, his partner, and Brown's accomplice) knows whether or not there has been an injustice. Until the process has played out and the officer either convicted or cleared, the process has not played out.

Ergo, the protesters are not engaging in a legitimate protest. Brown's parents know how big he was. If he had criminal tendencies and/or gang affiliations, they must have known or at least suspected. If he had anger management issues, the parents knew about them. So he went out and got himself shot by a cop ... and the parents (as always in these cases) are trying to portray him as a harmless victim of police aggression. And they've sold that story to a big chunk of people.

What if the officer's story is true?

[Mainah]

As far as the shooting goes it seems like this is going to play out very much like the Martin case. One side will claim that he was an innocent kid on his way home from Sunday school and the other will claim that he was a thug hell-bent on destruction. As in the Martin case I suspect that the truth will fall somewhere in the middle.

And sure, it makes sense to run the other way when the tear gas gets lobbed. And that seems like the best course of action in Ferguson tonight. But that doesn't mean that it will always be the best plan. There have been times in our history when harsh measures have been used to deny basic Constitutional rights. My dad marched at Selma, he told me about it.

In the end I don't know if Hamas-like tactics (using peaceful civilians as cover) come in response to excessive force. Or if that force is needed to combat those tactics. Either way it still makes sense to me to debate all of this now, because this sure strikes me as a glimpse at the future. And I still believe that the issues at play could have an impact on the national gun control debate

[Ruger480]

What if the officer's story is true?

I wonder about that myself. It certainly wouldn't look good for people voicing equality concerns in regards to law enforcement.

I also worry about what will happen when/if he is found innocent. Look at the number of times a minority has been shot and killed by an LEO and it was found justified. People are going to be upset.

[L2R]

so I have to post so I can keep up.

I will just say that whatever happened, the truth has been trampled to the point that we may never know what truly happened.

My guess is everyone was wrong. Some more than others.

Has anyone pinned down the police chief why he never installed video cameras in the field? This alone speaks volumes to me.

As they cannot defend themselves with video, that coupled with the way they mishandled the immediate aftermath of this event is enough to say they need to overhaul those in charge regardless of what went down earlier between Wilson and Brown.

[jrinne0430]

Even if they had cameras, they could deny the release (as some depts do) to the public or claim it malfunctioned...happens more than we like to admit..

[rope2feet]

Anyone know the make and model of the weapon used by Wilson to stop Brown? Caliber? Bullet type?

[WyMark]

Originally Posted by Brian Pfleuger

That's true, and I think it speaks to a much larger issue.

Still, under the circumstances in question, it would be wise and prudent to leave rather than escalate and/or risk arrest.

In fact, under these circumstances, I think wisdom and prudence dictates day-time only protests.

Brian, I agree completely. With Tom.

What you're stating is the police mind set for show of overwhelming force and pain infliction. If you keep hitting the dog on the nose with a rolled up paper, then prudence dictates that he not crap on the rug. Is the role of law enforcement, in the face of mostly peaceful protest, to "serve and protect" or "subdue and control"? I'd argue that the show of force in this case has done much more to incite the violence than to avert it. Maybe that's the intent.

Here's a picture of the Ukrainian Army facing off with pro-Russian militants:




Oh wait, that's the 95% white Ferguson/St Louis County police getting set up to "serve and protect" the 85% black local community. I find these images very disturbing, and a compelling reminder of why we fight so hard to protect the RKBA.

[zxcvbob]

I zoomed way in on that picture. I didn't see any nametags, and only one maybe-badge.

[jrinne0430]

Very valid points WyMark. The police response, in particular to the pre-rioting, did nothing but create the spark. As for the keeping arms, it would have little affect on the armored RVs in the pic.