[News] The USA Police State will never satisfy its lust for beating, gassing, and imprisoning minorities

The problem is that there ARE people there that want to protest peacefully. They're angry and want to voice that anger in a peaceful assembly.

Unfortunately, violent anarchists (many of whom have been confirmed as outsiders from the community) that have agitated the situation or looters taking advantage of the situation have made it all the worse by association.

On the other hand, Ferguson police promised early - on camera, on national news - that they would not use tear gas.

Tear gas has been used.

So as @Dave said, both sides have handled this very badly.
 
So far there have been five businesses looted, three on fire, and two police cruisers on fire tonight. Ferguson is burning.

And you are complaining about tear gas.

I suppose what you'd like to see is the police leave the city, stop protecting life and property, and have the looters and rioters have their way?

Or are you suggesting they skip tear gas and go straight to bullets?

As far as I can tell, there is nothing the police can possibly do that you, Dave, and Charlie would agree is a reasonable course of action.
Thou shalt not post pictures complaining about Strawmen and then commit one yourself.
 
So far there have been five businesses looted, three on fire, and two police cruisers on fire tonight. Ferguson is burning.

And you are complaining about tear gas.

I suppose what you'd like to see is the police leave the city, stop protecting life and property, and have the looters and rioters have their way?

Or are you suggesting they skip tear gas and go straight to bullets?

As far as I can tell, there is nothing the police can possibly do that you, Dave, and Charlie would agree is a reasonable course of action.
*sigh* This is why I don't get involved in political events or discussions like this. Because my words are twisted in a way I didn't mean it.

I'm not condoning this violence. I'm pretty sure I made that very fucking clear. This isn't the way to deal with it. Violence only begets more violence.

But there is a report that a small group of people tried to carry a woman having a heart attack or a medical emergency towards the police, only to be turned away with beanbag shots and such. They weren't armed. They were trying to help someone.

The police action here has only made a situation go from bad to worse. So have the looters and anarchists.

I'm not condoning either side. The only side I support is the side that want to peacefully protest.

But go ahead. Twist my words again. I'm done.
 
Last edited:
It's not a hard position to call tear gas inappropriate when it's something we literally wouldn't use on an invading army. We treat the citizens of our own country worse than actual terrorists when it comes to crowd control.

I'm really hoping some day those less than lethal crowd control options we've spent billions on pan out, because right now our only options are chemical weapons banned for war, rubber bullets that kill as often as incapacitate, and the ol' wood shampoo.

As for Ferguson... let it burn. Let everyone show what they really are tonight.
 
I doubt there's anything that can be done to restore order without immense force being applied. Seems like Ferguson has been simmering with racial tensions, crime, and poverty for quite awhile now and this issue is what finally brought it to boil over. Ugh, what a ugly situation all around. . .
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I'm fine with an escalation of force when the situation requires it, such as what is probably needed tonight. Just not an object of first resort, which has been to often the case in the past.
 

Zappit

Staff member
Thing is, this madness was happening no matter what the grand jury decided. There were too many people there ready to riot, to loot, and to burn down buildings. Hell, the convenience store that Brown was suspected of stealing from was looted for the, what, fourth time now? As soon as they announced no indictment, a large group went running off into the night from the courthouse, and you knew all hell was about to break loose.

Ferguson needs to stand as a lesson, and not one having anything to do with race. It should have everything to do with the dangers of gossip, social media, and a frenzied 24-hour news cycle that whips up the populace into an ill-informed frenzy. Nobody had all the facts. Nobody except law enforcement and the forensics teams. What happened was a narrative was formed long before the investigation even started, and too many people wanting that narrative to be reality no matter the evidence. Be it for a story, TV, for an opportunity to advance a political agenda, or for a chance to create chaos. It was never checked. Ferguson is burning tonight because far too many people purposefully elected to be willfully ignorant of the facts, to jump to conclusions, and to embrace a fantasy.

Yes, the Michael Brown shooting was an absolute tragedy. But the evidence demonstrates there was a violent altercation between Brown and Wilson. We don't know who instigated for sure, but Wilson did approach Brown because he fit the description of a robbery suspect. The blood trails back up Wilson's account, as do the autopsies. There was nothing to suggest the shooting was murder or manslaughter. This case was given more scrutiny than most any other cases by the authorities on multiple levels, including an FBI that went in to ensure a proper, honest investigation. We've seen far too many instances where minorities are actually victimized by the police, and those are the victims we should march for, and demand justice for. Officer Wilson should not be crucified for defending himself. Officer Wilson should not be the one to answer for all those times when police did do wrong to an innocent victim, because that's what he's come to symbolize in the eyes of many. He is the single point on which generations of racial tension and anger is being focused.

And evidence will not be enough. To so many people, Officer Wilson is nothing more than a racist cop who got a free pass for murdering a young black man. The evidence does not matter because the narrative is what's important. People were driven to believe a script, a screenplay generated by underlying distrust, anger, and an information system clogged with hearsay and speculation. People believed what they wanted to believe, and carried that to the extreme.

And now Ferguson is burning because of that.

This story blew up on social media, was written with no facts, was driven by individuals motivated by advancing the narrative that developed in the aftermath of the shooting, and grew out of control. They seized on a city's underlying tension and strained it to the breaking point. And they will walk away from the wreckage of Ferguson believing they accomplished something, and will sit back and wait for the next one. They have no interest in healing wounds or seeking peace, only that, in their own twisted perception, they are somehow proven "right". They know how to manipulate emotions, and they are dangerous.

As far as I can see, the only heroes in this story are the honest-to-goodness peaceful protestors. When members of the crowd started hurling debris at the police in front of the courthouse, they stepped in front of that group and tried to force them to back off and not make the situation worse. In a situation as volatile and dangerous as that, their actions are nothing short of courageous.

Ugh, it's late, and I've said just about everything I care to say about the matter.
 

Dave

Staff member
I think I'd be way more upset with the looting in Ferguson if the looters were FROM there. But they aren't. There were dozens of arrests made and none of them were from the area. Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana yes. St. Louis, Missouri, no.

The cops there used teargas effectively. They said they would not use it on peaceful protests. They didn't. Not sure where @stienman got where I was anti-police, but I don't think they handled it poorly this time. The first time, yes. But they were put in a terrible situation because of an inept administration that seems to have done everything in their power to make sure the night was filled with violence and mayhem (like me!).
  • Announcing the the grand jury had a decision but that they would announce later. This gave the rioters time to travel there. Like that idiot who killed herself on the way. These aren't smart people.
  • Bringing up the national guard and announcing a state of emergency. This told everyone that they fully expected a riot and that they would react severely. It sent the wrong "us against them" message.
  • Announcing it at night. How fucking dumb was that? The people who would most riot do so at night under the cover of darkness. Why do this on their terms?
The whole thing was just handled stupidly. The residents of Ferguson were trying to keep the peace and doing their best to stop "the knuckleheads" who only came to riot and probably could give a shit about Brown. But there were too many so the residents went home.

I thought the prosecutor laid out a very compelling case and his release of information should have been enough to quell any protests. But the ones doing the rioting aren't beholden to the truth, they just wanted to watch the world burn and maybe bust some shit up.
 
A public defender's take on the whole thing:

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/2nbtby/no_indictment_in_ferguson_case/cmcaiyh

My armchair opinion (speaking as public defender) is that the prosecutor made some questionable decisions on what evidence to present to the grand jury. The grand jury system is often criticized (by me and other defense attorneys) as "the playground of the prosecutor" and they get to basically limit and control all evidence that a grand jury considers in order to get whatever result they want.

In this situation, it seems extremely questionable to have the actual officer testify at a Grand Jury hearing. It makes it personal for the grand jury, it makes it more about "do we believe him or not" instead of whether the legal standard is met or not, and it provides massive amounts of irrelevant evidence that is confusing and not relevant to the decisions that they need to make.

Probable cause clearly exists with nothing more than the (1) number of shots fired, (2) the fact that the suspect was unarmed, (3) the dispute between medical examiners, (4) even a single witness that says something that doesn't match exactly with the officer's testimony.

I cannot count the number of times a judge has told me "probable cause is an extremely low standard but your objection is noted for the record." In most cases, all it takes is a single witness that says something that MIGHT be a crime or a single discrepancy in testimony from someone claiming to be innocent. If just a single witness says "his back was turned" - THAT is probable cause for every defendant I have ever represented (which are, of course, the poor and people of color). If there is even a single thought of "did he really NEED to pull his gun? Are we 100% sure?" you have PC.

The prosecutor's decision to put all evidence before the grand jury seems extremely suspect to me. If he wanted to simply present enough to indict (which is his job in that situation) he would have only put on the evidence that raised questions about what happened (thereby showing that it is worth pursuing a full investigation for trial) - and let the actual TRIAL system work to resolve innocence or guilt. That is how the system is DESIGNED to work.

I very much doubt he takes that approach when charging drug suspects, because it creates the exact issues of clouding the legal standards and confusing the grand jury into thinking they are deciding innocence or guilt when they are not.
 

Dave

Staff member
The federal prosecutor can only establish a federal case against someone. What federal laws would apply to this case?
I just heard that there was a federal prosecutor involved. I know nothing more than that. They were saying that last night on CNN.

 
There will a federal investigation on the misconduct of the Ferguson police (as they failed to properly document... anything and that is suspicious) but whether or not that leads to arrests is another thing.
 
Some small American town police departments have tanks. They don't need tanks. That isn't something the police should be supporting.
I think you mis-spelled APC. I've not heard of any police units fielding armor.

That being said, there ARE places that NEED armored vehicles for SWAT. Possum Hollow, Virginia is probably not one of those places, true.

And the nature of the APCs is important... an M113, while cool, is probably a touch excessive for any other considerations outside of capacity. Even an MRAP is a bit much.

But for departments on a budget, the option to buy from DRMO is veeeeeery tempting.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
I often tried to explain the difference between a tank and an APC to Pauline while we played Battlefield. It never stuck.
 
Though the measures taken against the people of Ferguson were pretty dumb moves by Ferguson PD, it was smart of them to keep Wilson from saying anything, because if the stuff I'm seeing purporting to be his statements to the grand jury are what he actually said, he's an idiot.
 

figmentPez

Staff member
Tumblr has a lot of posts about forcing police officers to wear "tamper proof body cameras"; that sounds really expensive. Police budgets are already making for underpaid officers, working too many hours, with understaffed shifts. Do we really want to make it even harder to properly fund the necessary amount of good officers on patrol? While body cameras might make it slightly easier to prosecute bad cops, once they all roll out, but in the meantime it sounds like it would just make the problem worse, without fixing any of the other underlying problems.
 

GasBandit

Staff member
In an age where nearly every person carries a video camera on them, and the police are under more scrutiny than they have ever been in history, I really wonder if officercams will really be that big.

Oh, the article says that. Ah.
 
I've been less active in this thread than I'd hope partly from moving cross country (sup Nashville), BUT

Darren Wilson did an interview with ABC News stating he has no remorse for anything that happened already

also the actual words from the Grand Jury Documents are FUCKING HORRIFYING. Wilson calls Brown "a demon" and refers to him as "it" on multiple occasions. It's fucking stunning. Like if I wanted to make up some testimony, I'd say "nah, that's too outrageous, no one would believe it".

also here's a fun little news story about the dirtbag piece of shit prosecutor McCulloch

http://www.newsweek.com/ferguson-prosecutor-robert-p-mccullochs-long-history-siding-police-267357

I feel a little bad calling him a piece of shit since his dad was killed by a criminal when he was 12, and that's a hell of a trauma for any human being. But.

Fourteen years ago, the two officers who shot Murray and Beasley were also invited to testify before the grand jury. Both men told jurors that Murray’s car was coming at them and that they feared being run over. McCulloch said that “every witness who was out there testified that it made some forward motion.” But a later federal investigation showed that the car had never come at the two officers: Murray never took his car out of reverse.

An exhaustive St. Louis Post-Dispatch investigation found that only three of the 13 detectives who testified had said the car moved forward: the two who unloaded their guns and a third whose testimony was, as McCulloch admitted, “obviously…completely wrong.” McCulloch never introduced independent evidence to help clarify for the grand jury whether Murray’s car moved forward.

On the last day of testimony, an investigator in McCulloch’s office read out a list of every interaction Murray and Beasley had had with law enforcement, even arrests that never resulted in charges.

A few hours later, the grand jury voted not to press charges.
 
also the actual words from the Grand Jury Documents are FUCKING HORRIFYING. Wilson calls Brown "a demon" and refers to him as "it" on multiple occasions. It's fucking stunning. Like if I wanted to make up some testimony, I'd say "nah, that's too outrageous, no one would believe it".
Didn't you know? Michael Brown was the Incredible Hulk. The bullets just made him angry, and he bulked up!

Gods, what an idiot Wilson is.
 
Tumblr has a lot of posts about forcing police officers to wear "tamper proof body cameras"; that sounds really expensive. Police budgets are already making for underpaid officers, working too many hours, with understaffed shifts. Do we really want to make it even harder to properly fund the necessary amount of good officers on patrol? While body cameras might make it slightly easier to prosecute bad cops, once they all roll out, but in the meantime it sounds like it would just make the problem worse, without fixing any of the other underlying problems.
Imagine all the money saved in insurance costs due to lawsuits.
 
Top