DoJ recommends no civil rights charges for Ferguson shooting

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Easy E**

The real question is whether the DOJ will be able to "find a pattern of excessive use of force" like they did in Albuquerque and a few other cities. That is where the real reforms start to happen.

**CptJake**

LordofHats wrote:
I suspect the local business owners were kind of hoping to see the gov't at whatever level not allow their businesses to be looted and burnt.

I'm sure people like walking down the street without being shot. Leaving home without being robbed. Having National Guard on every street corner would reduce all that stuff too. It's not the governments job to save everyone from everything. A key aspect of governance is prudence. Any prudent examination of any riot makes it kind of obvious that "send in the troops" can easily be just as disastrous as it is helpful.

A NG presence before the rioting started could very well have helped.

Our political system makes no provisions for "well there might be some unspecified incident at some unspecified time that might make the NG useful to have around."

Really, this whole line of thought reeks to me of "I don't like police states where armed troops can just march down the street on a whim except when it suits my fancy that armed troops march down the street on a whim" mixed with a healthy dose of hindsight.

Silliness.

I was not talking about some 'unspecified incident at some unspecified time' and it is silly to portray what I wrote under that context. A specific incident was threatened (rioting) at a very specific time (upon release of the grand jury decision) and in very specific locations. And yes, a show of force at that time and place could have (likely would have) prevented the incident, or at least have been able to protect the local businesses.

As for prudent examinations of any riot, again you are (probably willfully) ignoring the point. I was not advocating sending in the NG to break up an ongoing riot, I was advocating a NG show of force to prevent one from starting (at least with in a defined zone the NG would be protecting).

**d-usa**

Having military show up to suppress a riot will probably work great when "militarization" was one of the major complaints sparking the riots.

**DarkLink**

It's a lot like how during the initial Ferguson riots, plenty of people were critisizing the police's show of force. When they deescalated, people critisized the police for not doing enough. When the police used tear gas, there was a news broadcaster who was actually dumb enough to suggest using water cannons as well (water cannons are infamous here for their use against civil rights protestors back in the 60's).

Doesn't matter what you do, sometimes you just can't win against stupidity.

**Dreadclaw69**

daedalus wrote:
Weekend in the 50s here. Chance of rain Sunday morning. Outlook not so good.

Cloudy with a chance of Molotovs?

**daedalus**

Dreadclaw69 wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Weekend in the 50s here. Chance of rain Sunday morning. Outlook not so good.

Cloudy with a chance of Molotovs?

Man, I hope not. We'll see though.

Hey. Hey. If they looted a sporting goods store, would that mean that now is the winter of their discount tent?

**Supertony51**

Not really suprised, since there was no evidence of civil rights violations.

Won't stop [MOD EDIT - Please find a different way to express yourself - thanks! - Alpharius] from blocking freeways though, thankfully they haven't done that gak out here in AZ

**CptJake**

Supertony51 wrote:

Won't stop [MOD EDIT - Please find a different way to express yourself - thanks! - Alpharius] from blocking freeways though, thankfully they haven't done that gak out here in AZ

You at Huachuca?

**hotsauceman1**

On campus they blocked the quarry. The place where the campus convinence store is, the bookstore, several resturants and the only place on campus that serves Beer.
And then whined when people broke the line to get their clif bar.

**djones520**

CptJake wrote:
Supertony51 wrote:

Won't stop [MOD EDIT - Please find a different way to express yourself - thanks! - Alpharius] from blocking freeways though, thankfully they haven't done that gak out here in AZ

You at Huachuca?

I was out there a few months ago. Really liked it. We've got one permanent position there and I'm half considering applying for it.

**SlaveToDorkness**

daedalus wrote:
Dreadclaw69 wrote:
daedalus wrote:
Weekend in the 50s here. Chance of rain Sunday morning. Outlook not so good.

Cloudy with a chance of Molotovs?

Man, I hope not. We'll see though.

Hey. Hey. If they looted a sporting goods store, would that mean that now is the winter of their discount tent?

I hurt my finger hitting Exalt so hard. Well played, Sir. Well played!

**Ouze**

daedalus wrote:
Hey. Hey. If they looted a sporting goods store, would that mean that now is the winter of their discount tent?

Not even 10am here, and I read the best post I'm gonna read all day.

**Supertony51**

CptJake wrote:
Supertony51 wrote:

Won't stop [MOD EDIT - Please find a different way to express yourself - thanks! - Alpharius] from blocking freeways though, thankfully they haven't done that gak out here in AZ

You at Huachuca?

No, actually im out of the service now. I go to school and work out here.