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.

The journalists being arrested looks sketchy, but just going by what the video shows, I think the reporter ends up looking worse than the police officer. He reminds me of all the annoying open carry idiots who play up their confrontations with police. Every time the officer says something, the reporter has to have the last word.

He made a big deal about the officer saying, "Stop videotaping, now let's grab our stuff and go" but I get the impression that the officer's comment wasn't mean so much as "you are not allowed to videotape me" so much as, "You need to pack your stuff and leave and you standing here concentrating on videotaping is preventing you from doing that."

 Hordini wrote:
The journalists being arrested looks sketchy, but just going by what the video shows, I think the reporter ends up looking worse than the police officer. He reminds me of all the annoying open carry idiots who play up their confrontations with police. Every time the officer says something, the reporter has to have the last word.

He made a big deal about the officer saying, "Stop videotaping, now let's grab our stuff and go" but I get the impression that the officer's comment wasn't mean so much as "you are not allowed to videotape me" so much as, "You need to pack your stuff and leave and you standing here concentrating on videotaping is preventing you from doing that."

Less drama does not sell papers

 Hordini wrote:
The journalists being arrested looks sketchy, but just going by what the video shows, I think the reporter ends up looking worse than the police officer. He reminds me of all the annoying open carry idiots who play up their confrontations with police. Every time the officer says something, the reporter has to have the last word.

He made a big deal about the officer saying, "Stop videotaping, now let's grab our stuff and go" but I get the impression that the officer's comment wasn't mean so much as "you are not allowed to videotape me" so much as, "You need to pack your stuff and leave and you standing here concentrating on videotaping is preventing you from doing that."

Regardless of what you think about the reporters in question, what the police did was wrong.

Here is Lowery's account of what happened:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-ferguson-washington-post-reporter-wesley-lowery-gives-account-of-his-arrest/2014/08/13/0fe25c0e-2359-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html?hpid=z1

This is the statement from Martin D. Baron, Washington Post executive editor:

Wesley has briefed us on what occurred, and there was absolutely no justification for his arrest.

He was illegally instructed to stop taking video of officers. Then he followed officers’ instructions to leave a McDonald’s — and after contradictory instructions on how to exit, he was slammed against a soda machine and then handcuffed. That behavior was wholly unwarranted and an assault on the freedom of the press to cover the news. The physical risk to Wesley himself is obvious and outrageous.

After being placed in a holding cell, he was released with no charges and no explanation. He was denied information about the names and badge numbers of those who arrested him.

We are relieved that Wesley is going to be OK. We are appalled by the conduct of police officers involved.

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?

Yes.

It is not pure random chance that black drivers get stopped a lot more often than white drivers, and it isn't because white people are genetically or culturally superior at driving.

That's not what I asked or implied. There could be a lot of different factors involved that could lead to black drivers being pulled over more often than white drivers that don't require the police officer to know the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over.

Do you have any good examples of a study that incorporates data on how often police officers know the race of the driver before pulling them over?

Essentially you are claiming that policemen stop cars for various reasons, none of them involving the colour of the driver's face, but by pure random chance a lot more black drivers' cars get stopped than white.

How can you explain that by the laws of probability?

http://onlinecjdegrees.uc.edu/resources/criminal-justice-research/examining-the-influence-of-drivers-characteristics-during-traffic-stops-with-police-results-from-a-national-survey/

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Hordini wrote:
Has there been any research done on how often police are actually able to tell the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over?

Yes.

It is not pure random chance that black drivers get stopped a lot more often than white drivers, and it isn't because white people are genetically or culturally superior at driving.

That's not what I asked or implied. There could be a lot of different factors involved that could lead to black drivers being pulled over more often than white drivers that don't require the police officer to know the race of the person driving the vehicle before they pull them over.

Do you have any good examples of a study that incorporates data on how often police officers know the race of the driver before pulling them over?

Essentially you are claiming that policemen stop cars for various reasons, none of them involving the colour of the driver's face, but by pure random chance a lot more black drivers' cars get stopped than white.

How can you explain that by the laws of probability?

http://onlinecjdegrees.uc.edu/resources/criminal-justice-research/examining-the-influence-of-drivers-characteristics-during-traffic-stops-with-police-results-from-a-national-survey/

No, I'm not making any such claim whatsoever, I'm asking a question. I'm not saying saying that the race of the driver is never a factor either. I'm curious as to how often black or white drivers get pulled over before the officer knows what race they are. There are plenty of situations where this could happen, and I'm curious if any studies specifically address that.

 Ouze wrote:

 The Hedge Knight wrote:
People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.

There is absolutely a role for the National Guard in the event of uncontrollable riots. The events we have seen here have not, and hopefully will not, rise to that level.

However, I see no hypocrisy between those stances. The National Guard serve to restore order - not enforce the law, restore order - when it's beyond the control of law enforcement to do so, and only in the most extreme of circumstances, whereby police officers with their stupid tacticool outfits, surplus army tanks, and occupying invader mentality are a giant, different and I'd say bigger - certainly more omnipresent - problem.

Except those aren't tanks. They're completely unarmed APCs. Their 'tacticool outfits' are primarily used by SWAT teams and riot officers to ensure more officers aren't injured in the riots. Their 'occupying invader' mentality is sort of obvious and necessary seeing as their job is to stop the riots from spiraling further out of control.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of this.

 The Hedge Knight wrote:

 Ouze wrote:

 The Hedge Knight wrote:
People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.

There is absolutely a role for the National Guard in the event of uncontrollable riots. The events we have seen here have not, and hopefully will not, rise to that level.

However, I see no hypocrisy between those stances. The National Guard serve to restore order - not enforce the law, restore order - when it's beyond the control of law enforcement to do so, and only in the most extreme of circumstances, whereby police officers with their stupid tacticool outfits, surplus army tanks, and occupying invader mentality are a giant, different and I'd say bigger - certainly more omnipresent - problem.

Except those aren't tanks. They're completely unarmed APCs. Their 'tacticool outfits' are primarily used by SWAT teams and riot officers to ensure more officers aren't injured in the riots. Their 'occupying invader' mentality is sort of obvious and necessary seeing as their job is to stop the riots from spiraling further out of control.

I see absolutely nothing wrong with any of this.

Then you are part of the problem.

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-americas-police-have-become-too-militarised-cops-or-soldiers

http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424127887323848804578608040780519904

http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/how-the-war-on-terror-has-militarized-the-police/248047/

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/06/24/325236889/report-points-to-dangerous-militarization-of-u-s-law-enforcement

Nothing says "We're in the right" like looting your own stores in your own community.

Disgraceful.

Heap shame, oppression and poverty on people

then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.

It's a neat trick.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Heap shame, oppression and poverty on people

then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.

It's a neat trick.

Exalt.

Also, Snowpiercer.

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Heap shame, oppression and poverty on people

then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.

It's a neat trick.

Not quite Sherlock. Looting is not protesting.

Some of people that were fine with the way the government handled Cliven Bundy are now saying that the response of law enforcement here is too much. Why?
Bundy and his supporters were doing far less than what is going on here.

Relapse wrote:
Some of people that were fine with the way the government handled Cliven Bundy are now saying that the response of law enforcement here is too much. Why?
Bundy and his supporters were doing far less than what is going on here.

I knew it would get here eventually and I knew you'd be the one to take it there. I'm not even going to explain the difference between these two situations because you would just ignore it and substitute your own version of reality in its place.

See this is why Imperial Russia was awesome. Where's some cossacks when you need them. No one clears the streets in style like cossacks.

Who gives a dakka about Bundy

Why are we ignoring the real issue here - Benghazi!

I demand we stop discussing this nonsense about riots and poverty and instead, talk about BENGHAZI!!



Back OT - it's a disgraceful assault on press freedom with the trumped up arrest of these reporters.

I remember the thread a few weeks discussing the 5th and why you should never talk to the police, and who can blame suspects for staying silent.

 ScootyPuffJunior wrote:

Relapse wrote:
Some of people that were fine with the way the government handled Cliven Bundy are now saying that the response of law enforcement here is too much. Why?
Bundy and his supporters were doing far less than what is going on here.

I knew it would get here eventually and I knew you'd be the one to take it there. I'm not even going to explain the difference between these two situations because you would just ignore it and substitute your own version of reality in its place.

Honest question on my part in light of the fact that there were people here saying everyone in those towns should be gunned down by the feds.

I realize other folks have chimed in with similar issues, but as someone who lives in the inner city (Chicago, not Feruguson), I completely understand the complaints about the police using military-style gear. The image that the police projects to a community is EXTREMELY important, not only to the protestors, but to the wider community. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the relationship between the police and the community. Even something as simple as the color matters, going from blues to swat black is a serious excalation, going to camo throws the whole thing into an even higher gear.

A police officer in in blues, even with a pistol riot helmet, can be interpreted as protecting the community. A police force in camoflage, tac gear, and toting AR's looks like an invading force. Because that's exactly what it is. It shows how completely out-of-touch the Fergusson police are. We shouldn't downplay the pressure and even danger they're under, but if you show up to a fist-fight with an assault rifle, you're likely going to escalate the situation. Doesn't surprise me at all that that some rioters were reportedly throwing molotov cocktails (not justifying it) last night. When a commuity is cowed, an assault rifle might help to back them down. When a community is furious, it's just going to make them madder.

Violence and looting is never justified, but you can only push people so far before they explode, and when they explode, it's not going to be neat and tidy and only aimed at the police. Nothing about how this situation has played out should surprise us, and we certainly shouldn't be surprised if/when it happens in other communities. We saw it herein '68, and the only real surprise is that it hasn't happened since.

 Eilif wrote:
I realize other folks have chimed in with similar issues, but as someone who lives in the inner city (Chicago, not Feruguson), I completely understand the complaints about the police using military-style gear. The image that the police projects to a community is EXTREMELY important, not only to the protestors, but to the wider community. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the relationship between the police and the community. Even something as simple as the color matters, going from blues to swat black is a serious excalation, going to camo throws the whole thing into an even higher gear.

A police officer in in blues, even with a pistol riot helmet, can be interpreted as protecting the community. A police force in camoflage, tac gear, and toting AR's looks like an invading force. Because that's exactly what it is. It shows how completely out-of-touch the Fergusson police are. We shouldn't downplay the pressure and even danger they're under, but if you show up to a fist-fight with an assault rifle, you're likely going to escalate the situation. Doesn't surprise me at all that that some rioters were reportedly throwing molotov cocktails (not justifying it) last night. When a commuity is cowed, an assault rifle might help to back them down. When a community is furious, it's just going to make them madder.
.

Agreed. However, not certain thats the Ferguson police. I believe other police forces have been called in as well. But to what you're saying I agree completely.

Although I think Bundy is a schindling huckster fraud who should be in the bowels of a prison, the reaction of people to the PoPo there have been similar.
This will get worse and worse unless authorities wake up to where this is headed.

Or alternatively I look forward to "the sweeps have been called. I repeat the sweeps have been called. Leave immediately."

Why is the police being armed and equiped like this a problem?

Has it come too far?, or were the police just underequiped and undertrained in the past?

Hordini wrote:

No, I'm not making any such claim whatsoever, I'm asking a question. I'm not saying saying that the race of the driver is never a factor either. I'm curious as to how often black or white drivers get pulled over before the officer knows what race they are. There are plenty of situations where this could happen, and I'm curious if any studies specifically address that.

There are indeed situations where the policemen might not be able to see the face of the driver, and there are situations where he clearly could.

However, the fact that black drivers get pulled over a lot more than white drivers shows that either they commit a lot more moving traffic offences, or there is racism in the motive for the stops. It cannot be just bad luck.

Since we know that black pedestrians get stopped a lot more than white one, it is not difficult to infer the true cause.

I'm going to reiterate RiTides post from the start of this thread, because some posts have been toeing, or even crossing, the line. This isn't directed at anyone particular, just the thread.

As a reminder to everyone, no matter what the content matter being discussed, Dakka's rules still apply. Please refrain from any remarks that would violate such (especially "isms" such as racism, sexism, etc) and hit the yellow triangle if any such posts are made, rather than engaging over them. Thanks.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

Hordini wrote:

No, I'm not making any such claim whatsoever, I'm asking a question. I'm not saying saying that the race of the driver is never a factor either. I'm curious as to how often black or white drivers get pulled over before the officer knows what race they are. There are plenty of situations where this could happen, and I'm curious if any studies specifically address that.

There are indeed situations where the policemen might not be able to see the face of the driver, and there are situations where he clearly could.

However, the fact that black drivers get pulled over a lot more than white drivers shows that either they commit a lot more moving traffic offences, or there is racism in the motive for the stops. It cannot be just bad luck.

Since we know that black pedestrians get stopped a lot more than white one, it is not difficult to infer the true cause.

I've watched perhaps dozens, perhaps hundreds of stops here. Police almost always watch the car go by and then stop them. They can almost always see who they are pulling over. That itself is not irrefutable proof of racial profiling, but the idea that police usually can't see the race of those they are arresting is just not true.

Whatever the reason, it's clear that police methodology regarding who they choose to detain is seriously flawed. See the recent report regarding NYPD stop-and-frisks.
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/05/22/2046451/white-people-stopped-by-new-york-police-are-more-likely-to-have-guns-or-drugs-than-minorities/
Far more minorities than whites were stopped, but when they stop white's they are nearly 3 times more likely to find drugs and weapons. Clearly what the police are doing is not working.

Yea Killkrazy, you're going to get us all sent to our rooms!


When there's looting, this may be most appropriate:

 mitch_rifle wrote:
Why is the police being armed and equiped like this a problem?

Has it come too far?, or were the police just underequiped and undertrained in the past?

The "militarization" of the police is a trend that's been happening across america in the past decade or so. There's alot of reasons for it.

-Part of it is a justified response to criminals and mass shootings where more powerful weaponry is used by criminals.

-Part of it is related to post-911 anti-terrorism concerns.

-Part of it is just that those with power (police in this situation) seem to constantly want more.

-It is supported by various government programs that direct US military surplus to police and sherif departments for free or almost-free.

All this in a country where violent crime is actually in decline and you can see where there is something of a disconnect. Those concerned about the trend generally express worries about the increasing use of higher levels of force by police, and further disconnecting of the relationship between the police and the communities they operate in.

It's a complicated issue, but it comes to a head in situations like this where police that face off against protestors look more like military forces than police and raises serious concern as to whether up-gunning is counter-productive to "keeping the peace".

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Heap shame, oppression and poverty on people

then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.

It's a neat trick.

Please tell me how shame, oppression and poverty were forced upon them?




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Eilif wrote:
I realize other folks have chimed in with similar issues, but as someone who lives in the inner city (Chicago, not Feruguson), I completely understand the complaints about the police using military-style gear. The image that the police projects to a community is EXTREMELY important, not only to the protestors, but to the wider community. It goes to the heart of what's wrong with the relationship between the police and the community. Even something as simple as the color matters, going from blues to swat black is a serious excalation, going to camo throws the whole thing into an even higher gear.

A police officer in in blues, even with a pistol riot helmet, can be interpreted as protecting the community. A police force in camoflage, tac gear, and toting AR's looks like an invading force. Because that's exactly what it is. It shows how completely out-of-touch the Fergusson police are. We shouldn't downplay the pressure and even danger they're under, but if you show up to a fist-fight with an assault rifle, you're likely going to escalate the situation. Doesn't surprise me at all that that some rioters were reportedly throwing molotov cocktails (not justifying it) last night. When a commuity is cowed, an assault rifle might help to back them down. When a community is furious, it's just going to make them madder.

Violence and looting is never justified, but you can only push people so far before they explode, and when they explode, it's not going to be neat and tidy and only aimed at the police. Nothing about how this situation has played out should surprise us, and we certainly shouldn't be surprised if/when it happens in other communities. We saw it herein '68, and the only real surprise is that it hasn't happened since.

Oh yeah... no argument from here there.

The SWAT response is absolutely overkill it's ridiculous.

To answer Frazz's question above, yes most of the officers you see in the pictures are STL County Police. I haven't seen any Ferguson in most of the pics... but, I'm sure they're in there too.

A buddy of mine works for an auto-parts supplier, and today was his first day back in that area since the rioting started. He said it looks like a tornado touched down.

 whembly wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Heap shame, oppression and poverty on people

then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.

It's a neat trick.

Please tell me how shame, oppression and poverty were forced upon them?

The heritage of slavery, the repression of the pre-civil rights era, the less overt racist discrimination of the post-civil rights era, low quality public education, a racist heavily armed police force, attacks on and criticism of people on welfare, cuts in welfare public services and social infrastructure in favour of privatised solutions available only to the better off, the transfer of high quality industrial jobs to China, the transfer of medium quality assembly jobs to Mexico, the undercutting of low quality "MacJob" wages by illegal immigrants, the attack on voting rights under the guise of fraud prevention...

Apart from that, not much.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 HiveFleetPlastic wrote:
Heap shame, oppression and poverty on people

then when they finally lash out, talk about how they've proven correct everything that's said about them and use it to avoid at all costs discussing the issues at the heart of the problem.

It's a neat trick.

Please tell me how shame, oppression and poverty were forced upon them?

The heritage of slavery, the repression of the pre-civil rights era, the less overt racist discrimination of the post-civil rights era, low quality public education, a racist heavily armed police force, attacks on and criticism of people on welfare, cuts in welfare public services and social infrastructure in favour of privatised solutions available only to the better off, the transfer of high quality industrial jobs to China, the transfer of medium quality assembly jobs to Mexico, the undercutting of low quality "MacJob" wages by illegal immigrants, the attack on voting rights under the guise of fraud prevention...

Apart from that, not much.

Something something I never got nothing

Something something bootstrap

Something something white priviledge

Something something reverse racism

Something something thread lock

Just saying.

As I've said before on this site, I used to be anti-gun, but after seeing some of the pictures coming out of Ferguson, I don't blame your average American citizen from stocking up on firearms. The police seem to be acting more and more like a paramilitary force from some bad sci-fi novel.

Some facts (most of which are probably already known to people on this site already) about Ferguson, from a Guardian article:

Pop: 22,000

Average number of robberies per year: 40 (Now I expect some of these would probably be armed, but it's no better or worse than any other part of America.)

2-3 homicides per year (sorry for the people who get killed)

and a crime rate at the national average.

Now, given that we're seeing pictures of snipers, and panzer divisions rolling into town, you would think that Ferguson has been twinned with Baghdad! What a total overreaction.

 The Hedge Knight wrote:
People are complaining about police overreach with the APC (which makes complete sense seeing as cars have already been destroyed) and in response they want the national guard to be mobilized in order to bring order to these protests.

I'm really glad DakkaDakka doesn't run the world O.o

No, what I am saying is there is no need to militarize police to the National Guard level themselves.

If the Police need to respond with military style deployment and tactics, let's just call in the actual military.

I hope you can see the difference in the arguments.