Are The Police Serving & Protecting Your Community?

[GGT]

I'm referencing the fiasco in Ferguson, Missouri, US....but it's an open question for everyone, including those across the pond.

It's a fairly broad issue, but it would be interesting to know if your Community Police even has armored vehicles (that can withstand minefields), caches of gas grenades, rubber bullets, or sniper shooters....let alone uses them for crowd control.

<Every major US city has a SWAT team, with Police trained in riot control.>

Secondary question: have Community Police become too militarized?

[LittleFuzzy]

My town has grown to some 70-odd thousand people and I believe our SWAT team has a few armored vans (I very much doubt they can handle minefields) and I know they have a good supply of tear gas. There's a lot of meth production in our area and our SWAT group, and that of the local city, are the only ones in the area, they get called to help the county and state police a fair bit. I don't know about rubber bullets or snipers but I would be very surprised if they didn't have a lot of the former ("non-lethal" ordnance is just a good thing for police in general) and at least one or two people with sniper training. The police force collects its typical oversized share of vets after all.

And yes, the police in general have become too militarized, albeit not typically to the extent seen in Missouri (which looks like the results of "use it or lose it" fund dispersion by the new Homeland Security dept). Though the training and equipping of a small group within police forces to effectively paramilitary standards (i.e. SWAT teams) plainly is a good idea, albeit one that frequently ends up suffering "mission creep" as people look for ways to justify its existence in the day-to-day when there's not an emergency to respond to.

It's a case of picking your poison, GGT. The visuals from Missouri are distressing and generally unlikeable. But so were the visuals from the London riots, from LA after the Rodney King beating, etc. It's starting to become a bit dated, more a historical matter than one for the present day (though again, the backlash after Rodney King shows its not purely history yet) but we've had a number of fairly violent and destructive race riots in the US. You're the one who always wants to talk prevention, I'd have thought you'd be very much on the militarization side of riot control.

[Lewkowski]

Protests are fine as long as they don't violate noise ordinances, get in people's way or pose a danger to the community.

They were throwing lethal weapons at police officers and that needs to be put down HARD. So I am in favor of heavy riot gear and the like. Better a 100 rioters die than one innocent suffer.

All those protests for a vicious thug who had just committed a robbery... America sometimes needs to get a grip.

Police have absolutely been overzealous in the past but to protest over this crap? Nonsense - this is race baiting at its worst. Where were the protests when this man died?

http://reason.com/archives/2011/01/17/justice-for-sal

This guy is a victim. Doing something illegal that SHOULD NOT BE illegal. Gambling is state sanctioned and so to protect part of their quasi monopoly the government rabidly goes after people like Sal. This is something to get worked up over. The death of a thug who just robbed a store in broad daylight and then got into an altercation with police? No - not something getting worked up for. But I see no protests for Sal. I see no round the clock news coverage. Do you know why? Because Sal wasn't black.

[Khendraja'aro]

My town has grown to some 70-odd thousand people and I believe our SWAT team has a few armored vans (I very much doubt they can handle minefields) and I know they have a good supply of tear gas. There's a lot of meth production in our area and our SWAT group, and that of the local city, are the only ones in the area, they get called to help the county and state police a fair bit. I don't know about rubber bullets or snipers but I would be very surprised if they didn't have a lot of the former ("non-lethal" ordnance is just a good thing for police in general) and at least one or two people with sniper training. The police force collects its typical oversized share of vets after all.

And yes, the police in general have become too militarized, albeit not typically to the extent seen in Missouri (which looks like the results of "use it or lose it" fund dispersion by the new Homeland Security dept). Though the training and equipping of a small group within police forces to effectively paramilitary standards (i.e. SWAT teams) plainly is a good idea, albeit one that frequently ends up suffering "mission creep" as people look for ways to justify its existence in the day-to-day when there's not an emergency to respond to.

It's a case of picking your poison, GGT. The visuals from Missouri are distressing and generally unlikeable. But so were the visuals from the London riots, from LA after the Rodney King beating, etc. It's starting to become a bit dated, more a historical matter than one for the present day (though again, the backlash after Rodney King shows its not purely history yet) but we've had a number of fairly violent and destructive race riots in the US. You're the one who always wants to talk prevention, I'd have thought you'd be very much on the militarization side of riot control.

We had quite violent riots here in Germany as well. For example, the "Chaostage" in Hannover or the 1st of May in Berlin and Hamburg were quite the hotspots. But our police force managed to learn from those incidents and they now usually know how to deescalate such gatherings.

Openly dressing in full battle armour is a bad thing, by the way. That's just asking for trouble.

[LittleFuzzy]

Swat and paramilitary response is not a good way to deal with crowd control, no (although if a violent riot has already started, some elements of it may be called for if the response chosen is riot-suppression).

[GGT]

My town has grown to some 70-odd thousand people and I believe our SWAT team has a few armored vans (I very much doubt they can handle minefields) and I know they have a good supply of tear gas. There's a lot of meth production in our area and our SWAT group, and that of the local city, are the only ones in the area, they get called to help the county and state police a fair bit. I don't know about rubber bullets or snipers but I would be very surprised if they didn't have a lot of the former ("non-lethal" ordnance is just a good thing for police in general) and at least one or two people with sniper training. The police force collects its typical oversized share of vets after all.

The armored vans/trucks that are military surplus can handle minefields. I can understand regional or county-wide SWAT teams with a few snipers, hostage negotiating or riot control specialized training since they'd respond to big meth busts, arms trading, or airport incidents -- but it shouldn't be used by towns of 20,000 (or 70,000) residents during peaceful demonstrations/protests or crowd control.

And yes, the police in general have become too militarized, albeit not typically to the extent seen in Missouri (which looks like the results of "use it or lose it" fund dispersion by the new Homeland Security dept). Though the training and equipping of a small group within police forces to effectively paramilitary standards (i.e. SWAT teams) plainly is a good idea, albeit one that frequently ends up suffering "mission creep" as people look for ways to justify its existence in the day-to-day when there's not an emergency to respond to.

Agreed -- the mission creep and fund dispersion is a problem. Apparently some $3 Billion in federal block grants went toward towns/cities buying military surplus the last decade or so (I'm not sure if it went thru Homeland Security or DoD)....but that didn't include adequate training. "Officer Friendly turned into GI Joe" is a phrase I've heard lately, and unfortunately it rings true.

It's a case of picking your poison, GGT. The visuals from Missouri are distressing and generally unlikeable. But so were the visuals from the London riots, from LA after the Rodney King beating, etc. It's starting to become a bit dated, more a historical matter than one for the present day (though again, the backlash after Rodney King shows its not purely history yet) but we've had a number of fairly violent and destructive race riots in the US. *You're the one who always wants to talk prevention, I'd have thought you'd be very much on the militarization side of riot control.*

But protests, marches, and sit-ins aren't necessarily violent....and crowd control isn't the same thing as riot control.

We've seen police taser students in libraries, mace peaceful demonstrators, and use rubber bullets or tear gas against unarmed civilians because they're viewed as "harmless" weapons. We've had police shoot a homeless guy camping, chokehold a man suspected of selling single cigarettes, and shoot a teenager for jay-walking....in broad daylight....because they're seen as "dangerous threats". That's an attitudinal part of mission creep that's disturbing.

*Sure, when there's a risk of full-blown riots, arson, looting, or openly armed civilians threatening police (or federal agents as in the Bundy Ranch scenario), preventing violent confrontations should be the first thing on the drawing board. Any escalation should be avoided, and Police can go a long way toward not making matters worse.*

[Loki]

I.E. When you agree with the people protesting, the police should stand aside. When you disagree, police should go all out.

[GGT]

I.E. When you agree with the people protesting, the police should stand aside. When you disagree, police should go all out.

I made a clear distinction between armed vs unarmed protestors, and what police (or federal agents) consider "threats" during the course of their duties, or what those duties entail. You're the one who chose to ignore the nuance.

[Loki]

There are armed people in Ferguson, some of them shooting at cop cars.

[GGT]

Protests are fine as long as they don't violate noise ordinances, get in people's way or pose a danger to the community.

They were throwing lethal weapons at police officers and that needs to be put down HARD. So I am in favor of heavy riot gear and the like. Better a 100 rioters die than one innocent suffer.

All those protests for a vicious thug who had just committed a robbery... America sometimes needs to get a grip.

Police have absolutely been overzealous in the past but to protest over this crap? Nonsense - this is race baiting at its worst. Where were the protests when this man died?

You do know that the initial protests in Ferguson were because a municipal police officer repeatedly shot and killed an unarmed teenager, and that cop didn't even know about a shoplifting or 'strong-arm robbery' charge for a pack of cigars, right?

You're right, America needs to get a grip....beginning with using lethal force over things like tobacco or toothpaste. Or jay-walking.

[GGT]

There are armed people in Franklin, some of them shooting at cop cars.

It's not a crime-ridden, gang-infested area of murder and mayhem, though. That's why the community residents were protesting the policeman's disproportional actions to begin with.

It may be "commonplace" for that kind of cop behavior in NYC, LA, Chicago, Baltimore, or Miami because those are urban hubs of criminal activity....but it's not readily applicable to places like Ferguson simply because it's an exurb/suburb of St. Louis.


AND as the world gets smaller, and rural communities become more 'urbanized', it's important to consider what we expect from Community Police vs regional/county/state or federal police forces, and how civilians want to be treated by law enforcement agencies.

I don't object to general police enforcement, because I know we're a Law and Order nation. But I'll admit it's scary and creepy to be pulled over for a traffic violation by black Interceptor cars, with cages in the back seat, and officers wearing kevlar vests outside their uniform, with hands on their sidearms.

It's even more disconcerting to learn that cops can use a "5 minute" law when people hunt in the glove compartment for relevant papers.

[Lewkowski]

You do know that the initial protests in Ferguson were because a municipal police officer repeatedly shot and killed an unarmed teenager, and that cop didn't even know about a shoplifting or 'strong-arm robbery' charge for a pack of cigars, right?

You're right, America needs to get a grip....beginning with using lethal force over things like tobacco or toothpaste. Or jay-walking.

So now we know that he was a criminal and they are still protesting. Protesting to get media spotlight to bring in the DOJ/FBI is one thing but now?

And again I'll ask... where were the protests for Sal?

[GGT]

So now we know that he was a criminal and they are still protesting. Protesting to get media spotlight to bring in the DOJ/FBI is one thing but now?

One can't be a criminal without due process. The Police isn't supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner.

And again I'll ask... where were the protests for Sal?

I don't know, but my guess is that certain behaviors are built into our systems, and our systems are based on biases. Sal was engaged in "illegal" activity for a long time, long enough to be tracked by enforcement agencies, long enough that gambling laws could have changed.

The same can't be said for a kid walking down the middle of the road in broad daylight.

[Loki]

Is anyone even claiming that he was shot while walking down the road?

[GGT]

Is anyone even claiming that he was shot while walking down the road?

The officer supposedly claimed he stopped the kid for the offense of "walking down the *middle* of the road" and blocking traffic. He didn't have a camera tracking his behaviors, and the police department wouldn't release the incident report, let alone the officer's name. The "suspect" was unarmed, and killed by a cop. The whole thing reeks.

I don't know about you, but I think it's outrageous when Police shoot and kill unarmed pedestrians. It doesn't matter if they're blocking traffic, have a pack of stolen cigars, or are resisting arrest.....that's not a justification for using lethal force.

And it certainly doesn't mean the Police are serving & protecting the community.

[Loki]

You're right. If someone punches you in the face and reaches for your gun, you have absolutely no reason to fear for your life. And if you happen to shoot the guy because you fear for your life, you're shooting "unarmed pedestrians".

I'm not saying I fully buy the police story at this point, but you seem to be not only buying the story of the guy's friend (who helped rob a store 10 minutes before the shooting), but exaggerating even that story...

[Flixy]

Reaching for the gun and fighting is, of course, also only alleged. I read the guy was running away when first shot, turned around with hands in the air, and then shot again (according to other eyewitnesses). If that's true, there obviously was no fearing for his life, that only applies during a struggle, not when he's running away. Using a gun is for defense, not for stopping someone. Also, the officer was not aware of the robbery, so whether he was a criminal or not is not relevant. It only adds as proof he could have behaved aggressively, as a sort of character witness.

Sinc the job of the police is keeping public order, I think it is probably not a smart idea to respond to a public protest against police violence with a heavy handed police presence, it will likely only agitate the protesters. De-escalating the situation is the normal approach, I think.* Of course with looting etc it is also obvious that responding will require some force, so it's a grey area. I think it's safe to say the police definitely did not manage to de-escalate the situation, nor control it.

* GGT, that includes peaceful protests of armed people. Even if they are threatening, the goal should be avoiding (more) violence. That may include not arresting someone who is doing something illegal, if arresting him would escalate the situation. You can always arrest later, which is a common thing here, often riots are ended with minimal arrests, but more following later, the focus during the riot is, well, ending the riot. And if they're not even doing anything illegal, intervening would be a stupid thing to do.

[Loki]

All the shots are through the front. Not much evidence for that version of events.

[Loki]

http://nypost.com/2014/08/19/witness...fore-shooting/

[Flixy]

http://nypost.com/2014/08/19/witness...fore-shooting/

The account given in that article is second hand, and the officer's story, though.

I think it's probably safe to say with the public witnesses so far that there was some kind of fight at the police car, still, best to wait for a complete record. Even if they did fight in the car, that wouldn't make it right for the officer to shoot him outside the car, unless he was coming back to attack or something.

The officer supposedly claimed he stopped the kid for the offense of "walking down the *middle* of the road" and blocking traffic. He didn't have a camera tracking his behaviors, and the police department wouldn't release the incident report, let alone the officer's name.

Given the anger and violence, do you really think it's a bad thing not to release the name of the officer? Especially considering he may turn out to be completely innocent. Of course, I think that applies to most suspects, and over there you seem fond of perp walks, so I guess there's some hypocrisy there, but I don't think it's wrong not to release the name.

[Loki]

Sure, I don't claim to know what really transpired. It seems the other side has been making one lie after another.

[Flixy]

Sure, I don't claim to know what really transpired. It seems the other side has been making one lie after another.

Well, I'd say a big part of 'that side' which isn't really one person/organization but basically a lot of different people, most of them were not there, and I'm not going to take any lawyer's word for his defense.

Either way, at this point it doesn't really matter - I think the whole thing was already simmering under the surface and this was just the drop in the bucket, so to say. And from what we've seen from the police reaction so far, there's something to be said about them being too heavy handed there, they seem to handle the riots very poorly and with little respect for people's rights. A police force can't operate without respect (I can tell you now that if an inquiry finds the officer was innocent, a lot of people will just think it's a coverup) and trust, and it seems to me that police over there tries to force their respect and authority with force, rather than trying to earn it. Considering there are already multiple stories of journalists doing nothing illegal being arrested or fired upon with tear gas, sometimes while complying with police orders.. And they're lucky to be journalists with connections to get out quickly, unlike 'regular' people. And while I don't agree with big parts of this article, if that's the general sentiment among police in most situations, that is worrying. Add the statistic they mention about people not trusting police to handle complaints, that's just asking for trouble.

[Enoch the Red]

I think there are a number of different issues at play here that are easily conflated. There's the circumstances surrounding the shooting, the non-violent protests following it, the police response to both the peaceful and violent protests and looting, the riots, and the larger questions of race and racial injustice. Standing alone each individual component could be challenging, together they represent a complex interplay that isn't easily teased apart. I think Flixy is definitely right that there are underlying issues that go beyond the specifics of this shooting. I don't think there are many who believe it is okay to shoot an unarmed teenager without reasonable provocation, just as there aren't many who believe looting the town of Ferguson is somehow a principled stand and not an opportunistic ploy. It becomes thorny when you start to look at the more fundamental issues behind much of the anger. I don't think it's unfair to say that the criminal justice system doesn't have the best track record when it comes to race, and I think especially in the black community there is a well deserved and general mistrust of the police. That being said, I'm struggling with whether lionizing this particular youth will do much for the greater cause, or if it will backfire as the details of the case emerge.

As far as the militarization of peace officers has been a long standing issue, and it's easy to see how simple and peaceful protests can spiral out of control when the police mount a show of force. When you are given a 24 ton hammer everything starts to look like a nail, and as Fuzzy pointed out much of the equipment comes with a use it or lose it stipulation.

[Loki]

http://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-medic...172036981.html

[Kazuha Vinland]

Call it a naive thought process, but I also think demilitarizing the police force will help debrutalize society. They carried out an interesting experiment at a night club, where they had experienced a lot of violence in the recent past. At the time, they had big intimidating bouncers wearing batons on their clothing, and having a huge presence in the local. Then they hired a new security company, who instead placed normal sized people there wearing regular staff clothing, and the batons and handcuffs hidden beneath their clothes. They were instructed to not intimidate, but lighten the atmosphere by being positive and engaging. The violence of that club, took a huge dive. People studying the psychology of it, have theorized that it is because the customers did not think "them versus us" anymore, were not tense in their presense, and most importantly - felt more civilized and less likely to get down to the gritty levels of behavior warranting violence.

Likewise, you experience that places where the police officers has the image more akin to that of servants, carry no guns and approach every criminal with the original plan of de-escalating the situation, holds much less criminality as well. I also think that showing up in full militarized clothing, weapon shields etc. gives off the wrong message to crowds, agitating the crowd rather than the opposite. If there were say, two or more policemen wearing regular uniform, no weapons, they could most likely walk up to the crowd, state their purpose of being there to oversee that everything was alright, and commend their right to protest and even communicate with the people. Some would say, "oh, but you'd risk the police officers' lives doing that", but scenarios have shown that not to be the case. If the crowd is not threatened by the policemen, there usually is no motivation for violence either.

[GGT]

All the shots are through the front. Not much evidence for that version of events.

http://nypost.com/2014/08/19/witness...fore-shooting/

Sure, I don't claim to know what really transpired. It seems the other side has been making one lie after another.

http://news.yahoo.com/st-louis-medic...172036981.html

The New York Post published false claims about the officer having an "exploded orbit" too, so I wouldn't be citing that as a credible source. (But that picture says a thousand words about police militarization.)

An autopsy report doesn't prove anything on its own -- it has to be corroborated by other data and forensic evaluation. FYI, it's not established if the forearm bullet wound came from behind or in front. His arm position *at the time* matters, and that hasn't been proven yet. The bullet wound at the top of his head can mean a number of things, too. Either he was falling forward (after being shot multiple times) or was lunging forward toward the officer. Too bad the kid is dead and can't give his version of accounts to a jury, huh.

What "reeks" is the police dept. withheld incident reports and coroner reports (that are open public documents)....but instead released store video of an un-related shoplifting incident, and claimed it was b/c "the media" was hounding them under Sunshine laws. That's bogus. It's no wonder Ferguson residents perceived this as police protecting one of their own over a young black kid's civil rights, with hints of a cover-up.

[GGT]

I think there are a number of different issues at play here that are easily conflated.

Well, that's why I posed two different questions in the OP.

There's the circumstances surrounding the shooting, the non-violent protests following it, the police response to both the peaceful and violent protests and looting, the riots, and the larger questions of race and racial injustice. Standing alone each individual component could be challenging, together they represent a complex interplay that isn't easily teased apart.

I think Flixy is definitely right that there are underlying issues that go beyond the specifics of this shooting. I don't think there are many who believe it is okay to shoot an unarmed teenager without reasonable provocation, just as there aren't many who believe looting the town of Ferguson is somehow a principled stand and not an opportunistic ploy.

It becomes thorny when you start to look at the more fundamental issues behind much of the anger. I don't think it's unfair to say that the criminal justice system doesn't have the best track record when it comes to race, and I think especially in the black community there is a well deserved and general mistrust of the police.

Well, defining "fundamental" issues isn't easy. It's even harder in a country like the US since our "systems" are linked to political money first, and "rights" can be secondary afterthoughts.

That being said, I'm struggling with whether lionizing this particular youth will do much for the greater cause, or if it will backfire as the details of the case emerge.

He doesn't have to be 'lionized' any more than the next guy....ya know, the mentally disturbed man who was shot dead by Missouri police on Tuesday because he had a knife and was yelling "shoot me!"

There's something wrong when Police (civil servants/peace officers) think shooting is their first or second conflict-resolution tool, instead of treating it as a last resort.

As far as the militarization of peace officers has been a long standing issue, and it's easy to see how simple and peaceful protests can spiral out of control when the police mount a show of force. When you are given a 24 ton hammer everything starts to look like a nail, and as Fuzzy pointed out much of the equipment comes with a use it or lose it stipulation.

Sure, that makes sense. But I'm not sure it acknowledges and appreciates the conflicted relationship between a "legally armed" person in the US, how our police forces are trained to react to people who might have a gun....or how we expect them to act as peace officers.

The 2nd Amendment has a fuzzy under-belly like some other constitutional rights and protections do. But we have three branches of government that are supposed to work these things out *before* they reach full-blown municipal, state, or national CRISIS level.

[Dreadnaught]

As this issue winds-on/winds-down in the US, I find myself upset at how horrible this situation is and upset with how the NY journalism community in particular is using it as a pretext to militate against proactive policing. The journalistic assault against proactive policing AKA "broken windows" is an absurd and demeaning distraction to the issue of how police use/deploy force.

[Lewkowski]

One can't be a criminal without due process. The Police isn't supposed to be judge, jury, and executioner.



I don't know, but my guess is that certain behaviors are built into our systems, and our systems are based on biases. Sal was engaged in "illegal" activity for a long time, long enough to be tracked by enforcement agencies, long enough that gambling laws could have changed.

The same can't be said for a kid walking down the middle of the road in broad daylight.

1. The fact that he was a criminal is beyond dispute. Or are you so rigid in the definition of criminal that Kenneth Lay is also not a criminal in your eyes?

2. The officer didn't kill him because the robbery, the police officer wasn't acting as a judge jury and executioner of the violent robbery that was done. He shot in what seems to me obvious self defense. Bullet wounds are in the front. The 'victim' had a history of foolish decision making and aggressive tendencies. The officer has not had a history of improper behavior. And frankly who the hell says "Hey look there is a black guy on the street let me shoot him a bunch of times in broad daylight for no good reason just because." I mean really? Even if the cop was racist why do people think he was a complete moron who just randomly executed someone due to 'racial hatred.' Give me a break - the story purported by the media is a joke. MY point was that this wasn't an example of a cop "gunning down a good kid on his way to college." When we learned about the robbery the narrative should have changed considerably. "Dangerous criminal gets in altercation with police ends up dead. Investigation ensues to determine if it was a 'good shoot.' " Ultimately the world is better off with this thug dead. Or do you honestly believe the criminal who was caught on camera violently robbing a store was never going to do another crime?

3. Certain behaviors are built into the system? I'd rather any number of violent thugs die than one 'illegal gambler' be killed. Or if you prefer a more 'reasonable' statement, I'd prefer any number of violent thugs to be arrested and go to prison over one 'illegal gambler' being killed. Sal's case was a PERFECT example of the over militarization of police. Ferugson is NOT. Sal posed NO risk to the community. Violent protests, looting and attacks with deadly weapons against police officers warrents riot gear and a strong crackdown.

[Lewkowski]

As this issue winds-on/winds-down in the US, I find myself upset at how horrible this situation is and upset with how the NY journalism community in particular is using it as a pretext to militate against proactive policing. The journalistic assault against proactive policing AKA "broken windows" is an absurd and demeaning distraction to the issue of how police use/deploy force.

Are you surprised? Most journalists are liberals. On any given issue or debate liberals will always be in favor of more restrictions on police and more leeway given to criminals. Every time.