yawn....you didn't watch the videos therefore you need to grow up you don't know the facts you just repeat the bs media script so I don't take anything you say serious..I think you would know better of all people

Infowars. Totally a reliable and unbiased source.

yawn....you didn't watch the videos therefore you need to grow up you don't know the facts you just repeat the bs media script so I don't take anything you say serious..I think you would know better of all people

 

I watched the videos. They are full of false information and opinion, not facts and logic. You are the one repeating the "media script" by believing everything you see in these biased media video reports.

 

Info Wars is not a credible media source. They are as bad as TMZ as far as I'm concerned. That video lost all credibility with me when the narrator kept saying the riot police had "snipers". At one point the image on screen was an officer holding an AR rifle, and another image appeared to be a pepper ball gun. Neither of those weapons is a "sniper rifle", so once again we have an instance of ignorant reporters that don't know what they are talking about spreading false information and opinions to a public that is largely too ignorant to know they are being lied to.

 

And everyone keeps getting hung up on the media crew that was caught in the tear gas and the images of the police disassembling their equipment, making allegations that the police are acting as censors. Well, the facts are the police helped that news crew disassemble their equipment, then loaded it and the reporters into the Bear Cat and transported them to a safer location. The news crew was from Al-Jazeera, and thanked the officers for helping them. You'll notice that none of the reports alleging police censorship or the confiscation of the equipment will back that claim up with any facts and will never show the rest of the video, the video that shows the police loading the equipment and the reporters into the Bear Cat; media bias and lies at its finest.

 

http://fox2now.com/2014/08/14/despite-reports-swat-team-helped-al-jazeera-reporters-did-not-take-their-equipment/

 

As for the militarization of our police forces, everyone claiming that doesn't really seem to know what "military" technology is or understand how we got to this point. I would be worried about this topic if the police were armed with automatic rifles, grenades, or weaponized aircraft, or if the police made a habit of using these weapons in daily patrol operations.

 

The fact is, the majority of the equipment people claim to be too "militarized" is actually equipment that is available to the civilian populous.

 

A central focus of the "militarized police" argument seems to be the riot gear that was used. What we've seen of the riot gear, are helmets, shields, semi automatic AR rifles, pepper ball guns, and tear gas. All of this has been industry standard for decades. This is not the first time we've seen this equipment used in a riot or crowd control situation and I really don't understand why people are acting like this is something new.

 

Law enforcement in this country is purely reactionary; always has been, always will be. The civilian population is armed, so the police are armed. Civilians buy rifles, police get rifles. Civilians complain about excessive force, police equip tasers. Civilians buy "armor piercing" ammunition, police start wearing external body armor with trauma plates. Civilians start having mass shootings, taking hostages, robbing banks with automatic rifles, the police start buying light armored vehicles to respond to those threats. The system keeps escalating after the actions of the civilian populous when the police must respond to a new threat.

 

Every piece of equipment the police have today is a direct response to equipment available to the civilian population, and the police need these tools in order to maintain order when the civilian population gets out of control.

Edited August 15, 201411 yr by johnclark1102

MODERATOR NOTICE
WARNING! You can see a body in this video

 

At about 6:28 in this video, you can hear a background conversation where some one says Mike ran away, then turned around and ran back towards the cop when the cop fired his gun. You might not be able to see it because it might be flagged not appropriate for those under 18.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VdL9dqkyjhM

MODERATOR NOTICE

WARNING! You can see a body in this video

 

At about 6:28 in this video, you can hear a background conversation where some one says Mike ran away, then turned around and ran back towards the cop when the cop fired his gun. You might not be able to see it because it might be flagged not appropriate for those under 18.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=VdL9dqkyjhM

I love how the guy recording says they killed him for no reason, as if he even knew what was going on.

Wait, but the guy in that InfoWars videos said there were no riot police present during the looting and they only showed up after the looting was done.

 

I love how the guy recording says they killed him for no reason, as if he even knew what was going on.

My favorite was the woman who was in the shower, thought she heard gun shots and decided that they killed him for no reason solely because of that.

My favorite was the woman who was in the shower, thought she heard gun shots and decided that they killed him for no reason solely because of that.

Okay so I saw the video, I wonder why i didn't see any csi or a corner team.

Okay so I saw the video, I wonder why i didn't see any csi or a corner team.

Because the video was minutes after the shooting

Because the video was minutes after the shooting

Oh that's why, no wonder I dint see a csi team there.

One thing I don't like is how they didn't put something over the body until 10 minutes into the video. If I was a cop, that would be one of the first things I would do. Seems like the humane thing to cover a body from the public just lying there.

One thing I don't like is how they didn't put something over the body until 10 minutes into the video. If I was a cop, that would be one of the first things I would do. Seems like the humane thing to cover a body from the public just lying there.

If you were a cop you would also know the policies and procedures for this situations. One night I responded to a single vehicle accident involving a motorcycle. We were one of the first units on scene and the guy that was on the bike was clearly deceased however law enforcement is technically not qualified to declare someone dead so we could not pronounce him dead and we had to wait for fire rescue to show up before they could call it. Of course the dude was literally folded in half so they didn't need to take vital signs or anything they just threw the blanket over him.

 

Also even if we wanted to cover the body we didn't have blankets in our cars, what would we have used? You might think a lot of the stuff you see police using is issued to them and that the department hands that stuff out to their officers like candy but that is far from the truth. Even the stuff that is standard issue is in short supply, stuff like notepads and pens are hard to come by in my sheriff's office. You need more business cards? Well you are going to be waiting awhile. Oh you took the radar/laser course, well sorry we don't have anymore radar guns to issue so either you are going to have to wait or buy your own. It was only until about 2010 when my sheriff's office started issuing assault rifles to patrol deputies. If you were a patrol deputy qualified with an assault rifle you had to go out and buy your own. And I'm not talking about some little sheriff's office out in the middle of no where with 10 sworn deputies; my sheriff's office is in a county that is in a major metropolitan area with over 400 personnel so this is a medium sized agency.

Edited August 16, 201411 yr by l3ubba

I have been adamantly observing this situation, as I often do with controversial situations like this across the country, and  by far the most appalling aspect of this whole thing is people's reaction; particularly on this thread. The level of insanity it takes to justify and defend the response to the looting, protests, and/or riots is astronomical and puts national security at far greater risk than the "War on Terror" ever has. While the militarization of police is nothing new, the War on Terror amplified the actions and scale of these operations which have been ongoing for the better half of three decades now. The "Police State" which is the next step resulting from the war on terror will ultimately cripple our nation as a whole as the tolerance for a demand of obedience will no longer become acceptable resulting in a civil war between civilians and the government and large corporations whom of which influence and in many cases operate our government's standard operating procedure. As our wise founding father Benjamin Franklin once said "those  who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty no safety."

 

I do not claim to know what exactly happened in the events of Michael Brown's death as the rest of you don't either. However, these polarized opinions have many flaws to them just as they did during the shooting and death of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Whatever your view on that particular incident may have been, this is what I feel the situation was based off what we KNOW happened: 1) Zimmerman followed him despite orders from local law officials not to 2) Martin realized this and became disorderly at which point the two became involved in a struggle 3) Martin overpowered Zimmerman in which case he shot him in the chest in self-defense. In that particular case both individuals were at fault so I hold no sympathy for either of them. Now as I mentioned what I said is not necessarily FACTUAL, but there is good enough evidence to suggest that that's what took place. However, if I were to speculate I would imagine the events are similar to that of Trayvon Martin only flipped where the struggle happened earlier on, but still ended up in bloodshed, which could be attributed to a number of things, rage, temporary insanity, etc. That said, the local law enforcement's response to the looting, riots, and/or protests is just as inappropriate as the first two aforementioned activities. Even if the rioters and looters had weaponry (which the police has yet to show any evidence that there has been; yes there is property damage, but to my knowledge no one has been injured as a result of these unruly activities) - it DOES NOT JUSTIFY SHOOTING AT CIVILIANS, IT IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 

The militarization of police is nothing new, but the amplified actions and scale of these operations is a symptom of the police state in which we reside. Are there situations where the use of S.W.A.T. teams are necessary? Sure. However, the prefix in S.W.A.T. "Special" is becoming less and less so to the point where standard arrest warrants are being handled by "Special" Weapons and Tactics. To be fair, people were not paying attention when the National Defense Authorization Act was ratified, which allows military personnel to detain anyone for an indefinite period of time without due process. They may not be military personnel, but they sure as hell look like it and many cases receive the training for it, so in their eyes they already are soldiers. Many departments and federal agencies advocate for policies that facilitate these occupy-esque operations in the name of "securing freedom." How are we free if every time someone feels oppressed or commits to civil disobedience (i.e. protests, etc.) that G.I. Joe comes along and treats everyone as a prisoner? One thing you can count on, push a man too far and odds are he'll start pushing back. This is the Ferguson community's way of pushing back after all their alleged years of oppression. Not the rioting and the looting, but the protests. Even if they did not have to proper documentation to protest, are you really going to tell me that a community of oppressed people are going to go to their municipality and ask them to relieve the oppression to speak their grievances? You have got to be INSANE to believe that.  Yes, the rioting and looting is unacceptable and should be condemned, however, it is also unacceptable for police to be using excessive force by using rubber bullets, tear gas, etc INDISCRIMINATELY on ALL protests. This is not a bank robbery with automatic assault rifles, this is not a bomb threat... THESE ARE PROTESTS!

 

Regardless of how you view the situation surrounding Michael Brown, I have one question for all of defending this barbaric kind of behavior... how long? How long? How long is it until your local law enforcement decides that EVERYONE in your neighborhood is too dangerous and therefore begins occupation and/or martial law with indefinite detention, which can be enacted under the National Defense Authorization Act? Unlike ordinary citizenry, law enforcement are guaranteed weapons, people are not. If and when gun control many victims of mass shootings cry and howl at the moon is put into effect along with the militarization of police whom answer to no one, we will effectively become no different than Russia or China and that if anything should make you take a second look at these kind of situations!

 

Sincerely,

Mr. Cyborg 

 it DOES NOT JUSTIFY SHOOTING AT CIVILIANS, IT IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 

The militarization of police is nothing new, but the amplified actions and scale of these operations is a symptom of the police state in which we reside. Are there situations where the use of S.W.A.T. teams are necessary? Sure. However, the prefix in S.W.A.T. "Special" is becoming less and less so to the point where standard arrest warrants are being handled by "Special" Weapons and Tactics

 

Here we go again. Please cite what law they are violating? Also please cite where law enforcement is shooting at civilians other than the rubber bullets and tear gas. To my knowledge there have not been any reports of law enforcement just opening fire on civilians.

 

This is another case of someone who is just believing what the media is reporting. The media is choosing to report on the use of SWAT teams more frequently because that is what they need to get their ratings. SWAT teams are not being used more frequently, the media is just reporting on it more often and with the increasing amount of technology that allows more and more people to record and post these incidents on the internet it is getting more coverage. I can also tell you have no law enforcement training or experience because if you did you would know how quickly these situations can go downhill. You may think that using a SWAT team to serve a warrant for a simple domestic battery is excessive but you have no idea what is going through some of these people's minds when they see the police coming to arrest them and how they tell themselves that they can't go to jail. Those are the people who see no way out other than to fight back.

 

I would love to see the people who claim we are becoming more like a police state actually live in a police state because then they would realize how immensely far we are from becoming a police state. And the fact that you have listed Russia as an example of a police state just goes to show how little you know about modern day Russia and/or the definition of a police state.

Edited August 16, 201411 yr by l3ubba

I have been adamantly observing this situation, as I often do with controversial situations like this across the country, and  by far the most appalling aspect of this whole thing is people's reaction; particularly on this thread. The level of insanity it takes to justify and defend the response to the looting, protests, and/or riots is astronomical and puts national security at far greater risk than the "War on Terror" ever has. While the militarization of police is nothing new, the War on Terror amplified the actions and scale of these operations which have been ongoing for the better half of three decades now. The "Police State" which is the next step resulting from the war on terror will ultimately cripple our nation as a whole as the tolerance for a demand of obedience will no longer become acceptable resulting in a civil war between civilians and the government and large corporations whom of which influence and in many cases operate our government's standard operating procedure. As our wise founding father Benjamin Franklin once said "those  who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty no safety."

The only way to stop a protest once it turns violent is overwhelming force. That's something that has happened throughout history, and there has been no end to violent protests outside of force. Before anything is said, that's not to say that all protests turn violent and should be crushed with force. 

 

When the Rodney King riots went unchecked, 53 people died, over 2000 were injured and over $1 billion in property damage was caused. For the most part, the police sat back and did nothing at the beginning, letting it quickly spark into something that required 13,000 military personnel to stop.

 

And it isn't a police state. A police state would have the media censoring these events and anyone speaking out against them getting shot or disappearing. It's been the exact opposite.

 

I do not claim to know what exactly happened in the events of Michael Brown's death as the rest of you don't either. However, these polarized opinions have many flaws to them just as they did during the shooting and death of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Whatever your view on that particular incident may have been, this is what I feel the situation was based off what we KNOW happened: 1) Zimmerman followed him despite orders from local law officials not to 2) Martin realized this and became disorderly at which point the two became involved in a struggle 3) Martin overpowered Zimmerman in which case he shot him in the chest in self-defense. In that particular case both individuals were at fault so I hold no sympathy for either of them. Now as I mentioned what I said is not necessarily FACTUAL, but there is good enough evidence to suggest that that's what took place. However, if I were to speculate I would imagine the events are similar to that of Trayvon Martin only flipped where the struggle happened earlier on, but still ended up in bloodshed, which could be attributed to a number of things, rage, temporary insanity, etc.

 

This has nothing to do with Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman. The police responded to growing demonstrations that resulted in the Quik Trip being looted and burned down.

 

That said, the local law enforcement's response to the looting, riots, and/or protests is just as inappropriate as the first two aforementioned activities. Even if the rioters and looters had weaponry (which the police has yet to show any evidence that there has been; yes there is property damage, but to my knowledge no one has been injured as a result of these unruly activities) - it DOES NOT JUSTIFY SHOOTING AT CIVILIANS, IT IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 

Next, the Quik Trip didn't magically catch fire. Protesters set it on fire. The car wash didn't magically catch on fire Wednesday night. Protestors threw molotov cocktails on it. 

 

Some looters were armed with firearms.

 

'>

 

And you make it sound more dramatic than it was. Police warned people for over an hour to leave the street, which they were in, because it's against the law to obstruct traffic. No civilians were shot with any sort of lethal round, which you seem to be implying.

 

Controlling a riot isn't against international law by the way.

 

The militarization of police is nothing new, but the amplified actions and scale of these operations is a symptom of the police state in which we reside. Are there situations where the use of S.W.A.T. teams are necessary? Sure. However, the prefix in S.W.A.T. "Special" is becoming less and less so to the point where standard arrest warrants are being handled by "Special" Weapons and Tactics.

 

Or maybe, with an age of mass communication, things like this become reported more, more people rush to judgement before letting facts or an investigation get in their way, and more people get committed to a cause. This would mean that more large scale events requiring an escalated police force would happen, resulting in more false accusations of a police state.

 

To be fair, people were not paying attention when the National Defense Authorization Act was ratified, which allows military personnel to detain anyone for an indefinite period of time without due process.

 

This has nothing to do with the NDAA.

 

They may not be military personnel, but they sure as hell look like it and many cases receive the training for it, so in their eyes they already are soldiers. Many departments and federal agencies advocate for policies that facilitate these occupy-esque operations in the name of "securing freedom." How are we free if every time someone feels oppressed or commits to civil disobedience (i.e. protests, etc.) that G.I. Joe comes along and treats everyone as a prisoner?

One thing you can count on, push a man too far and odds are he'll start pushing back. This is the Ferguson community's way of pushing back after all their alleged years of oppression. Not the rioting and the looting, but the protests. Even if they did not have to proper documentation to protest, are you really going to tell me that a community of oppressed people are going to go to their municipality and ask them to relieve the oppression to speak their grievances? You have got to be INSANE to believe that.

 

So what if they look like military personnel? Airsofters look that way too. That doesn't make police military any more than airsofters. Every single item the police have that is described as militarization, short of flashbangs, tear gas, full auto weapons made past 1986, high intensity lasers and Lenco Bearcats/MRAPs are available to civilians.

 

Of course police will occupy an area. That tends to happen after repeated nights of looting. 

 

"GI Joe" isn't going to show up for one person. In case you haven't seen any footage yet, there are hundreds of people looting. One person isn't going to stop that.

 

And these aren't necessarily protests. Protests are organized. Protests have a leader. Protests don't result in violence. Protests especially don't result in local businesses being looted and burned down.

 

Yes, the rioting and looting is unacceptable and should be condemned, however, it is also unacceptable for police to be using excessive force by using rubber bullets, tear gas, etc INDISCRIMINATELY on ALL protests. This is not a bank robbery with automatic assault rifles, this is not a bomb threat... THESE ARE PROTESTS!

 

So what should happen when people start looting? Should the police do what the Missouri Highway Patrol tried last night, holding hands and singing Kumbaya? I'll give you a hint how it turned out. While the St. Louis County Police was ordered to have its 200 riot officers stand down by the Highway Patrol that had taken charge, the Highway Patrol calmly drove by the looters, not doing anything. In that time period, 5 businesses were looted, 1 person was shot and store owners had to show up with their own guns to chase off the CRIMINALS on their property.

 

Regardless of how you view the situation surrounding Michael Brown, I have one question for all of defending this barbaric kind of behavior... how long? How long?How long is it until your local law enforcement decides that EVERYONE in your neighborhood is too dangerous and therefore begins occupation and/or martial law with indefinite detention, which can be enacted under the National Defense Authorization Act?

 

So how long should looters go unpunished? How long should they get free reign to destroy peoples' livelihoods?

 

Your hypothetical scenario is not related to the discussion at hand, but I'll entertain it. If people in my neighborhood started burning down businesses and looting stores, then there would be a police response. I'm capable of understanding that actions have consequences.

 

Unlike ordinary citizenry, law enforcement are guaranteed weapons, people are not. If and when gun control many victims of mass shootings cry and howl at the moon is put into effect along with the militarization of police whom answer to no one

 

This is not about gun control.

 

Again, using camo and equipment mostly available to civilians isn't a military force.

 

we will effectively become no different than Russia or China and that if anything should make you take a second look at these kind of situations!

 

How exactly does attempting to control people before they burn down businesses using less-lethal means equate to China or Russia? Those countries would probably shoot the looters.

 

 

That said, the local law enforcement's response to the looting, riots, and/or protests is just as inappropriate as the first two aforementioned activities. Even if the rioters and looters had weaponry (which the police has yet to show any evidence that there has been; yes there is property damage, but to my knowledge no one has been injured as a result of these unruly activities) - it DOES NOT JUSTIFY SHOOTING AT CIVILIANS, IT IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

Really? What in international law disallows use of less-lethal force to control civil unrest? There's precious little in international law about what a sovereign state can do in relation to its own people (that's part of what it means to be sovereign). If you're going to say it constitutes crimes against humanity, I'd suggest you reread the definition of crimes against humanity (look at the ICC definition; it's the most recent, and though the ICC has no jurisdiction in the US [because the US hasn't consented to its jurisdiction, and isn't party to the treaty], it's still a decent definition of what the term would be considered to mean) and think hard about whether use of less-lethal force in a specific area in response to riots (or lethal force, when only used against people actively threatening lives, and if you think lethal force has been used indiscriminately I'm going to ask you for sources) in fact falls under the definition (particularly the part about "systematic or widespread").

Curfew now in effect, Midnight to 5 AM

 

http://www.kmov.com/news/national/Governor-declares-State-of-Emergency-curfew-in-Ferguson-271530971.html

This is sad when will police brutality come to an end.

 

This comment makes me wish there was a dislike button.You don't know the facts of the incident.  If in fact Brown was going for the officers gun then the officer had every right to shoot, especially when you consider the threat level given by Brown's size.  In addition, Brown had committed a strong armed robbery minutes before and even though the officer wasn't aware of this it would make sense that Brown thought he was being stopped because of the robbery.  I guess not everyone here is pro law enforcement.... Ironic for the site.

This comment makes me wish there was a dislike button.You don't know the facts of the incident. If in fact Brown was going for the officers gun then the officer had every right to shoot, especially when you consider the threat level given by Brown's size. In addition, Brown had committed a strong armed robbery minutes before and even though the officer wasn't aware of this it would make sense that Brown thought he was being stopped because of the robbery. I guess not everyone here is pro law enforcement.... Ironic for the site.

Okay that was in the past, I realize what I've done now. Oh and another thing people have told me about that comment and how it was bad, so why do you feel the need to bother me about that?!

Edited August 16, 201411 yr by Chester199

I have been adamantly observing this situation, as I often do with controversial situations like this across the country, and  by far the most appalling aspect of this whole thing is people's reaction; particularly on this thread. The level of insanity it takes to justify and defend the response to the looting, protests, and/or riots is astronomical and puts national security at far greater risk than the "War on Terror" ever has. While the militarization of police is nothing new, the War on Terror amplified the actions and scale of these operations which have been ongoing for the better half of three decades now. The "Police State" which is the next step resulting from the war on terror will ultimately cripple our nation as a whole as the tolerance for a demand of obedience will no longer become acceptable resulting in a civil war between civilians and the government and large corporations whom of which influence and in many cases operate our government's standard operating procedure. As our wise founding father Benjamin Franklin once said "those  who would give up essential liberty, to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty no safety."

 

I do not claim to know what exactly happened in the events of Michael Brown's death as the rest of you don't either. However, these polarized opinions have many flaws to them just as they did during the shooting and death of Trayvon Martin in Florida. Whatever your view on that particular incident may have been, this is what I feel the situation was based off what we KNOW happened: 1) Zimmerman followed him despite orders from local law officials not to 2) Martin realized this and became disorderly at which point the two became involved in a struggle 3) Martin overpowered Zimmerman in which case he shot him in the chest in self-defense. In that particular case both individuals were at fault so I hold no sympathy for either of them. Now as I mentioned what I said is not necessarily FACTUAL, but there is good enough evidence to suggest that that's what took place. However, if I were to speculate I would imagine the events are similar to that of Trayvon Martin only flipped where the struggle happened earlier on, but still ended up in bloodshed, which could be attributed to a number of things, rage, temporary insanity, etc. That said, the local law enforcement's response to the looting, riots, and/or protests is just as inappropriate as the first two aforementioned activities. Even if the rioters and looters had weaponry (which the police has yet to show any evidence that there has been; yes there is property damage, but to my knowledge no one has been injured as a result of these unruly activities) - it DOES NOT JUSTIFY SHOOTING AT CIVILIANS, IT IS A VIOLATION OF INTERNATIONAL LAW.

 

The militarization of police is nothing new, but the amplified actions and scale of these operations is a symptom of the police state in which we reside. Are there situations where the use of S.W.A.T. teams are necessary? Sure. However, the prefix in S.W.A.T. "Special" is becoming less and less so to the point where standard arrest warrants are being handled by "Special" Weapons and Tactics. To be fair, people were not paying attention when the National Defense Authorization Act was ratified, which allows military personnel to detain anyone for an indefinite period of time without due process. They may not be military personnel, but they sure as hell look like it and many cases receive the training for it, so in their eyes they already are soldiers. Many departments and federal agencies advocate for policies that facilitate these occupy-esque operations in the name of "securing freedom." How are we free if every time someone feels oppressed or commits to civil disobedience (i.e. protests, etc.) that G.I. Joe comes along and treats everyone as a prisoner? One thing you can count on, push a man too far and odds are he'll start pushing back. This is the Ferguson community's way of pushing back after all their alleged years of oppression. Not the rioting and the looting, but the protests. Even if they did not have to proper documentation to protest, are you really going to tell me that a community of oppressed people are going to go to their municipality and ask them to relieve the oppression to speak their grievances? You have got to be INSANE to believe that.  Yes, the rioting and looting is unacceptable and should be condemned, however, it is also unacceptable for police to be using excessive force by using rubber bullets, tear gas, etc INDISCRIMINATELY on ALL protests. This is not a bank robbery with automatic assault rifles, this is not a bomb threat... THESE ARE PROTESTS!

 

Regardless of how you view the situation surrounding Michael Brown, I have one question for all of defending this barbaric kind of behavior... how long? How long? How long is it until your local law enforcement decides that EVERYONE in your neighborhood is too dangerous and therefore begins occupation and/or martial law with indefinite detention, which can be enacted under the National Defense Authorization Act? Unlike ordinary citizenry, law enforcement are guaranteed weapons, people are not. If and when gun control many victims of mass shootings cry and howl at the moon is put into effect along with the militarization of police whom answer to no one, we will effectively become no different than Russia or China and that if anything should make you take a second look at these kind of situations!

 

Sincerely,

Mr. Cyborg 

 

You clearly need a lesson in modern policing.  First off, as time goes on criminals become more prepared for confrontations with police and the police, in turn, must respond with necessary force.  The police in Ferguson were under equipped by limited manpower to deal with the situation.  You made the point that these were protests.  These were not protests.  Protests don't have people lighting molotov cocktails and then throwing them at police.  They don't burn down and tear up local businesses.  Let's go ahead and call a spade a spade.  The town is black.  The police are white.  The black people see it as a racial injustice which actually inhibits them from seeing the facts, much like in the Zimmerman case.  Have you had the police come and search your home for improper literature?  Have you been randomly stopped and searched just because?  No.  You haven't.  You know why?  We DONT LIVE IN A POLICE STATE.  The weapons in this case were non-lethal munitions used against a growing violent gathering of people.  I have devoted my entire education towards studying our justice system.  I don't have just a bachelor's in criminal justice but I have a master's degree as well.  I have lived and breathed the study of our justice system my entire years in higher education.  We do not have a police state and we are not headed in that direction.  Thank God the police were able to wear riot gear to protect themselves because the first few nights of this thing were wildly out of control.  It upsets me that this has now caused the media to question whether or not police departments need "military style" equipment.  Maybe those same people would do well to watch the 44 minute footage of the North Hollywood bank robbery in 1997 in Los Angeles.  These are not tools or equipment that need to be deployed every day, but given the right situation they are necessary.  I live in a small county in Florida and our Sheriff's Office just purchased two APC's.  Will they need to use them for a high threat deployment?  Probably not, but if they need it they have it.  That is the point of being well armed and well prepared.  Go get an education or some law enforcement experience then come back and tell me if you believe that nonsense you just wrote.

I would like to share what I have written up and shared in various comment threads on this topic.  Each quoted area hits on a different topic which has come up in this thread and plenty of other threads around the world.  Take a few mins and read each one.  I know it is a long read but it may shed some light on an area you have not thought about yet.

 

On the subject of Mr. Brown being unarmed.

 

I am really unhappy with the way the media, NAACP, Civil Right activists and others are repeatedly using the word "unarmed" and implying that because Mr. Brown did not possess a physical weapon, he is automatically innocent and the shooting was unjust or in cold blood. That is nonsense and a completely uneducated stance. I do not mean uneducated in a "you are stupid" sense but more of a "not knowing how an unarmed person is dangerous" sense. To help shed some light on that, please read below.

 

Since everyone all over the world is stuck on the "unarmed" part of this story I will try and clear up how it is possible for the police to shoot and unarmed person. This will not provide all of the answers however it may shed some light on a possible scenario that no media or witness is talking about. If you take a step back and look at the totality of the circumstance with a objective, non racial and non emotional view you may see there is a chance what is being spread is far from what happened.

 

Now that violent crime has taken to the streets of your everyday small town, Police from your everyday small town cop to police in major cities need to have the mentality that he/she will kill before they are killed. They have to be prepared to fight for their life and to win the fight to come out alive. If a suspect chooses to fight with the police, they have just entered into a potentially deadly situation that THEY chose to enter into. Unfortunately, police are not notified they are going to "war" with an individual until the individual attacks. They do not know if the person they are pulling over for speeding or stopped for jaywalking is going to assault them. They have to make split second decisions on what is a threat, how it is a threat and how to respond to that threat before it is too late. They don't get the luxury of analyzing the situation minutes before it happens to assess the threat level and apply the proper response. That is where training comes in and they are trained to survive the fight and go home to their families. This does not mean they are given a license to kill when they want, which is what some think and the media assists in portraying. Infact I am confident in saying 99.8% of officers do not want to have to pull the trigger. Being responsible for another humans death, whether justified or not, can weigh heavy on a persons heart. Add in the process (investigation, legal and media shaming) they and their family are put through for protecting themselves is enough to make some hesitate. Some officers have been killed due to this hesitation which is sad that our world has come to this.

 

One thing to remember about someone fighting the police is every fight is a gun fight as there is always 1 gun in the equation. Even if the suspect does not have a weapon, doesn't mean they are incapable of causing deadly injuries. One good connecting punch is a weapon and can render an officer unconscious. I will even go as far as say it is scientific fact that one punch from a human can kill another if properly placed. With an unconscious officer the suspect now has the ability remove the officer's firearm and kill the officer. Now you have a murderer on the street with a gun which is never good. Officers need to protect themselves and the public from that exact situation.

 

When the officer is being assaulted and they reach a point where they are losing the battle, they can not wait to see if the suspect is going to reach a certain point and stop the assault. They do not know this suspect or their intentions and any hesitation or assumption may get the officer killed. If the officer waits until they are unconscious before making the decision to apply deadly force it is too late.

 

I am not saying this is what happened in Mr. Brown's case, however it is a very possible scenario. It is a fact that Mr. Brown assaulted the officer in some way. It is fact the officer was treated for his injuries. What is unknown at this point is the extent of the officer's injuries and how extreme the assault from Mr. Brown was. Point being, an assailant does not need to have a "weapon" for an officer or even a citizen for that matter to apply deadly force. If they can prove first to a Grand Jury, and if needed in a court of law to a jury of their peers beyond a reasonable doubt, that they felt their life was in imminent danger and needed to apply deadly force to survive; it is a justified shooting. Take race and emotion out of the equation and look at the whole situation and you will see this is most likely not a cold blooded murder as most are portraying it to be. (This paragraph is not me saying that every unarmed suspect in any case can be shot by the police just because they want to, so please do not put those words in my mouth.)

 

One other thing to point out is the basis for all of the rioting and outcry was from eyewitness statements, one of which from Mr. Johnson. Almost all media outlets are using Mr. Johnson's "eye witness" accounts to support the idea that just because Mr. Brown was unarmed he is automatically innocent. But keep in mind, Mr. Johnson's story has been changing day by day and thus he cannot be trusted as a credible witness. I believe the police knew this all along which is why he was never officially interviewed as his lawyer claims. There is no point in taking a witness statement from a witness who is not credible or honest with their observations. The details about the strong armed robbery that surfaced today discredited Mr. Johnson as he stated they did nothing wrong and had no reason to be stopped. He must have conveniently forgotten they were both just involved in a felony crime. None the less jaywalking is illegal and is a completely legal and valid reason for an officer to stop and contact an individual. The officer not knowing he was a potential robbery suspect at the time of contact is irrelevant. The actions of Mr. Brown from the moment the officer first contacted him (in my opinion) was the deciding factor of his fate.

 

Thank you for taking the time to read this. I hope it shed some light on the situation for you if you too believe an "unarmed" person cannot be justifiably shot by the police.

 

On the subject of the public's distrust in Law Enforcement and how the media facilitates it.

 

 I do not deny the fact there is a possibility the officer acted in a negligent or malicous mannor. However, basing this on past events, more often than not in these types of situations the facts come out after the investigation that showed the officer was within the bounds of the law when he/she fired. 

 

The distrust towards the police that most feel I believe is a result of the media doing exactly what they are doing here. By using the headlines, "Officer shoots unarmed teen" they can immediately skew one's perception of the situation by the reader/viewer being filled with emotion. Being filled with emotion leads to a rush in judgement. 

The moment most of the viewers/readers read that headline, they are already thinking the police officer is wrong and typically will not accept any of the true facts that come out later on due to their initial strong emotional reaction. I am willing to bet if the headlines read something to the effect of, "6'4 300lbs male assaults Officer who fires, killing male" the outcry wouldn't have been so bad. People would have had ALL of the initial facts instead of half of the story. They only received the half the facts from the media that would generate outcry and great tv ratings to keep that advertising revenue rolling in.

Another reason for the strong outcry was then initial report that Mr. Brown was shot with his hands up. All over the world there are protests with 1000's walking in the streets with their hands up. That information came from Mr. Johnson. I have already mentioned why nothing he says can be used as a fact. It is pure speculation from an non creditable third party that has been spread as being a fact and lead to even more emotional outcry.
 

 

 

On the subject of Police militarization.

 

----If we look at the most basic task of the police, it is to enforce the laws. This inturn creates order in a world that would be sheer chaos without anyone doing such. Their task is also to protect the citizens they serve. In order to complete these tasks the police need to be equipped to handle the resistance they are met with. They not only need to be equipped to meet the resistance but need to be equipped to exceed the resistance in order to one, go home alive and two, to protect the public from those who choose to commit crime. We have to look at the types of situations the police have been dealing with in the last few years. Active shooters in malls, parks, courthouses, workplaces and even schools. Bank robberies with suspects armed with AK-47's. Gang shootings involving sub machine guns and rifles. We task our police to respond and react to the situations and it is labeled as police militarization when they equip themselves accordingly? That just doesn't seem fair. The public wants to be protected from these situations (that will never happen to them....until it does) by the police? Do you expect them to stop an armed assailant with an AK-47 with only a 9mm pistol? If you do, you are sadly mistaken with the odds in that scenario.

----The armored vehicle (Bear Cat as it is called) has been brought up as an excessive military vehicle. This vehicle is used to protect the public more than most know. In an active shooter situation this vehicle can be used to evacuate citizens that may be pinned down in a building or even injured. If you were in a building pinned down by an active shooter would you be pleased to see an armored vehicle pull up providing you a safe haven to escape said building? If you were injured in an active shooter type situation would you want the police to have a vehicle that would allow them to drive right up to you and safely pick you up and take you to safety? I am willing to bet you would. Regular patrol vehicles are vulnerable to bullets. Armored vehicles are not for the most part and the above scenarios is exactly why police departments around the country have them. These vehicles are also used to save citizens from themselves. They are commonly used in suicide situations where someone has barricaded themselves inside a home with a weapon and is threatening to kill themselves. Police can drive this vehicle right up to the front door. Examples of how this helps are as follows. 1. Provides cover for officers which allows them to tighten a perimeter around the structure thus decreasing the chance the suicidal subject can escape with a weapon. 2. It allows negotiators to be face to face with the person which allows them to build a relationship with the person to work on talking them down. Thus protecting the citizen from himself. You cannot do these things with a Ford Crown Vic. The police need a vehicle that can provide safety from the guns they face. If it happens to be a military style vehicle then so be it.

----Just this week where I live there have been at least 5 SWAT call outs that I know of. 2 suicidal subjects barricaded with a shotgun, 2 Domestic Violence related barricades involving a weapon and 1 barricade involving robbery suspects in a house with weapons. In each of these situations the Bear Cats were used. In each situation it gave the police the tools they needed to accomplish any of several possible tasks involved with keeping citizens safe. 

----It seems as if a majority of the public does not want the police to have military type weapons or vehicles most of the time. Only when a situation arises where it is beneficial to this majority for the police to have them, is it ok. The bottom line is the police cannot predict when and where a situation where these tools may be needed will arise. So police departments around the country have to prepare themselves for these types of situations the best they can as it is not a matter of if...but a matter of when it will happen.

----Police Militarization does not play out with one race or one demographic. It plays out where the crime is. It plays out where the threat is occurring. If the crime predominantly occurs in one area or with one race then you can expect to see the police there with their military type tools all in the name of keeping you and your family safe from those who choose to cause harm to others.

 

 

In closing, if the facts come out that the officer was in the wrong and did fire with negligence or with malicious intent, I will stand right beside the lawful protesters in seeking justice for Mr. Brown and his family. Until then, I will go off of the facts I have and reserve my final judgement for when the investigation is complete.

Edited August 17, 201411 yr by nc1787