They moved in to break it up only after there had been reports of violence breaking out. They let them assemble, but they didn't know how to do it peacefully.

Violence instigated by law enforcement. Had cooler heads prevailed on the part of Ferguson and St. Louis County law enforcement officers in command, a confrontation would not have occurred and they would not have unnecessarily moved in to break things up. As I said before, look at the results the State Police achieved versus the local police and compare their methods. 

 

I don't want to derail this thread any further, I'd like to return to discussion of the incident in New Mexico. 

Edited January 14, 201511 yr by SIR_Sergeant

It's the job of the police to de-escalate.

The de-escalated after violence was reported during a peaceful assembly.

They moved in to break it up only after there had been reports of violence breaking out. They let them assemble, but they didn't know how to do it peacefully.

Read my post. I never once defended their actions.

If a cop wants to indescrimanetly shoot somebody, he'll do it regardless of the weapon.

So tell me specifically, why they shouldn't have that gear.

What ever happened to "peace officers"? They didn't know how to de-escalate violence....thats kind of their job....

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't have this gear. In light of the terrorist attacks in France and Australia, we saw that the US isn't the only country with militarized police. The problem is that in the US, cops bust out military weapons and gear EVERY chance they get. When white conservatives are open carrying AK-47s, the SWAT team doesn't roll up with M4s and body armor. But if black people in Missouri dare to protest, in come the tanks. That's the problem. Once cops have this gear, they can't wait to use it. And when they can't wait to use it, people get killed.

 

Remember, cops in Great Britain don't carry guns. And almost no one is killed by cops there. American cops kill all the time.

Violence instigated by law enforcement. Had cooler heads prevailed on the part of Ferguson and St. Louis County law enforcement officers in command, a confrontation would not have occurred and they would not have unnecessarily moved in to break things up. As I said before, look at the results the State Police achieved versus the local police and compare their methods. 

 

I don't want to derail this thread any further, I'd like to return to discussion of the incident in New Mexico. 

 

The violence was instigated by the citizens. NOT the police. The police gave lawful orders, they resisted, they got arrested. Doesn't justify the rest of the crowd resorting to violence.

What ever happened to "peace officers"? They didn't know how to de-escalate violence....thats kind of their job....

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't have this gear. In light of the terrorist attacks in France and Australia, we saw that the US isn't the only country with militarized police. The problem is that in the US, cops bust out military weapons and gear EVERY chance they get. When white conservatives are open carrying AK-47s, the SWAT team doesn't roll up with M4s and body armor. But if black people in Missouri dare to protest, in come the tanks. That's the problem. Once cops have this gear, they can't wait to use it. And when they can't wait to use it, people get killed.

 

Remember, cops in Great Britain don't carry guns. And almost no one is killed by cops there. American cops kill all the time.

 

Yes they do. And they did. Cops will give 1 verbal warning, if you don't follow it, they'll use necessary force. They still de-escalated the situation.

 

You're ill informed about ferguson. They showed up in riot gear with a water cannon on an armored car (nothing lethal). But when violence starts pouring into the streets and places are getting firebombed, they but out the m4s which is justified. To quote my superior "If you throw a brick at a cop, you'll get shot. If you disagree, let me show you how lethal a brick can be."

 

I'll leave this video here for anyone that feels inclined to be educated.

 

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=fdd_1419924643

Edited January 14, 201511 yr by Pavelow

As a long time and current resident of Albuquerque, I completely agree with the DA's choice to file murder charges against the officers. I do support APD a lot along with most of the shootings that APD officers are involved in. I do not however agree with this shooting itself.  The lapel camera videos are going to be the key piece of evidence.

 

 

Here's some other stories from the NBC station here in Albuquerque. 

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3675199.shtml?cat=500#.VLYAWivF-qY

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3675606.shtml?cat=500#.VLYATCvF-qY

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3675464.shtml?cat=500#.VLYAUyvF-qY

http://www.kob.com/article/stories/S3675399.shtml?cat=500#.VLYAVyvF-qY
 

Bringing 3 M4's to deal with a trespassing vagrant? That was completely uncalled for, and the video clearly shows the guy wasn't violent to justify the shooting. This is why body cameras are necessary- they can weed out the 'bad' cops and justify the 'good' cops. 

I'm not saying they shouldn't have this gear. In light of the terrorist attacks in France and Australia, we saw that the US isn't the only country with militarized police.

 

{...}

 

Remember, cops in Great Britain don't carry guns. And almost no one is killed by cops there. American cops kill all the time.

 

No country in europe has police as militarized as the US. All of our officers carry a handgun (except UK) but no long guns or shotguns. If police feel like they can't handle the situation with the equipment they have, they call in reinforcements - to be more specific - every country's own SWAT team. France has RAID or GIGN, Germany has MEK, SEK or GSG9, Austria has COBRA or WEGA, ...

 

They are better trained to handle armed suspects and are equipped with bullet proof vests and assault rifles. But if these teams encounter somebody wielding a knife, they will use their fighting skills to take him/her down. If they shoot somebody without having taken every possible other method, they'll have to stand trial and most likely be convicted.

 

I don't understand why officers in the US think they have to handle everything. If they're overmatched with a situation, they should call in officers who are actually trained in dealing with such things. That'd prevent a lot of police shootings, because they just have no clue what they're doing.

 

And what Pavelow said is just wrong in my view. If terrorists can get an AK-47, police doesn't need to get assault rifles. You couldn't have done anything to prevent the Charlie Hebdo shootings, with no weapon in the world would you have been able to save these people.

 

You know, Germany has a gun-shot-murder-rate of about 30/year maximum. UK about the same. Austria (being a small country) of about 10/year maximum. The US has about 15.000/year. Of course you can't prevent shootings, there will always be people who somehow obtain a gun and shoot somebody with it. But with strict gun laws it is far more difficult to get one. So while you can't prevent shootings, you definitely can drastically lower their number. With the same statistics as the US, Germany would have 5000 gun-shot-murders every year.

So all the armament of the police, it just escalates things. People start to feel like they can't trust the police and instead of respect them, they fear the police.

 

And as for your "riot police" statement: You can identify violent protesters and separate them from the peaceful group. Absolutely NO need to break up the protests because of a few violent people. And to show up in full riot gear just to show strength is also escalating things.

Over here, police officers in normal uniform follow the protesters and check for violent people in there. The riot police stays back hidden in some alley ways along the protest and if they need to intervene, they can. But they don't show off their strength.

 

So while I really like most of the americans I met so far, I really think you guys should think about your gun problems. And you definitely should demilitarize your police and give them some proper training on how to handle difficult situations.

Gosh, the problem ain't in guns, guns never kill anyone by their own will. If an officer is willing to kill he can kill a guy with his bare hands, flashlight, baton, or a Glock. 

 

The problem is that in America (and probably in some other countries) a cop can get shot anytime for anything. Having lunch in a car or a cafe, walking down the street, responding to a "kitten stuck on a tree" call, in a cinema off-duty by some crazy bitch and so on. Of course they're afraid as hell and it must be like a combat area for them. 

 

This shooting is a murder and I think the officer should be prosecuted but at least I do understand him and what causes this behavior. Maybe I'm wrong, of course, but from my side of the ocean things do look this way. 

What ever happened to "peace officers"? They didn't know how to de-escalate violence....thats kind of their job....

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't have this gear. In light of the terrorist attacks in France and Australia, we saw that the US isn't the only country with militarized police. The problem is that in the US, cops bust out military weapons and gear EVERY chance they get. When white conservatives are open carrying AK-47s, the SWAT team doesn't roll up with M4s and body armor. But if black people in Missouri dare to protest, in come the tanks. That's the problem. Once cops have this gear, they can't wait to use it. And when they can't wait to use it, people get killed.

 

Remember, cops in Great Britain don't carry guns. And almost no one is killed by cops there. American cops kill all the time.

 

No country in europe has police as militarized as the US. All of our officers carry a handgun (except UK) but no long guns or shotguns. If police feel like they can't handle the situation with the equipment they have, they call in reinforcements - to be more specific - every country's own SWAT team. France has RAID or GIGN, Germany has MEK, SEK or GSG9, Austria has COBRA or WEGA, ...

 

They are better trained to handle armed suspects and are equipped with bullet proof vests and assault rifles. But if these teams encounter somebody wielding a knife, they will use their fighting skills to take him/her down. If they shoot somebody without having taken every possible other method, they'll have to stand trial and most likely be convicted.

 

I don't understand why officers in the US think they have to handle everything. If they're overmatched with a situation, they should call in officers who are actually trained in dealing with such things. That'd prevent a lot of police shootings, because they just have no clue what they're doing.

 

And what Pavelow said is just wrong in my view. If terrorists can get an AK-47, police doesn't need to get assault rifles. You couldn't have done anything to prevent the Charlie Hebdo shootings, with no weapon in the world would you have been able to save these people.

 

You know, Germany has a gun-shot-murder-rate of about 30/year maximum. UK about the same. Austria (being a small country) of about 10/year maximum. The US has about 15.000/year. Of course you can't prevent shootings, there will always be people who somehow obtain a gun and shoot somebody with it. But with strict gun laws it is far more difficult to get one. So while you can't prevent shootings, you definitely can drastically lower their number. With the same statistics as the US, Germany would have 5000 gun-shot-murders every year.

So all the armament of the police, it just escalates things. People start to feel like they can't trust the police and instead of respect them, they fear the police.

 

And as for your "riot police" statement: You can identify violent protesters and separate them from the peaceful group. Absolutely NO need to break up the protests because of a few violent people. And to show up in full riot gear just to show strength is also escalating things.

Over here, police officers in normal uniform follow the protesters and check for violent people in there. The riot police stays back hidden in some alley ways along the protest and if they need to intervene, they can. But they don't show off their strength.

 

So while I really like most of the americans I met so far, I really think you guys should think about your gun problems. And you definitely should demilitarize your police and give them some proper training on how to handle difficult situations.

You're judging the entire Police force of an entire nation, based off of the actions that you see of a few on the news. There were no "Peaceful protests" with the Ferguson case. The closest the protests got to "peaceful" were large crowds of people blocking major streets, causing traffic, and preaching hate. You can't compare the United States to Europe, because they aren't similar. The United States isn't a continent it's an entire country, one of the most powerful countries in the world. I never understand why people compare the United States to The UK, or Germany, doesn't make much sense to me. Comparing the United States to Austria is a complete joke. As for the "militarized police", criminals in the United States don't compare to criminals in most of Europe. Most serious criminals in the United States are armed to the teeth. The last thing this country needs is for it's criminals to be better armed than the average officer. Europe doesn't have gun crime like we do in the US. Most Police do have proper training on how to handle difficult situations, that's a completely ignorant statement. You can't always assume that every part of the United States has "alley ways". Almost every "peaceful protest" in the United States has become violent. If it doesn't become violent, it's an inconvenience to those of us trying to live our lives. They block traffic, block major roads, blocks stores, and cause disorder. What happens when a "peaceful protester" becomes violent because a violent protester is arrested? Then what? What happens when the violent protesters stir the crowd to become hostile, then what? How things are in Austria aren't how things are in the United States.

 

What ever happened to "peace officers"? They didn't know how to de-escalate violence....thats kind of their job....

 

I'm not saying they shouldn't have this gear. In light of the terrorist attacks in France and Australia, we saw that the US isn't the only country with militarized police. The problem is that in the US, cops bust out military weapons and gear EVERY chance they get. When white conservatives are open carrying AK-47s, the SWAT team doesn't roll up with M4s and body armor. But if black people in Missouri dare to protest, in come the tanks. That's the problem. Once cops have this gear, they can't wait to use it. And when they can't wait to use it, people get killed.

 

Remember, cops in Great Britain don't carry guns. And almost no one is killed by cops there. American cops kill all the time.

Crime in the US and UK aren't even remotely close to similar. They are two completely different countries, and follow completely different procedures, and have completely different crime levels.

No country in europe has police as militarized as the US. All of our officers carry a handgun (except UK) but no long guns or shotguns. If police feel like they can't handle the situation with the equipment they have, they call in reinforcements - to be more specific - every country's own SWAT team. France has RAID or GIGN, Germany has MEK, SEK or GSG9, Austria has COBRA or WEGA, ...

They are better trained to handle armed suspects and are equipped with bullet proof vests and assault rifles. But if these teams encounter somebody wielding a knife, they will use their fighting skills to take him/her down. If they shoot somebody without having taken every possible other method, they'll have to stand trial and most likely be convicted.

I don't understand why officers in the US think they have to handle everything. If they're overmatched with a situation, they should call in officers who are actually trained in dealing with such things. That'd prevent a lot of police shootings, because they just have no clue what they're doing.

And what Pavelow said is just wrong in my view. If terrorists can get an AK-47, police doesn't need to get assault rifles. You couldn't have done anything to prevent the Charlie Hebdo shootings, with no weapon in the world would you have been able to save these people.

You know, Germany has a gun-shot-murder-rate of about 30/year maximum. UK about the same. Austria (being a small country) of about 10/year maximum. The US has about 15.000/year. Of course you can't prevent shootings, there will always be people who somehow obtain a gun and shoot somebody with it. But with strict gun laws it is far more difficult to get one. So while you can't prevent shootings, you definitely can drastically lower their number. With the same statistics as the US, Germany would have 5000 gun-shot-murders every year.

So all the armament of the police, it just escalates things. People start to feel like they can't trust the police and instead of respect them, they fear the police.

And as for your "riot police" statement: You can identify violent protesters and separate them from the peaceful group. Absolutely NO need to break up the protests because of a few violent people. And to show up in full riot gear just to show strength is also escalating things.

Over here, police officers in normal uniform follow the protesters and check for violent people in there. The riot police stays back hidden in some alley ways along the protest and if they need to intervene, they can. But they don't show off their strength.

So while I really like most of the americans I met so far, I really think you guys should think about your gun problems. And you definitely should demilitarize your police and give them some proper training on how to handle difficult situations.

I'm going to guess you've never been in a life or death situation. Just because you wear a badge doesn't make you Bruce Lee. If you come at me with a knife, I will shoot your ass dead. You were going to take my life, and I'm going to take yours first. I'll let you try to peacefully resolve it without a gun.

And back to Charlie Hebdo. In the US the responding police would likely show up with shotguns and M4s in their cars. Instead the French police backed off, let them get away, and had to deal with another hostage situation in which hostages were injured.

Again, I'm going to guess you've had zero training for riot situations. You don't understand wine the police are in JUST riot gear, and from the middle of the crowd a brick hits them. Or there's a report of 3 people beating down an old man somewhere. The police aren't going to play 20 questions. They're going to protect themselves since they don't know where that brick came from, and they're going to move in to save the life of that old man.

When the normal Street gang thug has access to AKs and M4s, then our true first responders will have them and not just SWAT. If I have a report of a man with a gun, I'll choose an M4 for more power. Less bullets I'll have to use to put him down should it come to that.

Crime in the US and UK aren't even remotely close to similar. They are two completely different countries, and follow completely different procedures, and have completely different crime levels.

Comparing the United States to Austria is a complete joke. As for the "militarized police", criminals in the United States don't compare to criminals in most of Europe. Most serious criminals in the United States are armed to the teeth. The last thing this country needs is for it's criminals to be better armed than the average officer. Europe doesn't have gun crime like we do in the US.

 

Yeah, but you're missing the point. The high crime rate, the mass of shootings, all that happens because the US do have a gun problem. Some day back in history, that got out of control, and while I see that it would be very difficult if not impossible to disarm every criminal and citizen in the US, your government should start to get back in control of all the guns with stricter gun laws.

Of course you can compare Europe and the countries in Europe to the US. Each of them are western countries, we do have a lot of common culture, and while we have different problems over here in Europe, you definitely do have a gun problem. So you say you need your weapons because of your high rate of shootings and crime - but you're ignoring that arming the people and giving the police even stronger weapons only escalates things. You can defend yourself with a pistol, you don't need an M4. And a lot of small cities in the US do have police with long guns and militarized SWAT teams while the prevalence of a shootout with that kind of weapon is almost zero. I do understand why NYPD, LAPD and whatever police organization in big cities need M4s or other weapons, but small county police departments definitely don't.

 

I'm going to guess you've never been in a life or death situation. Just because you wear a badge doesn't make you Bruce Lee. If you come at me with a knife, I will shoot your ass dead. You were going to take my life, and I'm going to take yours first. I'll let you try to peacefully resolve it without a gun.

 

I have been to life or death situations. Only that I was on the helping side, trying to save somebody, while you'd probably be on the murdering side. So I definitely prefer my side over yours. You're making a fool of yourself. Shoot first, think later is what you're saying. Hell, if somebody comes at you with a knife, you run, run away from him and try to get to safety or get help from the police who can point their guns at him. Most people will stop immediately and drop their knife. That's what good police work means. Not shooting somebody because he might pose a threat. Trying EVERYTHING to save EVERYBODY, even the perp. There are a lot of non-lethal ways to disarm somebody. Communication, less-lethal weapons, fighting techniques.

 

That cowboy mentality you're spreading here is outdated. If a police officer doesn't know how to handle somebody with a knife other than shooting him, he shouldn't be allowed to be a police officer.

 

 

 

I have been to life or death situations. Only that I was on the helping side, trying to save somebody, while you'd probably be on the murdering side. So I definitely prefer my side over yours. You're making a fool of yourself. Shoot first, think later is what you're saying. Hell, if somebody comes at you with a knife, you run, run away from him and try to get to safety or get help from the police who can point their guns at him. Most people will stop immediately and drop their knife. That's what good police work means. Not shooting somebody because he might pose a threat. Trying EVERYTHING to save EVERYBODY, even the perp. There are a lot of non-lethal ways to disarm somebody. Communication, less-lethal weapons, fighting techniques.

 

 

 

Haha, so you've been staring down somebody with a gun or a knife, while you're the one he's going to attack? That's exactly the mentality to have. When somebody is charging you with a knife, you shoot first, question later. Otherwise you can think in a body bag. That's what they teach you in the military, and in the police academy. It's saved my life once, and I'm still here.

 

You're making yourself look like an arrogant asshole by calling me a murderer. 

Yeah, but you're missing the point. The high crime rate, the mass of shootings, all that happens because the US do have a gun problem. Some day back in history, that got out of control, and while I see that it would be very difficult if not impossible to disarm every criminal and citizen in the US, your government should start to get back in control of all the guns with stricter gun laws.

Of course you can compare Europe and the countries in Europe to the US. Each of them are western countries, we do have a lot of common culture, and while we have different problems over here in Europe, you definitely do have a gun problem. So you say you need your weapons because of your high rate of shootings and crime - but you're ignoring that arming the people and giving the police even stronger weapons only escalates things. You can defend yourself with a pistol, you don't need an M4. And a lot of small cities in the US do have police with long guns and militarized SWAT teams while the prevalence of a shootout with that kind of weapon is almost zero. I do understand why NYPD, LAPD and whatever police organization in big cities need M4s or other weapons, but small county police departments definitely don't.

 

 

I have been to life or death situations. Only that I was on the helping side, trying to save somebody, while you'd probably be on the murdering side. So I definitely prefer my side over yours. You're making a fool of yourself. Shoot first, think later is what you're saying. Hell, if somebody comes at you with a knife, you run, run away from him and try to get to safety or get help from the police who can point their guns at him. Most people will stop immediately and drop their knife. That's what good police work means. Not shooting somebody because he might pose a threat. Trying EVERYTHING to save EVERYBODY, even the perp. There are a lot of non-lethal ways to disarm somebody. Communication, less-lethal weapons, fighting techniques.

 

That cowboy mentality you're spreading here is outdated. If a police officer doesn't know how to handle somebody with a knife other than shooting him, he shouldn't be allowed to be a police officer.

We don't have a gun problem, we have a gun crime problem. Criminals purchase weapons and commit crime with them. I understand your point, but I just simply disagree with it. As Pavelow said, if the criminals can carry AK's, law enforcement should carry M4's. The United States doesn't have a problem with it's guns. I have yet to be shot at, or witness a shooting, or talk to anybody that has been involved in a shooting. There are millions of law-abiding gun owning Americans, and you can't let the actions of a few criminals change your judgement of owning a gun. You can't compare one country to an entire continent, it just doesn't make sense.

Haha, so you've been staring down somebody with a gun or a knife, while you're the one he's going to attack? That's exactly the mentality to have. When somebody is charging you with a knife, you shoot first, question later. Otherwise you can think in a body bag. That's what they teach you in the military, and in the police academy. It's saved my life once, and I'm still here.

 

You're making yourself look like an arrogant asshole by calling me a murderer. 

 

Yes, indeed I have. Drunk person with a knife, ambulance called on scene to help this guy. But he wasn't all that unconscious. But we just ran away and let the police do their job. As far as I know, he just dropped his knife a bit later. No need to shoot this guy.

 

And that's where we disagree. Especially with somebody wielding a knife, you don't have to shoot that guy. I see that it is a far more difficult situation when you're confronted with somebody else wielding a gun. I probably too would try to shoot somebody else when he was pointing a gun at me. But a knife ... honestly ... just run away as a civilian. And like I said: Most people drop their knives when they're confronted with somebody else pointing a gun at them. You don't have to shoot them. And if they're launching an attack on you, get to a safe distance, use OC spray.

 

Yes I make myself look arrogant, but I am confident that my approach of de-escalation is more intellgent than just shooting everybody who MIGHT pose a danger.

Yes, indeed I have. Drunk person with a knife, ambulance called on scene to help this guy. But he wasn't all that unconscious. But we just ran away and let the police do their job. As far as I know, he just dropped his knife a bit later. No need to shoot this guy.

 

And that's where we disagree. Especially with somebody wielding a knife, you don't have to shoot that guy. I see that it is a far more difficult situation when you're confronted with somebody else wielding a gun. I probably too would try to shoot somebody else when he was pointing a gun at me. But a knife ... honestly ... just run away as a civilian. And like I said: Most people drop their knives when they're confronted with somebody else pointing a gun at them. You don't have to shoot them. And if they're launching an attack on you, get to a safe distance, use OC spray.

 

Yes I make myself look arrogant, but I am confident that my approach of de-escalation is more intellgent than just shooting everybody who MIGHT pose a danger.

 

Of course, I agree with you on that. Just because the guy has a knife you wouldn't shoot. But the moment he starts charging you with it, you shoot. I'm talking more about cops, though. They don't have the option to run away. 

Of course, I agree with you on that. Just because the guy has a knife you wouldn't shoot. But the moment he starts charging you with it, you shoot. I'm talking more about cops, though. They don't have the option to run away. 

 

Actually we went from a heated debate to arguments, came to an understanding and cleared it all up. I think we can agree on about 90% of that. Nice to finish a conversation like that.

Stop and frisk. Low level drug offense arrests. Breaking up largely peaceful protests. 

 

I'll use the Ferguson case an example. On the first day or two of the protest (I know things went to shit later, I'm not referring to the looting and arson following Wilson's not being charged) things were peaceful. The crowds were large and vocal but there were no problems otherwise. Local law enforcement responds like this and dramatically escalates the situation. While these weapons were not actually used (tear gas, etc.. was) there is certainly an intimidation and fear factor associated with a response like this. Heavily armed and aggressive police escalated a situation that didn't call for it. 

 

Days later, the State Police captain (Johnson?) took over. Sights like the one above disappeared and officers were instead in standard uniform, even mingling with the crowd in some instances. The situation was drastically deescalated and the protests were able to peacefully continue. 

 

Low level drug offenses are illegal. The police are not responsible for that, the politicians that make the laws are.

 

The protests you speak of in Ferguson, and everywhere else for that matter, are unlawful assemblies. "Peaceful" is not the only requirement for a lawful assembly in this country. I'll explain this more in relation to your first amendment quote posted below.

 

Also, the first night that Captain Johnson and the Highway patrol took over, they lost control of the crowds, several officers were injured because they were ordered not to wear their protective equipment (riot gear), and in innocent civilian was shot in the leg by the "peaceful protesters". The situation was certainly NOT "drastically deescalated", despite whatever false information the media may have lead you to believe. Captain Johnson himself made a public statement to the media around 3 in the morning acknowledging that he lost control of the crowd and had to change their tactics and reverted to using armored vehicles and tear gas at midnight to disperse the crowd and regain control.

 

 

In the time period I'm referring to, this kind of activity was kept to a minimum. Nothing that should have been concerning. As I said before, things were largely peaceful. Why would law enforcement show up in full riot gear, set up very close to the protests, and then move in and break them up?

 

The First Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

 

Law enforcement moved in and unnecessarily broke up peacefully assembled people. When people started looting and starting fires after Wilson was not indicted, then yes, an active law enforcement response would be warranted. But if the assembly was still peaceful, like at the time I'm referring to, then I would say that the First Amendment rights of the protesters were violated. 

 

Being peaceful is not the only requirement for a lawful assembly in this country. Furthermore, a long standing legal precedent exists whereby the rights granted by the Constitution may be reasonably regulated so long as they are not completely infringed. The first amendment is one of those. For example, "freedom of speech" means that you can say anything you want, but, you might still have to answer to the consequences for what you say. No one can stop you from yelling "fire" in a crowded theater, but if anyone is hurt or killed during the panic that follows from your exercise of free speech, you can be charged with inciting a panic or other charges because of the consequences of what you chose to say.

 

For lawful assemblies, yes it must be peaceful. But the rest of the amendment also says, "...and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." The legal interpretation of this in every state and city I've ever lived in, is that you must apply for and be granted a permit for your assembly. The permit application serves as your petition to the Government and establishes your redress of grievances. Furthermore, your "rights" may not infringe upon the rights of other people, or otherwise violate any laws in the exercise thereof. This usually means that you cannot interfere with any person that is not participating in the protest, you cannot be on private property, you cannot protest early in the morning or late at night when you would disturb other people, etc.

 

So, the protests in Ferguson and elsewhere in the country, while peaceful at times, are illegal. These people are breaking the law by not obtaining permits, endangering the public by blocking roads and highways, by trespassing on private property, obstructing persons that are not part of the protest, violating noise ordinances, committing disorderly conduct, etc. It's the same reason the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters were arrested, they were breaking the law.

 

Violence instigated by law enforcement. Had cooler heads prevailed on the part of Ferguson and St. Louis County law enforcement officers in command, a confrontation would not have occurred and they would not have unnecessarily moved in to break things up. As I said before, look at the results the State Police achieved versus the local police and compare their methods. 

 

I don't want to derail this thread any further, I'd like to return to discussion of the incident in New Mexico. 

 

Had cooler heads prevailed in Ferguson, no one would have ever heard of the city and it would have remained an unknown suburb of St. Louis. The entire protest movement there was based on a story of events that has now been proven to be a lie.

 

I don't understand why officers in the US think they have to handle everything. If they're overmatched with a situation, they should call in officers who are actually trained in dealing with such things. That'd prevent a lot of police shootings, because they just have no clue what they're doing.

 

So while I really like most of the americans I met so far, I really think you guys should think about your gun problems. And you definitely should demilitarize your police and give them some proper training on how to handle difficult situations.

 

The police officers here don't think they have to handle everything, they are expected to handle everything. That's why they are trained and equipped to do so. It didn't used to be that way, but after years of budget cuts, manpower reductions, and so on, many police departments operate on minimum staff. A lot of agencies don't have a swat team, or negotiators, or crime scene technicians, and the basic patrol officers are expected to do everything by themselves since the city can't afford to pay 2 officers to ride together and it may be hours before the nearest county or state agency can mobilize a swat team to come help.

 

Our police are not "militarized". In fact, most of the "military" weapons that police carry here are personally owned firearms that any civilian can purchase. My local Sheriff's Office is one of the largest in the country, and they do not issue rifles or shotguns. All long guns carried by our Deputies are personally owned weapons that were purchased by the Deputy, as a civilian, with his or her own money. There's nothing "militarized" about it. Most of our Deputies also carry personally owned sidearms as well.

 

The high crime rate, the mass of shootings, all that happens because the US do have a gun problem. 

 

We do not have a gun problem. We have a criminal problem. Every case of "high crime rates", "mass shootings", "and all that happens" has one thing in common, a criminal, period, end of story.

Edited January 15, 201511 yr by johnclark1102