The Ferguson, MO Police Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
M

Mainah

New member
I'm prepared to be shut down by the mods, but... it does seem to me that the media reaction to the shooting and the following riots/peaceful protests is turning towards a focus on the militarization of the police. Does anyone think that this could lead to different public approach to gun control?

Personally I've been scoffed at by friends who support gun control for suggesting that armed citizens can serve as a means of controlling government abuse. However it seems like we're entering a climate where more people would be willing to ask why the police should be better armed than the rest of us. Why should the capacity of a magazine that I can own be smaller than the capacity of the local police?
 
The following is not necessarily a response to your comments/questions. Many of us remember when law enforcement routinely patrolled in pairs with a partner.

It is no longer the norm and has not been so in years. I assume it is due to budget cuts or allowable budgets.

If the officer was in the wrong in this case, it might of been prevented if he had a partner with a cool head or who was calmer. If the officer was justified in the use deadly force, then there would of been an extra witness to the event that took place.

This is assuming the officer was on his on in this situation. I do not know whether this is true or not.
 
I am not trying to question the officers actions. I'm asking if images of police using military equipment and tactics in response to the response to the shootings could change the gun control debate.
 
However it seems like we're entering a climate where more people would be willing to ask why the police should be better armed than the rest of us. Why should the capacity of a magazine that I can own be smaller than the capacity of the local police?
Click to expand...

So you will be at a disadvantage when the police declare war against you.

Re: the Ferguson occupation, I really hope things cool down there tonight with the governor relieving the St Louis County police and sending in the MO Highway Patrol.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mainah said:
I am not trying to question the officers actions. I'm asking if images of police using military equipment and tactics in response to the response to the shootings could change the gun control debate.
Click to expand...

I am not sure, but doubtful though. While I have seen some pictures and news reports that showed a few armored vehicles, most of what I have seen has been officers in riot gear or similar PPE. Most places have (or should have) a policy in place stating that in order for workman's comp to pay a claim for injury that the officer is required to use the level of PPE for the situation. Like an officer putting on his vest, so he is within policy/insurance if he is shot and injured. Dealing with an accident victim that's bleeding? Use suitable PPE, such as disposable gloves, etc. Riot/crowd control? Suitable PPE, helmet, vest, face shield, and shin guards.

More than anything though I think there will be a review of policies and/or tactics, and perhaps some changes in that area.
 
Last edited:
Be prepared !!

I'm asking if images of police using military equipment and tactics in response to the response to the shootings could change the gun control debate.
Click to expand...
I don't think so and I recall a police chief going on the news, after a past riot and use the following excuse; "We were just out-gunned by the rioters." Personally, I don't want my department to be outgunned or not trained and for sure, never use that lame excuse. .... ;)

Be prepared and;
Be Safe !!!
 
Excellent points, and thanks. But how do woods/jungle camo, or just plain black uniforms enhance officer safety? What is the point of that, beyond just intimidation? And to the point that this forum requires, why are "assault weapons" needed in response to bricks and rocks? If things can escalate so quickly that the police need those weapons, then why can't I have access to them too?
 
What are the protesters using that the police can even attempt to use the excuse that they're 'out gunned' with their SBR (select fire?) AR-15's, shotguns, tear gas, full body armor and armored vehicles.

Do the protesters have backpack and Davy Crockett nukes that I don't know about?
 
Here's what I wonder, if I lived in the neighborhood that has been the focus of civil unrest in Ferguson would I be more afraid of the rioters or the police?
 
What are the protesters using that the police can even attempt to use the excuse that they're 'out gunned' with their SBR (select fire?) AR-15's, shotguns, tear gas, full body armor and armored vehicles.
Click to expand...

They are raising their hands mockingly and saying "don't shoot". The sarcasm is very hurtful.
 
I'd be more worried about police than rioters. At least you could defend yourself against the rioters. If you sneeze too close to a cop, they'll shoot you 44 times and label you as a 'cop killer' for shooting snot at them.
 
Come on people. These people were rioting not protesting. Who cares what tactics are used if they are effective. Dont want to get hurt dont riot
 
Come on people. These people were rioting not protesting. Who cares what tactics are used if they are effective. Dont want to get hurt dont riot
Click to expand...

The first night they were rioting.

The second night they were peacefully standing with signs when the police used tear gas to disperse them.

I do not think that all police or bad; nor do I think it is "anti-police" to criticize the actions of one department, really a collection of individuals. The Ferguson PD messed up.

I do not think it will reframe the gun control debate however. I imagine and anti would declare that weapons in the hands of protesters would have made things worse (that this argument is not what it is about wouldn't bother them.) And if these folks did physically fight back they would all be killed or jailed and the FPD vindicated. This seems neutral to our cause.
 
Quote by 8MM Mauser:
The first night they were rioting.

The second night they were peacefully standing with signs when the police used tear gas to disperse them.
Click to expand...

I believe there was more to it than just peacefully standing with signs. If the police asked them to disperse and they refused. Then the tear gas would have been warranted. It would not be the place to argue about free speech or the right to assemble. You can argue that later with an attorney in a court room.

When dealing with the police or the military there is just one thing to remember. If you do not do as you are asked or react with aggression. They will not respond in kind, but with enough force to subdue you. Like it or not, that is their job.

I do hope things calm down there and no one else is hurt, for everyone's sake. And to keep this on track to the OP's question. No, I don't believe this is another form of gun control. I believe it has more to do with not wanting to walk into a hell storm of fully automatic weapons with a shotgun and a 45 auto.

Jim
 
I recently got an email link from a friend to a Glenn Beck video (of whom I'm not particularly a fan) in which Beck stated that we are in a "cold civil war." When I saw the first reports of the Ferguson, MO events, that is exactly what came to mind.:(
 
If the police asked them to disperse and they refused. Then the tear gas would have been warranted.
Click to expand...

"Disperse, Ye Rebels."

Ferguson PD has lost their hold on the situation.

Doubt me? Go read up on Sir Robert Peel.

When the Public does not support the Police, then their job is hopeless- they are just percieved as just another gang, albeit better armed and trained.
 
The rioting came AFTER the protests. Rather later at night on Sunday and Monday nights.

The last two nights (Tues/Wed) were the nights where tear gas was used. Long before any actual unrest began, the police were arrayed in the street in full battle gear. Even pointing weapons at people who were visibly unarmed and nonthreatening. Yes, some troublemakers did start throwing things (and last night, that's when the tear gas came out), but the response by the police to what began as a protest was extremely heavy handed. The violence has been surprisingly limited... there has been some, but it isn't like hundreds of people were throwing things last night. More like a dozen or two among hundreds. Meanwhile, the police were lobbing tear gas everywhere- even at people standing in their own back yards. They used so much that people inside were affected.

Tonight, thankfully, the altered approach has resulted in a greater spirit of cooperation. The less confrontational style (regular uniforms, no full battle kit, being among the people instead of arrayed in front of them in a skirmish line) has paid huge dividends.

This may possibly be a big game changer as far as militarization of police goes- while I understand and appreciate the police officers value their own safety, it seems the feeling is becoming that their own safety does not trump the safety of the people they're supposed to protect. Protecting yourself is fine, protecting yourself by escalating situations, intimidating people, and causing indiscriminate harm (basically, what they did last night) isn't.

I hope police agencies will realize that "you catch more flies with honey" applies to them too. Sure, there's times to suit up and have the tactical teams on standby. But when that's the primary image you are giving to the people, you aren't helping or protecting anymore.
 
I do not think it will reframe the gun control debate however. I imagine and anti would declare that weapons in the hands of protesters would have made things worse (that this argument is not what it is about wouldn't bother them.) And if these folks did physically fight back they would all be killed or jailed and the FPD vindicated. This seems neutral to our cause.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't say it's neutral. People are realizing that when there's possible danger about, the gun rights people have a darn good point.

Gun sales at several shops in the general vicinity are through the roof over the last several days. Many of the buyers are people who don't have one. Hopefully they will get training on how to store and use the firearm safely.
 
I don't see this relating to gun control, or guns in general.

However, it is a legitimate civil rights issue, so I'm moving it to L&CR. Before posting, please familiarize yourself with the rules specific to this subforum.

Also, bear in mind that we won't tolerate generalized bashing of law enforcement. The relevant issue is the mindset of policymakers and the top brass.

Those are the people who petitioned for all this milsurp equipment and ninja gear. Those are the people who responded to one night of looting by persecuting the people who didn't do it on subsequent nights, and who chose to do so with a hamhanded show of force.

Threatening and inflicting violence (yes, tear gas counts) on peaceful protesters is something that should set all our teeth on edge. The question is, how do we change that?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top