The Ferguson, MO Police Shooting

Status
Not open for further replies.
I don't see this relating to gun control, or guns in general.
Click to expand...

I would tend to disagree with that point of view, as gun control and the emergence of a "police state" generally go hand-in-hand. When the general populace loses its ability to fight back, I think the cycle is completed.

I obey laws and avoid confrontations with LE (my adopted son is a county sheriff here), but there are lines that shouldn't be crossed and it seems that the officer in MO did just that.
 
"Does anyone think that this could lead to different public approach to gun control?"

It will get some people to think about it for awhile, as long as the subject is repeated on lamestream media. But, it will peter out when the next airplane crashes, or another movie star commits suicide, or some other mass tragedy occurs. Then it'll be back to the same old 'why do ordinary citizens need....'.
 
"Does anyone think that this could lead to different public approach to gun control?"
Click to expand...

Gun control has always been about control- keeping guns out of "The Wrong (People's) Hands" ...... those people considered "Wrong" can be shifted by fear mongering, and faster than you think ...... Germans were absolutely appalled by the Armenian Genocide in 1915, yet in less than 2 decades, embarked on their own, even larger systematic elimination of the "wrong" people .......

"Control" is the antithesis of "Freedom" ....... such a thing should leave a bad taste in the mouth any American. Sadly, Americans are afraid of that word.
 
I’ve never really felt like the militarization of the police was a result of the hardware they have, but how and when they use that hardware. There are times when many of these tactics are perfectly appropriate and times when they are not. The question is do we have the proper policies, training, oversight and accountability to assure they are used properly.

As for the OP’s question about how this might impact gun control I suspect this would actually embolden those who support more gun control. The perception of some is that the Police are committing violent acts, so we need to take their tools away. I believe the same attitude applies to gun control if they just restrict or eliminate guns from our society there will be no violence.
 
Looks like another ball game:

According to LE News conference Brown was a suspect in an strong armed robbery (photos showed him committing the robbery).

The LE officer was dispatched from another call to assist in the robbery investigation, and made contact with Brown.

And that's when the shooting occurred. Little was said in the news conference about the shooting itself except to say the officer was injured in the contact with Brown. Brown, at 6'4" 240 lbs. was much larger then the officer.

Now I wasn't there, I don't know the Dept. Policy of Ferguson PD, but I do know, on the dept. I worked for, after taking an A$$ whooping from a robbery suspect, deadly force would have been authorized to apprehend the suspect, even if he was un-armed.

Regardless; nothing wrong with peaceful protest, but there is no excuse for arson, looting, shucking bricks at police or tossing Molotov cocktails.

Having said that I'd rather wait until the investigation is complete before I make any judgments on the guilt or incidence of those involve.
 
Mainah said:
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?
Click to expand...

I guess I don't see what's intimidating about black uniforms. Or blue uniforms. Or woodland pattern camouflage, or ACU pattern, uh, "camouflage." If I had to guess, those colors are chosen because those are the colors that you can buy BDUs in from your local police uniform supply company? Cops wear utility uniforms for riot work because dress uniforms would get messed up.

As to the next point, I wonder why it is that these guns are "assault weapons and military-style weapons" when carried by the police, but "modern sporting rifles" at the store. So these rifles are "Only cosmetically different from hunting rifles" when Joe Wal-Mart owns one, but if Joe Police Officer has one, it's because the police are becoming the military? I thought the 2A supporters were big on "assault is a behavior" and "cosmetic features don't make guns more dangerous." There are enough actual concerns about police procedure that it seems foolish to get caught up in hypocritical discussions about police equipment.

There are some short-barrel and select-fire patrol rifles out there, but at a guess most of them are semiautomatic 16" carbines of the same sort you can buy at a well-stocked Wal-Mart. Select fire is kind of a chrome-plated football bat in law enforcement- kind of cool, not used because there's no conceivable need for it, and those agencies that have it, have it mostly because that's the way their guns came.

As to the bricks and rocks thing, I understand a lot of people don't think it's necessary to respond to them with rifles.

Coincidentally, that appears to be the opinion of law enforcement as well, since the rifles were not used.

Yes, "things can escalate that quickly." Yes, you can own those same weapons and equipment. For most of the rifles, all that is required is that you be 18 and that you can pass an NCIC check. For an NFA item, you have a more detailed background check, tax stamp, and delay. For the armor and uniforms, no age or background requirement, just go buy them (in many cases from the same suppliers from which the police buy them). For the armored vehicles, you can own a tank if you have the money.

Is it wrong for police to deliberately shoot tear gas at a news camera crew that isn't doing anything criminal or disorderly? Yes.

Is it wrong for police to arrest journalists who are not doing anything criminal or disorderly? Yes.

Do either of these things have anything to do with patrol rifles, the color of your uniform, or whether or not your police department has an armored vehicle? No.
 
I think this could have an effect on gun control, I have been saying for a couple decades that all gun control does is create a government/police that is armed in a far superior fashion than the citizenry that it derives it's authority from, In America's case I believe gun control is specifically done for that reason.

In virtually EVERY instance, government/police are exempted from any such weapon restriction placed on the people. What did we think was going to happen? The same thing that always happens when people with no/few guns stand up to people with many guns and other military grade hardware.

This thing in Ferguson with a militarized police force, just adds to my distrust of government/police, All of them!
 
Last edited:
It is interesting that the "mainstream media" is reporting on "the militarization of the police" openly.

Here is a link to such an article - http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2014/08/14/stop-the-pentagon-program-that-militarizes-u-s-police-forces/ - the article says it was originally from last October but has been updated by the authors. It mentions the Ferguson incident explicitly.

Without quoting enough to violate copyright, here is a snippet:

"There is a growing bipartisan public outrage about the local police force’s fiercely militarized response to protestors in Ferguson, Missouri.

From Democrats to Republicans, progressive to libertarian, citizens across the political spectrum are denouncing the efforts to stop demonstrations over the police killing of Michael Brown, an unarmed, African-American teenager.

Legislators are also speaking out against this militarization of police. Representative Justin Amash (R-Mich.) described the situation as “frightening.” Senator Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) a moderate, called the police tactics “the problem instead of the solution.” Meanwhile, libertarian Senator Rand Paul (R-Ky.) stated flatly in an op-ed, “We must de-militarize the police.” "

I apologize for cringing at the oxymoron "AR-15 assault rifle" used later in the article, which seems more concerned with MRAPs and helicopters.

The linked article does seem to have been written in a hysterical, anti-weapons tone, but nevertheless it is interesting that an issue that has been topical on this Forum is also in the "news".
 
When the facts come out about the shooting, I expect 'de-militarization' of the police to be the only issue remaining on the demagoguery side of the table.
 
Now I wasn't there, I don't know the Dept. Policy of Ferguson PD, but I do know, on the dept. I worked for, after taking a whooping from a robbery suspect, deadly force would have been authorized to apprehend the suspect, even if he was un-armed.
Click to expand...

But I hope you weren't authorized to execute that unarmed suspect after he surrendered. That's what is being alleged here. The story is still evolving.
 
The media, politicians, and the public need to relax and wait for the facts to come out. Too much rush for judgement.
 
I have close family living in Ferguson. I can tell you with great certainty that many Ferguson residents are very grateful that the police responded to the riot in an aggressive way. The looting, burning, vandalism, and chaos was contained to a small area near the intersection of West Florissant and Ferguson Avenue. It did not spread to the other neighborhoods, thanks to the firm police response. If anything, there was criticism (locally) that LE did not respond quick enough as the riot developed that first night.

Jim
 
I can tell you with great certainty that many Ferguson residents are very grateful that the police responded to the riot in an aggressive way...If anything, there was criticism (locally) that LE did not respond quick enough as the riot developed that first night.
Click to expand...

Thus the quandary that police find themselves in. If they’re not assertive enough some folks take advantage of the situation, but if they’re too aggressive they deny innocent people their freedoms. That’s why we need to focus less on the hardware/tactics and more on oversight/accountability. Sometimes an armored vehicle is appropriate other times simple listening skills are needed. I believe we make a mistake by not providing law enforcement with both.
 
I'm asking if images of police using military equipment and tactics
Click to expand...

Well I can see Madcap_Magician started us down this road, and I'm glad.

Why does everyone accept the quoted premise?

For every militiarization comparison one could come up with for this picture, I'd bet I can come up with a fireman-ization.
BvAPLlWIAAEHKzL.jpg


It's not the gear they use. Otherwise wouldn't we be talking about the militarization of the TV news for the Traffic Copter.
 
Just posted on Facebook: Police finally released the name of the officer involved in the shooting in Ferguson. The department has 53 officers; 50 white and 3 black. It was one of the black officers who shot Brown! :eek:
 
The following was posted at http://www.ibtimes.com/not-darren-wilson-who-shot-killed-michael-brown-1659706

They are saying that there are two officers with the same name, one black and one white, who work for different departments, and the one who shot the fellow in Ferguson is not the black one.

""Greetings community members of St. Louis, MO and all those across the nation. The Ethical Society of Police has been closely following the events surrounding the unfortunate police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, MO. As a result of public outcry and a demand for justice, the Ferguson police officer's name was released and happens to be, Darren Wilson. The first thing we would like to assure the world is that this is a horrific coincidence. May I assure the world that this is not the President of the Ethical Society of Police's Sergeant Darren R. Wilson who is African-American, and happens to be an 18 year veteran of the St. Louis Police Department. I'm sure additional clarification statements will be released immediately. Thank you for your continued support.""

Time to wait for more information.
 
Firemen show up in a red vehicle and in red and or yellow uniforms as a means of being easier to see in traffic and project a sense of urgency. So what's the point of non-urban camo (in an urban environment) or black vehicles and uniforms? It seems to me that the point is intimidation. And IMHO the whole point of being an American is to not be intimated by authority.

The liberal media is what it is. But my question remains how can they continue to tell us what weapons are too dangerous for us to own and then claim that we can't trust the same weapons in the hands of police that they tell us can't be trusted? Is this a wedge?
 
After I heard someone on CNN screaming about how cops don't need AK47s and armor over and over and over I turned it off. Sadly its not about finding the truth of someones death. Its now everyone pushing their agendas using him as the excuse.
 
It is interesting that the "mainstream media" is reporting on "the militarization of the police" openly.
Click to expand...

That's funny ..... it wasn't too many years ago I was lumped in with "militia member nuts/lunatic fringe" when I complained that the police in many places in this country, with the stated mission to "serve and protect" the public were dressing and arming themselves like mechanized infantrymen ..... who generally have a completely different mission ...... IIRC, that was something about "closing with and killig or capturing the enemy, by fire and manuever" ...... If a police force ever begins to see the public as the enemy, then they have lost the battle already ...... adopting the trappings of the soldier makes it easier to lose sight of their purpose for being Policemen ......

Soldiers are in the business of killing people and breaking stuff. Policemen are not.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top