The Ferguson, MO Police Shooting

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
Rioting and looting is different from a peaceful protest. Rioting (disturbing the peace) and looting (stealing) are both against the law, so the police have to respond however they can--by militarized means if necessary

Yes they are, but the police are responding to the looters by punishing peaceful protesters and journalists. That's the first problem.

The second is the way they're responding. I have yet to see the faces of any of the responding officers. Everybody's in facemasks and ninja gear, waving around military equipment. That has an effect on perception, and it can be perceived as a threat.

I wonder if a few local cops known to the community might have been more reassuring, and if that wouldn't have been a much better course.

These are good points.

 

[BarryLee]

The police responded to a few bad actors with indiscriminate force against everybody. That doesn't make things calmer.

I don’t totally disagree, but the police are in a difficult spot. The few nights they didn’t respond innocent people had their businesses looted and burned. When they do respond some innocent people get tear gassed. The best thing is to end these continued nightly protest before someone on one side or the other overreacts and things blow up. The protesters have made their point and gained attention, so let the process play out.

 

[Tom Servo]

The few nights they didn’t respond innocent people had their businesses looted and burned. When they do respond some innocent people get tear gassed.

But I won't take that trade. Under no circumstances can we justify gassing or tazing people who aren't breaking the law.

 

[zincwarrior]

But I won't take that trade. Under no circumstances can we justify gassing or tazing people who aren't breaking the law.
__________________

Then you don't want to be near me after I've been to Lupe Tortillas...

On topic, I'd proffer there's a major difference between tazing and tear gas to disperse a crowd.

In reality there hass to be a balance. You can't have lawlessness occurring where innocents are in fear of harm.

A protest is one thing. But if a riot occurs thats a completely separate thing, and is itself infringing on the protesting.

 

[JimDandy]

But I won't take that trade. Under no circumstances can we justify gassing or tazing people who aren't breaking the law.

Tazing maybe, gassing not so much. If you don't want to get tear-gassed don't march next to the guy throwing rocks. If the guy next to you wasn't throwing rocks, and bends down to pick one up, it's time to go elsewhere.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

Tazing maybe, gassing not so much. If you don't want to get tear-gassed don't march next to the guy throwing rocks. If the guy next to you wasn't throwing rocks, and bends down to pick one up, it's time to go elsewhere.

This is a very valid point.

It should be noted that the police have said that 78 protesters/rioters have been arrested and 3 of them are from Ferguson.

Clear thinkers who rely on facts can see what's happening there.

None of this really has to do with Mike Brown or legitimate race relation concerns.

 

[BarryLee]

If you don't want to get tear-gassed don't march next to the guy throwing rocks.

Interestingly enough there was an incident last night where a group of people stole objects from a private lot and built a roadblock. The protesters then began to throw objects at the Police who responded with gas. As protesters in other areas heard the noise they began to run to that area. The reporter remarked how strange it was to see people actually running toward explosions and gas clouds.

 

[zincwarrior]

All the rioting would end if they just played Barney music over loudspeakers at any rioters. Alternatively a pack of barking wiener dogs. AS the old song goes "a bark so shrill, it will stop a riot..."

 

[Tom Servo]

All the rioting would end if they just played Barney music over loudspeakers at any rioters.

Again, we're confusing rioters with protesters. The latter group has every right to be there. Antagonizing them only creates more problems, which creates more of a justification for government overreach.

 

[BarryLee]

It should be noted that the police have said that 78 protesters/rioters have been arrested and 3 of them are from Ferguson.

I hate to sound like I’m racially stereotyping or something, but CNN showed several arrestees being loaded into transport vans. The vast majority were actually white and as I said earlier had the look of the professional anarchist WTO rioter type – whatever that is.

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I fear the longer these nightly protests go on the greater the likelihood of a major incident. Maybe the Police do need to back off and avoid provoking the protesters. While some businesses might suffer maybe after a night or two with no Police interaction everyone will just get tired and go home. I suspect the media will get tired of covering people holding signs and yelling.

 

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
All the rioting would end if they just played Barney music over loudspeakers at any rioters.

Again, we're confusing rioters with protesters. The latter group has every right to be there. Antagonizing them only creates more problems, which creates more of a justification for government overreach.

Nope. I was explicit in noting "rioters." Protesters are not doing anything illegal, and playing Barney music at them would just be cruel.

 

[zincwarrior]

Quote:
It should be noted that the police have said that 78 protesters/rioters have been arrested and 3 of them are from Ferguson.

I hate to sound like I’m racially stereotyping or something, but CNN showed several arrestees being loaded into transport vans. The vast majority were actually white and as I said earlier had the look of the professional anarchist WTO rioter type – whatever that is.

I’m not sure what the answer is, but I fear the longer these nightly protests go on the greater the likelihood of a major incident. Maybe the Police do need to back off and avoid provoking the protesters. While some businesses might suffer maybe after a night or two with no Police interaction everyone will just get tired and go home. I suspect the media will get tired of covering people holding signs and yelling.

Alternatively, act as if this is a natural disaster. Cordon off the area, and check everyone who wants to come in. If you want to come in, you have to be a resident.

 

[JimDandy]

Alternatively, act as if this is a natural disaster. Cordon off the area, and check everyone who wants to come in. If you want to come in, you have to be a resident.

And what basis do you have for restricting freedom of movement for non-residents? Is the guy who lives on the farm just outside town that needs groceries from the Wal Mart a resident?

Are the legitimate protesters from the next town over not free to protest?

Edit to Add: I feel for you. I don't have any answers, either. I only know there is no quick and easy answer. Anything that makes it harder to protest is going to touch on people's rights. Anything that makes it easier to protest is likely to make the rioting easier too.

Again, we're confusing rioters with protesters.

Protesters who riot are rioters. Protesters who continue to march next to rioters and provide them even tacit support could also be considered rioters.

That raises a question. This is the Legal forum. At what point does the protester become a rioter? Do they have to throw something? Do they have to hand something to someone to throw? Do they have to specifically tell someone to throw something? If the guy next to you is throwing rocks, is chanting the slogan that worked him up the first time enough to pass the imminent lawless action test?

 

[zincwarrior]

And what basis do you have for restricting freedom of movement for non-residents? Is the guy who lives on the farm just outside town that needs groceries from the Wal Mart a resident?

Are the legitimate protesters from the next town over not free to protest?

Similar requirements have been put in the place for natural disasters, including the entire Houston area after Ike. Same for smaller events such as fires, etc.

EDIT: looks like they might be doing some of this already.

But the hullabaloo — international media, National Guard, federal agents — has upended the lives of local residents. As Umana and I talk, word comes from his wife that the police are starting to shut down the streets near their house, and that he should head home soon. His son, also named Etefia, is home from college. He says they would need valid identification, with an address that shows they live in the area, to get past the checkpoints after a certain hour.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2014/08/19/341608860/reality-meets-celebrity-in-ferguson-mo

 

[JimDandy]

It's a bit different when the place is evacuated. If you want to Evacuate Ferguson, I suppose you could then make the case there's no freedom of movement or freedom of association impact by not letting non-residents in to visit the residents who are no longer there.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The protesters have made their point and gained attention, so let the process play out.

But if they just let it play out they can't control the outcome. Consider the fact that the process did play out in the Trayvon Martin shooting, and the shooter was ultimately found Not Guilty. So now Martin's parents are adding their voices to the lynch mob in THIS case ... because they weren't satisfied that there was justice done in the case of their son.

Reasonable people agree to trust the process, even accepting that the process is not (and cannot be) 100 percent perfect. Look at the numbers of old cases that have been re-opened and reversed based on DNA analysis that wasn't available at the time of the original crime and trial. But we have a Constitution, and it provides for trial by jury. But unreasonable people who are more interested in their own agenda than in true justice don't really care about the process. They want a lynching.

 

[Tom Servo]

At what point does the protester become a rioter? Do they have to throw something?

Let me turn that around. Pretend I'm at a peaceful protest. Riot police show up, and they throw a tear-gas canister at my position.

I really don't want to breathe that stuff in, and I haven't done anything...nuts to that--I'm throwing it back. Now we have escalation. Riot cops pull out the fire hoses or the rubber bullets and spray the crowd indiscriminately.

Then other people take action. Are they rioters? Perhaps they are now, but they didn't show up to be.

All through modern history, the presence of riot shields and helmets has served to escalate the very tensions they're supposed to control.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

I really don't want to breathe that stuff in, and I haven't done anything...nuts to that--I'm throwing it back.

I fully realize that that's what DOES happen. However, just as it is the armed citizens responsibility to avoid conflict when possible, it is the protester's responsibility to avoid conflict when possible.

The responsible and wise thing to do when the situation shows signs of escalating is to LEAVE. Don't want to breathe tear gas? Run away. Come back tomorrow.

 

[Tom Servo]

The responsible and wise thing to do when the situation shows signs of escalating is to LEAVE. Don't want to breathe tear gas? Run away. Come back tomorrow.

That's wise and prudent, but it misses the initial point: throwing the canister at a crowd of folks who are doing nothing but holding up signs and yelling. It's the indiscriminate usage of such means that bothers me. Might there be someone who was looting last night in the crowd? Perhaps, but that doesn't justify using force on everyone.

The most recent rounds of arrests have involved officers walking into the crowds and pulling out the suspects. The crowds have allowed it to happen without incident.

The whole point of a protest is conflict in a way. The question is who escalates it? In the Ferguson case, that blame lies with the mayor, police chief, and a lot of bad decisions on the ground.

 

[Brian Pfleuger]

That's wise and prudent, but it misses the initial point: throwing the canister at a crowd of folks who are doing nothing but holding up signs and yelling. It's the indiscriminate usage of such means that bothers me. Might there be someone who was looting last night in the crowd? Perhaps, but that doesn't justify using force on everyone.

That's true, and I think it speaks to a much larger issue.

Still, under the circumstances in question, it would be wise and prudent to leave rather than escalate and/or risk arrest.

In fact, under these circumstances, I think wisdom and prudence dictates day-time only protests.