Thursday, August 21, 2014
Political Mayhem Thursday: Michael Brown and the events in Ferguson
I have held off on writing anything about the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the unrest that has followed that death. There is a reason for my quiet: I don't know what happened there (at least in relation to Brown's death), so there is not much to say. Yet.
And that "yet" is important. It could be that we find out that this was a murder, that there was no struggle for a gun or anything else that might justify shooting Brown six times (at least). But, we don't know yet. It is the prosecutor in me that stills my voice when the facts are not yet clear.
What we DO know is this, though: based on the mis-handling of the protests after the shooting, we have started an important national conversation about the militarization of the police. That, too, is a complex subject. For example, when the police execute a warrant against a fugitive, they will use military tactics to enter and secure the house-- someone will go in on point, others will cover him and spread out, and people in the house will be quickly incapacitated. There is a reason to do it that way: It's to stop anyone from hurting the officers or impeding the arrest, and that makes sense.
Here is what does not make sense: Police forces having military equipment like MRAPS, or using the tactics they used to confront protesters in Ferguson.
And that "yet" is important. It could be that we find out that this was a murder, that there was no struggle for a gun or anything else that might justify shooting Brown six times (at least). But, we don't know yet. It is the prosecutor in me that stills my voice when the facts are not yet clear.
What we DO know is this, though: based on the mis-handling of the protests after the shooting, we have started an important national conversation about the militarization of the police. That, too, is a complex subject. For example, when the police execute a warrant against a fugitive, they will use military tactics to enter and secure the house-- someone will go in on point, others will cover him and spread out, and people in the house will be quickly incapacitated. There is a reason to do it that way: It's to stop anyone from hurting the officers or impeding the arrest, and that makes sense.
Here is what does not make sense: Police forces having military equipment like MRAPS, or using the tactics they used to confront protesters in Ferguson.
Comments:
<< Home
Hear the silence? And it’s not just us, Razor loving commenters…it is why issues like this or what goes on in Gaza cannot be addressed in a constructive way, one that would at least try to pave the pot-holed road of history and hurt and prejudice. People pretty much stopped having a meaningful dialog for fear of promptly being labeled…or judged…or both. And even if they take your approach and take their time to be informed and rational and offer real input, perhaps ideas for a solution; when the line is drawn on what had been accomplished, they find themselves dizzy from the spin back to where they started.
Why any American police force, be it the Ferguson police or the NYPD, needs an MRAP is beyond me. Those things are designed to protect servicemembers from IEDs in war zones. They have no legitimate place in American police departments that are charged with protecting and serving.
I wish there were another term to use besides "militarization." Possessing and using military equipment does not place a police department on the same footing as a professional, disciplined, and properly trained military force.
I get the need for specialized equipment for situations such as raids, but shouldn't raids be few and far between? Breaking down somebody's door is an extreme measure and exposes everybody - cop, suspect, and bystander - to greater danger of getting shot. They should be a last resort, not the default measure.
I wish there were another term to use besides "militarization." Possessing and using military equipment does not place a police department on the same footing as a professional, disciplined, and properly trained military force.
I get the need for specialized equipment for situations such as raids, but shouldn't raids be few and far between? Breaking down somebody's door is an extreme measure and exposes everybody - cop, suspect, and bystander - to greater danger of getting shot. They should be a last resort, not the default measure.
# posted by 
: 2:30 PM
: 2:30 PM
The real problem in Ferguson, it appears to me, really has nothing to do with the young man that was shot. Nor does it have anything to do with police in riot gear and armored vehicles. This is a city where the people don't trust the police, and the police resent the citizens. From both sides, the view is "us versus them." Without at least a small amount of respect for each other as human beings, it is easy to portray those not like you as animals or savage egotistical bullies. The protest, at its core, isn't about one man. Its about the way people feel slighted, degraded, and dehumanized on a daily basis. Unfortunately, the actions of police and citizen alike have somehow made the situation worse.
Effective policing strategies could have helped change the environment here. People generally respond positively when police reach out to them in non-emergency situations. A simple hello on the street, stoping to help a motorist in trouble, or just talking to people with respect goes a long way. Nay sayers may say that the city is too far gone, it takes too long, and that these simple things are too hard to accomplish. Well, damn right they are hard. Policing is hard. Protecting the innocent from those that would do them harm is never easy, but it is a worthy struggle that requires total dedication.
I do disagree with those who say that police have no business with "military-style" gear. There is no inherent problem with using this type of equipment. I have had a friend's life saved by a Kevlar helmet when a barricaded suspect decided to try to put a few shotgun pellets through his scull. Another took shelter behind a Bearcat (an armored vehicle similar to an MRAP) when a different suspect shot randomly out a window. Heck, I have been a part of many search warrant executions, and I can remember how grateful I was that we had proper tactics and equipment to keep us safe. And I guarantee that if any other person were in the same situation, they would want the best equipment with them they could have.
The issues come up when they are used improperly or in the wrong situation. These items are simply tools, they cary no inherent good or evil qualities. When the situation calls for it, they can be life savers. In the wrong circumstances, they can help cause great harm. In a simple sense, they could be compared to a carpenter's tools. When he chooses a hammer to drive a nail, he can make short work of the nail. If he chooses that same hammer to drive a screw, problems will arise.
That appears to have happened in Ferguson. They chose the wrong tool, and made a bloody mess.
Effective policing strategies could have helped change the environment here. People generally respond positively when police reach out to them in non-emergency situations. A simple hello on the street, stoping to help a motorist in trouble, or just talking to people with respect goes a long way. Nay sayers may say that the city is too far gone, it takes too long, and that these simple things are too hard to accomplish. Well, damn right they are hard. Policing is hard. Protecting the innocent from those that would do them harm is never easy, but it is a worthy struggle that requires total dedication.
I do disagree with those who say that police have no business with "military-style" gear. There is no inherent problem with using this type of equipment. I have had a friend's life saved by a Kevlar helmet when a barricaded suspect decided to try to put a few shotgun pellets through his scull. Another took shelter behind a Bearcat (an armored vehicle similar to an MRAP) when a different suspect shot randomly out a window. Heck, I have been a part of many search warrant executions, and I can remember how grateful I was that we had proper tactics and equipment to keep us safe. And I guarantee that if any other person were in the same situation, they would want the best equipment with them they could have.
The issues come up when they are used improperly or in the wrong situation. These items are simply tools, they cary no inherent good or evil qualities. When the situation calls for it, they can be life savers. In the wrong circumstances, they can help cause great harm. In a simple sense, they could be compared to a carpenter's tools. When he chooses a hammer to drive a nail, he can make short work of the nail. If he chooses that same hammer to drive a screw, problems will arise.
That appears to have happened in Ferguson. They chose the wrong tool, and made a bloody mess.
Good thoughts Gavin. I don't have a problem with the police owning an APC for use in appropriate situations, including flood rescues, real, out of control riots in contrast to what was happening here, (i.e. Seattle WTO riots) and barricaded hostage situations.
Osler, What are your thoughts on the charge that the white community tends to call for an investigation into what really happened when it is a young black man, but if a little white girl had been shot, there would be a rush to judgement.
Obviously the easy answer is to use discretion and wait in both instances, but I think there is more to the question than that.
Obviously the easy answer is to use discretion and wait in both instances, but I think there is more to the question than that.
Thank you Marta for breaking the silence. It is hard to have a constructive conversation when we have given up looking past our own histories of hurt and prejudice. I feel for much of our citizenry who are hastily judged and dispensed with. I feel for those who are asked to enforce our laws. I even think I sometimes understand why some people react when they are weakened by fear or anger with violence.
I, however, can't accept our broken justice system and those who don't want to change it or talk about it.
Last week there were two stories of criminal activity. An unarmed boy, who may have stolen some stuff from a shop. was shot by someone, perhaps legally. The Bank of America who stole billions of dollars from millions of people were not deemed by our laws to be criminals.
Maybe this points to the fact that the laws favor the powerful over and over and over. People feel this injustice and they protest. Some do it well and some protest badly. This becomes the subject and we take our eyes off the core cause of that discomfort in our gut. We want every one to get equal justice and everyone to be held accountable for their actions. How do we do this?
I, however, can't accept our broken justice system and those who don't want to change it or talk about it.
Last week there were two stories of criminal activity. An unarmed boy, who may have stolen some stuff from a shop. was shot by someone, perhaps legally. The Bank of America who stole billions of dollars from millions of people were not deemed by our laws to be criminals.
Maybe this points to the fact that the laws favor the powerful over and over and over. People feel this injustice and they protest. Some do it well and some protest badly. This becomes the subject and we take our eyes off the core cause of that discomfort in our gut. We want every one to get equal justice and everyone to be held accountable for their actions. How do we do this?
Long ago, I was in a semester long graduate seminar on protest movements, protests and response. The professor had studied every known protest and riot for the last 500 years. A key finding is that violence rarely occurred until the police forces intervened to deny movement, arrest, or assault the protesters. In other words, if allowed to peacefully protest and march, almost all protests remained peaceful. And when police forces intervened to stop, arrest or attack, then violence resulted. Seems to be reflected in those I have read about or seen on TV in the 40+ years since.
# posted by : 1:00 PM
: 1:00 PM
When I moved to St. Pete, FL in the mid 1980's there was a lot of racial tension between the black community and the police department (PD). The community recognized the problem and accepted its existance and has worked diligently since that time to find a working balance. A more racially diverse PD, time and investment in the affected communities have improved the situation. All these years later a work in progress.
The underlying problems can't be fixed quickly, it is a process and hopefully they will look to communities that have faced this challenge in the past and be able to move forward.
The underlying problems can't be fixed quickly, it is a process and hopefully they will look to communities that have faced this challenge in the past and be able to move forward.
Read the USA Today timeline of events in Ferguson"on line." Considered it with news reports on TV and in our local newspaper. Saw some video clips of the violence. Never been to Ferguson.
Do not believe in position to hold or express an opinion about fault in the matter of the shooting, or about whether other police tactics might have prevented or ameliorated looting, arson and physical injuries. Do feel confident that responsibility for looting, arson and physical injuries rests with hoodlums, all black insofar as the evidence adduced so far indicates, not the whites of Ferguson, not the black community at large, not the police, and certainly not those whose businesses were destroyed.
As for whether the choice of equipment utilized by the police was proper, that is a tactical question which in every instance of civil unrest should be left to the reasonable discretion of the authority charged to control the situation, and then, only after all the facts are in, analysis by qualified evaluators.
Seems to me that were I a looter, arsonist, or inclined to violence, I would be more intimidated and less prone to act criminally in the face of MRAPs and such than otherwise. Who knows how many who might have joined in were in fact dissuaded by the heavy police presence, show and practice of force.
Post a Comment
Do not believe in position to hold or express an opinion about fault in the matter of the shooting, or about whether other police tactics might have prevented or ameliorated looting, arson and physical injuries. Do feel confident that responsibility for looting, arson and physical injuries rests with hoodlums, all black insofar as the evidence adduced so far indicates, not the whites of Ferguson, not the black community at large, not the police, and certainly not those whose businesses were destroyed.
As for whether the choice of equipment utilized by the police was proper, that is a tactical question which in every instance of civil unrest should be left to the reasonable discretion of the authority charged to control the situation, and then, only after all the facts are in, analysis by qualified evaluators.
Seems to me that were I a looter, arsonist, or inclined to violence, I would be more intimidated and less prone to act criminally in the face of MRAPs and such than otherwise. Who knows how many who might have joined in were in fact dissuaded by the heavy police presence, show and practice of force.
# posted by : 9:17 PM
: 9:17 PM << Home
