Phoenixan posted:

This was an interesting series of tweets on the level of militarization here.

The more hosed up thing is when we treat the citizens of countries we invade with more respect than our own.

Samurai Sanders posted:

What I got out of it is that to the police all these new weapons are exciting new toys to play with, while for actual soldiers they are the tools that you do the job with.

Rent-A-Cop posted:

Everybody loves the LRAD. I'm sure it's hilarious when you're the one standing behind it. (Most of those cops are probably former soldiers.)

Samurai Sanders posted:

They can point their guns at fellow citizens easier than they did enemies in a foreign country? Goddamn.

Samurai Sanders posted:

They can point their guns at fellow citizens as easily as they did enemies in a foreign country? Goddamn.

klen dool posted:

This whole Ferguson thing is absurd. The police should be there to serve their fellow citizens - if they have guns at a protest or other citizen whatever-they-want-to-do, they should be pointed outwards to make sure they can do it ffs.

SedanChair posted:

Like this?



(Klan rally in Memphis)

KernelSlanders posted:

Does Missouri have a rule like Michigan where the state can impose its desired municipal government on you? Otherwise, I don't see how that sort of government/polulace demographic dichotomy happens.

SedanChair posted:

Rent-A-Cop posted:

The massive preference in hiring for former servicemen is one of the major contributing factors in the rapid militarization of the police.

ShadowHawk posted:

Every state has this rule. State governments can modify, create, or destroy local governments completely at their whim, as well as interfere with any local ordinance or regulation.

One possible solution to this mess is that the entire town is simply written out of existence. Such things have been done before with ultra-small "cities" that become little more than highway robbery speed traps.

Trabisnikof posted:

So according to the county DA, they're primarily thinking about releasing the killer's name if charges are filed.

Are there other police departments where they've successfully withheld the name of an admitted killer officer indefinitely (in recent history)?

Obdicut posted:

I would bet just a low voter participation rate among black voters compared to white voters, and perhaps a dearth of black candidates who want to get involves with local politics.

Liquid Communism posted:

Felons can't vote.

When the cops are 96% white, it's amazing how fast any young black male who looks to reform them ends up a felon...

Cuntpunch posted:

It's a bit late for them to be pondering these courses of action. Anonymous has already released dispatch audio and named the officer, and is threatening to release video of the handling of the kid's body.

Sir Tonk posted:

OpFerguson is denying that name is correct, according to their source. Still waiting for them to release the name they have.

Cuntpunch posted:

They named one officer based on him attempting to hide himself on Facebook, I think. But it's come out today that the county has basically ordered all police/ems to hide themselves on facebook. So that's not nearly as suspicious and is likely a false positive. On the other hand, they did leak the dispatch tape which was verified as real. So they've just got weird information tangles.

It might be moot now that the state has moved in and is shutting down the county's little insurgency response training program.

Cuntpunch posted:

the state has moved in and is shutting down the county's little insurgency response training program.

Trabisnikof posted:

And that dispatch tape was for St. Louis county PD not Ferguson PD. Which is hopefully why dispatch learned about the shooting via media reports, but even when St. Louis county called Ferguson PD well after the shooting, Ferguson PD didn't know what was up....

quote:

If you are arrested for shooting someone, the police will use everything in their power — lies, false friendship, fear, coercion — to get you to make a statement immediately. That's because they know that the statement is likely to be useful to the prosecution: either it will incriminate you, or it will lock you into one version of events before you've had an opportunity to speak with an adviser or see the evidence against you. You won't have time to make up a story or conform it to the evidence or get your head straight.

But what if a police officer shoots someone? Oh, that's different. Then police unions and officials push for delays and opportunities to review evidence before any interview of the officer. Last December, after a video showed that a cop lied about his shooting of a suspect, the Dallas Police issued a new policy requiring a 72-hour delay after a shooting before an officer can be interviewed, and an opportunity for the officer to review the videos or witness statements about the incident. Has Dallas changed its policy to offer such courtesies to citizens arrested for crimes? Don't be ridiculous. If you or I shoot someone, the police will not delay our interrogation until it is personally convenient.

Trabisnikof posted:

Once again Popehat has a great blog post: http://www.popehat.com/2014/08/14/dont-give-special-rights-to-anybody-oh-except-cops-thats-cool/

This time covering how police give each other incredible special treatment throughout the judicial process. Something rather controversial in this thread.

Obdicut posted:

Who's challenged that idea?

Trabisnikof posted:

So according to the county DA, they're primarily thinking about releasing the killer's name if charges are filed.

Are there other police departments where they've successfully withheld the name of an admitted killer officer indefinitely (in recent history)?

chaos rhames posted:

How can charges be filed without a name?

Trabisnikof posted:

Exactly, they'd have to release the name if they filed charges.

Sir Tonk posted:

quote:

Police in Ferguson, Missouri, once charged a man with destruction of property for bleeding on their uniforms while four of them allegedly beat him.

“They started hitting me,” he testified. “I was getting hit and I just covered up.”

The other two stepped out and the female officer allegedly lifted Davis’ head as the cop who had initially pushed him into the cell reappeared.

“He ran in and kicked me in the head,” Davis recalled. “I almost passed out at that point… Paramedics came… They said it was too much blood, I had to go to the hospital.”

A patrol car took the bleeding Davis to a nearby emergency room. He refused treatment, demanding somebody first take his picture.

“I wanted a witness and proof of what they done to me,” Davis said.

VH4Ever posted:

I've been tracking all of this both semi-professionally (I have a blog and podcast that always need topics) but also as a concerned citizen and my one advantage right now is that I'm white, but my heart breaks for poor people, for minorities, for anyone currently in the crosshairs of this because a line has been crossed, since 9/11, since Boston, since this, whenever, and until a majority of citizens wakes up and starts standing united against this poo poo, it's all over. And the tanks will surely be rolling down my street next, white or not. You cannot let these sorts of tactics be used against American citizens: anywhere, for any reason. For some of the pictures and video of Ferguson you'd think a time of rampant national terrorist crisis was going on, not a protest rally. And when LRAD, flashbangs and assault rifles are being used on citizens standing together against injustice and tanks are rolling through neighborhoods, every one of us has lost some of our supposed rights. THIS is one of the issues we should be debating on a national level.

Cuntpunch posted:

Part of the problem is encapsulated by your own post: this isn't some weird post-9/11 reaction. Certainly that continued the cycle of escalation, but all of this has roots 30-40, maybe 50 years ago and has been growing since then. I'd imagine most people in this thread probably grew up where COPS was on TV giving the impression that day-to-day policing was this roller coaster ride of violent raids and hostile suspects.

That's the problem: it's so *normal* for people to go "oh yeah sure it makes sense to raid a suspect's house at 2AM with a no-knock warrant because he might be dangerous!" that it's hard to step back and realize how relatively modern that sort of tactic is - completely aside from discussions of effectiveness.

VH4Ever posted:

Oh, of course you're right. You'll have to pardon me seemingly forgetting that a bit too easily. Simply put 40-50 years is a lot longer than I've been alive so I simply lack the memories, and the historical context, but I did grow up as a 90s kid with DARE, and COPS and all the rest, so I think you're exactly right. Basically I came of age after "just say no" and The War On Drugs became intrinsic parts of life in America, so it took some intellectual work on my part to extract myself from the bubble I was born into and see the world as it is from someone who is not white and did not grow up in a suburb. And to those people you're right, cities like LA, Chicago, New York, Oakland, etc, etc, etc have been warzones for a long time. But I think the danger is that we have jumped a level even over and above "stuff on COPS" level over-aggression, and while I agree that no-knock raids and overzealous tactics have been a problem for a few decades now at least, we can now add "police footsoldiers stalking through the streets with heavy armor and tanks flanking them with LRAD" to our list of problems with the police, and that addition in and of itself scares me shitless. Especially in light of how little the average citizen realizes this is going on.

Cuntpunch posted:

I guess my point is that even ridiculous militarization isn't *new*, it's just kind of invisible to most of America because of our desensitization and the levels of stuff we kind of consider as 'normal' after all this time. Consider:

In 1985 the LAPD was smashing into homes with these things. Consider one of those things *smashing through the wall of your home*. Hell its debut drug raid resulted in no arrests, no drug seizure, and little more than indiscriminate property damage.

That was 30 years ago. It brought about ACLU lawsuits and some debate over "what the hell do the police need this level of equipment for?" But I imagine you weren't even alive back then - I myself was very young - and while we can look at Ferguson and go "oh man it has gone too far" it's worth noting that it has been this far for a long time.

VH4Ever posted:

Hmmm, interesting. I was alive then but on the opposite coast and pre-preschool at the time. Maybe the more disturbing thing about today is that the ACLU is silent and people seem to accept these sorts of things now, even when it literally knocks on their door?

SedanChair posted:

Well, based on recent events I feel like this thread has served its purpose (police reform is impossible).