So there's this riot going on right now

[River]

So in 1999 the WTO had a conference in Seattle and people from all over flew in to protest. Most were peaceful. There were some who weren't. It went down in the headlines as the Battle in Seattle. Woody Harrelson even starred in a movie about it. If you read/watched the news, it sounded like the whole city was going down in flames and downtown was rendered a heap of rubble.

My sister skipped school to march (yes, my parents knew). The demo she was part of was not one the ones that got tear-gassed (yes, this means that there wasn't tear gas and violence everywhere). A few days later, after everything cleared out, my parents went downtown to take in the wreckage and found two taped up windows (yes, downtown was still standing). So ever since then I've been extremely wary of anything the media has to say about demonstrations and the violence of protesters.

This is why I'm taking the word of ax over any news outlet. Of course, since the Ferguson police force is now attacking journalists, perhaps the journalists will change their tune.

BTW, Dave, among other issues with your analogy, the Ferguson PD supposedly works for the people of Ferguson. The IDF most emphatically does not work for the Palestinians.

[Frelga]

River, same thing with the Oscar Grant riots in Oakland. The grand aftermath was a few broken windows. And the looters, masked, appeared as the peaceful demonstration was in progress. Sure, some of the local sunshine joined in, but the instigators appeared to be neither local nor demonstrators.

Dave, it's the job of a policeman to arrest people who get violent. They are not supposed to shoot them on the spot. Two eyewitnesses say that the officer discharged multiple rounds into Brown as he was already on the ground.

I am not saying the police is 100% lying but I am not inclined to take their word for anything at this point. Especially since the harassment and arrest of the reporters. One of whom was inside a McDonald at the time (that video is online). As I've been saying to my son since he was 5, if you don't want people to know what you are doing, there is a good chance that you shouldn't be doing it.

[Dave_LF]

Dave, it's the job of a policeman to arrest people who get violent. They are not supposed to shoot them on the spot. Two eyewitnesses say that the officer discharged multiple rounds into Brown as he was already on the ground.

I think the policeman was almost certainly wrong to shoot him, and unless there's significantly more to the story and that extra info is in the police's favor (which seems unlikely), he'll probably rightly end up getting changed with something. But, given that Brown was reportedly engaged in felony assault at the time*, it's hard for me to have a lot of sympathy. Again, it's "you hit me back too hard."

In response to various: Naturally there are issues with the analogy to the ME; if everything paralleled exactly there'd be no need for an analogy because we'd be talking about the same thing. But trying to decide who's right/least wrong feels very much the same for me in both situations, for the same reasons.

*Should it turn out that this claim was all trump, my thoughts on the subject will change dramatically

[axordil]

Evidently the local police forces are being replaced by state/federal law enforcement, who, whatever faults THEY might have, don't have a personal animus at this point against the citizenry.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's good news. Whatever the truth of the situation, there clearly is a toxic relationship between the local police and the citizenry right which will not be easily fixed.

[Dave_LF]

I agree too; there was a major conflict of interest before. And bringing in the state police comes off better in the media than calling the National Guard (which I had thought would be the only other option).

[Cerin]

And in the stopped clocks being right twice a day department:http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/07/ ... arization/

That's really surprising. But not being in touch with broadcast media, I don't know if this writer's views are representative of a right wing viewpoint on militarization, or if he is an anomaly and likely to be pilloried by his peers for these criticisms. Either way, I hope lots of people read it.

What I'm wondering is -- apart from the ramped up military equipment, which is now being used all over the country thanks to the 'war on terror' and our own country now being considered a battleground in that 'war' -- is there anything unusual about the way this situation is being handled?

Ax, I don't quite understand what you're describing with respect to the looting situation. You make it sound as though the police themselves are responsible for the looting because of the way they responded on the first day, and I don't quite get that. Do you think the police force of any community wouldn't prepare themselves for violent protests after an incident like this? I don't see a fault in them being prepared for trouble, but you make it sound as though their being prepared for trouble caused the trouble. You say the police made the demonstration violent. How did they make the demonstration violent?

I don't understand what you're advocating should have been done in place of what they did. Can you describe an alternate scenario (say, if you'd been in charge).

The fact that the FBI was brought in almost immediately to investigate the killing should obviate any fears that the local police force is going to be able to cover things up. Unless you're lumping the FBI in with the local police force, and assuming their job is to protect the police.

edit

According to a Guardian UK report I just read, the police didn't start trying to clear the streets last night until bottles were thrown at them. It seems reasonable to me, to order people indoors at that point, rather than letting the violence escalate.

[Frelga]

Check out @kodacohen Twitter feed for Ferguson photos.

https://twitter.com/kodacohen/status/499431877032570881

[axordil]

http://www.vox.com/2014/8/14/6002291/fe ... in/5757650

Part of the problem: no one knowing who's in charge.

Cerin-
The police are responsible for the poor deployment decisions Sunday night. As a friend of mine put it, while they were intent on going Robocop and intimidating the peaceful group of demonstrators, mostly from the neighborhoods, they left an opportunity for the looting crowd to start trouble where they weren't. They were only interested in confronting and dispersing the crowd which they saw as the source of potential violence (even though they had shown no signs of violence when left more or less alone earlier in the day). The looting by others blindsided them.

Then, because of their own poor judgment in confronting the peaceful crowd Sunday in riot gear, as opposed to staying "soft" and more diffused through the area, ready to act but not attempting to precipitate action, the equation of "anyone who's not in armor = bad guy" was set like concrete in their skulls. And they brought in even more gear and started pointing weapons into the crowd. There's a number of people who did crowd control in places like Iraq who point out just how awful the police approach here was:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/chec ... -ferguson/

http://www.citylab.com/crime/2014/08/wa ... on/376071/

I assume the FBI and DOJ will conduct a real investigation, sure. But the FBI and the DOJ aren't the police in the formation, the one s belonging to the departments who are stonewalling public records requests about the original incident. Protesters look at that wall and see the pals of the guy who shot a teenager, letting them know they could be next.

The crowd control experts don't think much of the thrown bottle thing, BTW. That's assuming it wasn't thrown by an agent provacateur, of course.

[axordil]

But even beyond all of that: there's just no damn excuse possible for the police chasing off, arresting, or otherwise intimidating journalists. That right there flips them to "bad actors" in a irrevocable way, on a moral and a Constitutional level.

[Cerin]

Thanks for all of those clarifications, Ax.

I heard/read that the reporters were in a McDonald's the police were attempting to clear, and that's why they were taken into custody (released 30 min. later).

Reportedly, the head of the State Patrol now taking over is a Ferguson resident. Maybe that will help.

[River]

Apparently, in addition to tear-gassing an Al Jazeera America truck parked in a quiet neighborhood and arresting HuffPo and Washington Post reporters, the Ferguson police also tear-gassed a State Senator and arrested a St. Louis alderman. Elected officials these days. Real hooligans.

[Frelga]

Now if they nailed a Congressperson...

The account of the Washington Post guy's arrest is here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ ... story.html

Why does the police have the right to harass people on private property when no crime is in progress inside? Why does the police has the right to interfere with the reporter doing his job when he is not directly in their way? Most of all, it is not OK for the police to use intimidation and provocation, such as giving conflicting orders to create the impression of disobedience.

Is this the way you want your country to be?

[Voronwë the Faithful]

This is a hopeful development:

[Voronwë the Faithful]

That's Capt. Ron Johnson of the Missouri Highway Patrol, who was tabbed by the Gov. to take over command of the police, walking along with the Ferguson march.

[axordil]

And the New Black Panthers are there...directing traffic. It may not be quite a Kumbaya moment but it's definitely a change for the better from 24 hours. Let's hope it holds.

[Frelga]

Which also answers Cerin's question about what should have been done. This, pretty much.

Of course we'll see what the night brings. It's not so easy to get the hornets back into the nest after it got hit by a rock. But I will hope for peace.

[Primula Baggins]

From what I can learn, so far so good. Demonstrations continue but are being described as "boisterous but peaceful." I hope the night passes without incident. We could use a good, clear demonstration of the difference between doing it wrong (policing) and doing it right. There are still police on patrol and in among the crowds. But they seem to be doing it right, at this point (latest report I could find was 21 minutes ago, so it was past 11 PM at that point).

ETA: A collection of tweets from a journalist in Ferguson tonight can be found here:

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/p ... protesters

[Cerin]

Why does the police have the right to harass people on private property when no crime is in progress inside? Why does the police has the right to interfere with the reporter doing his job when he is not directly in their way? Most of all, it is not OK for the police to use intimidation and provocation, such as giving conflicting orders to create the impression of disobedience.

My understanding is that they attempted to disperse the crowd after it became violent (I believe they have this right). So they would still want the people on private property to go indoors, since they deemed the situation dangerous. Same with wanting the reporters out of the area. As far as the conflicting orders, that really seems to have been a matter of genuine confusion and disorganization (see link Ax posted), rather than a devious plot to make the protesters look bad.

[Frelga]

It's not a devious plot, it's a standard practice.

There were also references on G+ to something called "kettling" - ordering a protest to disperse while it is surrounded on all sides by police in riot gear, pressing in.

What was a policeman if not a civilian with a uniform and a badge, but they tended to use the term, these days, to describe someone who was not a policeman. It was a dangerous habit, once policeman stopped being civilians the only other thing they could be was soldiers.
- Snuff, Terry Pratchet, 2011