The Ferguson, Missouri thread

[FNH]

let me explain what minimum force required means to people who haven't read the idiotic manual.

if someone smashes a window, you close in on the window. if you see that person, detain them. if not, you stand there and prevent anyone else from doing it. that is minimum force required.

blasting everyone in the crowd with riot control weapons is not. because you will invariably hit someone who wasn't doing anything, and EVERYONE in the area knows it. Grats, you just became the people who hurt an innocent bystander. humans don't just stop thinking in a mob. they don't think as well, but they don't stop. the idea is to prevent yourself from becoming "them" in an us vs. them conflict, which you do by being specific in your use of force. keep "them" as the criminals who are actually doing damage.

So you're going to go into a crowd of people who are protesting your profession, just displayed a possibly aggressive act(property damage), and try to detain someone? You've just unnecessarily risked your life, your co-workers, and more innocent bystanders if that were how they handled it. You can't be naive enough to believe that there was not a large percentage of people alongside the protestors whose goal it was to damage property, create havoc, and maybe get violent with police? What's the risk percentage of someone getting fatally injured by police going into the crowd to be selective? compared to non-lethal dispersal tactics?

[Nephlite]

Here is something you brushed off earlier and didn't really address...I mentioned that the rules of engagement in war were stricter than officers practice in the US...that is real. I wasn't allowed to shoot an Iraqi until I saw him fire at me. Not have a gun...not point a gun at me...fire. That is extreme obviously and was because EVERYONE there had guns so you couldn't just shoot everyone with a gun. How many times did you pull security in Iraq/Afghanistan and face an angry mob of people throwing rocks, shouting, throwing shit and piss at you? Every three days? Yeah, it sucks...I get it brother, I honestly do...but I also didn't sign up for it. It is an increasingly shitty job that is made shittier by horrible practices in place and terrible management in this specific situation that has led to an escalation that was unnecessary.

You're talking about to opposite sides of the spectrum. You know what I had other than my firearms in Afghanistan? Nothing but a knife. I had a package of zip-cuffs for detaining people. I only had two options for self defense, my weapon (lethal) and my fists or the stock of my weapon (less lethal). You know what we did when people threw rocks at us? We grabbed them and arrested them. If I had Pepper Spray, a Taser, or less-lethal ammo, do you think we would use it? Absolutely. How badly did you think we hurt people when they resisted us?

When you're in war, the RoE changes. It changes when you're dealing with people you still have to control and you still have to defend yourself. We're not killing people. Most of these tactics and techniques are designed to assist with taking people in to custody with the least amount of damage. Got some bumps and bruises from a rubber bullet or got some pepper spray in your eyes that wears off after 45 minutes and doesn't cause lasting or permanent damage? Sorry that you didn't get hurt worse from my fists, my boot, and the stock of my rifle.

This goes in to:

Or did you forget I work in medicine?

You realize almost all of the less-lethal and control techniques almost every Law Enforcement Agency across the country and even in other countries use tactics, weapons, and techniques that are approved and researched by, among other subsets, medical professionals who are trained in responding to use of force? Just look at the research and the level of science that's applied to even the most basic of control techniques:

http://ppcthfrg.wix.com/ppct#!courses

let me explain what minimum force required means to people who haven't read the idiotic manual.

if someone smashes a window, you close in on the window. if you see that person, detain them. if not, you stand there and prevent anyone else from doing it. that is minimum force required.

blasting everyone in the crowd with riot control weapons is not. because you will invariably hit someone who wasn't doing anything, and EVERYONE in the area knows it. Grats, you just became the people who hurt an innocent bystander. humans don't just stop thinking in a mob. they don't think as well, but they don't stop. the idea is to prevent yourself from becoming "them" in an us vs. them conflict, which you do by being specific in your use of force. keep "them" as the criminals who are actually doing damage.

And breaking a window is one thing. NOT when you're throwing crap at me and trying to hurt ME. Unacceptable, and I cannot believe anyone is condoning people taking that type of abuse without defending themselves. The tactics used were methods to clear people away, not torture or abuse them.

[kuronosan]

Yes, so sorry you can't distinguish between felon and non so the obvious choice was to anger the mob further and hope they understand (hint: they don't).

In medicine, we make a choice to distinguish between liars and patients and we don't make a blanket judgment that all patients are liars because that's best for the patient.

I guess when you're controlling a crowd of protestors and there are some criminals there it's just safer for everyone involved to be quarantined and tear gassed so that the real criminals come forth and the ones who feel their rights are violated just won't fight back at all, right?

That's what the problem is. You're thinking of their safety but they are not. They're scared, and you're scaring them more.

You're becoming the problem and not the solution.

[kuronosan]

And yes, I agree COMPLETELY that your use of non lethal force is a better option.

You're failing to understand basic psychology.

Other people won't, and don't, see it that way.

[Nephlite]

Yeah. It's just different views and I dunno a good middle ground. We all have to make decisions that are sometimes life and death; no ones going to agree or see things the same. I want it to be clear that while I support the police response, I don't necessarily agree with it.

[Acevalefor]

Yeah. It's just different views and I dunno a good middle ground. We all have to make decisions that are sometimes life and death; no ones going to agree or see things the same. I want it to be clear that while I support the police response, I don't necessarily agree with it.

There you go with your qualifying words again. How can you support something you disagree with? Do you necessarily disagree with it, or is that unnecessarily agree? I am confused now. Either you agree with the tactics or you disagree. There is no necessarily about it. If you disagree, say something about it and be heard. See if there are others who disagree and work with them to bring a change through dissention.

[kuronosan]

If I understand him right, he's on the same page as me. He doesn't agree with the tactics but there's no reasonable alternative.

That's where we disagree, however. I do believe there's an alternative. Communication.

The police there know the public doesn't trust them, so they should be doing everything they can to foster that trust. They aren't, and that's why we are where we are.

This attitude of "well you don't get it cause police therefore deal with it" is why people don't like the police. If you're serving public interest your every move should indicate public interest. It doesn't. Fix it.

[Acevalefor]

If I understand him right, he's on the same page as me. He doesn't agree with the tactics but there's no reasonable alternative.

That's where we disagree, however. I do believe there's an alternative. Communication.

The police there know the public doesn't trust them, so they should be doing everything they can to foster that trust. They aren't, and that's why we are where we are.

This attitude of "well you don't get it cause police therefore deal with it" is why people don't like the police. If you're serving public interest your every move should indicate public interest. It doesn't. Fix it.

Exactly this.

[Quicklet]

Video surfaced of Darren Wilson telling a guy he was serving a court summons (for leaving derelict cars on his property, I guess?) to to stop filming him or he'd face arrest. I think this happened on the same day as when he killed Michael Brown. Filming police officers in public has been upheld in at least some major courts where it has come up, though I don't know if there is nationwide precedent set yet (I can't think of any decisions denying First Amendment protection to filming of police officers in public).

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2...-recording-him

Another reason why police bodycams should be adopted with proper policy measures, at least in places like Ferguson. We're at the point in this country where it's better for both police and citizens to have interactions like this recorded as a matter of course. If Wilson had a bodycam we could know if the guy was trying to give him a hard time or legit worried about being harassed by a cop.

[BaneTheBrawler]

And breaking a window is one thing. NOT when you're throwing crap at me and trying to hurt ME. Unacceptable, and I cannot believe anyone is condoning people taking that type of abuse without defending themselves. The tactics used were methods to clear people away, not torture or abuse them.

i get that. but if you think about the protests as a war (as i'm sure many of these chuckleheads do), the actual protest is just a battle. you can win every battle and lose the war, like the derpartment has been doing, or you can win the war by not fighting any battles at all. Riot shields are pretty good at blocking thrown objects. that's what they're for. similarly, the phalanx is a good formation for protecting yourself from projectiles. it worked for the spartans against arrows, it should work just fine for police against bottles and shit. by simply standing their ground, the officers would have emerged from that crucible with the respect of their community, making the next round of protests that much more peaceful and unnecessary.

A good police force should feel comfortable responding to a protest WITHOUT gearing up. that is the ultimate goal, and it's not going to happen if they go to war every time.

[Karbuncle]

by simply standing their ground, the officers would have emerged from that crucible with the respect of their community, making the next round of protests that much more peaceful and unnecessary.

A good police force should feel comfortable responding to a protest WITHOUT gearing up. that is the ultimate goal, and it's not going to happen if they go to war every time.

Maybe for logical human beings, and maybe for the people who were there to actually peacefully protest... but those weren't the only ones in the crowd, and I can guarantee you those who were actually causing problems that brought the riot gear into play were not going to just stop because the police didn't gas em. In fact I imagine it would have remained the same or done worse. Not saying showing up every day in full riot gear was the best choice for public relations, but for the officers lives in light of those few in the crowd causing problems? I think it was the right choice.

Firing those gas cans on the other hand, I have a harder time justifying, because as you say, Riot gear is pretty good at protecting you from bottles...

Also Kuro, as far as this goes...

That's where we disagree, however. I do believe there's an alternative. Communication.

The police there know the public doesn't trust them, so they should be doing everything they can to foster that trust. They aren't, and that's why we are where we are.

What would you propose as a good starting point? Everything I think of is inadequate. Cause this might work on some people, but the type of people who burn own businesses at a peaceful protest? They don't care. They're already in the "Fuck the police" mindset and any attempts to meld that relationship aren't going to work. I mean, for future generations maybe it'll help stop the hate, but for the right now, I don't see it doing much. (Doesn't mean they shouldn't try, just that I know it will likely be ultimately fruitless)

[kuronosan]

Well, I think a good start ... Although not perfect... Would be to not do the opposite of what you say you're doing. If you gas people, admit it. Don't keep secrets.

Say "Hey, we tear gassed people tonight. We didn't want to have to and it was regrettable but we needed to subdue the criminals. We're providing medical attention to those caught in the operation and setting up a perimeter. In the mean time our officers are taking precautions to protect themselves while keeping the safety of the citizens the highest priority" and then DO IT.

Then, for PR, just say "We have no evidence one way or the other that proves either Officer Wilson or Mr. Brown were the aggressor. Until we do we ask that everyone cooperate blah blah blah as we don't want to have to resort to stronger tactics lalala".

It's not hard. If you've communicated that to reasonable people and the others still cause problems, they brought it on themselves.

If you don't communicate that, reactions to such tactics will ALWAYS be worse.

[Acevalefor]

Well, I think a good start ... Although not perfect... Would be to not do the opposite of what you say you're doing. If you gas people, admit it. Don't keep secrets.

Say "Hey, we tear gassed people tonight. We didn't want to have to and it was regrettable but we needed to subdue the criminals. We're providing medical attention to those caught in the operation and setting up a perimeter. In the mean time our officers are taking precautions to protect themselves while keeping the safety of the citizens the highest priority" and then DO IT.

Then, for PR, just say "We have no evidence one way or the other that proves either Officer Wilson or Mr. Brown were the aggressor. Until we do we ask that everyone cooperate blah blah blah as we don't want to have to resort to stronger tactics lalala".

It's not hard. If you've communicated that to reasonable people and the others still cause problems, they brought it on themselves.

If you don't communicate that, reactions to such tactics will ALWAYS be worse.

You are not understanding Kuro. the police used authorized force and acted within their rights. That is all they have to do and the residents/protesters can suck gas (evil doers!). If someone throws a water bottle, that is assault and the entire crowd can be shot with rubber bullets in response.

[Acevalefor]

Anon response to the KKK threats regarding Ferguson:
Anonymous targets KKK

[Nephlite]

There you go with your qualifying words again. How can you support something you disagree with? Do you necessarily disagree with it, or is that unnecessarily agree? I am confused now. Either you agree with the tactics or you disagree. There is no necessarily about it. If you disagree, say something about it and be heard. See if there are others who disagree and work with them to bring a change through dissention.

Like kuro said, I understand it's a necessary evil for them to do what they did, but I wouldn't necessarily do the same thing. That's why I always harp on keeping an open mind and remaining objective. For example, I don't agree that everyone armed with a weapon deserves to be shot. Can I? Is it legal for me to do so? Can I get away with it? Absolutely. Does my own set of personal morals justify it? Not really. But, I can't discount someone else's view of that justified use of force because I am not that person. I don't know what is going through their mind during that incident.

I do not agree with the "public interest" aspect, simply because it's not important to me. You can't possibly make every person happy while protecting your own interests. Honestly, with the amount of shit I've dealt with, I could care less about what people thought about me as long as I do my job. I honestly wouldn't be able to be a police officer if I were unarmed, and I wouldn't be able to do this job without my own personal discretion. When you talk about public interest, you take away discretion from the officer.

You know what public interest is doing to our department? We're getting body cameras for more transparency. Guess what? I'm no longer giving people breaks, I'm no longer citing people for arrestable offenses, and I'm no longer going to be compassionate. All by the book, 100% professional, and no nonsense. 300 citations in a ticket folder. Every one is going to be written by the end of my tour. We all feel that way. 3000 officers are going to share my exact same mindset. Policing is going to get MUCH tougher in the District of Columbia.

Video surfaced of Darren Wilson telling a guy he was serving a court summons (for leaving derelict cars on his property, I guess?) to to stop filming him or he'd face arrest. I think this happened on the same day as when he killed Michael Brown.

It hasn't been confirmed that it was Wilson, and the video was taken months before the Brown incident, depending on what media source you read. Also, the audio is pretty shitty, with no context associated with the incident. Not gonna hold my breath on this one.

i get that. but if you think about the protests as a war (as i'm sure many of these chuckleheads do), the actual protest is just a battle. you can win every battle and lose the war, like the derpartment has been doing, or you can win the war by not fighting any battles at all. Riot shields are pretty good at blocking thrown objects. that's what they're for. similarly, the phalanx is a good formation for protecting yourself from projectiles. it worked for the spartans against arrows, it should work just fine for police against bottles and shit. by simply standing their ground, the officers would have emerged from that crucible with the respect of their community, making the next round of protests that much more peaceful and unnecessary.

A good police force should feel comfortable responding to a protest WITHOUT gearing up. that is the ultimate goal, and it's not going to happen if they go to war every time.

Would be nice to "spartan" up, if they actually had riot shields. Didn't see any the first few days. I'm confused as to why you think showing up to a protest without riot gear when people have been throwing crap at you. It's personal protective equipment to protect your body. Sorry it looks intimidating. Maybe people should grow up and stop being intimidated by the way people look. I mean, isn't that why people are afraid of blacks? Because they look "thuggish"?

Well, I think a good start ... Although not perfect... Would be to not do the opposite of what you say you're doing. If you gas people, admit it. Don't keep secrets.

Say "Hey, we tear gassed people tonight. We didn't want to have to and it was regrettable but we needed to subdue the criminals. We're providing medical attention to those caught in the operation and setting up a perimeter. In the mean time our officers are taking precautions to protect themselves while keeping the safety of the citizens the highest priority" and then DO IT.

Then, for PR, just say "We have no evidence one way or the other that proves either Officer Wilson or Mr. Brown were the aggressor. Until we do we ask that everyone cooperate blah blah blah as we don't want to have to resort to stronger tactics lalala".

It's not hard. If you've communicated that to reasonable people and the others still cause problems, they brought it on themselves.

If you don't communicate that, reactions to such tactics will ALWAYS be worse.

For once, I'm gonna agree with you.

You are not understanding Kuro. the police used authorized force and acted within their rights. That is all they have to do and the residents/protesters can suck gas (evil doers!). If someone throws a water bottle, that is assault and the entire crowd can be shot with rubber bullets in response.

I know you're being obtuse. I chuckled.

[BaneTheBrawler]

Would be nice to "spartan" up, if they actually had riot shields. Didn't see any the first few days. I'm confused as to why you think showing up to a protest without riot gear when people have been throwing crap at you. It's personal protective equipment to protect your body. Sorry it looks intimidating. Maybe people should grow up and stop being intimidated by the way people look. I mean, isn't that why people are afraid of blacks? Because they look "thuggish"?

holy shit what is this


also maybe they should spend less on maintaining tanks and more on riot shields

[Nephlite]

I believe it's telling people to grow the hell up. You play stupid games, you win stupid prizes.

I get that people were angry and upset after the shooting. It does not justify the shit that happened after with the rioting, the looting, the police response, and the subsequent shitstorm. I'm shocked and appalled that some of you are saying "Just let them do it". Essentially, you're condoning an out of control group of people to run around burning buildings down and looting multiple stores, basically participating in what amounts to a pillaging of a city. It's blatant hypocrisy to think the police should admit and own up to their mistakes while letting those who began the riots after the destruction that followed in it's wake get away scot-free.

[BaneTheBrawler]

no i was actually asking what the fuck you said

you accidentally some words there and it made the rest of it make no sense

[Nephlite]

no i was actually asking what the fuck you said

you accidentally some words there and it made the rest of it make no sense

You know what, I reread that sentence, and I believe my 2-3 hours of sleep for the past few weeks has finally caught up to me.

Gonna go lay down now...

[FNH]

MO Governor declared a State of Emergency in preparation for the grand jury's decision.