A small taste of WROL in Ferguson, Missouri

[Mark W.]

You don't think this is the type of activity that calls for a curfew? If I was a store owner in that town I would sure as heck be defending my store. If a curfew helps keep people from being shot by store owners that's a good thing in my way of thinking.

.

 

[WashCoDad]

5 hour long curfew. Haha.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

IMO many people are just using this as an excuse to wreck stuff and loot, because they can. We have the right to peaceably assemble. Not to form gangs in the dark of night and riot. No reason to be out there at 11pm "protesting" when nobody can see them other than causing trouble.

My two cents's.

 

[Doc In UPlace]

And a follow-up thought. Look at how thin the veil of "civilization" is. It took this one incident and there's a week of lawlessness so far.
Can you imagine this same neighborhood one week into no food and no police? Makes my ammo supplies and other preps look pretty tiny.

 

[Just Jim]

Kinda funny in a way, they go out stealing stuff and while they are out their stuff gets stolen

 

[Sgt Nambu]

The article was right about the protesters being enraged, but the looters are ecstatic! Again, just sick of this. Not sick about it. Sick OF it!

 

[erudne]

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Funny, I just watched the NBC Nightly News and they didn't show any Black Panthers chanting death threats.

 

[Mark W.]

There are so many comments I would like to make but I just see that running into trouble.

so I won't

I'll let this guy do it for me

 

[OLDNEWBIE]

Now they burnt down a Doughnut Shop! That's crossing the line dammit.
Anyway the guy makes a lot of sense in a goofy sort of way.

 

[Sstrand]

Oldenewbie
They burned down a donut shop . . . Boy the state coppers are going to be REALLY mad about that!!
What will they do while the riots are going on?????

Sheldon

 

[cookie]

There are so many comments I would like to make but I just see that running into trouble.

so I won't

I'll let this guy do it for me

What an incredible man

 

[erudne]

Shots fired @police car last night
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...-cop-explains-first-night-of-ferguson-curfew/


St. Louis TV Station Apologizes for Airing Video of the Home of the Police Officer Who Fatally Shot Michael Brown
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/201...olice-officer-who-fatally-shot-michael-brown/
BREAKING: 7 Arrested, 1 Shot During Ferguson, MO Curfew
By Robert Farago on August 17, 2014

" Seven people were arrested and one person shot early Sunday in Ferguson, Mo.," usatoday.com reports, "as police and protesters clashed again in a haze of tear gas despite a curfew that took effect at midnight." Wait. Tear gas? Didn't Missouri State Highway Patrol Captain Ron Johnson promise "we won't enforce [the curfew] with trucks, we won't enforce it with tear gas"? As for those "trucks" (a.k.a., armored personnel carriers) . . . "A team of officers from the Missouri State Highway Patrol, St. Louis city and county police moved armored vehicles down the street of the St. Louis suburb just after the midnight curfew Sunday," bostonglobe.com reports. "It turned out the timing was coincidental, said patrol Capt. Ron Johnson." How's this for coincidence . . .
Continue Reading

 

[Certaindeaf]

It seems that even historically, the hair/beauty palaces are hit hard and often (by even daily "thievery"). what's up wid dat? odd

 

[erudne]

It seems that even historically, the hair/beauty palaces are hit hard and often (by even daily "thievery"). what's up wid dat? odd

hair spray?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NteNCOXxWPY

 

[jbett98]

Here's an article on the web that I ran across yesterday.

One sentence that explains why local police don't need military weapons

By Ezra Klein August 16, 2014 2:00 PM
puts it simply:

We've spent the past two decades militarizing our police forces to respond to problems that never materialized.

The two problems were the drug-fueled crime wave of the '70s and '80s and the post-9/11 fear that local police forces would soon be overwhelmed with local terrorist plots. In America, big problems require big guns, and so one response to these fears was the so-called "1033 program", where the Department of Defense distributed surplus military equipment to local police forces. As Amanda Taub explains:

The 1033 program's roots lie in the drug war — hence the counter-narcotics impetus. It was originally created in 1990, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorized the Pentagon to transfer military equipment to local law enforcement if it was "suitable for use in counter-drug activities." In the wake of the September 11th attacks, the program's focus has expanded to include counter-terrorism activities as well.

While the 1033 program's intent may have been to equip specialized units for extreme, dangerous situations, fighting al-Qaeda sleeper cells or powerful drug cartels, the effect has been to incorporate SWAT-style raids into ordinary police operations. That includes, but is certainly not limited to, the serving of search warrants. This may partly be because the program requires that all equipment issued through the 1033 program be used within one year of the date it is granted. That means that if police departments want to keep their new gear, they can't wait for a rare emergency like an active shooter or hostage situation in order to use it.

Read those last few sentences carefully. Police get all this equipment and, as a condition of the program, need to use it within a year. What they don't get is training. The ACLU's Kara Dansky, who authored an important report on police militarization, told Vox she was "not aware of any training that the government provides in terms of use of the equipment," or of "any oversight in terms of safeguards regarding the use of the equipment by the Defense Department."

So police have all this military equipment, very little training on how to use it, and a requirement that they deploy it within a year. But the problems they were supposed to use the equipment against have either eased or vanished.

The crime wave that ripped through the country in the '70s and '80s broke in the '90s and continued to fall through the Aughts. There were 23,000 murders in 1980. There were 14,827 in 2012. (Note that America's population grew by more than 80 million people during that time.) Meanwhile, al Qaeda never became a major problem for local law enforcement.

The result is that the equipment gets used — and used badly — to put down mostly peaceful protests in places like Ferguson, or to raid organic farms. And it can mean that communities come to view their militarized police forces as a threat:

"Police militarization was a mistake," concludes Drum. "You can argue that perhaps we didn't know that at the time. No one knew in 1990 that crime was about to begin a dramatic long-term decline, and no one knew in 2001 that domestic terrorism would never become a serious threat. But we know now. There's no longer even a thin excuse for arming our police forces this way."

​

 

[Just Jim]

It ain't so much that they have military weapons, it's that they point them at people without just cause.

 

[Certaindeaf]

hair spray?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=NteNCOXxWPY

don't know didn't click.. perhaps

 

[Certaindeaf]

Here's an article on the web that I ran across yesterday.

One sentence that explains why local police don't need military weapons
View attachment 99355
By Ezra Klein August 16, 2014 2:00 PM
puts it simply:

We've spent the past two decades militarizing our police forces to respond to problems that never materialized.

The two problems were the drug-fueled crime wave of the '70s and '80s and the post-9/11 fear that local police forces would soon be overwhelmed with local terrorist plots. In America, big problems require big guns, and so one response to these fears was the so-called "1033 program", where the Department of Defense distributed surplus military equipment to local police forces. As Amanda Taub explains:

The 1033 program's roots lie in the drug war — hence the counter-narcotics impetus. It was originally created in 1990, as part of the National Defense Authorization Act, which authorized the Pentagon to transfer military equipment to local law enforcement if it was "suitable for use in counter-drug activities." In the wake of the September 11th attacks, the program's focus has expanded to include counter-terrorism activities as well.

While the 1033 program's intent may have been to equip specialized units for extreme, dangerous situations, fighting al-Qaeda sleeper cells or powerful drug cartels, the effect has been to incorporate SWAT-style raids into ordinary police operations. That includes, but is certainly not limited to, the serving of search warrants. This may partly be because the program requires that all equipment issued through the 1033 program be used within one year of the date it is granted. That means that if police departments want to keep their new gear, they can't wait for a rare emergency like an active shooter or hostage situation in order to use it.

Read those last few sentences carefully. Police get all this equipment and, as a condition of the program, need to use it within a year. What they don't get is training. The ACLU's Kara Dansky, who authored an important report on police militarization, told Vox she was "not aware of any training that the government provides in terms of use of the equipment," or of "any oversight in terms of safeguards regarding the use of the equipment by the Defense Department."

So police have all this military equipment, very little training on how to use it, and a requirement that they deploy it within a year. But the problems they were supposed to use the equipment against have either eased or vanished.

The crime wave that ripped through the country in the '70s and '80s broke in the '90s and continued to fall through the Aughts. There were 23,000 murders in 1980. There were 14,827 in 2012. (Note that America's population grew by more than 80 million people during that time.) Meanwhile, al Qaeda never became a major problem for local law enforcement.

The result is that the equipment gets used — and used badly — to put down mostly peaceful protests in places like Ferguson, or to raid organic farms. And it can mean that communities come to view their militarized police forces as a threat:

"Police militarization was a mistake," concludes Drum. "You can argue that perhaps we didn't know that at the time. No one knew in 1990 that crime was about to begin a dramatic long-term decline, and no one knew in 2001 that domestic terrorism would never become a serious threat. But we know now. There's no longer even a thin excuse for arming our police forces this way."

​

that's some serious cut and paste action, tell you whut.

 

[Certaindeaf]

It ain't so much that they have military weapons, it's that they point them at people without just cause.

What's your point? lol