Ferguson discussion thread (FERGUDISHU)

[LittleLebowski]

It's a hard thing to be an officer, more so now then ever I'd cut them a little slack. They deserve it.

Agreed. The cops in St Louis are doing an outstanding job.

[TCinVA]

So on the "militarized police" front, it seems that the actual military has now been deployed. There are some situations where you need dudes in uniforms with rifles and armored vehicles to restore order. Personally I'm not much concerned about the color of those uniforms or the fact that the rifle is the same one I can buy at Wal-Mart.

I think "militarization" concerns are a catch-all from people who see that there have been a number of deliberate abuses of enforcement authority (like during the government shutdown, at the border, in the IRS, etc) while noting that the same government who is letting undocumented people flow across the border without restrictions is, at the very same time, confiscating what they consider to be insufficiently documented bag pipes and Land Rovers possessed by people who pose no real threat to anybody. The worry is that the normal restraints of good judgment are being tossed to the wind and that "law enforcement" is being corrupted by the influence from the people at the top.

I share many of those concerns, but that's not the result of "militarization", it's the result of poor decisions in elected leadership, poor decisions in hiring, and insufficient concern about how the sausage is made in the criminal justice system by the public at large.

If the cops were rolling with AR15's and APCs to do Click-It-Or-Ticket (a program I absolutely loathe) that would be one thing...but these are police officers trying to restore order after a violent mob has arisen. This is precisely the time to pull out the APCs and the body armor and the carbines.

There's plenty to criticize in modern law enforcement, but this incident has become an ink-blot test where everybody's predilections are coming to the surface without being troubled by facts. I'd absolutely adore it if people were this pissed off about NYPD detectives and NY prosecutors planting evidence or suborning purjury to get convictions, or the abuse of forfeiture...but it's crickets on that kind of stuff. Meanwhile everyone is losing their danged minds over the fact that cops faced with a bunch of people who want to set an entire city on fire are pulling out reasonable protective gear and acting with exceptional levels of restraint.

In that sense I guess the cops in St. Louis are acting a lot like our military...acting with exceptional levels of restraint even in the face of severe provocation.

[Shellback]

2.) Let's consider what is being proposed. Minorities are rioting because of an juvenile being shot.

He was 18 and by definition, I believe, isn't considered a juvenile anymore. I don't want to argue semantics but portraying him as a kid is disingenuous. He was a criminal, robber, thief and gang member, he was a turd.

[Alpha Sierra]

Well, here's three things to consider.

1.) How long do you want to hang it all out there and let yourself or family be at risk during a gun battle. Remember, cops aren't in control at this point. So help is not coming, to me, sure I've worked hard. Sure, I don't agree with theft. But hunkering down in my apartment and swapping fire with looters while trying to insulate my wife from gunfire doesn't sound great.

2.) Let's consider what is being proposed. Minorities are rioting because of an juvenile being shot. Claiming it's a purely racial issue. Justified or not it is what it is. They're sending death threats to the officer involved in the shooting (Why did Missouri think releasing the officer's name would result in anything different?). Do you really want to be a Caucasian person shooting another minority during a civil uprising about Caucasians shooting minorities already?

3.) Let's talk money. First, as others have indicated in other threads, if a shooting goes to trial; most say expect the trial costs to go into six figures. And that's just criminal court, civil court they may sue you for damages. Also, let's be honest retaliatory attacks do happen on individuals, you may have to move. Add that to the costs.

So, between possible death of yourself, a family member, hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees, possibly moving to avoid retaliatory attacks, etc.

A few hundred bucks for a hotel, grabbing all your most precious valuables, staying with an in-law, locking up the house/apartment, and letting insurance cover losses/damages seems smart.

Just my $.02, order will be restored eventually. I see it as not a bad idea.

ETA: I see a very Zimmerman/Martin situation arising in the employment of lethal force in that situation for a citizen. I mean that's essentially what's happened in Missouri, unarmed teen painted as the victim in a lethal lawful shooting by LE defending himself. The same tensions were going on in Florida, same death threats for Zimmerman.

ETA 2: Also, note on #1. That may last minutes, hours, days, or weeks. Remember, no Law Enforcement. Or if it's really bad they could come through and confiscate weapons like they did post Katrina. That's something to consider as well. Laws only bind those that are concerned with them. Years afterwards justice was served to the citizens in Lousiana. But, like we're seeing in Missouri now, the Governor is possibly overstepping his boundaries. Just another factor to consider, IMHO.

The bedrock of your analysis is, with almost virtual certainty, WRONG.

Once again, go read your property insurance polcy. Most, including mine, do not cover losses incurred during RIOT, insurrection, and war.

I'm having to capitalize certain words because you don't seem to see them in order to justify your POV. Do as you wish, but at least have a clue of the price you're going to have to pay.

If I stand to lose my single family home (a significant portion of my wealth) without loss compensation, then I stand to lose NOTHING by shooting anyone who approaches it to destroy it or ransack it.

My wife and child will not be sent out to evac without me, and since I'm not leaving, they will hunker down in the basement where incoming gunfire is not a concern.

[Shellback]

More info comes to light.

Local St. Louis sources said Wilson suffered an “orbital blowout fracture to the eye socket.” This comes from a source within the District Attorney’s office and confirmed by the St. Louis County Police.

[cclaxton]

Honestly, I find it rather unintelligible that you would sit and arm chair quarterback on how law enforcement is conducting itself. If you are ignorant of the law, that agencies policies and procedures, law enforcement tactics and the context of the situation you shouldn't pass judgement until you have all the facts.

I am not an admin, but in this site we stick to the topic and avoid making this personal. This provides a more useful discussion and prevents flaming. I will then gladly compose a reply.
Cody

[Jay Cunningham]

I'm watching this very carefully; I don't consider the above a personal attack. Believe me when I say I'm a neutral observer in this ongoing debate.

[BWT]

The bedrock of your analysis is, with almost virtual certainty, WRONG.

Once again, go read your property insurance polcy. Most, including mine, do not cover losses incurred during RIOT, insurrection, and war.

I'm having to capitalize certain words because you don't seem to see them in order to justify your POV. Do as you wish, but at least have a clue of the price you're going to have to pay.

If I stand to lose my single family home (a significant portion of my wealth) without loss compensation, then I stand to lose NOTHING by shooting anyone who approaches it to destroy it or ransack it.

My wife and child will not be sent out to evac without me, and since I'm not leaving, they will hunker down in the basement where incoming gunfire is not a concern.

You realize if my renter's insurance covers riots. That's the only thing you've offered as an alternative reasoning, right?

[Alpha Sierra]

You realize if my renter's insurance covers riots. That's the only thing you've offered as an alternative reasoning, right?

Your risk/reward calculation is just that: yours.

Mine is different. We will leave it at that.

[BWT]

He was 18 and by definition, I believe, isn't considered a juvenile anymore. I don't want to argue semantics but portraying him as a kid is disingenuous. He was a criminal, robber, thief and gang member, he was a turd.

I'm not indicating that he was a child or infant. I'm just stating what the circumstances are, he's one year away from being a juvenile. I didn't try to indicate he was a victim literally; I indicated that he is being portrayed as one. I don't think the officer was unjustified in his actions.

Just saying.