Club PA 2.0 has arrived! If you'd like to access some extra PA content and help support the forums, check it out at patreon.com/ClubPA
The image size limit has been raised to 1mb! Anything larger than that should be linked to. This is a HARD limit, please do not abuse it.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

A Thread About Policing

12829313334115

Posts

  • CogCog Registered User regular
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Iowan Steve King a cowardly White Supremacist supporter saying that? Shocking. More at 11

    As an Iowan, I feel required to repeat my Steve King Disclaimer™: He's not my guy, that's not my district, I take no responsibility for him, please don't judge us all by him.

    With that out of the way, there was an official response to the SWAT team dismantling the Al Jazeera equipment:
    "Over the last few days, the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team has assisted in Ferguson at the request of the St. Louis County Police Department to help respond to looting and for protection of the property of Ferguson citizens and businesses. On Wednesday, August 13th, video footage was taken of St. Charles County SWAT officers handling media camera equipment. The position of the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department is that the media has the right to cover these events and supports the freedom of the press, and the SWAT Team has not been any part of attempting to prevent media coverage. In fact, last night the SWAT Team officers were assisting the media in moving their camera equipment and media personnel to a safer area with their consent so that they could continue to cover the event. The Sheriff has notified St. Louis County Police that the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team is available to protect life and property but does not have a continued role in crowd control during this time of civil protest."

    I suppose when you fire a tear gas canister directly at the news crew, said news crew does suddenly find themselves in an unsafe environment from which they need to relocate.

    "Guys, if you want us to help you move your camera equipment, signal your consent by continuing to run away while coughing and streaming tears and snot! Ok, boys, you saw them. Pack up their shit."

    TaranisDelmainprogramjunkieDarkPrimusCalicaTL DRchrishallett83Rhan9shoeboxjeddy
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is introducing legislation to end the sale of military surplus to police departments.

    Did he vote for the legislation in the past?

  • joshofalltradesjoshofalltrades 地獄のようにかわいい あなたは嫉妬深いかRegistered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Cog wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Iowan Steve King a cowardly White Supremacist supporter saying that? Shocking. More at 11

    As an Iowan, I feel required to repeat my Steve King Disclaimer™: He's not my guy, that's not my district, I take no responsibility for him, please don't judge us all by him.

    With that out of the way, there was an official response to the SWAT team dismantling the Al Jazeera equipment:
    "Over the last few days, the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team has assisted in Ferguson at the request of the St. Louis County Police Department to help respond to looting and for protection of the property of Ferguson citizens and businesses. On Wednesday, August 13th, video footage was taken of St. Charles County SWAT officers handling media camera equipment. The position of the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department is that the media has the right to cover these events and supports the freedom of the press, and the SWAT Team has not been any part of attempting to prevent media coverage. In fact, last night the SWAT Team officers were assisting the media in moving their camera equipment and media personnel to a safer area with their consent so that they could continue to cover the event. The Sheriff has notified St. Louis County Police that the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team is available to protect life and property but does not have a continued role in crowd control during this time of civil protest."

    I suppose when you fire a tear gas canister directly at the news crew, said news crew does suddenly find themselves in an unsafe environment from which they need to relocate.

    "Guys, if you want us to help you move your camera equipment, signal your consent by continuing to run away while coughing and streaming tears and snot! Ok, boys, you saw them. Pack up their shit."

    Kinda getting shades of Russian propaganda for actions taken in the Ukraine here...

    (By that I mean they are obviously blatant lies)

    joshofalltrades on
    ジェイムズ・ブラウンの好きな色は何ですか?
    青!
    Gennenalyse RuebenCogMrVyngaardJihadJesusCalicaTL DRRhan9
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    I want to vote for that woman.

    TaranisCogHarry DresdenAngelHedgieStollsiTunesIsEvilHacksawMoridin889
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Iowan Steve King a cowardly White Supremacist supporter saying that? Shocking. More at 11

    As an Iowan, I feel required to repeat my Steve King Disclaimer™: He's not my guy, that's not my district, I take no responsibility for him, please don't judge us all by him.

    With that out of the way, there was an official response to the SWAT team dismantling the Al Jazeera equipment:
    "Over the last few days, the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team has assisted in Ferguson at the request of the St. Louis County Police Department to help respond to looting and for protection of the property of Ferguson citizens and businesses. On Wednesday, August 13th, video footage was taken of St. Charles County SWAT officers handling media camera equipment. The position of the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department is that the media has the right to cover these events and supports the freedom of the press, and the SWAT Team has not been any part of attempting to prevent media coverage. In fact, last night the SWAT Team officers were assisting the media in moving their camera equipment and media personnel to a safer area with their consent so that they could continue to cover the event. The Sheriff has notified St. Louis County Police that the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team is available to protect life and property but does not have a continued role in crowd control during this time of civil protest."

    I suppose when you fire a tear gas canister directly at the news crew, said news crew does suddenly find themselves in an unsafe environment from which they need to relocate.

    "Guys, if you want us to help you move your camera equipment, signal your consent by continuing to run away while coughing and streaming tears and snot! Ok, boys, you saw them. Pack up their shit."

    lolz

  • JepheryJephery Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    spool32 wrote: »
    Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is introducing legislation to end the sale of military surplus to police departments.

    Did he vote for the legislation in the past?

    The trend of police militarization was started with almost unanimous bipartisan support. It was in the aftermath of 9/11 afterall.

    Jephery on
    }
    "Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
    spool32Kana
  • TOGSolidTOGSolid Chief Mixologist of the Shatterdome Tiki Bar Seattle, WashingtonRegistered User regular
    edited August 2014


    Maria Chappelle-Nadal (the Missouri state Senator from the district that Ferguson is in) is pretty rad.

    She is my new favorite person right now.
    Cog wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Iowan Steve King a cowardly White Supremacist supporter saying that? Shocking. More at 11

    As an Iowan, I feel required to repeat my Steve King Disclaimer™: He's not my guy, that's not my district, I take no responsibility for him, please don't judge us all by him.

    With that out of the way, there was an official response to the SWAT team dismantling the Al Jazeera equipment:
    "Over the last few days, the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team has assisted in Ferguson at the request of the St. Louis County Police Department to help respond to looting and for protection of the property of Ferguson citizens and businesses. On Wednesday, August 13th, video footage was taken of St. Charles County SWAT officers handling media camera equipment. The position of the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department is that the media has the right to cover these events and supports the freedom of the press, and the SWAT Team has not been any part of attempting to prevent media coverage. In fact, last night the SWAT Team officers were assisting the media in moving their camera equipment and media personnel to a safer area with their consent so that they could continue to cover the event. The Sheriff has notified St. Louis County Police that the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team is available to protect life and property but does not have a continued role in crowd control during this time of civil protest."

    I suppose when you fire a tear gas canister directly at the news crew, said news crew does suddenly find themselves in an unsafe environment from which they need to relocate.

    "Guys, if you want us to help you move your camera equipment, signal your consent by continuing to run away while coughing and streaming tears and snot! Ok, boys, you saw them. Pack up their shit."


    "Stop resisting, we're trying to help!"

    TOGSolid on
    KonphujunMrVyngaard
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is introducing legislation to end the sale of military surplus to police departments.

    Did he vote for the legislation in the past?

    The trend of police militarization was started with almost unanimous bipartisan support. It was in the aftermath of 9/11 afterall.

    Regardless of if he voted for it or not, I'm not going to hold it against a politician for seeing their error and moving to correct bad legislation.

    DevoutlyApatheticGnome-InterruptusJepheryoverride367MsAnthropyArdolJihadJesusiTunesIsEvilchrishallett83Wraith260Kristmas Kthulhu
  • TOGSolidTOGSolid Chief Mixologist of the Shatterdome Tiki Bar Seattle, WashingtonRegistered User regular
    Someone get me some hotdogs because Governor Nixon is getting fucking roasted right now:

    Flying Couch
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Jephery wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Rep. Hank Johnson (D-GA) is introducing legislation to end the sale of military surplus to police departments.

    Did he vote for the legislation in the past?

    The trend of police militarization was started with almost unanimous bipartisan support. It was in the aftermath of 9/11 afterall.

    Doesn't it go back to Reagan?

  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    TOGSolid wrote: »


    Maria Chappelle-Nadal (the Missouri state Senator from the district that Ferguson is in) is pretty rad.

    She is my new favorite person right now.
    I'm going to wait a bit...if she sticks by it then holy shit she is awesome. If she listens to her advisers and pulls the "I WAS HACKED" card, then fuck her too.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
  • TaranisTaranis Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5676766?utm_hp_ref=tw
    "I just wanted to know if I was going to be gassed again, like I was on Monday night," Chappelle-Nadal asked. "We couldn't get out, and we were peacefully sitting. I Just wanted to know if I'm going to be gassed again?"

    "I hope not," Jackson replied.

    That's the Ferguson police chief replying. Wow.

    Taranis on
    / steam / [blizzard] taranis#1834 /
    EH28YFo.jpg
    JihadJesus
  • TOGSolidTOGSolid Chief Mixologist of the Shatterdome Tiki Bar Seattle, WashingtonRegistered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Blackjack wrote: »
    TOGSolid wrote: »


    Maria Chappelle-Nadal (the Missouri state Senator from the district that Ferguson is in) is pretty rad.

    She is my new favorite person right now.
    I'm going to wait a bit...if she sticks by it then holy shit she is awesome. If she listens to her advisers and pulls the "I WAS HACKED" card, then fuck her too.

    Check my last post. :D

    She's also been retweeting people cheering her on for telling the Governor to go fuck himself. She's owning it like a boss.

    TOGSolid on
    DelmainCommunistCow
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Two things I thought of today, on this topic:


    Firstly, I think I have a good guess what the cops did in order to create a veil of legality to arresting those reporters in the McDonalds. I think one of the officers managed to get the McDonalds manager to say that he hadn't given permission for the reporters to film. It's not a public place, it's a private business, and based on that they were immediately arrested.



    Secondly, I think comparing this public reaction to the Bundy conflict is incorrect. I think that what we should be looking at is a comparison (including amongst ourselves here) between how we feel about militarization of the police right now, and how we felt during the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers. People who argue in favor of militarizing the police force will point to that incident as the reason why it's necessary, and public opinion was broadly in favor of what was basically 2 days of martial law with tanks in the streets.

    Today, not so much. But it's worth considering.

    KanaCaedwyr
  • TicaldfjamTicaldfjam Hillsboro, ORRegistered User regular
    Cog wrote: »
    Ticaldfjam wrote: »
    Iowan Steve King a cowardly White Supremacist supporter saying that? Shocking. More at 11

    As an Iowan, I feel required to repeat my Steve King Disclaimer™: He's not my guy, that's not my district, I take no responsibility for him, please don't judge us all by him.

    With that out of the way, there was an official response to the SWAT team dismantling the Al Jazeera equipment:
    "Over the last few days, the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team has assisted in Ferguson at the request of the St. Louis County Police Department to help respond to looting and for protection of the property of Ferguson citizens and businesses. On Wednesday, August 13th, video footage was taken of St. Charles County SWAT officers handling media camera equipment. The position of the St. Charles County Sheriff's Department is that the media has the right to cover these events and supports the freedom of the press, and the SWAT Team has not been any part of attempting to prevent media coverage. In fact, last night the SWAT Team officers were assisting the media in moving their camera equipment and media personnel to a safer area with their consent so that they could continue to cover the event. The Sheriff has notified St. Louis County Police that the St. Charles County Regional SWAT Team is available to protect life and property but does not have a continued role in crowd control during this time of civil protest."

    I suppose when you fire a tear gas canister directly at the news crew, said news crew does suddenly find themselves in an unsafe environment from which they need to relocate.

    "Guys, if you want us to help you move your camera equipment, signal your consent by continuing to run away while coughing and streaming tears and snot! Ok, boys, you saw them. Pack up their shit."

    Oh no, just THAT Iowan. I know he is not representative of Iowans on the whole. The Midwest has really swallowed up a lot of Teaper bullshit for the past 8 years.

    I'm originally from Indiana, one of the many Midwest states that swallowing up the Tea Party Derpfest that has infected the upper Midwest to tee.

  • Flying CouchFlying Couch Registered User regular


    Maria Chappelle-Nadal (the Missouri state Senator from the district that Ferguson is in) is pretty rad.

    I wanted to say "shit just got real" in response to this. But that would suggest that this has not been the realest shit possible from the outset.

  • L Ron HowardL Ron Howard Registered User regular
    I must have missed something. What did the Governor say/do to get her to respond like that?

  • DehumanizedDehumanized Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Blackjack wrote: »
    TOGSolid wrote: »


    Maria Chappelle-Nadal (the Missouri state Senator from the district that Ferguson is in) is pretty rad.

    She is my new favorite person right now.
    I'm going to wait a bit...if she sticks by it then holy shit she is awesome. If she listens to her advisers and pulls the "I WAS HACKED" card, then fuck her too.

    She's for real. She's the same person who asked the Ferguson police chief if she was gonna get tear gassed again.

    http://www.kmov.com/news/crime/Chappelle-Nadal-upset-after-tear-gas-thrown-at-her-271183251.html
    “[Protesters] have every right to assemble freely and express themselves and not have tear gas thrown at them. By the way, tear gas was thrown on me and we could not breathe,” said Chappelle-Nadal. “I approve their budget, so you know that I’m pissed off.”

    Dehumanized on
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    In that case, go her. She is awesome.

    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
    TicaldfjamHarry DresdenShadowenjoshofalltradesAngelHedgieGennenalyse RuebenKonphujunStollsTOGSolidArdolMrVyngaardchrishallett83CommunistCowErin The Redshoeboxjeddy
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Two things I thought of today, on this topic:


    Firstly, I think I have a good guess what the cops did in order to create a veil of legality to arresting those reporters in the McDonalds. I think one of the officers managed to get the McDonalds manager to say that he hadn't given permission for the reporters to film. It's not a public place, it's a private business, and based on that they were immediately arrested.



    Secondly, I think comparing this public reaction to the Bundy conflict is incorrect. I think that what we should be looking at is a comparison (including amongst ourselves here) between how we feel about militarization of the police right now, and how we felt during the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers. People who argue in favor of militarizing the police force will point to that incident as the reason why it's necessary, and public opinion was broadly in favor of what was basically 2 days of martial law with tanks in the streets.

    Today, not so much. But it's worth considering.

    The "martial law" during the Boston Marathon had zero to do with police militarization and everything to do with people following the requests of polite police. During the search various people ignored the requests without getting shot at with tear gas or really any repercussion at all.

    Harry DresdenDelmainShadowenprogramjunkieoverride367AngelHedgieGennenalyse RuebenStollsKid PresentableTOGSolidMsAnthropyArdolMrVyngaardGnome-InterruptusiTunesIsEvilCalicachrishallett83shrykeErin The RedWraith260shoeboxjeddySmrtnikKristmas Kthulhu
  • BlackjackBlackjack Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    Basically, the Boston situation was police doing their job and protecting and serving the public.

    This is literally the exact opposite of that.

    Like, we are so far through the looking glass on this thing that Alice is waving at us as we zoom past.

    Blackjack on
    camo_sig2.png

    3DS: 1607-3034-6970
    Delmainoverride367KonphujunKid PresentableSyphonBlueStollsMsAnthropyArdolMrVyngaardDarkPrimusDaenrisiTunesIsEvilCalicachrishallett83shrykeWraith260shoeboxjeddyKristmas Kthulhu
  • CogCog Registered User regular
    I must have missed something. What did the Governor say/do to get her to respond like that?

    Pretty much nothing but issue waffling statements and sit on his thumb. Which is the problem.

    TOGSolid
  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    edited August 2014
    spool32 wrote: »
    Two things I thought of today, on this topic:


    Firstly, I think I have a good guess what the cops did in order to create a veil of legality to arresting those reporters in the McDonalds. I think one of the officers managed to get the McDonalds manager to say that he hadn't given permission for the reporters to film. It's not a public place, it's a private business, and based on that they were immediately arrested.



    Secondly, I think comparing this public reaction to the Bundy conflict is incorrect. I think that what we should be looking at is a comparison (including amongst ourselves here) between how we feel about militarization of the police right now, and how we felt during the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers. People who argue in favor of militarizing the police force will point to that incident as the reason why it's necessary, and public opinion was broadly in favor of what was basically 2 days of martial law with tanks in the streets.

    Today, not so much. But it's worth considering.

    Per the reporter's account the officers gave him conflicting "orders" on which way to leave the McDonald's and that's when they got physical and put the cuffs on.

    I don't believe the manager was involved at all. They were confronted and asked for ID and told to stop filming.

    Full account here:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-ferguson-washington-post-reporter-wesley-lowery-gives-account-of-his-arrest/2014/08/13/0fe25c0e-2359-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

    EDIT: now there's a video there I hadn't seen before. It seems like they are clearing out the whole place?

    So It Goes on
    MrVyngaard
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Two things I thought of today, on this topic:


    Firstly, I think I have a good guess what the cops did in order to create a veil of legality to arresting those reporters in the McDonalds. I think one of the officers managed to get the McDonalds manager to say that he hadn't given permission for the reporters to film. It's not a public place, it's a private business, and based on that they were immediately arrested.



    Secondly, I think comparing this public reaction to the Bundy conflict is incorrect. I think that what we should be looking at is a comparison (including amongst ourselves here) between how we feel about militarization of the police right now, and how we felt during the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers. People who argue in favor of militarizing the police force will point to that incident as the reason why it's necessary, and public opinion was broadly in favor of what was basically 2 days of martial law with tanks in the streets.

    Today, not so much. But it's worth considering.

    The "martial law" during the Boston Marathon had zero to do with police militarization and everything to do with people following the requests of polite police. During the search various people ignored the requests without getting shot at with tear gas or really any repercussion at all.

    I agree with you, and I know the situations were different! But I think it's worth comparing these two incidents to try and draw out of the exercise the things we believe and the behavior we want to see. I'm not even sure how I feel about it, when I put it in that light for myself. But i feel like thinking along these lines will be revealing for me, and perhaps talking about it will be useful to clarify how we think and how we go forward addressing the larger issue.

  • FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    Gosling wrote: »


    For the record, Ferguson is 64.9% black and 30.6% white. So the number for blacks statistically should be about double the number for whites. As it stands, blacks made up 86% of the stops, 91.9% of the searches, and 92.7% of the arrests.
    spool32 wrote: »
    Two things I thought of today, on this topic:


    Firstly, I think I have a good guess what the cops did in order to create a veil of legality to arresting those reporters in the McDonalds. I think one of the officers managed to get the McDonalds manager to say that he hadn't given permission for the reporters to film. It's not a public place, it's a private business, and based on that they were immediately arrested.



    Secondly, I think comparing this public reaction to the Bundy conflict is incorrect. I think that what we should be looking at is a comparison (including amongst ourselves here) between how we feel about militarization of the police right now, and how we felt during the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers. People who argue in favor of militarizing the police force will point to that incident as the reason why it's necessary, and public opinion was broadly in favor of what was basically 2 days of martial law with tanks in the streets.

    Today, not so much. But it's worth considering.

    You can have specialized units, but it shouldn't be normal response, and escalation needs to be considered.

    torchlight-sig-80.jpg
    So It GoesMsAnthropyCommunistCow
  • durandal4532durandal4532 Registered User regular
    An enormous difference between this and the Boston situation was that in Boston, people were essentially in agreement that they'd rather take a day off work if it meant it was more likely two people who'd bombed a major public event might be caught. Hell, Dunkin Donuts didn't even shut down because everyone agreed that that would be taking it too far.

    People who did not feel like they wanted to stay inside didn't, they went outside and did whatever they liked. The Boston PD did not randomly shoot people in different color/make/model cars who were the wrong gender or fire at people who were walking around outside with less-than-lethal arms because there was a threat on the loose. They were filmed constantly from start to finish from all angles.

    It would have been 100% better had the police not had silly extraneous semi-military arms because they didn't do jack shit that required them, and it was likely not necessary that Boston be as shut down as it was.

    But the major difference is that the Boston PD did what it did in a manner that broadly convinced the public that it was attempting to protect them, and had a specific goal in mind and the capacity to achieve it that the public agreed was necessary. Had the police attempted to do this for say a week, people would have just stopped giving a shit and gone to their work because they needed money. Had the police attempted to force people back home, there would have been protests and riots because at a certain point the manhunt would be considered secondary to getting everyday work done.

    So there are a few things:
    1.) Support for the behavior of the Boston PD does not indicate support for the extra military toys. Nothing about the manhunt for two assholes required everyone to have night vision goggles and body armor and armored carriers.
    2.) Support for the behavior of the Boston PD was contingent upon their goals being broadly agreed upon as necessary and achievable in a short time frame.
    3.) The Boston PD was absolutely not worried about being covered from all angles, because they saw themselves as doing a legitimate service to the people of Boston at the time.

    They achieved a minimum standard that is surprisingly rare.

    The situation here is that the police department is attempting to shut down the populace for an indeterminate amount of time in order to achieve the goal "Do not be mad at the police department anymore". And that's just an insane idea.

    Take a moment to donate what you can to the International Rescue Committee, the National Immigration Law Center, the Southern Poverty Law Center, and the American Civil Liberties Union. There has never been a more urgent moment to do so.
    Kid PresentableCalicachrishallett83CommunistCowshrykeWraith260shoeboxjeddySmrtnikKristmas Kthulhu
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Two things I thought of today, on this topic:


    Firstly, I think I have a good guess what the cops did in order to create a veil of legality to arresting those reporters in the McDonalds. I think one of the officers managed to get the McDonalds manager to say that he hadn't given permission for the reporters to film. It's not a public place, it's a private business, and based on that they were immediately arrested.



    Secondly, I think comparing this public reaction to the Bundy conflict is incorrect. I think that what we should be looking at is a comparison (including amongst ourselves here) between how we feel about militarization of the police right now, and how we felt during the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers. People who argue in favor of militarizing the police force will point to that incident as the reason why it's necessary, and public opinion was broadly in favor of what was basically 2 days of martial law with tanks in the streets.

    Today, not so much. But it's worth considering.

    The "martial law" during the Boston Marathon had zero to do with police militarization and everything to do with people following the requests of polite police. During the search various people ignored the requests without getting shot at with tear gas or really any repercussion at all.

    I agree with you, and I know the situations were different! But I think it's worth comparing these two incidents to try and draw out of the exercise the things we believe and the behavior we want to see. I'm not even sure how I feel about it, when I put it in that light for myself. But i feel like thinking along these lines will be revealing for me, and perhaps talking about it will be useful to clarify how we think and how we go forward addressing the larger issue.

    Boston was how the police were meant to act, Ferguson was the police being racist assholes.

    TicaldfjamDelmainShadowenAngelHedgieGennenalyse RuebenTOGSolidKid PresentableStollsArdolMsAnthropyMrVyngaardDarkPrimusGnome-InterruptusAvalonGuardDaenrisCalicaHacksawchrishallett83shrykeWraith260Rhan9shoeboxjeddySmrtnikKristmas Kthulhu
  • QuidQuid I don't... what... hnnng Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Quid wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Two things I thought of today, on this topic:


    Firstly, I think I have a good guess what the cops did in order to create a veil of legality to arresting those reporters in the McDonalds. I think one of the officers managed to get the McDonalds manager to say that he hadn't given permission for the reporters to film. It's not a public place, it's a private business, and based on that they were immediately arrested.



    Secondly, I think comparing this public reaction to the Bundy conflict is incorrect. I think that what we should be looking at is a comparison (including amongst ourselves here) between how we feel about militarization of the police right now, and how we felt during the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers. People who argue in favor of militarizing the police force will point to that incident as the reason why it's necessary, and public opinion was broadly in favor of what was basically 2 days of martial law with tanks in the streets.

    Today, not so much. But it's worth considering.

    The "martial law" during the Boston Marathon had zero to do with police militarization and everything to do with people following the requests of polite police. During the search various people ignored the requests without getting shot at with tear gas or really any repercussion at all.

    I agree with you, and I know the situations were different! But I think it's worth comparing these two incidents to try and draw out of the exercise the things we believe and the behavior we want to see. I'm not even sure how I feel about it, when I put it in that light for myself. But i feel like thinking along these lines will be revealing for me, and perhaps talking about it will be useful to clarify how we think and how we go forward addressing the larger issue.

    But it's immaterial. The Boston PD having a bunch of military gear didn't aid them. It at best had zero impact. Meanwhile in a ton of other areas police are viciously attacking people. By your reasoning people would point to a situation where the gear was of no particular use as to why it's necessary even if it's used to harm thousands of others. Those people are dumb and not worth listening to.

    Meanwhile Bundy gets brought up because he actually broke the law and threatened to kill police and there has been zero consequence.

    Harry DresdenjoshofalltradesAngelHedgieGennenalyse RuebenMsAnthropyMrVyngaardDarkPrimusAresProphetCalicaHacksawchrishallett83CommunistCowshrykeWraith260shoeboxjeddySmrtnikKristmas Kthulhu
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    So It Goes wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Two things I thought of today, on this topic:


    Firstly, I think I have a good guess what the cops did in order to create a veil of legality to arresting those reporters in the McDonalds. I think one of the officers managed to get the McDonalds manager to say that he hadn't given permission for the reporters to film. It's not a public place, it's a private business, and based on that they were immediately arrested.



    Secondly, I think comparing this public reaction to the Bundy conflict is incorrect. I think that what we should be looking at is a comparison (including amongst ourselves here) between how we feel about militarization of the police right now, and how we felt during the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers. People who argue in favor of militarizing the police force will point to that incident as the reason why it's necessary, and public opinion was broadly in favor of what was basically 2 days of martial law with tanks in the streets.

    Today, not so much. But it's worth considering.

    Per the reporter's account the officers gave him conflicting "orders" on which way to leave the McDonald's and that's when they got physical and put the cuffs on.

    I don't believe the manager was involved at all. They were confronted and asked for ID and told to stop filming.

    Full account here:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in-ferguson-washington-post-reporter-wesley-lowery-gives-account-of-his-arrest/2014/08/13/0fe25c0e-2359-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html

    EDIT: now there's a video there I hadn't seen before. It seems like they are clearing out the whole place?

    Right, I'm speculating here based on this section in that account:

    "Then they [the police who were demanding ID] walked away. Moments later, the police reemerged, telling us that we had to leave."

    I think, coupled with the report that they were arrested for trespassing, suggests that they went somewhere and acquired what they felt was sufficient justification to throw the reporters out of the building, and then escalated intentionally so they could arrest people.

  • So It GoesSo It Goes We keep moving...Registered User regular
    here's a direct link to the video from the WashPo reporter who was arrested

    http://wapo.st/Y6Mii7

  • ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA mod
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    This sort of thing makes me want to record every police officer I see, all the time.

    Smrtnik
  • DelmainDelmain Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    This sort of thing makes me want to record every police officer I see, all the time.

    Lots of things make me want to do that.

    I still don't understand the legislative holdup on ordering it.

    syndalis wrote: »
    Apple is a terrible company.
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Two things I thought of today, on this topic:


    Firstly, I think I have a good guess what the cops did in order to create a veil of legality to arresting those reporters in the McDonalds. I think one of the officers managed to get the McDonalds manager to say that he hadn't given permission for the reporters to film. It's not a public place, it's a private business, and based on that they were immediately arrested.



    Secondly, I think comparing this public reaction to the Bundy conflict is incorrect. I think that what we should be looking at is a comparison (including amongst ourselves here) between how we feel about militarization of the police right now, and how we felt during the hunt for the Boston Marathon bombers. People who argue in favor of militarizing the police force will point to that incident as the reason why it's necessary, and public opinion was broadly in favor of what was basically 2 days of martial law with tanks in the streets.

    Today, not so much. But it's worth considering.

    Not sure how the Boston manhunt relates to the topic of police militarization?

    My impresion of it when it was happening was how the police were acting, not that they were using their equiptment correctly.

    In that situation, did they need ~tanks and assault rifles and body armour?

    But then again, at the time it was mostly a comparision between Boston and LAPD, so the equiptment used didn't really get mentioned.

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    Delmain wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    This sort of thing makes me want to record every police officer I see, all the time.

    Lots of things make me want to do that.

    I still don't understand the legislative holdup on ordering it.

    I think many police unions are against it.

  • DelmainDelmain Registered User regular
    Couscous wrote: »
    Delmain wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    This sort of thing makes me want to record every police officer I see, all the time.

    Lots of things make me want to do that.

    I still don't understand the legislative holdup on ordering it.

    I think many police unions are against it.

    Thats probably true.

    syndalis wrote: »
    Apple is a terrible company.
    Smrtnik
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Delmain wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Delmain wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    This sort of thing makes me want to record every police officer I see, all the time.

    Lots of things make me want to do that.

    I still don't understand the legislative holdup on ordering it.

    I think many police unions are against it.

    Thats probably true.

    true but irrelevant because it's not illegal to record the police.

    DelmainKonphujunMsAnthropySmrtnik
  • override367override367 ALL minions Registered User regular
    it's illegal to record the police if they decide so

    at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact

  • DelmainDelmain Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    Delmain wrote: »
    Couscous wrote: »
    Delmain wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    This sort of thing makes me want to record every police officer I see, all the time.

    Lots of things make me want to do that.

    I still don't understand the legislative holdup on ordering it.

    I think many police unions are against it.

    Thats probably true.

    true but irrelevant because it's not illegal to record the police.

    Yeah, mine was a "that's true, they're against, so?"

    syndalis wrote: »
    Apple is a terrible company.
    spool32MsAnthropy
  • hippofanthippofant ティンク Registered User regular
    it's illegal to record the police if they decide so

    at best you can win a lawsuit against them after the fact

    Which makes it a ridiculous mathematical question: which is worse, being sued for preventing you from filming me, or being sued for being caught on film for what I'm about to do to you?

This discussion has been closed.