r/news "the National Guard needs to be called in", "beta testing of America 2.0", "It is a clear attack on the 1st Amendment"
reddit.com/r/news/comments/2dj1k7/ferguson_po...Posted Aug 14, 2014, 10:34 PM UTC
3853
reddit.com
These people complain about "police militarization" when police have always been "militarized." After World War 1, police forces were decked out with Tommy Guns, BAR's, and they even rolled around in armored cars. That was the technology of the time and the cops used it. Coincidentally, those were the types of weapons that private citizens could own. As military technology develops, the innovations get pushed into the civilian market and into police stations.
I've seen so many people lamenting "militarized" police based on nothing more than the image of an officer with body armor and an M4 and molle equipment. These are not "military" they're just modern tools which the military uses, because the military likes modern tools. Police have been using modern tools ever since their inception. There's no reason why these tools should not be used by civilians and civilian police. Surely we can't expect cops to stick with khakis and revolvers if citizens can roll with body armor, AR-15's, and drones.
16
Exactly. Thank you.
5
You're welcome. It always feel good to have your opinions validated by meaningless internet points from anonymous people on the internet.
6
Validation stamped and approved.
5
Drones? Just to be clear, are you equating multirotors with military drones? If you are, that is absurd.
0†
Multirotors are drones. They're a type of drone, just like the Predator is. Using a less specific name doesn't mean he's equating everything that falls under that name.
4
But the discussion is about police using military equipment. A military drone has nothing in common with a civilian drone other than they are both controlled by radio.
-1
beta testing of America 2.0
The fact that these guys resort to and expand upon a stupid fucking software metaphor really says a lot about their general demographic and their narrow perspective.
15
Reddit is full of neckbeards whining about 1st world problems. A lot of times focused on problems that have a tech-savvy slant. That is exactly why they have no empathy for problems real people face all over the world. That is exactly why every time there is a criticism of some 3rd world country or dictatorship; they find a way to blame the US (egotistically because of their own problems) or they find a way to say "Oh yeah? WhatabouttheUS? [where I live and am faced with oppression too!]". A disease of self-victimization full of kids who think the world revolves around them and their "digital world".
This is why they are obsessed with privacy because they are all pirating shit and ordering drugs online. This is why bitcoin is so loved. This is why they worry about government blackmail because of the illegal shit they watch on the internet. It's also why you find a lot of anarchists, conspiracy theorists, extreme socialists, communists, and libertarians on reddit, while in real life you'll meet a lot more moderates, liberals, and conservatives.
It's all pretty connected.
3
Keep taking the blue pill, dude.
-1
This drives me nuts. Although this country has a lot of debt, why would they spend money and resources on turning the country into a dystopia instead of cutting funding to actually fund social programs?
Republicans and Democrats argue about healthcare and taxes but behind closed doors they can both agree about bringing in the police state?
13
The arguing between the two parties is a front because we all know the two parties are EXACTLY THE SAME, and both controlled by the Jewish Illuminati Lizard People WAKE UP SHEELPE!
10
America 2.0
I wish they get rid of all those nutjobs in America 2.1.
13
I think they're going to be removed when the NDAA detention camp plugin is released.
7
I apologize if this has already been posted or there is an influx of nuttery regarding Ferguson stories.
Also, I know some of you will likely mention that there are sensible comments in this thread too, but some of them are very panicky.
From the comments: "Welcome to police state America", the good old police state conspiracy theories are back. This is a top-comment.
9
Because every other time the national guard went to a protest we turned into a lawless distopia, because that's exactly what "the man" wants.
6
While the police handling of the riots and protests have been nothing short of atrocious, I'm not sure that it means that they're attacking the 1st Amendment.
That one dude is right though, the Nat Guard would make a better riot control unit than these clowns.
6
Will someone please ELI5 what's happening in Ferguson? I'm confused.
1
Its a case of police shooting an unarmed black man. People were peacefully protesting for the first few days then riots broke out. Right now the police are trying to get a hold on the situation but its not working very well. They've notably tear gassed several reporters along with arresting them then releasing them later without charge
4
So a black man robbed a store allegedly and the cops were arresting him and putting him in a vehicle. When there was reportedly a tussle with the cop and the man tried to run away and got shot and killed.
The question was whether the cop was allowed to shoot him. They claim that the man wrestled the cop for his gun and then ran. Witnesses say they only saw the man run away and get shot and no one could really see if there was such a fight.
Then people protested under the belief that the cop was racist or brutally killed an innocent man or at the very least an unarmed man.
Of course the peaceful protest turned riot and violent. So police used tear gas and people are whining more about police. A couple reporters were also tear gassed and two were arrested and then released. Thus, there are accusations of police oppression.
2†
So a black man robbed a store allegedly and the cops were arresting him
The cop who confronted the guy had no idea he was a robbery suspect. He pulled up beside him and hassled him for walking in the street.
Witnesses say they only saw the man run away and get shot
Witnesses say a lot more than that. They all agree that Mike Brown had halted and raised his hands in the air when the fatal shots were fired.
Of course the peaceful protest turned riot and violent. So police used tear gas and people are whining more about police.
This is such a wack description of events. It's been two days now since St. Louis County PD, which was relying on massive shows of military-style force, pointing rifles at people, etc, has been replaced by the Governor with the Highway Patrol, which has adopted a much calmer and more reasonable approach. The rowdy unrest is now over and most everyone is crediting the change in police tactics. They were not simply reacting to rioting and angering "whiners;" they were behaving like an occupying army and making the situation far worse than it had to be.
I'd just like the readers of r/PanicHistory to know that u/executex (and a couple others here) have a bad habit of making these confident, informed-sounding assertions about events but then when you look into their explanation it turns out to be misleading nonsense.
1†
hassled him for walking in the street.[1]
Nice manipulation. You mean for blocking traffic, which is a crime.
They all agree that Mike Brown had halted and raised his hands in the air when the fatal shots were fired.
Maybe he was shot as he was raising his hands, we really do not know. Witness testimony is very unreliable due to mistakes in memory and mistakes in timing during adrenaline-pumped events.
which was relying on massive shows of military-style force
No such thing as "military style". You shouldn't make shit up.
pointing rifles at people,
You mean at criminals and rioters. That's their job.
has been replaced by the Governor with the Highway Patrol,
Because of people panicking and getting angry with the cops. Governors need to win elections.
they were behaving like an occupying army
By throwing tear gas at rioters who refused to disperse?
I don't think you understand that an occupying army would have killed any threats. That's what armies do.
Police throw tear gas and tell people to disperse.
I'd just like the readers of r/PanicHistory[3] to know that u/executex[4] [+51] (and a couple others here) have a bad habit of making these confident, informed-sounding assertions about events but then when you look into their explanation it turns out to be misleading nonsense.
This coming from the most rabidly anti-government and manipulative guy on this subreddit who makes all sorts of false assertions with no evidence to back up anything he says.
3
Nice manipulation. You mean for blocking traffic, which is a crime
In addition, while the office may not have known that MB just robbed a store and battered a clerk, MB knew that he had and acted according to the assumption that the officer knew too. He thought he was in bigger trouble than he actually was, which is why he responded so aggressively to the officer.
5
No such thing as "military style".
Oh? The rise of the paramilitary police force first at the national, then the state, then the local level has been the focus of social criminology and political science study for decades. Lea and Young first described military policing in their seminal work "What is to be Done About Law and Order." This was followed up by Steve Herbert's "The geopolitics of the police: Foucault, disciplinary power and the tactics of the Los Angeles Police Department", which described the rapid militarization of the LAPD. More recent descriptions include Kraska's "Militarization and Policing—Its Relevance to 21st Century Police" (2007) and "Soldiers as Police Officers/Police Officers as Soldiers: Role Evolution and Revolution in the United States" by Donald Campbell and Kathleen Campbell (2009). Those are the most influential ones I've read, there are dozens of others, and while the modalities of militarization in police forces vary by situation, the most common focus is on a switch from the traditional responsive and investigative role of police to a preemptive and defensive one generally reserved for the military. This is precisely what is meant by things like "military-style force", a force meant to be preemptive and defensive rather than responsive.
1
Excuse me. It's been widely documented and remarked on that the St. Louis County PD was pointing rifles at people who were not evidently "rioters" or "criminals." The infamous image from Wednesday afternoon of police snipers sighting in on a mass of peaceful demonstrators has already become iconic. Your continually renewed claim that only "rioters" and "criminals" faced this type of treatment can only be described as a lie.
Furthermore, it isn't even the job of police to point rifles at criminals. That violates every principle of the use-of-force continuum under which cops are supposed to operate. Firearms should be pointed only as last resort against loss of life or serious bodily harm.
And even if there were such a danger posed by members of a crowd, using rifles against members of a crowd poses an obvious danger of injuring or killing other members of the crowd, making it a very bad idea.
It's just amazing how wrong you are here. It takes paragraphs just to unpack the layers of wrongness in a single one of your claims!
-1
The National Guard thing isn't too far off, the governor is replacing the local police with state and federal authorities.