Militarized police in Ferguson, Mo., after the August 2014 shooting death of Michael Brown.
Posted at http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/police-should-stand-down-in-ferguson-mo:
Tear gas, unrest, controlling the press, and the killing of alleged innocents are outcomes one would expect politicians to rationalize as inevitable in a war zone.
But these atrocities are happening in American cities — now in Ferguson, Mo., in the heart of the United States.
The war is not against tyrants who have invaded America or terrorists who commit mass murder.
No, the war is one that Democratic and Republican politicians are waging against fellow Americans who are hurting no one else.
The War on Drugs is frequently used to justify police who accost minorities walking down the street or otherwise engaged in peaceful behavior. This may have been what precipitated the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown over the weekend, leading to riots and another shooting on Wednesday.
Although all the facts of this case are not yet known, the War on Drugs can be blamed for breeding the tension and resentment that has led to the dangerous rioting we now see in Ferguson.
“The militarization of our domestic police forces must end,” said Nicholas Sarwark, chair of the Libertarian National Committee. “The failed War on Drugs must end. And there’s no circumstance in which any government authority should attempt to silence or suppress the news media or people peacefully observing police conduct.”
So far, police in Ferguson have placed two reporters under arrest — one for the Washington Post and one for the Huffington Post — along with an observer, a St. Louis alderman.
The Libertarian Party calls on the Ferguson and St. Louis County Police Departments to:
- Release the name of the police officer who shot Michael Brown.
- Let the investigation into the shooting play out without escalating tensions.
- Stop arresting reporters and observers in blatant violation of the First Amendment
- Stand down and withdraw the militarized response.
The Libertarian Party also denounces and demands accountability for protesters who vandalize, loot, and destroy private property and thus victimize innocent small business owners.
The War on Drugs has been the rationale for the militarization of domestic police forces, a fact covered extensively by Washington Post reporter Radley Balko. The Libertarian Party calls for repeal of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), which provides for dispensation of military equipment to federal and state law enforcement agencies for “counter-drug activities,” and also calls for immediately ceasing the acquisition and use of military surplus equipment and supplies by domestic police departments.
America’s senseless and reckless War on Drugs has ruined thousands of lives. It has failed to serve any useful purpose. It has failed to reduce dangerous use of drugs — and, in fact, encourages drug addiction. It has failed to make our streets safe — and has made them dangerous. It has failed to institute justice — and instead inflicts continual miscarriages of justice.
The Libertarian Party has long advocated for an end to the failed and dangerous War on Drugs. Twenty-seven Libertarian candidates running for federal office in 2014, and many more running for state and local office across the country, have pledged to end the War on Drugs if elected.
Too lazy to scroll, but I think I said I would not jump to that conclusion based on what you said here. Different narratives of the original events that led to this situation are not in and of themselves racist. I don’t know you well enough to say either way, but of the times I have spoken to you online, on the phone or in person I have never seen or read anything racist, so I will assume that you are not unless and until you say something that is.
Sorry, I lost the thread of the conversation. Which of my many comments in this thread were you answering?
Joshua,
Agreed (I’m not the one who brought it up).
Tk – not going along with hijacking this post. I think we have several hundred on the topic, not to mention the LNC list. Suffice it to say that I think the questions are non trivial but don’t rest on the definition of party
Paulie, yes. I was called a racist for my entire post. I too that to mean that there was disagreement on all points….
tk: I’d vote for a bylaws amendment requiring the SoP to be read aloud at the beginning of every Libertarian National Convention and displayed behind the stage in font readable from the rear of the hall throughout said convention.
me: Even better, you might get the SoP’s words (reversed) put on the side of a burning cauldron, replacing the tigers and dragons. (See link below, after the 2m mark.) All “real” Ls can be like Kwai Chang Caine with burned-in tattoos about challenging the “cult” and the right to exercise sole dominion, etc.
Might be a great initiation, way better than the mere pledge! 😉
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZY6HgFyoupw
jp, ya know, as a kinda, sorta Taoist, I really don’t do right or wrong. I do helpful or hurtful. I find the LNC’s message potentially hurtful in part, although directionally helpful generally.
I trust that’s clear. It’s not so black and white as you seem to think.
I just quickly read the LPM’s message, and I find it overly ambitious given its brevity, but in some ways I like it better, since it calls out racism.
RC,
OK.
Done.
Your point?
Believe you me, I’d vote for a bylaws amendment requiring the SoP to be read aloud at the beginning of every Libertarian National Convention and displayed behind the stage in font readable from the rear of the hall throughout said convention.
However, “principles” and “purposes” are two different words with two different meanings, and “job” fits more into the latter than the former. And long experience has conditioned me to reasonable happiness with LNC releases that don’t openly violate the SoP; asking such releases to prominently feature the most radical parts of the SoP would be asking too much.
tk, re-read the SoP.
Hey, Capozzi, there’s a new article up with a statement by the Libertarian Party of Missouri. Why don’t you go see what you can find wrong with that?
“Thankfully, the LNC didn’t choose to say that the VERY EXISTENCE of the Ferguson PD is both monopolistic and tax (theft) financed, and is therefore an immoral violation of the NAP.”
Nah, that’s not the LNC’s job. It’s C4SS’s. On it right now, check c4ss.org in an hour or so.
PF, thx for the link. In some ways, it supports MY point. The Keane, NH cops got their armored hoopty not for drug raids, but for terrorist threats (to their Pumpkin Festival).
This subject is not all that interesting to me, but perhaps there’s a table with military equipment going to cops for drug war vs. counter-terrorist purposes. I get the sense that the armored vehicle factor is more for the latter, but I’m just guessing. Still, I’ve stipulated numerous times that I am aware that the cops with munitions is partly associated with the WoD.
Thankfully, the LNC didn’t choose to say that the VERY EXISTENCE of the Ferguson PD is both monopolistic and tax (theft) financed, and is therefore an immoral violation of the NAP. (Now THERE’S a message that’d’ve got their phone lines jammed.) 😉
Best when venturing into the Public Square — esp. as a leader/spokesperson — to be as absolutely accurate as possible. Firing off half-cocked half-truths to feel good might fire up the base, but those on the fence or sympathetic might see the loose rhetoric as desperate and offputting.
From Antonion Buehler:
That he had a militarized attitude is apparent from his actions. Watch and listen to the eyewitness accounts. The militarization referred to in the press release is primarily in the aftermath, which is the bigger deal, but militarization and the drug war (both inextricably interlinked) were the background of the original incident as well – never mind that the incident itself wasn’t about dugs.
pf, yes, a “militarized attitude” tracks for me. But at least when I (and it could be that I’m the ONLY person on Earth who uses the word in this way) say “militarization,” I’m referring NOT to an attitude, but rather weapons and armored vehicles and such.
Now, however, I have NO idea whether the shooter/cop had/has a militarized attitude. Do you know him? Was he having a bad day? Is he a racist?
I don’t think so. It’s all about the militarized attitude of seeing the population they are policing as the enemy to be contained. The equipment is just a part of the militarization, the attitude is actually the biggest part.
http://rare.us/story/john-oliver-blasts-the-militarization-of-police-in-perfect-ferguson-monologue/
I recommend watching the whole thing, but Capozzi should pay special attention around the 7, 12 and 13 minute marks.
Joshua,
You write:
“Arguing whether or not it’s a [national] ‘party’ seems to be an argument about words.”
Words mean things, and in this case they blur an important distinction regarding who rightfully controls what.
With respect to Oregon in particular, the blurring of that distinction has implications for:
1) Who decides which organization is the Libertarian Party of Oregon?
2) Who decides which organization is the LNC’s affiliate in Oregon?
The answer to the second question is clearly and indisputably “the Libertarian National Committee, insofar as it follows its own rules for doing so (the referral to the Judicial Committee was over it not following those rules).
Mattson et. al, however, want to answer the first question by claiming for the LNC, in contravention of a century and a half or so of settled law, that some mythical “national party” gets to decide the matter.
In the United States, political parties which participate in elections are organized at the state level and under the states’ legal authority. The LNC doesn’t get to decide what organization is “the Libertarian Party of Oregon.” That organization existed before there WAS an LNC, and the only autonomy it ever surrendered by affiliating with the LNC related “who gets the Libertarian Party’s ballot line in Oregon.” The LPO can disaffiliate, or be disaffiliated, from the the LNC at any time … and if it is, that ballot line goes with the organization that owns it, not with some non-existent “national party.”
Safya Yassin 9:39am Aug 18
“We criticize dictators for quelling dissent and silencing protesters with tactics like curfews; we’ll certainly speak out when it’s happening in our own backyard,” Steven Hawkins, the executive director of Amnesty International USA, said of the Ferguson curfew in a statement.
tk: Large groups of police, moving in military formations, wearing military uniforms, carrying military weapons, driving military vehicles …
… but blaming that on militarization of the police, which is historically inextricably linked to and fueled by the war on drugs is similar, and similarly wrong-headed, to blaming it on central banking as monetary policy.
me: OK, here’s the point, then. It’s stipulated that the SOME of the militarization of the police is due to the drug war. The shooting of Michael Brown had ZERO to do with militarization. That could have happened with anywhere, at pretty much any time.
It’s possible that racism may have had something to do with the shooting. That wasn’t incorporated in the release, but it could have been.
Nor did the police HAVE TO pull out all their military gear (some from the drug war, some — possibly more of the heavy equipment that is more easily associated with the war on terror — since 9/11) in this aftermath period. They made a BAD decision there, IMO. BAD decisions were also made to give them that military equipment in the first place, as I see it.
The link to THIS STORY is in your mind, as well as some Ls and others minds. I certainly don’t see it as a necessary component to LNC messaging. It may well be OPTIMAL messaging, but if so, it should have been executed with more care. I generally suggest keeping a tighter focus on such matters, but I certainly don’t claim that mine is the only valid opinion on the matter.
tk: Sorry, I’m not seeing it. Neither, I suspect are you. This is one of those cases like you complaining about all those libertarians who are always talking about private nukes, of which you appear to be the only one.
me: I offer feedback, I don’t complain. It could be that this press release has caused hundreds of thousands to flood the LNC’s phones and website with new members. This would surprise me, but then again I’m surprised that so many people are fans of professional wrestling.
It’s possible that not one non-Kool-Aid-drinking person who read this was scratching their heads over how Ferguson is about the War on Drugs. This too I doubt, but then the truth is there ARE millions of wrestling fans! 😉
To be clear, though, I do think the LM has progressed in that while there was a blip of macho flash in the 80s when some liked to proclaim publicly that there’s a right to private nukes, nowadays for the most part those who hold hyper-extreme positions recognize that keeping their own counsel on such matters is wise.
Even the kiddie porn, bestiality, machine-guns-in-the-subway types recognize that such hyper-extremism is self defeating.
Progress! Slow progress, to be sure…
How does the freedom of state parties to affiliate or disaffiliate make the national entity nonexistent? Certainly national is not the same sort of entity as a state party, but it certainly exists. Arguing whether or not it’s a “party” seems to be an argument about words.
Joshua,
It’s not a matter of “my view.” It’s a matter of how political parties are organized in the United States.
And no, there is not a “national Republican Party” or a “national Democratic Party.”
The Democrats in particular have found this out the hard way, twice:
In 1860, “the Democracy” (the coalition of state Democratic Parties) split into multiple affiliation mechanisms. In the north, the Democratic Parties ran Stephen Douglass for president. In the south, the Democratic Parties ran John C. Breckenridge.
In 1948, several Democratic Parties in the south ran Strom Thurmond rather than Harry Truman on their presidential ballot line.
The Libertarians have likewise been taught this same lesson at least once — when Arizona’s Libertarian Party, having been disaffiliated from the Libertarian National Committee, ran L. Neil Smith and Vin Suprynowicz, rather than Harry Browne and Art Olivier, on their 2000 presidential ballot line.
A “national committee” is not a “national party.” It’s just the mechanism which, in the usual course of things, the several state parties of like persuasion use to run a presidential ticket, support each others’ candidates, etc. And those several state parties are entirely free to disaffiliate from one national committee and affiliate with another — or go it alone.
Is there also no national Republican Party or Democrat Party, in your view?
“Imagine if this release blamed Ferguson on the existence of the Federal Reserve.”
Hmm, let’s see:
Large groups of police, moving in military formations, wearing military uniforms, carrying military weapons, driving military vehicles …
… but blaming that on militarization of the police, which is historically inextricably linked to and fueled by the war on drugs is similar, and similarly wrong-headed, to blaming it on central banking as monetary policy.
Sorry, I’m not seeing it. Neither, I suspect are you. This is one of those cases like you complaining about all those libertarians who are always talking about private nukes, of which you appear to be the only one.
Imagine if this release blamed Ferguson on the existence of the Federal Reserve. Easy money > boom/bust cycles > mass manipulation > wars to distract > excess armaments > social unrest > militarizing the police > Michael Brown gunned down > looting > right-wing radio rants > militarized crackdowns.
Maybe throw in the Bilderbergs or 911 Truth narratives to top it all off.
The rationale language is on its face mis-representative as well, based on the releases link to a Balko story. Or, distortion, or sloppy word choice, or an attempt to shoehorn. All work.
“There is no misrepresentation in the chair issuing a press release or statement in the name of the national party.”
Except to the extent that claiming there is a “national party” is itself a misrepresentation.
http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/17/watch-ferguson-police-militarizatio
http://www.businessinsider.com/police-militarization-ferguson-2014-8
The Mike Brown Shooting – What You’re Not Being Told
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_icVWKO4_o
Lorie Meacham
32 mins
Missouri Highway Patrol spokesman Justin Wheetley elaborated further, saying that officials will decide on whether to cancel the curfew on a day-by-day basis.
Curfew extended indefinitely to quell Ferguson protests
?The authorities in Ferguson, Missouri, are still enforcing the curfew that bars residents, bent on venting their outrage at the murder of a black teenager by a police officer, from being on the streets after midnight.
rt.com
Lorie Meacham 5:46pm Aug 17
“When we take domestic police officers and we train them like soldiers and we give them military gear and we dress them up like soldiers and we tell them they’re fighting a war — a war on crime or a war on terror — they’re going to start to see themselves as soldiers.”
The WoD has been a primary driver for militarization of the police. It has fostered the sense on both sides that the police are at war with the citizenry. This leads to fear – it leads to shootings like this one. No shoehorning – just helping people connect dots more.
The bylaws empower the chair to represent the party. There is no misrepresentation in the chair issuing a press release or statement in the name of the national party.
Good, I am glad we agree.
pf: There are much bigger issues such as….
me: Completely concur here.
The only hysteria I see here is some nonsense about the press release being misleading. I have no mental energy left to keep nitpicking the press release, which I think did a great job. There are much bigger issues such as
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/aug/17/one-man-critically-injured-after-being-shot-in-continuing-protests-in-ferguson-missouri-video
pf, first, I don’t worry. I’m all about being happy.
You’ve already admitted that there is false, overstated information in the release. It leaped off the screen when I read it the first time. And my bias was to agree with it! I don’t have the energy for chaff, and I’ve found that the truth really does set us free.
YMMV, though.
I’ve found that some find hysteria to be somehow comforting, which I just don’t get.
But by all means, let’s worry about how non-libertarians will fail to connect the dots in a press release, without even any evidence of a single actual non-libertarian having this problem, right?
Lorie Meacham 12:24pm Aug 17
Hundreds of thousands of Americans watched events unfold in Ferguson. They saw the police tear gassing a community in mourning, firing at them with rubber bullets and using sound canons to disperse them. They saw military-style police chase them into neighborhoods where they continued to fire tear gas and rubber bullets. They saw reporters abused and arrested as a SWAT team took over a McDonald’s where they were reporting from and other reporters attacked with tear gas and then the police dismantling the journalist’s equipment.#Ferguson #NMOS14 #PoliceState
Yes, really, a major stretch. Really you worry about way the wrong things. Meanwhile back in Ferguson…
Lorie Meacham 2:30pm Aug 17
A State Of Emergency was imposed on the residents of Ferguson on August 16th 2014. This curfew set of a mutual aide package of different law enforcement agencies, a mandatory curfew and the power to arrest anyone seen in public space from 12am to 5:30am.
Police promised they wouldn’t use armored vehicles of gas to enforce the curfew but as 12am passed both Armored Vehicles and Gas became publicly visible and utilized.
#Ferguson #NMOS14 #PoliceState
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jqmj77j1ZjU
“That’s a stretch for you?”
Sounds like a stretch for pretty much anybody.
pf, maybe. But that might speak more about its readership than the substance of my point.
You can’t imagine many non-Ls saying, “Oh, no, there go those drug-obsessed Ls trying to make Ferguson about the War on Drugs even though no drugs were involved?”
That’s a stretch for you? Really?
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/neighbor-live-tweeted-brown-shooting-damning-evidence-officer/
I think you are way past the point of “not to belabor” and one person agreeing with you…meh.
I doubt there are ten other people alive in the world who will notice this “problem” you keep going on about.
pf, mefeels you are highly invested in being right here. MC, who rarely agrees with my perspective, sees the point I am making.
This is not to say that I (or MC) am “right,” but rather it appears my point has some merit. I’ve indicated that the atmosphere that the Drug War has created may well have contributed to this tragic development.
Of course it need not be like a scientific journal entry. But internal consistency seems important, especially for the unconverted. If a narrative is to be expanded beyond the facts in evidence, especially with a high-profile/news cycle story, use language that the average reader can track.
Not to belabor, but consider this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-lDIJjnCHco
😉
Those exist only in your own mind. It’s quite obvious that the drug war is the context in which the militarization of police forces, the climate of crime and fear of crime and the trigger happy mentality of cops is taking place. It’s completely besides the point whether the specific issue in the exact circumstances with Michael Brown was drug related, as if it somehow exists in isolation from the larger context.
I don’t know who these kool aid drinkers are, but I don’t see anything remotely like that here. Or in the releases from LPMO, Sarvis, etc, which you havn’t commented on as far as I can see.
It doesn’t.
It’s not a scientific journal submission.
It’s a freaking press release. People take about 15-30 seconds to read it, at best. You are being both ridiculously over-analytical and missing the forest for the trees at the same time.
The press release is good and we need a lot more like it.
Robert,
I don’t consider that something to get too exercised about. The LNC considers itself the “national LP.” They’re wrong, but I don’t see much point in trying to convince them of that or in condemning good work because it casually features that mistake.
To the extent that the distinction is important, it’s the state parties which need to be convinced of the validity of that distinction. Not necessarily so that they will choose some other cross-affiliation mechanism, but so that they understand that doing so is always an option if the LNC fails in its legitimate functions and/or exceeds its legitimate portfolio.
pf: You need a more holistic perspective.
me: Thanks for your counsel. However, in addition to being the most radical L I know, I’m also the most holistic one as well. I’m quite down with going from the general to the specific. However, that doesn’t excuse logic leaps and unsubstantiated assertions.
I mean, don’t you know Ls who blame pretty much everything on the Fed? They may well have a strong argument, but IF one is to take that tack, one needs to make a coherent case.
Writing for fellow Kool-Aid drinkers just won’t do.
pf: If you haven’t read Rise of the Warrior Cop, you should. The release does not distort his views.
me: Sorry, I’ve established that it distorts what is LINKED TO from a Balko article. Balko may well hold such a view, but the support is simply not there.
The average reader has not read Balko’s book. Press releases should not assume omniscience on the part of the reader. They need internal support for the case they make, at least, most communications experts would take that view, rightly, IMO.
tk: I assume you’re referring to my unthinking use of the acronym “LPHQ?”
me: No. The release itself uses both LNC and LP interchangeably.
Yes, I see the typos, they will fix it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IlY9C6pzxKc
The police version of events has always had at least the first shot fired while Brown was in the police car (first version) or partially in the police car (later versions).
I’m not saying that’s whatt happened. My guess is that there are a maximum of three or four living people who know exactly what happened. The rest of us have to figure out what we believe. Belief is not the same thing as knowledge.
Darren Wilson, the cop who murdered #MichaelBrown in #Ferguson. Wilson’s first shots were to Michael Brown’s back as he was running away. The next ~7 shots were as Michael had his hands up in the air.
“BTW, I thought you had a problem with the LNC calling itself the LP. If so, has the objection changed now that you support the Chairman?”
It’s not a “problem” or an “objection.” It’s just a mis-identification. I assume you’re referring to my unthinking use of the acronym “LPHQ?”
I largely agree with him. I don’t think government is the solution either. Government is perpetuating and worsening the problems.
I think it makes sense to mention the underlying problems.
You need a more holistic perspective.
If you haven’t read Rise of the Warrior Cop, you should. The release does not distort his views.
I thought it was very well done, as were the ones by the Missouri and Wisconsin LPs and Sarvis.
ns: Every time I see Russell Brand speak for more than two minutes at a time, I’m amazed by his insight.
me: Based on this comment, I listened to much of this. I wonder if the Chair and other Ls agree or disagree with Brand’s take on the “massive wounds of slavery” and allied subjects (’round 340-430 marks).
Strikes me that many Ls would thoroughly disagree with this, given the “rugged individualist” stance that is shot-through much L thought. Having left that reservation, I can say that I largely agree with Brand, though I don’t think more government is the solution to the failed social engineering experiments of slavery and then Jim Crow.
Did anyone else notice, btw, that O’Reilly pronounced Missouri as “misery” at least once? On purpose? Dunno. Feels creepily manipulative to me….
I agree almost completely with Capozzi that there’s some shoehorning going on. I’m not sure what that was necessary here, as there’s plenty to talk about without trying to tie it into the War on Drugs.
Regardless, I like that the release is straight up L-ism.
pf: Maybe to you. Not to me.
me: It’s not so much to me, but to the average reader who is not steeped in L doctrine and thought patterns. Interestingly, the release says:
“The War on Drugs is frequently used to justify police who accost minorities walking down the street or otherwise engaged in peaceful behavior. This may have been what precipitated the killing of 18-year-old Michael Brown…”
MAY have been. The average reader will see the news, then look at the official LP take on it, and see that it goes on and on about the War on Drugs, even though the specifics of the case have NOTHING TO DO with drugs.
Then the average reader might read the Balko link, and see that the release distorts his words.
Strikes me as poor communications.
TK: I think I can speak to how militarization and the War on Drugs might have had an effect on it,
me: Yes, it MIGHT have. Thank you. I don’t disagree! In fact, I suspect the zeitgeist contributes mightily to these sorts of incidents.
I merely suggest taking great care when incorporating secondary and tertiary considerations, connecting dots with wide chasms between them.
The Balko distortion alone shows a lackadaisical use of the facts.
BTW, I thought you had a problem with the LNC calling itself the LP. If so, has the objection changed now that you support the Chairman?
http://www.robertsarvis.com/ferguson-crisis-highlights-race-disparities-and-militarization-of-law-enforcement
Every time I see Russell Brand speak for more than two minutes at a time, I’m amazed by his insight.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RU_Z7kD5i7g
For those interested, here is a response by our state chair.
http://www.lpmo.org/releases/2014-08-14-000000/713
As a humanist, no one is going to “win” in Ferguson, MO. Everybody is a loser when violence is the mode of choice. And what is happening is a choice.
Peace
Most definitely is.
Maybe to you. Not to me.
One of the main rationales.
Lorie Meacham posted in CopBlock.org Fan Group
8:26pm Aug 16
Just a reminder. The protest started peacefully, before citizens and journalists were viciously attacked. Before Al Sharpton and cointelpro came in to stir the pot. And it is the citizens of Ferguson who are currently guarding the stores. Not the police.#Ferguson #NMOS14 #PoliceState
RT Ferguson police disperse peaceful rally with tear gas, rubber bullets
pf: The whole climate of crime and fear of crime that leads to cops being on edge and trigger-happy has a lot to do with the drug war.
Me: Could be. Seems like a shoe horn, though…a stretch of the facts in evidence.
But my MAIN point is: Is it true that “The War on Drugs has been *the* rationale for the militarization of domestic police forces,” or is it MORE accurate to say “*a* rationale.”
Robert,
We still don’t know precisely what happened in the “initial incident,” but I think I can speak to how militarization and the War on Drugs might have had an effect on it, assuming (it’s not safe to assume, but for the sake of my point we have to, so bear with) that the eyewitness accounts of the last moments are accurate.
First, the war on drugs:
I lived in north St. Louis county, always within single-digit miles of Ferguson, for 12 years (we once looked at an apartment in the complex the victim lived in, Canfield Green, but chose one nearby in Florissant instead). I drove an ice cream truck operating from Ferguson, and often having Ferguson as my route, for two summers.
The War on Drugs was, quite simply, the overriding rationale of the local police departments and the St. Louis County Police Department. It feels like half the police vehicles in the area are SUVs, Hummers, sports cars, etc. with “THIS VEHICLE WAS SEIZED FROM A DRUG DEALER” and DARE stickers on them.
My house was located right off a “main drag” in the area (St. Charles Rock Road) and on a street well-known as a connecting road to another main drag (Natural Bridge — you may have heard the Nelly song about “Kingshighway and Natural Bridge”), and it made a great speed trap. I saw probably 100 police stops right in front of my house. And probably 95 of them were of young black males driving nice cars. And that seemed to be the same approximate ratio as on the two mentioned main drags.
The protocol: Pull over the young black man in the nice car. CALL FOR BACKUP — there was always at least one additional police car there within a couple of minutes. Intensively question the young black male, who had probably been pulled over for going 25 in a 20. Put the young black male in cuffs and sit him on the curb. Wait for a third car to arrive with a drug dog. Hope you found crack or heroin in the car so you could seize it. If you didn’t, disappointedly issue a speeding ticket, send the backup and drug dog crews away, pull onto the side street or the parking lot and wait for another young black male in a nice car to pass by.
The primary purpose of local police forces in the area seems to be to harass young black males and rack up vehicle and property seizures as fast as possible. The only place this isn’t true is on the local expressways, where the primary purpose is to issue as many speeding tickets as possible (there was a successful lawsuit against one “town” a mile or so down the road from me, Charlack, over the fact that that’s all their police department really seemed to do and that it was seemingly the only rationale for the existence of the “town” itself).
As to militarization:
There was once at least theoretically a difference between police work and military work. The purpose of the police was to “keep the peace” and “preserve order.” The purpose of the military was to “defeat the enemy.”
When you start issuing military uniforms, weapons and equipment to police officers, start recruiting more and more heavily from the military (because as the number of police officers hired continues to increase, the most convenient source is people who have already been through a police academy courtesy of Uncle Sugar) and start staffing up SWAT teams and other police outfits that operate in larger units than the traditional two-officer patrol, there’s a natural shift of how the mission is viewed.
That shift amounts to thinking of the police beat as “enemy territory” and the people on that beat as, at least potentially, “the enemy.” Instead of investigating reported crimes (try calling in a burglary, car break-in, etc. — in north St. Louis county they will generally take your report over the phone and you’ll never hear about it again), they’re on patrol “looking for suspicious activity” — now, for “suspicious,” insert “enemy,” because that is the mindset that’s cultivated.
These days, police officers are taught that encounters with non-police persons are “engagements” (a military term). Rather than being taught that their approach to non-police persons is about “keeping the peace,” they are taught that that approach is about “controlling the situation” (the equivalent military concept would be “maintaining the initiative”).
Just supposing that the situation in Ferguson was, as described initially by both police and the victim’s friend, about two kids walking down the middle of the street and being told to get on the sidewalk, here’s the difference between old-style policing and militarized policing.
Old-style policing: “Hey, you guys, get on the sidewalk, you’re blocking the street.” If that doesn’t work, probably a stern talking to, perhaps “let’s go see your parents” (I had that happen once as a kid, for setting off fireworks in a town that didn’t allow them), maybe a ticket.
Militarized policing: “Get on the fucking sidewalk!” (as reported by victim’s friend) — a “lawful order,” a military term that’s increasingly seen in news accounts of law enforcement interaction with non-law-enforcement people. As of the instance of non-compliance it is now a COMBAT SITUATION in which the officer must CONTROL THE SITUATION and MAINTAIN THE INITIATIVE to DEFEAT THE ENEMY. “Keeping the peace” doesn’t have a thing to do with it.
BTW:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/16/ferguson-protesters-guard-stores_n_5684042.html?utm_hp_ref=tw
While the cops ignore the looting and attack protesters and journalists, the protesters are guarding the stores from looters.
The whole climate of crime and fear of crime that leads to cops being on edge and trigger-happy has a lot to do with the drug war.
pf: …he shoot first, make up a BS story later mindset …
me: Also has nothing to do with the Drug War.
of course I refer to the initial incident, not the aftermath.
Post 911 militarized police came out in force due to protests, probably inappropriately, but the shooting had nothing to do with the Drug War that I can see.
No, it doesn’t. Are you paying any attention at all to the massive militarized police response there right now?
And it also plays a role in the shoot first, make up a BS story later mindset prevalent among cops which most likely led to the incident that started it, as well.
pf: It [militarizing the police] accelerated with the drug war and accelerated further with 9/11.
me: Perhaps. And yet what does any of this have to do with what has happened in Ferguson? The details of the case that I’ve seen seem to have NOTHING to do with militarization or the Drug War.
Seems like an irrelevant shoe horn.
http://vaticproject.blogspot.com/2014/04/american-police-now-israeli-dhs-trained.html
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z7-TTWgiYL4
Did someone diagree with you? Of course rioting and looting are bad. The press release even said so.
It accelerated with the drug war and accelerated further with 9/11.
The conclusions in the release are based on the facts we already know, and the release acknowledges not all the facts are known.
Baloney. Their own spokesperson admitted he did not.
Still more baloney. Supposing he was a thief and held stolen cigars, that’s not a reason to shoot dead a surrendering suspect.
John and Ken are not reliable sources.
The militarization of the police is indeed old news. In 1990 I read an article in The American Spectator in 1990 how so many depts and agencies — Dept of Interior, Dept of Treasuary, Fish & Wildlife, and many others — now had S.W.A.T. units.
And even by the early 1980s, the media was panicking about “anti-government extremists” and the “militia movement” and survivalists. Some incident that put it in the news. I forget the details. Some farmer or rancher had shot a cop or federal agent over a foreclosure.
FWIW, I heard on KFI-AM’s “John and Ken Show” yesterday that the latest police version is that:
1. The cop KNEW about the cigar store robbery BEFORE stopping Brown.
2. The cop did NOT stop Brown because of the robbery, but because Brown and his friend were walking in the middle of the street, obstructing traffic.
3. But AFTER the cop stopped Brown, the cop saw cigars in Brown’s hand, realized that Brown might be the suspect, and thus perceived a greater threat.
Quoth Robert Capozzi:
“The trend toward actual ‘militarization’ seems more of a post-911 thing.”
Not really.
Back in the mid-1990s there were already increasingly strident complaints about it. I lived in Springfield, Missouri at the time, and when I was the “community representative” on the local newspaper’s editorial board, I got to know the “police representative” on that board.
He was at the forefront of those objecting to the Springfield police department accepting the “gift” of a bunch of surplus US Marine Corps M-16s. He predicted (accurately, in my opinion) that accepting those weapons would contribute to an already increasingly militarized police atmosphere. If they had them, he predicted, they’d want to find some way to use them, probably by expanding the size and use profile of what was a pretty Keystone Kops type SWAT team (the same guys who had tear-gassed my entire apartment building in an unsuccessful attempt flush out one allegedly suicidal tenant; I’m reasonably well-acclimated to tear gas but some of the tenants were pretty upset, especially as anyone who had tried to leave the building — including me, they scared my dog when I took him out to do his usual thing — had been ordered back in by cops in military-type uniforms and brandishing firearms).
This story, and the reactions to this story are very good reasons why a professional police force is a bad idea.
I don’t know what exactly happened there, I heard and read things that told me X. I then made a response (for which I was accused of being a racist… SERIOUSLY???)
Other people made comments, and at the end of the day, none of us really know exactly what happened that night.
HOWEVER, one thing is certain. If there was no professional police force, most likely, the town of Ferguson would not be on fire.
I have been and will always remain a strong advocate of personal security, and I also believe that people should look out for each other.
Finally, I am going to make strong efforts to not jump to conclusions when I first read/hear about something, because I already know that accounts change by the minute when watching CNN and the like in this 24 hour news cycle.
Oh, assuming the rioting and looting stories are accurate, I stand my my previous statement about that not being the most positive reaction to what happened.
Sincerely,
Steve Scheetz
I am still waiting on the facts before reaching any conclusion. The propaganda machines are out and running hard on both sides.
Whatever the outcome, one positive to take away is the growing criticism of militarized police departments. I was shocked at the outcome of the Boston Marathon bombing and people were celebrating the militarized shutdown of an entire section of Boston. At least now people are waking up.
Gary Johnson recently posted a comment on Facebook stating that if you give such hardware to police departments, they will find excuses to use them. So true.
In the words of a 90s fitness guru “STOP THE INSANITY!”
I hope this finally brings about a public debate on law enforcement in the United States. We need reform. We’ve needed it for decades. Even if the officer in this instance is found to have acted justly, it shouldn’t come as a shock to anyone that there is such a high level of controversy. Law enforcement has created an atmosphere where there’s no reason to believe them. Violence and overzealous policing is pandemic in these United States. It’s more than a few bad apples and those who enable said bad apples by staying silent or being complacent in cover-ups are just as bad.
while I agree with much of the comments and the release, I’d note that Balko said:
“Though often justified for rare incidents like school shootings or terrorist situations, the armored personnel vehicles police departments are getting from the Pentagon and through grants from the Department of Homeland Security are commonly used on drug raids.”
Yet the release said:
“The War on Drugs has been the rationale for the militarization of domestic police forces,”
SWAT teams have been around for decades, iirc. But the trend toward actual “militarization” seems more of a post-911 thing.
So, making this event about the War on Drugs feels a bit shoe-horned to me. It at least should have said “a rationale” to maintain some accuracy.
Some may view my comment as an attack, but it’s just feedback to be taken as one wants to take it.
Another strong release from LPHQ, presumably attributable at least in part to the new chair.
Two things to look at with regard to all the allegations:
1) Whose story keeps changing?
2) Whose story remains consistent?
The answer to (1) is “the police account.” The answer to (2) is “all non-police eyewitness accounts.”
There are NO non-police eyewitness accounts in which Brown was not shot with his hands up, surrendering and/or begging for his life. The police version(s) of events all stop before that consistently eyewitness-reported account. Each and every one of the continuously evolving police versions attempts to build a case to justify what subsequently happened, but if it happened the way every non-police eyewitness has reported it, that’s an impossibility.
About the environment, which some reporters seem to be describing based only on recent events and wrong-headed assumptions based on its proximity to the far more dangerous neighborhoods to its east:
I lived for 12 years within a few miles of Ferguson (and in a slightly “blacker” neighborhood). I also drove an ice cream truck for two years, operating out of Ferguson and often having Ferguson as my route. I’ve driven every one of its streets and if Michael Brown lived there I’d say there’s a better than even chance I sold ice cream to him when he was a kid. A couple of years ago, we looked at an apartment in the complex he lived in (we chose one a little ways down the road in Florissant instead).
The media accounts I’ve seen paint Ferguson as some kind of seething cauldron of poverty and racial animosity. I always found it to be a very friendly environment. There are places in St. Louis County where I was uncomfortable going at night, especially alone. Ferguson was definitely not one of them. It’s the kind of town where it took something perceived as one hell of an atrocity to get people out on the streets like that.
http://www.forfeiturereform.com/police_militarization_in_ferguson_missouri_funded_by_asset_forfeiture_and_federal_partnerships
Reason seems fairly certain that today’s story was full of shit:
http://reason.com/blog/2014/08/15/would-police-have-withheld-claim-that-mi
Unless the victim was attempting to use a deadly weapon, or otherwise kill or seriously injure the cop, there is no possible excuse for shooting the guy. I’ve not heard any reports of anything even close to that scenario. So, it sounds like murder to me.
A strong press release from the Libertarian Party speaking out on this timely and critical issue — kudos to Nick Sarwark.
One of the main rationales for having trained government police in the first place is that they are supposed to behave more professionally in high-tension situations than an ordinary person might be expected to do.
As Josh Katz said, even if the officer in Ferguson had been punched before committing the killing that led to the uprising in that town, he (Josh) would not respond to being punched by shooting someone just because he had the means to do so. And Josh isn’t a cop. A cop who’s being paid with stolen taxpayer money and entrusted with various powers has a much greater responsibility to keep his cool and react to provocations with minimal use of force.
Finally, as Paulie notes above, the de facto martial law conditions — not to mention the broader issue of militarization of police in America and arrogant, out-of-control behavior by too many cops, with typically silent acquiescence of their colleagues — are much bigger issues than the background of the victim whose death led to this latest manifestation of public outrage.
The de facto martial law conditions are a much bigger issue than whether Brown was completely innocent.
If you punched me, I’d probably punch you back, even if I was carrying. Just saying.
But again, supposing even that the initial shooting could possibly be justified – the preponderance of what I have read indicates that is not, but as the release says “all the facts of this case are not yet known.” Still, that would not justify the excessive paramilitary response, arrests of journalists etc.
I’m not going to jump to the conclusion that Steve is racist just because he is repeating a version of events that has been circulated in many places. It all depends on what your information sources are.
Supposing the version of events that Steve Scheetz is presenting is correct, how does that change anything that was said in the release? Please read it carefully and tell me what exactly in the release would no longer have validity and quote it.
Mr Scheetz. What a load of bullhonkey. The Ferguson and St Louis County police have a survelliance video in which a man “who fits the description” of Michael Brown was recorded in the nearby convenience store. But as Paulie poiints out, and as the Ferguson Police Chief clearly states here.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/08/15/ferguson-police-chief-encounter-between-officer-and-michael-brown-did-not-relate-to-robbery/
The officer that killed Brown did not know anything about the store robbery. More recently the Ferguson police have trie to suggest that Brown and his friend were jaywalking and the cop stopped them for that.
Michael Brown’s friend never said anything like what you claim he said abt Brown running at the cops.
Please, Mr. Scheetz, if you’re going to be a racist in public, the least you can do is try to present facts to make your racism seem less obviously racist. Thank you.
Steve,
That sounds like a very different account than what I remember seeing.
* FROM THE PRESS CONFERENCE: 1) the alleged Michael Brown robbery was NOT related to the officer who confronted Brown later and shot him, 2) the officer in question did not know about the robbery when he confronted Brown, and 3) he only engaged Brown because he was “walking down the middle of the street, blocking traffic.”
* Petty theft is not a death penalty offence and police are not supposed to be judge, jury and executioner
* When he was shot Brown reportedly had his hands up saying “Stop, don’t shoot”
* No one has said that burning down a side of town is a positive reaction; in fact the press release above explicitly condemns looting
* It has been reported that cops have largely ignored the looting and fires, and may have started some of the fires, while coming out in force against protesters and even journalists covering the events
* Convenience store owners can certainly use force to prevent theft, but it should be proportional and deadly force can only be justified if there was a reasonable belief that it was in self defense (of life and limb, not just property). There are less than lethal ways to deal with petty thieves, even if you are an untrained convenience store owner and especially if you are a trained police officer.
Now before I make these comments I’m going to say I am against the militarization of the police…
The kid who is with him said: that Mr Brown charged the police in a panic after robbing that convenience store….
I feel bad for the convenience store owner who was robbed, and I feel bad generally that things work out the way they did.
However a witness Mr Brown’s on friend stated that Mr Brown ran towards an armed police officer and struck him in the face before the officer pulled his gun and shot.
I’m not really sure how anybody could expect things to go down any differently than the way that they did given the circumstances…
I’m also not really sure that people burning down their own town is a really positive reaction.
If the convenience store owner had shot him and killed him would there be so much uproar????
Happy to see the LP speak out about this and hope to hear much more from the party about the growing issue of police militarization!
I see that CNN is saying today that the young man stole “a few cigars” before being murdered by a cop.
This almost makes it worse. So, a few cigars are worth more than a young man’s life? So much for any assumption of “innocent until proven guilty”. F*ck the police! This country has had enough of their brutality!