[The E]

So, in an earlier thread, we were discussing the increasing use of military surplus equipment by police forces in the US, and how it changes the outcome of any police intervention.

Now, we have a horrifying example of just what can go wrong with that.

Last Saturday, a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, shot an unarmed black kid 8 (EIGHT!) times. Because of the unclear nature of the shooting (there is currently no hard info on what provoked it, and there will likely never be any, since Ferguson PD squad cars are not fitted with cameras or other logging devices), and because this whole case is "racially charged" (Ferguson is a predominantly black town, its police department however is overwhelmingly white), tempers were rising high, and so protests turned into riots.

Ferguson PD, by all accounts, overreacted massively. They deployed APCs, fitted out their patrolling people with gear more commonly associated with combat troops patrolling the worst parts of Iraq or Afghanistan, stopped citizens from going to their homes, fired tear gas into protesters, and went about their business looking like this:


Also seen were scenes like this:


Business Insider writer Paul Szoldra, a former Marine who served in Afghanistan, wrote a rather cutting piece about this.

When did this become OK? When did "protect and serve" turn into "us versus them"?

"Why do these cops need MARPAT camo pants again," I asked on Twitter this morning. One of the most interesting responses came from a follower who says he served in the Army's 82nd Airborne Division: "We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone."

Let's be clear: This is not a war zone — even if the FAA banned flights under 3,000 feet. This is a city outside of St. Louis where people on both sides are angry. Protesters have looted and torched a gas station, and shots were fired at police, according to The Washington Post.
The scene is tense, but the presence of what looks like a military force doesn't seem to be helping.

"Bring it. You ****ing animals, bring it," one police officer was caught on video telling protesters. In Ferguson and beyond, it seems that some police officers have shed the blue uniform and have put on the uniform and gear of the military, bringing the attitude along with it.

This, to me, is horrifying and insane. It's a fundamental failure in the relationship between the police force and the civilian population, and as time goes on, we will see more of this. Not because the civilians have become inherently more violent, but because once the menu of response options for the police starts to include "roll up in badass gear to scare the darkies", that option is going to be exercised.

[Luis Dias]

It's like as if the police is hellbent on convincing the entire population that they are under a fascist dictatorship.

[Lorric]

It was a black man, not a kid. He was 18. At worst, you could call him a teen, but 18 is a man in my book.

I remember that thread, but this was not what anyone had in mind, this is waaaaaaay over the top. I read the linked article, and even before reading that I thought if the dude on the right didn't have "Police" showing on the front of his top, I'd absolutely think this was a military operation. It looks like a police operation in a third World country.

I would be shocked if this was a sign of things to come. The Ferguson PD is going to get hammered from all directions if there's any sense in this World. Especially if the shooting which triggered this is proven to be negligent, or worse, a flat out crime.

Putting on the camo seems absolutely nonsensical to me, what purpose is it going to serve? These cops are hardly skulking about in the photos. They should be in police uniforms. If they're dealing with riots, riot gear (shields) should be sufficient to deal with rioters, it's tried and tested. And the standard police firearms should be sufficient to deal with any gunmen. And those guns should be in their holsters until if and when they're actually needed, not out and being pointed at random people and cars.

[The E]

I would be shocked if this was a sign of things to come. The Ferguson PD is going to get hammered from all directions if there's any sense in this World. Especially if the shooting which triggered this is proven to be negligent, or worse, a flat out crime.

Prepare to be shocked in the future, then.

Point 1: Cases like this will, because they ultimately come down to hearsay and because the justice system is set up to trust police officers, not result in more than a slap on the fingers of the officers or departments incolved.
Point 2: Police conduct, ever since the whole sousveillance movement started (i. e. the documentation of police misconduct by people with smartphones), has been strongly veering towards escalating to violence faster and harder than before.
Point 3: The availability of military-grade hardware means that when an escalation happens, said hardware will be rolled out. This in turn will increase tensions, which are presumed to be running high already, even higher.
Point 4: Because of Point 1, it is incredibly hard to even start misconduct investigations, it is even rarer for those investigations to actually result in penalties for the investigated.

Putting on the camo seems absolutely nonsensical to me, what purpose is it going to serve? These cops are hardly skulking about in the photos. They should be in police uniforms. If they're dealing with riots, riot gear (shields) should be sufficient to deal with rioters, it's tried and tested. And the standard police firearms should be sufficient to deal with any gunmen. And those guns should be in their holsters until if and when they're actually needed, not out and being pointed at random people and cars.

As Homer said, "The blade itself incites to deeds of violence". Give them hammers, and see how long it takes for problems to start resembling nails.
Ever since the US Government declared the "War on drugs", ever since Turbans became gang affiliation signs and Mosques became dangerous, US law enforcement has been on a steady route to erasing the notional difference between soldiers and policemen (As Adama in BSG put it, "The Police serves and protects the people, the military fights the enemies of the state"), and this right here is just the latest incident in a series of them.

[mjn.mixael]

Oh c'mon. 18, eightTEEN is a teenager. Legally an adult, but still very, very young. Regardless of whether or not you want to play semantics about if you can call him a "man" or a "kid"... this is someone who never made it to college.

There's been a slowly growing unrest of the police in the US, the privatization of security and militarization of police. It will be interesting to see how this unfolds. I grew up in STL.. Ferguson has been boiling with racial issues for a long time.

Point 1: Cases like this will, because they ultimately come down to hearsay and because the justice system is set up to trust police officers, not result in more than a slap on the fingers of the officers or departments involved.

This is true, but it's going to be tough in this case. From what I've been reading over the last few days, the kid was killed 35 feet from the police car where the supposed "struggle" in the car for the officer's weapon took place. Multiple witnesses are reporting that the kid was running away from the car with his hands in the air... and then shot eight times. The struggle is where most of the hearsay is, but where the kid was killed in relation to where the alleged struggle took place is confirmed. Considering the now global audience this story has.. it's going to be tough for the PD or justice department to let it go quite that easily without furthering the problems in Ferguson.

[Lorric]

@ The E:

Grim stuff. I'll just have to hope you're wrong then. I'm glad it's not like this in the UK. "Shocking" is just the right word to describe it.

@ mjn:

I just don't want people under a misconception they shot down some 13 year old or something. Just clearing up any misconceptions, that's all. There's more than enough stuf to get outraged about here.

I hope Ferguson is simply an isolated incident, rather than the shape of things to come.

[zookeeper]

I'm glad it's not like this in the UK.

It's not? I thought it's pretty much the same kind of deal in the UK. Maybe not in the sense of general militarization of the police, but in the sense of police often getting away with killing or injuring people.

[Luis Dias]

Point 2: Police conduct, ever since the whole sousveillance movement started (i. e. the documentation of police misconduct by people with smartphones), has been strongly veering towards escalating to violence faster and harder than before.

Are you implying a causality here, or merely stating an observable fact like a trend that is being observed by the new technologies?

First of all, I am not aware of the statistical observations that are probably being made about this, so paint me as an ignorant fool at will. Having said that, I'd argue that it is quite possible that this observed trend is a kind of a statistical consequence of the fact that we now observe these things while beforehand we just didn't. I'd further argue that this sousveillance movement is actually convincing me it can be the hammer to bring down this brutality by the police. I can also understand the argument that the police really dislikes being "filmed" and reacts aggressively and defensively at this phenomena,  but that's probably just until they get used to it.

[Lorric]

I'm glad it's not like this in the UK.

It's not? I thought it's pretty much the same kind of deal in the UK. Maybe not in the sense of general militarization of the police, but in the sense of police often getting away with killing or injuring people.

There is some of that unfortunately. I feel confident it's not as bad as the US, although a big part of that will be the fact UK police aren't going around shooting people.

[jr2]

So..  Yeah. Dressing up like you're storming a violent crime lord's mansion (where, indeed, some of this might be appropriate) is not the best way to de-escalate.

AND MARPAT? for what purpose? It's like they expect enemy snipers and gunmen toting AKs at every block.

And of course, never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot. So unless you are guarding something or the other person(s)  are threatening you with lethal force, not acceptable.

[The E]

Point 2: Police conduct, ever since the whole sousveillance movement started (i. e. the documentation of police misconduct by people with smartphones), has been strongly veering towards escalating to violence faster and harder than before.

Are you implying a causality here, or merely stating an observable fact like a trend that is being observed by the new technologies?

First of all, I am not aware of the statistical observations that are probably being made about this, so paint me as an ignorant fool at will. Having said that, I'd argue that it is quite possible that this observed trend is a kind of a statistical consequence of the fact that we now observe these things while beforehand we just didn't. I'd further argue that this sousveillance movement is actually convincing me it can be the hammer to bring down this brutality by the police. I can also understand the argument that the police really dislikes being "filmed" and reacts aggressively and defensively at this phenomena,  but that's probably just until they get used to it.

More the latter. The ease with which we can now document police misconduct easily creates the impression that police today is more brutal than it was 30 or 40 years ago, when in all likelihood this behaviour was already ongoing back then, we just weren't aware of it.

That being said, kitting out the police to survive an armed insurgency when no such insurgency is in sight certainly sends all manner of signals, most of them wrong.

[Dragon]

I wonder, who authorized this in first place? This is way beyond I (and anyone reasonable) argued as "appropriate day-to-day patrol gear". They're equipped like military COIN teams. If the only indication of you being the police is the "POLICE" tag on your vest, you're doing it wrong. The second pic, posted out of context, could easily be taken as a picture of a military force holding up a civilian. The "paintball marker" takes a while to notice, and it's the only indication they're not the military.

So..  Yeah. Dressing up like you're storming a violent crime lord's mansion (where, indeed, some of this might be appropriate) is not the best way to de-escalate.

AND MARPAT? for what purpose? It's like they expect enemy snipers and gunmen toting AKs at every block.

And of course, never point a weapon at anything you do not intend to shoot. So unless you are guarding something or the other person(s)  are threatening you with lethal force, not acceptable.

My thoughts exactly. WTF with the cammies? Even a heavily armed SWAT team is Police, not Marines. And they should by no means pretend they are Marines. The other thread talked about military equipment, but not uniforms! Even if storming a violent crime lord's mansion, they should wear their own colors. To me, this is very disturbing, because it seems that those police fancy themselves as the military! That's going to go downhill pretty quickly, since it's pretty much akin to declaring war on your own citizens. Their muzzle discipline only confirms the mindset.

What they should have done is investigate the guy who shot that black man. It doesn't really matter how many times (it's more of a tactical detail), but the very fact that he shot him, that he used a weapon against him, is a matter to be closely investigated. Instead, they act like it were the citizens who are at fault. Cammies or not, this is essentially and fundamentally wrong. I'd dismiss the whole department on the spot for that.

[Phantom Hoover]

I'm glad it's not like this in the UK.

It's not? I thought it's pretty much the same kind of deal in the UK. Maybe not in the sense of general militarization of the police, but in the sense of police often getting away with killing or injuring people.

Not even close. Yes, police misconduct is poorly-prosecuted (as The E says, this is, to some degree, the case everywhere); but there are so few armed police here the opportunity for this kind of incident is much, much smaller. The closest I can think of was Jean-Charles de Menezes.

[MP-Ryan]

This Ferguson case is yet another compelling argument for all police being required to carry active body-worn cameras when in the course of their duties (an argument quite a number of police I know fully support).

I had to acknowledge my biases with this one, because I'm much more inclined to trust the statement of a police officer that a young angry man tackled him in his car and stupidly went for his gun, resulting in him getting shot in the process, than I am a witness who says the man never even went near the cop and was walking away with his hands up.  Certainly if this were a Canadian case I would be treating the witness account with extreme suspicion.  On the other hand, I also read a fair bit about law enforcement shenanigans in the US, and that makes me much more inclined to believe that, even if the first shot in the car was justified, the subsequent shots constituted murder.  The lesson from this is: nobody except the cop, the dead man, and the sole witness know the truth, and all three of those people will have unique observations that will not completely reconcile with each other.  This is why - at least in theory - you are supposed to have an impartial justice system, and impartial external investigators and people are far better to wait for those conclusions than jump to their own.

On the issue of militarization:  American police forces have largely embraced the results of 9/11 with the glee of a child at Christmas... "more toys!"  That said, the mass riots, looting, destruction of property, and shots fired at police give them justification for using their toys.  It looks a lot worse when media footage shows protestors standing idly and calmly around surrounded by ****ing tanks, than it does night shots of assaults on police, destruction, and mayhem being confronted by police in military gear.

The situation is disturbing all around.

[Aardwolf]

So what's the deal with the media blackout, and the FAA imposing a no-fly-zone?

Edit: not sure if actual blackout, or just fearmongering on Twitter... obviously some info is getting out, but I've seen claims that journalists aren't being allowed in.

[Ulala]

They seem to take any chance they can get to use all that surplus gear that gets bought from military suppliers (read: campaign contributors) by the USG/Department of Homeland Security and passed down to the police departments. Good thing they have it, you know, just in case the citizens get too cagey. Land of the oppressed, home of the surveilled. And yet, police officers still aren't required to wear recording devices at all times? This country is so ****ed up.

[Phantom Hoover]

just remember, none of this would have happened if the US allowed private ownership of assault rifles

[Ulala]

just remember, none of this would have happen if the US allowed private ownership of assault rifles

Actually, I'm finding stuff like this is pushing me in favor of owning ARs. I'm all for gun control or bans, but only if all guns are controlled/banned... which includes police forces. (Trained military forces exempt for obvious reasons.)

[MP-Ryan]

just remember, none of this would have happen if the US allowed private ownership of assault rifles

Actually, I'm finding stuff like this is pushing me in favor of owning ARs. I'm all for gun control or bans, but only if all guns are controlled/banned... which includes police forces. (Trained military forces exempt for obvious reasons.)

Whereas I would argue that the Balkanized nonsense of firearms controls in the US is one of the reasons that American police forces are far more heavily armed than their compatriots in other first world democracies, along with the special status that the US confers on law enforcement both for being armed when not on duty, and for the qualified immunity they formally received from prosecution.

Here, the police DO have access to a great variety of weapons that the common citizens do not, but they also only have that access when on duty and when certified to carry for a specific purpose.  Police officers here don't get to carry a handgun around when off-duty just because they feel like it.  A cop who wants to own firearms privately has to go through exactly the same controls as anyone else in their private life; at work, their possession and training is the legal responsibility of their employer.

This has another effect: Canadian police have no special immunity from prosecution or charges.  All persons are excluded from prosecution if they use reasonable force in upholding the law; peace officers specifically (a broad class of designated persons, including police) have some special authorizations for the use of force in their duties to carry out other functions of the law which other persons are not expected to do.  The section of the Criminal Code that covers this starts off with the following:

25. (1) Every one who is required or authorized by law to do anything in the administration or enforcement of the law

    (a) as a private person,

    (b) as a peace officer or public officer,

    (c) in aid of a peace officer or public officer, or

    (d) by virtue of his office,

is, if he acts on reasonable grounds, justified in doing what he is required or authorized to do and in using as much force as is necessary for that purpose.

The solution to the American nonsense is not more guns in the hands of citizens, and it isn't the elimination of power from police forces.  It's increased personal liability on police officers, where they are held to the same individual standards as anyone else performing the same duties they are.

[zookeeper]

This Ferguson case is yet another compelling argument for all police being required to carry active body-worn cameras when in the course of their duties (an argument quite a number of police I know fully support).

I think that's a good idea and certainly feasible nowadays, but then again it's not a silver bullet either; for example in this case it seems awfully likely that the device would have happened to be malfunctioning that day, or broken in the struggle, or even if it worked by streaming to a remote location in real time, the files would have been corrupted due to a software glitch.

Ultimately the only thing that I think would really work is personal recorders worn by the public, which stream in real time to someplace that the police can't easily seize/shutdown. Until a jamming device becomes part of standard equipment.