angrymnk wrote:
Quote:
That's the real problem in Ferguson. The police in Ferguson have displayed amazing restraint in the face of what looks like a determined effort to create a violent response so the cameras can show it and inflame yet more violence.
**** cryst.. what restraint? Are we looking at two different towns with the same name? The PD there did everything in their power to pour as much gas on the fire as possible.
I'm sorry? Did they run through the protesters with batons beating them? Did they indiscriminately fire water cannons at marching protesters? Did they let dogs loose on them? No? That's restraint. What they have done, if you actually bother to find longer and more complete video images rather than the still images and short clips most people watch, is let the protesters go anywhere they want, with normal officer in the area keeping an eye on things, but not intervening at all. Only when reports of looting or violence is reported (or protesters actually go up to the police and attack them), do they arrive in any sort of force. Even then, they form a line with vehicles. They shout into bullhorns for 10-20 minutes warning everyone to leave the area. They sound sirens and whistles. Only after they've given every single person with a lick of sense plenty of time to leave do they then very slowly and methodically begin firing smoke grenades (some tear gas as well, but it's unclear when that is used instead of just smoke) towards those still formed up. This causes the crowd to disperse, without causing any injuries. They then slowly walk forward and repeat the process until the area is cleared.
What you are seeing is people running to where this is going on, apparently deliberately so they can get caught up in the police response. Then they report how they were attacked by police for doing nothing at all. Um... Don't run to where the riot is dummy!
And yeah, that's massive restraint. What exactly do you think the cops should do when they get reports of looting and violence? Nothing? Just let people's property get destroyed? Just let people get beaten, robbed,and killed? The police still have to protect property and lives, even in the midst of protesting. Far more injuries have occurred as a result of violence taking place under cover of these "peaceful protests" than has occurred as a result of police response.
Quote:
And here is a way to compare it; a week ago Chicago cop killed a teen, but here are the things that are different:
- the kid had a gun
- police report was actually written
- there is an official investigation just in case
- we knew who the officer was
- the kid had a gun
- police report was actually written
- there is an official investigation just in case
- we knew who the officer was
None of this has anything to do with the police response to the protests and riots though. We can also discuss mistakes made by the police with regards to investigation and whatnot, but I was talking about (and you responded to) whether the physical police actions were causing the violence in the town. I don't believe that they are. I'm quite certain that if the police all stayed in the station and did nothing while the protests were going on, we'd see half the town burn down. And when police didn't respond still, the mob would probably march on the police station and force them to react.
You don't get that this sort of "protest" is designed to maximize the odds of violent confrontation. The protesters will keep upping the ante until they get a violent response. At some point, you do have to place the blame on them. I'll repeat again: All that has to happen for the violence to stop is for the protesters to stop protesting. They stay home, and there's no violence. The cops stay home and there is. The cops show up and there is So who is to blame here?
Oh. And I'll second someone's point that had the police taken the body from the scene, the narrative would have been about how they were covering up the crime or something. It's lose lose.