# Is Ferguson MO the leading edge of an era? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 15, 2014, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607 "2014-08-15T15:08:36Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Jay4](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/f1d935/32.png) [@Jay4](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jay4)\ **Post date:** [August 16, 2014, 10:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/41 "2014-08-16T22:52:14Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > This. If you want to talk about “demilitarizing” the police, we need to start by demilitarizing the public. > [@](#): > > When people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty? but ya,lets just take away the publics right to militarize in response to the police doing it,last i checked it wasnt the citizens who are getting stuff the military was using ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 1:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/42 "2014-08-17T01:29:09Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > The adults are trying to have a conversation here, please go back to the kids table and amuse everyone by shooting milk out your nose instead. Do not post in ways that insult other posters, ratcheting up the nastiness in this sort of thread. This is a Warning that your post was over the line. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![Drum\_God](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/drum_god/32/44_2.png) [@Drum\_God](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Drum_God)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 1:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/43 "2014-08-17T01:56:33Z")
> [@Martin\_Hyde](#): > > I’d say police are less racist in general now than ever before, and when they are racist it is less tolerated than ever before. > > Not really no, the equipment was made available but it was not “shoved” on any department by the Federal government or military, maybe by local politicians. Many small towns have wisely done a true analysis of this “free” equipment and found that it costs a shit ton of money to maintain some of this stuff that may get used once every 3-5 years for a small town PD, and turned it down. > > Generally not, the standard patrol man, if there is such a thing, carries a pistol and probably a shotgun in their car that is easily accessed. They wear vests under their uniform but this has been standard for many, many years. They don’t wear tactical gear but police uniforms, if they have headgear it’s a uniform hat and not a helmet etc. They do usually have a lot of random shit in their trunk, to the point a VA police officer I know has said he’s had to call in help for a flat tire because it would have simply been too difficult and dangerous (due to leaving lots of equipment laying out) to get to the car’s jack and spare tire himself. > > Some times, but mostly it’s just military surplus APCs and such, which are just like really heavily defended trucks. Think not much different than armored cars which scurry back and forth between banks and businesses all day every day in almost every town. > > I would agree many police departments either through their own foolishness or the foolishness of local politicians have acquired more equipment than they need, to their financial detriment. > > No, I think you’re wrong on cause/effect here. > > What gear are you referring to, in specific? Tear gas has been the most controversial item used in Ferguson, and it’s been used since I think the 1960s by police forces. Other than that you’re talking about assault rifles and submachine guns which SWAT teams have had for probably 25-30+ years, so that’s nothing new. I don’t think having a heavily armored truck makes the police more dangerous to citizens. > > If “we” includes you and some others here, probably very high. If it includes society at large, very low. > > FWIW I think the actual problem is linked to two concepts: > > 1. No-Knock Warrants. A no-knock warrant allows police to knock a door down and burst into a residence to effect the warrant. A standard warrant requires police to knock on the door and announce themselves. No-Knock warrants are almost intrinsically violent, because the police are breaching a door and going in _expecting_ a firefight. No-Knock warrants were historically only supposed to be used in a situation where there was a very strong need for it. Like they knew they were going into somewhere that say, a very serious armed criminal was believed to be hiding. The expanded use of no-knock warrants to cover simple cases where they suspect a drug dealer might have drugs in a house has lead to a lot of problems. > > 2. No Risk to Officers Philosophy. This is a term I just half-made up, but in the past it was accepted that being a police officer meant you could retire in 20 years at a good % of your pay, get great benefits and etc, but that you were willing to place yourself at risk, sometimes risk of death, to defend the community you were policing. > > The current NYPD Commissioner, in his days as a beat cop, deescalated a confrontation with an armed robber who had a gun to a woman’s head. He put himself at risk by standing in front of the man and calmly talking him out of the confrontation, he didn’t draw his gun on him. He recognized his first responsibility was to getting this dangerous criminal off the street without killing his hostage or anyone else, and not his own safety. This was in the 1970s. > > Today, I don’t feel that this would be standard police operations in most major cities. Instead they police would probably be behind barricades with rifles and at the first twitch they’d load the guy (and hostage) up with bullets. In Colorado maybe a decade ago a pedophile stormed a high school and took 4-5 girls hostage in a classroom and started sexually assaulting him. Later, the police stormed the classroom and filled it with bullets, killing the man and one of his victims. The guy had a gun, but never fired it. > > These are anecdotes, repeat, I’m labeling them as anecdotes. But they are to describe in specific what I feel is a difference between policing of the past and policing today. Police of the past were probably more likely to beat you up and face no punishment, but I also think they were a lot more likely to take risks. I think modern police are taught they should never risk themselves for any reason. I think this leads to the concept that the only way to correct a problem is through force, because you have to treat every encounter as if it could be life/death. > > The problem is, if you treat a confrontation as life/death it makes it difficult to think clearly, and I think it leads to a lot of what we as citizens view as “overreactions.” I think some of that goes into stuff like the Eric Garner situation. I think when cops are hyper alert to all encounters, to the point of thinking an obese out of shape dude with contraband cigarettes who has a long criminal record that doesn’t include violence (meaning it’s a good indication he’s not dangerous) it leads to actions that in the past just wouldn’t have happened. Police in the past knew their local crooks, and would not have had to deal with them like that because they knew which ones to be afraid/cautious around and which ones were not a serious threat. Police were also willing to take lumps in the past without responding with deadly force. > > I think these are far more of what’s going on these days than anything to do with availability of equipment. Thank you for saying this. I hadn’t thought of this problem this way before, but I think you have a lot of good points. There is a perception of a more us vs. them mentality. Here in Texas, we seem to think that if we could just identify all the criminals and lock them up, all would be better. However, the shocking truth is that the people inside the prison bear a shocking resemblance to the people outside the prison (except in the area of race). They’re just people. Now, rather than take a risk and get everyone out alive, the police respond to ever event with overwhelming deadly force. I wonder if that has improved the public’s safety, or caused more danger and problems. There is a flipside, though. A couple of years ago, an Austin police officer responded to a call for help with an unruly person at a North Austin Walmart. I suspect he rolled up expecting to round up a drunk and take downtown. Instead, the officer was shot dead and Walmart employees subdued the guy. The criminal did not display a gun until the officer arrived. So, had the officer responded by pointing his gun at the suspect as soon as he arrived, maybe he would have gone home to his wife and kids at the end of his shift. ---
**Author:** ![ExTank](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/35a633/32.png) [@ExTank](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ExTank)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 2:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/44 "2014-08-17T02:59:03Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Seems to me that “strong Second Amendment supporters” and the armaments they’re amassing are precisely the _ **reason** _ for the trend. If their basements look like the arsenal of a South American revolutionary army, what do they expect the police to do except try to stay one step ahead? I still remember a time when police carried old-style revolvers; now even the most humble beat officer carries a semi-automatic. Whereas in the UK, ordinary police don’t even carry guns at all, and gun fatalities involving the police are 40 times lower than in the US. Your post is rife with several unwarranted assumption. 1. Second Amendment supporters, even “strong” one, amass arsenals to rival a “South American revolutionary army.” 2. Said arsenals, individually owned and operated, can be effectively employed by one person. Two-gun mojo is almost entirely nonsense. 3. That second amendment supporters, even “strong” ones, collect firearms as a defense against a police state. Some may, granted, but for most, IME, it’s just a collection of various firearms that they like. Citing civilian possession of firearms as a reason to militarize the police in order to control second amendment supporters is a circular argument in traditional, Constitutional political thinking. ---
**Author:** ![Martin\_Hyde](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/47e85d/32.png) [@Martin\_Hyde](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Martin_Hyde)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 2:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/45 "2014-08-17T14:34:21Z")
> [@Amateur\_Barbarian](#): > > This is entirely my point, from the OP onwards. Most police never deal with mob or riot situations, or even heavily armed standoffs. An elite unit - SWAT or whatever - that is trained for such occurrences is one thing. Simply handing ridiculously heavy gear to an entire police department, in theory to give them the tactical ability to take on extreme (and still quite rare) situations, is just a recipe for disaster. When APCs and combat armor come out for unarmed civilian unrest, something is going to go very wrong. SWAT is more designed for breaching operations and situations where in theory you _know_ for example a violent armed criminal is in a given place, SWAT rolls in with overwhelming force to basically take the dangerous armed criminal out of action before he has time to react. They are also used in scenarios in which police are involved in protracted shoot outs / confrontations with well armed criminals. These are rare situations in themselves. SWAT isn’t really necessarily trained at crowd control either. But APCs and “armor” are defensive, they protect police officers from harm. They aren’t offensive. The offensive stuff being used in Ferguson is primarily tear gas and predates the 2003-Today era Pentagon hardware for cops program by about 35 years. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/46 "2014-08-17T17:58:39Z")
> [@ExTank](#): > > Your post is rife with several unwarranted assumption. Well, let’s have a look and see if that’s accurate. > [@ExTank](#): > > That second amendment supporters, even “strong” ones, collect firearms as a defense against a police state. Funny thing is, “personal protection” and “safeguard against government tyranny” are the two most oft-cited justifications for guns that are put forward by this crowd. Both are bullshit, of course, and the second is laughable in its ludicrousness, but this is their constant mantra. > [@ExTank](#): > > Citing civilian possession of firearms as a reason to militarize the police in order to control second amendment supporters is a circular argument in traditional, Constitutional political thinking. Possibly you missed the last paragraph of the post immediately preceding yours: "_A couple of years ago, an Austin police officer responded to a call for help with an unruly person at a North Austin Walmart. I suspect he rolled up expecting to round up a drunk and take downtown. Instead, the officer was shot dead and Walmart employees subdued the guy. The criminal did not display a gun until the officer arrived. So, had the officer responded by pointing his gun at the suspect as soon as he arrived, maybe he would have gone home to his wife and kids at the end of his shift._ " An anecdote, to be sure, but do I really have to look up the stats on how often US police are involved in firearms incidents? One notes that most ordinary police officers in the UK don’t carry guns at all, because they don’t need to; Wikipedia notes that in 2011-2012, British police were involved in a _ **grand total** _ of 5 (five) firearms incidents. According to [this report](http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.ca/2012/01/police-involved-shootings-2011-annual.html), in the US in 2011, police shot 1,146 people, killing 607. And in most of those cases if they had not, they would have been shot themselves. There is no “circular argument” here; what there is is an armaments race between police and civilians and an epidemic of gun carnage that takes more than 30,000 lives a year. ---
**Author:** ![Ibn\_Warraq](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/e19b73/32.png) [@Ibn\_Warraq](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ibn_Warraq)\ **Post date:** [August 17, 2014, 11:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/47 "2014-08-17T23:25:27Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Well, let’s have a look and see if that’s accurate. > > Funny thing is, “personal protection” and “safeguard against government tyranny” are the two most oft-cited justifications for guns that are put forward by this crowd. Both are bullshit, of course, and the second is laughable in its ludicrousness, but this is their constant mantra. > Possibly you missed the last paragraph of the post immediately preceding yours: "_A couple of years ago, an Austin police officer responded to a call for help with an unruly person at a North Austin Walmart. I suspect he rolled up expecting to round up a drunk and take downtown. Instead, the officer was shot dead and Walmart employees subdued the guy. The criminal did not display a gun until the officer arrived. So, had the officer responded by pointing his gun at the suspect as soon as he arrived, maybe he would have gone home to his wife and kids at the end of his shift._ " > > An anecdote, to be sure, but do I really have to look up the stats on how often US police are involved in firearms incidents? One notes that most ordinary police officers in the UK don’t carry guns at all, because they don’t need to; Wikipedia notes that in 2011-2012, British police were involved in a _ **grand total** _ of 5 (five) firearms incidents. According to [this report](http://jimfishertruecrime.blogspot.ca/2012/01/police-involved-shootings-2011-annual.html), in the US in 2011, police shot 1,146 people, killing 607. And in most of those cases if they had not, they would have been shot themselves. There is no “circular argument” here; what there is is an armaments race between police and civilians and an epidemic of gun carnage that takes more than 30,000 lives a year. I largely agree with your post, but number of people makes up a really tiny percentage of total number killed by guns and the vast majority of police, even in urban areas were they’d be far more likely to discharge their weapons, usually go their entire careers without firing a shot, much less shooting someone. I know American cop shows give people the impression that police work is dangerous and filled with danger, but it really isn’t, though it’s extremely stressful which is why they have such absurdly high rates of suicide, alcoholism, and domestic violence. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 12:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/48 "2014-08-18T00:37:29Z")
> [@Ibn\_Warraq](#): > > I know American cop shows give people the impression that police work is dangerous and filled with danger, but it really isn’t, though it’s extremely stressful which is why they have such absurdly high rates of suicide, alcoholism, and domestic violence. That is like my being opposed to the death penalty. I may be unjustly accused if a meteor lands on my Wife in a lawn chair and found guilty. However unlikely, it may happen to me. The same reason I want to have a weapon at home; however unlikely, I’m 5’ and 110 lbs, and cannot take out a middle schooler with a baseball bat. Some cops are indeed assholes, I knew one, some are good human beings, I’ve known two. Surely they are worried about being killed. I doubt that police departments let dipsomaniacs stumble around with firearms. Do you have any links on that? ---
**Author:** ![1224rattusrattus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/1/ec9cab/32.png) [@1224rattusrattus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/1224rattusrattus)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2014, 7:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/49 "2014-08-18T19:11:17Z")
While I wouldn’t be surprised if this was an unlawful killing, as the victim was shot with (I think) a pistol it’s not the best example of police militarisation. Aside from Waco (which was largely carried out by the FBI) the 1985 Philadelphia Police bombing of a house in a residential area has to be one of the more extreme cases of what the OP is suggesting. Dynamite dropped from a Police helicopter onto the roof of a house, resulting in the deaths of 6 suspects, six children and the destruction of 60 nearby houses that weren’t occupied by ordinary civilians. The fact that no police were imprisoned let alone charged surely has to be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in recent years. > **[Move](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing)** > > Move or The Move may refer to: ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2014, 4:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/50 "2014-08-19T04:08:25Z")
> [@Drum\_God](#): > > There is a flipside, though. A couple of years ago, an Austin police officer responded to a call for help with an unruly person at a North Austin Walmart. I suspect he rolled up expecting to round up a drunk and take downtown. Instead, the officer was shot dead and Walmart employees subdued the guy. The criminal did not display a gun until the officer arrived. So, had the officer responded by pointing his gun at the suspect as soon as he arrived, maybe he would have gone home to his wife and kids at the end of his shift. So what is the solution to this problem? Any police encounter could be with a citizen intent on murder. Should stops of speeders or jaywalkers begin with guns pointed at a citizen’s face? Hell, knocking on a door to interview witnesses about a recent crime could result in the same thing. If the police want to talk to me about a crime that happened last night down the street, should I have to answer my door with the SWAT team there? Should they break the windows and throw flashbang grenades in before talking with me? IMHO, that is a unfortunate side effect of policing a free society, and these officers know the risks before they go into the profession. ---
**Author:** ![MikeF](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@MikeF](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeF)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2014, 6:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/51 "2014-08-19T18:55:38Z")
I’m not sure how racism played into the initial encounter. If (and I know it’s a big “if”) what has been reported as the officer’s version is true, he was approaching two people he believed were suspects in a strong arm robbery. They fit the description and were in the immediate area. No racism there. More importantly, if his version (as reported) of events is accurate then deadly force may well have been warranted. If you believe that suspect being unarmed automatically equates to a bad shoot you are living in a fantasy world. There is much hue and cry as to the lack of an investigation report being released. Many are saying that the police are just waiting for as much information as possible from the public to come out so they can tailor the report to fit the evidence. IMHO, that is a bunch of crap. I am retired from “the job” and have investigated many homicides and police shootings. The one thing you can bet the farm on is that the story will evolve and change in unexpected ways. To release investigative information prematurely virtually guarantees there will be factual errors. When that happens people will complain about the incompetence of the police. Like it or not, these things take time. Its not a conspiracy, it how a thorough investigation is completed. As to the militarization of the police: When I started we carried revolvers. That changed when one of our State Troopers was murdered by two anti-government animals. He was found with his revolver empty. The killers were using high capacity semi-automatic pistols. As the criminals got more and bigger weapons the police have tried to keep pace. It took the North Hollywood robbery to wake up the bureaucrats to what the cops knew all along. The bad guys have no rules of engagement or use of force policies to follow. Their weaponry is limited only by what they can afford or steal. The cops need to have weapons that are a match for what they may encounter, however rarely. Every radio car should have a rifle in it. Does that mean it has to come out on every call? Of course not. But if I have reason to believe that I am about to encounter an armed individual a rifle may be appropriate. If the public finds rifles in cars offensive, too bad. There was an upthread comment about the current NYPD Commissioner standing in front of an armed man with a hostage and talking him down and how today the cops would all behind barricades with snipers itching to pull the trigger. That’s exactly correct. If a subordinate of mine pulled such a stunt he’d be in for some “counseling”. Generally speaking, if a guy is holding a hostage with a gun to her head and a sniper can make a clean shot, he should take it. Why is it that people have a tendency to forget who is ultimately responsible in these incidents? The suspect’s safety comes after the officer’s. The same poster related a Colorado incident in which a man with a gun was sexually assaulting young girls in a classroom. The cops stormed the room and killed the suspect and, sadly, one of the victims. The suspect never fired his gun and the poster seemed to imply well, I don’t know what. He never shot so the cops shouldn’t have either? Deadly force wasn’t warranted? The world is full of Monday morning quarterbacks. How would you like to have that decision to make? Girls (maybe your daughter) being raped right now. Send in the troops or wait to see if you can talk the guy out? Or wait until he actually kills someone and then send ‘em in? ”What? Why did you wait so long?! My daughter is dead because you were afraid to act!” It’s a no-win situation. In most jurisdictions deadly force is justified if there an imminent danger of death or serious bodily injury. Not an _immediate_ threat but an _imminent_ threat. If you don’t know the difference, look it up. The officer’s belief that there is an imminent danger must be reasonable and he must be able to articulate why he had that belief. The the hostage taker in NY and the rapist in Colorado clearly presented situations in which deadly force was permissible under the law. What actually happened in Ferguson remains to be determined. I’ll repeat what I stated at the beginning of this post. If the officer’s version of events is correct, he may well have been justified in using deadly force. If someone (a much bigger someone) who I believed had just committed a strong arm robbery, then assaulted me and tried take my gun and, after beginning to flee/walk away, turned and ran at me in an aggressive manner my only conclusion would be that he intended to do me serious harm. At that point all bets are off and I am firing until the threat has stopped. And that may mean multiple shots. Including head shots. Including a shot to the top of the head. It takes time (maybe a second or two or more) to realize the threat has been stopped. In that amount of time it is easy to get off two or three more shots. They may impact politically incorrect spots like the back or top of the head. It happens but its not an execution. Could someone please explain to me how looting and burning help the cause of those protesting against the police? What did the shop owners do to deserve that? Finally, an NPR report this morning claimed that only 3% of the eligible black voters in Ferguson (or maybe the county?) voted in the last election. If the town is majority black and there is such a racial divide why not simply vote the current politicians out? Put your own candidate in charge. You are more likely to see meaningful change casting votes instead Molotov cocktails. ---
**Author:** ![astorian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ad7895/32.png) [@astorian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/astorian)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2014, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/52 "2014-08-19T19:04:23Z")
The big question is, will public reaction to “police militarization” ever cease to be determined by whose ox is being gored? Shouldn’t LIBERALS be horrified by what happened to David Koresh’s followers, or to Randy Weaver’s family? SHouldn’t LIBERALS have been aghast at a SWAT team being sent into a house to grab Elian Gonzalez? Shouldn’t CONSERVATIVES be horrified by what’s going on in Ferguson? In both cases, the answer is obviously “Yes.” But as a practical matter, very few people object when the cops or feds use excessive force against those they find repulsive. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2014, 7:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/53 "2014-08-19T19:08:03Z")
Police militarization is one of those issues where most people agree, but it just hasn’t been an issue high on the radar of anyone but civil libertarians of the right and left. The squeakiest wheel gets the grease, and the police departments have been squeakier than the civil libertarian think tanks and bloggers. That might now be changing. As for the race aspect, it’s just BS. There’s no particular reason to believe at this time that the shooting was unjustified and reactions like this have been thankfully rare. After seeing the video of how that young man treated the convenience store owner it’s hard to work up any sympathy. There are better people to fight for than him. To me, the more important racism issue in 2014 is how native-born Americans of all colors treat legal immigrants. ---
**Author:** ![wolfpup](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/wolfpup/32/10618_2.png) [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2014, 7:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/54 "2014-08-19T19:10:16Z")
**MikeF** , your post echoes exactly what I said earlier about the reasons for the “militarization” of the police, even down to the revolver example. When everybody and his dog is armed with semiautomatic weapons or worse, the police have to keep up, not just in weaponry but potentially in level of aggressiveness. Police in other countries are so restricted in drawing their weapons that merely unholstering a pistol is an incident considered serious enough to require a formal report, or, as in the UK, most may not carry guns at all. I also just want to point out that while no one knows exactly what happened in Ferguson, the officer’s side of the story isn’t quite what you said. My understanding is that his report was that he stopped because the two youths were walking down the middle of the street and blocking traffic, and had not connected them with the robbery at the time. Everyone seems to agree on this, and accounts differ about just what happened after that. The officer’s version is that Brown pushed him back into his car when he tried to exit, punched him in the face, and grabbed for his gun. Brown’s friend’s version is that the officer yelled at them to “get the f\*ck off the street”, got out of his car and got needlessly belligerent. ---
**Author:** ![bump](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/7c8e57/32.png) [@bump](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bump)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2014, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/55 "2014-08-19T20:37:08Z")
> [@1224rattusrattus](#): > > The fact that no police were imprisoned let alone charged surely has to be one of the biggest miscarriages of justice in recent years. > > [Move - Wikipedia](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVE#1985_bombing) Oh, bullshit. If you’re a bunch of loons who fortify a building and shoot at the cops, then WTF do you really expect? The cops to entice you out with donuts and coffee, in order to have a quiet, civil sit-down about your differences? No, they’re most likely going to straight fuck you up, as they should, and did. There comes a point when you’ve abrogated your rights and privileges of living in civil society, and to a lot of us, that comes at the point when you start shooting at the police. ---
**Author:** ![UltraVires](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/u/ecccb3/32.png) [@UltraVires](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UltraVires)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2014, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/56 "2014-08-19T22:31:43Z")
> [@astorian](#): > > The big question is, will public reaction to “police militarization” ever cease to be determined by whose ox is being gored? > > Shouldn’t LIBERALS be horrified by what happened to David Koresh’s followers, or to Randy Weaver’s family? SHouldn’t LIBERALS have been aghast at a SWAT team being sent into a house to grab Elian Gonzalez? > > Shouldn’t CONSERVATIVES be horrified by what’s going on in Ferguson? > > In both cases, the answer is obviously “Yes.” But as a practical matter, very few people object when the cops or feds use excessive force against those they find repulsive. I’m a conservative who is horrified about the goings on in Ferguson. I haven’t formed an opinion on whether the initial shooting was justified, but those people have a right to peaceably protest whether they are ultimately right or wrong. Calling in the equivalent of the Army against citizens of the United States is outrageous. ---
**Author:** ![Mk\_VII](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@Mk\_VII](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mk_VII)\ **Post date:** [August 19, 2014, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/57 "2014-08-19T22:45:25Z")
> [@wolfpup](#): > > Police in other countries are so restricted in drawing their weapons that merely unholstering a pistol is an incident considered serious enough to require a formal report, or, as in the UK, most may not carry guns at all. Actually, we here are getting unhappy about the militarisation of the police, too, and the fact that these SWAT squads are increasingly being used “because we can, and besides, if we don’t it makes it look like we didn’t need them” ---
**Author:** ![RickJay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/bb73d2/32.png) [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2014, 12:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/58 "2014-08-20T00:34:01Z")
> [@MikeF](#): > > But if I have reason to believe that I am about to encounter an armed individual a rifle may be appropriate. If the public finds rifles in cars offensive, too bad. Well, no. If the public finds it offensive, then they might well pressure the government into not having rifles (a ridiculous idea, in my opinion; a rifle is a soldier’s tool, and police are not soldiers) in police cruisers. And too bad for you. The police serve and do the bidding of the public, and so they get rifles if the public, as expressed through their elected representatives, choose to give them rifles. If the public chooses otherwise, they don’t get rifles. If a police officer doesn’t like it, it being a free country, they are at liberty to seek employment in a different field of work. ---
**Author:** ![carnivorousplant](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/carnivorousplant/32/3563_2.png) [@carnivorousplant](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/carnivorousplant)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2014, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/59 "2014-08-20T01:27:41Z")
> [@RickJay](#): > > Well, no. If the public finds it offensive, then they might well pressure the government into not having rifles (a ridiculous idea, in my opinion; a rifle is a soldier’s tool, and police are not soldiers) in police cruisers. And too bad for you. The police serve and do the bidding of the public, and so they get rifles if the public, as expressed through their elected representatives, choose to give them rifles. If the public chooses otherwise, they don’t get rifles. If a police officer doesn’t like it, it being a free country, they are at liberty to seek employment in a different field of work. I thought policemen had shotguns in the car. Do they now carry AR-15s or something? Semi or full auto? ---
**Author:** ![Little\_Pig](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/c57346/32.png) [@Little\_Pig](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Little_Pig)\ **Post date:** [August 20, 2014, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607/60 "2014-08-20T06:07:43Z")
Something to [cheer about?](http://www.suntimes.com/29363775-761/jackie-robinson-wests-superb-defense-keys-6-1-win.html#.U_Q6rPBX9pA) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-ferguson-mo-the-leading-edge-of-an-era/695607.md?page=4)