In Ferguson, Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery gives account of his arrest | Hacker News Reader

In Ferguson, Washington Post reporter Wesley Lowery gives account of his arrest

washingtonpost.com

217 pointsForHackernews101 comments

In Ferguson we are finally getting to see the glimpse(just a peek) of the tyranny creeping up on us in America.

- Fully militarized police with a Tank(!) and multiple snipers with assault rifles confronting unarmed civilian protesters.[1]

- Tear gassing and arresting reporters

- Al-Jazera news crew was shot at and tear gassed [2]

- No fly zone over all of Ferguson

- Street level blockades & teargassing of porches to keep people inside

- No badges, tags or any identifying marks on police

- etc, etc,

This is a disgrace for America and a wake up call for all of us.

[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu9CVPGIYAA_tFz.jpg:large [2] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bu-N9uIIIAEImna.jpg:large

Maybe depending on your ethnicity you are finally getting a glimpse, but for many Americans the tyranny is already here, it has been for a while, they've gotten a good deal more than just a "glimpse", and far from "creeping up", it has smashed through their front door in force and shot their dog and kid in the face.

IMO the more photogenic white people getting jackbooted in the face, the better. It's good for solidarity.

Wow. You're a real humanitarian. Most people just want it to stop, yet you want whitey punished.

No, he wants rich white people to understand what the rest of America has been going through for years. That way, maybe they'll devote their political, social, and economic capital to reforming these abusive policing practices.

I definitely agree with the sentiment, but I have to nitpick - neither of the vehicles in that picture is a tank. They are both large, light-to-medium armored, wheeled vehicles, and the rightmost one has some kind of gear mounted on top. Not everything that is big and painted green is a tank.

On the other hand, this points to a (to me, more disturbing) aspect of all this - the adoption of military imagery and styling. Why does an urban police force, even if deals with rioting, need to wear camouflage patterns? Why do their trucks need to be painted green instead of the more traditional blue/white or black?

This is indicative of a police force that sees itself as a military force, and its mission as a military mission.

It's a big recruiting tool these days. You can be a beat cop and play commando on the weekends. The marketing for this stuff is absolutely sick. Here's one from St. Louis (surprise!):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ot5_UPeZIUw

If they really wanted camouflage they would wear jeans. They just want to play commando and find some "action".

That video seems to have been posted by the production company as a promo, but… man, it's so cringeworthy I'm not sure I'd want my name on it.

Police militarization is largely driven by grants from the DHS. The way American municipal police forces have been turned into a (poorly controlled) internal military is the blunt end of the same force that drives NSA mass surveillance.

The al-Jazeera crew was shot at? Can you point to a source for this?

Here's a video, http://www.vox.com/2014/8/13/6001193/al-jazeera-journalists-...

source https://twitter.com/jonswaine/status/499744438092980224

On a slightly apologetic note: There were actual, real, violent outbursts. If you put yourself in the shoes of a police officer, you might understand the police' reluctance to stand up to a potentially armed and certainly aggressive mob without any protective gear, and in completely standard police cars.

The individual misconduct of these officers should be prosecuted. But these rioting mobs won't stand a chance changing these "bullying" tactics or getting the police to "demilitarize".

In some part, the protective gear actually decreases the need of applying violence against protesters, because the officers don't have to defend themselves as "actively" when trying to control a crowd.

While I can see your point you have to really see this in context.

Imagine a black community that largely feels (and by data proven to be) oppressed. Now that community has one of its children murdered by the police. When they want to take a stand they are confronted by a wall of heavily armed police that look like they could be fighting a war in Iraq (but as many have said they're even better armed).

What possible reaction do you envision the black community having? I applaud them for keeping their composure as well as they have. I could not do that.

As callous as it sounds: Responding with violence is not going to change a thing. Also, telling such a community that their anger isn't helping, also helps nobody.

Peaceful, non-violent resistance might work.

Citation needed.

Really. There were peaceful protests that were successful. But there were also many violent ones. Violence can and has changed many things.

I don't like violence, but I like those wrong etaist pacifist statements even less.

Edit: Or are you talking only about this specific situation and this is your opinion? Then nevermind, could very well be true here.

You can research Gandhi's non-violence principles.

In essence violence justifies counter-violence. The more the angry protesters threaten or attack the police, the less "wrong" the current response looks. Non-violence tries to starve the legitimization of excessive force.

This militarization is not a good idea and should be limited or abandoned. But "riots" are hardly making a point against military gear.

By your logic, assuming that violence justifies counter-violence, the arms upgrades etc. that the police have received in the past could be portrayed as a form of violence. (If not physical, then at least psychological as a form of intimidation or similar) Therefore, the violent reactions are justified, also if they are more violent than past ones.

No, I am not implying "ultimate" justification, but yes, it goes both ways. Look at the comments in this discussion to view evidence of how people are sympathizing with a rioting mob which destroyed or harmed the businesses, property and person of totally innocent third parties.

In the near east there is a similar problem. There is so much violence going on from both sides, that people can sympathize with cruelties from both sides.

Gandhi had no real impact on the world. The American Revolution did.

Colonists had to murder plenty of police and military.

I'm sorry. But Gandhi is just one of many who practised non-violence. Are you honestly going to sit there and tell me the MLK, Jr. had no real impact on the world either?

I'll just go ahead and leave this here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Kennedy's_speech_on_t...

The legacy of people who believed that violence is never justified, never necessary and can be overcome with compassion.

If you are on the street protesting the murder of an innocent young man and what you see staring back at you is a paramilitary force, what do you think your reaction is going to be?

The situation will escalate. The Police are escalating.

If you don't want a violent confrontation, don't send in a paramilitary force.

I guess the protective gear reducing the need to apply violence is why these cops are armed with assault weapons and have snipers watching the crowd?

On a slightly apologetic note: There was an actual, real, violent death of an unarmed civilian child. If you put yourself in the shoes of the civilian population, you might understand their reluctance to peacefully protest etc etc etc

So, one police officer might have unjustifiably shot a teenager, and you think that justifies killing or hurting all the other officers? Or that the police completely withdraws from a riot and lets it happen?

A teenager was murdered in cold blood, shot at point-blank range and then shot in the back while he was trying to get away. If that was your son or nephew or brother, would you think 'Oh, we should organize a peaceful march'?

Especially after decades of feeling oppressed and ignored, to have someone whose job is, ostensibly, to protect the public gun down an innocent child is intolerable, and the history shows that after a short internal investigation, while the officer is on 'paid administrative leave' (which may as well be a paid vacation), he will be found to have done no wrong and will be put back on patrol.

I'd be rioting in the streets too, if this were my kid. Except that if it were a white kid, everyone would be calling for his head, not just the black community in Ferguson.

I would hope I would call for a peaceful march. Also you are blindly assuming facts which aren't proven yet. I can understand the protesters, but I can't applaud the senseless violence.

> There were actual, real, violent outbursts. If you put yourself in the shoes of a police officer, you might understand the police' reluctance to stand up to a potentially armed and certainly aggressive mob without any protective gear, and in completely standard police cars.

That all sounds perfectly fine, reasonable.

But why are they kitted out like stormtroopers? South Korea has much, much better organised political protesters/rioters and their Combat Police[0] are much, much better at their job than it looks like the US equivalent are, and all they've got is standard riot police kevlar armour, clear plastic shields and the helmets. Note that they don't look like troops occupying enemy territory either[1].

I can't see any justification for local police forces having military vehicles, and I think the optics of police in camo are hideous, unless that is actually the message you want to send of course.

I realise that the USA is legitimately exceptional in the number of guns floating around, illegal and legal, and that it is far, far more violent than any other first world country, for whites and blacks but why the shoddy police militarisation? You're not Mexico, there are no gangs as organised and competent as the Mafia who go toe to toe with the police.

And if a paramilitary force is needed, why doesn't each state have 100 full-time SWAT guys (or more, I really have no idea how many New York or California need.) and 400 guys who are cross trained? If you need more than 500 men with machine guns, it's time to call the National Guard.

[0]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Police_Agency_(South_K...

[1]http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=south+korean+riot+police...

> I can't see any justification for local police forces having military vehicles

Many years ago, Congress passed a law that has the DoD sell off vehicles it no longer needs to police for very good prices. The police get those vehicle for around $3000, which is much less than a conventional car would cost.

I would guess that for most departments, the low cost is their justification.

Hell, and the US is the one trying to take the morale high ground with Russia. Maybe they need to spend more time looking at themselves.

What do you think are appropriate methods for police to respond to riots and looting?

Also: could those who down vote please explain what you find wrong with asking what the police should be doing?

Quell riots and looting.

You don't need trained snipers, full body armor and APCs to do that. Not for a town of 21,000. They were sandblasting saltines.

Um, not to be that guy, but much like the other guy who replied to you said, that's not a tank.

Also, in every picture I've seen of the militarized police they've had badges as well as tags that read 'POLICE'.

Unfortunately, they won't identify themselves when they're in riot gear.

This is bad but it definitely isn't proof that we've turned in to some sort of Stalinist police state. This sort of heavy handed bravado has popped up in local police enforcement countless times in American history. This is quite tame compared to the lynch mobs of our not so distant past.

It certainly doesn't help to spread fear. Don't let these frustrations fuel and justify the juvenile and irresponsible reaction we've seen from groups like Anonymous.

These are scary times for everyone involved and polarizing the issue is a path that quite clearly and logically leads people away from resolving their conflicts.

Perhaps you're just wanting to see things burn?

> This is bad but it definitely isn't proof that we've turned in to some sort of Stalinist police state.

That's kind of a super-extreme isn't it? He said first glimpse of tyranny creeping up. I took it as an implication that the wheels may be beginning to turn.

Social unrest has also happened quite a number of times throughout history, but are we not allowed to be shocked in seeing weapons trained at civilians? Snipers? Vehicles of this stature? I mean, this is a town of 21,000 and utilizing this equipment was deemed appropriate?

Fortunately, the death and violence and hate aren't on par with lynch mobs and the like, but are you trying to say we should just brush this off? If you could perhaps elaborate on how the concept of Police Militarization is being polarized and preventing a resolution?

I don't see this particular resolution in the first place. We had the President decry weapons or war and then the Pentagon give 'em out. I don't feel like there is a resolution in place to be prevented.

A sobering voice of civility is exactly what everyone needs to hear right now. Getting pissed off about things solves absolutely nothing. That's what everyone is doing right now in Ferguson. Getting really fucking pissed off at one another.

Anyone feeling the same is as guilty as they are. They just don't happen to be in possession of an armored vehicle and riot gear. If they did they'd probably be out somewhere knocking heads together.

Someone needs to convince the people who elect these Sheriffs that they should put someone in charge who isn't going to buy 50,000 rounds of tear gas.

You know what's really going to end our democracy? Everyone abandoning it because they think it is too hard to go out, interact with people, and maybe start a real dialog about how we're governing ourselves.

Getting angry, pointing fingers, and inventing some sort of "us vs. them" mentality does nothing to prevent things like this from happening.

Tyranny is "super-extreme". We're nowhere near it. Implying that we are is irresponsible and most importantly, is a type of language that is hard to reconcile. The goal is conflict resolution. That doesn't mean that the actions are condoned just that there are plenty of ways to respond to situations like this.

We quite clearly have a lot of remaining issues from our past. Slavery, segregation, civil wars... it's been a fucking shit show. But so has basically everywhere else.

I'd say that events in Ferguson are more a reflection of our traumatic past than evidence of some sort of paranoid future of oppression. The oppression is behind us, fading away. Fear and mutual misunderstanding is what will lead us back to that bullshit.

> That's what everyone is doing right now in Ferguson. Getting really fucking pissed off at one another.

Sure, but if you look at the situation: a black kid was gunned down in broad daylight by a police officer, shot at point-blank range and then shot repeatedly while he was trying to escape, without any evidence of danger to the officer or even wrongdoing.

Now you have that same police department rolling in military kit, tear-gassing film crews and assaulting journalists.

I think it's pretty legitimate to be pissed off at the police in this case, but I don't think the police have any justification for their actions.

Though lynch mobs were unofficially sanctioned by municipal authorities, they were not paid for by grants from the federal government. I don't think the United States is a Stalinist police state, but there is a qualitative difference between the present militarization of the police and the history of vigilante racism.

>Perhaps you're just wanting to see things burn?

A few police stations would be a good start.

You can clear everybody out first (optional operation).

One striking thing about this and many other accounts of police misconduct is the refusal of law enforcement officers to identify themselves.

"""He was denied information about the names and badge numbers of those who arrested him."""

If hiding the badge numbers or other identifying marks distinguishing law enforcement officers from each other isn't already a crime it ought to be. And it ought to be one that disqualifies the officer involved from serving in any position of authority over the public.

There is no excuse by which law enforcement can expect to have both legitimacy and the cloak of anonymity. If there is one thing the last 4000 years of recorded history has taught us; it is that unaccountable power will be abused.

If our civilisation is to have a solid foundation of law; it's law enforcement authorities must be more law-abiding than the average citizen rather than less. As is so glaringly the case in Ferguson tonight.

Here (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/20...) is an interesting article about this issue from 2009. It says that while some states require the availability of information like name and badge numbers, many do not. However, some police department's will still implement policies requiring it be provided if requested. This is out of date and not terribly detailed, so I'd be curious to hear from someone with more complete or up-to-date information.

In the UK, police man have been sacked or disciplined for hiding their badge numbers.

Not often though.

>some senior officers it had interviewed "did

>not appear to believe this was a disciplinary

>offence"

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/mar/18/g20-protest-office... [2010]

He has them on video, they will be identified as long as it wasnt deleted.

> “My hands are behind my back,” I said. “I’m not resisting. I’m not resisting.” At which point one officer said: “You’re resisting. Stop resisting.”

One of the scariest subtleties with these situations is how police officers always chant "stop resisting" regardless of whether the person is resisting. It's almost as if they are explicitly trained to repeat that mantra. It's eery.

The more charitable interpretation here is that the cops may actually be perceiving everyone as acting much more hostile than they actually are. The cop's perception is being filtered through their own fear and implicit bias.

There's also of course, the conclusions about abuse of power drawn from the Stanford Prison Experiment: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Either way, these cops should not be given such heavy weaponry.

Your interpretation actually isn't much different than mine. I suspect police are trained to feel threatened by civilians and to escalate along the use of force continuum while maintaining some semblance of reasonableness and legality. I don't intend to be uncharitable toward the average individual officer's character, or even the intent of departmental policies. I just don't think those policies are desirable.

Almost? They are trained to repeat it. Check out the second video in http://www.theagitator.com/2012/07/05/two-videos-two-cities-... , of the Newport Beach police recruitment ad.

They say "stop resisting" because saying it makes it harder to sue them for excessive use of force. Saying "stop resisting" is, of course, unassailable evidence of resistance.

It's what you get charged with when there's nothing else to charge you with.

Yep: Arrested for resisting arrest.

I believe that you are probably right.

As with many policing policies, crossing as many things off the cover-your-ass list at time of arrest seems to be very important.

Should there be a need to push 'resisting arrest' at a future date, it's probably better for someone to have said it than not. Even if this is not trained, it falls in line intuitively with policing attitudes towards risk of legal complications. It would be rewarded behavior that gets learned.

It's a terribly morbid version of soccer players taking falls. It's in their interest, as the rules of the game they are playing is written, to do so.

It's striking in the photos coming out of Ferguson to see municipal police in full military gear. They have even brought out armored vehicles, and there are multiple reports of police pointing automatic weapons at journalists and protestors. These cops seem out of their depth. They should not have access to this kind of firepower.

The Atlantic had a good (if somewhat understated) article on the phenomenon of militarizing police back in 2011 that's worth a re-read in the current context: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2011/11/how-the-...

EDIT: And a excerpt from the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop" from last summer: http://www.salon.com/2013/07/07/%E2%80%9Cwhy_did_you_shoot_m...

And Slate has a current piece on the phenomenon specifically in reference to Ferguson: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/201...

This is my 'favorite' picture so far.. I can't even imagine what's going through this kid's head.

http://i.imgur.com/YBPeneA.jpg

Here's one that doesn't crop out the graffiti on the mailbox:

http://cdn1.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_image/image/36894460/...

and the amazing discordant 'reaction' by the police, armed with a variety of fringe all provided no doubt by the US military which probably had an excess.

Granted, the graffiti seems like an important element of the picture.

But when the reaction of the police to spraying "Fuck the police" on a mailbox is that six of them charge you with rifles aimed at you, that seems like a pretty clear justification of the sentiment.

Can he hear what they're ordering him to do through the gas masks?

Police: "Umff flumfff urgffff fruffu hufff froof!"

Youth: "I want to comply with your orders. I am not violent. I am not resisting. I can't hear y..."

Police: "UMFF FLUMFF URGFFFF FRUFFU HUFFF FROOF!!"

I bet the cop on the second left is such an asshole he is punished with the camera on the helmet.

Or through the head of the goons.

Nice desert combat boots.

There have been a lot of Twitter photos of US veterans contrasting pictures of their time in theatres of war (Iraq etc) with press pictures of the police. The police usually appear more heavily armed.

Vice did a good bit on Swatting which covers this.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ziLjOPCQwg

The Economist recently touched on the militarization of US police forces. It's worth a read:

http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-america...

> But it is hard to see why Fargo, North Dakota—a city that averages fewer than two murders a year—needs an armoured personnel-carrier with a rotating turret. Keene, a small town in New Hampshire which had three homicides between 1999 and 2012, spent nearly $286,000 on an armoured personnel-carrier known as a BearCat. The local police chief said it would be used to patrol Keene’s “Pumpkin Festival and other dangerous situations”.

And worse:

> Householders, on hearing the door being smashed down, sometimes reach for their own guns. In 2006 Kathryn Johnston, a 92-year-old woman in Atlanta, mistook the police for robbers and fired a shot from an old pistol. Police shot her five times, killing her. After the shooting they planted marijuana in her home. It later emerged that they had falsified the information used to obtain their no-knock warrant.

I used to think that Alex Jones was a complete Looney tune, bit slowly I'm starting to realise that he's been warning Americans about this exact scenario for years.

Two examples off the top of my head of crazy shit Alex Jones believes:

* The Boston marathon bombings were a false flag attack by the US government

* The US government creates (some) tornadoes, and uses them to destroy US cities

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day. He's still a looney tune.

Along with many other things that are and will always be way off the mark... still a looney tune. I have a friend on Facebook who went from normal to something really sad listening to that dude.

It feels like mall ninja all over again.

This really got me. Mike Brown's mother said this [1].

  You took my son away from me. You know how hard 
  it was for me to get him to stay in school 
  and graduate? Do you know how many black men 
  graduate? Not many. Because you bring them down
  to this type of level where they feel like "I don't
  got nothing to live for anyway. They're going to
  try and take me out anyway."

[1] http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/266242/speedreads-white-...

I wonder how long it's going to take for people to take up arms (unless they already have), as this is exactly the kind of event some people use to justify gun ownership (huge emphasis on the some, I personally believe you don't need justification for gun ownership and that it's a human right and I know I'm not alone in this, but I also know some people have used it as justification and I wonder if they'd ever put their money where their mouth is). It's a miracle some nut hasn't snapped and engaged in all-out warfare already.

EDIT: Why the downvotes? Honest question, how much more are people willing to take?

> I wonder how long it's going to take for people to take up arms

When it starts being white people targeted. Killing an unarmed man, cordoning off the city with millitarized police, and shutting down the press sure sounds like the scenario that 2nd amendment fundamentalists like the Oathkeepers claim they need their AR-15s to deal with, but they're conspicuous by their absence.

http://beforeitsnews.com/u-s-politics/2014/08/militia-in-mis...

>It's a miracle some nut hasn't snapped and engaged in all-out warfare already.

You mean like Christopher Dorner?

I meant in reference to the current situation in Ferguson.

>I wonder how long it's going to take for people to take up arms

they had - check the history of Black Panthers.

None of this is new as anybody involved in protest (most recently and notably - Occupy) could attest to. This was the single most radicalizing event that we witnessed. Peaceful protestors that had once struck down any radical protestors suddenly turned radical themselves upon watching family and friends get beaten for filming and arrested for not obeying conflicting demands. A close friend of mine was only able to save the SD card in his sock and switch it out with a new one before the cops took it, pocketed the (unused) SD card and then spiked his digital camera on the asphalt.

This situation is going to keep escalating. If you visit Ferguson, you'll see the business-district smashed up but the residential areas nice, calm, well-kept - with families literally everywhere walking around. The community is united and organizing. I can only hope that the period of chaotic rage settles down into something strong, long-lasting, and effective. This would be a true tribute to Michael Brown.

Last - I want to mention that a St. Louis City Alderman/Protestor was also arrested tonight. He remains peaceful as his respected reputation depends on it, so one can only gather that it was to silence his filming.

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/5677157

An account of STL police two years ago:http://antistatestl.noblogs.org/post/2012/03/19/a-personal-a...

And some resistance: http://antistatestl.noblogs.org/post/2012/04/22/welcome-to-c...

This is how every representative should act – willing to stand with the populace on the right side of history. Imagine if Obama went there incognito, sans entourage, and did the same thing. Instant place in history.

How many incidents like this need to occur and make headlines before citizens of America realize they often don't have the "Freedom and Liberty" they so often drone on about?

Someone white needs to die, and maybe people will start giving a shit.

No, they don't care when white people die either, but it's not national news because [retracted]white people don't riot and[/retracted] it doesn't fit the narrative.

http://articles.latimes.com/2013/aug/21/local/la-me-ln-zacha...

>In a mixed verdict, a federal judge awarded $3 million to the parents of an 18-year-old honor student shot and killed by plainclothes drug enforcement agents, but also determined that the authorities were not negligent in their actions.

U.S. District Judge Michael Fitzgerald said that DEA agents had reason to believe they were in danger, but determined that the agents should not have fired their weapons at Zachary Champommier's car because shooting at a moving vehicle would not have helped their predicament.

> white people don't riot

Middle to upper class people (many white) rioted when the SF Giants won the World Series [1]. I don't recall any police officers in military gear.

I believe it's because middle or white crowds don't pose any perceived threat even though they're burning cars and otherwise breaking the law. There were arrests, though.

If you're community is poor and black then you're SOL.

[1] http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/10/29/san-francisco-riots...

> [retracted]white people don't riot and[/retracted]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1999_Seattle_WTO_protests

"white people don't riot" you're right, when white people are on the streets its a protest.

It's a peaceful protest even if the people are heavily armed [1]. But at Ferguson unarmed protests are considered as non peaceful protests and dealt with force. There's one conspicuous difference between the people who were protesting on each occasion.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundy_standoff#Confrontations_...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:White_American_riots_i...

"The following 47 pages are in this category, out of 47 total."

edit: and also this, of course: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_Summer#Violence

And after a lot of MSU games.

Except that 1. so many are afraid of losing what little they have, and 2. I am not sure about others, but if I am not caught up in it personally, it just comes out as more statistics, happening somewhere else, not my back/frontyard.

I just read the Wired article on Snowden on HN this evening, and in it he referred to the process of becoming numb/accepting of something that you get repeatedly shown, regardless of how sad/miserable/bad it is, the frog in the slowly heating pot of water.

I have come to the realization that the country (USA) I was taught about in school that was so great and cherished its Constitution and Bill of Rights is mostly just a fantasy, a hopeful work in progress that does not seem to be making much progress, and the best thing I can do is teach the people around me what I think is right/ethical and keep working to make my small section of the world a better place.

There is a better and better chance that more shit is going to hit the fan financially (http://vimeo.com/user20236372/review/101487179/54bf993e5d), wars seem to now be a constant state of human social equilibrium, and rather than give in to depression, I will teach those around me how to care for what we have, and maybe survive any larger disaster that doesn't just wipe my area off a map.

Sad, but about the only positive thing I can currently think of doing.

I'm not sure why you're getting downvoted, given that you're absolutely right. There are a number of people on this thread engaging in 2nd amendment rights fantasies without stopping to consider what would happen in this situation if a bunch of black people started openly carrying weapons while being confronted by a bunch of hostile, heavily armed SWAT team members. We need more MLK, and less NRA.

It's not even hypothetical. The Black Panthers were trying to do a lot of good stuff for the community (despite their flaws) by using their legal right to carry arms for their protection and the result was that the government cracked down on their freedoms because they were so uncomfortable about being unable to oppress them with shows of force and police harassment.

I'm really surprised that I don't see anyone already providing this information. I'm afraid I don't have a lot of time right now, so won't provide links to back up these statement, but others please do:

I don't believe the issue you are seeing with regards to the militarization of police stems to anything so terribly insidious. Instead, I think it is just another sign of corruption in politics & business as usual.

There is a terrible amount of money being tagged for "Homeland Security". Police departments are _still_ strapped for cash, but are given the option of buying expensive toys with funds that can only be used to buy these toys from the companies of successful lobbyists. In other words, "sorry, no money to hire more officers this year. however, we can give you a grant for $20,000 to spend on an armored carrier - but nothing else"

The money won't go away, because if a congressman _does_ stand up to this sort of abuse, they just give a big donation to his opponent to runs TV ads saying he's "soft on terrorism"

So what's a police chief to say? it's free

After that, we enter the simple world of psychology - it's a well-known fact that when you give people pads and helmets, they will act in a riskier and more aggressive manner. If you give them a mask, they will become more belligerent. Toss in an "us vs. them" situation, stand by your team, etc.

So, these men are simply doing what psychiatrists say we would all do, if you strapped us into a Robocop getup and told us to go protect the city.

That said - the Chief of Police should be experienced and responsible enough to judge the situation and tell his officers "No riot gear". This is their normal riot gear, but someone should have used some common sense to tell them to leave it at the station. That is the fault at the local level.

This is just the tip of the iceberg.

The US has such poor police training that this problem will not go away. There are also way to many people in the force that are mentally not fit for the job.

Sadly the the Police appears to reflect the conscience of the country. Where force rules over diplomacy. Shoot first ask questions later and revenge over forgiveness.

If you're looking for a live stream of activity you can find it here: http://new.livestream.com/accounts/9035483/events/3271930

Anonymous has claimed that they will be releasing the name of the cop who shot Mike Brown if they recover it: http://www.salon.com/2014/08/13/anonymous_released_alleged_a...

I've been listening to the dispatch recording and haven't heard anything about the shooting. I've even forwarded it to 2pm. If anyone finds a direct link then paste it in.

It takes a lot of courage to stand your ground in these situations. Sounds like the classic South Park "Respect my Authoritah" sums up the cause of this confrontation.

Police have enormous protection from their unions. Their internal investigation units are often staffed with people directly affiliated with the union or former police personnel. This is often the reason why they can run with no accountability or recourse for their actions.

Here's an article detailing just how it is that all these local police departments are getting such lovely weapons of mass murder:

http://www.newsweek.com/how-americas-police-became-army-1033...

(Short answer: Congressionally-enabled DoD surplus transfers.)

What's going on with the moderation here? Nearly 200 points and it's vanished from the first 120 results of the site.

When did HN turn into /r/politics?

Stop bitching, start suing...

This thread is going to be deleted, censored, disappeared, etc.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com