Thread: (USA) Civil Rights Moving Backwards? Violent Cops, Racism and Hate?

I completely agree with you about the problems of police militarization - don't misunderstand me!! But that's about them using inappropriate equipment and methods for jobs that should be done by regular police with their standard gear. Crowd control is a very different matter and can't be handled as if it's just day to day police work. I think crowd control is one situation where it's appropriate to use some of this equipment. You can't really expect police to stand there in their ordinary street uniforms with no shields when bottles full of burning gasoline are being thrown at them. They need to use the right gear for the job. Just like you would dress differently for a cleaning job where you're using dangerous industrial chemicals than for a normal weekly housecleaning operation - you'd want to put on rubber gloves and goggles and possibly even a breathing filter. And I heard the guns were loaded with rubber bullets, or is that wrong? Without the use of teargas I think there were times when violence would have erupted, but it was quelled peacefully with nobody getting shot.

This method of crowd control is not new since 9-11, but has been in use since at least the 60's. Ad again, I totally agree about the way 9-11 has been used to promote a semi police state in the US. Plus there are private swat teams doing the work that should be done by regular police. I'm completely against that

I didn't see anybody's right to free speech being curtailed. The protesters were allowed to protest and in fact they were televised and photographed and written up in countless magazines and newspapers, and thanks to the police presence the early looting and rioting was stopped and peace was maintained aside from only a couple of incidents which were quickly gotten under control. In fact even the curfew was lifted, allowing them to protest well into the night. I don't see how anybody can say someone's right to free speech was curtailed in any way.

And of course they can't just let the press wander around wherever they want. Especially with journalists being there in such massive numbers - they're part of the crowd and need to be kept orderly just like everybody else. I mean, I believe people should be able to record police - especially if they're journalists - but I also believe they shouldn't be allowed to run around however they want in a dangerous situation where they would be in the way and causing chaos.

Let me add a bit more.

At first I saw some footage from the protests that was shocking - nighttime shots of clouds of smoke billowing with colored light flashing across them and crazy looking devices whizzing around on the ground spewing sparks and smoke. The way it was shot it looked like a battlefield. At that point I felt exactly the way both of you do - I was horrified and angry. This is what I was referring to when I said there were mistakes made early on. But I also think part of the problem is mainstream coverage, which was probably very selective and I would imagine it presented the protest in a very biased way designed to make the police look bad. At leas that's how it seemed whenever I caught it on any regular network channels. On FOX I saw a very different story unfold, especially after the first few days when the police started to get their act together.

The first really excellent thing they did was to bring in someone from a different police force (St Louis or something, don't remember) who was actually from Ferguson and used to be on the force there, and he was well known and liked by the community. I don't remember his name. He was put in charge of the effort, and he said anyone with any grievances at all could call him, anytime day or night, and he'd deal with them right then and there. I thought that was excellent, and it made proceedings take a very different turn.

Then they started the method of allowing local community leaders - ministers etc, to stand with megaphones in a line between the police and the crowd and speak to the protesters, calming them down and talking sense to them. This had an amazing effect - you could feel the tension just melt out of the crowd. This is the first time I've seen a tactic like that, but then I've never really watched protest footage before, so I don't know how new it is. But I thought it was a beautiful thing.

And then I was even more blown away when the residents (protesters who actually live inFerguson ) formed a human chain and swept through the crowd, driving the outsiders out of the crowd and dispersing them. That was an incredible moment of solidarity and togetherness demonstrated by the community itself and aided by police that struck me as a historical moment.

So it's clear that, depending on who's showing the coverage and how they're editing it, it can be presented in any way they want. You could cut together a bunch of scenes that just make the police look terrible if that's your narrative, or you can present this as one of the most humanitarian moments in recent history. It contained elements of both. I'm afraid the liberal biased mainstream media has probably chosen to show it as police brutality. That's a tragedy if you ask me. I hope I'm wrong, and that mainstream media can still show some level of objectivity, but I fear it probably isn't the case.