Posted on 08/13/2014 4:52:35 PM PDT by BuckeyeTexan
A large police SWAT team showed up to a peaceful demonstration in Ferguson, Missouri and the scene is getting increasingly tense, reports Huffington Post's Ryan J. Reilly, who is currently on the ground.
Soon after the team of more than 70 officers came on the scene, they told protesters they needed to leave the area and that "this [was] not open for discussion," Reilly tweeted. MSNBC reporter Trymain Lee tweeted that police told the crowd, "Go home, return to your vehicles. The protesters responded, "Mike can't go home!"
"Your right to assembly is not being denied," the police said later over a loudspeaker.
(Excerpt) Read more at businessinsider.com ...
Someone threw a bottle at the SWAT truck. That’s when police ordered them to disperse and then immediately tossed the tear gas.
Leo copters can shoot back; not so much for media choppers
Again, it's no secret the wide spread and escalating distrust for law enforcement/government has been ramping up in the past decade or so. And much of this distrust is very legitimate and justified...This isn't even debatable.
And this is exactly what happens when they themselves have created this environment of distrust. When they need the support of the law abiding, one day it's just not going to be there if this trust continues to deteriorate.
This does not make for happy times ahead.
It's about following a regular civil order.
Ours is a government of civilian leadership over police and military. The police don't just swarm in with full military gear and heavy armament and declare the area closed.
The civilian leadership first declares a curfew or state of emergency, and then the police have the authorization to establish enforcement perimeters and take protective actions.
But the police do not have unilateral plenary authority to take over a part of a city and make absolute statements like that.
While I do believe that the police should have been there, they should have had the mayor or city council prepare the police with statements to the people that a curfew would be put in place.
We cannot allow a precedent where we let elected city officials avoid calling for a state of emergency for political reasons, and then allow the police to operate unilaterally as if the city officials had done so. That's a slippery slope that eventually leads to abuse.
-PJ
Let me explain something to you. Whether you can grasp it or not, the police have the right to tell you what to do. You can take it up later with them, go to the city council, file a complaint. When an officers tells you to do something, you do it.
Asking people to go home is not abusive. It is a crowd control issue, and the officers on site have specific reason for ordering people off the street.
Where did you ever get the idea it was unlawful for an officer to tell people what to do?
Ever been to an accident site? Try walking up to the dead victim on a public street. See what happens if you refuse to vacate the accident site.
You don’t know what you are talking about.
Again with absolute terms....which makes you wrong out of the box....no the cops shouldn’t be there right now...the national guard should be there now and a legal curfew should be put in place by elected officials.
dispatch a bit ago - white man with gun patrolling his neighborhood - man called the police to tell them not to shoot him if they saw him out patrolling.
Leo copters can shoot back
______________________________________________________
No they can’t shoot from helicopters.
If I cannot shoot someone running away from me after I was punched in the face, then why the hell can a cop get away with that?????
Are you people truly this comfortable in a Police State???
Fair enough. You’ve had your say.
I can agree with you in terms of police abuse when it takes place. I do not see this situation in the same terms you do.
These are special circumstances and the police sought to make a show of force to discourage more rioting. Instead they ran into a group wanting to protest on a night when it just wasn’t a good idea.
Thanks for your comments.
Which is why it’s ok to shoot at police helicopters, right?
You in post 352:
If they’re shooting at helicopters, why were law enforcement choppers flying tonight?
Sorry, but they do have that right.
They are there to ensure public safety and preserve the peace.
You may not like being told no, but sometimes it’s a no.
This was not a good night to hold a protest in that area. It was a well meaning but hair-brained idea.
The officers had every right to demand folks clear the area. It was for cause. It was reasonable.
They weren’t doing it to cover their ass. They were doing it to protect the protesters as much as anything else. They expect more rioting. They didn’t want to protesters to be exposed to danger. They had every right to demand they vacate the area.
I’m sorry, but you guys are dead wrong. The city council does not have to issue any edicts or statement.
The officers are hired to protect the public and preserve the peace. If they ask folks to leave, those folks better leave. Once they defy a lawful police order, and this certainly was one, then they are guilty of a crime.
Yes, that was my post...
If they banned news choppers from covering the event due to safety issues, why would they risk flying police helicopters over the neighborhoods?
It’s not that it’s ok, it’s that there is a big difference between engaging in combat and shooting a fleeing assailant vs. shooting someone who hasn’t attacked.
Don’t be ridiculous.
You’re a real hoot. Officers are now ineligible to police city streets. If a riot takes place, the police are instantly disqualified from clearing an area, preventing more rioting or people assembling in a dangerous area.
Wow. Crim, nice try but honestly...
They damn sure are! They arrested two journalists at McDonalds for not packing up quickly enough. Then later they gave orders over the PA for them to turn off their cameras. Then they threw tear gas directly at clearly marked journalist vehicles to disperse them. Then they walked directly up to them and told them to turn it off or be arrested. (All different journalists.)
Yeah, they're censoring the media coverage.
There was no looting occurring at the time of that photo.
We were trained never to point a live weapon at anyone unless we intended to pull the trigger. I guess that does not apply to cops training and sighting in weapons like that on a crowd of unarmed civilians????
Is this America or some fascist dictatorship we now live?? I'm assuming you are okay living in a Police State.
One day it will be used against you, and you will have given your stamp of approval in advance.
Let me explain something to you. Whether you can grasp it or not, the police have the right to tell you what to do.”
Wow....simply wow....
No...the police can only give you a lawful order...
Until there is a curfew put in place by elected official s...telling you to be off the streets is NOT a lawful order....
And why do you keep dodgingthe fact that the national guard should be the ones bringing order to a “riot zone” as you put it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.