'This Is Not Open For Discussion' — Massive SWAT Team Tells Peaceful Protesters In Ferguson To Leave

Business Insider ^ | 08/13/2014 | Paul Szoldra

[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.

[Crim]

The national guard should already have been there Monday....stop mid representing my position here

[dragnet2]

Why shouldn’t police copters be flying? They have no business doing so?

It's supposed to be about safety right? Isn't that why they restricted the airspace?

For example LAPD has halted flight operations in certain areas on the forth of July, New Years etc, due to safety issues...Not only for those on the aircraft Ray, but those innocent on the ground.

[INVAR]

See, this whole stupid argument is the result of a people who surrendered their right of self-defense to the government to ‘protect’ them.

An armed people with the right of self-defense would stop mayhem and rioting of their property more effectively than an armed civilian security force.

But see, we no long trust our neighbors with liberty.

Instead we only trust government and it’s agents.

And this is why we are having this stupid argument.

[no-to-illegals]

think such cannot happen here when it is unfolding

Agreement ... all is unfolding right before our eyes. Kind of makes one sad.

[DoughtyOne]

Crim, I know you’re doing the best you can. Unfortunately, it isn’t good enough on this one.

Whether you like it or not, or whether you understand it or not, the police have the right to demand you clear an area. No curfew has to have been called. No national guard is required.

Try to think of all the special circumstances where the police limit access and have to demand the public do certain things without a curfew or national guard involvement.

This is the same thing. Police have the right to direct the public to obey their demands. The public is required to follow their orders.

Try not follow a policeman’s orders and see just how far you get in court before you are fined or jailed.

As for my comment that folk were supporting the rioters, it may surprise you to know that if you trash the only people who are there to stop the rioters, what that in essence means.

It means the rioters are free to do what they want.

Duh!

[DoughtyOne]

Wrong!

This is a riot situation.

[Crim]

Bingo.

Yesterdays tea party protest is tomorrows riot as the overton window moves.

There are procedures in place to handle this crap but elected officials are not employing then for some reason.

[Crim]

The forum rules prevent me from properly addressing your insults.....so its time for the eye test.....how many fingers am I holding up?

[blueplum]

Warriors in the field wear their gear every day. They learn quickly what they need and what isn’t essential. So, yes, they would travel lighter. But I agree with your point.

The govt makes it easy by selling equip to PDs at 10cents on the dollar, or less. Military-outfitted/looking cops project an image of a ‘standing domestic army’ which many people find objectionable. If it’s true that ‘the uniform makes the man’ I would personally prefer the blue shirts of regular PD folks over camo because I think those uniforms are less inflamatory and less triggering of PTSD hostility in former warriors now serving as cops.

[INVAR]

And next week, and next month what happened in Murietta, CA will be declared a riot situation and the National Civilian Security Force will be called out to disperse anyone attempting to stop busses of Illegals from being dropped off in their town.

You do not get it. Not at all.

You have no idea where this precedent is going to be directed - and yet some of us see it as if it were last year’s news.

As I said before, you obviously have no problem living in a police state.

Enjoy.

[DoughtyOne]

Probably enough to cover your IQ on this issue.

[DoughtyOne]

Invar, this is not evidence of a police state. It is evidence of a circumstance where crowd control was imperative.

It was an idiotic idea to go out there and protest in a riot zone. The police needed to have the area cleared. Law abiding citizens should have understood and complied with the officers instead of causing trouble.

Not only did it interfere with the police trying to keep the area under control, it put the protesters in danger.

I wouldn’t want my wife out there. I wouldn’t want my brother out there.

Criminal activity has been taking place. Death and destruction have resulted. No the good people of the area decide it’s a great idea to mix decent folks violent thugs and rioters. Rational?

Here you hare fixated on the officers being armed. As I said before perhaps to you, those officers have my permission to shoot rioters on sight. End of story.

If you think that’s a police state, then you evidently don’t know what used to take place when rioters were observed doing what rioters do.

Care to talk about that precedent. Police state?

The rioters got a free pass for several nights. Is that your idea of a police state?

Wow...

Who here doesn’t get it?

[Nebr FAL owner]

The folks haven’t been looting since Monday night . The people of Ferguson are even BOOING & Cussing at Al Sharpton this is more than a riot over a shooting .

It is a protest over the police taking more than 3 days to announce that the officer involved in the original shooting was on desk duty & the lack of faith on the part of the locals in the honesty ,integrity & Constitutional fidelity of the local cops

[INVAR]

When did we accept the idea that “Peace officers” were warriors?

Is ‘warrior cop’ now what it means to have a badge? When did this mindset happen?

I guess it must have been when so many decided that living in a police state was okay and for our own protection.

[blueplum]

there was a curfew announced:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2014/08/13/ferguson_protest_curfew_police_ask_residents_not_to_gather_after_dark.html

[Nebr FAL owner]

Shooting unarmed folks protesting a questionable shooting is one of those ideas that is right up there with trying to butt rape a porcupine. I wouldn’t try it but if you want to, go right ahead & see what it gets you other than a whole lot of pain.

[Crim]

Bout frickin time....now the guard needs to be sent in to enforce it.

[Crim]

Hold on that is a request in the form of a press release....no curfew is in place yet

[INVAR]

Invar, this is not evidence of a police state. Oh really? Could have fooled me.

It is evidence of a circumstance where crowd control was imperative.

As it will be said is needed here or some instance like this one:

I guess it will just depend on what Authority declares it to be an instance where crowd control is deemed to be imperative.

Methinks the regime will declare something like this to definitely be an instance where crowd control is an imperative:

It was an idiotic idea to go out there and protest in a riot zone.

As it will one day soon be said it is idiotic to go protest Federal Buses transporting illegals into your town, or worse yet, protest the Federal government itself. Truly idiotic.

Such cases definitely call for the Civilian Security Forces to show up in MRAPs and tanks with mounted weapons sighted into the crowds.

Not only did it interfere with the police trying to keep the area under control, it put the protesters in danger.

Yes. Not only did stopping those busses in Murietta interfere with the Federal Government transporting 'refugees', but it put the 'protesters' in danger. So calling out the troops to contain them would definitely be in order.

Here you hare fixated on the officers being armed. As I said before perhaps to you, those officers have my permission to shoot rioters on sight. End of story.

Seig Heil! You make such a wonderful Comrade! To know that the regime can count on your permission to shoot the 'rioters' in the bottom two pics I posted on sight. End of story. You already love the Police State!

Care to talk about that precedent. Police state?

I have been all along. You simply do not get it. You approve a Police state now. What difference does it make who an armed Security Force with MRAPS and mounted weapons is called out to use against? It can be argued that anyone protesting the government or protesting anyone in authority is engaged in a 'riot' - especially after the Security Forces tonight decreed that the protest in front of them was no longer 'peaceful' by their own criteria.

Shoot on sight I think you said. End of story.

So sad so many American have even mentally traded the idea of self defense to a militarized police force.

[BuckeyeTexan]

I realize your posts weren’t addressed to me directly, but I want to clarify something anyway.

Under MO law, the protesters gathered tonight were guilty of disturbing the peace by simply standing in the street and blocking traffic.

Under MO law, when six or more of them agreed to violate state law by force or violence, they were guilty of unlawful assembly and when they actually used said force or committed said violence, they were guilty of rioting. (Well, not guilty until convicted, but you get the point.)

I have no problem with the police clearing the area. In fact, they first addressed the disturbance of peace by telling the protesters to get on the sidewalk and out of the street. Then they let it slide for quite a while when the protesters moved back into the street. Then they told them to get back from police vehicles at least 25 feet. That’s all well and good.

The problems, for me at least, were:

- pointing their rifles directly at protesters when no laws were being broken
- immediately launching (a whole of) tear gas when one person threw a bottle at the SWAT truck (Why not arrest the one person? It was one not six.)
- intimidating, assaulting, and arresting journalists
- illegally ordering journalists to turn off cameras
- choosing and using an extreme show of force when (a significantly) lesser force was an option
- a good deal more that it is too late to get into

In Ferguson, both sides are in the wrong. I will not pick a side. I choose justice and peace.