Posted on 08/14/2014 2:41:49 PM PDT by nickcarraway
The outrage over the shooting death of Michael Brown escalated in part because of a sense that nothing had changed, that police officers were still operating in minority communities with a wantonness and brutality that belonged to another era.
But over the past two days — as the police in Ferguson have responded to very angry protests with an alarmingly heavy hand, looking and reacting as if they were not the community's own peace officers but an invading army — something remarkable has happened. The longstanding liberal concerns about police racial hostility has seemed to merge with the longstanding libertarian concerns over police militarization. It isn't just that no one is defending the cops. It's that many of the criticisms from the left and the right sound very similar.
"We need to demilitarize this situation" is how Democratic Senator Claire McCaskill's statement began this morning. The whole piece sounded awfully similar to Senator Rand Paul's op-ed, which appeared a little bit later under the headline, "We Must De-Militarize the police."
Kevin D. Williamson, the roving correspondent for the conservative journal National Review, wrote from Ferguson this morning of "ridiculously militarized suburban police ... pointing rifles at people from atop armored cars, i.e. the worst sort of mall ninjas." (This is the same Kevin D. Williamson who compared a black child to a primate 24 hours earlier.) In a similar vein, the liberal MSNBC host Chris Hayes introduced a segment on police militarization on his show last night by mentioning the surreal fact that the police — in a suburban setting, not a jungle, were wearing camouflage: "What exactly are they trying to camouflage into?"
By no means has every conservative been outraged by the police response in Ferguson. On Fox News this morning, the story was still that the protestors threw Molotov cocktails, and the police responded. But the argument against a militarized police is a longstanding libertarian concern, whose most dogged journalistic proponent has been the libertarian Radley Balko, author of The Rise of the Warrior Cop. Just as notably, the conservative perspective on law and order has been subtly changing, most obviously in the strengthening conservative enthusiasm for reforming prison sentencing, a cause embraced not only by libertarians like Mike Lee and Rand Paul but also by more conventional Republicans like Marco Rubio and Paul Ryan.
Even given this recent history, it was still striking today to see Rand Paul, in his statement, turn from more general concerns about the militarization of police to the specific topic of race: "Given the racial disparities in our criminal justice system, it is impossible for African-Americans not to feel like their government is particularly targeting them."
This is exactly the argument that liberals have been making for an awfully long time, but that conservatives have rarely joined. It seems hard to imagine, given how clearly the conversation has turned to militarization, that we won't hear more of this. Watching the reaction to Ferguson, it seems possible that the talk about police militarization might function as a convenient rhetorical backdoor, a way for both liberals and conservatives to address the siege mentality that seems to have taken hold in many police departments and the alienation that breeds in communities.
Militarization is not the deepest problem that surfaced in Ferguson: Race still is. But militarization may be the actionable one.
Maybe congress and the senate?
Bass turds!
No one can condone what the SWAT team did you to and your family. However, I do not understand what that has to do with the apparel that the police use in a riot control situation.
Yes and those dreaded “assault weapons” they are carrying.
This situation has really brought out the Stormfront kooks.
give every law-abiding man in America an AR-15 and 100 rounds, and bring back the Bobbies....
And which party controlled Congress and the Presidency during much of the early-mid 2000s?
Sorry, but I have never seen police in military combat gear in the general public, nor have I seen police routinely driving military-style vehicles around town - they are usually driving Crown Vic’s and other very pedestrian models.
Of course,you could be thinking about SWAT teams, which most medium to large departments have. But those are very small, specialized units rarely deployed, but have been around for many decades.
Where have YOU been?
The RINO branch of The Big Government Party
Then the Batshit Crazy Lunatic Left branch of The Big Government Party booted them out and took over.
” Of course,you could be thinking about
SWAT teams, which most medium to
large departments have. But those are
very small, specialized units rarely
deployed, but have been around for many
decades.
Where have YOU been?”
Where have you been? SWAT raids are at 80k a year now, over some of the most minor stuff. You might want to start watching that activity.
You said this was dial an argument.
No I did not.
You did...
I'm telling you, I did not!
You did too..
Oh I'm sorry, is this a five minute argument, or the full half hour?
Ah, just the five minutes.
Just the five minutes. Thank you.
Anyway, I did.
You most certainly did not!
> So, sorry, I’m not a fan of SWAT teams being misused and I > am less a fan of social workers.
I couldn’t agree MORE!
The most INSANE thing in what is supposed to be a free country is “no knock” warrants with militarized SWAT teams.
“No knock” is ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL! (4th Amendment)
The ability of social workers to take action without a court finding is ANTI-CONSTITUTIONAL.
The police who dress up in combat gear do so to intimidate citizens. They also do it because they get a thrill out of putting on a costume that gives them license to do things they’d never do in a regular uniform. Not at all unlike the anarchists who put on black masks and then do things they’d never do if people could see their faces.
But do you advocate on the behalf of police state? Either way call the moderator!
Hey butt kisser, show them this http://www.infowars.com/swat-team-claims-they-were-helping-in-tear-gassing-of-journalists/
Can’t stand Cop Suckers.
While I generally support the LEO community, I do not support their desire to make decisions as to who and who should or “may” have a weapon.
None of their business generally.
They are constantly looking to undermine my BoR’s, Looking for new opportunities to make contact with citizens, lobbying for laws that really are already on the books and bar criminals from certain activities.
Wearing a seat belt is a good idea but, it should not be actionable and when they started they said it wouldn’t be used as a primary for contacting. Further, I don’t believe there should be a law demanding a citizen comply for something that really, really doesn’t affect another person from personal responsibility perspective.
Same with cell phones. If you can’t drive and focus on your primary responsibility - safety 1st, then maybe you shouldn’t be driving.
My parents drove with 6 of us in the car and they never got into an accidentally.
Probably, because if my Dad had to pull over because we weren’t being quiet and not listening to his voice well, it usually wasn’t a good thing...
Cops shouldn’t have exclusivity for weapons and armament, much less how many rounds you can store or the number of rounds you can fit in to a magazine.
One picture on this thread shows a DEA agent with his buddies.
He has a 30 round mag taped to another 30 round mag, so he can easily and quickly reload by simply moving the attached magazine over.
Finally, sovereign immunity and limited immunity need to be changed to force a change in behavior from LEO community.
If they can’t objectively be held to the same standard as any Joe Citizen, then they are no longer servants, so much as they are caretakers, who can exercise restraint or not depending on how their day is going.
You are proof of that.
Sticks and stones...
This is not a racial problem.
It is in Ferguson! Whiter people don’t act like savages bent on lawlessness.
_________________________
Our nation’s founding fathers were all white. I’m sure the British thought that taking up muskets and firing at them was pretty Lawless. Just saying.
Just saying.
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.