Hat tip Stuck
Anyone who thinks race does not skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention, Sen. Rand Paul writes for TIME, amid violence in Ferguson, Mo. over the police shooting death of Michael Brown
The shooting of 18-year-old Michael Brown is an awful tragedy that continues to send shockwaves through the community of Ferguson, Missouri and across the nation.
If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.
The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.
The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.
Glenn Reynolds, in Popular Mechanics, recognized the increasing militarization of the police five years ago. In 2009 he wrote:
Soldiers and police are supposed to be different. … Police look inward. They’re supposed to protect their fellow citizens from criminals, and to maintain order with a minimum of force.
It’s the difference between Audie Murphy and Andy Griffith. But nowadays, police are looking, and acting, more like soldiers than cops, with bad consequences. And those who suffer the consequences are usually innocent civilians.
The Cato Institute’s Walter Olson observed this week how the rising militarization of law enforcement is currently playing out in Ferguson:
Why armored vehicles in a Midwestern inner suburb? Why would cops wear camouflage gear against a terrain patterned by convenience stores and beauty parlors? Why are the authorities in Ferguson, Mo. so given to quasi-martial crowd control methods (such as bans on walking on the street) and, per the reporting of Riverfront Times, the firing of tear gas at people in their own yards? (“‘This my property!’ he shouted, prompting police to fire a tear gas canister directly at his face.”) Why would someone identifying himself as an 82nd Airborne Army veteran, observing the Ferguson police scene, comment that “We rolled lighter than that in an actual warzone”?
Olson added, “the dominant visual aspect of the story, however, has been the sight of overpowering police forces confronting unarmed protesters who are seen waving signs or just their hands.”
How did this happen?
Most police officers are good cops and good people. It is an unquestionably difficult job, especially in the current circumstances.
There is a systemic problem with today’s law enforcement.
Not surprisingly, big government has been at the heart of the problem. Washington has incentivized the militarization of local police precincts by using federal dollars to help municipal governments build what are essentially small armies—where police departments compete to acquire military gear that goes far beyond what most of Americans think of as law enforcement.
This is usually done in the name of fighting the war on drugs or terrorism. The Heritage Foundation’s Evan Bernick wrote in 2013 that, “the Department of Homeland Security has handed out anti-terrorism grants to cities and towns across the country, enabling them to buy armored vehicles, guns, armor, aircraft, and other equipment.”
Bernick continued, “federal agencies of all stripes, as well as local police departments in towns with populations less than 14,000, come equipped with SWAT teams and heavy artillery.”
Bernick noted the cartoonish imbalance between the equipment some police departments possess and the constituents they serve, “today, Bossier Parish, Louisiana, has a .50 caliber gun mounted on an armored vehicle. The Pentagon gives away millions of pieces of military equipment to police departments across the country—tanks included.”
When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.
Given these developments, it is almost impossible for many Americans not to feel like their government is targeting them. 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 part of the anguish we are seeing in the tragic events outside of St. Louis, Missouri. It is what the citizens of Ferguson feel when there is an unfortunate and heartbreaking shooting like the incident with Michael Brown.
Anyone who thinks that race does not still, even if inadvertently, skew the application of criminal justice in this country is just not paying close enough attention. Our prisons are full of black and brown men and women who are serving inappropriately long and harsh sentences for non-violent mistakes in their youth.
The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.
Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country.
Let us continue to pray for Michael Brown’s family, the people of Ferguson, police, and citizens alike.
Paul is the junior U.S. Senator for Kentucky.
Ferguson police allege slain teen had stolen cigars
By MarketWatch, MarketWatch
The police chief of Ferguson, Mo., has identified the officer whose fatal shooting on Aug. 9 of an unarmed teen ignited days of protests and also, according to the Associated Press, released documents alleging that the 18-year-old Michael Brown was killed after a robbery in which he was suspected of stealing a box of cigars.
Police Chief Thomas Jackson released a set of reports and documents Friday at a press conference, according to the AP report. Jackson identified the officer involved as Darren Wilson. The officer was reported to have been on administrative leave since the deadly incident.
Brown and a friend were suspected of stealing a box of cigars — worth $48.99, according to the AP report — from a store in Ferguson that morning, the police documents reportedly indicated.
“Ferguson police allege slain teen had stolen cigars …” ——- above article
I stopped reading at “allege”.
The copfuk and his handlers WILL lie to protect their own. It’s already happening. Blame the victim.
Before this is all over the copfuk will be one of Amerika’s greatest heroes ever … a man who despite fearing for his life charged forward to serve&protect the public from what was obviously one of the most feared terrorist thugs to ever walk the earth. Copfuk will receive The Medal Of Honor, a full pension, they’ll name a street after him, and he’ll soon become an “expert commentator” on Fux News.
How a Demonstration Turned Into a Disaster
The outrageous police actions in Ferguson, Missouri.
By Jamelle Bouie
FERGUSON, Missouri—On Wednesday afternoon, a healthy-sized group of local organizers, religious leaders, parents, and teenagers walked down West Florissant—the street where Michael Brown was killed—chanting the unofficial slogan of the Ferguson demonstrations. “Hands up, don’t shoot! No justice, no peace!”
Jamelle Bouie
They were energized, animated, and peaceful. They were holding signs with slogans such as “Love, Peace & Prayer Equals Non-Violence” and demanding answers from police officials, who—four days after the shooting—have yet to release the name of the officer who shot Brown, nor have they said how many times he shot the unarmed 18-year-old.
Directly across from them, sitting near the intersection where rioters burned a convenience store on Sunday, were the local police, clad in riot gear and armed with batons. It was a bit much, given the modest, peaceful crowd, but it was a de-escalation from Tuesday, when SWAT teams entered the fray to disperse the demonstrators.
After an hour of marching, speeches, and calls for justice, most of the group moved to a nearby parking lot, where they continued to talk and demonstrate. A small number, however (including a state senator), wouldn’t budge, even after clergy asked them to move. They weren’t disruptive—they were sitting down, hands up—but they were blocking the road.
Still, the situation was calm. It wouldn’t have been easy, but police could have worked with the leaders of the demonstration to move people to the sidewalks and the parking lots.
Instead, they brought reinforcements. Police officers were replaced with camouflaged SWAT teams—clad in helmets and body armor—and batons were replaced with shotguns, high-powered rifles, and dogs. They didn’t identify themselves, and it wasn’t clear to the crowd where they were from. But St. Louis County has been in command of officers on the street since Sunday, and one of the armored vehicles was labeled “St. Charles County SWAT.” In any case, they weren’t interested in actual crowd control. On at least two occasions, they refused to let uninvolved bystanders go to their cars or leave the area. No, from their stance to their numbers, this was about intimidation. Two snipers monitored the demonstrators from their armored vehicles, and other police began to close off side streets and other exits, to prevent anyone from coming in (or going out, for that matter).
With the arrival of SWAT teams, the demonstration escalated into a standoff. And an hour after the teams’ arrival, they began marching down the street and shouting orders. “You must return to your vehicles, or your homes, in a peaceful manner,” they said, advancing down the street, “Your right to assembly is not being denied.”
The crowd backed away from the police, but people were clearly agitated by the show of force. Still, there was no aggression. At this point, I drove 15 minutes down the road to another event, one organized by the demonstrators. The contrast was incredible. There, hundreds of people were gathered in a community party, oblivious to the crackdown three miles away.
This is ridiculous. Where is the governor of Missouri and why are there not Missouri State Police taking over the situation so that sanity can be brought back to Ferguson? More…
When I returned to the standoff, an hour after SWAT teams arrived, streets were completely blocked off, helicopters were circling, and officers were pouring tear gas onto West Florissant and the surrounding neighborhood, launching flash bangs, shooting rubber bullets, and using noise-based weapons to force people inside.
Police say this was a necessary response—someone had thrown a Molotov cocktail, and there is a photo to confirm as much. But the full picture tells a different story. If elements of the crowd reacted with violence, it’s because police stoked it with repression.
So far, police have killed an unarmed teenager, stonewalled anyone requesting information, and met peaceful demonstrations with draconian crackdowns. Indeed, at every stage, police have opted for repression rather than communication. Which is to say that, as much as some reports have focused on the Sunday night riot, the chaos in Ferguson has much more to do with a militarized, out-of-control police presence than it does with any of the demonstrators.
Why the feds are putting grenade launchers in the hands of local cops
Updated by Dara Lind on August 14, 2014, 9:41 a.m. ET
Confrontations between protestors and heavily armed police over the past several days in Ferguson, Missouri have left many observers wondering how suburban police departments come to have so much military-style equipment in the first place. The answer, roughly, is that in the 1990s, when federal, state and local governments were scrambling to win the “war on drugs” and fight high crime rates, the federal government started helping local police officers get military equipment.
As Afghanistan and Iraq wind down, the military has a lot of excess weaponry
That’s still going on — and with the winding down of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars under the Obama administration, the Department of Defense finds itself with a lot of excess military equipment on its hands.
Put these two trends together, and you get a lot of local police departments and sheriff’s offices asking for, and getting, armored personnel carriers, grenade launchers, and M-16s.
A story in the New York Times looks into where this equipment ends up — and how locals feel about equipment that was developed for use in Iraq and Afghanistan ending up on their streets.
“It just seems like ramping up a police department for a problem we don’t have,” said Shay Korittnig, a father of two who spoke against getting the armored truck at a recent public meeting in Neenah(, WI). “This is not what I was looking for when I moved here, that my children would view their local police officer as an M-16-toting, SWAT-apparel-wearing officer.”
The New York Times article reports that the Pentagon has sent local police departments “tens of thousands of machine guns; nearly 200,000 ammunition magazines; thousands of pieces of camouflage and night-vision equipment; and hundreds of silencers, armored cars and aircraft” over the past several years. But that’s actually just scratching the surface of the military equipment that local police departments can get.
Kara Dansky, an ACLU scholar who studies police militarization, says that there are three different federal programs that help local cops get military gear. The one covered by the Times is a Department of Defense program that directly transfers equipment to local law enforcement agencies. But there are two federal grant programs — one run through the Department of Justice, and one run through the Department of Homeland Security — that give local cops money to purchase their own equipment. And much of the equipment they buy is also military-style.
In the Times article, law enforcement officers make the case that criminals and terrorists are always innovating, so police need to innovate too. “I wish it were the way it was when I was a kid,” says the police chief of Neenah, a small town in Wisconsin. (Neenah has a 9-foot-tall armored truck that came from the federal government; it hasn’t had a murder in five years.) Some officers freely admit they’re talking about worst-case scenarios that “may not ever happen,” but say that their communities understand the need to be prepared for a worst-case scenario just in case.
But Dansky, and others, point out that isn’t what actually happens once police get military gear. Instead, when they have something, they feel the need to use it — one of the main programs through which police departments get military equipment formally requires use within one year, and even in the absence of such requirements the psychological and institutional pressure to use new toys is hard to resist. This has already happened with the proliferation of SWAT teams around the country, also supported by federal funds and training. When more police departments get SWAT teams, they conduct more SWAT raids. And as they conduct more SWAT raids, Dansky says, “increasingly they are being used for everyday warrant service,” according to surveys of police.
Historically, Dansky says, “The militarization of policing has occurred almost in the absence of public oversight.” Right now, there are some public records for the program the Times covers that gives cops equipment, but very little for the programs that give cops money to buy equipment.
But the Times article shows the public might be paying more attention: residents in Neenah are opposed to their department’s use of military gear, and a county in Maine managed to persuade its sheriff to withdraw a request for a “mine-resistant vehicle.” If residents are paying more attention to what equipment ends up in the hands of local cops, they might be able to provide the oversight that isn’t possible at the federal level.
Congressman Hank Johnson of Georgia Will Introduce Bill to Stop the Militarization of Police
Michael Krieger | Posted Friday Aug 15, 2014 at 3:07 pm
I pointed out yesterday in my detailed thoughts on Ferguson, President Obama has once again proved his irrelevance and uselessness by failing to say anything meaningful on the disturbing events of the past week. In fact, he only decided to address it personally and publicly yesterday after being heavily criticized for issuing a press release about the party he attended in Martha’s Vineyard as civilians in Missouri clashed with a paramilitary police force.
Despite Obama’s complete apathy, there are some Congressmen forcefully speaking out against the trend from “both sides” of the increasingly meaningless Republican and Democrat divide. The most noteworthy thus far appears to be Democrat Rep. Hank Johnson of Georgia’s 4th Congressional district. In fact, he has sent a Dear Colleague letter to fellow representatives of his intention to introduce the Stop Militarizing Law Enforcement Act in September when Congress returns from recess.
The Hill reports that:
A Democratic congressman from Georgia is drafting legislation to limit a Pentagon program that provides surplus military equipment to local law enforcement.
Rep. Hank Johnson is pushing the legislation amid the situation in Ferguson, Mo., where an armed police presence has taken to the streets after mass protests over a police shooting.
“Our main streets should be a place for business, families, and relaxation, not tanks and M16s,” Johnson wrote in a Dear Colleague letter sent Thursday to other members of Congress.
“As the tragedy in Missouri unfolds, one thing is clear. Our local police are becoming militarized,” Johnson’s office said in a statement.
Johnson said he will introduce the bill in September, when Congress returns from a five-week recess. He has been worked on the legislation for months, but his office said the current situation highlights the need for the bill.
Johnson criticized the Pentagon’s ’1033′ program, which offers surplus military equipment to state and local law enforcement, including M16 rifles and mine-resistant ambush protected vehicles (MRAP).
Considering that most mainstream media watching Americans had no idea how out of control the police militarization had become, perhaps Rep. Johnson’s bill has a fighting chance. If it is to pass, bi-partisan support is crucial and this is hopefully one of those issues libertarians and progressives can find common ground on. There is reason to be somewhat optimistic considering Rand Paul’s op-ed in Time yesterday titled: We Must Demilitarize the Police. Here are some excerpts:
If I had been told to get out of the street as a teenager, there would have been a distinct possibility that I might have smarted off. But, I wouldn’t have expected to be shot.
The outrage in Ferguson is understandable—though there is never an excuse for rioting or looting. There is a legitimate role for the police to keep the peace, but there should be a difference between a police response and a military response.
The images and scenes we continue to see in Ferguson resemble war more than traditional police action.
When you couple this militarization of law enforcement with an erosion of civil liberties and due process that allows the police to become judge and jury—national security letters, no-knock searches, broad general warrants, pre-conviction forfeiture—we begin to have a very serious problem on our hands.
The militarization of our law enforcement is due to an unprecedented expansion of government power in this realm. It is one thing for federal officials to work in conjunction with local authorities to reduce or solve crime. It is quite another for them to subsidize it.
Americans must never sacrifice their liberty for an illusive and dangerous, or false, security. This has been a cause I have championed for years, and one that is at a near-crisis point in our country.
Protect your wealth – Buy Gold and Silver Bullion with Goldbroker.com
However, passing such a bill will be no easy task. For example, in June Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) introduced an amendment to H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act, which would have prohibited funds from being used to transfer certain kinds of military surplus to local police departments. Sadly, the vote wasn’t even close. It failed 62-355, including a no vote from Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), whose district includes Ferguson. Reason reported on this tragedy:
In June, the House of Representatives voted on a series of amendments to H.R. 4435, the National Defense Authorization Act. Among the amendments was one by Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) which would’ve prohibited funds from being used to transfer certain kinds of military surplus to local police departments. The amendment failed by a wide margin, with only 62 votes for and 355 against.
Among those voting against this bill, which would slow down the militarization of America’s police forces, was Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), whose district includes Ferguson, Missouri, where many Americans have gotten their first glimpse of America’s militarized police in action.
House leadership on both sides also voted against it, including Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Steny Hoyer (D-Md.), Eric Cantor (R-Va.), and Kevin McCarthy (R-Calif.).
Establishment bipartisan criminality, as usual.
Supporters of the amendment include the usual civil libertarian suspects, such as Reps. Justin Amash (R-Mich.), who called attention to this vote on Twitter earlier today, John Conyers (D-Mich.), Rush Holt (D-NJ), Walter Jones (R-NC), Raul Labrador (R-Idaho), John Lewis (D-Ga.), who nevertheless called for martial law in Ferguson, Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), and Mark Sanford (R-SC). Fourteen other Republicans and 43 other Democrats voted for the amendment.
See how your representative voted here.
Optimism for Rep. Johnson’s bill should come from the fact the issue has been thrust front and center due to recent events in Ferguson. That said, like anything else in American politics, actually passing legislation in the best interests of the American public is almost impossible due to the overwhelming influence of special interest money. Indeed, David Sirota noted earlier today that:
According to data compiled by Maplight, the lawmakers “voting to continue funding the 1033 Program have received, on average, 73 percent more money from the defense industry than representatives voting to defund it.” In all, the average lawmaker voting against the bill received more than $50,000 in campaign donations from the defense industry in the last two years. The report also found that of the 59 lawmakers who received more than $100,000 from defense contractors in the last two years, only four voted for Grayson’s legislation.
Given the reality of defense company spending, this battle will not be an easy one. This is why I ask you to spread this post around and contract your Senators and Representatives to make it clear this issue is very important to you and you will be watching how they vote.
In Liberty,
Michael Krieger
Grenade launchers? http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/08/15/us/surplus-military-equipment-map.html?_r=1
A few squads of patriots with mil experience & any other patriots armed well & with some kind of formal training would make these cops think real hard about how much of a fight they wanted. That’s what should’ve happened there. The patriots should’ve gone out to protect the protestors & form that line in defense. The cops would not like armed men out there but there ain’t nothing they could do about it except shoot and then get shot at too. We got body armor too. We got the same weapons. We got big trucks we can use to smash those APC’s. Shyt, place a few snipers from our end out a mile aiming at the pigs with a good .308 round or something & f–k their shyt up. I mean, as a soldier (former) I view this all as a military occupation of my own country by our own people against us. F–k that.
To Rand Paul also, how do you expect to do something that has taken 40 something years to form? Peacefully? It won’t happen without the blood of these pigs being shed as well as patriots blood shed too. Every cop is an enemy, doesn’t matter what his job is specifically, he’s an extension of the tyrannical government. Take your pick, local, state, federal? It doesn’t matter.