Vets react to Ferguson police

http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-08-15/us-veteran-says-police-response-ferguson-isn-t-country-we-fought-protect (the tweets at the bottom are pretty good too)

This story is so idiotic and some of us discussed it already on FB, so I will try to be brief. I just thank heavens that the Ferguson cops didn't gravely injure and kill a lot of people in their frenzy. Apart from the actual shooting incident (details of which are still indeterminate), the police's "peacekeeping effort"s have been so off the deep end - almost rivaling Kent State territory, or the Occupied Territories.

This is similar to the gun issue, I think. some Americans may believe that tech/weapons/stuff can suffice as solutions to threats and problems (obviously the arms industry wants us to believe that). Maybe it's true that overwhelming force helps when you are trying to wipe out an enemy batallion or seize territory. But obviously the iron fist approach breaks down in occupations/insurgencies (too many examples to list), and should never be the goal of a police operation. Because unlike an army that can withdraw and go home after a victory (and the aftermath of their violence is not really a top concern), the next day the cops have to still live with the people they scared/harassed/hurt - and likely for many more days afterward. That's why managing relationships and de-escalating conflicts are better than "crushing your enemy", and no advanced weapons system can do that better than an intelligent, compassionate, well-trained peace officer (even if they're unarmed, like the UK and Norwegian cops). What happened to having a conversation, especially when many of the protesters were nonviolent and within their Constitutional rights?

As the vets who tweeted in that article said, a show of force can be counter-productive if the objective is to manage an angry population. Clearly the gear by itself is not enough to maintain order long-term, but such weaponry in the hands of undisciplined, untrained, and probably prejudiced/beligerent morons is even worse. "Petty force" by petty bullies, as David Brooks said recently. All that gear makes them feel like Rambo, and Rambo doesn't take no shit from no one (the whole SYG convo we had). If our occupying soldiers (with less gear and employing less heavy-handed tactics) could often coexist with Iraqis and Afghans, who were bigger threats and hated them more than black people may (justifiably) hate US cops, then what are police forces like Ferguson trying to achieve?

I thought the crackdowns on the WTO and OWS protesters were bad, but they look like Boy Scouts in comparison. I fear that episodes like Ferguson are going to happen again and again, because the underlying forces are unchanged or getting worse (us vs. them style policing, surplus wargear that someone wants to find a use for, community inequality/segregation, culture of fear/violence in America). What concerns me is who can/will step in if amateurish police depts like Ferguson go too far? Even with the media everywhere, they didn't care. The police were acting like fascists, as one vet said. I am pretty sure no one is going to lose their job over this though, which adds to the tragedy.

So in the future, if a dept. displays even worse judgment, who will step in to protect the citizenry? That is supposed to be the cops' job, but what happens when they become the threat? Will the governor deploy the National Guard in a timely manner? Courts and investigations happen after the dust has settled, but who will stand up to the cops in the moment? Unfortunately this may make citizens feel like they need to take matters into hands (a la Cliven Bundy and right-wing militias), which will only perpetuate the cycle of distrust/violence and feed the police's mania.

Other links:

Eric Garner case

Police misconduct costs communities hundreds of millions in lawsuits a year

Bill Maher even before Ferguson and Garner happened

Military compared to cops