The state is big and powerful and violent and can hurt you

[Gob]

Much of the commentary on the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri, following the shooting death of Michael Brown by a police officer has been dominated by liberal outrage over what some see as racial injustice.

There is, however, a growing chorus from the conservative movement's libertarian wing that connects the perceived overreaction by a militarised local law enforcement to their critique of the heavy-handed power of government.

"The state is big and powerful and violent and can hurt you, whether it's the FDA, the state prosecutor or the local police force," writes Hot Air blog's Mary Katharine Ham, concisely summarising the gist of this libertarian argument.

Breitbart's John Nolte puts it a bit more sharply: "The media hate police but without them, who will ultimately force us to buy ObamaCare and confiscate our guns?"

On Wednesday night Congressman Justin Amash, a libertarian-leaning Republican embraced by the grass-roots Tea Party movement, tweeted that the news from Ferguson was "frightening", asking: "Is this a war zone or a US city? Gov't escalates tensions w/military equipment & tactics."

One of the leading figures in today's libertarian movement, Kentucky Senator Rand Paul, offers his take in an opinion piece for Time magazine on Thursday afternoon:

"When you couple this militarisation 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…

"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."

Reason magazine's Ed Krayewski builds on this theme of a militarised police force as the spear-point of an intrusive government, causing more harm than good:

"What's happening in Ferguson certainly looks like a counter-insurgency," he writes. "If cops keep it up long enough, some residents might respond with an insurgency. Around the world, insurgencies are fueled by unemployed young men with few prospects. It's the way things like this tend to work, actions and reactions, supply meeting demand, in this case residents filling roles cops seem to be waiting to have filled."

He continues by noting that much of the criticism of law enforcement abuses are instigated by laws that intrude on individual rights.

"Whether they look like it or not, cops will be an occupying force seeking compliance from local residents on behalf of democratically elected central authorities," he writes.

Comments like these mark a sharp break from the previous conservative embrace of government authority when it comes to public safety issues.

"The modern GOP, the one that elected Richard Nixon and built its base in the South and the suburbs, established early on that it was the 'law and order' party," writes Slate's David Weigel. "Only recently, as violent crime rates have tumbled, has the libertarian tendency of the GOP reasserted itself."

In Sunday's New York Times magazine cover story, Robert Draper asks: "Has the 'libertarian moment' finally arrived?" He cited poll data showing young people embracing smaller, less intrusive government and concluded that the once sidelined ideology could be poised to take control of the Republican Party.

The piece started a debate over libertarianism's current influence within the conservative movement and was criticised from both the right and the left for being an "unsophisticated, laughable fantasy".

That was before Ferguson exploded, night after shocking night. Now, with a few exceptions, law-and-order conservatives are silent (look, for instance, at the front page of the conservative commentary site Town Hall, where Iraq and Hillary Clinton continue to dominate the conversation).

Perhaps the libertarian moment has arrived after all, borne in the ashes and smoke of Missouri riots.

[Lord Jim]

This "militarization of the police" business is way over blown; SWAT teams have been around since at least the 70's and they've always a had a para-military "look" to them; (most of which comes from defensive equipment like helmets and body armor.) In Ferguson, the cops were using tear gas and rubber bullets; two tools they've had for a long time.

I'm not surprised that idiot Rand Paul would jump on this paranoid bandwagon; it fits in well with his general philosophy of being opposed to anything that society can do to protect itself from predators, foreign or domestic.

I really wish the media would stop calling this clown a conservative; he is anything but...

[Gob]

Washington: The most striking photographs from Ferguson, Missouri, aren't of Saturday's demonstrations or Sunday night's riots; they're of the police.



Image after image shows officers clad in Kevlar vests, helmets, and camouflage, armed with pistols, shotguns, automatic rifles, and tear gas. In one photo, protesters stand toe-to-toe with baton-wielding riot police, in another, an unarmed man faces several cops, each with rifles at the ready.

What's more, Ferguson police have used armoured vehicles to show force and control crowds. In one photo, riot gear-clad officers are standing in front of a mine-resistant ambush protected vehicle, barking commands and launching tear gas into groups of demonstrators and journalists.

This would be one thing if Ferguson were in a war zone, or if protesters were violent – although, it's hard to imagine a situation in which American police would need a mine-resistant vehicle. But an episode of looting aside, Ferguson police aren't dealing with any particular danger. Nonetheless, they're treating demonstrators – and Ferguson residents writ large – as a population to occupy, not citizens to protect.


This is part of a broader problem.

In his book The Rise of the Warrior Cop, journalist Radley Balko notes that since the 1960s, "law-enforcement agencies across the US, at every level of government, have been blurring the line between police officer and soldier. Driven by martial rhetoric and the availability of military-style equipment – from bayonets and M-16 rifles to armoured personnel carriers – American police forces have often adopted a mind-set previously reserved for the battlefield."

This process ramped up with the "war on drugs" in the 1980s and 1990s, as the federal government supplied local and state police forces with military-grade weaponry to clamp down on drug trafficking and other crime. And it accelerated again after the September 11 attacks and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, when the federal government had – and sent – billions in surplus military equipment to state and local governments.

Since 2006, according to an analysis by The New York Times, police departments have acquired 435 armoured vehicles, 533 planes, 93,763 machine guns and 432 mine-resistant armoured trucks.

Overall, since Congress established its program to transfer military hardware, local and state police departments have received $US4.3 billion worth of equipment. Accordingly, the value of military equipment used by these police agencies has increased from $US1 million in 1990 to $US324 million in 1995 (shortly after the program was established), to nearly $US450 million in 2013.

At the same time as crime has fallen to its lowest levels in decades, police departments are acquiring more hardware and finding more reasons to use SWAT teams and other heavy-handed tactics, regardless of the situation.



According to an American Civil Liberties Union report released this summer, 79 per cent of SWAT deployments from 2011 to 2012 were for search warrants, a massive overreaction that can have disastrous consequences, including injury and death.

That was the case for Aiyana Stanley-Jones, who was killed during a SWAT raid by the Detroit police department. Serving a search warrant for an occupant of the house, Detroit police rushed in with flash bangs and ballistic shields. When one resident tried to grab an officer's gun, it fired, striking Aiyana. She was seven.

If you know anything about the racial disparities in the US criminal justice system, then it also shouldn't shock you to learn that SWAT deployments are used disproportionately in black and Latino neighbourhoods. The ACLU found that 50 per cent of those affected by SWAT deployments were black and Latino. Of these deployments, 68 per cent were for drug searches.



That police are eager to use their new weapons and vehicles isn't a surprise. As The New York Times notes, "The ubiquity of SWAT teams has changed not only the way officers look, but also the way departments view themselves. Recruiting videos feature clips of officers storming into homes with smoke grenades and firing automatic weapons."

That is how we get images like the ones in Ferguson, where police officers brandish heavy weapons and act as an occupying force. We should expect as much when we give police departments military weapons. Already – when it comes to predominantly black and brown communities – there's a long-standing culture of aggressive, punitive policing. Add assault weapons and armoured vehicles, and you have a recipe for the repressive, violent reactions that we see in Ferguson, and that are likely inevitable in countless other poor American neighbourhoods.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/world/ferguson-pr ... z3AQQtyFZp

[BoSoxGal]

Hey, didn't I post about this jack-booted police thug problem over in "The United Police States of America"?

[liberty]

The government is dangerous; that is news to people? All government is dangerous that is just the nature of the beast. In our country, perhaps three to five percent of our convicts are innocent of the crime they were charged with and some have never committed any crime. But still I think we are better off than most countries in the world in our false convictions and other liberties. In some third world countries, the suspects can be beat into confessing and bet even in Europe suspects can be slapped around with impunity. Hell, unless the law has changed in Britain one can go to jail for expressing an unpopular opinion.

[Gob]

In some third world countries, the suspects can be beat into confessing and bet even in Europe suspects can be slapped around with impunity..

I'll take that bet!!

[liberty]

In some third world countries, the suspects can be beat into confessing and bet even in Europe suspects can be slapped around with impunity..

I'll take that bet!!

I might have to forfeit on the that bet; I don't have the time do the research. What do I loose?

You do consider Russia, Ukraine and Romania as European, right?

[Gob]

You do consider Russia, Ukraine and Romania as European, right?

No?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Russia east of the Urals.... that used to be known as European Russia when I was a lad. Asiatic Russia was all the rest.

The government is dangerous; that is news to people? All government is dangerous that is just the nature of the beast. In our country, perhaps three to five of our of convicts are innocent of a the crime they were charged with and some have never committed any crime

Well lib, I think we should jolly well find those three, four or five persons and do our best to set them free. Well, next week we'll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony, and Alan will be over in Moscow showing us how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. So, until next week, cheerio.

[Econoline]

mage after image shows officers clad in Kevlar vests, helmets, and camouflage, armed with pistols, shotguns, automatic rifles, and tear gas.

The camouflage does not seem to be working...I can still see them!

[rubato]

The Ocean is Big and Powerful and it can Hurt You!




Full of scarey monsters!




yrs,
rubato

[Sue U]

[liberty]

Russia east of the Urals.... that used to be known as European Russia when I was a lad. Asiatic Russia was all the rest.

The government is dangerous; that is news to people? All government is dangerous that is just the nature of the beast. In our country, perhaps three to five of our of convicts are innocent of a the crime they were charged with and some have never committed any crime

Well lib, I think we should jolly well find those three, four or five persons and do our best to set them free. Well, next week we'll be showing you how black and white people can live together in peace and harmony, and Alan will be over in Moscow showing us how to reconcile the Russians and the Chinese. So, until next week, cheerio.

Well there you go again general, making fun of me. You know that I left out the word percent and I meant to say, "three to five percent".

And, it is Russia west of the Ural Mountains that is European Russia.

[MajGenl.Meade]

[liberty]

So you consider yourself my sensei or whatever that word is in Japanese that means teacher? Well, that is fine with me as long as you provide plenty of explanation.

[Lord Jim]

Lib, I'm just disappointed that you were able to correct Meade before I got the chance to....

[liberty]

Lib, I'm just disappointed that you were able to correct Meade before I got the chance to....

The General doesn't make a lot of mistakes, so if you get the chance you better move fast. He is pretty good for a second rate Yankee general?

[dgs49]

QUOTE:

Afterward, a convenience store was looted. Several other stores along a main road near the shooting scene were broken into, including a check-cashing store, a boutique and a small grocery store. People also took items from a sporting goods store and a cellphone retailer, and carted rims away from a tire store.

TV footage showed streams of people walking out of a liquor store carrying bottles of alcohol, and in some cases protesters were standing atop police cars or taunting officers who stood stoic, often in riot gear.

Other witnesses reported seeing people vandalize police cars and kick in windows. Television footage showed windows busted out of a TV station van.

Now.

The police are charged with protecting not only people, but private property. And into the situation described above, it appears to be the consensus of this Board that the police should have come in wearing baseball caps and T-shirts, and carrying bags of candy for the children.

Seems reasonable to me.

[Econoline]

Something worth thinking about...

It's important, when something goes wrong, to be clear about what it is that's at issue. Talking up Michael Brown as this season's Trayvonesque angel of peace and scholarship was foolish, and looting stores in his saintly memory even worse. But this week's pictures from Ferguson, such as the one above, ought to be profoundly disquieting to those Americans of a non-looting bent.

The most basic problem is that we will never know for certain what happened. Why? Because the Ferguson cruiser did not have a camera recording the incident. That's simply not credible. "Law" "enforcement" in Ferguson apparently has at its disposal tear gas, riot gear, armored vehicles and machine guns ...but not a dashcam. That's ridiculous. I remember a few years ago when my one-man police department in New Hampshire purchased a camera for its cruiser. It's about as cheap and basic a police expense as there is. [...]In 2014, when a police cruiser doesn't have a camera, it's a conscious choice. And it should be regarded as such.

And, if we have to have federal subsidy programs for municipal police departments, we should scrap the one that gives them the second-hand military hardware from Tikrit and Kandahar and replace it with one that ensures every patrol car has a camera.

The entire (much longer) blog post by Mark Steyn is well worth reading.

[Econoline]

This "militarization of the police" business is way over blown; SWAT teams have been around since at least the 70's and they've always a had a para-military "look" to them; (most of which comes from defensive equipment like helmets and body armor.) In Ferguson, the cops were using tear gas and rubber bullets; two tools they've had for a long time.

source