For a good insight into how city police are trained, I recommend reading Cop In The Hood by Peter Moskos.
Peter joined the Baltimore Police and describes how they were taught to "own the situation", which in effect means responding with escalating force until the situation is under control. This approach is evident in the reports from both the Washington Post and Al Jazeera journalists. From the book's description of the training, there appeared to be little effort to educate on correct responses for different situations.
I have friends in the UK Police force (I am not a cop myself) that tell me they are taught how to diffuse situations rather than escalate them and that getting into a violent confrontation is seen as a last resort, not a first response.
I have every sympathy with the police, and the tough job that they face, but I can't help but feel that the differences in approach and specifically the inflexibility of the US police training does not help them.
If you've heard of the South African shooting of mine workers in Marikana, in which 35 miners where shot, you can see what sort of tragic results can happen where the police are militarized. It's a path to catastrophe.
Instead of engaging protestors they come with indimidating riot gear, automatic rifles, armored vehicles, helicopters, flash bangs and tear gas. They wear visors which conveniently hide their identity. Any tragedies are met with an "investigation" which usually leads nowhere or goes on forever.
When you are face to face with a cop, I've learned your rights don't mean anything. The only thing that matter is power.
The other thing is that, in a country that glamorizes military strength so heavily, we are giving officers a sense of power and superiority by providing police departments with what essentially amounts to military gear.
When would a situation ever arise, in a town of 20,000, where it would be justified and necessary for the entire police force to be equipped with military-grade gear?
> His prone figure sprawled on the street for four hours in the unforgiving August sun, with blood on the asphalt—an indignity in sharp contrast with the quick departure of the officer from the scene.
> Police, some outfitted in riot gear, others in military fatigues, barricaded the streets. At least one of them draped a black bandana over his face; others covered their badges.
> One homeowner walked out of his house to find a spent flash grenade on his lawn. An armored truck rolled down the street, a flume of tear gas issuing from the back.
Police, some outfitted in riot gear, others in military fatigues, barricaded the streets. At least one of them draped a black bandana over his face; others covered their badges.
Utterly shameful.
To the people flagging this off the front page: if you don't see what the suppression of protest and the arrest of reporters by a militarized police has to do with a site focused on startups and the disruption of existing power structures, you need to think harder.
I thought "startups and the disruption of existing power structures" as understood on HN meant simply "making lots of money". I like yours better, but I'm not sure if it's accurate.
What I find equally shameful are the individuals and groups using the riots as an excuse to loot and plunder the streets.
If I was a business owner over there and my shop was robbed blind... I'm not sure what I would do.
(also, the escalation of the police force is in proportion to how aggressive the people are getting - not excusing the situation -- just point out that people are firing rockets, fireworks and other projectiles at the police, flipping vehicles, looting and plundering...etc... absolute chaos.)
In proportion? One party has armoured personnel carriers, grenade launchers, tear gas cannisters, rubber bullets and M-16s. The other has fireworks, homemade rockets and projectiles from the street.
There are ways of controlling looters without using military gear: batons, horses, shields. It doesn't require this sort of military equipment.
Also, I think you should take a look at the various videos, tweets and images coming from the town. The majority of people are assembling peacefully, if angrily in protest.
So the cops arresting journalists in McDonald's, or shooting tear gas canisters at Al-Jazeera on an otherwise empty street, that's a proportional response to aggression?
If one a-hole in a crowd hucks a bottle at you, gassing the whole crowd is not proportional.
Well, that's not the entire story of what is going on over there.
As I said, I'm not dismissing the situation -- but if I owned a store over there, I would want the police to protect my storefront from vandals and looters in force.
As for the other things that are going on -- I think it's best to wait for the full report being assuming [the worst] things.
Just remember, 99.9999% of police don't wake up in the morning and say to themselves "how can I screw over citizens today". They are just people like you and me. There are always two sides of any story.
It's a very indicative part of the story. Given the story of the Wash Post guy and the Al Jazeera guys, both very well documented, it does indeed seem like a substantial portion of those particular cops do wake up in the morning thinking something other than what I'd like.
If this is how they power-trip and shove around journalists, how are they treating people who are less of a PR threat?
"...just point out that people are firing rockets, fireworks and other projectiles at the police, flipping vehicles, looting and plundering...etc... absolute chaos..."
and...
"... I think it's best to wait for the full report being assuming [the worst] things ..."
The only reports of looting and burning were from Sunday.
The subsequent peaceful but heated protests, on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday nights (and, doubtless to be repeated tonight) involved no reports of looting and burning.
For the last two decades, the U.S. Government has been slapping a "void where prohibited" sticker on citizen rights.
Which is why we have "1st Amendment Zones", endless debates on the 2nd Amendment, the NSA violating the 4th Amendment with impunity, and American citizens being denied their 5th Amendment rights via armed drone.
Technically, the constitutional right is "the right of the people peaceably to assemble".
And the wikipedia summary is pretty good: "Unlawful assembly is a legal term to describe a group of people with the mutual intent of deliberate disturbance of the peace. If the group are about to start the act of disturbance, it is termed a rout; if the disturbance is commenced, it is then termed a riot."
So in other words, if the police allege you were there not to protest but to start a riot, they don't actually need to wait for the riot to start. You are probably thinking "man, it seems like the police can abuse that law just by always claiming the crowd looked like they were going to become violent". And you are correct, but that's the way it is.
I don't think "eager" is the right word here -- I hardly believe anyone, cop or citizen, is eager to escalate a situation where nobody is going to win. It's bad mojo for both sides if it continues.
Peter joined the Baltimore Police and describes how they were taught to "own the situation", which in effect means responding with escalating force until the situation is under control. This approach is evident in the reports from both the Washington Post and Al Jazeera journalists. From the book's description of the training, there appeared to be little effort to educate on correct responses for different situations.
I have friends in the UK Police force (I am not a cop myself) that tell me they are taught how to diffuse situations rather than escalate them and that getting into a violent confrontation is seen as a last resort, not a first response.
I have every sympathy with the police, and the tough job that they face, but I can't help but feel that the differences in approach and specifically the inflexibility of the US police training does not help them.