9 ms·

Ferguson or Iraq? Photos Unmask the Militarization of America's Police

85 points by ethana 12y ago

allegory 12y ago
I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of everyone owning firearms.
- ajbetteridge 12y ago
  No, this is the inevitable outcome of the global elite controlling government and the armed forces, and not giving a damn about the rest of the population whether they own guns or not.
  - allegory 12y ago
    Who do you suppose the police officers are? At worst they are civilians with an ego problem and an itchy trigger finger. The problem is that encouraging an us and them approach empowers civil wars like this could turn into. The elite have nothing to do with this. They're easy targets in the scale of things (Kennedy for example). Only sheer numbers are an issue.
- jmathai 12y ago
  This is the reason why the right to bear arms is so critical. These police officers are not going up against an armed mob.
  - easytiger 12y ago
    What? Have you had a stroke?
  - mweibel 12y ago
    wtf? That's why in europe this happens all the time, right? I don't think it would help the situation at all if both sides would be armed. (Which, obviously doesn't mean that I think what the police doing there is correct). Maybe it's actually the other way around: Police knows people are probably armored, that's why they might need to have heavy armory as well.. Think about it.
    - arethuza 12y ago
      In case anyone has forgotten - in 2011 police in London shot and killed an innocent young man, multiple days of rioting in multiple cities followed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
      - allegory 12y ago
        Some facts: Duggan was a Tottenham gang leader who was under investigation for various things from drug dealing to stabbing someone. The riots were just teenagers looting, not politically motivated.
        arethuza 12y ago
        My mistake, I misread a report into the inquest - it was deemed a "lawful killing" at the inquest, I read it as "unlawfull".
      - mweibel 12y ago
        i'm not saying similar stuff doesn't happen. But people having weapons doesn't help at all.
    - jmathai 12y ago
      I just meant that if you're going to allow law enforcement to be armed then you need to have lawful ways for citizens to also be armed. There has to be a checks and balance system in place. In reality that's what most of the US constitution is based on and why the Bill of Rights puts so much power back into the hands of the people because the power of government was not something to be taken lightly. I'm not advocating that people go out with guns and start shooting at police.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    "We declare our right on this earth...to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary." "Our objective is complete freedom, justice and equality by any means necessary." "The day that the black man takes an uncompromising step and realizes that he's within his rights, when his own freedom is being jeopardized, to use any means necessary to bring about his freedom or put a halt to that injustice, I don't think he'll be by himself." -- Malcom X
- baddox 12y ago
  On the contrary, I suspect history shows a strong positive correlation between civilian-government power disparity and the brazenness of government.
  - tacotime 12y ago
    For real, does anyone actually thing civilian gun ownership could ever actually play a role in protest confrontations like this? If one dude started firing at the police so many bystanders would be in the line of fire. And just forget about an organized effort, that would turn into a massacre. The only path forward is law and regulation that mitigates this militarization of our nation's police. This is soooo obviously oppression and disservice not service and protection. Just goes to show you how racist this nation still is, can't imagine this same response to protesters in a white suburban neighborhood.
    - allegory 12y ago
      I think the problem is that a lot of crazy people think that they could play a role in this.
    - baddox 12y ago
      > For real, does anyone actually thing civilian gun ownership could ever actually play a role in protest confrontations like this? I think it would absolutely play a role in deterring confrontations like this. I don't want government and civilians to fight. I want government to fear fighting civilians.
  - mercurial 12y ago
    Really? Europe has had low rates of private gun ownerships for many decades. However, police has yet to turn into the Gestapo (consider for instance the UK, where the majority of the police force does not even carry firearms). On the other hand, it must be a lot easier to justify the use of snipers and military vehicles by the police when many civilians carry (possibly concealed) weaponry.
    - arethuza 12y ago
delucain 12y ago
I don't understand it. Who are the police so afraid of that they need armored vehicles, assault rifles, and snipers? I can see a SWAT response for a hostage situation or a large scale gang arrest. In what rational world is it necessary to deal with protesters? Armored vests, plexiglass riot shields, helmets, and less-than-lethal armaments I understand. They have to protect themselves, but these levels of deadly equipment are surely only necessary in war. Are they just going to start gunning down the crowd? Does no one in charge not see the absurdity of all this?
- jmathai 12y ago
  Black people. And I don't mean that sarcastically. But I don't believe they're afraid of them as much as it's a power play. A police officer on video said "Bring it. All you f*cking animals." [1] Based on everything I've seen this sentiment feels more like the rule than the exception. [1] http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/266242/speedreads-white-cop-calls-black-protesters-animals-in-ferguson-missouri http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/266242/speedreads-white-...
  - allegory 12y ago
    Without getting into a race debate, black people do get a lot of bad press. What the cause of this is, I don't know or wish to comment on past I suspect that it is mainly down to education, poverty and somewhat stereotypical reporting. The latter is good leverage for anyone with an agenda. However if I was in the US I'd be rather more worried about the significant portion of gun toting redneck conservatives who are devoid of all logic.
    - calibraxis 12y ago
      Is there a race debate? Many cultures simply feature weird -isms like racism. Racism is designed to divide people using bizarre theories, in order to justify institutions of societal control, violence and inequality. (There may be debaters arguing about it, but the existence of flat-earthers doesn't make "round-earth debate" a serious one.) Just like sexism is used to divide people using gender as leverage. That's how women were men's property and unable to vote, men dominate various professions and get away with workplace harassment, etc. (For what it's worth, "Redneck" is regionalist and probably classist. No need for such pejoratives.)
BadassFractal 12y ago
Owning guns to fight an oppressive govt is all good until the govt rolls in with tanks into your cul-de-sac.
- baddox 12y ago
  People who oppose both this police campaign in Ferguson and civilian gun rights need to remember the former the next time the latter is in the news.
  - gajomi 12y ago
    Since I oppose this campaign and am in favor of various civilian gun control measures I thought I should ask you to clarify. Do you mean to suggest that Americans should carry guns so that they can fight back against the police when they get out of hand?
    - LyndsySimon 12y ago
      I believe he's saying that if you're in favor of disarming citizens as a means to reduce violence, then you should also be in favor of disarming police - or at least in favor of drastically changing the role armed police play in American law enforcement.
    - baddox 12y ago
      > Do you mean to suggest that Americans should carry guns so that they can fight back against the police when they get out of hand? Maybe not carry, but own. And they point isn't to actually fight back against police, it's to deter the police from causing that to be necessary.
      - gajomi 12y ago
        I see. I hope you would forgive me for assuming something so extreme. I would be curious to see some statistics on quantifying of police aggression (however quantified) versus civilian armament as covariates wrt total gun violence. One of the marginals of such a distribution are documented here: http://mark.reid.name/blog/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html http://mark.reid.name/blog/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html but this doesn't say anything about the police side of the story.
rurounijones 12y ago
"Picture of preparing to control demonstrators with $FIREARM"... (e.g. automatic weapons... a sniper rifle?!) Could someone explain to me how the hell you "control" a large gathering of citizens by using guns without mowing down X number of them?
- dsirijus 12y ago
  Just one shot in the air usually does the trick. This ain't a video game.
  - rurounijones 12y ago
    Brilliant! Now instead of a large demonstration of people we have a panicking large demonstration of people, hope no one gets crushed! I don't think that counts as "controlling" a crowd in the USA. (Plus other comment I made regarding unfortunate scenario where someone returns fire)
  - tacotime 12y ago
    You don't need a fucking sniper rifle to fire a shot in the air.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    I don't know much about guns but isn't that a negligent discharge? You only ever fire your weapon when you intend to kill your target.
    - icebraining 12y ago
      I don't know much about guns either, nor am I from the US, but according to Barron's Police Office Exam[1], cops must never fire warning shots, at least in NY. [1] http://books.google.pt/books?id=1uD3HhEqegkC&lpg=PA217&ots=JDIeDsShr5&dq=warning%20shots%20police%20procedure&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=warning%20shots%20police%20procedure&f=false http://books.google.pt/books?id=1uD3HhEqegkC&lpg=PA217&ots=J...
  - einrealist 12y ago
doctorstupid 12y ago
This all seems very juvenile.
donkeyd 12y ago
Interesting how in situations like this Americans seem to forget about the Second Amendment... The right to bear arms also means that the police has to be prepared for groups of opponents bearing arms.
- LyndsySimon 12y ago
  By and large, American police don't tend to face groups of armed criminals. There have been a few instances that come to mind - Bonnie and Clyde and assorted Prohibition Era gangs in the 1930s, Platt and Mattix in 1986, the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997 - but they are well known exactly because they are extremely uncommon. It's more likely that an armed citizen would come to the defense and support of law enforcement than stand in opposition. This is exactly what happened in 1966 when Charles Whitman (suffering from a brain tumor) climbed a tower in Austin, Texas and starting shooting at passers-by. Citizens retrieved hunting rifles from their vehicles and homes and returned fire, helping pin down Whitman while law enforcement climbed the tower and killed him. In the North Hollywood Shootout, responding officers didn't have rifles and were therefore pretty much completely outgunned. They turned to a local gun store and commandeered several rifles that were for sale there, which were essential to ending the standoff.
  - maxerickson 12y ago
    Is the focus on "groups" of armed criminals interesting? There were police officers shot in at least Houston and Washington D.C. yesterday. Of course those aren't major incidents, but I don't think officers only get shot in major incidents, and they at least have to be prepared to face armed criminals all the time (the article I read about the Houston shooting was making a big deal of their policy requiring armor...).
    - LyndsySimon 12y ago
      It's not merely interesting, but troubling. In my opinion, local police should focus on local law enforcement - investigating crimes and serving as a deterrent by being visible in the places where crime is most likely to occur. Cities where it makes sense should have tactical teams for responding to dangerous incidents. Ongoing armed robberies, hostage situations, etc. Riots - and any situation I can think of where an armored vehicle is an appropriate response - should probably be handled by the state. If we must have police, then they should be a part of the community, acting as public servants instead of enforcers. If we must have a government with a monopoly on violence, then we should strive to employ that violence as sparingly as possible. Instead, we've taken it to the point that every small town in America feels they must have the resources at hand to quell a rebellion - and when those resources are present and people train with them, then they are apt to use them on their fellow citizens.
richardwigley 12y ago
Why can towns afford expensively kitted SWAT Police? Firstly the US Gov bought a lot of equipment for the war on Terror and drugs and, secondly it can be profitable: "Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too. He must sue to get them back." So, you are in a situation where the Police are incentivised to use their time to serve drug warrants. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-americas-police-have-become-too-militarised-cops-or-soldiers http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-america...
LyndsySimon 12y ago
Not to detract from the point that's being made, but most of those photos weren't close to equivalent. A guy sitting on top of an armored car with a 5.56 carbine isn't the same as someone manning a pintle-mounted 7.62 NATO medium machinegun. Likewise, a guy with a scoped AR-10 (looks like 7.62 NATO) isn't the same as a guy with an M-82 (.50 BMG). The vehicle in the last photo looks like a bread truck with some steel plates on it, painted black -- and the one in Iraq isn't an MRAP as the caption says, but has a Mk 19 grenade launcher on top of it.

85 points by ethana 12y ago

allegory 12y ago

I suppose this is the inevitable outcome of everyone owning firearms.

ajbetteridge 12y ago
No, this is the inevitable outcome of the global elite controlling government and the armed forces, and not giving a damn about the rest of the population whether they own guns or not.
- allegory 12y ago
  Who do you suppose the police officers are? At worst they are civilians with an ego problem and an itchy trigger finger. The problem is that encouraging an us and them approach empowers civil wars like this could turn into. The elite have nothing to do with this. They're easy targets in the scale of things (Kennedy for example). Only sheer numbers are an issue.
jmathai 12y ago
This is the reason why the right to bear arms is so critical. These police officers are not going up against an armed mob.
- easytiger 12y ago
  What? Have you had a stroke?
- mweibel 12y ago
  wtf? That's why in europe this happens all the time, right? I don't think it would help the situation at all if both sides would be armed. (Which, obviously doesn't mean that I think what the police doing there is correct). Maybe it's actually the other way around: Police knows people are probably armored, that's why they might need to have heavy armory as well.. Think about it.
  - arethuza 12y ago
    In case anyone has forgotten - in 2011 police in London shot and killed an innocent young man, multiple days of rioting in multiple cities followed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_England_riots
    - allegory 12y ago
      Some facts: Duggan was a Tottenham gang leader who was under investigation for various things from drug dealing to stabbing someone. The riots were just teenagers looting, not politically motivated.
      - arethuza 12y ago
        My mistake, I misread a report into the inquest - it was deemed a "lawful killing" at the inquest, I read it as "unlawfull".
    - mweibel 12y ago
      i'm not saying similar stuff doesn't happen. But people having weapons doesn't help at all.
  - jmathai 12y ago
    I just meant that if you're going to allow law enforcement to be armed then you need to have lawful ways for citizens to also be armed. There has to be a checks and balance system in place. In reality that's what most of the US constitution is based on and why the Bill of Rights puts so much power back into the hands of the people because the power of government was not something to be taken lightly. I'm not advocating that people go out with guns and start shooting at police.
- DanBC 12y ago
  "We declare our right on this earth...to be a human being, to be respected as a human being, to be given the rights of a human being in this society, on this earth, in this day, which we intend to bring into existence by any means necessary." "Our objective is complete freedom, justice and equality by any means necessary." "The day that the black man takes an uncompromising step and realizes that he's within his rights, when his own freedom is being jeopardized, to use any means necessary to bring about his freedom or put a halt to that injustice, I don't think he'll be by himself." -- Malcom X
baddox 12y ago
On the contrary, I suspect history shows a strong positive correlation between civilian-government power disparity and the brazenness of government.
- tacotime 12y ago
  For real, does anyone actually thing civilian gun ownership could ever actually play a role in protest confrontations like this? If one dude started firing at the police so many bystanders would be in the line of fire. And just forget about an organized effort, that would turn into a massacre. The only path forward is law and regulation that mitigates this militarization of our nation's police. This is soooo obviously oppression and disservice not service and protection. Just goes to show you how racist this nation still is, can't imagine this same response to protesters in a white suburban neighborhood.
  - allegory 12y ago
    I think the problem is that a lot of crazy people think that they could play a role in this.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > For real, does anyone actually thing civilian gun ownership could ever actually play a role in protest confrontations like this? I think it would absolutely play a role in deterring confrontations like this. I don't want government and civilians to fight. I want government to fear fighting civilians.
- mercurial 12y ago
  Really? Europe has had low rates of private gun ownerships for many decades. However, police has yet to turn into the Gestapo (consider for instance the UK, where the majority of the police force does not even carry firearms). On the other hand, it must be a lot easier to justify the use of snipers and military vehicles by the police when many civilians carry (possibly concealed) weaponry.
  - arethuza 12y ago

delucain 12y ago

I don't understand it. Who are the police so afraid of that they need armored vehicles, assault rifles, and snipers? I can see a SWAT response for a hostage situation or a large scale gang arrest. In what rational world is it necessary to deal with protesters? Armored vests, plexiglass riot shields, helmets, and less-than-lethal armaments I understand. They have to protect themselves, but these levels of deadly equipment are surely only necessary in war. Are they just going to start gunning down the crowd? Does no one in charge not see the absurdity of all this?

jmathai 12y ago
Black people. And I don't mean that sarcastically. But I don't believe they're afraid of them as much as it's a power play. A police officer on video said "Bring it. All you f*cking animals." [1] Based on everything I've seen this sentiment feels more like the rule than the exception. [1] http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/266242/speedreads-white-cop-calls-black-protesters-animals-in-ferguson-missouri http://theweek.com/speedreads/index/266242/speedreads-white-...
- allegory 12y ago
  Without getting into a race debate, black people do get a lot of bad press. What the cause of this is, I don't know or wish to comment on past I suspect that it is mainly down to education, poverty and somewhat stereotypical reporting. The latter is good leverage for anyone with an agenda. However if I was in the US I'd be rather more worried about the significant portion of gun toting redneck conservatives who are devoid of all logic.
  - calibraxis 12y ago
    Is there a race debate? Many cultures simply feature weird -isms like racism. Racism is designed to divide people using bizarre theories, in order to justify institutions of societal control, violence and inequality. (There may be debaters arguing about it, but the existence of flat-earthers doesn't make "round-earth debate" a serious one.) Just like sexism is used to divide people using gender as leverage. That's how women were men's property and unable to vote, men dominate various professions and get away with workplace harassment, etc. (For what it's worth, "Redneck" is regionalist and probably classist. No need for such pejoratives.)

BadassFractal 12y ago

Owning guns to fight an oppressive govt is all good until the govt rolls in with tanks into your cul-de-sac.

baddox 12y ago
People who oppose both this police campaign in Ferguson and civilian gun rights need to remember the former the next time the latter is in the news.
- gajomi 12y ago
  Since I oppose this campaign and am in favor of various civilian gun control measures I thought I should ask you to clarify. Do you mean to suggest that Americans should carry guns so that they can fight back against the police when they get out of hand?
  - LyndsySimon 12y ago
    I believe he's saying that if you're in favor of disarming citizens as a means to reduce violence, then you should also be in favor of disarming police - or at least in favor of drastically changing the role armed police play in American law enforcement.
  - baddox 12y ago
    > Do you mean to suggest that Americans should carry guns so that they can fight back against the police when they get out of hand? Maybe not carry, but own. And they point isn't to actually fight back against police, it's to deter the police from causing that to be necessary.
    - gajomi 12y ago
      I see. I hope you would forgive me for assuming something so extreme. I would be curious to see some statistics on quantifying of police aggression (however quantified) versus civilian armament as covariates wrt total gun violence. One of the marginals of such a distribution are documented here: http://mark.reid.name/blog/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html http://mark.reid.name/blog/gun-deaths-vs-gun-ownership.html but this doesn't say anything about the police side of the story.

rurounijones 12y ago

"Picture of preparing to control demonstrators with $FIREARM"... (e.g. automatic weapons... a sniper rifle?!) Could someone explain to me how the hell you "control" a large gathering of citizens by using guns without mowing down X number of them?

dsirijus 12y ago
Just one shot in the air usually does the trick. This ain't a video game.
- rurounijones 12y ago
  Brilliant! Now instead of a large demonstration of people we have a panicking large demonstration of people, hope no one gets crushed! I don't think that counts as "controlling" a crowd in the USA. (Plus other comment I made regarding unfortunate scenario where someone returns fire)
- tacotime 12y ago
  You don't need a fucking sniper rifle to fire a shot in the air.
- DanBC 12y ago
  I don't know much about guns but isn't that a negligent discharge? You only ever fire your weapon when you intend to kill your target.
  - icebraining 12y ago
    I don't know much about guns either, nor am I from the US, but according to Barron's Police Office Exam[1], cops must never fire warning shots, at least in NY. [1] http://books.google.pt/books?id=1uD3HhEqegkC&lpg=PA217&ots=JDIeDsShr5&dq=warning%20shots%20police%20procedure&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q=warning%20shots%20police%20procedure&f=false http://books.google.pt/books?id=1uD3HhEqegkC&lpg=PA217&ots=J...
- einrealist 12y ago

doctorstupid 12y ago

This all seems very juvenile.

donkeyd 12y ago

Interesting how in situations like this Americans seem to forget about the Second Amendment... The right to bear arms also means that the police has to be prepared for groups of opponents bearing arms.

LyndsySimon 12y ago
By and large, American police don't tend to face groups of armed criminals. There have been a few instances that come to mind - Bonnie and Clyde and assorted Prohibition Era gangs in the 1930s, Platt and Mattix in 1986, the North Hollywood Shootout in 1997 - but they are well known exactly because they are extremely uncommon. It's more likely that an armed citizen would come to the defense and support of law enforcement than stand in opposition. This is exactly what happened in 1966 when Charles Whitman (suffering from a brain tumor) climbed a tower in Austin, Texas and starting shooting at passers-by. Citizens retrieved hunting rifles from their vehicles and homes and returned fire, helping pin down Whitman while law enforcement climbed the tower and killed him. In the North Hollywood Shootout, responding officers didn't have rifles and were therefore pretty much completely outgunned. They turned to a local gun store and commandeered several rifles that were for sale there, which were essential to ending the standoff.
- maxerickson 12y ago
  Is the focus on "groups" of armed criminals interesting? There were police officers shot in at least Houston and Washington D.C. yesterday. Of course those aren't major incidents, but I don't think officers only get shot in major incidents, and they at least have to be prepared to face armed criminals all the time (the article I read about the Houston shooting was making a big deal of their policy requiring armor...).
  - LyndsySimon 12y ago
    It's not merely interesting, but troubling. In my opinion, local police should focus on local law enforcement - investigating crimes and serving as a deterrent by being visible in the places where crime is most likely to occur. Cities where it makes sense should have tactical teams for responding to dangerous incidents. Ongoing armed robberies, hostage situations, etc. Riots - and any situation I can think of where an armored vehicle is an appropriate response - should probably be handled by the state. If we must have police, then they should be a part of the community, acting as public servants instead of enforcers. If we must have a government with a monopoly on violence, then we should strive to employ that violence as sparingly as possible. Instead, we've taken it to the point that every small town in America feels they must have the resources at hand to quell a rebellion - and when those resources are present and people train with them, then they are apt to use them on their fellow citizens.

richardwigley 12y ago

Why can towns afford expensively kitted SWAT Police? Firstly the US Gov bought a lot of equipment for the war on Terror and drugs and, secondly it can be profitable: "Rules on civil asset-forfeiture allow the police to seize anything which they can plausibly claim was the proceeds of a crime. Crucially, the property-owner need not be convicted of that crime. If the police find drugs in his house, they can take his cash and possibly the house, too. He must sue to get them back." So, you are in a situation where the Police are incentivised to use their time to serve drug warrants. [1] http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-americas-police-have-become-too-militarised-cops-or-soldiers http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21599349-america...

LyndsySimon 12y ago

Not to detract from the point that's being made, but most of those photos weren't close to equivalent. A guy sitting on top of an armored car with a 5.56 carbine isn't the same as someone manning a pintle-mounted 7.62 NATO medium machinegun. Likewise, a guy with a scoped AR-10 (looks like 7.62 NATO) isn't the same as a guy with an M-82 (.50 BMG). The vehicle in the last photo looks like a bread truck with some steel plates on it, painted black -- and the one in Iraq isn't an MRAP as the caption says, but has a Mk 19 grenade launcher on top of it.