Battlefield: Missouri – Why What is Happening in Ferguson Affects the Nation and You

As the nation has watched events in Ferguson unfold over the last week, an escalation has arisen that has many on the left and even the right posing questions about the role of police and how much force should be legally advised. The Washington Post recently posted this timeline, which is a fairly good rundown.

 

  Timeline of Events

Going down the list we can see that the escalation has been quick and severe. But why now? In history, we often see sparks of outrage over events such as low employment numbers, widespread corruption, Wall Street influenced politics, and dozens (if not hundreds) of cases of police brutality that become viral videos. Without even so sensationalistic an image, the story of one young man’s death has not only galvanized the community he lived in but rather has received worldwide attention. Perhaps it is of note that the reaction is most likely a tipping point, fresh off several cases of police actually caught on camera beating people savagely. With only the bare facts, the public has had its imagination to fuel the fire of outrage over a preventable death. As facts of the case become more abundant, so do our questions, and yet now we are still seeing the ongoing effects over that initial outrage in the form of riots and looting.

The outrage began with the death of Michael Brown and was further worsened by the initial refusal to release the name of the officer in question who made the kill. Normally, this actually makes sense due to the fact that officers who make kills in the line of duty answer to a board within police ranks to justify any deaths that happen in the line of duty. Legally, this is often for the best, in spite of the public reaction. If an officer makes a justified kill, would you want them and possibly their families targeted by say, organized crime syndicates wanting to seek revenge for one of their fallen comrades? The logic is sound, the timing is everything.

But according to the Ferguson police, who are releasing information under intense legal scrutiny, the story has changed confusingly. Chief Thomas Jackson’s initial claim that Michael Brown was a robbery suspect was totally upended by a contradictory claim that Officer Darren Wilson didn’t know about the robbery at the time the attempted arrest and shooting took place.


Read the full story here
The real reason Michael Brown was initially pulled over? The answer is jaywalking. This does not help infuse trust in the Ferguson police department, when their officers accounts of the events that day also differ significantly from witness testimony. If the initial reason for being pulled over was mentioned at the first press conference, perhaps the confusion and mistrust in the whole incident and its validity would not be so strong. Although this is not surprising, it is not every day that such substandard methods of dealing with the public regarding freedom of information becomes such a public spectacle. On Officer Wilson’s account, according to Police Chief Jon Belmar, “The genesis of this shooting incident was a physical confrontation” during which Brown “physically assaulted the police officer.” According to the press conference report, Michael Brown assaulted Officer Wilson by pushing him back in his car and made a move for the gun, prompting Wilson to shoot. He initially missed, and when instructed to comply, Michael Brown instead ran, and was killed after Wilson warned him to comply and stop.

It has been stated Wilson believed Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson could have both been suspects in the petty theft robbery of a box of cigars after he initially pulled them over. Dorian’s account opposes Officer Wilson’s dramatically, stating that no warning was given, and that Michael Brown did not initiate violence or resist arrest, and had his hands up in the air, stopped, and surrendered at the time of the shooting.

This is further complicated by the video footage of Dorian Johnson and Michael Brown from the store the robbery took place as talked about here by Johnson’s lawyer.

Don Lemon Interview's Dorian Johnson's Attorney

This now casts doubts upon Johnson’s own account as he has since confirmed it was Michael and himself in the video.

The admission of guilt complicates things.

Now let’s look at how the Ferguson police force has become a focal point for America in general. The use of force is the most contentious here. The response to rioters with tear gas was almost immediate and the issue of militarized police forces that indiscriminately fire into crowds is not one that is being taken lightly by the public at large. This is again surprising, given such tactics have been the norm for the past five years over a series of incidents nationwide. Tear gassing crowds in order to achieve compliance and dispersal has become all too common around the world, especially the Middle East

Next, the issue of the press. The Washington Post crew was arrested and detained without charge. This galvanized a huge response from the press and many public officials concerned with abuse of power. The response was ludicrous as an unknown officer was quoted on their release as saying “The chief thought he was doing you two a favor,” This was laughable given the arrest took place not on the street but within a McDonalds where various reporters and journalists were taking notes and preparing stories based on the events that day. Journalists commonly go into dangerous areas to retrieve news footage of significance so for a Ferguson, Missouri police department to look after their safety and well being by placing them in jail is a stretch to say the least.

Nor were they alone. Al Jazeera reporters were teargassed it would seem, with the knowledge they were press and dismantled their equipment.

Teargassing any reporters or journalists without warning is a complete breach of the freedom of the press.

Although the issue of how to deal with riots is complex, the issue of how to deal with peaceful protests should not be. Protesters breaking the new emergency curfew have been teargassed and arrested.

These tactics have been widely used across the Middle East for years and now they have hit America. At least they have just hit the media. Police had already started to use tear gas on protesters during the Occupy Wall Street movement. It was used by police on economic protesters at the Pittsburgh G20 Summit

Tear gas is banned by the Geneva Convention but that hasn’t stopped police forces in the US from stocking up. The chemical makeup of tear gas is toxic enough to cause miscarriages, vomiting, and temporary blindness. Read more about the chemical effects and international usage of tear gas in war right over here.

SYNOPSIS: The incidents highlighted in Ferguson, Missouri over the past week illustrate the following problems: LACK OF TRANSPARENCY AND AN UNPREPARED RESPONSE BORN OUT OF MISMANAGEMENT. RACE TENSIONS INCREASED BY A LACK OF LEADERSHIP BETWEEN COMMUNITY AND POLICE FORCES. INCREASED USAGE OF SPARE MILITARY GEAR AND WEAPONS PURCHASED BY POLICE FORCES. AN EMERGENCY RESPONSE TO REPLACE THE EXISTING FERGUSON POLICE FORCE WITH OTHER STATE POLICE FORCES IS RESULTING NOW IN MORE LOCKDOWN, THE RESPONSE IS NOW ATTACKING PROTESTERS WHO ARE NOT INVOLVED IN RIOTING. ILLOGICAL USAGE OF TEAR GAS FOR INTIMIDATION PURPOSES. WORSENING THE GAP OF ERODED TRUST ALREADY PRESENT.

The incidents involving Michael Brown and his friend Dorian Johnson are now over and done with. The incidents following the death of Michael Brown have not only drawn criticism but downright contempt from the local community. I have not personally criticized the need for responding to riots because it is clear response is needed. But that response has been ill timed, ill conceived, and ill planned and decisions continue to be made that are thoroughly inappropriate to the situation. BUT DO NOT MAKE THE MISTAKE OF THINKING THIS IS RESPONSE STARTED IN FERGUSON. It has merely been exacerbated due to the already negative attention placed on the town. There have been dozens of towns with overwhelming police response to situations that did not merit the violent reaction they received. Sometimes, the initial response by police must be violent if it is in defense, but that excuse is all too common and accountability must become more commonplace. It is for this reason, along with a minority criminal element feeding on these emotions, that Ferguson is exploding now.
It is up to the American people now to decide to voice their outrage not just over the specific shooting that led to this explosion, but to voice their outrage over the incompetence involved on all levels. The governor replaced the police force but that has done nothing to quell the protests and nor should it. Declaring a curfew is a desperate way to go about restoring order and psychologically a gambit. On one hand, yes, you are trying to quell the chance of riots. But you are also punishing the entire population for the crimes of a few, and at a key, pivotal moment where an entire community is at its breaking point. You might want to let them express it in peaceful ways, at the very least, rather than react with fear and negligence. Just ask the local female pastor who was shot with rubber bullets.

This affects not just Ferguson. It affects us all. How many communities must face these responses before we collectively ban them? The answer is yours. Make your voice heard. Say no to tear gas as it is a part of the Geneva Convention and your human rights. Write to your local politicians and ask them to support demilitarizing the police of chemical weapons and any use of force against peaceful protests. Otherwise we have gained nothing from what has happened here and we risk losing everything.

Trouble With Customs and Border Protection: Boy Scout Held at Gunpoint

Recently, this story broke without a lot of attention. We are saturated with media stories of cops taking things too far, but this case is extremely telling of trends within US law enforcement policy.

http://youtu.be/FkgT5GCgg5U

There was a time when the Boy Scouts were seen as a symbol of American young men. Of their potential. Of their ability to be young men who would take responsibility for themselves and those around them. It was seen as an excellent way of preparing them for the real world.

Those days are long gone.

There are many things wrong with this picture. I’m going to go over them. Let’s start with the incident itself. Logic states that if you are an officer of the law, you would deal with children a little differently than adult citizens. You don’t talk to children the same way you do with adults. It is a commonly known fact.

For years now the idea of photographing police has become an issue as police forces and various federal agencies have arrested citizens for videotaping or photographing federal employees. The ACLU and human rights groups insist there is nothing legal to back up these arrests. These groups maintain there is nothing Constitutional about confiscating cameras used to photograph these individuals. You can read the ACLU list of photography rights here

So what is the real motive here? If photographers are being harassed for reasons outside of a rare instance where a photographer is impeding an arrest or the work of officers, what is the reason? The most common reason would be intimidation. So, CBP (Customs and Border Protection) spends their time making sure citizens crossing the border are in line with the law. A Boy Scout takes a photo of one of them. So what went wrong? How did an officer go from making sure Boy Scouts didn’t pose a threat to suddenly threatening them over a photograph? Whatever the reason behind this snap judgment, it was the wrong one. Children photographing law officers are not a clear and present danger.

But according to Boy Scout Troop 111 leader Jim Fox, “The agent immediately confiscated his camera, informed him he would be arrested, fined possibly $10,000 and 10 years in prison,” It doesn’t take much to conclude that intimidation tactics were used here, and uselessly so.

Asking the troop to unload luggage so they could search through the contents, the headline making incident allegedly occurred. Troop leader Jim Fox recounts that after trying to take luggage from the roof of a van, one Scout “hears a snap of a holster, turns around, and here’s this agent, both hands on a loaded pistol, pointing at the young man’s head.”

As for the officer who pulled the gun out of its holster, the CBP is denying the incident. In a written statement made last Wednesday,

“CBP’s review of this group’s inspection, including video footage review, indicates that our officer did not un-holster or handle his weapon as stated in the allegation,” the statement said. “The review revealed nothing out of the ordinary. We have reached out to the Boy Scout troop for additional information in reference to the allegation. The video footage has been referred to CBP Internal Affairs for further review.”

So it’s contradictory stories so far.

For me, the story takes a twist when in his interview representing the Mid-Iowa Council of Boy Scouts, Charles Vonderheid stated ““we want to make sure they follow the rules. A Scout is a good citizen. It would be a great lesson in civics for that young man and that troop.”

I am not here to criticize you, Charles Vonderheid. But your voice is one of many that fear our government and are too afraid of speaking out for common sense. You had a media platform at your disposal and instead of reacting to it by defending Scouts everywhere, you merely nodded in silent approval and compliance for the actions of government officials which are totally baseless.
This is what happens when good people are caught up in the machinations of trends within a government IN SHIFT. Our government is changing, and clamping down has been the theme of the last decade and a half. Is it merely paranoia on the part of a few officers, or is it more? One who is looking at this logically must conclude that the reaction on the part of the officer was either a) premeditated based upon training or b) entirely unjustified.

But it must be noted that the CBP has not stated that the threat against a minor of 10 years in prison for taking a photo was unwarranted overreaction. It is my hope a lawsuit is made against the CBP by the ACLU for trying to cover its actions as agencies normally do when mistakes of this proportion are made.

Let us hope this case is not precedent for similar threats against citizens to come.

Logic in the 21st Century

My name is Joseph Greenlee. In this blog, I plan on exploring a number of issues that relate to the future of our world. I will address how literally everything, including our perceptions, are changing exponentially as we move further into the 21st century.

The greatest question is: Will there be cataclysm? Or will we avoid cataclysm? Have we gone too far to repair the world in which we live? Are the problems we have created insurmountable even with our technological gains?

I will be commenting on events I find noteworthy, making connections as I see them occurring, and always keeping in mind the following tenet:

HOW CAN WE CHANGE EVERYTHING?

My philosophy is that we must rebuild most of how we think and live in order for our species to survive. I do not believe in tiny changes or band aids. I believe DRASTIC change is necessary in economics, environmental policy, politics, and the way humans organize.

With that, I bid you welcome.