Ferguson, MO

Post Reply New Topic

Actually, liberals have been complaining about police overreach for years and years, only to be accused of "coddling criminals."

Not since Clinton, and you yourself are among the first to defend police overreach when it involves people you don't like, such as Ruby Ridge or Waco.

There's a wide gulf between an excessively paramilitary police force and "coddling criminals". Besides, "coddling criminals" has as much or more to do with charging, trying, sentencing, and incarceration as it has to do with cops.

Or, it can be argued that libertarians have been much more interested in the rights of right wing whites or fringe religious fundamentalists - especially if they have guns. But when have libertarians stood up for justice when the police have been focusing their abuse on people of color?

I think you know I'm talking about how the right has called any charges of police abuse "coddling criminals." Especially if those deemed criminals by the police and the right are a shade or two darker than Caucasians.

People have been arguing, and voting, for more government. Well, there it is: more government.

Uh... no. People want a government responsible to the people - especially the most in need. Incidentally, civil rights legislation was in fact "more government." What we're seeing in Ferguson looks more like the forces of reaction at work, when peaceful civil rights protestors had been sprayed with fire hoses, and dogs were let loose on them by the police.

He who pays the piper calls the tune.

I sill fail to see anything wrong with MRAPs and M4s. There's times when they're needed.

The right tool for the right job (I recall police in the US using BARs and Thompson SMGs all the same).

Sure, when you've got it, you might use it more often, but that's a "people" and training/doctrine problem, not the objects' problem.

Just FYI and all, thinking something is scary based on what it looks like, and its effectiveness, is the same argument the emotive anti-"assault weapon" morons use.

Say what you will, I still want a government that provides services to the people, rather than one that says it's doing the rest of us a favor by doing nothing.

Not only are you changing the subject, that's an obvious straw man. Neither I nor anybody else here is arguing for a government which "does nothing." You do know that resorting to blatant fallacies of that kind completely undermines whatever point you're trying to make?

I want a government which has all the resources and authority it needs in order vigorously to defend individual rights, rather than one which violates the rights of some in the name of some undefinable collective Greater Good. Every tyrant in history has claimed to be serving some "good" greater than individual rights, and the result is always the same.

Returning to the subject at hand, I don't want to get into the concretes in Ferguson, because I'm just not that interested. But here's how these things usually go:

1. There's a protest forming in the poor area. They don't pay taxes, but they're upset about some incident or another. Except for blocking up some streets, it looks pretty peaceful so far.

Response: Well, let's keep an eye on them. Hope they don't cross the Parkway.

2. Okay, they've crossed the Parkway and are heading into the business district. Now they are menacing billions of dollars' worth of property owned by the people who pay all the salaries in City Hall.

Response: Send in the armored cars, APCs, water cannons, body armor, rubber bullets, tear gas, pepper spray! This has got to stop!

The more effective the weapons you give the State, the more efficient the State will be at defending the interests of those who fund the State. If you don't want the police using military equipment against protestors, don't give the police military equipment. There's no point suggesting that if you were in charge all that power would be wielded differently. You're not.

Since, I don't know, the 1970s or so? Or more recently, since we've been the leading voice of opposition to policies such as stop and frisk that overwhelmingly target minorities, to police surveillance of Muslim Americans, and the most persistent and loudest proponents of criminal justice reform that, again, would primarily benefit minorities. Perhaps you should actually learn something about libertarians before shooting your mouth off and revealing the depths of your ignorance again, buy why spoil your roll?

There sure seems to be a lot of cops that are a shade or two darker than caucasians. I wonder how that could be........

If you want big government then you want government abuse and oppression.

It's not just about having M4's and armored cars it's just about every law enforcement agency having SWAT teams and using them for any little reason including raiding homes over pot and other low risk arrests under the cloak of "office safety" or whatever BS excuse they're using this week. Call me a liberal but I have a hard time justifying busting into someone's house at midnight, shooting their dogs, roughing people up, and terrorising their kids over some reefer. Often enough times it's the wrong house that they raid
If a PD has a SWAT team keeping it has to be justified by using it.

On second thought, I take that call me a liberal part back since some liberals are okey dokey with the cops murdering people whose religious and political view are askew from mainstream.

It's not a strawman. You said big government brought about the police crackdown on the people there, because people wanted more government. I simply explained how big government provides services to people, while Republicans and Libertarians have been pushing the idea that the government that that governs least governs best. I was simply countering that sentiment.