Hello everyone! Welcome to class, I hope you enjoye the format of your first competitive debates because we are going to be doing a lot more of the same. Everyone did a great job, but now it is time for your first opportunity to provide some insightful commentary and discussion on current events. The first unit is all about the policy-making cycle, the purpose and function of government, the US Constitution and our federal system of governance.
A major function of the government is to provide security and protection for it's citizens. Go to any news website (or many news websites - use the links to the right to start out) and read up on the events in Ferguson, MO to tell me what you think about the role the police are playing amidst the protests. It is their job to protect the community, but do you think they have gone too far? At this point, are they protecting the citizens from looting and violence or are they unnecessarily cracking down on a mostly peaceful protest? Was a curfew necessary? Have the protesters shown they can not maintain nonviolence during their protests? These are all just possible questions for you to address in your response. Any response should explain why you think the way you do, without unjustified assertions or false assumptions. Also, in your response, include your sources with commentary on how that might affect your opinion. This is a lightning rod issue, so this is your first test to start up meaningful, constructive discussion about an extremely sensitive and charged issue, at the heart of which is the role of the police (who are employed by the government) for protection and security. Clearly, race is also a big part of this ongoing story, but for now I want you to focus on the role the police (and by extension the government) play in protection of their citizens vs. the citizens right to protest.
Patiently awaiting your well thought out, reasoned, evidence-based responses. See you in class!!
49 comments:
Although police definitely have the right to monitor the protests and arrest anyone that is breaking the law but Ferguson police did it wrong. They made the first wrong step by militarizing the police force instead of them being in their "police blues" as stated by a CNN article. this intimidated the citizens and made police the enemy in a situation where at first it seemed like the police were at fault in the incident that sparked it all. Police have continuously changed their strategy with tear gas and even changing the policy on curfew. The use of force is unnecessary and wouldn't even be necessary if Ferguson pd communicated and handled the situation well starting from the scene of the incident to the riots.
It is our governments purpose to ensure that the rights stated in the Constitution are being preserved. With this being said, I believe that the Governments involvement in Ferguson is expected and acceptable but the government has crossed the line and is now hindering their ability to freedom of assembly and speech. The line was crossed when the Missouri highway patrol deployed their men at the scene in military uniforms. CNN acknowledged that this "militarization in the streets" was responsible for enraging the already passionate protesters. Violence has broken out but it is unknown which side became physically aggressive first. The police however should have not used arms and teargas as a solution as it was an unfair advantage and depicted the oppressive side of government. The government is also unsure of who holds the responsibility or power to maintain the situation. The government needs to appoint a body to control it. With all the confusion, there is "disjointed.... confused leadership" (CNN). This lack of leadership has caused constant change in rules which has mislead the protesters and locals. CNN's Brian Todd reported, it "they're experimenting, making things up as they go along...communication with the public and the media have been too inconsistent."
CNN's video report is a reliable source as it was made for international viewing which reduces chances of bias. The video succeeds in acknowledging both sides of the issue by including the opinions from both the police handling the situation, and the protesters they are obstructing. The video included several hard facts to back up both arguments.
http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/us/2014/08/19/tsr-dnt-todd-ferguson-police-tactics.cnn.html
It seems the police are having to deal with a very cloudy environment. In saying that, I mean that those who are violently protesting and those who are not are often standing next to each other. Capt. Johnson, reports both BBC News and USA Today, has urged at least five times for protestors to come out during the day and that by coming out at night — along with looters and more violent protestors — they are putting themselves and others in danger. I find it hard to find fault in this logic (although I don’t live there, I’m not emotionally invested, I might feel otherwise if I was); why should it be hard for people who want to non-violently protest to come out solely during the day? or even dusk? But why at four, five am? Moreover, when gas stations are being burned down, when men are coming at police officers with knives, when civilians are firing off rounds of their guns into the air, should the police stand down? It seems unreasonable to assume that police wouldn’t respond to these things — in fact it is there job to respond to these events with force. Stealing, vandalism, and assault are no longer protected by the first amendment’s right to peaceful assembly.
Thus, I think in general the police are in the right with the amount of force they’re using. Have they been excessive at times? Probably. Have they done things they shouldn’t have? Most likely. But the most compelling evidence for their use of force comes not from the police station, but rather from the residents of Ferguson; the residents who spoke to NPR about having to guard their doors at night, staying up in shifts and allowing family members to sleep; the residents who can’t walk across the street to visit their dying parents out of fear; the people who can’t get any money because the banks open after they are at work and close so early because of protests that they aren’t open when regular work closes. To be succinct, surely the police have handled some things incorrectly, but it seems their general amount of force is warranted given the violence that has been taking place.
To begin, I'd like to say that yes, the police have gone too far. According to BBC News, another man was shot and killed during the riot for threatening the officers with a knife. Their job is to protect the community and instead, they are endangering it. There have been two men killed within the past 11 days. However, I do believe that it is necessary for them to 'crack down' on the people of Ferguson because things have gone too far with the protest. According to Huffington Post and Fox News, the protesters have set a dumpster on fire and continued the protest with looting. After a while, certain things of this matter should be put under control for the well being of everyone. Children are missing school, businesses are failing and people are getting hurt. This proves that the protesters have failed at maintaining a nonviolent protest; however, much of the violence is due to the police officers who seem to be over doing it. They've gone gun crazy and aren't thinking of the well being of the community or what the protest is even standing for. They seem to simply want to end it as a whole before any justice is met.
Police enforcement are most definitely supposed to ensure the protection of the community as a whole. However, there have been several times in the past where police enforcement have taken their authority to an unnecessary level. Such examples include in San Diego where police are known to be scandalous and out of hand at times according to The Washington Post. The police in this era can be seen as more of a tyrannical organization rather than a protector of the people. Nonetheless, they have a right to protect us, just within a set of guidelines. It is perfectly fine for police to be cautious of the protests, however unnecessary tactics such as tear gas being sprawled upon crowds needs to cease. In fact it is true the residents of Ferguson have continued with looting and violence to fuel their protests, but mainly the public's reaction is caused by the unjust of the Ferguson police. A curfew was not necessarily a bad idea because ideally, this may have been a way to keep the situation in Ferguson under control in the least physical way possible.
The police in Ferguson have done what I believe what was needed to protect the citizens, but they have crossed the line in some aspects and end up making matters worse. Most of the citizens wanted a change or an arrest made instantly for the shooting of Mike Brown and the NAACP was protesting because there have been too many instances of children and young teens being shot. Protesters can still be shown as non-violent but it is when the police use brute force to stop the protests is when protesters will get upset. They are stating their opinion and want others to be heard. Then the National Guard was brought in to “calm and ease the environment” stated by CBS. News reporters were revoked access in the town and freedom of speech was taken away from the town people. News reporters were also had tear gad thrown at them when they were trying to make the situation known around America. There needs to be a median were people can protest and non-violently state their opinions and the police does not have to get involved. Recently there was a protest in front of the courthouse in downtown Jax for the finding of a murder from a cold case some years ago. The family was able to non-violently protest and want a change without the police coming to scene. Why was that not done in Ferguson and when was the wrong turn made that required the National Guard to become present?
I believe that the police force in Ferguson, Missouri has crossed the line in the role that they are playing. With protests comes violence occasionally, especially with the shooting of an unarmed young man by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson. The citizens in Ferguson have the right to be mad about one of their own citizens, Michael Brown being gunned down. The citizens of Ferguson have started to break into and loot several local stores. This anger, which stemmed from the shooting of Brown, is uncalled for, especially when it is at the cost of innocent storeowners who are having their livelihood broken apart by selfish looters. However police haven't even shown up to stop this looting as Fox News has reported even though their sometimes obvious Republican bias can make me shy away from using them as a news source. On another front, many of Ferguson's citizens which are fed up with the shooting of Brown and the police brutality recently have taken up to peaceful protesting. In pictures reported by NPR and BBC you can see peaceful protesters being juxtaposed by intimidating police in riot gear with assault weapons. Being corralled up at midnight for curfew by the police must disturb the protesters even more than they had been before. Even the country of Egypt with its recent political unrest is calling upon the police brutality in Ferguson to end as reported by BBC.
With the police using armored personnel carriers and assault rifles which can be seen in war zones in the Middle East to oppose protesters and ignoring lootings mere blocks away, it is obvious to me that the police in Ferguson, MO are using their force illegally.
I cannot whole heartedly support either the police or the protesters on this issue. There are definitely some protesters with good, peaceful, intentions whose lives are being made difficult by the violent protesters and looters surrounding them. These violent protesters and looters also make the police's job much more difficult, if they look into a crowd of strangers that are protesting and they see some are shooting guns in the air then I can understand why the would throw tear gas, which unfortunately harms the peaceful protesters as well. One thing I do have a concrete opinion on is that the night protests are unnecessary, and even hurting the cause. In order for a protest to be taken seriously and succeed it needs to be peaceful, violence distracts from the message they are trying to prove. And the vast majority of the violence and chaos is happening during the night protests.
Ferguson, MO has been in the headlines since the shooting of Michael Brown. Many people believe that the police have made the situation worse than it needed to be, hurting more than helping matters, however, the Ferguson police chief claims that there was "no alternative but to elevate [their] response" (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-28832786). As the violence has continued to escalate, people's opinions have continued to become more polarized, more anti-police. And maybe their opinions are justified. A blog post written by Sunil Dutta, a veteran police officer has enraged many people because of the extreme views he presented. Dunil wrote, "If you don't want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you." (http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/20/us/ferguson-column-police-reaction/index.html) While that is not necessarily the view of the majority of police officers, it definitely does not inspire trust in the police force. As opposed to protecting the people, as the police are supposed to do, Dunil's article speaks of a police force that scares and threatens people into compliance. If that is the police force we are dealing with, not one set on protecting the people, but one that will threaten violence to get its way, then most definitely the police are overstepping their bounds. The police are supposed to make people feel more comfortable – there is someone looking out for them and who will help them if need be. As of late, though, it seems as if they are abusing that power. Granted, that does not justify the protestors’ violence. Violence in response to more violence will help nothing. So neither side may be in the right here. The police haven’t convinced the people that they can be entrusted to protect them, but similarly the people haven’t shown the police that they can be trusted. And as each side continues to use violence and force, the conflict will continue to grow and expand. Only when the police AND the civilians can stop using violence will Ferguson be able to return to normal. Even then, it may take some time until anyone in Ferguson will trust the police force again.
The unrest in Ferguson has been badly treated by protestors and police alike, as emotional turmoil has overruled rational thought. Were the actions of the police an overextension of their obligation to keep the peace? According to the U.S. Constitution, peaceful assembly and protest will always remain legal. Protesting in Ferguson, however, has clearly overstepped the bounds of peaceful assembly. FOX News describes how a fraction of protestors attempt to communicate their fury with acts of arson, threats and violence towards police, and looting. Most of the protestors are peaceful, but the violent faction has endangered even the peaceful demonstrators. The police, too, have resorted to violence: LA Times reports that militarized police have used tear gas, rubber bullets, and riot gear to subdue violent protestors.
I believe that the police are, though admittedly resorting to undesirable tactics, right in their attempt to break up violent and destructive protests at any cost. Their trouble occurs in dealing with violent protestors amid seas of nonviolent demonstrators. If strong tactics are not utilized by the police force, violent protesting will rage unchecked and pose a distinct danger to peaceful protestors and police alike. The greatest need in Ferguson now is reconciliatory leadership. As the court case drags on, resentment will build; and when the verdict is reached, it will surely incite further protest.
With all the violence and looting happening in Ferguson and with a crowd that big, I'm not too surprised that the police are taking that much action. It's pretty hard to control a crowd that big and with the police being outnumbered in people, they have to take some large measures to settle down any possible violence going on. People are looting stores and inciting violence when none of that is needed in a protest like this. It's like a mini-Rodney King incident. However, the protesters have every right to form an assembly like that and to speak freely without causing violence. I feel that the police going too far with their power and aren't taking anything into consideration when dealing with stuff like tear gas. Sure, tear gas might settle down any violent activities going on, but using tear gas will surely affect non-violent protesters who have every right to do what they're doing. And the curfew wasn't necessary at all. It took away their right to free speech - there isn't any time limit on that. But the curfew didn't do much. People willingly broke the law to practice their rights. And things aren't too clear as to whether any violent protests will die down or not, but it's a fact that violent protests have happened and will likely continue to happen despite any intervention by the government.
In Ferguson, Missouri I believe the citizens went overboard with this protest because they have been breaking into stores and terrorizing the place. I believe the people have a right to protest to speak their opinion but there is another thing that you protest and destroy the property of the people. This just makes the protesters look even worse than Darren Wilson the police officer who killed Michael Brown. Darren Wilson the police officer was only trying to protect himself from Brown because in a Fox News article a source said they saw Wilson telling Brown and his friend to move away from the middle of the road because it was considered obstructing the traffic. Then Wilson came out of his car to confront them which escalated quickly into physical violence and where Brown starts beating Wilson then later Wilson shot Brown five times. In Missouri they have a law called "duty to retreat" which states before using any deadly force you should retreat from the danger but if you cannot run away from the danger then you are authorized to use deadly force. The protesters are out of control because people are killed every day and this one does not make any different from any other murders. The police officers are only trying to protect the citizens of Ferguson but the protesters are making a mess of what it already is.
“The man in blue, is a friend to you”. A statement many in Ferguson would probably not agree with at this point. The tragic shooting of eighteen year old Michael Brown by police officer, Darren Wilson, has created a protest for justice that is not so nonviolent in some cases. It is the job of the Police to protect the citizens, but things can get out of hand. According to USA Today, police through tear gas in group that had peaceful and violent protestors, but then again this is just one media’s standpoint. It has also been said that police are enforcing a curfew on the people of Ferguson; however I see that as another component for which the community would protest. From my viewpoint I believe that the Police feel they have the safety of citizens in mind, however I can see why the community is crying out for justice. Both sides, the police and the protestors have gotten out of hand. Looting, guns, and riots are not the way to do it, and tear gas, guns, and curfew will not work either. Police want to do the right thing, but are they really? And protestors want justice but being violent is not the way to do it. I honestly think the role of the police amidst the protest is right and wrong. I believe that I can’t really know the “real” story because I am not there.
In my own beliefs, the police in Ferguson have done and are continuing to do what they need to control the overly-sized,angry group of so called "peaceful protesters". Correction, some of the protestors were actually trying to bring about a peaceful approach in standing up for the rights of Michael Brown. Unfortunately, the majority of the protestors approached the situation by means of violence. This in turn turned the whole community upside down resulting in police action. The police by no means went to far in controlling this crowd of angry Missourians. If anyone crossed the line it would have been the protestors. They were the ones that orchestrated the riots and looting. Why blame the police? They are just doing there job in protecting the innocent citizens and attempting to bring order in Ferguson Missouri. According to Newsweek.com, the police fired tear gas into the crowds Sunday night. This may be mostly perceived as an act of inhumanity. However, looking at it in the perspective of how to control over 100 violent protestors that killed innocent people in a carless car crash, maybe tear gas was the appropriate solution to this problem.
The tragic and violent outburst taking place in Ferguson, Missouri among the police and protestors is rapidly growing out of control. The tragic death of Micheal Brown an "Unarmed, African American teenager"(NBC News)has sparked a negative chain of events and reactions from within the Ferguson community. At first the protest was a peaceful gathering fighting against the unjustifiable acts that officer "Darren Wilson" committed. However, at midnight the protest became violent riots. Soon police went from watching the peaceful protest to now taking forceful action. Tear gas, arrest, and curfews set by the police department was meant to stop the acts of violence. After reading the article at NBC news,I personally believe the police have every right to protect the safety of the community from violent protestors. This may include using measures that seem to be unorthodox for some people. The businesses, schools, children and other community members who are not involved in these riots and protest need to be protected. By setting up rules and consequences for those who break the law, the violence should eventually come to an end.
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/michael-brown-shooting/michael-brown-killing-police-ferguson-fire-tear-gas-amid-looting-n182196
While the situation in Ferguson, Missouri, definitely escalated due to the actions of both sides in the conflict, there seems to be a paucity of information about what exactly happened that led to this violence, making it unclear whether the actions of the police can be deemed unlawful or not. Most news outlets, including USA Today and the New York Times are very vague regarding the scale of the looting on the first day. This makes it hard to gauge whether the police's response of assembling 150 officers in riot gear was an overreaction.
However, there does not seem to be any legal rulings strictly against the police's use of force (eg, tear gas), so their response is not an illegal use of force. The most closely related case ruled that peaceful protests cannot be considered a "breach of peace," even if there is the possibility of violence (Cox v. Louisiana). Of course, this does not really seem to apply in this case, considering that some members of the memorial turned to looting and more violent forms of protest. It could be argued that the police's indiscriminate use of tear gas against all protesters, violent or not, is an unnecessary use of force; but, there is still no federal legislation restricting their actions.
Ultimately, it seems that the controversy stemming from the original incident (the shooting of Michael Brown) created a very confusing situations that resulted in missteps by both parties.
Following the fatal shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson by policeman Darren Wilson, the public opinion towards the police became notably hostile. While I do believe it is the responsibility of police officers to respond to the vandalism of small businesses and violent protest, it seems to me that they have failed to anticipate the public's response to officers clad in riot gear hurling tear gas at citizens who already had a reason to resent them. The situation was handled too rashly, and the resulting chaos only resulted in further violence. The police officers are not entirely to blame though. They were essentially walking through a minefield, and as one St. Louis County officer stated, "The situation, as volatile as it is, it doesn't make a difference what decision you make. It will be wrong." The best option was to target the so-called "agitators" and arrest them before they could cause more trouble, which is exactly what police officers did.
The job of the police is to work with their community to protect the ones that they serve and maintain law and order in hopes of creating a better environment for the people. It takes both to cooperate in a civil fashion in order for things to go the way that it should be. However, in the case of Ferguson, MO, the two factors that are supposed to be working hand in hand are not coming to terms with each other and this lack of civil communication further increases the tension among the two. Yes, I do believe that the police have the authority to protect the community. Yes, I do believe that the protestors have the right to freely speak and stand up for what they believe in. However, I firmly believe that these rights that both groups are entitled to should also come with a limit. CBS News states that just before a second curfew was to be set, the streets of Ferguson became overwhelmingly hectic as police heaved tear gas at the crowds and the people responded with taking the canisters and launching them back at the police. Fighting fire with fire doesn't do anything, but increase the flames that already exist. Newsweek includes studies based on the Elaborated Social Identity Model which shows that "an angry crowd can be driven to riot if they believe they are being treated unfairly" The crowd was already riled up due to the death of one of their fellow citizens, Michael Brown, and by being confronted with tear gas only worsens the situation at hand. It may sound as if I feel that the police department should take the initiative and change their tactics, but I still stand by my opinion that it takes both sides to change their approaches on the situation and work together in a humane way without all of the unnecessary violence that has already taken place in order to resolve this problem.
The protesting and police enforcement in Ferguson, MO is not a right or wrong situation. The police are there to protect the citizens of Ferguson from the violent protests and actions going on, including "[m]ore than a dozen businesses [being] vandalized and looted", and other acts of violence such as throwing rocks, throwing Molotov cocktails at officers, shooting at police, and attempting to overrun the police’s command center, as stated by USA Today. Granted, there were probably occasions where the police did go overboard, so it’s not to say that the police were always in the right. But the acts of violence have harmed the other citizens of Ferguson and the peaceful protestors. School is being pushed back later and later out of fear for children’s safety, businesses are closing early and opening late, and denizens are afraid of the riots that occur at night. The media is reporting as though the police are attacking peaceful protesters, although the people who are purposefully trying to agitate police are using the peaceful protesters as cover. To conclude, I believe that police are doing all this to protect the citizens of Ferguson and nearby towns, although at times they may have gotten out of hand.
The police have a duty to protect and defend all citizens of the United States, regardless of the political or racial tensions. While the police seem to have acted too aggressively in their detaining of 47 people, or their shooting of Kajieme Powell, there are two sides to every story. The National Guard does not get called to a small Mississippi town for no reason. Peaceful protesters stand right next to violent ones, putting the safety of everyone at risk. Excessive media coverage has also clouded the issue, as information is released as quickly as possible, and then later amended as the entire story develops. The bottom line is that 2 people are now dead, and 2 police officers are now living with blood on their hands. The entire situation is tragic. However, the police who shot Michael Brown is entitled to a fair and speedy trial, which will now most likely take place outside of Ferguson. The evolution of this event is spiraling into chaos and emotions, instead of factual evidence.
Well, I agree with Katie in that there are always two sides to every story. According to CNN, during the riots, a man was shot for approaching an officer with a knife. With this incident, of course people (including myself) would like to know why he couldn't have been shot in the arm or the leg? Are the police trained well enough to handle this situation? To many, the police have lost their credibility or trustworthiness in a way. Don't get me wrong, there is always a bad apple. There will always be someone who WILL break into someplace or set something on fire in a so called "peaceful" protest. But just as some of the protestors go about things the wrong way, some of the police can also do the same. There are a few "bad apples" in the PD also.
-Ahmani Joseph
Although the police may have thought they were protecting our citizens, they crossed the line and seemed to have made matters worse. It is their job to secure the rights of our law and protect us, but shooting a man that was walking in the middle of the street (reported by eye witnesses on cnn.com) is excessive and unconstitutional. Thus threatening citizens for minor offenses is putting the safety of many lives at risk. I believe that this event was a mixture of abuse of power and mismanagement of the law enforcement's authority and subsequent reaction based on feelings and fear by the community. While the intent was originally to protect citizens ultimately it became an illegal use of force. Again based on multiple eye witnesses' recount of events, however investigations will reveal more facts and give light to the truth of the situation.
It is the polices duty to protect the citizens of Ferguson. It is a shame that the information that led to the protest is unclear (some allegations say Michael Brown was unarmed, in contrast some witnesses say he assaulted the cop), but the police must do their job to try to control the riot and violent outbreaks regardless of the story behind the protest. The preamble even states that it is the governments job to supply police forces to "establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense..." The police can't allow protestors to continue to burn down gas stations and shoot at cops.
Additionally, cops are protecting their citizens because they are relating to the protesters. Captain Ron S. Johnson, a new police supervisor of the riots was interviewed by CNN. Johnson is reaching out to protestors, comforting them in their loses, and answering the protestors questions about how police plan to control the riot. Though the use of tear gas and rubber bullets seems harsh, it's good that metropolitan areas have funds for artillery like this since 9/11 (as reported on NPR). The use of this equipment is just for safety and part of the governments job of providing the national defense.
The protests in Ferguson were initially brought on by what protesters believe was unnecessary force by an officer, killing Michael Brown. This situation led to extreme tension between protesters and police officers and the police officers have definitely made mistakes in the way they've handled the protesters. With that being said, according to USA today Police officers are forced to patrol protests wearing bullet proof vests and gas masks for their own safety. The constitution protects the rights of the people for peaceful protests and assembly. Once they break the peace, the police need to step in for the safety of themselves and others. There have been situations when police may have used excessive force on nonviolent protesters, and yes, this is wrong. But if you were being shot at in the dark, would you take the time to carefully pick out exactly who in a massive mob was shooting at you or would you throw tear gas just to get the shooting to stop? BBC wrote of how the schools have been closed and parents fear for the safety of their children due to these protesters. A curfew was put in place to try to keep the citizens safe. This curfew was implemented to allow the peaceful protesters to come out during the day before curfew as well as to keep the citizens in their homes after dark, safe from any violent protesting. If you're peacefully protesting, why would you come out after a curfew that was put in place for your own safety? Ferguson is really a lose-lose situation where both the police and the protesters have been in the wrong, but the police must protect themselves and others from the violence. If protesters want to get anything accomplished they must end the shootings and the looting and let tensions ease. They must let their voices be heard, instead of gunshots.
The role of the police is to protect its citizens, secure the street and arrest any individual that has broken the law. In Ferguson, MO there has been nonviolent and violent protest since the shooting of unarmed eighteen year old Michael Brown. The community took their fury to the streets and has asked for justice. Recently however the tension between the protesters and the police of Ferguson has quickly escalated. And the role of the police has recently been questioned. Knowingly it is the job of the police to protect the community but in my opinion a violation of these citizens freedom of assembly and speech has come into play. Tear gas was thrown and these protestors by the police on what seemed to be a mostly peaceful protest, however the reason they fired that tear gas was for the reason that the protestors were refusing their orders (the police) to disperse after a curfew was put. Tear gas in my opinion seems like an absurd measure to take on these citizens, they become disoriented and the gas gets in their eyes and lungs, causing way more chaos then there needs to be. However, these protestors have also grown violent on npr.org it says that "more that 160 people have been arrested since the protest began nearly two weeks ago" the individuals that were getting arrested were caused either property damage, disorderly conduct and burglary. This is the part where I agree with the police. Police have the right to arrest those who have broken the law.(http://www.npr.org/2014/08/21/342207432/who-are-the-protesters-getting-arrested-in-ferguson) I strongly believe in the non violent movement, it is perfectly acceptable for these citizens to protest something that they believe is wrong, however violence is never the answer. Peacefully asking for justice can achieve more than taking the violent route. If these protestors want the justice they rightly deserve they should keep this movement in a peaceful manner with no guns and no burglary.as well as, respecting the curfew implemented instead of taking the streets at such unreasonable times, the curfew was strongly necessary to avoid the increase of violence. Governor Nixon said "We can't let the ill will of the few to undermine the goodwill of the many," in which the issuing of this curfew is strongly supported. (http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/08/16/340943120/mo-governor-orders-state-of-emergency-curfew-in-ferguson) in order for this tension to dwindle the police should not arrest or exceed their power on those who are protesting peacefully. And the protestors should respect what's being inplemented and not grow violent.
I believe that police forces,and by extension the government have the responsibility of preserving order in the communities they serve. They must ensure that people have the freedom to exercise their rights, while at the same time protecting law abiding citizens from those who would do harm. In the case of Ferguson, I believe the police force has been largely unsuccessful. Their response to the protests has been heavy handed, and authoritarian. The mostly peaceful protests and demonstrations were marred by a minority of instigators who antagonized police and looted stores. As was mentioned in a CNN article, most residents of the suburb attribute the violence to "out of town rabble rousers". It is understandable, that the police would seek to control this, their response has succeeded only in worsening the situation,and restricting peaceful protests. They treated the majority of peaceful protesters, with hostility and disrespect. What has also been well documented, is the restriction and harassment of journalists in Ferguson. An Al Jazeera America article detailed a police officer threatening "I'll bust your head" to a reporter doing nothing wrong. Our government and police forces serve not only to protect us from danger, but also to protect our rights. This is not an easy task, and it requires patience, and restraint on their part. Something the police in Ferguson have certainly not shown.
Ferguson to me after looking at just images resembles Gaza during an israeli invasion. tear gas being fired at crowds, police in militarized gear. people in Ferguson posting videos, vines and live tweeting about the situation show this as a tyrannical crackdown on a unarmed civilian population. reports on CNN, Al-Jazzera, and BBC report this as one of the heaviest police crackdowns since the civil rights movement. a petition to the white house was sent known as the "Mike Brown law" where police are required to wear cameras to have hard evidence in cases to justify their actions. what it has come to is no one trusts the cops anymore. there is two sides to this story. one being the race issue, Mike Brown being a black teenager in a low socioeconomic area known for a high crime rate. then the police officers and the in recent news how they are very brutal and not abiding by police codes and regulations. one man in an interview with ABC news clearly points out (could not find the link for the video) that this is more then a race issue it is the united states evolving into a police state where the citizens live in fear and no authority figure or organization can be trusted. i see this as a race issue. when police come in militarized gear shooting rubber bullets and tear gas at unarmed civilians it takes me back to Gaza where they are fighting for their freedom, their rights to live in peace. with this situation it has too many pecies and variables to where a clear judgment cant be made without being bias.
As with anything it is hard to make a blanket statement that supports either side as both the police and the protesters have outstepped their boundaries throughout this process. But I believe an illegal use of force by the police is evident here. American citizens have a right to protest which is all the protesters were doing. Of course, there is a bad apple in every bunch and some violence did occur. But for the governor to call in the National Guard, a curfew to be put in place, and for Ferguson to be turned into a war zone was an extreme over reaction for citizens who were just holding up signs. Although the duty of the police is to definitely protect the citizen and the community they basically turned Ferguson into a totalitarian state. Striking fear into all residents of Ferguson. From every major media outlet whether it be NPR, CNN or Fox has on record Citizens of Ferguson explaining the fear and anxiety caused by a total militarization of Ferguson. Pictures from Fox News show police in full body armor accompanied with assault rifles, tear gas and dogs. I can tell why the citizens of Ferguson are scared to leave their homes! The legitimacy of my sources is adequate as there is consistency among them. All major media is showing these same pictures of overuse of force. One powerful picture I saw on Fox News was 2 pictures side by side; one of the stock equipment used for an infantry soldier in the army and another of a National Guard member controlling protest in Ferguson. The National guard member had a striking amount of more equipment then a soldier that we send to the front lines! a clear overuse of force is necessary. I also believe that having such a strong presence of force has had a reverse effect. Instead of controlling the protesters I believe it has agitated them and caused a flare in violence that might not have been necessary. Although this was a tough situation to react to, I do not believe it was handled correctly and in doing so more violence and unrest occurred which punishes the citizens of Ferguson when the police have been in the wrong since the very start.
It is easy to see why the people of Ferguson, MO are scared out of their minds. If the national guard was pulled into the city where I resided then I would fear for my life as well. Regarding the shooting of Micheal Brown, I feel that the police officer's judgement was incorrect due to the fact that Brown was unarmed and is said to have put his hands up which would indicate his compliance to the officer. The mere fact that he was shoot a totally of 6 times shows too much force being used for the situation. Even though this is how it is being reported through the media; it is hard for me to completely disagree with the officers actions when I do not fully know what happened and was not there to make a judgement call on whether the officer was in the wrong or not. I do in fact can say that pulling the National guard into Ferguson and using weapons such as tear gas and other violence to prohibit protesting is a bit excessive. Protestors though on the other need to realize that their is a peaceful way to voice their opinions without leading to violence and destruction. The situation in Ferguson, MO has honestly escalated to a point which is entirely too far but do to wrongs on both the protestors as well as the government.
Stacy Washington of the National Center for Public Policy Research commenting on the event in Ferguson, MO says what many of us have already been thinking; the public (citizens of Ferguson, specifically), are taking the case way too far in general. I say in general because there are those that are truly a part of the riots because they believe that they have rights that are being compromised and they feel the need to stand out. Others, on the other hand, are, as Washington puts it, individuals who "have taken a tragedy and are using it as an excuse to exercise their most base and criminal desires." Not only are they putting themselves in danger, they are putting their neighbors, their children, the economy and the order of all of Missouri in danger. Despite popular opinion, I believe that what the police are trying to do is completely justified and it's being taken the wrong way. The African-American population is turning the issue solely into one of race. According to a Rasmussen poll, "Fifty-seven percent of black adults . . . think police officer Darren Wilson [who shot Brown] should be found guilty of murder, compared to just 17 percent of whites and 24 percent of other minority Americans." This statistic is very telling in the way that it demonstrates the potential bias in ways of thinking. The protesters, in my opinion, are focused so much more on their own motivating factors (whether it is intolerance for racial discrimination, belief of a corrupt judicial system, etc.)that the violence has surpassed surface hopes of justice for Mike Brown. Because of this, things like the curfew and strict security are completely necessary in my opinion. It's basically a way of forcing people to take time to "cool off" and think about what they’re actually doing, as well as evaluate its value compared to the danger and problems that they're causing to society. Christian blogger and pastor Michael Brown brings up the very valid point that a human life is weighted the same regardless of who took it, and there have been so many more black Americans killed by other black Americans than black Americans killed by police. This, again, demonstrates the underlying motives here in protesting the Mike Brown case. It's more about distrust in the legal system than actual justice for their neighbor, which has caused those in Ferguson to lash out excessively. Propaganda has a huge part in the ideologies of these people, such as the massacre in Rwanda. The participants had no idea why they were killing, other than someone saying to them "these people are bad and should be killed." The protesters in Ferguson are listening to their worldly neighbors saying "these white people are killing our own, we should lash out," and simply following along instead of evaluating the consequences, and also the benefits of being more of a peaceful, reasonable group. That is not to say that the protesting is completely unjustified, because it's not. Those in Ferguson have a great reason to be upset, but emotional control is so important and it just isn't happening, in which case it is the police's job to try and take control of the situation even if it means harsh, seemingly "unfair" restrictions.
Michael Brown's "Christian Post": http://www.christianpost.com/news/lessons-from-ferguson-missouri-black-white-leaders-still-dont-get-it-125214/
Stacy Washington comments: http://www.nj.com/opinion/index.ssf/2014/08/looting_riots_as_in_ferguson_mo_never_advance_a_good_cause_letter.html
I believe that most of the actions that the law enforcement officers have taken were justified. As one law enforcement officer, Captain Ron Johnson, told Fox News, the protests are very dangerous at night because, “it allows a small number of violent agitators to hide in the crowd and then attempt to create chaos.” (http://video.foxnews.com/v/3738033808001/31-arrested-2-shot-as-protests-turn-violent-in-ferguson/?intcmp=obinsite#sp=show-clips) If people want to protest, they should do it peacefully. Some of the protesters in Ferguson were being very violent, looting and burning property, throwing bottles and Molotov cocktails at the police, and even firing shots. The measures that the law enforcement officers took, including using tear gas, and in limited instance, firing shots, were all used to protect themselves and to protect the other citizens of the city and owners of the shops nearby. The protests have gotten out of hand, leading to violent criminal acts and unsafe and unjust behavior by some of the protesters. In order to maintain order in Ferguson, the officers had to use the methods that they chose and they did not overstep their authority by doing so.
The police's duty on the street is to protect the community and make sure that the streets stay safe. However, on BBC news the deal in Ferguson, MO dealing with michael brown seems to be a racial uproar. Just because the cop was white, people think it was a racial issue. Police officers are not allowed to shoot and kill somebody unless their life is in danger. I also believe that the media can be super biased because it is written y a reporter, so you never know what the truth really is unless you were there. The protesters have gone to far in this case. For example, CBS news says that they had to set a second curfew to stop the protests. The protestor have the right to protest. And if people feel threatened they have the right to bare arms. I agree with Nixon that justice will be served. Only investigations and plenty of eye witnesses will bring out the truth in this whole situation.
Law enforcement was originally put into action by the government in an effort to serve and protect our American people. In recent times, law enforcement has become something that evokes fear in most rather than a sense of protection. Police of our time have allowed for the power that they do have to go to their heads, they feel that having that title allows for them to have the final say over any and everything even when it comes to ending someone's life. The protests in Ferguson originally stemmed off of the death of a young man named Michael Brown, who was shot and killed by a Ferguson police officer. That day, members of the community were involved in prayer meeting held by the NAACP as well as protests that night where police used tear gas and rubber bullets to disperse them. That being said, from the beginning the police force escalated things. Though peaceful protests continued, there were citizens who protested more violently. Because violent protests were occurring, a curfew was definitely necessary. The curfew served as a time of rest, where citizens could be at ease. Even then, there are several videos on youtube where the police announce the curfew, then use tear gas to disperse the crowds. All in all, the police force is not going about the situation in a way that will end positively for anyone.
I do not agree with either the police or the protesters in the Ferguson situation. Even though the police are there to keep the peace, their way of doing so is not justified or acceptable in any way or form. However, I do not think the behavior of SOME of the protesters is acceptable either. These people are terrorizing their own community by looting their local stores, vandalizing business, and essentially disturbing the peace. Their beliefs should be expressed in a more civilized manner that would not call for police action. An article from ABC News describes how some locals are too afraid to leave their house due to the violence going on in the area. The article also mentions the use of tear gas on the local people, which is supposedly banned from using in war. This information is startling to me and makes me question our government. I think the behavior of both the police and the protesters is unnecessary and something needs to be done to resolve this problem before things get worse.
Tabitha Cobb 2B
I believe the police forces in Ferguson Missouri used unlawful force in an attempt to show control of the streets of Ferguson. I believe the midnight curfew was barely necessary at the time of civil unrest. However, the repercussions of breaking the curfew were unnecessary. The police could have used a less forceful method of retaliation. The methods used not only heightened the tensions between the community and the police, it also created an image of a war zone and potentially harmed many more civilians and officers. The military equipment portrayed the protestors as disruptive, threatening and unlawful. Governor Nixon of Missouri acknowledged the over-militarization used by police was too aggressive under the circumstances. http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/17/politics/missouri-governor-nixon-ferguson/index.html?iref=allsearch
It is inarguable that the protesters have the Constitutional right to peacefully assemble. The curfew put into place was borderline unconstitutional; but given it was for the protection of civilians it was tolerable. However, the police department should have developed a more productive way to punish civilians. The punishment should be for breaking curfew not protesting. The police department’s retaliation was not clear in that it was toward the citizens for breaking curfew and not for the protesting itself.
The government is supposed to take care of us and protect us against what is wrong, but with the Ferguson trial, I think they have gone a little too far. Their have been riots caused and people don't seem to fight together. They all go out at different times, but if they had one unified voice, maybe the message would get out more. Police officers are supposed to keep us safe, but sometimes they think too fast and their actions get the best of them.The government needs to create a fine line between when it is right to shoot and when they are trying to protect themselves. With more communication, this could have gone a lot more smoothly. All people seem to want these days is justice. New York Times said the action of the police makes it seem like they are disrespectful to the community and what they stand for.
The Ferguson situation has brought much attention to the actions of the police towards the protests against the shooting. It is the police’s duty to protect citizens from any harm or distress but in this instance it reached out too far. Since the killing of Brown did affect many of the local citizens of Ferguson it is only expected that protests would occur in reaction to the wrongful actions that occurred. But there is a large difference in protecting citizens and causing harm to them. The protests and the gathering of the communities is not a threat nor large enough of a problem where police forces would need to bring in large artillery in order to shut down the people’s voices. After all everyone is given the freedom of speech, so why is it that now when the people are expressing their thought and sharing their words, which all of a sudden it has become a posed threat to others. A curfew may have been a slight positive action in calming down the protests, but it doesn’t stop anything. The more the police become armed and increase their status of being more of a threat rather than protection, these protests will continue to grow and retaliate. Instead of attempting to shut down and completely stop the protests with the use of dangerous weapons and attacks, the police should be peacefully dealing with the situations.
The events that are continuously occurring in Ferguson are astonishing. I definitely think the police have overstepped their boundaries. CNN states that in the case of Michael Brown, the police officer came up to the car and ask him for is insurance information...something a cop doesn't usually ask for. Did the cop know he was going to shoot him beforehand? The curfew was unnecessary and so was the calling in of the national guard. Also, tear gas is supposed to be banned from war, how can we use it on our own people? The people of Ferguson have the right to protest, however, some protestors are taking it too far and egging on the police department. Both sides have overstepped in certain ways. CNN also has a woman that reports that there has previously been tension between the people of Ferguson and the "white police department" for years. The police have a job to protect the people and the streets of ferguson and protecting from looting and such, they have just crossed the line. This has turned into a small civil war, a racial, small civil war.
I definitely feel that the actions done by the officers have crossed a line. I understand that they are trying to "control the commotion" but in the end, they are creating more than what is already there. The protests have been peaceful, "no Molotov cocktails, no fires, no shootings -- we did not see a single hand gun" as stated by police on CBS News. But yet tear gas has been released onto the civilians and arrests have been made. The people aren't hurting anybody or breaking any laws and yet the are getting punished. Within this country, each person is granted the freedom of speech, but it is clear here that that right is not applicable. I can see why the officers are trying to control the protest and trying to keep it from getting out of hand but at the same time, they are going against American Citizen's rights and making the scenario much worse than it needs to be. People have a right to fight for what they believe in.
This topic has been expanding all over the news for awhile and I must say it is a very big topic regarding several aspects. The police being a major one which I believe the police have gone extremely to far within the expansion of this case. Especially the curfew that is just ridiculous! If you look onto the second amendment "the right to bare arms" it is justified to bare arms when necessary, such as self defense. Yet, the police feel it is justified to use weapons whenever they feel like it just because they are able by the law and government. The citizens in Ferguson have the "freedom of speech/petition/press" from the first amendment which means they are able to protest without having to go through shootings and everything else the police have in store. The police need to come to the realization that the citizens are trying to find justification in what police call PROTECTION.
In this case of unrest in Ferguson,many things have gone wrong in the city,from people taking both sides for the police officer and the guy who died.The police have a job to do which is to protect the citizens and when it comes down to it they must choose between protecting the majority of the people and risking the others to illegal force or to not do much and just let it go on with little control.I think that it should always be in the best interest of the USA to allow police to "violate" rights of the few to save the lives of the many.What I am saying is that if the police in Ferguson along with the national guard did not show that they were serious about these protesters disturbing the peace of the city and more importantly the safety of the people ,then the protests would get even worse than imagined,with more deaths,damage and a Ferguson left even more broken. Also if the people of Ferguson would learn to protest peacefully, with no destruction,fires, and shooting of guns into the air, then the police would not have to do what they are doing, how can you expect violence and confrontations between police and citizens to stop if the citizens themselves continually ask for trouble.They key problem with the usable force by police issue is that , police are trained to protect themselves and citizens,so if your the threat then you are no longera priority of safety, they will take you out to keep others safe.So the point is that the police have been forced to act this way,they have set up reasonable curfews to try and keep the people safe, and yet no one wants to abide by the law just because a incident happened.If the citizens want peace and justice then they should stand down now since they already got everyone's attention,if they don't then the police have no choice but to use whatever force necessary to save the majority, when dangerous protesting happens .The only other option is for them to protest only in daylight and do it within their constitutional rights. The police have a duty to protect the citizens that are law abiding first, then if possible help save those that are breaking the law from themselves. What I do think is that the unrest needs to stop and these outbreaks are out of boundsfor Americans, we have a right to protest but we must do it peacefully and not provoke the very people paid to protect us and who are able to allow us to protest, without the Police protests can become dangerous with opposing views of people clashing together we need the Police to do their job and when the time comes to intervene in order to protect the people, with this they must also abide by the law which they now need to reconsider what they should do when something like this happens. So they need a better response to protests like this. .I have gotten my response by viewing multiple news sources from the right side, left side, christian post, and from hearing people talk about the case.
The police in Ferguson have a duty to protect the people of the city and the city itself. I believe they are just taking extra precautions when it comes to this incident because they understand how controversial it is and how it could possibly lead to violent protests and riots. I really believe the police are protecting against looting and violence with their show of force at the moment because when you have such a large number of people crazed at the same time awful things can occur such as robbery, looting and even rape. I do believe a temporary curfew was necessary to keep the people under control and to keep the movement of people in check so you don't have people 24/7 rioting and protesting because they are forced to go home. This also makes it easier on the police who get necessary time to relax and recharge for the next day. The protesters can still pursue a nonviolent protest as long as they don't get too worked up, after all the police are still people and they get scared too so if they ever feel threatened its understandable they would show force but only if it meant that one of the troopers was in trouble. People see this issue as a race problem but it actually isn't it is just a controversial issue that is being misunderstood by many. Social media has a great influence over what is happening and being reported in the area so it can be used to shape the opinion of people who aren't there so people must research and gain knowledge on the situation before they jump to conclusions. I actually learned about Ferguson through social media and I read over numerous tweets and posts which helped me come to my conclusions shown above.
The events that took place in Ferguson, Missouri are tragic and yet sadly should not have taken place. We would like the thought of those who are too protect and serve are actually doing the job. Not saying that police officers do not do their jobs they actually do a really good job at doing it. Police officers are here to protect those who are in danger and those who cannot defend for themselves. Where many Americans see it has crossed the line is when the police officers go and retaliate against those they are supposed to protect. Many times police officers have such a huge ego that if its bruised just a bit that they go crazy or that they have no understanding of what's supposed to happen or what the proper procedures are to handling a certain situation. As a quick venture back to the Trayvon Martin situation where george Zimmerman took on the responsibility of an officer when he was told specifically not to intervene, It took Trayvon Martin's life. And then again with the Michael Dunn situation where Jordan Davis had his life taken away due to loud music. And now with this situation regarding Michael Brown in Missouri his life was taken away from him and proper precautions were not done in order to prevent that from happening. In each of these three cases we see a pattern, where it is race-on-race violence. The majority of Americans around the country looking at these three situations are mainly focusing on race, and whether or not it was appropriate for them to lose their life, in which it was not. On the other side in each of these three cases, each defendant thought that it was a significant threat to their own lives present from the victims. Again, in each of the three cases the defendants have been severely punished for their wrongdoing. However, we as a group of people are not looking at the facts we are only looking at race, we are not looking at the fact that something was provoked to doing those things. In each of the 3 cases, the victims happen to be teenage African-American males. Before I go any further, i'm not saying that the victims were wrong in what they did or that only the defendants were wrong, but both parties were wrong. Coming from personal experience, teenagers tend to not listen or do what adults ask of them to do. It is very common for teenagers to not want to do what authority figures ask. What is common is that the only authority figures teens know to listen to are parents, teachers, administrators, and workplace authorities, and sometimes police. Even then those people are sometimes still not addressed as a proper authority figure. And now with massive rioting in protesting in the streets of Ferguson, Missouri people are still not addressing police officers as a proper authority figure because of the events that took place, because people only saw it as a race problem rather than looking at facts, and understanding that both parties were completely wrong. Now, however it may be a still a mystery to actually what was said at Jordan Davis's situation, what was done at Trayvon Martin's situation and what actually happened at Michael Brown's situation. this is only because media has a way to stir up and change facts or that certain facts into the blogs into the papers and magazines do not present the actual thing they present what is parallel to the situations. Some people believe that these people can believe that all three of the victims were targeted. Some people believe that police had nothing wrong. Some people even believe that it doesn't matter, but both parties were totally wrong. We will never be able to take away and change what race has done in the American communities within the last four centuries. We can only acknowledge it and continue life as one nation . Abraham Lincoln said that "a house divided against itself will not stand" in his Gettysburg Address. And that statement still has much to do with what is going on today. We have much greater problems in the world than for us to be against one another because of race.
Post a Comment