Is it just me, or are the police in Ferguson, Missouri doing everything they can to make sure they get perceived as jackbooted thugs who are less concerned about protecting the people of the city and more concerned about protecting their image?
I mean, when they initially stonewalled on any attempt to ID the white officer who killed an unarmed black teen, my first response was, "even if it's well-intentioned that's so not a good move". As they kept refusing to release his identity over the last few days, my reactions shifted to, "they've probably know of or found something in his personal life that will just blow up horribly in their faces, like some kind of White Supremacist affiliation, and are desperately treading water while trying to find a way out of looking like complete monsters".
And then there are the events of last night. Between an officer who refused to identify himself physically assaulting and arresting a pair of journalists, a riot squad teargassing a TV news crew and then pointing the abandoned camera away from their actions, and other police even arresting a local politician who was streaming live video of the incident to the Web, you've got to wonder what they're trying to hide. Especially with the Ferguson police chief quoted as being unable to identify any officers who did anything to anyone, because "We had a lot of different agencies out there."
Bull. For thirty years or more there have been cops, both civilian and military, among my friends and from them I learned that one thing is a constant among well-run police forces: everything is documented. If it's not, the cops are either incompetent or hiding something. Although at least one CNN article today points at "incompetent" (Riding around on top of an APC? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the armor?), it's definitely looking like "hiding something" is a major factor.
Edit: Relevant link -- http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/13/justice/m ... ?hpt=hp_t1 Are you telling me the Ferguson police chief can't identify the officer whose face takes up a quarter of the screen? Seriously?
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.
I mean, when they initially stonewalled on any attempt to ID the white officer who killed an unarmed black teen, my first response was, "even if it's well-intentioned that's so not a good move". As they kept refusing to release his identity over the last few days, my reactions shifted to, "they've probably know of or found something in his personal life that will just blow up horribly in their faces, like some kind of White Supremacist affiliation, and are desperately treading water while trying to find a way out of looking like complete monsters".
And then there are the events of last night. Between an officer who refused to identify himself physically assaulting and arresting a pair of journalists, a riot squad teargassing a TV news crew and then pointing the abandoned camera away from their actions, and other police even arresting a local politician who was streaming live video of the incident to the Web, you've got to wonder what they're trying to hide. Especially with the Ferguson police chief quoted as being unable to identify any officers who did anything to anyone, because "We had a lot of different agencies out there."
Bull. For thirty years or more there have been cops, both civilian and military, among my friends and from them I learned that one thing is a constant among well-run police forces: everything is documented. If it's not, the cops are either incompetent or hiding something. Although at least one CNN article today points at "incompetent" (Riding around on top of an APC? Doesn't that defeat the purpose of the armor?), it's definitely looking like "hiding something" is a major factor.
Edit: Relevant link -- http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/13/justice/m ... ?hpt=hp_t1 Are you telling me the Ferguson police chief can't identify the officer whose face takes up a quarter of the screen? Seriously?
-- Bob
---------
Then the horns kicked in...
...and my shoes began to squeak.