Radio
Breaking news, as well as the most pressing issues of political, economic and social life. Opinion and analysis. Programs produced and made by journalists from Sputnik studios.

Do Peaceful Protests Pose Threat?

© Сollage by RIA NovostiDo Peaceful Protests Pose Threat?
Do Peaceful Protests Pose Threat? - Sputnik International
Subscribe
Police have deployed military hardware at protests in Ferguson, MO, after the killing of unarmed African-American teenager by policeman. This has sparked debate in the media whether it does make situation less dangerous or not?

Dramatic shows of force were a response to largely peaceful protests that started in Ferguson, Missouri a little more than a week ago over the death of an armed black teen, shot by a police officer. The images of heavily armed police units deployed where people gathered to show their condemnation of the shooting have appeared in social media sparking a heated debate whether militarizing police makes tense situations less dangerous.

Agree or Disagree discusses the militarization of the US police force and the reasons behind it as well as the lessons of Ferguson with Tom Nolan, a former police officer for the Boston Police Department, Associate Professor at the State University of New York and Joe Johnson, a political and social affairs analyst.

Do peaceful protests present a threat? Part 1
Do peaceful protests present a threat? Part 2

How do you personally feel about what is happening in Missouri?

Tom Nolan: I think that what we are seeing playing out in Ferguson, Missouri, over the last now 9 nights is a militarized police response. That I think is a direct result of the Department of Defense’s 1033 program and the Department of Justice, and the Department of Homeland Security providing military-grade equipment to state, local, county law enforcement agencies, as well as the DHS and DOJ providing grant money for the purchases of military-grade weapons, equipment, uniforms, vehicles. And with all that is playing out in Ferguson, this is the first time that the international audience has actually observed this taking place – this militarized, hyperexaggerated response to what is going on in the street.

Joe Johnson: Since the attack on the WTC, when the Department of Homeland Security basically said that just about any police force in the US needs to be prepared to respond to a terrorist attack, it so happened that the Department of Defense had some necessary equipment. And the next thing you’ve got is the police organizations across the US with heavy weapons, some even have tanks.

But I think it goes a little bit further. I think there is an underlying problem in the US that’s never been solved, and I don’t know if it ever will be solved. And that is the race relations between the two populations that are almost at war here with each other in Ferguson. In addition, you have a town where 66% of the population is not white and with, I believe, 53 police officers, out of whom only three are African-American. I mean, something is not right.

Why did the police react like this?

Tom Nolan: I think the police reacted because they were trained to do so and they had the equipment at the ready. And I think when you dress the police officers like the soldiers, and you put them in military vehicles, they develop a warrior mentality.

Joe Johnson: I'm not sure that we know all of the facts. I mean, there are the FBI agents working on this right now. With any luck, it will be presented to the Grand Jury tomorrow and we will move forward with the process that will determine whose federal rights were violated.

The other thing was the lack of training to deal with this situation and there was an overreaction. That said, when something goes wrong, that does not give a crowd the right to loot, to destroy other property. So, the police force has to be at the ready, because you don’t know what is going to happen next when the crowd gets out of control.

And there were a couple of other mistakes that were made. The chief of police did not release the name of the officer who shot Michael Brown I think for six days. They held the name with the excuse of worrying about his life. Okay, I can understand that. But right after that the police department releases a video allegedly showing Michael Brown committing a robbery at a convenience store, taking $40-50 worth of certain brand of small cigars. Did he do that? I don’t know that. But I guarantee you that those FBI agents are going to be coming with some facts, that are going to be indisputable. And we will know soon enough what happened.

What about the fate of the officer that shot Michael Brown?

Tom Nolan: We believe that there is going to be a Grand Jury convened that will hear evidence as to what occurred. The decision to release the images at the same time they released the name of the officer involved in the shooting, I think it was a complete blunder on the part of the police chief, who did this without any awareness or agreement with the commanding officer on the scene. The result of that has been the ongoing protest. I think it can be directly traced to the release of those images and the inflammatory nature of criminalizing and demonizing the shooting victim.

But even if Michael Brown was guilty, did the officer have the right to shoot him like 9 times?

Tom Nolan: The officer wasn’t even aware, from what we are told, that Michael Brown was a suspect in the theft of these cigarillos. So, it is apples and oranges, why the released the images that are completely irrelevant to the issue at hand, in my estimation.

Joe Johnson: My understanding is that the Missouri law gives a police officer a fair amount of latitude to shoot when they think that they have something that they need to stop. But now we are looking at, perhaps, the federal law, whether the rights have been violated and these sorts of things.

The articles that I read in the media now give me the impression that some Americans are getting more and more nervous around the police these days.

Tom Nolan: I know that there is that palpable sense in many of our communities of color. Young African-American men are particularly afraid of encounters with the police. And I read some media accounts about parents who have to have “the talk” with their young sons, who are of color, about their interactions with the police, like – hands up, respectful attitude – that, hopefully, will have a positive result.

Joe Johnson: The PEW research just released a study and this is really getting political. On whether you think the officers reacted appropriately or not, with the republicans 43% think that the police response was about right and only 20% that it has gone too far, and 37% have no opinion – translated that they have an opinion, but just don’t want to talk about it. And if you take a look at democrats, 56% say that the response went too far. I think it is easily explained by the fact that the majority of the conservative population in the country is not African-American or a minority.

Do you think if the police were trained how to use the equipment that they have, would things have been different in Ferguson?

Tom Nolan: I think that the decision that was made to deploy military vehicles, equipment and weapons in the first place was something that we ought to question. I think that these kinds of deployments should only be reserved for the most serious kinds of incidents. I think if any good can come out of what is going on in Ferguson, it will be our questioning the wisdom of equipping our police officers like soldiers. And maybe, we will go back to community policing principles.

Newsfeed
0
To participate in the discussion
log in or register
loader
Chats
Заголовок открываемого материала