People seem to be misunderstanding the real issues with what has been happening in Ferguson, so allow me to set the record straight. I have seen posts going around trying to defend the conduct of the police. I think it is very, very dangerous to try to find any reason to justify sending SWAT teams in to deal with peaceful protesters. End of story. Before anyone begins whining that I am ignoring the looting of Sunday night, I am not. I am simply saying the people who are protesting in the streets are not the people who looted on Sunday and do not need to be treated as such. It has come out that last nights tear gassing and firing rubber bullets was caused by three people throwing molotov cocktails at police. Three people. Three people throwing things at police is not a riot and does not deserve a riot response. The men responsible for goading the police into another disproportionate response should have been arrested and taken away. Simple as that. However, by the time things were being thrown at the police, the police were marching at the protesters therefore directly creating another volatile confrontation. You see, if the police had simply cordoned off the area then secured the local businesses, the chances of a confrontation could/would have been much lower. I appreciate the work of the majority of law enforcement officials who truly do *serve* and *protect*. However, I refuse to condone sending in SWAT teams to deal with protesters. Had they been looting and rioting (as they were on Sunday) riot police would have been a proper response. This is the United States of America. We have certain rights that the government cannot abridge, and to all of the people who think the looting on Sunday night justifies sending a SWAT team to deal with protesters (not looters) the next morning and the day after that, I fear for what your idea of America looks like. On a final note if you want the clearest example of how differently black communities are treated by the police, look no further than the case predominantly white people engaging in an *armed* (ARMED!!!) standoff with the feds at Clive Bundys ranch this summer that ended with no protesters being forced to disarm or disperse. Yet a group of unarmed black people are forced to disperse by use of tear gas, flash grenades by men in military-grade armored personnel carriers. Everyone needs to ask themselves: How can a group of unarmed protesters be considered more hostile and dangerous than a group of armed protesters engaging in a standoff? Let me know what answer you come up with.
Posted on: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 20:48:06 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015