tvc184

Both have been used successfully many times. Some of those times have saved lives.

In about 1985-86 our entire department was trained in riot tactics after a lot of union unrest in the area back then. We carried the same equipment back then (riot batons, shields, helmets, rubber bullets, wooden rounds/knee knockers, tear gas, etc.). The difference between then and now is the uniforms.    We used to wear our regular duty gear is that it all we had. We had to wear the $35 dress shirts with the creases sewn in made for all the jewelry we hang on them and dress uniform pants. Today they wear over-the-counter BDU style uniforms. That is the difference, the cop wear utility gear instead of dress uniforms to riots. That for some reason offends the public and makes the same police officers now "militarized" because they took off their dress blues for riots. I am assuming that if they wore the blues again like in the 1968 Chicago riots, it would be okay. Even many of the helmets were blue.    Google 1968 Chicago Riots and click on images and see what the officers in a riot looked like back then. Almost nothing has changed except the training the officers receive and the uniforms. 

  In some instances I have seen the opposite of what some people might believe as far as the race of the officer.

  The police force has now been turned into a political force and doesn't want to offend anyone...... except maybe the store owners that they are no longer protecting.    At least quit using "military" tactics.    From the last military actions that I saw on the news, the military lobbed artillery rounds or rockets into the enemy and when they sent in troops, they tossed in fragmentation grenades into structures to try and take out any survivors and then went in shooting anyone that was left. I guess it is a good thing the police in MO quit doing that.    Hmmmm.... wait....... looking at the MO riots, I think the police mostly had riot batons and sidearms, gave many warnings over the loud speaker to move and gave people a long time to move away and then finally launched tear gas on those that refused a lawful order. Yeah, I guess that is the same as "military" tactics. These police are getting out of hand.  Just ask the store owners..................... 

  Again, the definition of "chaos". Chief Has Arrived On Scene   When they get to be chiefs, they are no longer cops and are politicians. That is the nature of the job but it is what it is. 

  Not exactly.    SWAT took a long time to get there. Once they arrived, they have a close in shootout between vehicles and one of them and the other was shot by an officer but also shot himself in the head, committing suicide when he saw he had no way out.    In any case, it took SWAT to be there and the 100 or so patrol officers that responded had no answer for two guys that shot several people including officers. That is the same SWAT that saved the day that people are now saying is too much policing.    A lot of people don't want the cops to have big guns or armored vehicles unless they are being held hostage, then they want the cops to have every tool available.    I spent 10 years on SWAT and they are no more military like today than they were 30 years ago. What we have today is 24 hour news and social media. 

  Looters are what looters always are. They are criminals looking for some incident to take advantage of. I am sure that some are from out of the area but just as sure that there are plenty of locals in the St. Louis County area that are just as low life as anyone else.

  Anyone can investigate it. It is concurrent jurisdiction. For example let's say there is an accusation of a crime happened in a city in Jefferson County and it had a possible federal violation also (all laws are not federal for example DWI). The city has jurisdiction, the county has jurisdiction, the state has jurisdiction and the federal government has jurisdiction. Any of those four could investigate a crime independently or work with any or all of the others in a joint investigation.   Under most circumstances crimes are investigated at the local level. In some high profile cases or under their jurisdiction, the federal government with its dozens of investigative law enforcement agencies might get involved such as this case. Rob a7-11 at gunpoint and you will have the local cops after you. Rob the local bank and you will likely see the FBI breathing down your neck as it is both a state law crime and a federal law crime.    I have no clue how they are investigating the shooting in Ferguson but the Ferguson PD, St. Louis County PD, the MO State Police (Highway Patrol) and the FBI could all look into it. I "think" right now at the state level it has been turned over to the MO Highway Patrol and probably the FBI at the federal level. 

Does who called 911 matter? These tweets are nothing but a smokescreen. There appears to be plenty of evidence that the officer made a lawful stop. That is of no consequence because what happened after the stop is what matters. Did the officer have a legal authority to use deadly force in what he did or was it unjustified? The rest is just fluff.

Let's play what if. What if the video is what the police were going out to when broadcasting a description? Looking at the video, there was only one suspect they push the clerk so all he wants us back in the robbery. Simply being with the person does not mean you're involved. If that was true a passenger could get a ticket for speeding when he is in the car.

  On a similar case, we had an officer's patrol vehicle shot one night in the windshield. I went to that area and was blocking a road and had stopped a vehicle for something entirely different. Other officers were at the scene a block or so away.    There was some radio traffic but I wasn't paying attention to it as I was dealing with three or four guys that I had detained. Then I saw police units heading my way and heard my badge number on the radio and an officer saying something like, "TVC has them stopped".   That is why the units were screaming in my direction. I had inadvertently stopped the suspects in an officer almost being shot. What if I had been in a shootout right there with suspects that may have fired at officers? I did not stop them for that reason. 

  Are both answers plausible? What if Brown was stopped for jaywalking and during that lawful detention, it turned into a robbery suspect that went out over the radio?    I stopped a guy one night for a headlight out and ended up arresting him for murder. I had no clue that he was a murder suspect but if you read the report, he was initially stopped for a minor traffic charge but ended up in jail for two counts of murder.    Therein lies the problem with speculation in such cases. What appears to be an outright falsification might actually be entirely correct. Everyone assumes that they know the answer when they know nothing. 

Or as some in the business say...   Definition of Chaos = Chief Has Arrived On Scene. 

  If the chief lied, he is stupid, period.    I understand refusing to give out information as much of it is legally protected and may do more harm than good. Giving false statements are a ticket to disaster and can rarely be hidden. It is just too easy to prove some things as a lie.    Which makes me wonder if the chief is lying, he is telling the truth and other people are spinning things to fit their agenda or he is a bumbling idiot. 

  That is not a typical photo however. I have lots of guns and a bit of cash. I have never been inclined to take such a photo and I doubt that many people reading this forum have done so either.    It means nothing by itself but it tends to show a bit less of the choir boy image that is being portrayed by some of Brown. In some ways it is the reverse of what is being done to the officer involved and to the police in general. It is taking something that in itself means nothing but one side or the other is using it as proof of guilt. 

Most of the tweets are gibberish from people that have no clue or are speculating.    I have addressed a couple above and could do so on many of them. I understand the questions but they are put forth as rhetorical statements of guilt on the part of the police and that does not always square with the law or procedure.    Merely saying someone was a suspect in a robbery that may have just happened means that he fits the general description. I have seen many people stopped and released on scene (and have done so myself) or at times arrested for something else other than the original intent of the stop. When a radio broadcast goes out that a small white car similar to a Honda or Toyota just left the scene, every small white car will likely be stopped in the immediate area. It doesn't mean that they are all guilty, it means they appear to be a possible suspect.    Michael Brown might have fit the description without being the person the police sought, if they were actually looking for someone. By saying that someone talked to a store clerk and having him say that Brown was not the person means almost nothing except that he wasn't the person. It does not negate Brown looking like a description given or the police having lawful justification to detain him.    None of that means that the police actually broadcast a description or if Brown generally fit that description but it is lawful for such a scenario to exist. The police should still release the tapes of the 911 call of the robbery, the radio broadcasts given to officers, etc. In fact the outside agencies looking into this incident probably already have it but it doesn't have to be immediately be released to the public. Not releasing it is seen by some as an admission of guilt which is incorrect. 

  That is almost never handed out and is privileged information and I believe in most states and under federal law, protected. 

    Actually it is the opposite unless there is some specific statute in MO that says otherwise. Strong Arm is a fast description of an unarmed robbery other than "strong arms".    The MO Penal Code defines it as "forcibly steals".    Gee.... you mean false information is put out to the public? 

  So do I.

I see the MO state police are taking over. I have a friend that is a homicide investigator with that agency. I wonder if he will be involved in any respect.    I think he just left on vacation this week so he may be spared. 

  Participation and views are not the problem.    Look at the title of this forum now, The Silly One Up Thread.    When there are several threads a day which should be titled.... "Look At This Web Page Where I Found On A Slanted Political Site That Says Your Opinion Is Wrong".    Or perhaps..... "Hey (any name), How Would You Respond To THIS Political Website That Has An Opposing View From Yours"     That is not needed or wanted in this forum. There is no freedom of speech in a privately owned website. The public doesn't get to make the rules. There are hundreds of websites out there for such speech and people should feel free to use them.    There is nothing wrong with not talking football or baseball all the time and a diversion is okay but when it becomes (like the current forum title) nothing but a sniping match, it is time to move on. Whether I or anyone else agrees, the owner and administration sets the rules.    :)

  ESO already hit it.    A family that is making $25,000 a year for a family of four is living paycheck to paycheck. Heck, many families making $75,000 a year are living paycheck to paycheck. The only difference is the size of the home, the number of vehicles and the quality of food. They are still spending almost every dollar on expenses whether it is bologna or steak.    So if we take a family making $25K and remove all taxes except what they spend, they will be taxed on 100% of their income as they are literally spending every dollar that they make. Even if you exempt some things as non taxable, they are still spending every dollar.   Now let's move up to that millionaire and every area has plenty of them. Let's say a family is making $1M a year. How much of that is being spend on goods (or services if that is taxed) and how much is being put in stocks, the bank and other such ventures where goods are not purchased? They might be spending $200K on actual goods so they are only taxed on 20% of their income. Instead of our current progressive tax where the more you make, the higher your tax rate, we would have a regressive tax where the more you make the less percentage you pay as it is not being spent on goods or services as the "fair tax" proponents want.    Of course in our fantasy world we could start taxing savings accounts, 401Ks, IRAs, etc. I am not talking about your interest income from those which is taxable but merely deposits. That is the only way you are going to get those millionaires to pay their "fair share". But who will it hurt? So when that family making $25K a year finally saves $500 and decides to start putting some away..... oops!, they are hit with a 10% tax at the time of deposit so that $500 is not only $450. See how long it will take at 1% interest from banks to make up that loss from merely making a deposit.    Simply put, there is no way that we can tax goods and/or services only and have it hurt the rich guy and not destroy the less fortunate. The very rich might make millions or even billions a year but you can bet they aren't spending that money. The poor family on the other hand is spending every cent. 

  There is no such thing as treason or desertion for police officers. They are not the military and have no sworn duty to serve for a specified term like the military. A cop can legally walk away while in the middle of a call. If I am working a traffic accident or a family disturbance and half way through I say, "I have had enough of this nonsense, I quit", there is nothing that can be done to me criminally. I can and will be fired like any other employee that walks off the job but there is no charge of treason, being AWOL, etc.    Just like my previous post, do people really know what they are talking about? 

  And what is that dangerous path?    I see so much about "where we are headed" in many forums and we are "continually losing our rights". Like many topics, many (or most) of the comments are out of ignorance.    Examples are like a SCOTUS ruling giving some restrictions on police searches of vehicles and we are "losing our rights". I take "losing" as a present day situation and not something that happened generations ago. Yet when we take a look at it, is it true?    I was reading another sports forum (hunting) about a SCOTUS ruling (Gant 2009) and the standard complaints came out. What they don't know if that the police have had almost unrestricted searches of vehicles under exigency that goes back to 1925 in Carroll v. US not long after cars first hit the streets. Move on to Belton v. NY in 1981 that gave officers unlimited wingspan searches of vehicles where the driver was arrested and the vehicle impounded. Almost two generations ago that case said that police could arrest you for not using your turn signal and could search your car. In Gant the SCOTUS stopped that practice and said that the police can only search if there is a reasonable belief that there is evidence in the crime committed so unless the cops can find evidence of not using your blinker under the seat or in the glove box, they cannot search. To make it brief, Gant in 2009 took away police authority that was previously allowed and yet people say that we are "losing our rights". It looks to me like many times the people are having their right reaffirmed, not taken away yet it is easy to say, "we are losing our rights" when the person saying it has no knowledge at all of what is being claimed.   That is but a single example but I can name more but that would be for a different thread.   So exactly what is this dangerous path? 

  Yep. It is great when a warning thread turns into a shining example.