Weâve already killed one. We can kill more, with ridiculous ease.
Go now and cower in your homes for a couple of weeks. Weâll tell you when youâre allowed to come out.
What we wonât do is reveal to you the identity of the first killer, or if he will face any sanctions, no matter how laughable, for his crime.
It seems to me that arms (domestic and international) are a good way of fixing a broken economy. If you were to invent the perfect capitalist object it would be something thatâs very expensive to create and thatâs only purpose is to destroy itself and/or other things that need to be replaced. Not only that but they also work as a deterrent against people who protest about their creation, the people creating them and/or the status quo that keeps the lopsided ideology going. Thatâs as true for artillery to foreign powers as it is for CS gas and rubber bullets internally. The problem is that they have to be used so they can be replaced. When there are not enough wars then supplies have to be redistributed internally - like, for instance, to internal police forces - and when people have weapons they want to use them eventually and you end up with situations like this.
This is a comparatively minor point in the grand scheme; but itâs worth noting that their âdeploymentâ simultaneously draws on the implication that the population of Ferguson is somehow so remarkably dangerous that even a typical riot cop beatdown isnât enough force, while simultaneously demonstrating a police force that either doesnât believe (or is utterly incompetent to act on) that justification.
The guy sitting on top of a vehicle, ready to lay down some covering fire or whatever? Heâs utter overkill for anything less than a shooting war; but âsit right in the open, exposed from all sides, zero cover and 4 meters above the streetâ is not what somebody who actually has reason to fear being fired on would do, at least not more than once. If he were actually concerned about the dangerousness of the crowd heâd be in a protected firing position. Apparently this isnât a major concern.
Iâm adding the /s for you. And youâre not wrong; between the private prison plague, the Patriot Act, the TSA, the anti-Obama ammo-bubble, the hordes of cheap shitty guns churned out by cheap shitty gun startups, and the NRA radicals poised for the day when itâs okay to âtake back their townsâ through vigilanteism, there has been a lot of artificial demand for arms and gun-fondling accessories. Lube and such.
See also The Miami Model
âThe Miami model carries the distinctive features of crowd control techniques used in Miami, which included large scale pre-emptive arrests, heavily armed sometimes unidentifiable law enforcement [âŚ] police may be unfamiliar with the use of the new equipment they have been given and rural police brought in to the city may be somewhat unfamiliar with crowd control tactics in general.â
What we wonât do is reveal to you the identity of the first killer, or if he will face any sanctions, no matter how laughable, for his crime.
For that would endanger our ability to repress dissent. We need you to believe that any one of us is a stone cold killer.
Exactly. The entire point of that guy sitting on the roof is to be seen. To intimidate the crowd. Iâve seen him described as a âsniperâ several times, but no actual sniper is going to be front and center getting photographed by everyone.
The cops probably feel some combination of invincible and paranoid with all that gear, with themselves and their hardware on display. That doesnât lead to good decisions.
This kind of force is so out of proportion to the threat at hand. How long until these guys bulldoze protesters houses?
Thatâs a no-go, citizen. Unless we have documentation that the dwelling is not a rental and mortgage, if any, is paid off in full bulldozing it would be a property crime against somebody more important than the protestersâŚ
A question I asked back during the Arab Spring, but itâs becoming more and more relevant here in the U.S. The Powers are really good at looking nice - wearing a nice suit, speaking in soothing tones. So why donât they? Why do they forget all their PR training and act like Darth Vader wannabes?
Coopting the radicals works so much better than shooting them. Is it an adrenaline thing?
The protesters are not radicals. I wish people would pull their heads out of their asses and stop mounting their Overton Window on the baseline rhetoric of George Wallace. The radicals these Missouri pols are co-opting are the racist vigilante gun fondlers and people who rely on their jobs in the security/prison/weapon industries.
One thing no one has accused these Barney Fyfeneggers of is competence.
Youâre right. I was thinking in more general terms, and thinking about Occupy. But âDonât shoot meâ is not a radical sentiment.
Here is another view of the situation from someone else claiming to be a local on the internet.
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
