No, he didn’t. Lets assume that not a single SWAT raid would have been conducted if the police weren’t militarized. This is a ridiculous assumption, but I’ll concede it. Despite this statistical elimination of SWAT raids and arrests, the level of criminalization of blacks would still be increasing because of the relative rarity of SWAT raids and the concommitant rise in police policies like broken-windows, zero tolerance, and the greater war on drugs. So how does this show that militarization has made things substantially worse than they would otherwise be? Just because the police have shifted their tactics from other forms of abuse to SWAT doesn’t mean that demilitarizing is really going to help minority communities.
3 Likes
I see your assumptions and raise you another pile of assumptions. It’s nice to see that your logic is supposedly superior to that of others. You asked for statistics backing up the claim and they were provided. Now you’re avoiding talking stats and insisting that the picture you paint is more truthful than the pictures we paint. You debate so dishonestly.
I actually meant it when I said stop wasting our time.
1 Like
Don’t feed the griefer.
2 Likes
What assumption was questionable? I might be able to dig up some stats later tonight, but I’m simply asking aikimo to back up his statement that Gideon’s statement is clearly untrue. He made that rather bold original statement, and I’m saying he has not proven it.
For context, here’s the original claim:
Nobody disputed a rise in SWAT raids, but this doesn’t clearly show that these raids have increased minority mistreatment. Providing stats that show SWAT teams target minorities also fails to do so, especially when the source for those stats says they are “no different” from traditional measures in terms of targeting minorities.
I’m not the one who made the claim that Gideon’s statement was clearly untrue.
Yeah, I don’t know how anyone could get the impression that dissenting voices aren’t welcome or that minority perspectives might be marginalized here.
1 Like
I remain civil while it’s actually a discussion, but when the discussion becomes merely you repping your White Knight credentials, I think I speak for many here: You. Are. Just. Wasting. Our. Time.
1 Like
First off, yes, I see your point, I’m not sure I agree with you fully yet, but your point, that racism is at the heart of what’s happened here, is true. I agreee with that.
The fact that people are more enraged about the militarization of police over the apparent murder a policeman perpetrated and the cover up by the police at large is insane, I agree with you here, because I think you clearly know that it doesn’t matter if the police have rocket launchers, they did not kill this kid with a rocket launcher, they used a gun, and if they don’t have guns, they’ll use a chokehold.
I also agree with the point you make about how actually being enraged over the militarization of police is because people who did not have to experience opression by police before, now find themselves staring down the barrel of a sniper’s gun, pointed at innocent people for no apparent reason, you are damn right that people are scared. Scared because they see how easily the facade of civilization can come down and how real the power of police to crush a clearly innocent person can be.
But this is not news to you is it?
I would suggest though that to dismiss this fear, because it is fear, is not the best thing to do right now. feel free to dismiss me but I think that the best way to talk about this is to actually bring the fear narrative that a lot of people are focusing on and tie it back to the experience of minorities, to make people understand, that if they fear their police forces treating citizens as “The enemy”, well, its actually nothing new, its what theyve been doing to minorities for… always.
That if you are white and scared that your police force is now unconcerned about the rule of law, and that they have bigger guns than you and that you are now potentially a target just because they are more powerful than you just because they can get away with it, then now you know what its like for black americans in your country.
But that’s just my opinion at the moment, I don’t think i fully understand this yet, I do think you have a valid point though, and it bears mentioning that nobody would be outraged that the police have tanks if they trusted them. But people clearly don’t and that’s at the root of all of this as well.
1 Like
If I may interject here on Gideon’s point’s behalf (I’ll let that sink in 
)…
The relevant point is this:
If I were a black American, which I’m not, I don’t think it would be unjustified to think that if police are de-militarized then many people might come to the conclusion that things are better for the black person, when they’re really just going to be back to square one, and that brown’s body would still be lying there in the morgue, his death unsolved.
Especially given the fact that coverage has to rely heavily on the aspect of police militarization because no information on Micheal’s death is forth coming.
The reality is that brown’s death is the fuel that’s feeding this frenzy.
That’s why the store video was released, the police know they have a martyr’s blood on their hands and they’ve done their best to sway public opinion. Except… they haven’t, they’ve actually done their best to attempt to split the nation’s opinion, they’ve done nothing to change the opinion of the community they threaten.
This is important, this is where the hand-wave is, this is why you have Gideon and yourself squabbling over what to do. even though clearly you both agree that both militarization and racism are a problem.
Whats really going on here is that the police have killed Michael Brown, age 18, and in order to withhold what happened, they have deployed military equipment to do so.
But the way this is being reported is creating an apparent difference between people who care about militarization and people who care about the shooting.
If everybody saw the same video and is reaching different conclusions about whats really important, I don’t think that’s a fluke.
So what’s my point?
The hard part, as I understand it, for black people to hear is that the militarization of the police in America is can be discussed as a national problem while Michael Brown’s death can only be seriously discussed as a justified or unjustified shooting, even though everybody understands its about race.
And this means that no serious answers for the issue of racism will come out of this because the answer to a question greatly depends on its framing.
2 Likes
Yes, you’re right, everybody agrees that racism is an issue, but the problem is, racism is not being discussed at all, and probably wont, but it seems like it is!
Yes, that’s right, if racism was really on the agenda, Michael Brown’s death would already be cleared up, after all, that’s what started this mess, the police closed ranks and denied people their call for justice by force. The militarized response to the protestors IS the racism and is still going on.
We clearly see the racism at play here and can only talk bout it as misanthropy, not focused on black people, even though black people are the ones being violently repressed.
Yes, its true, this is the same concern that should be showed to anybody in America, nobody should be subjected to militarized police repression. But to go color blind and talk about justice when its black people being treated so unfairly is to miss the forest for the trees.
Ah, yes: if you’re not black but you’re pushing an anti-racism agenda, you’re nothing but a “White Knight” or someone who wants to look like one. And people who want to Waste.Your.Time by saying militarism is just a sideshow should GTFO and set up their own little free speech zone elsewhere on the bbs.
1 Like
Other folks who’s work I respect who are also have expressed concern about militarization:
Antonio French again, local activist reporting from STL
Jamelle Bouie, Slate reporter reporting from STL
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/500751668326465536
https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/501569563621081088
Instead, they brought reinforcements. Police officers were replaced with camouflaged SWAT teams—clad in helmets and body armor—and batons were replaced with shotguns, high-powered rifles, and dogs. They didn’t identify themselves, and it wasn’t clear to the crowd where they were from. But St. Louis County has been in command of officers on the street since Sunday, and one of the armored vehicles was labeled “St. Charles County SWAT.” In any case, they weren’t interested in actual crowd control. On at least two occasions, they refused to let uninvolved bystanders go to their cars or leave the area. No, from their stance to their numbers, this was about intimidation. Two snipers monitored the demonstrators from their armored vehicles, and other police began to close off side streets and other exits, to prevent anyone from coming in (or going out, for that matter).
From Ferguson police attack protestors with tear gas, rubber bullets: On-site reporting.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, reporter for The Atlantic
https://twitter.com/tanehisicoates/status/500143387878883329
Yamiche Alcindor, USA Today reporter, reporting from STL
3 Likes
I appreciate your links and sources. I really do, and they’re interesting.
But I don’t think this shows that the these sources think that militarization is a greater problem than racism, or that it’s what we should be focusing on. Yes, it’s a problem. But it’s not the problem (it’s more of a symptom), and these people would be writing about police abuses even if they happened with billy clubs or whatever.
Take the most prominent writer, Ta-Nehisi Coates. His most prominent writing about Ferguson thus far, Reparations for Ferguson: Total police control over black bodies has echoes in American history, is not about militarization but the long history of black subjugation by the police. I don’t think this is an accident.
Jamelle Bouie has written about militarization, but he’s written even more extensively about policies that harm blacks, including broken-window policing, white acceptance of effectively discriminatory laws, and the history of inequality and non-militarized police brutality against blacks. He’s not keying on militarization, and when he discusses militarization he acknowledges that the disproportionate use of these forces on minorities is merely a reflection of an already-existing corrosive police mindset that also manifests itself in the police targeting minorities in non-militarized contexts. You may disagree, but I highly doubt that he would say that the problem is militarization, and not racism.
Heck, in the piece you quote here:
Bouie writes things like “We want it to be one way—a world where the police are here to serve us all—but it’s the other way, a world where black bodies are the chief targets of American fear.” As I say above, the rest of the article is more about the history of inequality and brutality than about militarization in specific, and I don’t think people will read it and come away thinking his primary argument is against militarization.
Yes, it’s true all these people are concerned with militarization. And they’re concerned with other discriminatory policies like zero tolerance, stop and frisks, and broken-windows policing. I don’t think any of them will identify any of these issues as the most important and real issue—and I certainly don’t think they would endorse society on picking up only one of these issues as the exclusive focus of attention and reform—as they’re all symptomatic of institutional racism and discrimination.
3 Likes
THIS MAN IS AN IDIOT
Trivializing a tragic incident like this for a few pathetic laughs.
Who ever said it was?
I think much of the division in this thread seems to be stemming from misunderstandings or mischaracterizations of what others have said. Imagine a spectator at Birmingham remarking “my God, they’re using fire hoses against peaceful protesters now! How horrific!” and being attacked for implying that fire hoses are worse than racism.
2 Likes
I think of these crimes (and others) in terms of motivation, means, and opportunity.
Entrenched racism is the motivation,
militarization relates to the means,
and the fact that many racially-motivated crimes are invisible to, or dismissed by, most Americans creates opportunity.
5 Likes
Wrong. Go watch his actual show. Nothing could be further from the truth.
4 Likes
I’m beating a dead horse, but I disagree.
In my opinion, a very few people are pointing out that it’s a problem when the main (white) response, the main source of (white) consternation, and the main topic of media editorials is militarization, and not the underlying racism. When people are more concerned with fire hoses than Jim Crow laws, suggesting there is a misplaced focus is not inappropriate and is a valid source of frustration. As people have said in this thread, it’s easier for non-oppressed people to feel uncomfortable looking at images of militarization, and identify with this as a issue, than it is for them to care that an unarmed black teenager from a deeply criminalized environment was killed by police.
Thanks for telling me what is making me uncomfortable. I’m glad you’re able to telepathically know my true feelings. I’ve finally learned my lesson about not telling other people what the real problem is.
2 Likes
I haven’t said what you, or any specific person, feels—and in the portion you “quote” me as saying I’m repeating what others in this very thread have said. Maybe take this up with them? On the other hand, you have told us in other threads what Brown was possible/likely/probably feeling, so good point.
You are specifically telling us that focusing on one thing is mistaken, as if everyone you have responded to has only commented on the militarisation aspect of the matter and don’t recognise that racism is the main problem and biggest issue. It’s the definition of a straw man argument. Basically every issue you have raised has been addressed by someone now; akimio gave you the stats you’ve been asking for. Those weren’t enough. Funruly gave you a pile of examples that disprove your argument that no African Americans are concerned by, or interested in the militarisation aspect. Then you turn around and make your argument that people here (or somewhere that is not here, yet you are arguing with us?) are supposedly claiming that the militarisation aspect is a greater problem than racism.
Just such irrelevant commentary which is why I originally said, and still insist that you are wasting our time by arguing against a position that none of us are taking.
1 Like
