Militarization

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/militarization

Marshall makes a good point: crowd control by the military typically shows more restraint than was shown by the police in Ferguson.

It's not that militarization isn't an issue.  The pictures of heavily armored police arresting reporters for, you know, reporting suggests that they've lost sight of the idea of "protect and serve" at least as it relates to the communities that they work in.

John Cole has been talking for years about how giving small town police access to military hardware is a bad idea.  Most of the police in smaller town have less training and less experience to use this stuff wisely. (Although the NYPD is hardly a picture of restraint.)

Let's face it.  Someone who chooses being a police officer does so for one of a few reasons.  Maybe they are genuinely concerned about the safety and welfare of their community.  Maybe the appeal of a public servant's payroll and benefits appeals to them.

Or maybe they like looking butch in the uniform and being able to tell people what to do.

And frankly, it only takes about 5-10% of police acting that way to create a situation like Ferguson.  Because then the Blue Wall of Silence clamps down and you start putting on the riot gear.

Soonergrunt makes the essential point.  If you think this isn't about race, then consider what happened at the Bundy Ranch.  A bunch of yahoos point loaded weapons at law enforcement and law enforcement leaves.

In Ferguson, the population holds their hands up and gets tear gassed.