Four Members of Congress Put Their Hands Up in Solidarity With Ferguson Protesters, None Voted to Li

janklow

just saying, guys...

Four Members of Congress Put Their Hands Up in Solidarity With Ferguson Protesters, None Voted to Limit Police Militarization

Michael Brown was shot and killed by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, in August. Protests over the shooting yielded a militarized response from police. Renewed protests continued in October and again after a grand jury declined to indict Darren Wilson, the officer who shot Brown. The Brown shooting may have been a flash point for civil rights protesters. It’s also provided an opportunity for politicians to attach themselves to the highly publicized incident and score political points for themselves.

Yesterday, for example, four members of Congress raised their hands on the House Floor to “show solidarity with the protesters” in Ferugson. Those four are Reps. Yvette Clarke (D-NY), Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), Sheila Jackson Lee (D-Tex.), and Al Green (D-Tex.). All four voted AGAINST an amendment in June that would’ve limited the transfer of military equipment from the Department of Defense to local police agencies.

It’s just another reminder for protesters more interested in policy reforms than partisan agendas that elected leaders, by and large, are only interested in how they look vis a vis police issues and not what they can do to improve the situation.

President Obama’s announcement on police militarization, for example, included no roll backs, just more bureaucracy, which promises more inertia. Nevertheless, the move was hailed as some kind of progress on the state of policing, including by Rep. Lacy Clay (D-Mo.), who represents Ferguson and also voted against limiting police militarization in June.

*complains about the police, works to keep the public disarmed and the police equipped with military gear*

Focal Point

This the ? . Love the attention, but continue to push the same system

janklow

Focal Point wrote: »

This the ? . Love the attention, but continue to push the same system

yeah, it'd be one thing to make the statement and then be able to explain WHY they voted against the amendment. maybe there's an argument!

jono

It's two different things. Police militarization didn't ? Michael Brown, a single officer with his standard weapon did that. Police militarization didn't deny Michael Brown's family a trial or a proper investigation into his death. I fail to see what it has to do at all with Michael Brown's case in general.

Large crowds of protesters (regardless of what they are protesting) have to be controlled and unfortunately they need certain equipment to do that. As a person against police militarization I can say I understand the reason why it happens but it needs to be rolled back because it invites aggressive behaviors on the part of the police.

janklow

jono wrote: »

It's two different things. Police militarization didn't ? Michael Brown, a single officer with his standard weapon did that. Police militarization didn't deny Michael Brown's family a trial or a proper investigation into his death. I fail to see what it has to do at all with Michael Brown's case in general.

Large crowds of protesters (regardless of what they are protesting) have to be controlled and unfortunately they need certain equipment to do that. As a person against police militarization I can say I understand the reason why it happens but it needs to be rolled back because it invites aggressive behaviors on the part of the police.

so i've bolded part of your post, because this is what's relevant: we're talking about addressing decades of telling police to act this way by militarizing them. you're in a war zone out there; do whatever it takes to make it home at night. a police officer didn't run over Michael Brown with an MRAP, but policy that helps police dehumanize those they're policing? well...

also, here's the other thing: these politicians are presumably taking the police to task for how they handle their business, right? then it might be nice if they would actually DO THAT by addressing things they can address from their positions in Congress.

Focal Point

jono wrote: »

It's two different things. Police militarization didn't ? Michael Brown, a single officer with his standard weapon did that. Police militarization didn't deny Michael Brown's family a trial or a proper investigation into his death. I fail to see what it has to do at all with Michael Brown's case in general.

Large crowds of protesters (regardless of what they are protesting) have to be controlled and unfortunately they need certain equipment to do that. As a person against police militarization I can say I understand the reason why it happens but it needs to be rolled back because it invites aggressive behaviors on the part of the police.

Really well thought out post

Stiff

It's becoming clear that Black people need to withdraw their unconditional support for the Democratic party.

[Deleted User]

The user and all related content has been deleted.

janklow

Stiff wrote: »

It's becoming clear that Black people need to withdraw their unconditional support for the Democratic party.

key word being "unconditional." support for a political party should NEVER be unconditional!

THIRDSUPREME

Stiff wrote: »

It's becoming clear that Black people need to withdraw their unconditional support for the Democratic party.

Yes!