FBI Releases 'Study' Of Law Enforcement's Persecution Complex

from the less-work,-more-griping dept

In what may be an attempt to bolster now ex-FBI director James Comey’s oft-derided “Ferguson Effect” claims, the FBI has released a “study” that gathers facts feelings from law enforcement officers around the US and attempts to build a narrative somewhere between “life is unfair” and “there’s a War on Cops.” It’s not a study. It’s an opinion poll with the word “study” appended to it.

In short, the Ferguson Effect theory is this: cops are afraid to do their jobs because they’re undergoing intense scrutiny in the wake of controversial shootings. It’s bullshit, but there are plenty of law enforcement officials willing to stake their reputations on assertions that portray their officers as cowards. Faced with heightened public scrutiny, officers are apparently deciding to do less work than before, supposedly to head off any misrepresentation of their tactics.

The FBI’s study involved interviewing officers and supervisors at agencies where an officer had been killed in the line of duty. It studied the background of the assailants, but that appears to be the end of any factual basis for claims made. What these stats show is most attacks on officers involved a person who didn’t want to be arrested. A smaller percentage of attacks were motivated by a desire to hurt cops.

Despite these conclusions, the FBI’s study pushes forward with an officer-driven narrative that follows the War on Cops/Ferguson Effect: supposedly-increased violence towards cops (not supported by line-of-duty death statistics) and “de-policing.” I supposed the FBI’s “impartiality” restrained it from challenging contradictory and false assertions provided to it by officers. From the study [PDF]:

Since 2014 multiple high-profile police incidents across the country have occurred that law enforcement officials believe influenced the mindset and behaviors of the assailants. Specifically, the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO, in 2014, and the social disturbances that followed, initiated a movement that some perceived made it socially acceptable to challenge and discredit the actions of law enforcement. This attitude was fueled by the narrative of police misconduct and excessive force perpetuated through politicians and the media.

This narrative has apparently risen unbidden. It couldn’t possibly have been the result of multiple DOJ civil rights investigations and the rise of non-police-controlled cameras. In other words, it couldn’t possibly be the result of verifiable evidence, rather than hurt feelings of police officers who fear they’re no longer viewed as minor deities.

Law enforcement agencies also complained they’re no longer able to provide the only narrative after incidents of abuse or violence.

Due to the coverage of the high-profile police incidents, it appears that immediately following the incidents, assailants were constantly exposed to a singular narrative by news organizations and social media of police misconduct and wrong-doing. In many cases, this singular narrative came from the subject’s friends and family, and witnesses to the incident who often knew the subject, long before law enforcement provided their findings to the public.

Reading this is like asking a four-year-old for their opinion on current events. This is so self-centered, self-pitying and bereft of awareness, it’s ridiculous. The standard M.O. following the killing of someone by a police officer is to get the dead person’s rap sheet into journalists’ hands as quickly as possible. Meanwhile, the officer’s agency will refuse to provide any information on the officer involved (in most cases, not even the officer’s name) until everything is thoroughly investigated, which means weeks or months will pass before law enforcement is ready to tell its side of the story.

Both of these bogus assertions lead to a third: the inability of law enforcement to control the narrative has “emboldened” arrestees, making them less compliant, more argumentative, and more likely to engage in violence. The officers surveyed also threw out the following, which is so unmoored from reality, it calls their judgment into question:

Across the country, law enforcement officials link the de-criminalization of drugs to the increase in violent attacks on law enforcement.

If this were even remotely true, the number of officers killed in the line of duty should have dropped dramatically during the late 80s and early 90s when new, extremely-harsh statutory minimums were put into place in response to the crack epidemic. And those numbers should be on the rise in recent years, as marijuana legalization and sentencing reform efforts have taken hold. None of what’s asserted by officers is reflected in killed in the line of duty stats. If anything, it shows deaths have decreased as legalization efforts have increased.

And, as officers have felt less support from non-cops and been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny (i.e., more than none), they’ve felt less and less like doing the job taxpayers are paying them to do.

The above-referenced factors have had the effect of “de-policing” in law enforcement agencies across the country, which the assailants have exploited. Departments – and individual officers – have increasingly made the conscious decision to stop engaging in proactive policing. The intense scrutiny and criticism law enforcement has received in the wake of several high-profile incidents has caused several officers to (1) “become scared and demoralized” and (2) avoid interacting with the community.

Let’s just repeat this simple fact: being a law enforcement officer is not compulsory. If you no longer feel you can do the job, or don’t like the working conditions, leave. Find something else to do. Taxpayers aren’t interested in being under-served by officers who can’t stand the heat but are unwilling to leave the kitchen.

I realize this is a facile response. Leaving a job, much less a career, is a very difficult thing to do. But these are facile answers. And they’re being given by officers who are finding out they need to do their jobs better in the future, but are clearly unwilling to improve themselves or their agencies. Instead, they’d rather blame everyone outside of law enforcement for their problems, when years of opacity and unquestioned authority have turned them into the officers and officials they are.

We usually see the worst of law enforcement when it comes to the media. But we generally see the worst of all members of the public when filtered through this narrow lens. Police work is a customer service job, albeit one that grants employees an incredible amount of leeway to perform their duties.

The worst will be what’s remembered. That may seem unfair, but that’s just the way it is. United Airlines may fly millions of passenger miles without complaint, but it will be remembered for a long, long time as the airline that booted a paying passenger from its plane using law enforcement as the stick. (There was no carrot.) The same goes for law enforcement agencies.

The FBI’s study contains no indication officers are willing to surmount the challenges of this era of policing. There’s no sign officers are interested in making the effort needed to change the public’s perception. Instead, it’s an open airing of grievances that may have had limited therapeutic value for responding officers, but does nothing to repair the relationship between law enforcement and the public.

Filed Under: , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “FBI Releases 'Study' Of Law Enforcement's Persecution Complex”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

“made it socially acceptable to challenge and discredit the actions of law enforcement. This attitude was fueled by the narrative of police misconduct and excessive force perpetuated through politicians and the media.”

Stood on a hood and emptied a weapon into innocent people – No Charges.
Peppersprayed unarmed detained women, later claiming magic ninjas had appeared threatening him & then vanished as he sprayed – No Charges.
Handcuffed suspect in a patrol car managed to bend the laws of physics producing a gun from another dimension & bending his arms to shoot himself in the head – No Charges.
Rolled up on a child with a toy weapon & shot him dead before issuing any commands – No Charges.
Asked for drivers ID after driver informed them he was permitted to carry a weapon, shot driver as he reached for his ID – No Charges.
Shot a suspect, left him on the ground bleeding while comforting the shooter & not rendering aid or calling for aid – No Charges.
Stole from a pot dispensary & cried rights violation because they missed 1 of the cameras which caught them abusing citizens & theft – Still waiting for charges.

Often when they dare to bring charges, there is no justice. If an officer is punished, the Union demands arbitration and FORCES the force to take back an officer who was found guilty of breaking the law… with back pay.

Police are being trained to be terrified of citizens, that black citizens especially, have secret powers ala Dragon Ball Z where they can power themselves up & need to be shot before their power gets over 9000.

They claim everything is a plot to get them, that its just a narrative to discredit them… yet they often turn a blind eye to their brother officers breaking the law because their code requires them to protect the image over citizens.

Pulled over many women & demanded sexual favors – Only charged after he picked the wrong black woman who wasn’t a hooker to abuse.
Molested children – Only charged when they went to an outside agency.
Trafficked in CP – Only busted when an outside agency catches them.
Locked someone in a room and left them to die – No charges.
Boiled a human being ALIVE for shitting on the floor – No Charges.
Cut off a prisoners water for over a week resulting in death – they MIGHT charge them.
Dash & Bodycam videos disappearing or the machinery not working or being activated – No Charges.
Cams being disabled on purpose – No Charges or repairs.

Perhaps if they stopped acting like a gang more interested in playing the victim while raping, robbing, murdering & covering those events up people might have a different view of them.

They are not above the law, but you wouldn’t know it from how things play out. Prosecutors warned to not bring charges or the gang will tank other cases. Prior bad acts locked from view of Juries, who might suspend the cop halo effect to know the officer testifying has been busted multiple times for lying on the stand.

But yes, there is no basis in reality for why people film police actions as offical recordings often vanish. There isn’t a bodycount of citizens (notice they didn;t have those numbers to put in the report because they ignored the rules about finally reporting them) to go next to the officers because we matter less.

When the LE mentality is US vs THEM, why are they shocked that THEM are very worried at any interaction with them because they know US can kill, lie, destroy evidence, and walk with a repurposed military ribbon?

Ninja (profile) says:

“Let’s just repeat this simple fact: being a law enforcement officer is not compulsory. If you no longer feel you can do the job, or don’t like the working conditions, leave.”

I’d like to put at least some balance to that narrative. It would be akin to saying “if you don’t love your country the way it is with all those problems then leave”. I’ve already had a few interactions with cops and there’s a guy I studied with that is a cop. That said, there are numerous problems on how they are treated by the Government itself, with how budgets are allocated, accountability against abuse by higher ranks and others. Of course this is here, not in the US but I’d guess that good cops in the US do see problems that need solving including the fallout from dipshits that call themselves cops abusing their position and making lives harder for good cops elsewhere.

I would use the “love it or leave it” narrative cautiously anywhere that involves public interests.

That said, I am not criticizing this article specifically because there is context to the phrase I emphasized above. Cops should be held to a higher standard. If I screw up an engineering project and people get killed as a result I am going to face scrutiny and I will be held accountable. If I do something wrong to a patient and he/she dies as a result I am going to be investigated (specially if it keeps happening) so cops should be held to the same standards at the very least. However, having so much power over another citizen (doctors and engineers can’t screw your life as they please, only from killing or injuring you due to an error or failure) they should be held to a higher standard to discourage arbitrary actions and abuses. If this specific point is too much and you can’t just follow the damn law and actually work to protect everybody regardless of political position, skin color or whatever reason then yes, just leave.

Sry about the long post but I thought it was important to outline this.

Daydream says:

Think like a cop for a moment:

I’m trying to imagine; what would I do if I killed an innocent in the line of duty? Tell the truth or lie about it?

Let’s see…if I told the truth, admitted responsibility, that’s my career down the drain. I’d go to jail, and probably end up murdered myself or doing slave labor for some corporation. I don’t want to be dead or a slave.

But if I lie, make out that it was a ‘bad guy’ and he ‘drew his gun first’ and stuff, I know I can get away with it. I know, it’s throwing someone else under the bus to save myself, but at least they’re already dead, it can’t get any worse for them.

Really, it’s not my fault. Tell a lie and everyone lives (except my victim), tell the truth and I’m as good as dead. If you punish people for being honest, don’t be surprised when I start lying to you.

Okay, I’m done thinking like a cop.

You know, maybe it’s time to stop relying on the police entirely.
Get to know your neighbors, find people who are having trouble (poor or drug addicted or whatever) and help them, protest bad conditions in prisons, encourage voting in elections…

…Does anyone get to know their neighbors anymore? I honestly don’t, I’m antisocial.

My_Name_Here says:

I know this is going to be held for moderation, but it has to be said

When criminals get assaulted or killed, you complain about authority.

When policemen get assaulted or killed, you cheer and celebrate.

I hope Shiva takes down this cesspool of anti-establishment, anti-law, anti-law enforcement pirate apologists.

Daydream says:

Re: I know...

Well, the thing is, most if not all of the criminals who are assaulted or killed, are engaged in non-violent offenses (say, drug possession), and quite frequently they aren’t criminals at all.

By contrast, this site reports frequently on policemen killing suspects (or innocents), taking money at traffic stops under the guide of asset forfeiture, and almost never being held responsible for it by other officers or members of the government.

So yes, we complain when ‘criminals’ are murdered by police. And I’ll be honest, that ‘Thin Blue Line’ post here just a couple of days ago? I read the bit near the end about the number police killed in the line of duty, and, I’m not making this up, my first thought was ‘I wish it was higher’.

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: I know this is going to be held for moderation, but it has to be said

Cites or it hasn’t actually happened.

Back up what you claim or continue looking like a deranged loon.

You can’t link to any articles supporting your narrative because they do not exist. You enjoy spinning what you imagine the stories are REALLY about, while ignoring the actual content of them.

I hear you throwing out a buncha insults, you should be cautious… if Shiva wins you could find yourself being sued for a bajillion dollars. But then you are sure you are a paragon of virtue & its everyone else who is wrong.

As I am more and more want to do…

Ninja (profile) says:

Re: Re: I know this is going to be held for moderation, but it has to be said

This was bugging me the other day. The guy is so delusional he can’t see that a victory for Shiva would open up his sore ass for a bug lawsuit. Actually I’d say Mike has enough evidence to file a defamation lawsuit against this moron (and others that have made the most outrageous accusations). I suspect Mike is aware of it but he chooses to generally ignore the trash. Whenever he engages them it seems to be one of these “screw it” moments everybody has and he usually corners them into incoherent ramblings that don’t answer any of the things he points about their attitude. It is an overall interesting psychology experiment though.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: I know this is going to be held for moderation, but it has to be said

It’s really not a surprise. My_Name_Here’s so stuck-up and narcissistic, he considers himself immune to lawsuits. You know, on account of how law-abiding he is. He also trawls the threads to Ctrl+F and search for his own comments, then throws a tantrum when his spam has been flagged by other users.

But then what else did you expect from the cunt who said John Steele would appeal, and that Steele would win?

My_Name_Here says:

Re: Re: Re: I know this is going to be held for moderation, but it has to be said

Ninja, please don’t get sucked in by the fake nick thing. I didn’t post that, I never would. It’s just someone trying to get a rise out of people, and you fell for it.

It’s probably Leigh. He likes that sort of thing.

That One Guy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I know this is going to be held for moderation, but it has to be said

It’s almost funny how you claim that someone else is using ‘your’ name to impersonate you because of course you would never say something ridiculous and then you immediately follow it up with a baseless accusation against someone else.

If you want people to buy your ‘It’s not me posting like a loon!’ claims then you can easily register for an account. Until then, yeah, I don’t think anyone’s buying your ‘That’s not me that’s just someone writing so much like me that everyone thinks it’s me’ assertion.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 I know this is going to be held for moderation, but it has to be said

“It’s probably Leigh. He likes that sort of thing.”

Really, you have proof that he’s done such things? I’d be intrigued if you could share it.

Or, are you just making things up about people again? Easier than creating a login to avoid people using “your” name, I suppose. That would just remove the loophole you’ve created to get out of criticism when you realise you’ve said something even more stupid than normal, right?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: I know this is going to be held for moderation, but it has to be said

You know repeating lies still doesn’t help you get your point across, especially lies as weak as these.

Though, at least you’ve stopped whining like a little baby about people mocking you and reporting you, so that’s almost a breath of fresh air.

Anyway, where will you obsessively whine and post if this site is shut down? Because there’s others that will mock you and your heroes just as mercilessly. Unlike you, we don’t lie about what we see, we just call you people out for who you are, and we can do that from anywhere.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I know this is going to be held for moderation, but it has to be said

Ahm… I just want to point out that most of the articles about police officers on this site is much more pro-law and even pro-law enforcement than anti.
What the articles always point out is that some officers don’t stick to the law and almost always gets away with it and that corrupts law-enforcement as a whole.

Besides that, when has there ever been an article that cheers assaults and deaths of policemen?

It seems to me that you are the one who is anti-law and anti-law enforcement since you want the “bad apples” to stay and ruin the whole barrel even more.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: I know this is going to be held for moderation, but it has to be said

This mental midgets tends to conflate Techdirt editorial staff and comments by random users whenever it suits him, pretending that everything said here is officially sanctioned. While, of course, whining whenever the site tries to moderate anything, which would be the only way they would be able to exercise said editorial control, even if they did that on user comments.

I have no doubt that some person exercising the anonymous posting facilities he abuses have indeed said such things, but to pretend that such things are said in the articles is disingenuous at best.

“It seems to me that you are the one who is anti-law and anti-law enforcement”

He’s an interesting case study in mental illness, but the only stance he’ll take is whatever he thinks in contradictory to Techdirt’s stance. Even if he either gets that wrong or ends up supporting some truly despicable stances in the process.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: I know this is going to be held for moderation, but it has to be said

First Dodd, then Comey… your heroes seem to be rolling their balls into the gutter, don’t they Whatever?

Expected you to show up thumping your chest in moral umbrage as usual, and contrary to what you consistently claim, all these responses within three hours of posting show that your garbage isn’t being monitored as closely as you’d like to claim, just to bolster your obsessive grasp for martyrdom.

Seems that the intelligent aren’t just turned away from jobs in the police force; they get turned away from the PR department too. That’d explain you, for starters.

Uriel-238 (profile) says:

Ferguson Effect

When I think Ferguson Effect I think of the lines of officers which I got to see in real time from cameras on the ground during the unrest in Ferguson, Missouri. To the last guy, and contrary to every firearms safety regimen I’ve known, they had their rifles and shotguns trained on the (unarmed) public, and I was turning blue in fear that someone was going to accidentally discharge his weapon and set off a massacre.

Later on, they’d climb in/on their bearcat mine-proof transports and go to town raining tear gas cannisters all over the neighborhood for no discernable tactical reason, except to show they can piss anywhere they want. Rebel yelling was involved.

For me, the Ferguson Effect is when I looked at all this and asked myself what the fuck happened to the police to turn them into this?

That Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Ferguson Effect

They were told to be afraid.

Your job is so dangerous we give you surplus military gear.
Our training is about how black men are very dangerous & you must be a warrior to defeat them.

Used to be they had a sidearm & baton, now add in pepper spray and tasers, now add full auto rifles & body armor. Something no ones seemed to notice is the more toys we give them, there is an increase in them being used. Parking ticket warrant, pre-sun up no knock raid in the bearcat.

Used to be they would try to talk people down, now they’ll rip apart an entire building because the tech told them someone was inside when there wasn’t, and then try to not pay to fix the damage they did.

Take a look what a gang in West Virginia did to someone who used logic to assess a situation, rather than just fire.

Call him unfit for duty and run him out for NOT shooting the man with the unloaded weapon trying to suicide by cop. Ignore he tried to deescalate the situation, just roll up, shoot him, call it a day.

Personanongrata says:

The History of Police Brutality Did Not Begin in 2014

Specifically, the Michael Brown shooting in Ferguson, MO, in 2014, and the social disturbances that followed, initiated a movement that some perceived made it socially acceptable to challenge and discredit the actions of law enforcement.

Unfortunately for those within the law enforcement community keen on controlling the police brutality narrative history did not begin with the police response to the protests of Mike Brown’s death in 2014.

There have been enumerable past instances where the unprofessional actions of law enforcement easily surpass the defective police response in Ferguson as these few cases listed below will attest (if you look there are thousands of examples littering the dustbin of history):

LAPD Rodney King, Chicago PD’s history of torture, NYPD’s torture of Abner Loumiea, FBI COINPRO, police use of violence to break up peaceful civil rights marches in 1950’s – 1970’s, OK Corral.

The point is the history of police brutality in the US did not begin in 2014 any person or entity claiming as such is full of malarkey.

As for challenging and discrediting the actions of law enforcement it is every citizens duty to question those who have been granted the authority to govern whether they be law enforcement, politicians or admirals. If those holding public positions within government do not like being held accountable for their actions (oversight) they are free to resign and ply their skills in the private sector.

Anonymous Coward says:

Michael Brown was a thug. The guy choked out in NY was a criminal. Don’t want cops to beat on you, don’t be a thug or a criminal.

Here is a fucking lesson highlighted by something in the local news here. Substitute teacher was fired for ripping off some 8 year olds hijab. Turns out that the little brat was sitting in the teachers chair and wouldn’t get out. Yeah, the teacher shouldn’t have reacted that way, but the brat shouldn’t have been in the teachers chair in the first place. When a teacher (or cop) tells you to do something, fucking do it.

Sure, their are cops that go way beyond what they should and yes, they should be held accountable, but people have lost any semblance of respect or consideration of others. There are quite a few people out there that need and deserve a good beatdown.

Best fucking advise you will ever get if you don’t want a cop hassling you is to not be an asshole. Yeah, it is your right to be an asshole, but don’t be surprised when someone reacts to your assholeness by beating it.

hij (profile) says:

Re: R E S P E C T

Respect does not imply simply doing what others tell you to do. Respect means you will listen and consider what someone else says and then make your own decision. Respect also means that you do not react with violence when someone else does not make the decision you think they should.

You seem to be conflating respect with fascism. Unfortunately, it seems to be a mistake that is all too common.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: R E S P E C T

Seems many people do not understand what the word respect means. Some of them desire adulation and mistakenly call it respect, while others desire reverence and mistakenly call it respect.

If you want respect, you probably will not get it.
If you demand respect, you will lose all you had.

Anonymous Anonymous Coward (profile) says:

Re: Re:

Cops, whatever they think of themselves, are not also judge and jury. They should not be dispensing justice, they should be bringing alleged violators in to be adjudged (and not by whatever means, but by means that deliver the ‘alleged culprit’ in one, unharmed piece), by those charged with that task, who are not the police.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

“Don’t want cops to beat on you, don’t be a thug or a criminal.”

Armchair authoritarian says suck it up citizen.

“When a teacher (or cop) tells you to do something, fucking do it.”

Oh, ok … I’m supposed to just go ahead and perform fellatio upon demand … got it.

“people have lost any semblance of respect or consideration of others”

Sorta like the cops – yes?
Funny how that works.

“There are quite a few people out there that need and deserve a good beatdown.”

A beatdown? … not justice or anything like that, just a beatdown or maybe a good ol hangin.

“to not be an asshole”

Many LEOs should take this advice.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

When a teacher (or cop) tells you to do something, fucking do it.

If you (or some cop) thinks I should be fine being treated like an eight year old, then I think the problem is your (or the cop’s) expectations are way the fuck out of whack.

If you’re fine being a bitch, it’s OK – I’m not going to judge you for it. You’re just a bootlicking coward, something that’s becoming all too popular in the country.

Just don’t expect the rest of us to be like you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

Their is a difference between treating people with respect and kindness and being a bitch. If people refuse to comply with normal social interactions, they deserve to have their heads kicked in.

I can disagree with someone and not become agitated, but when assholes scream at cops (and we see many instances on YouTube) they deserve to have their tickets punched.

That is the problem, many in society believe they can say whatever they want, insult anyone they want because our society has deemed it wrong to just punch the asshole in the face. Are we better off for it? Seems bullying in schools is worse, society isn’t as nice, people are ruder, people drive like assholes on the road more, think things are better?

Many people out there need a good asswhippin.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“If people refuse to comply with normal social interactions, they deserve to have their heads kicked in.”

Are you suggesting the bad cops should have their heads kicked in? This seems contrary to your other statements and is certainly bad advice.

“but when assholes scream at cops”

What are they screaming about? Is it because their head is being kicked in?

“That is the problem”

We only have one problem … good to know.

“bullying in schools is worse, society isn’t as nice, people are ruder, people drive like assholes”

The past was not a rosy as you imply so take off those rainbow shades and have a good look at the bullshit, it is the same as it always was.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

“If people refuse to comply with normal social interactions, they deserve to have their heads kicked in.”

Your inability to deal with situations without resorting to violence says a lot more about you than it does about the people “screaming”. Why are they screaming about? What triggered them? Are you at fault or is there a way to defuse the situation without damage or injury? Is there a way to let the guy calm down for a moment without needing to hit him with something?

You’ll never know because your thugs are too busy caving their heads in. Then they whine because people don’t respect them and think they’re thugs. I’ve seen many of those YouTube videos too, and they usually have a cop immediately escalating the situation out of hand as an excuse to end the moment with some good old ultraviolence. Videos from other countries don’t get so much attention because they involve cops talking and de-escalating the situation before they need to start acting like a street gang.

Stosh says:

It’s called the “Ferguson Effect” because after a false narrative by the media and riots by the SJW crowd the Obama DOJ could find no fault with the actions of police. Yet the officers involved were personally destroyed and in fear of their lives. For other officers around the country to take note of the incident and aftermath, and how it could effect their lives is called sanity.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:

I’m trying to figure out what part of what he said was “bullshit”. I read the wiki, and a copy of the news stories on what happened in Ferguson. Looks like Stosh hit it dead on to me.

I had to look up SJW, wasn’t sure exactly what that meant. After a bit of google’ing, I ran across some Ben Shapiro vids. AHAHAHA! Wrecked!

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:4 Re:

I googled “Ferguson”, and read the first 3 or 4 hits including the wiki. I didn’t feel I needed to spend a whole lot of time looking at sources. Did you have a specific source in mind you think I should read? So far, they word it differently, but all the stories say the same thing. The guy was a thug. He bullied/robbed a store/clerk, tried to wrestle a cops gun from him, and Darwin took over from there. Witness’s came out of the woodwork saying he had his hands up, who where later found to not of actually seen the incident. None of it really seemed to matter, the people went nuts and basically made up their own story. Accused the cop of all kinds of things, ruined his life for the most part.

Doesn’t really matter which story I read. They justify it, they qualify it, they toss around this and that circumstance, but eventually they all say the same thing. The guy was a thief and a thug and tried to take a gun from a cop. I can’t honestly understand how anyone would expect a different result.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:5 Re:

“I googled “Ferguson”, and read the first 3 or 4 hits including the wiki”

I suspect you did a slightly different search, or at least have very different results to me (I just tried searching just “Ferguson” and the first 5 results are for a kitchen supplier in Virginia, number 6 is the only one of the front page for the incident in question. This may seem like nit picking, but the exact phrase you chose to search for does indeed affect the results you get.

Anyway, the way Google returns results is that your location and search history (among other things) are taken into account. If you’re someone who regularly frequents alt-right propaganda sources, those will be toward the top of your results. You should be looking at what the sources are and adjust accordingly – most well-known sources also have well-known biases, while if a top result is some random guy’s blog, you should take that with a pinch of salt no matter where they claim to lie politically.

The main issue here – you apparently don’t seem to be aware of the context of the information you’re getting. I’d learn to examine and evaluate your sources before getting offended when someone recognises the particular spin that a type of outlet gives you. If your random search on Google returns biased sources at the top, you’re still getting a biased look at what’s happening even if you’re not actively seeking out such biases.

This isn’t about “left” vs “right” nor “approved” vs “unapproved” sources. It’s about being aware of the biases in the information presented to you and understanding that “I picked some random results off Google” is not a good way to get an unbiased overview. Especially on a controversial subject where a lot of biased sources are often parroting the same falsehoods.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:6 Re:

I just looked at the facts. There is no context to be evaluated. The left, right, the wiki, all share the same facts. I don’t understand the fascination with the “alt right”, whatever that is. Are you saying that wiki is a secret Right wing organization bent on subverting the opinions of the public?

The guy was a criminal. He assaulted a store owner and robbed him. He attacked a cop and tried to take his gun. The witnesses accusing the officer of wrong doing lied and later admitted they didn’t actually see what happened. The Grand Jury refused to indite. The DOJ cleared the cop of civil rights allegations and even went so far as to state that the evidence supports the officers story.

I can’t seem to find a left or right web site that dispute the actual facts. I see a lot of opinions on both side of the isle, but no actual fact based dissents on the legal outcome. What “context” am I missing here? Please point out a “non-biased” explanation of what actually happened so that I can become more informed like yourself.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:7 Re:

“I just looked at the facts.”

Did you? You randomly picked articles from a Google search and can’t even name the sources that you chose. How do you know you were presented with correct or complete facts, or how they were spun?

“Are you saying that wiki is a secret Right wing organization bent on subverting the opinions of the public?”

How you got that from what I said is a mystery. Perhaps you do need to work on your reading comprehension as well as your method of choosing news sources.

“I don’t understand the fascination with the “alt right”, whatever that is.”

You should probably inform yourself of that too. There’s an easy way to research it if you’re not sure. I’ll start you off:


“White supremacist[4][5][6][7][8] Richard Spencer appropriated the term in 2010 to define a movement centered on white nationalism…”

“Alt-right beliefs have been described as white supremacist,[14][15][16] frequently overlapping with antisemitism and Neo-Nazism,[17][18][19] nativism and Islamophobia,[20][21][22][23][24] antifeminism and homophobia,[17][25][26][27] white nationalism, right-wing populism,[28][29] and the neoreactionary movement.[14][30]”

“Breitbart News has become a popular outlet for alt-right views.[98][99][100]”

You might, therefore understand why the reporting of the death of a black man by such sources would be deemed questionable. If you don’t know if what you were reading came from these sources, I suggest you look again and check.

“Please point out a “non-biased” explanation of what actually happened so that I can become more informed like yourself.”

Again, I’m questioning your blind belief in whatever Google returns to you first and the inability to evaluate your sources of information. I don’t claim to be more educated on this specific subject than you, I just evaluate where I get my information more closely.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:8 Re:

“How you got that from what I said is a mystery. “

Because twice I said one of my sources is the wiki. Here, let me really break it down for you on a step by step.

1. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=ferguson

2. Scroll down to the first relevant link, which is the wiki and click.

3. Once in the wiki, click on the link embedded in the name “Michael Brown”.

3. Read the story.

4. Read a couple of other stories to make sure the wiki hasn’t been hijacked so you don’t make a fool out of yourself.

5. Get trolled by PaulT?

I quoted and referenced directly from the WIKI. The same place your quoting and referencing from. How does that equate to some “blind believe in what Google returns”? All your doing is spewing non-sense. You still haven’t given me any facts related to the discussion or a reliable source. All your doing is attacking my sources, you’re not providing any fact based arguments at all.

…wait, you’re just trolling me and I’ve fallen for the bait? I’ve been trolled haven’t I? Tell me this isn’t a real conversation, especially after you referenced the EXACT SAME SOURCE I DID. !!?? Your attacking my sources “wiki” and then posting a reference to wiki in support of your argument… this can’t be real….

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:9 Re:

“Because twice I said one of my sources is the wiki. “

Yes, and you said you had several other sources you found it impossible to name. You still haven’t. How my questioning those sources translates into me saying that Wikipedia is questionable is a mystery.

“Read a couple of other stories”

Which stories? Where? That’s what I’m questioning and what you refuse to answer.

“5. Get trolled by PaulT?”

I’m sorry that asking you to evaluate your sources of information after people have noted that you seem to be getting it from alt-right sources is considered “trolling” in your mind. God help your country if a call for accuracy is offensive now.

“I quoted and referenced directly from the WIKI.”

No, you didn’t. You said “I just picked 3 or 4 different stories and read them”. I simply asked what they were and if you’d considered their biases.

“How does that equate to some “blind believe in what Google returns”?”

Because you said you “googled “Ferguson”, and read the first 3 or 4 hits”. So, you just blindly followed the first 3 or 4 sources Google returned to you. Your own words!

I mean, seriously, you’re arguing about what you literally said you did now?

“Your attacking my sources “wiki” “

I did no such thing. I attacked no sources, in fact, I merely stated that the unnamed sources you refused to name might not be unbiased. I said nothing about the single source you bothered to identify.

So, let’s get this straight – someone pointed out that what you said resembled alt-right spin. You refused to name any sources you used other than Wikipedia, refused to research what “alt right” even meant in that context, and then flip out because I suggested you use some critical evaluation of the sources you use and helped you find the definition you were so confused about. Wow.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:10 Re:

Ok. I’ll play your silly little game.

If you click the link I provided. My sources were in the order that you see on that link. I read each of the stories, and clicked thru the wiki sources and links more or less randomly to make sure it wasn’t hijacked. The ABC link was more of a collection of video’s with commentary, same with the CNN link. If you make it past the first page on Google, you’ll find the washington post with the actual PDF of the Dept. Of Justice Report, and the bbc with a fairly good summary on what happened including witness accounts.

Now, with that said; All of them report the facts a little differently, some spin one way or the other, but none of them dispute the facts (that I could find) stated in the legal proceedings. That is what I focused on the “ACTUAL FACTS”. Facts that can be verified from sources directly on the wiki, which I also Scrolled thru.

List of sources in the order displayed in Google;

1. Wiki

2. NY Times

3. ABC

4. CNN

5. Wash. Post

6. BBC

Does that meet the burden of news diversity enough to satisfy your paranoia for “Alt-Right” spin? Can we move on now?

Did you have any actual fact based arguments in dissent of the legal outcome with sources or was this just a colossal waste of our time?

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:11 Re:


“If you click the link I provided”

…it returns different results to you because I’m in a different location with different search history. As I explained, the first 5 links are for a kitchen supplier in Virginia. I also get comedian Craig Ferguson’s Twitter account before anything else related to the news story you’re looking for. Virtually nothing on the first 2 pages has anything to do with the arrest you’re talking about.

The only result relevant on the first page is the Wikipedia article. I then get other results in a different order to what you’ve listed on the 2nd and 3rd pages. BBC appears first for me, because of my location and the fact I frequent that site regularly, while CNN doesn’t come up until the 4th page.

“Did you have any actual fact based arguments in dissent of the legal outcome with sources”

No because I wasn’t discussing that. I was merely trying to explain why “google and pick the first 3 or 4 results” won’t guarantee you an unbiased set of sources, or even sources that represent a good overvie form all sides of the spectrum. I had no comment to offer one way or another on the specific event you were trying to get at, only explaining why other people might think you were using alt right sources. You couldn’t even name the sources you were using until you got anal over my explaining that to you.

I’m sorry that was too complicated for you.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:12 Re:

“I was merely trying to explain why “google and pick the first 3 or 4 results””

You keep leaving off the wiki. My sources were the first 3 or 4 web sites, AND the wiki.

“I read the wiki, and a copy of the news stories on what happened in Ferguson. Looks like Stosh hit it dead on to me. ”

“I googled “Ferguson”, and read the first 3 or 4 hits including the wiki.”

The same wiki you referenced in a SINGLE source quotation. So just that (wiki) should be sufficient right? If it’s good enough for you to single source reference, it should be good enough for me to use in addition to 3 or 4 random news stories right?

Sure, if I just used 3 or 4 unnamed sources, I could see where that would be a problem. But i didn’t did I? Your trying to make a point that is unsupported by the evidence. I can’t decide if your obtuse, or just a troll. I’m sure you’ll enlighten me with your next comment. I cant wait. .. /s

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:13 Re:

“The same wiki you referenced in a SINGLE source quotation.”

The same wiki I didn’t question as a source when I was saying you should be more careful with the other, unnamed sources you were referencing? Yeah.

You have a real problem understanding my basic statements, don’t you?

“it should be good enough for me to use in addition to 3 or 4 random news stories right?”

It’s the “random” I was warning you to be careful about, you disingenuous prick.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:14 Re:

“You have a real problem understanding my basic statements, don’t you?”

“”It’s the “random” I was warning you to be careful about, you disingenuous prick.”

No I understand them fine. I just don’t subscribe to your partisan paranoia or childish name calling. I don’t need you to tell me what news sources are reliable and which ones are not. Nor do I need you to council me to be “careful with the other, unnamed sources”. Those other sources, which I listed per your request, are main stream news organizations that will ALWAYS have partisan leanings. The wiki, which I repeatedly listed as well, is typically fact based.

As far as your name calling is concerned; I don’t take offense or blame you really. I guess when you don’t have an argument that’s all you really have isn’t it.

PaulT (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:15 Re:

“I don’t need you to tell me what news sources are reliable and which ones are not”

FFS I’m not doing that! I’m just stating that you will not get a good overview of a subject by randomly picking the top Google results – something that you stated that you did. You couldn’t recall where you got your information, so I just tried telling you that you need to take more notice in future and gave you a few hints as to how. That’s all. I don’t give 2 shits which sources you choose, as long as you don’t think that you’re magically getting a neutral overview by picking a few at random.

I wholeheartedly apologise for jumping in and trying to help you out when you didn’t understand why someone accused you of using biased sources and couldn’t recall where you got your facts. I jumped in because other people (remember – not me) thought you had picked up a particular bias with your reading of the facts.

I should learn not to help out people like you, it’s not worth the effort.

“The wiki, which I repeatedly listed as well, is typically fact based.”

Some of the extreme right-wing sources I warned you off depending upon would have you believe that Wikipedia is a liberal conspiracy and have tried making their own “conservative” wiki to try and counteract it. I’m serious – http://www.conservapedia.com/Main_Page

I’m glad you’re not that stupid, but bear in mind that articles can still have some unwitting bias depending on the citations chosen and the leanings of the authors. Especially on controversial subjects such as the one you were trying to research. Wikipedia is a great jumping off point, but cannot be taken as a primary source nor trusted to be free of bias on every subject, despite the best efforts of most regular contributors.

“I guess when you don’t have an argument that’s all you really have isn’t it.”

I don’t have an argument. I’m merely telling you how to use that melon resting on top of your shoulders to evaluate sources. A shame you’re so bad at taking in information that you think this is some kind of argument.

My entire point is literally “if you can’t recall where you got your information (as your originally stated) it’s worth being more careful and be more aware of your sources”. If that’s objectionable to you, so be it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:16 Re:

” I’m merely telling you how to use that melon resting on top of your shoulders to evaluate sources.”

“My entire point is literally “if you can’t recall where you got your information (as your originally stated) it’s worth being more careful and be more aware of your sources”.”

My entire point was; I don’t give two shits about your opinion, or your warning. I’m smart enough to understand what I read without either.

Ed (user link) says:

Your "killed in line of duty" stats include car accidents

The “killed in the line of duty” statistics you are using include ALL deaths, whether by heart attack or due to car accidents, etc. A better measure would be police killed by suspects. According to the FBI’s report for 2015, released in October of 2016, “According to statistics collected by the FBI, 86 law enforcement officers were killed in line-of-duty incidents in 2015. Of these, 41 law enforcement officers died as a result of felonious acts, and 45 officers died in accidents.” Weapons used: “Weapons: Offenders used firearms to kill 38 of the 41 victim officers. Of these 38 officers, 29 were slain with handguns, seven with rifles, one with a shotgun, and the type of firearm was not reported in the death of one officer. Three officers were killed with vehicles used as weapons.” So in 2015, only 41 officers were actually killed by suspects, according to the FBI. https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-releases-2015-statistics-on-law-enforcement-officers-killed-and-assaulted

Anonymous Coward says:

The American public saw the riots in Ferguson and were pissed. Yeah, the cops pointed guns at people, yeah they used armored vehicles, but we watched as stores burned and gunshots rang out while rioters refused to disperse. By this time, I would imagine all protesters had already left because things turned ugly.

The American public watched the riots in Baltimore, yeah, same thing.

The American public watched the riots in Berkley while the police were ordered to stand back and let people riot.

It is crap like this that got Trump elected, because people are tired of watching thugs and animals do whatever the fuck they want.

Keep bitching about cops, and yes, there are cases where they break the law and they should be punished, but the outrage that is expressed is bullshit. 800 people were murdered in Chicago last year. Baltimore saw a rise in violent crime.

Professional protesters march yet don’t actually give a fuck what is going on in the city because they don’t live there, they take their useless degree and their student loans and bitch about everything else, all the while living in the suburbs. They don’t give a fuck about the people who live in the city because if they did, they would be doing something about helping the community.

dar says:

it’s ‘LEEP’some say…http://www.jinsa.org/events-programs/law-enforcement-exchange-program-leep/all

The Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs
Law Enforcement Exchange Program (LEEP)
LEEP establishes cooperation
American and Israeli law enforcement personnel
and to give
the American law enforcement community access
to the hard “lessons learned” by the Israelis
in the interdiction of and response to all forms of terrorism.

JINSA Launches Law Enforcement Exchange
SEPTEMBER 06, 2002

U.S. Police Officials Travel to Israel for “First Responders” Dialogue
JINSA brought 10 high-ranking law enforcement officers
from several major U.S. cities to Israel,
August 19-23, 2002, for an intense
five-day program with their Israeli law enforcement counterparts.

JINSA Sends U.S. Police Chiefs to Israel for Anti-Terror Cooperation
AUGUST 21, 2002…


U.S. Police Routinely Travel to Israel to Learn Methods of Brutality and Repression
Published on Tuesday, 12 July 2016 09:45 | Written by Justin Gardner | Print | Email
FacebookTwitterGoogle bookmark


When McKinney, TX police officer David Eric Casebolt brutally
took down a teenage girl
at a pool party in June,
he was using a form of martial arts called Krav Maga
in which he trained exclusively.

These combat techniques were developed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF).

This is a small reflection of a larger reality that exists in U.S. law enforcement,
one that helps explain
the brutality and militarization
that now characterizes so many police forces.

Since 9/11, cops have been traveling abroad
to learn
from one of the most repressive and dangerous State forces in the world today
—the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus.

Political commentator John Miranda recently stated
that police brutality
is directly linked to the training some officers receive in Israel.

“As for the increase in police brutality within the United States,
I think this definitely can be pointed
towards the Israeli training that the Department of Homeland Security
is giving all of American police officers.

Some police officers are actually being flown to Israel for the training,
not all of them but some,
and then those that are flown to Israel, they come back home
they train the head officers in the training that they’ve gotten in Israel.

All these incidents, it is not just happening to African Americans.

Police are literally being brutal with all Americans.”

At least 300 high-ranking U.S. sheriffs and police from all over the country,
as well as FBI and US Customs and Border Protection agents,
have traveled to Israel
to learn first-hand
the most efficient means of subduing populations.

The purported reason is counterterrorism,
protests and crowd control methods are commonly discussed.

Police are not learning from the Israeli criminal law sector
that deals with Jewish residents.

U.S. police are learning from Israel’s military justice [sic ]system,
controls Palestinians through paramilitary and counterinsurgency tactics.
Residents of Gaza and the West Bank live
in what
is essentially a giant prison camp,
oppression and brutality from the IDF is a way of life.

The use of excessive or deadly force for crowd control is rarely questioned.

[“Palestinian territories” and “occupied Palestinian territories”
are descriptions often used
to describe the West Bank and the Gaza Strip
which are
occupied or otherwise under the control of Israel. Wikipedia
Area: 6,220 km² 2402 sq mi
Population: 4.17 million (2013) ]

Three organizations
are responsible for sending U.S. cops to Israel for training
—the Anti-Defamation League (ADL),
the American Jewish Committee’s Project Interchange
the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs.

The ADL insulted victims of police brutality last month
when it honored
the St. Louis Police Department (SLPD) just days ahead
of the anniversary of Michael Brown’s killing.

The SLPD was the first department to enroll in ADL’s training program.

The St. Louis Chapter of Jewish Voices for Peace
issued a scathing statement in response:

“We have cringed as the ADL positions itself locally
as a champion of racial profiling legislation while sending US police
– including former St. Louis County Police Chief Tim Fitch
– to train on population control in Israel,
an apartheid police state
with more than 60 years of sophisticated expertise
in racial profiling, mass incarceration,
settler colonialism,
and ethnic cleansing targeting the non-Jewish indigenous Palestinian people.”

This occupation-style policing has made its way to U.S. cities and towns
and has become standard operating procedure
at any protest of government.

Also, the very same equipment used by Israeli military for crowd control
—tear gas grenades, triple chaser gas canisters, and stun grenades—
were used at demonstrations
in Ferguson, Oakland and Anaheim.

The LRAD (long-range acoustic device) was also used
by both Ferguson police and Israeli military forces.

Rashid Khalidi, the Edward Said professor of modern Arab studies at Columbia University,
notes how militarized U.S. police
reflect the training that is received in Israel and spread throughout the ranks.

“If American police and sheriffs consider they’re in occupation
of neighborhoods like Ferguson and East Harlem,
this training is extremely appropriate
– they’re learning how to suppress a people,
their rights and use force to hold down a subject population.”

To complement this Israeli military training that ramped up in the mid-2000s,
the Pentagon and Homeland Security
started the 1033 program
which funneled billions of dollars of military-grade equipment
to local law enforcement.

MRAPS and military weapons have become all too familiar on American streets.

What order-following, state-sanctioned thug is going to refuse the most advanced tactics and tool of repression?

Shakeel Syed, executive director
of the Islamic Shura Council of Southern California,
described how U.S. police tactics
“a near replica” of Israeli military crowd control tactics.

“Whether it is in Ferguson or L.A.,
we see
a similar response all the time
in the form
of a disproportionate number of combat-ready police
with military gear who are ready to use tear gas at short notice.

Whenever you find 50 people at a demonstration,
there is always a SWAT team in sight or right around the corner.”

This increasingly common scenario is indicative of law enforcement
that views the populace as the enemy.

Peaceful protests of unjust government practices
are fundamental to the progression of society.

Police with militarized tactics and gear are the progenitors of violence.

Jimmy Johnson of the Israeli Committee Against House Demolitions
explains how
the training of U.S. law enforcement by Israeli military
a grave threat to the idea of democracy.

“Israeli methods are sought out and adopted for their perceived quality,
largely led
by the government’s marketing of them.

But the relationships established between agencies of order,
whether they be drug enforcement,
civil policing, customs officials, tactical police units or any other,
are done
entirely outside the democratic realm…
This is the danger
of agencies of authority going through processes
of professionalization and integration
with their foreign counterparts.

It’s often a strictly technocratic regime that can affect the public greatly
but is done
without its active knowledge or participation.”

If we are to end the militarization of U.S. law enforcement,
one of the most important parts of that
will be stopping the training of police by the Israeli military and intelligence apparatus.

We do not want their methods of repression and brutality replicated here.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

You really don’t like Jews, do you?

Considering they are surrounded by a bunch of countries that want to wipe them off the face of the earth, I think they are pretty restrained.

What would the US do if there were groups lobbing rockets into Texas from Mexico? Would we be restrained? Would we try to determine how we could solve the problem? Nope, we would cross the border and kill anyone in the area where the missiles were launched. And guess what, Americans would demand that.

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...