Bundy versus Ferguson

There have been a few comparisons made between the protests in Ferguson, Missouri compared to the Bundy standoff, and I have been thinking about it too.

The comparisons have mainly been in regards to the level of response. In the case of the Bundy standoff, the government side stood down. Even though Bundy has continued using federal land after not renewing his use permits years ago, so at least the seizure of property that remains on federal land is completely legitimate, the feds did not force the issue because they knew it would result in the loss of human life. They've had Waco, they've had Ruby Ridge, and they are careful with that.

The Bundy supporters were spoiling for a fight. They were talking about putting the women and children in front as human shields, to make the government killers of women and children, and they were armed and not just ready but apparently eager to fight. They attracted people who were so eager to kill that two of them went and killed three people two months later. Sure, the camp asked those two to leave because they were too radical, but when you are asking people to come ready to fight because you won't pay your grazing fees because you don't believe in the government, what do you expect?

The Bundy participants do not support the federal government, but they were still protected by it in their protest against having to pay to use land you don't own.

Let's look at Ferguson now.

police officer shot an unarmed man. Despite many attempts at obfuscation, it was not in connection with any crime. To me it sounds like an ego-gratifying show of force got embarrassing when the car door bounced off of the victim. There are so many issues to get to here, but I am trying to keep my focus small, for right now only focusing on the response.

There has been a much greater show of force. I do not believe for one moment that it is because the police are scared that the protesters will become violent. The protesters are not going out there armed, and their signature stance has been with the hands up in a gesture of surrender. That should prick the conscience, but not inspire fear for one's life.

Even if there had been some legitimate fear of physical danger initially, the first night that Ron Johnson was on the scene, when things were demilitarized, demonstrated that the protesters and police could coexist peacefully, and that there was not a need for tear gas, wooden bullets, rubber bullets, and pointed guns. But that was all brought back out.

I believe there was embarrassment again, and that doesn't help, but police egos should not take precedence over the public peace and safety.

The military equipment is frightening, and its origin in the "War on Drugs" makes it a good symbol for many aspects of the situation, but there are other things that are even more of a concern.

The removal of badges by police officers is a direct affront to the accountability that the protesters are seeking. They aren't afraid for their lives; they are afraid for their status quo. They are so afraid that they will trample the First Amendment.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

So curfews are set, people are told they can demonstrate but they can't stand still, tear gas is thrown into private yards, reporters are arrested and harassed, they are asked to stay confined to certain places, a no fly zone is declared, and the list goes on.

This is not for public safety. This is to prevent the redress of grievances, and the grievance is the lack of safety for too much of the public.

This is coming from state and local government. The federal government is committed to investigation, but a few comments on rights are drowned by reminders not to loot, which ignores how little looting there has been, and that has been thanks more to the protesters than to the cops. That is frustrating. It is worth remembering that when the federal government does have to step in, it is usually because of some issue with racism, and how often opposition to racial equality is referred to as "states' rights".

I wasn't sure that I was ready to write about Ferguson, and this still feels horribly insufficient, and incomplete. I'm just going to leave with another quote, from a newsreel about Jackson Mississippi during Freedom Summer:

"The Jackson Police Department operates with the best demonstration deterrent of any city in the country. In addition to Thompson's Tank, armor-plated and equipped with nine machine gun positions, the arsenal includes cage trucks for transporting masses of arrested violators, searchlight trucks, each of which can light three city blocks in case of night riots, police dog teams, trained to trail, search a building, or disperse a mob or crowd, mounted police for controlling parades or pedestrian traffic, and compounds and detention facilities to hold and house 10000 prisoners.

Along with these ironclad police facilities are new ironclad state laws, outlawing picketing, economic boycotting and demonstrating. Other laws to control the printing and distribution of certain types of information, and laws to dampen complaints to federal authorities."

Fifty years later, we're still don't have it right.