Missouri and protecting the goal posts

[Ceo]

Years ago, I remember watching a college football game where it was a huge upset. About 20 Leos were trying to protect the goal posts when thousands of fans rushed the field. Pepper spray, etc was used, to no avail. Thought to myself, high risk, low reward, and wouldn't it just be easier to replace the damn things. Watching the Missouri riots, I.m wondering to myself again. The initial respsssssssssssssssssssssssonse to a civil disturbance which most often occurs in darkness still may require the armored vehs, Swat, line stomp and drags, full riot gear,etc. but how about day two, three etc? Remember pre Columbine, surround the building, wait on Swat. What I am seeing now on day two and beyond should require change. By day two, all of the organized activists, media, pandering politicians are arriving. Did anyone besides me, see a problem with a sniper sitting on top of a swat tank at the ready, during broad daylight, in front of a large but peaceful crowd. Shouldn't we be videoing everything now? We are seeing now everyday, people wanting confrontation with the police, hoping you will overreact and get caught on video doing it. Intimidation, is a tactic that has been our friend for years, but todays social media and a agenda driven press, often tries to show us being militarized and overbearing without regard for our well being. Protecting ourselves no longer out weighs the image we project. We need to rethink day two and beyond.

[Unregistered]

I think you're right, but I don't buy into this militarization of police being an assault on people's civil liberties at all. Does a town of 2,000 need an anti IED vehicle? No, they don't. But what about what about South Central LA, Chicago's South Side and other areas where the violence is so out of control it actually is a war-zone? A SIDE-ARM AND A SMILE AREN'T GOING TO CUT IT.