Started By
Message

re: Police come under ‘heavy gunfire’ in Ferguson, arrest 31 people

Posted on 8/19/14 at 8:23 am to
Posted by DeltaDoc
The Delta
Member since Jan 2008
16089 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 8:23 am to
I'd say that there is a really good chance that under the scrutiny that the police are under that they did not return fire.

That said, heavy fire is a very subjective term. Does that mean three shots or three hundred?
Posted by ItNeverRains
37069
Member since Oct 2007
25584 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 8:31 am to
The longer this continues, the better the police outcome in the long run. If the national guard is needed, how you blame the Ferguson police for needing to be militarized?
Posted by trackfan
Baton Rouge
Member since Sep 2010
19691 posts
Posted on 8/19/14 at 9:54 am to
quote:

I'd say that there is a really good chance that under the scrutiny that the police are under that they did not return fire.

That said, heavy fire is a very subjective term. Does that mean three shots or three hundred?

There is a precedent for police not returning under such circumstances. In Oxford, MS in 1962, 55 U.S. Marshalls and 40 soldiers and national guardsmen were wounded or injured protecting James Meredith, and they never returned fire, because of JFK's desire to keep things from escalating, and his order not return fire unless Meredith's life was directly threatened.
first pageprev pagePage 1 of 1Next pagelast page
refresh

Back to top
logoFollow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News
Follow us on Twitter, Facebook and Instagram to get the latest updates on LSU Football and Recruiting.

FacebookTwitterInstagram