However, I don't see a reason why local police need grenade launchers.
Maybe someone with more military/police experience than me can chime in, but when I read that I assumed the "grenade launchers" are meant to launch smoke/tear gas...not high explosive grenades.
I think the article title in an excellent example of "newstainment" over "journalism" because the title is meant to have the reader conclude the grenade launchers will be outfitted with high explosives...and not the more reasonable non-lethal ammunition like smoke and tear gas.
I think you're a smart guy, but I'm afraid (and I truly hope I'm right about this) your assumption is incorrect and you were misled by an unfortunate title written by someone more interested in getting links/hits to their article than providing an accurate perspective.
"Grenade launcher" and "Smoke/tear gas launcher" are essentially the same thing, just sounds better to sell your product by putting "Grenade launcher" out there.
Both sides are wrong in this situation with how they've handled it. You want a peaceful protest...............fine, but to the morons that decide they want to damage things, assault people, burn buildings down, they need to go to jail for their actions. To the peaceful protestors, talk like adults to the police and vice versa and work through the situation. I understand your concerns, but you don't know the whole story. You know the story that the media is putting out there, which is full of half-truths, because the whole truth can't be released until the entire case is closed.
To the Ferguson Police Chief, if your officers aren't trained to handle these types of situations, swallow your pride and bring someone in who is trained in these situations. The press has a right to film the situation and take note of the situation as does the regular citizen have the right to film police. The problem lies in if they interfere with what the police are trying to do. Film the situation, report the situation, but stay out of it and don't get in the way. And to the press, quit fueling the god damn fire, but putting a "white police officer" killed a "black man" because that's garbage journalism and you're only doing it to get "hits" on your articles and sell your news. Completely unnecessary!
The same citizens that are complaining about "innocent until proven guilty" are immediately saying the officer is guilty. Nevermind the reports from the officer that this individual assaulted the officer and tried to take his gun, that's justification for deadly force folks. We have a right to protect ourselves, we don't immediately say we'll let someone to kill us as soon as we take that oath. Until you're in a fight for your life with someone you won't understand, is what it is.
If I could find a different job to get into that paid the same as what I make right now I'd consider doing it if it was a good job. This country is on the fast track to having major clashes with police on a daily basis and both sides are at fault for that, but citizens also think every police officer they come in contact with is going to violate their rights which is LARGELY untrue.
I'm gonna say this, don't take your anger out on me because I'm a police officer. You want to talk like an adult and not twist words around, fine, we can talk, but if this turns into another situation like the "U.S. Supreme Court rules on cell phone searches" thread, I'm not gonna discuss this.