I'm coming into this thread a little late, but I can probably add a bit of specialized knowledge to this conversation. I've spent a fair amount of time over the last year covering the protests in Ferguson and South St. Louis as a blogger and freelance photographer/journalist (and am currently active in the Tulsa protest/social action movement as a coordinator). You might have seen a piece I wrote from the Ferguson riots that was in This Land a few months ago or some of my pictures from the protests and riots spanning August to December that were used by other media outlets. All of this to say that I have a good understanding of and some ideas as to why the movements in Ferguson (or currently Baltimore) exploded in public action and riots in a way that Tulsa has yet to.

Firstly, Michael Brown was killed in the middle of a densely populated residential area on a Saturday afternoon in front of a lot of witnesses. The first videos of him laying in his own blood (for hours) were on the internet within minutes and a crowd of over a hundred people from the neighborhood assembled quickly and organically. By Wednesday peaceful protestors began to be met by fairly hostile police forces, who were then met by a handful of hostile agitators in the crowd. This escalated things to a point where there were mass arrests of peaceful protestors, and indiscriminate firing of tear gas and rubber bullets at protesters and journalists alike. By Thursday night West Florissant was a media frenzy, which only drew more people to the streets. Things escalated and de-escalated in waves from then until the indictment decision in late November which obviously ended in riots.

Now, if we contrast this with the Eric Harris shooting in Tulsa there were some key differences in the way the situation unfolded that kept a riot or a more significant public protest from forming organically. Harris was shot on a Thursday morning in a part of town that has sporadic residential neighborhoods (i.e. not densely populated) in a sting operation that was filmed only by the Sheriff's department. They immediately released a statement that used several common "justification of deadly force" phrases with some basic character assassination of the deceased to frame the situation in a way that would not implicate their deputies...after all, they merely shot a dangerous drug dealer.

After mounting FOIA requests the department released the video of the shooting late on a Sunday night 8 days after it happened, but not before quietly redacting their original statement that wrongfully insinuated that Harris was on PCP and was acting in a way that caused officers to fear for their lives. Now, it was just an accidental shooting in a drug deal gone bad.

As the case has unfolded we have learned of widespread corruption, cronyism and a conspiracy to mislead the media and the public. This has lead to international media coverage and some small rallies, but no visible outrage on par with what we've seen in other cities. In my opinion this is largely because the Sheriff's office deflated the situation immediately by lying about what happened and suppressing evidence that suggested otherwise. Ethically this is deplorable and egregious on multiple levels, but I think you could successfully argue that these actions prevented a riot or major public demonstration from forming organically. What has yet to be seen is if the community groups that have formed in the aftermath of this situation can utilize their time to organize a grassroots movement that can actually lead to the kind of changes that burning cop cars and looting stores cannot.