Baltimore

[GuitarStv]

Hmmm.  Second-degree murder, manslaughter, assault and misconduct charges are now being leveled against the police involved in Gray's death.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us/freddie-gray-autopsy-report-given-to-baltimore-prosecutors.html?_r=0)  I wonder if the charges would be the same if there hadn't been rioting.

[MDM]

I wonder if the charges would be the same if there hadn't been rioting.

You could perhaps get close to bipartisan unanimity that the answer to your question is "no."

That unanimity would then likely fracture between "...and this is an example of excellent prosecutorial judgment, putting this case on the path to justice and sending a clear message" vs. "...and this is an example of prosecutorial overreach to satisfy a short term political agenda, regardless of the eventual outcome."

[Gin1984]

Hmmm.  Second-degree murder, manslaughter, assault and misconduct charges are now being leveled against the police involved in Gray's death.  (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us/freddie-gray-autopsy-report-given-to-baltimore-prosecutors.html?_r=0)  I wonder if the charges would be the same if there hadn't been rioting.

Well according to what I was told the DA did run on tough on cop misconduct so maybe?

[Bbqmustache]

God help us now.  An indictment is not a conviction.  I hope the pretrial work takes a LONG time, because if a jury fails to find these officers guilty, I do not want to be living in Baltimore at THAT point.

[Wupper]

Little chance the officers are convicted.

When found not guilty, get ready for another round of riots.

Meanwhile, many blacks will be killed by other blacks, and nobody will care.

The "Black Lives Matter" slogan is a fraud. They should be honest and change it to:

"Blacks Hate Cops"

Mod Note: propagating unfounded racial stereotypes ARE NOT ok on these forums.

[Midwest]

Gin - Can we agree that the looters/criminals taking advantage of their situation no matter what the catalyst are wrong no matter what their color?

Honestly, for me it depends. Fighting back against people trying to harm you (including cops), because this is one of the few times you might be a little safer doing so, I can't judge that, not after all I have seen in how non-white are treated (compared to how I, a white woman was treated), by the police and legal system.  Destroying neighborhoods, cutting fire hoses, those people I am fine with calling criminals (and idiots for destroying their own homes).  However, since those are such a small percentage of those protesting, I don't even see how they are relevant to the subject.  And they are not any more seen in this subject group than say, whites as shown by the rioting for games.

Gin - We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on that point.  Wrong is wrong to me no matter the color.

[Gin1984]

Little chance the officers are convicted.

When found not guilty, get ready for another round of riots.

Meanwhile, many blacks will be killed by other blacks, and nobody will care.

The "Black Lives Matter" slogan is a fraud. They should be honest and change it to:

"Blacks Hate Cops"

That is quite untrue, black on black crime is similar to white on white crime, Asian on Asian crime etc.  And should we not hold police officers to a higher standard than criminals, in regards our safety?  If they are suppose to protect and serve the community, why is that behavior ok?

[Gin1984]

Gin - Can we agree that the looters/criminals taking advantage of their situation no matter what the catalyst are wrong no matter what their color?

Honestly, for me it depends. Fighting back against people trying to harm you (including cops), because this is one of the few times you might be a little safer doing so, I can't judge that, not after all I have seen in how non-white are treated (compared to how I, a white woman was treated), by the police and legal system.  Destroying neighborhoods, cutting fire hoses, those people I am fine with calling criminals (and idiots for destroying their own homes).  However, since those are such a small percentage of those protesting, I don't even see how they are relevant to the subject.  And they are not any more seen in this subject group than say, whites as shown by the rioting for games.

Gin - We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on that point.  Wrong is wrong to me no matter the color.

It is not about their color but able how they are treated by police and justice system and their ability to fight back.  If I am attacked I can fight back, except if attacked by a cop but because of my race I am much less likely than a minority to be attacked by a cop. 

[Midwest]

Because when the media throws out the white people do it too argument, that doesn't make it right and isn't terribly relevant.

Nobody is saying that it is right. But it is relevant, in large part because of the disparate views we as a society have on white versus black crime. You might not have those opinions, but if you don't see how widespread these differing portrayals are and how they speak to inherent racial prejudice, then I don't know where you live or where you spend your time. Where I live, who I know on Facebook and in real life, and what I see on the media very often reveal a disturbing double standard.

JustJane - I think police reform is needed and I agree there is a double standard at times.

Having said that, burning down locally owned businesses and/or a community center destroys the community.  When the mayor gives permission to destroy, that is insanity (see article below).  Frankly, that type of thinking perpetuates the stereotype.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/04/28/baltimore-mayor-s-tone-deaf-handling-of-city-s-riot-crisis.html

[Midwest]

Gin - Can we agree that the looters/criminals taking advantage of their situation no matter what the catalyst are wrong no matter what their color?

Honestly, for me it depends. Fighting back against people trying to harm you (including cops), because this is one of the few times you might be a little safer doing so, I can't judge that, not after all I have seen in how non-white are treated (compared to how I, a white woman was treated), by the police and legal system.  Destroying neighborhoods, cutting fire hoses, those people I am fine with calling criminals (and idiots for destroying their own homes).  However, since those are such a small percentage of those protesting, I don't even see how they are relevant to the subject.  And they are not any more seen in this subject group than say, whites as shown by the rioting for games.

Gin - We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on that point.  Wrong is wrong to me no matter the color.

It is not about their color but able how they are treated by police and justice system and their ability to fight back.  If I am attacked I can fight back, except if attacked by a cop but because of my race I am much less likely than a minority to be attacked by a cop.

Gin - You are not fighting back when you burn down a community center and loot a CVS.  You are a common criminal or worse.  Burning down the CVS hurts the elderly in the area (need their prescriptions).  CVS says they are coming back, but will they?  Burning down a community center hurts all the users.  Will it be rebuilt? 

[FrugalToque]

Gin - You are not fighting back when you burn down a community center and loot a CVS.  You are a common criminal or worse.  Burning down the CVS hurts the elderly in the area (need their prescriptions).  CVS says they are coming back, but will they?  Burning down a community center hurts all the users.  Will it be rebuilt?

No, they're not "fighting back".  It's more like "lashing out".  Kind of like what the cops have been doing to them for decades.

I read a good quote a while back, when an African American asked a Caucasian why white people are all so scared of black people.  The white guy said, "It's because we'd never put up with being treated that way.  And we're always wondering if *this* is going to be the day you guys finally do what we would have done a long time ago."

Toque.

[Gin1984]

Gin - Can we agree that the looters/criminals taking advantage of their situation no matter what the catalyst are wrong no matter what their color?

Honestly, for me it depends. Fighting back against people trying to harm you (including cops), because this is one of the few times you might be a little safer doing so, I can't judge that, not after all I have seen in how non-white are treated (compared to how I, a white woman was treated), by the police and legal system.  Destroying neighborhoods, cutting fire hoses, those people I am fine with calling criminals (and idiots for destroying their own homes).  However, since those are such a small percentage of those protesting, I don't even see how they are relevant to the subject.  And they are not any more seen in this subject group than say, whites as shown by the rioting for games.

Gin - We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on that point.  Wrong is wrong to me no matter the color.

It is not about their color but able how they are treated by police and justice system and their ability to fight back.  If I am attacked I can fight back, except if attacked by a cop but because of my race I am much less likely than a minority to be attacked by a cop.

Gin - You are not fighting back when you burn down a community center and loot a CVS.  You are a common criminal or worse.  Burning down the CVS hurts the elderly in the area (need their prescriptions).  CVS says they are coming back, but will they?  Burning down a community center hurts all the users.  Will it be rebuilt?

Ok, I don't know if you are just skimming my posts or if I am not being clear, but I NEVER said that was ok.  I said specifically that it was not.  However, I separate those who are damaging the local property (criminals) and those fighting against the cops (people I can't blame because of how they are treated). Can you understand the difference?  You keep going on about the very, very few rioters who damaged property and combining them with those fighting back when I keep (clearly I believe) explaining that to me, those are difference.  Am I not being clear?

[midweststache]

From an incredibly insightful Atlantic article re: the nonviolence conversation (much better-written than anything I could come up with):

"When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the community."

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/

[Blindsquirrel]

 Three heavily armed gangs to avoid. Bloods, Crips, and Cops. THey are all dangerous.

[lemanfan]

If I pointed a gun at a cop, I expect to be shot.

This is a little beside the Baltimore specific issue, but coming from an outside view (I'm Swedish), this really bugs me. Both the fact that people draw guns on cops, and that certain acts would result in an expected killing by the police.

I'm sure some of you saw the incident a week ago when a couple of (according to the news) homeless men were fighting in a subway car in NYC, and some swedish cops on vacation intervened.  Caught on video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=izdfnHBMwSs

The expectation from most seemed to be that if the NYC cops had been there first, there would have been injuries at least.

Somehow the violence must be de-escalated.

And yes, there are many good cops in the US, and also much higher risks to the cops due to the amount of guns in circulation. And yes, there have been seemingly unjustified killings by cops in sweden too, recently leading to riots in certain communities. 

( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2013_Stockholm_riots )

[Silverado]

Gin - Can we agree that the looters/criminals taking advantage of their situation no matter what the catalyst are wrong no matter what their color?

Honestly, for me it depends. Fighting back against people trying to harm you (including cops), because this is one of the few times you might be a little safer doing so, I can't judge that, not after all I have seen in how non-white are treated (compared to how I, a white woman was treated), by the police and legal system.  Destroying neighborhoods, cutting fire hoses, those people I am fine with calling criminals (and idiots for destroying their own homes).  However, since those are such a small percentage of those protesting, I don't even see how they are relevant to the subject.  And they are not any more seen in this subject group than say, whites as shown by the rioting for games.

Gin - We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on that point.  Wrong is wrong to me no matter the color.

It is not about their color but able how they are treated by police and justice system and their ability to fight back.  If I am attacked I can fight back, except if attacked by a cop but because of my race I am much less likely than a minority to be attacked by a cop.

Gin - You are not fighting back when you burn down a community center and loot a CVS.  You are a common criminal or worse.  Burning down the CVS hurts the elderly in the area (need their prescriptions).  CVS says they are coming back, but will they?  Burning down a community center hurts all the users.  Will it be rebuilt?

Ok, I don't know if you are just skimming my posts or if I am not being clear, but I NEVER said that was ok.  I said specifically that it was not.  However, I separate those who are damaging the local property (criminals) and those fighting against the cops (people I can't blame because of how they are treated). Can you understand the difference?  You keep going on about the very, very few rioters who damaged property and combining them with those fighting back when I keep (clearly I believe) explaining that to me, those are difference.  Am I not being clear?

Gin, I think your reading comprehension is lacking a touch.

Question posed: gin, do you agree criminal acts are wrong?
Your answer: Honestly, for me it depends.

You keep thinking Midwest is talking about people protesting when he is not.

_______

There are two ways to fight back in America: get legislation passed to fix what ails you, or revolt and take over and then fix what ails you. That's it, and it takes significant commitment to do either. Don't be surprised when you fail at either. And in the case of attempted revolt, don't be surprised when your ass is fried sunny side up.

[FrugalToque]

Gin, I think your reading comprehension is lacking a touch.

Question posed: gin, do you agree criminal acts are wrong?
Your answer: Honestly, for me it depends.

You keep thinking Midwest is talking about people protesting when he is not.

I don't think it matters what Midwest is talking about.
It doesn't make sense to talk about the riots, the protests, or anything else without discussing the effects of decades of police brutality, redlining, effectively segregated education and the rest.
Saying, "I just want to hear you disavow the riots" or "isn't violence wrong!?" and what have you is pretty naive, unfair and possibly just derailing.
Everything happens in a context.

These riots, which happened in the context of a peaceful protest over the murder of an innocent man, were most likely proximally triggered by the police stranding a bunch of students in one area (shutting down their buses) and, in a separate area, a peaceful march coming across a neighbourhood who yelled racist things at them.
Who threw the first thingie, and precisely why, is not actually important in the context of, "it's a 40 year powderkeg of systemic racism, distrust, hatred and violence."

Toque.

[Midwest]

Gin - Can we agree that the looters/criminals taking advantage of their situation no matter what the catalyst are wrong no matter what their color?

Honestly, for me it depends. Fighting back against people trying to harm you (including cops), because this is one of the few times you might be a little safer doing so, I can't judge that, not after all I have seen in how non-white are treated (compared to how I, a white woman was treated), by the police and legal system.  Destroying neighborhoods, cutting fire hoses, those people I am fine with calling criminals (and idiots for destroying their own homes).  However, since those are such a small percentage of those protesting, I don't even see how they are relevant to the subject.  And they are not any more seen in this subject group than say, whites as shown by the rioting for games.

Gin - We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on that point.  Wrong is wrong to me no matter the color.

It is not about their color but able how they are treated by police and justice system and their ability to fight back.  If I am attacked I can fight back, except if attacked by a cop but because of my race I am much less likely than a minority to be attacked by a cop.

Gin - You are not fighting back when you burn down a community center and loot a CVS.  You are a common criminal or worse.  Burning down the CVS hurts the elderly in the area (need their prescriptions).  CVS says they are coming back, but will they?  Burning down a community center hurts all the users.  Will it be rebuilt?

Ok, I don't know if you are just skimming my posts or if I am not being clear, but I NEVER said that was ok.  I said specifically that it was not.  However, I separate those who are damaging the local property (criminals) and those fighting against the cops (people I can't blame because of how they are treated). Can you understand the difference?  You keep going on about the very, very few rioters who damaged property and combining them with those fighting back when I keep (clearly I believe) explaining that to me, those are difference.  Am I not being clear?

Gin, I think your reading comprehension is lacking a touch.

Question posed: gin, do you agree criminal acts are wrong?
Your answer: Honestly, for me it depends.

You keep thinking Midwest is talking about people protesting when he is not.

_______

There are two ways to fight back in America: get legislation passed to fix what ails you, or revolt and take over and then fix what ails you. That's it, and it takes significant commitment to do either. Don't be surprised when you fail at either. And in the case of attempted revolt, don't be surprised when your ass is fried sunny side up.

Gin - I asked you if criminal acts were wrong and you responded "it depends."   If you are peacefully protesting, have at it.  I'm not aware of peaceful protestors obeying the curfew who were defending themselves against the police.  The criminals looting and burning may have been pissed off at police and acted out, but in my mind that doesn't excuse their actions.

With regard to the rioters/criminals, while the rioters weren't the majority of the protestors (I think we agree on that point) there were more than a "few" to do the type of damage that occurred.  In addition, other parties stood by and watched while it occurred. 

Let's be clear peaceful protest - ok.  Criminal acts - Bad.

[FrugalToque]

Let's be clear peaceful protest - ok.  Criminal acts - Bad.

Okay, but I want to finish the sentiment:

Let's be clear peaceful protest - ok.  Criminal acts - Bad.  Decades of Police Brutality and dead civilians - Way, Way Worse.

You can't leave that out.

Toque.

[Midwest]

Let's be clear peaceful protest - ok.  Criminal acts - Bad.

Okay, but I want to finish the sentiment:

Let's be clear peaceful protest - ok.  Criminal acts - Bad.  Decades of Police Brutality and dead civilians - Way, Way Worse.

You can't leave that out.

Toque.

If you comment about decades of police brutality is correct (not saying its not), then agreed really bad and should be dealt with.  Police reform is needed in many areas. 

I've been to Baltimore's inner harbor and Camden several times.  Guess where I won't be going next time I'm there on business.  I wouldn't avoid it like the plague if all that had been going on was peaceful protest.  The lack of tourism dollars will hurt the very people who are in poverty many of which are innocent.

[Gin1984]

Gin - Can we agree that the looters/criminals taking advantage of their situation no matter what the catalyst are wrong no matter what their color?

Honestly, for me it depends. Fighting back against people trying to harm you (including cops), because this is one of the few times you might be a little safer doing so, I can't judge that, not after all I have seen in how non-white are treated (compared to how I, a white woman was treated), by the police and legal system.  Destroying neighborhoods, cutting fire hoses, those people I am fine with calling criminals (and idiots for destroying their own homes).  However, since those are such a small percentage of those protesting, I don't even see how they are relevant to the subject.  And they are not any more seen in this subject group than say, whites as shown by the rioting for games.

Gin - We are probably going to have to agree to disagree on that point.  Wrong is wrong to me no matter the color.

It is not about their color but able how they are treated by police and justice system and their ability to fight back.  If I am attacked I can fight back, except if attacked by a cop but because of my race I am much less likely than a minority to be attacked by a cop.

Gin - You are not fighting back when you burn down a community center and loot a CVS.  You are a common criminal or worse.  Burning down the CVS hurts the elderly in the area (need their prescriptions).  CVS says they are coming back, but will they?  Burning down a community center hurts all the users.  Will it be rebuilt?

Ok, I don't know if you are just skimming my posts or if I am not being clear, but I NEVER said that was ok.  I said specifically that it was not.  However, I separate those who are damaging the local property (criminals) and those fighting against the cops (people I can't blame because of how they are treated). Can you understand the difference?  You keep going on about the very, very few rioters who damaged property and combining them with those fighting back when I keep (clearly I believe) explaining that to me, those are difference.  Am I not being clear?

Gin, I think your reading comprehension is lacking a touch.

Question posed: gin, do you agree criminal acts are wrong?
Your answer: Honestly, for me it depends.

You keep thinking Midwest is talking about people protesting when he is not.

_______

There are two ways to fight back in America: get legislation passed to fix what ails you, or revolt and take over and then fix what ails you. That's it, and it takes significant commitment to do either. Don't be surprised when you fail at either. And in the case of attempted revolt, don't be surprised when your ass is fried sunny side up.

Gin - I asked you if criminal acts were wrong and you responded "it depends."   If you are peacefully protesting, have at it.  I'm not aware of peaceful protestors obeying the curfew who were defending themselves against the police.  The criminals looting and burning may have been pissed off at police and acted out, but in my mind that doesn't excuse their actions.

With regard to the rioters/criminals, while the rioters weren't the majority of the protestors (I think we agree on that point) there were more than a "few" to do the type of damage that occurred.  In addition, other parties stood by and watched while it occurred. 

Let's be clear peaceful protest - ok.  Criminal acts - Bad.

You do realize attacking a cop, even if you are being harmed by said cop is illegal right?  I am separating the illegal act of fighting the police/ destroying police equipment and damaging personal property of those who live/work in the area.  One, I can't blame them for, because of the assaults they get, as a community, the other I do object to.   

[Midwest]

You do realize attacking a cop, even if you are being harmed by said cop is illegal right?  I am separating the illegal act of fighting the police/ destroying police equipment and damaging personal property of those who live/work in the area.  One, I can't blame them for, because of the assaults they get, as a community, the other I do object to.

I'm not aware of any innocent protestors being attacked by cops.  Not saying it didn't happen, but I haven't seen it.  Regardless, destroying police cars/equipment is a criminal act and is not related to self defense in your hypothetical.  Saying burning police cars and assaulting cops is ok because the cops wronged their community is quite a statement and one I don't agree with.

You are free to have your own viewpoint, but I don't condone criminal acts by either party. 

[MDM]

And of course any presumption of guilt or innocence other than the legally prescribed "innocent until proven guilty" - regarding any of the parties involved - is premature, as various recent rushes to judgment have demonstrated.

[Cathy]

...You do realize attacking a cop, even if you are being harmed by said cop is illegal right?

Any statute that makes it a crime to attack the police will be subject to the usual defences such as self-defence, necessity, duress, and so on. However, the application of those defences in the context of police violence is complicated by the fact that the police qua police enjoy some special privileges when their actions have some reasonable legal basis. Given the complicated legal landscape, it's probably not advisable to defend yourself against illegal police violence, but that doesn't mean doing so is inherently unlawful. It's also important to understand that the police actions being unlawful does not itself grant you any right to attack the police; you still have to establish one of the usual defences (i.e. "unlawful police action" is not a defence itself).

It would actually be pretty ridiculous if attacking the police were per se illegal with no available defences. For example, if a police officer started randomly discharging his weapon in a public place, threatening the lives of all sorts of innocent bystanders, the defence of necessity might justify attacking him to put a stop to his extreme and illegal actions. It would be pretty crazy if he just couldn't legally be stopped.

[Silverado]

You do realize attacking a cop, even if you are being harmed by said cop is illegal right?  I am separating the illegal act of fighting the police/ destroying police equipment and damaging personal property of those who live/work in the area.  One, I can't blame them for, because of the assaults they get, as a community, the other I do object to.

I'm not aware of any innocent protestors being attacked by cops.  Not saying it didn't happen, but I haven't seen it.  Regardless, destroying police cars/equipment is a criminal act and is not related to self defense in your hypothetical.  Saying burning police cars and assaulting cops is ok because the cops wronged their community is quite a statement and one I don't agree with.

You are free to have your own viewpoint, but I don't condone criminal acts by either party.

I would have to hope there is a difference between attacking a cop and defending oneself. Who knows. There used to be a saying in the army that if a superior officer divested his rank by acting against regs, you couldn't be insubordinate taking action.

As I stated, you want to go against the man, be ready. Not saying you shouldn't, just saying make sure you understand the various possible outcomes. I doubt anyone NOT at the riot is being abused by cops.

[FrugalToque]

I'm not aware of any innocent protestors being attacked by cops.

Are you aware that an innocent man was killed by them?  And that over 6 million dollars in lawsuit settlements have been paid out by the Baltimore PD for brutality over the last five years?

At this point, I wouldn't even pretend that innocent protestors aren't being victimized.  Given the history, why would you give such a police force the benefit of the doubt?

Toque.

[KBecks2]

I've made my career teaching in inner-city communities similar to Baltimore and in my experience the major problem is the breakdown of family and community.  Kids have maybe one parent in their lives (if they are lucky) and that parent works three jobs, so they are never home.  It's impossible to get parents to help with problems the kids are having in school and the kids have complete free reign in their lives outside of school because there's nobody to punish them for misbehaving.  Meanwhile, there are no jobs available in their communities that pay a living wage, so the parents turn to schemes like selling drugs, selling "protection" to the few businesses that remain, stealing cars, burglarizing houses, etc. and all that criminal activity dissuades businesses from investing and dissuades people from moving into the community to improve conditions and increase the tax base.  The kids run wild and destroy everything around them like public transportation, public facilities like libraries and schools, any equipment that is donated/funded by taxes, etc., because they think it's fun to destroy things.

You end up with the nation wanting to blame someone for what's going on, so they tend to target teachers by saying that we aren't doing a good enough job of educating the kids.  Honestly, though, there's very little that can be done when kids who aren't accustomed to following instructions from anybody tell teachers to go eff themselves and parents are completely unavailable to help with the situation.  I try to make things as entertaining as possible in the classroom with a lot of jokes and associating lessons with hip-hop music and other parts of the kids' culture, but in the end these kids are supposed to meet state and federal government benchmarks on content and techniques that they are completely unmotivated to reach.  It's impossible for teachers to replace the structure and values of family and community in children's lives.

Amen!  Strong families equal strong communities.  But dysfunctional and abusive families can ruin people and destroy generations, skin color does not matter

[Midwest]

I'm not aware of any innocent protestors being attacked by cops.

Are you aware that an innocent man was killed by them?  And that over 6 million dollars in lawsuit settlements have been paid out by the Baltimore PD for brutality over the last five years?

At this point, I wouldn't even pretend that innocent protestors aren't being victimized.  Given the history, why would you give such a police force the benefit of the doubt?

Toque.

I'm aware that 6 officers were charged and the situation does not look good for them and that Baltimore has had some problems in the past.  Just as not all protesters are looters, not all the cops are bad.

[rocksinmyhead]

There are two ways to fight back in America: get legislation passed to fix what ails you, or revolt and take over and then fix what ails you. That's it, and it takes significant commitment to do either. Don't be surprised when you fail at either. And in the case of attempted revolt, don't be surprised when your ass is fried sunny side up.

the problem is that, as you've probably noticed, we don't really listen to poor people in America. so if you're poor, good luck with approach #1 ("get legislation passed"), especially if you're poor AND black. and by "good luck" I mean "not gonna happen."

trust me, I am a rule-follower for life and at first I was just pissed off and grossed out by all the violence. but actually, that same Atlantic article on non-violence someone else posted was the one that made me look at it a little bit differently.

[Kris]

There are two ways to fight back in America: get legislation passed to fix what ails you, or revolt and take over and then fix what ails you. That's it, and it takes significant commitment to do either. Don't be surprised when you fail at either. And in the case of attempted revolt, don't be surprised when your ass is fried sunny side up.

the problem is that, as you've probably noticed, we don't really listen to poor people in America. so if you're poor, good luck with approach #1 ("get legislation passed"), especially if you're poor AND black. and by "good luck" I mean "not gonna happen."

trust me, I am a rule-follower for life and at first I was just pissed off and grossed out by all the violence. but actually, that same Atlantic article on non-violence someone else posted was the one that made me look at it a little bit differently.

I agree.  It's not necessarily "right", but it's understandable, that some people would turn to violence in anger and frustration.  The average white person, if presented with a situation of personal injustice, would probably assume that things would be worked out one the person simply explained his/her side of the story.  The average black person would probably laugh at the naivete of such an assumption.

[rocksinmyhead]

There are two ways to fight back in America: get legislation passed to fix what ails you, or revolt and take over and then fix what ails you. That's it, and it takes significant commitment to do either. Don't be surprised when you fail at either. And in the case of attempted revolt, don't be surprised when your ass is fried sunny side up.

the problem is that, as you've probably noticed, we don't really listen to poor people in America. so if you're poor, good luck with approach #1 ("get legislation passed"), especially if you're poor AND black. and by "good luck" I mean "not gonna happen."

trust me, I am a rule-follower for life and at first I was just pissed off and grossed out by all the violence. but actually, that same Atlantic article on non-violence someone else posted was the one that made me look at it a little bit differently.

I agree.  It's not necessarily "right", but it's understandable, that some people would turn to violence in anger and frustration.  The average white person, if presented with a situation of personal injustice, would probably assume that things would be worked out one the person simply explained his/her side of the story.  The average black person would probably laugh at the naivete of such an assumption.

yes!! very well put. and interestingly, you sometimes see the same idea with groups of white people who feel like they are being ignored/not listened to (I'm thinking of poor rural white people)... I think someone mentioned Cliven Bundy upthread? (not that he's poor, but just seems to be part of that group that feels oppressed/ignored by the establishment)

[Gin1984]

I'm not aware of any innocent protestors being attacked by cops.

Are you aware that an innocent man was killed by them?  And that over 6 million dollars in lawsuit settlements have been paid out by the Baltimore PD for brutality over the last five years?

At this point, I wouldn't even pretend that innocent protestors aren't being victimized.  Given the history, why would you give such a police force the benefit of the doubt?

Toque.

I'm aware that 6 officers were charged and the situation does not look good for them and that Baltimore has had some problems in the past.  Just as not all protesters are looters, not all the cops are bad.

If one who is sworn to serve and protect, knows that citizens are being harmed and actively protects those harming citizens, would classify the cop as good or bad?

[Silverado]

I'm not aware of any innocent protestors being attacked by cops.

Are you aware that an innocent man was killed by them?  And that over 6 million dollars in lawsuit settlements have been paid out by the Baltimore PD for brutality over the last five years?

At this point, I wouldn't even pretend that innocent protestors aren't being victimized.  Given the history, why would you give such a police force the benefit of the doubt?

Toque.

Dont go there. We have been discussing the worthless pieces of shit looting and otherwise breaking laws. Those cops might have broken the law and they will be judged. In fact, sounds likely that someone is going to land in jail in the end.

Also, I am skeptical the guy killed truly can be classified as innocent. Certainly innocent enough to not be killed, but not enough to call a saint.

[Gin1984]

I'm not aware of any innocent protestors being attacked by cops.

Are you aware that an innocent man was killed by them?  And that over 6 million dollars in lawsuit settlements have been paid out by the Baltimore PD for brutality over the last five years?

At this point, I wouldn't even pretend that innocent protestors aren't being victimized.  Given the history, why would you give such a police force the benefit of the doubt?

Toque.

Dont go there. We have been discussing the worthless pieces of shit looting and otherwise breaking laws. Those cops might have broken the law and they will be judged. In fact, sounds likely that someone is going to land in jail in the end.

Also, I am skeptical the guy killed truly can be classified as innocent. Certainly innocent enough to not be killed, but not enough to call a saint.

Do you have to be a saint to not expect to be killed by cops?  I thought our justice system worked a little differently than that.  And, the cops who beat Rodney King, on video, were not sent to jail (which set off the race riots in LA) why would you expect these cops to be?
And when one cannot trust our legal system, can you really expect they will follow the laws?

[Kris]

I'm not aware of any innocent protestors being attacked by cops.

Are you aware that an innocent man was killed by them?  And that over 6 million dollars in lawsuit settlements have been paid out by the Baltimore PD for brutality over the last five years?

At this point, I wouldn't even pretend that innocent protestors aren't being victimized.  Given the history, why would you give such a police force the benefit of the doubt?

Toque.

Dont go there. We have been discussing the worthless pieces of shit looting and otherwise breaking laws. Those cops might have broken the law and they will be judged. In fact, sounds likely that someone is going to land in jail in the end.

Also, I am skeptical the guy killed truly can be classified as innocent. Certainly innocent enough to not be killed, but not enough to call a saint.

He was not arrested lawfully.  None of us is a saint.

[Silverado]

I'm not aware of any innocent protestors being attacked by cops.

Are you aware that an innocent man was killed by them?  And that over 6 million dollars in lawsuit settlements have been paid out by the Baltimore PD for brutality over the last five years?

At this point, I wouldn't even pretend that innocent protestors aren't being victimized.  Given the history, why would you give such a police force the benefit of the doubt?

Toque.

Dont go there. We have been discussing the worthless pieces of shit looting and otherwise breaking laws. Those cops might have broken the law and they will be judged. In fact, sounds likely that someone is going to land in jail in the end.

Also, I am skeptical the guy killed truly can be classified as innocent. Certainly innocent enough to not be killed, but not enough to call a saint.

He was not arrested lawfully.  None of us is a saint.

Nope, certainly not a saint here.  Rodney King was absolutely a criminal, and I agree it appeared someone should have been punished more. But, one should always do a risk analysis on a continuous basis. You hang around in questionable areas, being with questionable people, being also perhaps a questionable person, odds are much higher you are going to become dead or at least victimized, sometimes by cops.

I vacationed in NYC recently and thought numerous times that I was living more dangerous than normal. Surely driving to work daily in the midwest is actually worse, but in terms of a catastrophic public event impacting me it was higher.

A lot of cops suck, but rarely has someone away from the fray been struck down. (Ignoring the japanese americans in wwii on the west coast of course) so if you want to be safe, stay away from the fray. Get involved, at any level, be prepared for reactions well above what ypu think is reasonable.

[MDM]

He was not arrested lawfully.

A reasonably well balanced look at that issue: http://www.businessinsider.com/did-police-have-a-right-to-stop-freddie-gray-2015-4

[Kris]

He was not arrested lawfully.

A reasonably well balanced look at that issue: http://www.businessinsider.com/did-police-have-a-right-to-stop-freddie-gray-2015-4

Perhaps not that well-balanced, as they got an important detail wrong.  Sure, they had the right to stop him. But he was not carrying a switchblade.  He was carrying a folding knife of a type that is perfectly legal in Maryland. They had no grounds to arrest him.

[Kris]

I'm not aware of any innocent protestors being attacked by cops.

Are you aware that an innocent man was killed by them?  And that over 6 million dollars in lawsuit settlements have been paid out by the Baltimore PD for brutality over the last five years?

At this point, I wouldn't even pretend that innocent protestors aren't being victimized.  Given the history, why would you give such a police force the benefit of the doubt?

Toque.

Dont go there. We have been discussing the worthless pieces of shit looting and otherwise breaking laws. Those cops might have broken the law and they will be judged. In fact, sounds likely that someone is going to land in jail in the end.

Also, I am skeptical the guy killed truly can be classified as innocent. Certainly innocent enough to not be killed, but not enough to call a saint.

He was not arrested lawfully.  None of us is a saint.

Nope, certainly not a saint here.  Rodney King was absolutely a criminal, and I agree it appeared someone should have been punished more. But, one should always do a risk analysis on a continuous basis. You hang around in questionable areas, being with questionable people, being also perhaps a questionable person, odds are much higher you are going to become dead or at least victimized, sometimes by cops.

If you LIVE in a questionable area, then you are very likely to be victimized by people in authority who are looking for excuses to see questionable behavior in the residents there.  And justify brutality.

A person on vacation who has the leisure and choice to court danger as a thrill is not quite the same thing.

[FrugalToque]

Dont go there. We have been discussing the worthless pieces of shit looting and otherwise breaking laws. Those cops might have broken the law and they will be judged. In fact, sounds likely that someone is going to land in jail in the end.

We will go there, because that's where everything is.
It makes no sense to discuss the looting and rioting except in the context of the shitty educations system, the redlining and the police brutality.
Don't pretend the looting is happening in a vacuum.
It's happening in a powderkeg.

Also, I am skeptical the guy killed truly can be classified as innocent. Certainly innocent enough to not be killed, but not enough to call a saint.

Irrelevant.  He was doing nothing illegal the day they killed him.  They had little business even stopping him and they had no right to arrest him.  The fact that he did bad things on other days, trapped in a section of town where there are precious few honest ways to live, is utterly irrelevant.

Toque.

[midweststache]

I'm not aware of any innocent protestors being attacked by cops.

Are you aware that an innocent man was killed by them?  And that over 6 million dollars in lawsuit settlements have been paid out by the Baltimore PD for brutality over the last five years?

At this point, I wouldn't even pretend that innocent protestors aren't being victimized.  Given the history, why would you give such a police force the benefit of the doubt?

Toque.

Dont go there. We have been discussing the worthless pieces of shit looting and otherwise breaking laws. Those cops might have broken the law and they will be judged. In fact, sounds likely that someone is going to land in jail in the end.

Also, I am skeptical the guy killed truly can be classified as innocent. Certainly innocent enough to not be killed, but not enough to call a saint.

He was not arrested lawfully.  None of us is a saint.

Nope, certainly not a saint here.  Rodney King was absolutely a criminal, and I agree it appeared someone should have been punished more. But, one should always do a risk analysis on a continuous basis. You hang around in questionable areas, being with questionable people, being also perhaps a questionable person, odds are much higher you are going to become dead or at least victimized, sometimes by cops.

I vacationed in NYC recently and thought numerous times that I was living more dangerous than normal. Surely driving to work daily in the midwest is actually worse, but in terms of a catastrophic public event impacting me it was higher.

A lot of cops suck, but rarely has someone away from the fray been struck down. (Ignoring the japanese americans in wwii on the west coast of course) so if you want to be safe, stay away from the fray. Get involved, at any level, be prepared for reactions well above what ypu think is reasonable.

Is "questionable" a euphemism? Because it certainly reads as such...

[Silverado]

Dont go there. We have been discussing the worthless pieces of shit looting and otherwise breaking laws. Those cops might have broken the law and they will be judged. In fact, sounds likely that someone is going to land in jail in the end.

We will go there, because that's where everything is.
It makes no sense to discuss the looting and rioting except in the context of the shitty educations system, the redlining and the police brutality.
Don't pretend the looting is happening in a vacuum.
It's happening in a powderkeg.

Also, I am skeptical the guy killed truly can be classified as innocent. Certainly innocent enough to not be killed, but not enough to call a saint.

Irrelevant.  He was doing nothing illegal the day they killed him.  They had little business even stopping him and they had no right to arrest him.  The fact that he did bad things on other days, trapped in a section of town where there are precious few honest ways to live, is utterly irrelevant.

Toque.

No proof yet, but not germane to my position. I'll spot ya he should not have been stopped or arrested. Done. I'll spot ya he apparently died under questionable conditions. I'll spot ya someone needs to be accountable. Done.

I entered this fray from different angles. 1. Given all that, no one has the right to break the law in response. Those who are looting and otherwise being a menace should also stand trial. 2. If those breaking the law are trying to prove a point, bring more firepower. Regardless, do not cry when you are beat down by those who still believe in the constitution (reaching a bit I know). 3. Cops are often/sometimes wrong, but the laws, on average, work it out. That means a bunch of folks away from the mean are going to have their asses fried, sorry. Your unfair sacrifice offsets OJ getting off, plus hundreds of other times folks came out on the far end of the 'good' side of the distribution.

Actually, I really  only entered this to give some clarity to what Midwest was saying, but gin was not understanding. I do have strong feelings on the subject though obviously.

[Kris]

Dont go there. We have been discussing the worthless pieces of shit looting and otherwise breaking laws. Those cops might have broken the law and they will be judged. In fact, sounds likely that someone is going to land in jail in the end.

We will go there, because that's where everything is.
It makes no sense to discuss the looting and rioting except in the context of the shitty educations system, the redlining and the police brutality.
Don't pretend the looting is happening in a vacuum.
It's happening in a powderkeg.

Also, I am skeptical the guy killed truly can be classified as innocent. Certainly innocent enough to not be killed, but not enough to call a saint.

Irrelevant.  He was doing nothing illegal the day they killed him.  They had little business even stopping him and they had no right to arrest him.  The fact that he did bad things on other days, trapped in a section of town where there are precious few honest ways to live, is utterly irrelevant.

Toque.

No proof yet, but not germane to my position. I'll spot ya he should not have been stopped or arrested. Done. I'll spot ya he apparently died under questionable conditions. I'll spot ya someone needs to be accountable. Done.

I entered this fray from different angles. 1. Given all that, no one has the right to break the law in response. Those who are looting and otherwise being a menace should also stand trial. 2. If those breaking the law are trying to prove a point, bring more firepower. Regardless, do not cry when you are beat down by those who still believe in the constitution (reaching a bit I know). 3. Cops are often/sometimes wrong, but the laws, on average, work it out. That means a bunch of folks away from the mean are going to have their asses fried, sorry. Your unfair sacrifice offsets OJ getting off, plus hundreds of other times folks came out on the far end of the 'good' side of the distribution.

Actually, I really  only entered this to give some clarity to what Midwest was saying, but gin was not understanding. I do have strong feelings on the subject though obviously.

I think the ability to complacently say that the laws, on average, work out, is heavily weighted toward the caucasian population.

[MDM]

Perhaps not that well-balanced, as they got an important detail wrong.  Sure, they had the right to stop him. But he was not carrying a switchblade.  He was carrying a folding knife of a type that is perfectly legal in Maryland. They had no grounds to arrest him.

Well...maybe, maybe not.

E.g., see http://www.businessinsider.com/prosecutor-says-no-reason-to-arrest-freddie-gray-2015-5 and http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2015/05/freddie-grays-knife-why-is-prosecutor.html?showComment=1430760837006

There are multiple questions (e.g., switchblade or not?  Not illegal under Maryland law but illegal under Baltimore law? Knife irrelevant due to "fleeing from police in a high crime area" or not?), the answers to which nobody on this forum (unless an eyewitness and expert on Baltimore, Maryland law) knows.

And of course the big one: what caused the injury that caused Gray's death?  We can all speculate, but all should recognize speculation differs from knowledge.  Various political factions want different things here - things that play into the standard political narratives.  Did Gray act stupidly and cause his own death?  Did the cops act murderously and cause Gray's death?  Analysis will take time and the CSI folks won't have it done before the next commercial break.  Until then....

[Silverado]

Dont go there. We have been discussing the worthless pieces of shit looting and otherwise breaking laws. Those cops might have broken the law and they will be judged. In fact, sounds likely that someone is going to land in jail in the end.

We will go there, because that's where everything is.
It makes no sense to discuss the looting and rioting except in the context of the shitty educations system, the redlining and the police brutality.
Don't pretend the looting is happening in a vacuum.
It's happening in a powderkeg.

Also, I am skeptical the guy killed truly can be classified as innocent. Certainly innocent enough to not be killed, but not enough to call a saint.

Irrelevant.  He was doing nothing illegal the day they killed him.  They had little business even stopping him and they had no right to arrest him.  The fact that he did bad things on other days, trapped in a section of town where there are precious few honest ways to live, is utterly irrelevant.

Toque.

No proof yet, but not germane to my position. I'll spot ya he should not have been stopped or arrested. Done. I'll spot ya he apparently died under questionable conditions. I'll spot ya someone needs to be accountable. Done.

I entered this fray from different angles. 1. Given all that, no one has the right to break the law in response. Those who are looting and otherwise being a menace should also stand trial. 2. If those breaking the law are trying to prove a point, bring more firepower. Regardless, do not cry when you are beat down by those who still believe in the constitution (reaching a bit I know). 3. Cops are often/sometimes wrong, but the laws, on average, work it out. That means a bunch of folks away from the mean are going to have their asses fried, sorry. Your unfair sacrifice offsets OJ getting off, plus hundreds of other times folks came out on the far end of the 'good' side of the distribution.

Actually, I really  only entered this to give some clarity to what Midwest was saying, but gin was not understanding. I do have strong feelings on the subject though obviously.

I think the ability to complacently say that the laws, on average, work out, is heavily weighted toward the caucasian population.

Could be. And I think the caucasian population had a lot to do with making america what it is, so naturally things are to be tilted in their favor.

[FrugalToque]

Irrelevant.  He was doing nothing illegal the day they killed him.  They had little business even stopping him and they had no right to arrest him.  The fact that he did bad things on other days, trapped in a section of town where there are precious few honest ways to live, is utterly irrelevant.
Toque.

No proof yet, but not germane to my position. I'll spot ya he should not have been stopped or arrested. Done. I'll spot ya he apparently died under questionable conditions. I'll spot ya someone needs to be accountable. Done.

I entered this fray from different angles. 1. Given all that, no one has the right to break the law in response. Those who are looting and otherwise being a menace should also stand trial. 2. If those breaking the law are trying to prove a point, bring more firepower. Regardless, do not cry when you are beat down by those who still believe in the constitution (reaching a bit I know). 3. Cops are often/sometimes wrong, but the laws, on average, work it out. That means a bunch of folks away from the mean are going to have their asses fried, sorry. Your unfair sacrifice offsets OJ getting off, plus hundreds of other times folks came out on the far end of the 'good' side of the distribution.

Oh, I can play this game, too!

You have no proof yet that anyone was doing any illegal looting or rioting.  Just some buildings on fire.  Sometimes buildings set themselves on fire, I guess (just like black people mysteriously die in police custody even though they weren't charged with anything illegal?).  No one's been convicted of looting or rioting.  Innocent until proven guilty, so there was no looting or rioting.

See how that works?  Brilliant, isn't it?

Let's instead deal with reality.

The laws, on average, do not work out for people living in this area.  Instead, they get run into jail for "loitering" on their own front steps, redlined so they can't leave the shitty end of town, denied decent jobs with good wages, given shittier public schools, and they're harassed and beaten by police.  It's been like that for decades.  In the last five years alone, there have been 6 million dollars in payouts for police brutality.

If you are trying to denounce "looting and rioting" without the context of decades of racism that culminate in beatings and murders, you are playing this game irrationally and unfairly.  Actions have context.  You don't get to ignore that context.

Toque.

[FrugalToque]

I think the ability to complacently say that the laws, on average, work out, is heavily weighted toward the caucasian population.

Could be. And I think the caucasian population had a lot to do with making america what it is, so naturally things are to be tilted in their favor.

Why is my dog barking like that?

You're aware that this is a pretty standard justification for systematic racism, right?

Toque.

[boy_bye]

Dont go there. We have been discussing the worthless pieces of shit looting and otherwise breaking laws. Those cops might have broken the law and they will be judged. In fact, sounds likely that someone is going to land in jail in the end.

We will go there, because that's where everything is.
It makes no sense to discuss the looting and rioting except in the context of the shitty educations system, the redlining and the police brutality.
Don't pretend the looting is happening in a vacuum.
It's happening in a powderkeg.

Also, I am skeptical the guy killed truly can be classified as innocent. Certainly innocent enough to not be killed, but not enough to call a saint.

Irrelevant.  He was doing nothing illegal the day they killed him.  They had little business even stopping him and they had no right to arrest him.  The fact that he did bad things on other days, trapped in a section of town where there are precious few honest ways to live, is utterly irrelevant.

Toque.

No proof yet, but not germane to my position. I'll spot ya he should not have been stopped or arrested. Done. I'll spot ya he apparently died under questionable conditions. I'll spot ya someone needs to be accountable. Done.

I entered this fray from different angles. 1. Given all that, no one has the right to break the law in response. Those who are looting and otherwise being a menace should also stand trial. 2. If those breaking the law are trying to prove a point, bring more firepower. Regardless, do not cry when you are beat down by those who still believe in the constitution (reaching a bit I know). 3. Cops are often/sometimes wrong, but the laws, on average, work it out. That means a bunch of folks away from the mean are going to have their asses fried, sorry. Your unfair sacrifice offsets OJ getting off, plus hundreds of other times folks came out on the far end of the 'good' side of the distribution.

Actually, I really  only entered this to give some clarity to what Midwest was saying, but gin was not understanding. I do have strong feelings on the subject though obviously.

I think the ability to complacently say that the laws, on average, work out, is heavily weighted toward the caucasian population.

Could be. And I think the caucasian population had a lot to do with making america what it is, so naturally things are to be tilted in their favor.

And you think this is OK?

Didn't the uncompensated labor of millions of black slaves have anything to do with making America what it is?

For those moaning about how wrong illegal actions are in every single circumstance, please remember:

- the Boston Tea Party was illegal
- Harriet Tubman's actions were illegal
- Margaret Sanger teaching people about contraception was illegal
- MLK participated in loads of illegal actions

Funny how folks who are fighting for their right to not be fucking killed for no reason by a racist enforcement arm of the government seem to be the only ones looked at as as criminals instead of freedom fighters.

I stand with the protesters and I give far, far less of a fuck about broken windows than I do about a man's broken spine.

Those hiding behind the legality arguments are living a lily white bubble of racism and hypocrisy, because most of them probably broke the law recently, too. It's a pretty fucking easy thing to do. The only difference is that cops aren't breathing down white people's necks looking for an excuse to fuck with them. Because we care about what happens to white people. Meanwhile folks only pay attention to what happens to black people when they start burning shit down.

Any wonder why they burn shit down?

[Kris]

Perhaps not that well-balanced, as they got an important detail wrong.  Sure, they had the right to stop him. But he was not carrying a switchblade.  He was carrying a folding knife of a type that is perfectly legal in Maryland. They had no grounds to arrest him.

Well...maybe, maybe not.

E.g., see http://www.businessinsider.com/prosecutor-says-no-reason-to-arrest-freddie-gray-2015-5 and http://sbynews.blogspot.com/2015/05/freddie-grays-knife-why-is-prosecutor.html?showComment=1430760837006

There are multiple questions (e.g., switchblade or not?  Not illegal under Maryland law but illegal under Baltimore law? Knife irrelevant due to "fleeing from police in a high crime area" or not?), the answers to which nobody on this forum (unless an eyewitness and expert on Baltimore, Maryland law) knows.

And of course the big one: what caused the injury that caused Gray's death?  We can all speculate, but all should recognize speculation differs from knowledge.  Various political factions want different things here - things that play into the standard political narratives.  Did Gray act stupidly and cause his own death?  Did the cops act murderously and cause Gray's death?  Analysis will take time and the CSI folks won't have it done before the next commercial break.  Until then....

Right. No one on this forum knows. Nor does Business Insider.  The state attorney and her team know more about this than anyone, and she has concluded that there was no legal basis to arrest him.  The officers will now have due process.  Which Freddy Gray did not get.

[GuitarStv]

Nope, certainly not a saint here.  Rodney King was absolutely a criminal, and I agree it appeared someone should have been punished more. But, one should always do a risk analysis on a continuous basis. You hang around in questionable areas, being with questionable people, being also perhaps a questionable person, odds are much higher you are going to become dead or at least victimized, sometimes by cops.

This is a wonderful example of blaming the victim of a crime, rather than the aggressor (the police in this case).  Also brought to you by the same logic: "Yeah, of course I raped her . . . she was asking for it by wearing a skirt."