Baltimore protests

[disco111]

Unbelievable.

When told that people were arrested, without being charged, and without and probable cause finding, without knowing anything else about the people, you say:

Pure BS.  You simply made this up.  None of this is fact (edit: or, after seeing your post, I'll call it an "uniformed opinion" or "opinion not based on fact").  It just supports the narrative you want.

And compare that to this, your response when all you know is that a man died in police custody, that the police conducted an investigation, and that based on that police investigation, 6 cops have been charged:

All we know about these cops is bad, and you're here calling...i guess the other cops who did the investigation..politically motivated liars.

Again, just making things up that support your narrative, as a former cop.

Quote:

I can get the part about someone who breaks the law should be arrested.  I get that.  But look at the bigger picture.  How important is it to arrest a peaceful protester after curfew?  I'm not saying that its a 0 on a scale of 1-10, but its probably around a 3 or 4, right?  And how important is it for the police not to unlawfully imprison people?  To ME, that's a 10.   Also, according to that public defender, a huge chunk of those people were swept up monday afternoon--they weren't all curfew breakers.   Many didn't even know why they were arrested, let alone held for twice as long as permitted by law.

I am certainly not anti-law--in fact, I have sworn to defend and uphold the Maryland constitution and its laws.  I am NOT a criminal lawyer, so its not like I've got some ax to grind against the police.

Nor am I anti-police, there are many good police.  A childhood friend of mine is a cop and recently shot and killed a suspect.  From what I understand, it was clean.  I'm glad he is safe and I'm glad he shot first.  But we're talking about 2 things here.  One is freddy gray, who was arrested without probable cause, because the cops thought (incorrectly) that he had a switchblade (seriously! that's what started this!  You could carry a switch blade on you every day of your life and no cop would ever both you), and who died at the hands of the arresting officers.  I am most certaintly anti-those cops.  The other thing are the looters.  I do not condone the looters.  But I also understand that they live in a world where the police treat them like they treated Freddy Gray.  Wright or wrong, that's the world they live in.  I am most certainly anti-the police mentality that contributes to that sort of treatment.

None of that makes it okay.  I'll say it again and again--looting is wrong.  Burning buildings is wrong.  That's true whether we're talking about the poor people in Baltimore, the Students at the University of Maryland after a loss to Duke, or the fans in Boston or San Francisco after winning a world series.

On the first part of your response to apparently my post, you reference "pure BS you made this up. Have not a clue as to what your trying say. Second retort was "I'm making stuff up to fit my former cop narrative" Just what the heck am I making up? All I've offered, once again, this time in big letters, "PERSONAL OPINION" Now you say your cop friendly and have a friend that's a cop, but your rhetoric says differently in my opinion.

.

It looks as though you apparently have an agenda and no matter what I reference or state as opinion, your going to slice and dice to fit your viewpoints. Now here's again a personal observation, NOT FACT, but again observation, based upon your rhetoric. You sir are a guilty to proven innocent and everything that you do not agree with, is of course wrong and intentionally distorted to fit another's point of view. I've seen too many of your ilk and it's part and parcel of what went wrong with this country. I've offered my opinions on this subject and I'm finished with it and more importantly finished with you and your be-leagued retorts. There's an old saying, "never wrestle a pig in the mud, he likes it and all you'll get is dirty"..............

[rkim291968]

Again, the Mayor has zero influence on the outcome of a trial. She may be able to pressure the DA to bring charges, but the verdict would be up to the jury. It all depends on the strength of the case.

I think she already influenced the outcome of a trial.  She was front and center, and very forceful with the announcement.   All the "would be" juries likely saw that.

I heard the charges.  2nd degree murder charge for the driver?   The pendulum have swung to the other side a little too far on the driver's case unless there's more to it than what was reported.   I am not sure all 12 juries would agree to the guilty verdict on that one.  And we know that anything but a guilty verdict can/will lead to even bigger riots.

[Golfingdad]

On the first part of your response to apparently my post, you reference "pure BS you made this up. Have not a clue as to what your trying say. Second retort was "I'm making stuff up to fit my former cop narrative" Just what the heck am I making up? All I've offered, once again, this time in big letters, "PERSONAL OPINION" Now you say your cop friendly and have a friend that's a cop, but your rhetoric says differently in my opinion.

.

It looks as though you apparently have an agenda and no matter what I reference or state as opinion, your going to slice and dice to fit your viewpoints. Now here's again a personal observation, NOT FACT, but again observation, based upon your rhetoric. You sir are a guilty to proven innocent and everything that you do not agree with, is of course wrong and intentionally distorted to fit another's point of view. I've seen too many of your ilk and it's part and parcel of what went wrong with this country. I've offered my opinions on this subject and I'm finished with it and more importantly finished with you and your be-leagued retorts. There's an old saying, "never wrestle a pig in the mud, he likes it and all you'll get is dirty"..............

@dsc123 did a pretty good job of making it very clear which parts of your post he was responding to with each comment.  His "pure BS, you made this up" comment was directed at:

[jusanothajoe]

@dsc123 did a pretty good job of making it very clear which parts of your post he was responding to with each comment.  His "pure BS, you made this up" comment was directed at:

And I would have a hard time disagreeing with him.  This sounds very definitive, and not opinion at all.  You don't say "I believe that these folks might be pawns" or "I have a hunch some of them aren't from that neighborhood."  Those would be taken by anybody as opinions.  Your statements, not so much.

I think it would be safe to assume that MOST of this thread is opinion and little fact. Not a lot of facts known yet

[Golfingdad]

I think it would be safe to assume that MOST of this thread is opinion and little fact. Not a lot of facts known yet

Absolutely ... Still doesn't excuse people from framing their opinions in a way that makes them seem like they do have facts when they don't.

[dsc123]

I heard the charges.  2nd degree murder charge for the driver?   The pendulum have swung to the other side a little too far on the driver's case unless there's more to it than what was reported.   I am not sure all 12 juries would agree to the guilty verdict on that one.  And we know that anything but a guilty verdict can/will lead to even bigger riots.

I think the idea is that the police sometimes want to rough a guy up without laying a hand on them so they restrain them, lie them down in the paddy wagon, then drive erratically so that the suspect gets smacked around. If that is what happened, and that's what it seems the prosecutor believes to have occurred, then second degree murder, which if I remember right is basically doing something that you know could kill a guy (as opposed to trying to kill him, or as they say, with malice a forethought) Sounds about right. [qreateain="Golfingdad" url="/t/81692/baltimore-protests/60#post_1136454"]a data-huddler-embed="href" href="/u/29021/dsc123" style="display:inline-block;">@dsc123 did a pretty good job of making it very clear which parts of your post he was responding to with each comment.  His "pure BS, you made this up" comment was directed at: And I would have a hard time disagreeing with him.  This sounds very definitive, and not opinion at all.  You don't say "I believe that these folks might be pawns" or "I have a hunch some of them aren't from that neighborhood."  Those would be taken by anybody as opinions.  Your statements, not so much. [/quote] ThAnks. I'd just add that I think we were just using different words to say the same thing. I think he uses "fact" to mean something that has been proven where I mean it more as an allegation. Really, whether you want to call it a fact or an opinion, my poinyt was that he was just putting forth a different version of events that contradicted all the information we have, and was based on our conjecture. He is right in so far as he was reminding us that he never claimed his alternative narrative was anything more than baseless conjecture, though I'm not sure that gets him anywhere.

[rkim291968]

Quote:

Originally Posted by rkim291968

I heard the charges.  2nd degree murder charge for the driver?   The pendulum have swung to the other side a little too far on the driver's case unless there's more to it than what was reported.   I am not sure all 12 juries would agree to the guilty verdict on that one.  And we know that anything but a guilty verdict can/will lead to even bigger riots.

I think the idea is that the police sometimes want to rough a guy up without laying a hand on them so they restrain them, lie them down in the paddy wagon, then drive erratically so that the suspect gets smacked around. If that is what happened, and that's what it seems the prosecutor believes to have occurred, then second degree murder, which if I remember right is basically doing something that you know could kill a guy (as opposed to trying to kill him, or as they say, with malice a forethought).

If that's what really happened, yeah, I can understand the charge.  That's going to be hard to prove, IMO.

[dsc123]

I think it would be safe to assume that MOST of this thread is opinion and little fact. Not a lot of facts known yet

To me, there's a difference between basing a statement on the information we do have - what the police, witnesses, and media, have said - and basing statements on....I don't know, I guess what he hopes happened. the former is analysis based on the available information. The later is just making stuff up.

[flopster]

OK, reading comprehension time. Apparently the term "indirectly" was overlooked. If you've never been in a riot situation, it's not all that hard to figure things out. Lots of good intention-ed people, voicing an opinion and marching peacefully. One or two of the less than desirable crew starts with a rock or bottle being thrown, mind you, under the umbrella of all those peaceful attendees and then it escalates and more of the less than undesirables fall in and there you go, a riot erupts and most of those that started it are way back of the good folks, until the herd starts to thin. By that time a lot of those good folks have been taken into custody, why, because they were running and yelling and yes, even some of them got caught up in the not following orders from the police or even went so far as to throw a canister back at the police or any number of things that people do when under emotional stress. Do they live there, most of them most likely don't. Do the looters live there, some of them most like do. Remember, even those that live in the area, most likely don't give a damn and probably are no strangers to law enforcement.

I'm sure your not a jerk, but just where in any of my posts that I cried "these are facts"? I used the term IMO and if damage was done, which it was, it was done by people arrested one would think. As for civil rights being violated. If your in violation of a lawful order, that has public safety measured and you willfully disregard that order, the rights of those not involved with your demonstration (business owners, local home owners, taxpayers (destruction of city property) trump your individual civil rights, because you are breaking the law. We all saw Baltimore burning and I wonder what those people thought about the protesters civil rights.

As for those being held for that extended time period, I agree with you that it was wrong, but face facts in this situation. The system was overwhelmed. It's an excuse of sorts but now that is a fact. Nothing we say here will make any difference to what transpired with this aspect. It is what it is and it's not pretty, but perhaps some of those that got caught up in it, will now have a better understanding of being in the wrong place at the wrong time and not be there again.

I never thought a persons civil rights can legally be revoked because law enforcement can make a judgement call.

[JP golf]

1. -I don't have the answers, but I think you need a two prong approach that starts with a focus on our youth within these low income/high crime areas - and another focus on educating the communities and building relationships between officers and the communities they serve .  Currently the disconnect is obvious and sad...

A Long Road Ahead, Where to Start:

We need to start with a focus centered around our youth.  We need to teach our youth accountability, responsibility, and how to take ownership for our actions.  We need to teach them that yes, if you grow up in a low income area, you have some barriers that others may not - but it is not an excuse.  We need to teach youth how to overcome adversity, to build character, to be ethical, to develop leadership skills, social skills, work ethic and basic life skills....    What helps do this? - Recreation, Sports, After school Programs & Extracurricular activities...

How is it related to the injustice in the court system? - It's a multifaceted issue.  We find that many times this happens in black, low income areas with higher crime rates. The #1 predictor of poverty is a lack of education ...  To break the cycle of poverty we need to increase or educational opportunities for youth specifically in these lower income areas - Studies have shown, that's it's not just education, but the enrichment side of programs that add to educational success.  Studies have also shown a correlation between summer learning loss and low income areas with poor educational performance-  middle income students actually show small gains over the summer where lower income students show losses - over time, the issue is compounded.  Many times this is due to a lack of summer programs or accessibility to those programs (parents can't afford to put their kids in the YMCA or travel sports teams etc.)....  Thus the cycle of poverty continues - we need to start with a focus of creating educated communities with support systems and structure that helps to build stronger communities...

2nd - I do think we are making some progress drawing attention to excessive force and the pressure to hold our officers accountable - proper training, revised policy and procedures, body camera's - should help.  We definitely need to hold bad cops accountable, but we also need to support our good officers.  What can help?  Strengthening and improving the relationships between officers and the communities they serve.  Many PD's have great outreach programs - where our officers get involved in the programs in the community and get to learn and know some of our community members - Community outreach - The only time communities see our officers should not be when something is wrong ...  See above, PD - can get involved in the programs above through programs like a "CSI camp" or  a "Young Detectives Program" that can teach the math skills or science skills that can reinforce what they are learning in the schools....

UNFORTUNATELY,

I think with these protests, what get's lost is the message, the direction and how we can take positive action to correct the issues...  Hands Up, Cops Down; You Shoot, We Loot; No Justice, No Peace..  These are the wrong messages to send and they incite more anger and violence in already unstable situations.  I'm all for accountability and equal and fair prosecution-cops or not - but we have to make sure that the messages are clear.  There is no justifiable reason to riot - those looting are simply exploiting a situation for personal gain and selfish motives and it's absolutely counterproductive to the "cause".  If the message is "Black lives matter" - then so do black businesses, black jobs, and black communities - therefore burning buildings and looting businesses within the communities is absolutely counterproductive, illogical, and a dysfunctional opportunistic response.  The community organizers & leaders need to make sure the message is clear - and many have done a great job after the initial "purge" event to mobilize, organize, and guide the response.  But what is the direction?  What are the action steps?  My suggestion is to start with the two points above 1.) A youth centered approach to educating our lower income/high crime neighborhoods and 2.) Strengthening our relationships between PD and the communities they serve.  Police brutality, excessive force, racial profiling are all being looked at through policy/procedure changes and body cameras and increased accountability - The two points referenced only enhance that effort.

-I wish I had the answers, I know I don't - but that's my 2 cents - Too many people complaining and not even trying to offer an approach or solution -

and I hope someone actually reads that..

[disco111]

@dsc123 did a pretty good job of making it very clear which parts of your post he was responding to with each comment.  His "pure BS, you made this up" comment was directed at:

And I would have a hard time disagreeing with him.  This sounds very definitive, and not opinion at all.  You don't say "I believe that these folks might be pawns" or "I have a hunch some of them aren't from that neighborhood."  Those would be taken by anybody as opinions.  Your statements, not so much.

" Sadly, the bulk of those arrested were the, "I saw what was perhaps an injustice" and I want to lend my voice in outrage. They are in fact indirectly pawns, being used by the true trouble makers, who want nothing more than to take full advantage of a situation to loot and burn. Those folks don't live there, they come from outside the scope of those neighborhoods."

Somebodies only argument is that I'm sprouting forth pure BS, "I made this up" because they feel it's fact and not opinion. Really!, that's the strength of the retort. Does it actually make any difference, when it doesn't take a degree from MIT to see, that's exactly what happened. I think the picture of the young woman being released into the arms of her husband says it all. Now for my factual basis or analysis, if that's a better adjective. Being involved in several of these riot situations, they all follow the same pattern. Those wanting to step out with good intentions up front and then you know who, lurking in the middle or on the sides or trailing, waiting for the opportune time to unleash mayhem. So in essence, yes it was a factual statement, so what, it's what happened and guess what, it's going to happen again. Where not finished with Baltimore, not by a long shot (just for the record and clear clarification - this is total opinion because it's the future), but what I referenced in an earlier post, that charging the cops was a politically motivated move, that's what the legal pun-dents are declaring and in addition, they offer that getting convictions may be difficult. No convictions = you decide what happens then.....

As for the "civil rights" issue, well folks it's a two way street. Now you decide who has the rights. The business / home owner (over 200 hundred businesses were burned at last report) or the culprits who committed arson or those that indirectly aided them, by being there and causing confusion and offering (not purposely) hiding venues within the crowd.

For those that don't know the law or think they know the law, law enforcement can curtail civil rights for the safety of the larger community. The mayor declared a curfew. Now just what do you think that entails. It's a temporary curtailment of civil rights for safety reasons. If you violate it, guess what, your going to be arrested, it's that simple. You can't let a mob mentality loose and have free rein, you'll lose everything and that mindset is very contagious and can spread like a wild fire. OK, I've sprouted forth my opinions and factual basis assessments of what was, what is and what could be. Take it for what it's worth and add another $3.00 and get a Starbucks latte.

[dsc123]

As for the "civil rights" issu e, well folks it's a two way street. Now you decide who has therights. The business / home owner (over 200 hundred businesses were burned at last report) or the culprits who committed arson or those that indirectly aided them, by being there and causing confusion and offering (not purposely) hiding venues within the crowd.

No its not a two-way street.  The law prohibits keeping people for more than 24 hours without a hearing.  The law also prohibits burning buildings.  People who burned down buildings should be arrested.  Once arrested, they should be given a hearing within 24 hours.  People who did not burn down buildings should not be arrested.  If they are, they too should be given a hearing in 24 hours.

Its really that simple.  It might not be easy, but the solution is to just let them go after 24 hours.  The emergency had passed by morning.

Also curious where you come up with 200 businesses being burned to the ground.  I'm not saying you're wrong, but the only number I've seen is 15.  http://www.businessinsider.com/baltimore-mayors-office-rioters-torched-144-cars-and-15-buildings-on-monday-2015-4

For those that don't know the law or think they know the law, law enforcement can curtail civil rights for the safety of the larger community. The mayor declared a curfew. Now just what do you think that entails. It's a temporary curtailment of civil rights for safety reasons. If you violate it, guess what, your going to be arrested, it's that simple. You can't let a mob mentality loose and have free rein, you'll lose everything and that mindset is very contagious and can spread like a wild fire. OK, I've sprouted forth my opinions and factual basis assessments of what was, what is and what could be. Take it for what it's worth and add another $3.00 and get a Starbucks latte.

Any arrest is a curtailment of someone's rights, but we're talking about curtailments of people's rights that exceed the authority of the police.  For example, the police are allowed to arrest people suspected of committing crimes, but they cannot hold them for more than 24 hours without a hearing.

The curfew example is different because that was imposed by the Mayor, not law enforcement.  I would guess that there is a law that permits her to do so.

But this is a relatively minor issue in the grand scheme of what is happening.

---

Mostly I have been impressed by everyone's response.  Not that its been perfect by any stretch, but it can't be under the circumstances.  From the government, I liked the mayor's initial reaction of not meeting the protests with brute force, though I can see the counter-argument.  And I like that the National Guard wasn't called in as a first option.

From the public, yes, there was some very bad stuff, but we're talking about exceedingly difficult circumstances and the vast majority of the protests were peaceful.  People came out to clean up. People stood in front of the officers to protect them.  The city came together rather than falling apart.  And the protests have continued--which is necessary if any actual change is going to occur (doubtful, IMO).

There's a lot of good that has come out of this tragedy.

[mmoan2]

"Sadly, the bulk of those arrested were the, "I saw what was perhaps an injustice" and I want to lend my voice in outrage. They are in fact indirectly pawns, being used by the true trouble makers, who want nothing more than to take full advantage of a situation to loot and burn. Those folks don't live there, they come from outside the scope of those neighborhoods."

Somebodies only argument is that I'm sprouting forth pure BS, "I made this up" because they feel it's fact and not opinion. Really!, that's the strength of the retort. Does it actually make any difference, when it doesn't take a degree from MIT to see, that's exactly what happened. I think the picture of the young woman being released into the arms of her husband says it all. Now for my factual basis or analysis, if that's a better adjective. Being involved in several of these riot situations, they all follow the same pattern. Those wanting to step out with good intentions up front and then you know who, lurking in the middle or on the sides or trailing, waiting for the opportune time to unleash mayhem. So in essence, yes it was a factual statement, so what, it's what happened and guess what, it's going to happen again.

While I don't disagree with what you say about civil riots generally following the same patterns, I think it's imperative to remember that no one knows the facts who wasn't there and such a categorical mindset is part of this larger problem. We are all removed from this situation talking about an issue based on media reports we've read, I assume. The facts may seem obvious, but it's the burden of enlightenment to always inspect an issue with a fresh mindset, even if you have significant law enforcement experience, IMHO.  When you generalize and assume, it breeds stereotyping. It seems like the indignation and slight sarcasm of your writing is just for effect - I get that - but being cocksure of your position in a sensitive situation might lead you to forget those other facts like people were held for more than 24 hours without a hearing, etc. Jail sucks. 2 days with no idea of what's up would foster bad blood in people who already feel slighted, some of them young and perhaps caught up in something they really don't understand. "The price of liberty is eternal vigilance" - John Stuart Mill. We must all remain vigilant to resist our preconceptions and biases. This means the opportunistic looter looking for a reason to torch a drugstore and steal crap, too. Hopefully a few of them see the light of day eventually.

P.S. Where the heck do you get a Starbuck's latte for $3? You can't even get a large cup of black coffee there for $3 any more!

[disco111]

I'm sorry, but we know the facts, at least the basic facts. Did people riot, burn and loot? Yes!.. Did people violate the curfew and were arrested? Yes!.. Now was it right to be held in excess of 24 hours, without actually being charged? No! but we all know why it happened.....the city resources were taxed beyond their limits. No city, in reality, can prepare for such an event and even less, have in run like clockwork. This the actual construction of what transpired and you want to nit pic and speculate (without any real knowledge of the scope of what's going on) and then have the audacity to say It's BS and making stuff up and separate civil rights issues, that only are used to validate your position is bogus. The information is out there. The news reported the 200 business, last night on CBS I believe. The judicial system weighed in with no less than a Harvard Law Professor, stating that convictions would be difficult and there was a political motivated rush, in hopes of defusing the community. I offered what I consider insight into this, so lets dismiss the verbal jabs because you don't like what's been said. Doesn't make it any less true, just because you don't like it or happen to disagree.

[mdl]

Another thing folks should read:

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

Key quote:

Quote:

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.

[Jeremie Boop]

Another thing folks should read:

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

Key quote:

Comparing rioting and violence to a forest fire is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

[newtogolf]

Quote:

Comparing rioting and violence to a forest fire is about the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard.

The guy that wrote that piece has as much credibility on the subject as anyone here.   Lots of opinions and justifications for rioting and looting but no solutions.   Over 200 businesses were destroyed in the riots, where's the sympathy and empathy for the business owners who did nothing wrong?

[Gunther]

Quote: The guy that wrote that piece has as much credibility on the subject as anyone here.   Lots of opinions and justifications for rioting and looting but no solutions.   Over 200 businesses were destroyed in the riots, where's the sympathy and empathy for the business owners who did nothing wrong?

Well, they run a business so they must be part of the 1% and as such, are guilty. (That was sarcasm if it's not recognized.)