baltimore
My eight year old, this morning, asked me what was going on there.
I had the tv on when he stumbled into the living room and the talkin’ heads were -- for the umpteenth time -- foisting up 'Baltimore'.
I thought about it then asked him this: 'If *Mr. George did sumthin' that pissed us off and we, becuz we were pissed off, burned our own house down, what would you call that?'
'That would be crazy, Uncle’.
I said, "that's what happening over there, Monkey...somebody did sumthin' that pissed off some folks and now those folks are burning down their own houses.'
'But that's crazy, Uncle!'
'Yes, Beast, it is.'
'nuff said.
*a neighbor
Parents needed to get control of their kids. In the pictures I saw, there were too many kids out there doing this shit.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
Ta-Nehisi Coates:
Rioting broke out on Monday in Baltimore—an angry response to the death of Freddie Gray, a death my native city seems powerless to explain. Gray did not die mysteriously in some back alley but in the custody of the city’s publicly appointed guardians of order. And yet the mayor of that city and the commissioner of that city’s police still have no idea what happened. I suspect this is not because the mayor and police commissioner are bad people, but because the state of Maryland prioritizes the protection of police officers charged with abuse over the citizens who fall under its purview.
The citizens who live in West Baltimore, where the rioting began, intuitively understand this. I grew up across the street from Mondawmin Mall, where today’s riots began. My mother was raised in the same housing project, Gilmor Homes, where Freddie Gray was killed. Everyone I knew who lived in that world regarded the police not with admiration and respect but with fear and caution. People write these feelings off as wholly irrational at their own peril, or their own leisure.
I am sorely tempted to quote the linked article entirely.
To answer yer 8-yr-old: what's going on in Baltimore is a bunch of people demonstrating that the rest of the country only pays attention to how dire their situation is when they are burning shit.
Burning out the pharmacy where your granddad gets his medicine is the equivalent (to me) of burning down your own house.
Craziness.
I can completely understand why they are rioting, and I agree that the police in many parts of the country need to be cleaned up. But it's still incredibly stupid and self-defeating to burn down your own neighborhood. Who's going to rebuild it for them? Nobody.
That video of the mom smacking her son for throwing rocks at police is both horrifying and awesome at the same time. It's great that she's trying to get control of her kid, but it's also clear who he learned his violence from. But she's doing the best she can, and she's trying to be part of the solution.
This is a complex issue, but one thing that is crystal clear is that the riots are only going to make it worse.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
Ta-Nehisi Coates:
I am sorely tempted to quote the linked article entirely.
To answer yer 8-yr-old: what's going on in Baltimore is a bunch of people demonstrating
that the rest of the country only pays attention to how dire their situation is when they are burning shit.[/QUOTE
Excellent article, gv.
[QUOTE]
Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments
or settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights violations.
---
And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges
against the victims—if charges were filed at all.
<snip>
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.
Does it make sense to burn down one's own neighbourhood? No. But raw outpourings of emotion are rarely founded on what is sensible.
Rather than mocking the stupidity of those who riot - we need to see the raw pain that ignites such a response.
Rather than mocking the stupidity of those who riot - we need to see the raw pain that ignites such a response.
You can do both. It's not either/or.
Two things:
1.
This guy.
My eight year old,...
...'That would be crazy, Uncle’.
2. Your son calls you "Uncle"?
When is the last time white people rioted in America?
Srs question.
Upon a second's worth of thought, prolly after Kentucky got beat in the NCAA playoffs.
:(
"mocking"
Who's mocking?
#
"raw outpourings of emotion"
I understand passion and violence extending out from passion. I don't understand visiting it on yourself.
Borrowing from my anecdote above: George does sumthin' that truly, righteously, pisses me off.
I can...
...be a pussy and keep my mouth shut, do nuthin', let my grievance fester.
...march myself over to George's and seek redress (perhaps burning his house down).
What I will not do is burn my own house down because George pissed me off.
#
"Your son calls you "Uncle"?"
My nephew lives with me...I could not love him more if he were my son...he's not the fruit of my loins but he's mine.
Jesse Williams on the baltimore riots, quoted in full b.c. twitter is a rough medium for complex thoughts:
If you don't actually care about Black people having equal protection under the law, why are you making suggestions to those who do?
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
What are the critical elements that constitute a "riot" and when do riots offend you?
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
If we view rioting as a mass temper tantrum expressed through violence & property damage, white sports fans do that monthly. #Tradition
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
1 group can burn & loot when a team scores less points than another but when paid public servants kill citizens, we gotta be BaggerVance?
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
Where are all the think pieces & coverage of the pathology of white culture every time white frustration vents violence & destruction?
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
There is nothing "black" about rioting. How do you think we got all this land?
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
Historically riots have been tools for intimidation; destroying populations, taking land & valuables. #BlowingOffSteam #BoysWillBeBoys
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
Whites rioted throughout the early 1900s, slaughtering, burning & looting entire thriving black townships, just because of the adjective.
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
You've watched hulking bullies w/ badges, robes & money brutalize, kill & cage human beings every yr of your entire lives & said nothing.
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
So Exactly What Kind Of Violence Don't You Like?
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
Police & policies have been rioting on our bodies; destroying people & property every single day of your lives. But here you come...
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
...When the beaten, marinated in centuries of trauma, pain & distress, manage to muster a response, here you come, squealing; revealing.
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
You seem to really hate when people do "things that aren't helping" like contextualizing issues based on empirical evidence. #UghTheWorst!
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
Things that "aren't helping" happen every single day though, which means you've had a million opportunities to research & contribute. #But
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
You have so much to say, yet we've never seen you out here you before. Who shows up after the event & criticizes the audience's reaction?
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
So tell me again, what kind of violence it is that you detest? I keep forgetting. ToWhom? FromWhom? HowOften? For how long? InOrderToWhat?
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
The reaction to oppression has always been spun & marketed as validation for the status quo.
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
Notice how the party slogan, no matter the font or cleche, always boils down to #NeverChange.
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
You want us to condemn black folks being violent against PROPERTY but you NEVER condemn police killing actual PEOPLE. #Explain #JustTry
— jesseWilliams. (@iJesseWilliams) April 28, 2015
@henry, w.r.t. to burning ones own home down, the vast majority of businesses in black neighborhoods in America are not black owned.
When is the last time white people rioted in America?
Srs question.
:(
Of course these people were rioting for something really important ...
QTwk-2fKT7oSumthin' else: (again, borrowing from my anecdote) George has pissed me off and naturally (for me) I want redress. I would, however, view with great suspicion the interest of strangers in my circumstance.
That is: I got cause to be pissed (just as the family and friends of F. Gray got cause to be pissed) but strangers have no cause to muck about in my affairs. All these folks out and about in Baltimore can't possibly be Gray's family and friends...no, they're strangers using a circumstance to further their own agendas and grind their own axes (axes having nuthin' to do with Gray's death).
#
"the vast majority of businesses in black neighborhoods in America are not black owned."
The vast majority of businesses in black neighborhoods service the folks who live in those neighborhoods (blacks who, in Baltimore, are burning and looting their own neighborhoods)...to burn out the pharmacy where you get your medicines, the grocery where you get your food, and the old folks' homes where your granny lives is craziness.
Nobody actually burned their own house, right? I'm everyone who was burning, was burning other people's houses.
It becomes their neighborhood when they have a stake in it. I'm betting the rioters own no property, no business, no stake.
"Nobody actually burned their own house, right?"
"It becomes their neighborhood when they have a stake in it."
In the context of this thread (my anecdote and Baltimore): 'home' is synonymous with 'town' and 'community'.
As for having a stake: again, 'to burn out the pharmacy where you get your medicines, the grocery where you get your food, and the old folks' homes where your granny lives is craziness.'
Sumthin' else: (again, borrowing from my anecdote)
George has pissed me off and naturally (for me) I want redress.
I would, however, view with great suspicion the interest of strangers in my circumstance. ... #
But Henry, you've changed the specifics of the situation.
Try stating your case in terms of:
"Mr George is my neighbor cop who beat up my nephew."
"Mr George is my neighbor cop who beat up my nephew."
All more the reason for me to mebbe burn down HIS house (with him in it).
Sure as shit I won't burn down my own, won't burn out the neighbor on the other side of me who has done nuthin.
And: I would still view offers of help from strangers with great suspicion, wondering what they hope to gain ridin’ on the coat tails of MY circumstance.
As for having a stake: again, 'to burn out the pharmacy where you get your medicines, the grocery where you get your food, and the old folks' homes where your granny lives is craziness.'
There's 3 drugstores on every block, but no groceries, you gotta go to whitey's neighborhood for food. Who the fuck can afford to put grannie in a home, she'll die on the sofa in the parlor, where she's been for years.
Bruce, can you post where you got this information ("3 drugstores on every block, but no groceries")?
And: it ain't an old folks home, but a Senior Center got wasted, ya know, where granny goes for bingo.
it's quite amazing henry that you have granted immediate collectivist responsibility to a group of people to the point where their interests are described in ownership terms ("their" house, "their" pharmacy).
~ but you yourself find collective responsibility abhorrent ~
in fact if "your" pharmacy was burning and the fire could be put out with your own water you would say you had no interest in the situation and it is not your business and they should manage their own affairs
Technically, the
construction site where granny might eventually have gone for bingo. AND, apparently, might eventually have lived.
The project, planned as roughly 60 senior-citizen apartments and a community center, has been in the works since at least 2006. It is being built by The Woda Group, a low-income housing developer.
Baltimore... Molotov cocktails?
If a man burns down his own home out of anger at another, this is crazy.
If a group of folks burn down their neighborhood (its businesses) out of anger at the cops, this is crazy.
That's my point...thanks for straying from it...thanks for makin' your distaste for me known (again).
The distaste goes both ways, I assure you.
#
"in fact if "your" pharmacy was burning and the fire could be put out with your own water you would say you had no interest in the situation and it is not your business and they should manage their own affairs"
Mebbe...but then I wouldn't have started the fire in the first place, so...
Then, again: if that pharmacy was the only one available to me, if I depended on that pharmacy for medicine, I might very well be on the bucket brigade...it's called self interest.
My nephew lives with me...I could not love him more if he were my son...he's not the fruit of my loins but he's mine.
That's cool. Very cool, in fact. I have a fair amount of respect for people who raise children that aren't "their's". Not too long back I saw a 50-ish year old man moved to tears when the 20 year old beside him referred to him as "my dad for all intents and purposes. He's been more of a father to me than my dad ever was."
Good on ya, Mr. Quirk.
As you were, people.
Rioting is an expression of anger with no outlet - and it is not directed inwards at all. Those who see this in terms of inwardly directed destruction, such as burning down one's own house, or destroying one's own community, presuppose a sense of community which includes shops and businesses. For many people, and I would imagine this is particularly acute for young people, their sense of community is much narrower.
If a group of folks burn down their neighborhood (its businesses) out of anger at the cops, this is crazy.
Who started the fires, and how those specific people relate to the "they" whose neighborhood it is? Do you know more than has been reported?
The protest drew people from all over the city, not to mention the country. It drew people who supported the cause, and it drew people who just like to riot at protests. We know nothing about the perpetrators.
Essentially, you lied to your nephew.
"Mr George is my neighbor cop who beat up my nephew."
All more the reason for me to mebbe burn down HIS house (with him in it).
<snip>
Should that be interpreted that it is OK to settle grievances against law enforcement,
so long as only the jails, the police stations, cop cars, or local cop's personal houses
... are torched ?
That's my point...thanks for straying from it...thanks for makin' your distaste for me known (again).
The distaste goes both ways, I assure you.
I assure you it doesn't. Respectful disagreement is what I founded this place for. Mature people discuss issues without considering it personal. I will point out flaws in your argument without finding you unworthy, and I will field flaws in my own argument without feeling diminished.
"in fact if "your" pharmacy was burning and the fire could be put out with your own water you would say you had no interest in the situation and it is not your business and they should manage their own affairs"
Mebbe...
No "mebbe" about it, if this question had come up in any other thread, you'd be demanding that you have no involvement. I'm not being accusatory here, this is your basic philosophy.
but then I wouldn't have started the fire in the first place, so...
Either they are LITERALLY BURNING THEIR OWN PHARMACIES, or you have constructed a shitty analogy that doesn't even jive with your own basic philosophy. I'm going with B.
And it's a straw man. You have created an analogy that makes no sense: why would someone burn down their own house? It's not their house. It's not their pharmacy. It's not their grocery. I know you agree, it's your basic philosophy. So if you still don't understand, that's entirely on you. You
wrote the analogy that you don't understand! Why don't you describe the terms more realistically and see if you understand that?
That video of the mom smacking her son for throwing rocks at police is both horrifying and awesome at the same time. It's great that she's trying to get control of her kid, [COLOR="Blue"]but it's also clear who he learned his violence from[/COLOR].
That's complete bullshit, you're projecting your personal feelings on corporal punishment onto this mother and son. Where's your proof she has EVER hit that kid, in his entire fucking life, until she caught him throwing rocks at the cops? You live a white privilege life in the richest county in the entire fucking country, and don't have a clue what their life is about. So stick your self righteous red herring in your ear.
xoB seems to be on a kick of having people stick things into themselves.
At least for Glatt, it was only his ear.
:D
Technically, the construction site where granny might eventually have gone for bingo. AND, apparently, might eventually have lived.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/liveblog-live/liveblog/live-updates-riots-in-baltimore/?id=6e73929d-2313-4ac4-b1c0-2442fe94f7ff
Fire not related to looting, official says
Julie Zauzmer · April 27, 9:27 PM
The three-alarm fire raging several miles away from protests that have turned violent in Baltimore is not related to the unrest, fire department spokesman Samuel Johnson said.
Johnson said that the fire, which was first reported at 8:49 p.m., appeared to be related to nearby construction. He did not know what started the fire.
The building was unoccupied when it caught fire, he said.
Johnson said that 94 firefighters were on the scene as of about 9:25 p.m.
Not just Baltimore, but:
[ATTACH]51301[/ATTACH]
Ha!
That is a good point.
People - even reasonable, law-abiding, gentle people, can be very different in a crowd. It shifts the dynamic.
I've been involved in several major demonstrations, mainly when I was much younger. Several of them turned nasty (the big Poll Tax demo in London in 1990, for example - and the anti-racism demo after the first BNP councillor was elected to a seat on the Isle of Dogs).
The poll tax demo turned into a full on riot, with around a quarter of a million marchers and full on riot police, with shields and batons, mounted police and police dogs. It was mayhem. It was terrifying - and was exhilirating.
The sense of righteous anger and collective response was powerful. It is a very strange feeling - being involved in a riot. It's like you become part of some larger organism. Really weird.
"...It was terrifying - and was exhilirating..."
Great expression ! Next time you need to invite all of us too.
Only rarely do I pay attention to the NY Times' "Quotation of the Day"
But I hope they are usually better than this one...
QUOTATION OF THE DAY
"There was a lot of economic damage. But the greater damage is to the future.
How many retailers will want to come to Baltimore?
How many conventions will stay away? How many hotel rooms will stay empty?"
ANIRBAN BASU, a Baltimore economist, on the arson, looting and riots that erupted
after the funeral of Freddie Gray, a black man who died in police custody.
This guy just doesn't get it... it's not about the $
:mad:
,
:litebulb: perfect time to visit the National Aquarium will be over the next few months. I haven't been in about 5 years or so. Wow normally it's impossible to get mid-day tickets. I bet you could get them today.
Dana,
“presuppose a sense of community which includes shops and businesses”
Doesn’t take a sense of community to understand (before you set the fire) that burning out a business you rely on is not in your best interest…what it takes is a little ‘thinking’ and a lot less ‘feeling’.
“collective response”
I see this any time a gaggle of kids get together…the high spirits of one infect the others and before long you got a ‘pack’.
I expect adults (young and old) to resist such impulses…my expectations are, I suppose, unrealistic.
#
Happy Monkey,
“Essentially, you lied to your nephew.”
I answered his question honestly, in a way he can understand, using the information available at the time.
I may be mistaken in my assessments but I didn’t lie.
#
Lamp,
“Should that be interpreted that it is OK to settle grievances against law enforcement, so long as only the jails, the police stations, cop cars, or local cop's personal houses... are torched ?”
You can interpret as you like…what I say is: if you have a beef, take it up with the one who has insulted or damaged you, not with innocent folks and certainly not by doing self-injury (and, mebbe, if you aren't party to the insult or injury you ought to just butt the fuck out).
“This guy just doesn't get it... it's not about the $”
I disagree…but: even if you’re right ‘today’ he will most certainly be right ‘tomorrow’.
#
Toad,
“your basic philosophy”
What is my ‘basic philosophy’?
“I assure you it doesn't.”
I disagree, but: as you like.
Nobody can honestly say we did not see this coming. A Cambridge professor is harassed by a cop because the professor was trying to get into his house. We have seen this both nationally and I have watched local municipal meetings where residents were complaining about same - in an upscale residential community for one.
As for having a stake: again, 'to burn out the pharmacy where you get your medicines, the grocery where you get your food, and the old folks' homes where your granny lives is craziness.'
You have assumed all adults act like adults. A substancial number are still children. So you see them buying miracle herbs at the health food stores, smoking cigarettes to increase health, and actually believing Saddam had WMDs only because that was the first thing they were told - without any facts or numbers.
Many if not most adults still make decisions like children - based in their feelings - reality (or considering the consequences) be damned. These adults live for the moment - like a child.
"You have assumed all adults act like adults."
Yeah, as I say above: 'my expectations are, I suppose, unrealistic.'
Originally Posted by henry quirk
“Should that be interpreted that it is OK to settle grievances against law enforcement,
so long as only the jails, the police stations, cop cars, or local cop's personal houses... are torched ?”
You can interpret as you like…what I say is:
if you have a beef, take it up with the one who has insulted or damaged you,
not with innocent folks and certainly not by doing self-injury
(and, mebbe, if you aren't party to the insult or injury you ought to just butt the fuck out).
Again, you are changing the basic issue of this thread...
How do you, HQ, settle your "beef" with this neighbor cop
who is "the one who has insulted or damaged you" ?
So far, you have only proposed "mebbe" setting his house on fire
(with him in it).
I posit to you that
you can't.
... not without some way of engaging others who "aren't party to the insult or injury",
or relying on laws/rules of society which you usually disdain.
Lamp,
What it is about being a cop that insulates him or her from a bullet to the head?
What is about being a cop that insulates his or her house from burning?
Nuthin' and nuthin'.
I suspect your respect for (or fear of) law enforcers has you thinkin' they're better, bigger, smarter, stronger, than they are.
Cops are just people.
Just ask the families and friends of cops killed on, and off, duty.
And: I'm not the one "changing the basic issue of (my) thread". Go back to my first post, read what follows from others, point (and wag) your finger at them (and yourself).
They rioted, and 5 were killed by authorities. Then they entered a business and destroyed goods that were intended for them to buy. Then they violently attacked the authorities.
What a bunch of a-holes, right Henry?
I wonder why?
Since 1935, nearly every so-called race riot in the United States—and there have been more than 100—has been sparked by a police incident, Muhammad says. This can be an act of brutality, or a senseless killing. But the underlying causes run much deeper. Police, because they interact in black communities every day, are often seen as the face of larger systems of inequality in the justice system, employment, education and housing.
So far the violent rioters who deserve universal condemnation have killed fewer people than were killed in the incident that immediately triggered the protest. Let alone the incidents and atmosphere that turned that incident into a trigger.
Lamp,
What it is about being a cop that insulates him or her from a bullet to the head?
What is about being a cop that insulates his or her house from burning?
Nuthin' and nuthin'.
I suspect your respect for (or fear of) law enforcers has you thinkin'
they're better, bigger, smarter, stronger, than they are.
Cops are just people.
Just ask the families and friends of cops killed on, and off, duty.
And: I'm not the one "changing the basic issue of (my) thread".
Go back to my first post, read what follows from others, point
(and wag) your finger at them (and yourself).
Sure, cops are human beings that can be hurt/killed
... but not "Nuthin' and nuthin'"
What insulates your neighbor cop who has harmed your family is multi-fold:
1) Primarily the governmental and social structures that protect
and make each individual cop and law enforcement overall
"better, bigger, smarter, stronger" than you.
2) Your self interest of not being killed/harmed/imprisioned by other cops
3) Your self interest for your family being harmed or ostracised by society
4) Your ethics and moral code to maintain your family and property
So repeating myself in slightly different terms...
You, HQ, can not settle your grievance with this neighbor cop who
has harmed you/your family, without in some way of engaging others
who "aren't party to the insult or injury", or relying on laws/rules of society...
And now add this:
5) or, having your nephew say: "But that is crazy, Uncle"
I think I am presenting your own arguments to say the isolated individual
is impotent against the misdeeds of law enforcement.
Otherwise their action is "crazy"
... until they gain a tool or power over something of value to law enforcement.
For those without $ or political resources, this turns out to be
"breaking the peace" (riots) and destroying "sh#t".
So for them in their world, they are not being "crazy"
Spexx,
“What a bunch of a-holes, right Henry?”
I never said that (and I didn’t imply it either).
#
Happy Monkey,
“universal condemnation”
That hasn’t come from me, not directly or by implication.
#
Lamp,
“You, HQ, can not settle your grievance”
Underlining it don’t make it so.
Your laundry list of ‘why you can’t’: each, all, easily navigated (as illustrated by the number of unsolved police deaths).
“I think I am presenting your own arguments to say the isolated individual is impotent against the misdeeds of law enforcement.”
I’m sorry you feel impotent (as an individual), Lamp. Explains a lot, though.
Toad,
“your basic philosophy”
What is my ‘basic philosophy’?
It was clear in context, which remains available for you to read harder.
“I assure you it doesn't.”
I disagree, but: as you like.
Stated feelings are not really up for disagreement. "I'm not angry with you." "Yes you are." Well, fuck, where do we go from there? "No I'm not." "Augh, you've got me there." Nice thread we're having?
“I think I am presenting your own arguments to say the isolated individual
is impotent against the misdeeds of law enforcement.”
I’m sorry you feel impotent (as an individual), Lamp. Explains a lot, though.
When your arguments fail, divert to non-sequiturs and ad hominems.
Toad,
"It was clear in context"
What is clear 'in context': you have no clue what I believe (you think you do, but you don't). So: be clear, state what you think my philosophy is.
And: no, I won't be stating it for you. You accuse me of incoherence based on 'my philosophy'. The burden is on you to back it up by stating what you think 'is' my philosophy.
If you can't or won't: your claim of my incoherence is null and void.
"Stated feelings are not really up for disagreement."
Of course they are. I believe you find me distasteful. You claim otherwise. I don't believe you.
We disagree.
However, there's no profit for me or you in dickin' around with it so -- as I say up thread -- 'as you like.'
Lamp,
My point: I, as individual, don't feel impotent.
You, perhaps, do.
Now, beat that drum some more.
HQ: They are burning down their own pharmacy. That is crazy.
UT: It's not their pharmacy.
HQ: In the context of what I'm saying, "their" means the pharmacy in their town.
UT: But if a pharmacy was burning in "your" neighborhood you wouldn't give a shit. That's your basic philosophy: your responsibility absolutely ends at your own self-interest.
HQ: Unless it was the only pharmacy available, in which case I would try to put out the fire, because it was in my self-interest.
~
UT: Look on television, HQ is simply letting his pharmacy burn.
HQ's nephew: Why would he do that? That is crazy.*
UT: I don't know Beast, but by his own definition, it's HIS pharmacy, in HIS town, and he's letting it burn.
HQ's nephew: That is crazy.
UT: You know what's crazier? HQ has described you as HIS child.
HQ's nephew: Oh no! Would Uncle allow me to burn?
UT: It appears so, if you were not in his self-interest.
HQ's nephew: Gosh!** How can I stay in his self-interest?
UT: I guess you should remain the only child available.
*HQ's nephew does not use contractions.
**HQ's nephew is from a 1950s family TV comedy.
Lamp,
My point: I, as individual, don't feel impotent....
I feel you are, but won't realize (or admit to) it.
We disagree.
Stated feelings are not really up for disagreement.
"I'm not angry with you." "Yes you are." Well, fuck, where do we go from there?
"No I'm not." "Augh, you've got me there." Nice thread we're having?
'nouf said
They rioted, and 5 were killed by authorities. Then they entered a business and destroyed goods that were intended for them to buy. Then they violently attacked the authorities.
What a bunch of a-holes, right Henry?
Spexx,
“What a bunch of a-holes, right Henry?”
I never said that (and I didn’t imply it either).
"'But that's crazy, Uncle!'
'Yes, Beast, it is.'"
That's crazy, right Henry?
Today in history...
April 29, 1992
In 1992, rioting resulting in 55 deaths erupted in Los Angeles after a jury in Simi Valley, California,
acquitted four Los Angeles police officers of almost all state charges in the videotaped beating of Rodney King.
.
God Damn Right.
TL;DR: White Americans have a different relationship with the police than black Americans do. So however glib your comment and that captioned picture are there's some merit to the idea. We ask the police to solve too many of our societal problems.
Ta-Nehisi Coates, again and always:
There are many problems with expecting people trained in crime-fighting to be social workers. In the black community, there is a problem of legitimacy. In his 1953 book The Quest For Community, conservative Robert Nisbet distinguishes between "power" and "authority." Authority, claims Nisbet, is a matter of relationships, allegiances, and association and is "based ultimately upon the consent of those under it." Power, on the other hand, is "external" and "based upon force." Power exists where allegiances have decayed or never existed at all. "Power arises," writes Nesbit, "only when authority breaks down."
African Americans, for most of our history, have lived under the power of the criminal-justice system, not its authority. The dominant feature in the relationship between African Americans and their country is plunder, and plunder has made police authority an impossibility, and police power a necessity. The skepticism of Officer Darren Wilson's account in the shooting of Michael Brown, for instance, emerges out of lack of police authority—which is to say it comes from a belief that the police are as likely to lie as any other citizen. When African American parents give their children "The Talk," they do not urge them to make no sudden movements in the presence of police out of a profound respect for the democratic ideal, but out of the knowledge that police can, and will, kill them.
But for most Americans, the police—and the criminal-justice system—are figures of authority. The badge does not merely represent rule via lethal force, but rule through consent and legitimacy rooted in nobility. This is why whenever a liberal politician offers even the mildest criticism of the police, they must add that "the majority of officers are good, noble people." Taken at face value this is not much of a defense—like a restaurant claiming that on most nights, there really are no rats in the dining room. But interpreted less literally the line is not meant to defend police officers, but to communicate the message that the speaker is not questioning police authority, which is to say the authority of our justice system, which is to say—in a democracy—the authority of the people themselves.
full article:
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/the-myth-of-police-reform/390057/TL;DR: White Americans have a different relationship with the police than black Americans do. So however glib your comment and that captioned picture are there's some merit to the idea. We ask the police to solve too many of our societal problems.
Your mistake is thinking I was being glib. If you followed the thread, reading for comprehension, you would know better. Everyone of those punks should have their mother slap them upside the head.
There are many problems with expecting people trained in crime-fighting to be social workers.
I don't want them to be social workers. I want them to serve and protect the public, not bad cops who take the law as rules for others, because they know their fellow cops will lie, cheat and steal, to cover for them. In extreme cases the cops are getting away with murder, but the effect on society from those murders is a piss-hole in the snow bank, compared to the millions of lives they ruin with their terroristic behavior.
God Damn Right.
If beating kids was gonna solve the violence problem in the black community, there would be no violence problem in the black community. AA kids are getting the belt every fucking day and they take their whuppin from Mom/Dad/Uncle/Aunty/Grandwhatever and then they take it out on their neighborhood.
...how easily the learned give up the evidence of their senses to preserve the coherence of ideas in their imagination.
I think Sending in The Moms is a good idea. I think The Moms have Authority, and that's respected. The mom in the picture, she's using Power to accentuate, or remind her son of that Authority.
It's possible. No. It's NECESSARY to send in the moms (and dads and aunties and uncles, etc) for just the reason that xoB and others have expressed. The respect for our social contract, the fabric of our communities (because the police are an important and inextricable thread in that fabric) is learned by the youngsters, who become older, but it's learned by the observations they make of all the things around them. What the parental figures do and say. What they see at school and in the neighborhood, including the behavior of the cops. What (crap) they see on the tv and videos and movies. What they see their friends doing and what the people they'd like to be their friends are doing. All that and more is combined to produce the net result and the net behaviors.
Who has the greatest influence on that result? The parents. In some extreme cases, the influence of the parents can outweigh all the other factors combined, but usually not. Usually it's just the single biggest force. And even the parent's input is mixed. There isn't a parent here who can say their work as a parent has been flawless. Sometimes it's a contradiction, saying this and doing that. What does a youngster make of that mixed message? The same is true with the larger pool of influences, they're mixed. Training the kids on what to look for, what to shoot for, and how to discern the good influences from the bad, the helpful from the hurtful, indeed, right from wrong, that's parent-gold.
The mom in the picture is just reminding her son right from wrong. NOW, maybe the kid gets beaten every day for any goddamn thing. Could be. And that would be fucked up, that would be wrong, that would train the kid that the world's to be feared and that rioting is not an unreasonable approach. WTF do I know? I am just looking at one picture, one instant. Naturally, I'm reading a LOT into the picture.
But even though the cops aren't social workers, and they're not, much of the shit they have to deal with would be best handled by using the tools of social workers. Cops have lots of tools, they pick and choose what they think is the best tool for the job all the goddamn time. When they get it right, woo hoo. Not even a cookie, not for doing your chosen job right. When they choose wrong, bad stuff happens. And that wrong choice is sometimes NOT putting on the social worker hat and instead drawing a gun or a baton.
A riot is not the time for social work--the tools needed there are the ones in the riot gear kit. But that's only because as gvidas has eloquently pointed out (and quoted) the authority of the police is gone.
Toad,
Obviously, we have very different ideas of what constitutes a statement of (my) philosophy.
As you like.
#
Lamp,
“We disagree.”
Yes, we do.
#
Spexx,
“That's crazy, right Henry?”
When you trash your own neighborhood cuz you’re pissed at the cops: yeah, crazy as a shithouse mouse.
Now, when you trundle in from outside the neighborhood, involve yourself in a matter that’s not your concern, trash that neighborhood with no consideration given for the folks who live there and who may depend on the businesses trashed, then you’re asshole.
Spexx,
“That's crazy, right Henry?”
When you trash your own neighborhood cuz you’re pissed at the cops: yeah, crazy as a shithouse mouse.
My description was of the actions of the Sons of Liberty.
I wonder why?
Since 1935, nearly every so-called race riot in the United States—and there have been more than 100—has been sparked by a police incident, Muhammad says. This can be an act of brutality, or a senseless killing. But the underlying causes run much deeper. Police, because they interact in black communities every day, are often seen as the face of larger systems of inequality in the justice system, employment, education and housing.
What do you wonder, xoB? The quote in your post doesn't come from the article you linked to.
do you wonder why black americans and white americans see the police differently?
do you wonder why so many "race-riots" have been sparked by a police incident?
or do you wonder about something else? your post is ambiguous to me.
Spexx,
"the Sons of Liberty"
Who are they?
V,
"do you wonder why black americans and white americans see the police differently?"
I wonder why folks insist on grouping themselves (or others).
Ain't no monoliths as far as I can tell.
Spexx,
Looked 'em up.
You believe the Boston Tea Party is synonymous with what happened in Baltimore?
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sons.htm
Doesn't seem the same at all to me.
hq, I don't think you're being serious when you respond that way.
I said what I said in the context of the posts and the articles linked to in the posts. You may go back and read or reread them to help you understand. Also, I'm not suggesting that groups are monoliths. But there are groups, "black americans", "white americans", "rioters", these are just a few recently discussed examples.
As for grouping and groups, it's obvious to me, and many others, that groups are a useful organizing concept. I'm sure you knew that.
V,
Yeah, I was pokin' at you.
But, seriously...
Surely, there are blacks who see police as whites (supposedly) do?
Surely, there are whites who see police as blacks (supposedly) do?
It's not groupings I object to but the assumption that ALL of a group feel or think the same way.
*shrug*
henry, Give it a rest, the riots are over. Now is the time for rebuilding. And I think that Mother did the right thing.
Toad,
Obviously, we have very different ideas of what constitutes a statement of (my) philosophy.
It's not necessary for me to accurately describe any aspect of your philosophy in order for us to discuss this matter. If the word philosophy is troubling here then you may substitute "thinking" or "belief" or whatever meaning you might take in order to advance the conversation.
If I have your belief incorrect you may certainly correct me, and I would have to accept that; and then we move forward, which would be great. In the meantime, all we have is a semantic evasion of my point. You should avoid that. My point stands.
If beating kids was gonna solve the violence problem in the black community, there would be no violence problem in the black community. AA kids are getting the belt every fucking day and they take their whuppin from Mom/Dad/Uncle/Aunty/Grandwhatever and then they take it out on their neighborhood.
Oh, is that right? Is that what happens in your neighborhood? Every kid gets beat up by family every day? Bullshit. Your over the top scenarios don't fly, except with the most rabid pacifists. You should write commercials for the Humane Society. When whites riot they do the same thing, does that mean they all get beat up every day.
I wasn't talking about children here anyway, I was talking about these punks who think they are dressing like ninjas when they're dressing like Hollywood clowns. What would you do? Say, "Son I'm disappointed in your anti-social outburst, we'll discuss this at length when you return home from the riot."
If so, you fail.
@Big-V. You're right, I linked the wrong version of the article which was co-published at
Pro-Publica and Politico.
thanks for the new link. still, what do you wonder about?
I wonder why the life of a black person taken by a black person has less value than the life of a black person taken by a white person.
I wonder why black people do not riot when Boko Harem kidnaps 100 or so black children.
Why are the black people not rioting about all the black people dying all over the world?
Why aren't these people who are rioting not running for public office in order to change the community they live in?
Why are they not making an effort to stay felony-free so that they can run for public office and effect change?
Toad,
“My point stands.”
As I say (and will probably say again and again): as you like.
#
Grav,
“Why?”
Mostly, I think, cuz there’s no profit to be had for folks in the American Race Industry.
#
Fargon,
“the riots are over”
For the moment.
Grav,
Moola...lettuce...money.
Whole whack of folks in America who make a decent or better living 'representing' race issues.
Really, what these folks do is promote division and dependence thereby securing their (growing) bank accounts.
Shit goin' down outside the U.S. won't earn 'em a buck; shit continuing within the U.S. does.
You just gotta follow the scrip.
I'm waiting to see what the black dwellars have to say in this thread.
:corn:
...Why aren't these people who are rioting not running for public office
in order to change the community they live in?
...
I believe politics have played a significant role…where [D] = Democrat, [R] = GOP
[D] LBJ signed the Civil Rights AND Aid to Dependent Children laws
Consequence: Job training, health clinics, $ added to family budgets
Consequence: US debt increased
[R] GOP adopted “Southern Strategy”
Consequence: Gerrymandering
Consequence: myths of voter fraud/ID to reduce Black voting
Consequence: White flight from cities and urban schools
[R] Congress prohibits federal $-support if an adult male lives in the house.
Consequence: adult males pushed out of the household.
Consequence: Black fathers were removed from their family
Consequence: Black children lose adult-relationships with their fathers
[R] Congress reduced federal $-support for “child care” and “job training”
Consequence: Single women were frozen in place as “Head of Household”
Consequence: Unemployed single mothers/children live in poverty
[D] Clinton established new Drug and Mandatory Sentencing laws
Consequence: Police concentrate on arresting black males on felony charges
Consequence: 1 in 3 Black men go to prison sometime in their lifetime
Consequence: Police militarize, move to police cars, stop “community policing”,
Consequence: Police change strategy from “Protect and Serve” to “we-vs-them”
Consequence: Police establish police unions and “Police Bill of Rights”
Consequence: Police essentially immune from prosecution
[R] GOP governors reduced business taxes by shifting $ from social programs
[R] GOP governors reduced property taxes by shifting $ from education
Consequence: White flight from cities and public schools
Consequence: Increased class size in public schools
Consequence: Public schools fail in mission to educate
[R] GOP established “No Child Left Behind”
Consequence: Teachers “teach for test”, not for education
Consequence: White flight from public schools to private and charter schools
---
If beating kids was gonna solve the violence problem in the black community, there would be no violence problem in the black community. AA kids are getting the belt every fucking day and they take their whuppin from Mom/Dad/Uncle/Aunty/Grandwhatever and then they take it out on their neighborhood.
Oh, is that right? Is that what happens in your neighborhood? Every kid gets beat up by family every day? Bullshit. Your over the top scenarios don't fly, except with the most rabid pacifists. You should write commercials for the Humane Society. When whites riot they do the same thing, does that mean they all get beat up every day.
I wasn't talking about children here anyway, I was talking about these punks who think they are dressing like ninjas when they're dressing like Hollywood clowns. What would you do? Say, "Son I'm disappointed in your anti-social outburst, we'll discuss this at length when you return home from the riot."
If so, you fail.
Nobody said every kid every day. The belt is a common tool, I've seen the fucking welts on 5 year olds. Sorry, I'm not buying the Moms need to
start beating their kids now narrative. If Mom was a competent parent that kid would've been at the kitchen table doing his math. The beating he gets on tv may shame him for right now but I'm not buying the narrative that black kids are not being hit enough.
Of course the answer is, and always has been, better parenting. I'll wager there's as many parents feeding their kids crap food, or ignoring them completely, as there are beating their kids constantly. Corporal punishment is a valuable tool for a parent, but those against it immediately go to Digr's child medieval torture chamber scenarios, and glatt's "horror" at mom catching her kid rioting and slapping him around.
Yes, life in the ghetto is violent, and kids grow up tough in self defense. But that's not because Mom slapped them around. The streets are ruled by thugs, armed thugs because people in the ghetto don't have a choice other than get out, and that takes money. They know it's safer to duck and cover than call the cops.
Digr's child medieval torture chamber scenarios
:flipbird:
Spexx,
Looked 'em up.
You believe the Boston Tea Party is synonymous with what happened in Baltimore?
http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/related/sons.htm
Doesn't seem the same at all to me.
Destruction of property for political gain. Terrorism, really.
I wonder why the life of a black person taken by a black person has less value than the life of a black person taken by a white person.
Not just any white person. A white person in a position of authority. One who has, in the past, been allowed to kill African Americans with no consequences, when an African American would be lynched for merely speaking to a white woman. Wonder no more.
I wonder why black people do not riot when Boko Harem kidnaps 100 or so black children.
What? Why?
Why are the black people not rioting about all the black people dying all over the world?
Same reason white people aren't rioting about all the white people dying in the world.
Why aren't these people who are rioting not running for public office in order to change the community they live in?
Do you know they're not? Whites outnumber blacks 4 to 1, nationally. If they decide that a black candidate won't get elected, s/he won't. It happens.
Why are they not making an effort to stay felony-free so that they can run for public office and effect change?
It sounds like you're saying that all black people are felons. Black folks above poverty levels aren't going to commit a felony any more than a white person above poverty levels. The problem is that "the man" is keeping him down. People who have nothing to lose will act desperately until they have something to lose.
Not just any white person. A white person in a position of authority. One who has, in the past, been allowed to kill African Americans with no consequences, when an African American would be lynched for merely speaking to a white woman. Wonder no more.
I think the person who, in the past, was allowed to kill African Americans with no consequence...just for talkin' to a white woman... would have to be MUCH older than the police officers in question in this timely debate. Just sayin'
Hey, where are da white wimman at? :lol:
Lot of glossing over, there, Spexx.
People are glossing over, be-bopping and scatting all over the place.
No glossing, a lot of people are pissed off over six cops illegally arresting and killing a black man, AGAIN. They know full well the cops will get away with it AGAIN, unless they can get the attention of the press/politicians/Justice-Dept. Protests are the ONLY way they can do that successfully.
So less than 100 punks rioted for fun & profit out of a city black population of 404,000. But that's all you can see because that's all you want to see, you've made up your mind them niggers is no good.
"...It was terrifying - and was exhilirating..."
Great expression ! Next time you need to invite all of us too.
Ha! I leave such hi-jinks to the childer.
The idea of being in that situation now scares me. I am left somewhat shaking my head in bemusement at my younger self . I remember me and J running along the outer edge of the poll tax demo, trying to get to the front where the demo met the police. Saw several people coming the other way, back from what had turned into a frontline battle, with headwounds - some lay on the grass verge being tended to by first aiders.
We kept running along the sides, pushing past to get to the action. What the fuck was going on in my head?
It's all very different when you're 18 and immortal.
Here's a list of some of the other 89 people the cops killed this MONTH.
I'm sure some must have been justified.
Update:
This list says 101 for April.
"Whatever the apparent cause of any riots may be, the real one is always want of happiness. It shows that something is wrong in the system of government that injures the felicity by which society is to be preserved." Thomas Paine
[YOUTUBE]Wwy7pWvO3p0[/YOUTUBE]
Freddie Gray death ruled homicide; officers charged
CNN - Michael Pearson, Steve Almasy and Ben Brumfield, CNN
Updated 8:16 PM ET, Fri May 1, 2015
Sure didn't see that coming... at all, or so quickly !
:jail:
...
I wonder why black people do not riot when Boko Harem kidnaps 100 or so black children.
...
Maybe it just takes time, resources, and authority...
Nigerian military: 234 more females rescued from Boko Haram
Associated Press | May 2, 2015
Nigeria's military rescued 234 more girls and women from a Boko Haram forest
stronghold in the country's northeast, an announcement on social media said Saturday.
More than 677 females have been declared rescued this week.
[ATTACH]51341[/ATTACH]
Freddie Gray death ruled homicide; officers charged
CNN - Michael Pearson, Steve Almasy and Ben Brumfield, CNN
Updated 8:16 PM ET, Fri May 1, 2015
Sure didn't see that coming... at all, or so quickly !
The press and the Baltimore Police Union are trying to discredit these indictments as "Rush to Justice".
But the State's Attorney has publicly discussed her independent use
of State Police investigators (separate from the Baltimore Police Dept)
starting the day after the death of Freddie Gray, and that she waited
for the Baltimore Police Dept and the Pathologist's reports before
issuing the indictments.
So, her indictments are independent- and time-separated
from whatever went on during the city's investigations and report.
Certainly she was elected recently by significant support from the Black community.
But she has the credibility to completely turn around what was a riot/demonstration
against the Baltimore police into peaceful and welcome community supported demonstration.
And here they are.
But but but half of them are black!
That's why I've been saying, the problem is not white, the problem is not black, the problem is BLUE.
... That's why I've been saying, the problem is not white, the problem is not black, the problem is BLUE.
That seems a little too black & white.
That's why I've been saying, the problem is not white, the problem is not black, the problem is BLUE.
Racism was never about (limited to) color of skin. Racism has always been about judging someone only on a first impression.
Those people should never have judged the police officers involved on only their first impression. They should have waited for the facts to emerge as the State's Attorney did.
They should have waited for the facts to emerge as the State's Attorney did.
That completely ignored the research. An NPR reporter participated in tests. He discovered he was quickest to draw and fire his weapon on a young black man. More interesting is that NPR reporter is black.
Emotion in a human brain creates that attitude. We can speculate why without facts. Some here will do that. Relevant is why all colors are quicker to assume a black man is a greater threat. That requires research and training. But it demonstrates what racism really is: judgement only on first impressions. Making a decision based in emotions and not on actual facts.
... Racism has always been about judging someone only on a first impression. ...
... But it demonstrates what racism really is: judgement only on first impressions. ...
There's an echo in this thread.
... Relevant is why all colors are quicker to assume a black man is a greater threat. ...
That's an easy one based entirely on factual information and the logical processing of that information into useful intelligence. Someday I'll have to explain the process to you in a way that you can understand; but, that's for another thread.
Someday I'll have to explain the process to you in a way that you can understand; but, that's for another thread.
Racism is not posting when one does not know and has nothing to say. What extremist would post anyway?
... But it demonstrates what racism really is: judgement only on first impressions. ...
Racism is not posting when one does not know and has nothing to say. ...
Awwww, there you go changing the definitions of words again. You do that when someone else has facts that you don't have. You just deny the existence of any facts that you're not aware of. It's one of your challenges. Most moderates don't have that problem; but, whacko moderates do. I'm so sorry.
[COLOR="Silver"]*Note to self: don't upset tw by inferring future knowledge.*[/COLOR]
This study seems destined to have a big impact on social policies at the federal level in the future.
Baltimore is mentioned at several places in this article, at the bottom of the heap across the country.
An Atlas of Upward Mobility Shows Paths Out of Poverty
NY Times - David Leonhardt, Amanda Cox and Claire Cain Miller - MAY 4, 2015
In the wake of the Los Angeles riots more than 20 years ago,
Congress created an anti-poverty experiment called Moving to Opportunity.
It gave vouchers to help poor families move to better neighborhoods and
awarded them on a random basis, so researchers could study the effects.
The results were deeply disappointing. Parents who received the vouchers
did not seem to earn more in later years than otherwise similar adults,
and children did not seem to do better in school.
The program’s apparent failure has haunted social scientists and policy makers,
making poverty seem all the more intractable.
Now, however, a large new study is about to overturn the findings of Moving to Opportunity.
Based on the earnings records of millions of families that moved with children,
it finds that poor children who grow up in some cities and towns have sharply better odds
of escaping poverty than similar poor children elsewhere.
One of the expected changes has to do with giving families with small children
a higher priority on waiting lists for housing in better communities, which
is the exact opposite of the current policy.
I think the person who, in the past, was allowed to kill African Americans with no consequence...just for talkin' to a white woman... would have to be MUCH older than the police officers in question in this timely debate. Just sayin'
Hey, where are da white wimman at? :lol:
This is institutional bias. It has no age.
Imagine how you would feel if instead of killing a black man with no consequences, it was raping his wife with no consequences.
Da white wimmin are in the suburbs, being protected by the cops. ;)
It gave vouchers to help poor families move to better neighborhoods and awarded them on a random basis...
...
Based on the earnings records of millions of families that moved with children,
One was random, the other was not. Culture, both at the family level and above, trumps everything. If you have parents who deeply want for their children to succeed, then even small improvements can be utilized by them to good effect. For parents who suck in general, no amount of free stuff is going to make them better parents. The second study doesn't trump the first, it complements and to a certain degree corroborates it.
That 1-day riot got somebody's attention... maybe more than just 1 somebody.
Baltimore asks Justice Department to investigate police practices
Reuters - Ian Simpson - 5/6/15
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake asked the U.S. Justice Department on Wednesday
to investigate the city's police department for civil rights violations after the death of a black man
from injuries sustained in police custody.
Attorney General Loretta Lynch is considering Rawlings-Blake's request, the Justice Department said.
Lynch met the mayor, police officials and community leaders on Tuesday
Last October, officials in Baltimore asked the Justice Department to begin an informal collaborative review
of the city's police department after the Baltimore Sun reported that Baltimore had paid almost $6 million
since 2011 to settle lawsuits alleging police brutality and other misconduct
…
The investigation will look into police practices such as frisks, street stops of suspects and arrests
to see if they violate the U.S. Constitution, Rawlings-Blake said at a news conference.
The mayor said the city would seek to have its 3,200-member police department
equipped with body cameras by the end of the year.
Advocates see cameras as a way to monitor police encounters with civilians.
That 1-day riot got somebody's attention... maybe more than just 1 somebody.
Why did this request not exist last week? Were they waiting for emotions to cool? Or did not take that long to digest the previous report that indicted six cops?
Why did this request not exist last week?
Were they waiting for emotions to cool?
Or did not take that long to digest the previous report that indicted six cops?
IMO:
Cooling emotions ? No
Digesting indictment ? No
The request came out of the interplay of laws and politics of city/state/federal systems.
This request to the federal Dept of Justice is from the Mayor of Baltimore.
She had previously (when she first became Mayor) requested the Feds
to do a "collaborative" review of the City's Police Dept. ... before the riot.
... "collaborative" meaning the Mayor and Feds working together.
The Mayor came under fire from the Governor, for not "declaring
an emergency" before "the riot"
The Governor was eager to call up the National Guard, and had set it
in motion well before the first "peaceful" demonstrations.
Due to Maryland's "Home Rule" laws, the Governor could not send
in the National Guard until formally requested by the Mayor.
The Police Dept was keeping their "findings" secret, even from the Mayor)
for the week following "the riot", and then turned them directly over to the State.
I think the Mayor was by-passed in this, but that may just be
my own personal interpretation of events reported in the press.
During that time, the Governor made several public statements
laying the groundwork for removing the Mayor from office.
The indictments of 6 police officers were based on the independent findings
by the State Attorney and State Police investigators which
had been on-going since the day after Freddy Gray's death.
IMO, the Mayor just responded to the State Attorney's indictment of the 6 officers
to request the full investigation of the fed's Dept of Justice.
So basically, the events are a reflection of time-lines at the various levels of government.
This article is almost a hour-by-hour description of what reporters
of the Washington Post learned about the day of the Baltimore riot.
I feel the Mayor Rawlings-Blake comes off as relatively calm and methodical in her preparations,
while the Governor Hogan is seen as impatient and frustrated, and in the end turned to political remarks.
But you should read the entire article for yourself…
In the crucial hours before Guard arrived, a communication breakdown
Washington Post - Paul Schwartzman, Ovetta Wiggins and Cheryl W. Thompson - May 10, 2015
As Baltimore was consumed with its worst outburst of unrest since 1968, Hogan, a white Republican,
and Rawlings-Blake, a black Democrat, found themselves forced into an unlikely partnership.
With the city unraveling, frustration between the two leaders was building,
according to interviews with advisers from both sides.
The governor felt the mayor was uncommunicative and slow to act.
Rawlings-Blake bristled over Hogan’s gibes, which she saw as evidence
of his inexperience as a recently elected governor.
The tension between them was exacerbated by their differing approaches:
Hogan hoped to defer to the mayor, mindful of how it would appear if he swept
into Baltimore without her invitation. But he also was concerned about widespread mayhem
and eager to send in the National Guard — if that was the quickest way to quell it.
Rawlings-Blake, for her part, was trying to calculate the least incendiary way
to restore order and ensure that her administration was prepared.
<snip>
Visit Beautiful Baltimore!!
[YOUTUBEWIDE]TepT0Ttwz7M[/YOUTUBEWIDE]
I have a close connection to Baltimore. Go every two years, have friends in Baltimore fire ... I was there two weeks after the riots. The city is recovering. It was weird and scary seeing places I loved being torn apart.
Sent from my SAMSUNG-SGH-I337 using Tapatalk