Baltimore

[Ike Bana]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Your last sentence seems to be an effort to trivialize these riots and to cast the reasons behind them in a negative light.

Same old, same old right wing position that it's criminals not angry protesters doing the looting and burning. It would be helpful if some accurate determination of this might be made. Highly unlikely though...mostly due to political agendas on all sides of these things.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Cute.

1. Mistreat people. [Officers placed in danger]
1A. Officers respond appropriately.
2. People riot due to entitlement.
3. Correctly claim mistreatment justified by riot.

Then the law breaking public shouldn't mistreat officers: see above, fixed for you.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Ike Bana

Same old, same old right wing position that it's criminals not angry protesters doing the looting and burning. It would be helpful if some accurate determination of this might be made. Highly unlikely though...mostly due to political agendas on all sides of these things.

Angry protesters that loot and burn ARE "criminals."

Fuck'em. Iron fist time.

[matteos]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Cute.

1. Mistreat people.
2. People riot.
3. Claim mistreatment justified by riot.

Yes, completely invalid logic. In order for it to work, these are the premises

1.People riot
2. Mistreat people.
conclusion
3. Claim mistreatment justified by riot.

But it never kicks off with a riot does it? The riot is always a response.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Your last sentence seems to be an effort to trivialize these riots and to cast the reasons behind them in a negative light. I was in both Washington and Baltimore performing riot duty during the MLK riots. I can assure you that the reasons behind them were anything but trivial.

I was thinking 1861 when writing that sentence.

Remember the looting that went on during the 78/79 winter when a blizzard shut things down?

[Oerets]

Mix:

Lack of adequate funding and proper education. Allowing the feeling of little solutions or voices being heard. Not a part of the society as a whole.
Lack of Jobs, or many options. No upward moment.
Over zealous enforcement on the community by a PD known for brutally. With little recourse.
Lack of answers by the city administration.
Then add,
Recent events across the country.
Outside forces.
News cameras and sound bites by talking heads.

All add up to a sense of frustration by a community, and now we surprised at this?

I'm not!



Barney

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by Zeke

Then the law breaking public shouldn't mistreat officers: see above, fixed for you.

Originally Posted by Zeke

Angry protesters that loot and burn ARE "criminals."

Fuck'em. Iron fist time.

Zeke, all the recent documentation of police abuses/murders has removed the last shreds of credibility from cops, ex-cops and their other apologists. Why do you even bother?

[Tom Joad]

I don't blame the rioters one damn bit.

Poor black people In America are and have been living under a Police State for a long time. And recent history has shown us all that peaceful protests and four bucks will get you a Latte at Starbucks and not much else.

But later Monday, another native son of Baltimore, the Atlantic's Ta-Nehisi Coates, wrote a persuasive response to anyone who calls for protesters to be "nonviolent" without connecting it directly to the death of Gray or the allegations of brutality against other African-American residents by Baltimore police officers. The post is worth reading in full, because Coates is one of America's best living social critics. But this paragraph in particular, while it's not an explicit response to Simon, is certainly a persuasive response to arguments like Simon's:

The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted ("The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.") There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green ("Bitch, you ain’t no better than any of the other old black bitches I have locked up.") There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. ("They slammed me down on my face," Brown added, her voice cracking. "The skin was gone on my face. ...")

more

[Boreas]

Originally Posted by nailer

I was thinking 1860 when writing that sentence.

It's statements like that which prevent any of us taking anything you say with any shred of seriousness.

Remember the looting that went on during the 78/79 winter when a blizzard shut things down?

What does this have to do with either 1968 or 2015?

Okay, I'll answer. All three events involve a small number of people taking advantage of a breakdown in civic order to steal.

Now, the difference, of course, is that there was no overarching event(s) that galvanized a community in a spirit of outrage and protest.

Again, your effort to trivialize and demean these instances of justifiable civic outrage by comparing them to an instance of pure criminality reveals a rather ugly and biased attitude.

I know you're from Baltimore but I have to think that Texas is where you belong.

[Zeke]

Originally Posted by Boreas

Zeke, all the recent documentation of police abuses/murders has removed the last shreds of credibility from cops, ex-cops and their other apologists. Why do you even bother?

"All?"

Oh, please. Got any convictions?

1. Don't place an officer's life in potential danger?
2. Don't receive appropriate force.

Simple answer.

And the barbarism in Baltimore indicates precisely why such things are codified and protected under law.

The rioters are evil and will be subdued using whatever means required.