I doubt it will sink in, but if the police received a threat that there was going to be violence, it is their duty as sworn officers to do what is necessary to prevent violence on person and property. Seriously, you think detaining kids due to a credible threat is somehow provoking them to commit violence and excuses their behavior of physical violence? Whatever actions the police took , it was to protect the kids, the property in their path, and for the officers themselves.
Nope. They didn't cause the riot. They received a credible threat of violence and is their duty to protect.
Since you know they are going to riot that day regardless, I'll ask you again, why do you think they were rioting? What were the factors that led to it? People don't riot for no reason.
This is true, but none the less, his report was a blatent lie.
That's a stretch.
Many rioted because they saw the opportunity to riot. When their mayor says we give rioters space to destroy, it signals to many of them the opportunity to do just that.
Well, the mayor never said that. She said "we gave" not "we give." Her statement was past tense, after the fact, and therefore could not have been a signal to the rioters. Since you're all about context and full quotes, I offer this link which contains both, knowing full well that after reading it you will come away with whatever you want, anyway.
You should probably do some earnest research on that one, as you are incorrect on that.
Have you seen the pictures and the videos of police officers throwing bricks and rocks at protesters? While Baltimore police Capt. Eric Kowalczyk stated that police would deploy traditional riot-dispersing tools such as "see tear gas, you're gonna see pepper balls," he had no response to a request for comment about the photos and videos of officers throwing projectiles.
Smooth that you got the anti-Obama dig in there. Excellent job. That's almost as good as liberals blaming Bush for everything. But everything you describe, including the long debunked "culture" can be found in every major city in the country, yet those cities aren't rioting. There must be more to it than failed liberal policies, Obama, culture, opportunity and peer pressure as to why they rioted.
People always say facts are irrelevant when they don't like them, or they have a feeling the facts they're about to be giving won't support what they already believe. If bricks are so important to this circumstance, even to the point of be categorized as the context of a prosecutor statement, and if they can be called lethal weapons, then bricks must have some sort of lethal history with regard to riots. Except they don't.
Not to a police officer in full riot gear.
So they don't have to shoot them with real bullets when they threaten officers? Interesting that they don't want to shoot them with real bullets when threatened during a riot, but real bullets aren't a problem with it's a tard in a doorway fiddling with a screwdriver or someone standing less than 21 feet away with a knife. Police officers are pretty Quick Draw McGraw in seemingly every situation where police officers feel threatened (which is all of the time), except during rioting. So, why is it, do you think, that police officers don't shoot rioters with real bullets who are assaulting police officers? The police are being assaulted with bricks and other projectiles which are obviously dangerous enough to cause serious injury or death. Not shooting them doesn't make any sense, as the Detroit prosecutor (and our own Pilgrim) suggests.
I wouldn't call it a blatant lie, but it certainly wasn't an honest mistake, either. It was breathtakingly amateurish journalism in an effort to claim a scoop. It was recklessly reporting potentially incendiary events without even attempting to obtain confirmation.
Lol. Since the mayor said they gave room to destroy, a logical rioter (oxymoron ) would assume they would do it again, and shazam, that's exactly what they did. The police stood down and let them riot and loot.
If you have an alternate strategy I'm sure we'd all like to hear how you would diffuse a situation that threatens you with immediate and severe bodily harm. Maybe you'd ask the thug(s) about their home life or ask them to discuss their grievances.
In reality it appears you're full of your cartoon content.
LOL shazam that's not what they did at all. The police didn't stand down, they made arrests and tried to control the rioting crowd as best they could.
No you didn't. You saw officers in full riot gear with loaded weapons and holding shields throwing rocks at rioters. If they were doing that in self-defense, they are the most butt-stoopid cops ever.
Yes. Yes. They were vastly outnumbered. No one was killed by a brick.
People have been rioting for centuries, mostly for the same reasons, not one of which is Obama.
Actually they do. So does common sense. If you are abused, or bullied, or merely pestered repeatedly, it doesn't breed love and affection or respect for the abuser/bully/pesterer.
That's a statement which ignores that there are more than five times more whites than blacks in America. When comparing death rates, blacks are about three times more likely than whites to die in a confrontation with police.
That's another myth that the parroters won't let go.
Yeah, I know what you mean, it would be a lot more comfortable if the media would just shut up about these black shooting victims.
You complain about disparity in reporting because it alters perceptions, and then the last sentence affirms those perceptions. Yes, race is almost always identified in the news when there's a black suspect who is shot by a white officer. That's what happens when all too often the shooting never should have happened, and the cop is never charged with anything, because the "I feared for my life" card gets played and the first official word from the police is "it was justified." Even in the North Charleston shooting, the officer reported over the radio and on his written report that the dead guy went for his taser, the police immediately stated it was a justified shooting (because, you know tasers are deadly), and then the video came out that showed the cop shooting the dead guy in the back as he was running away and as the cop ran up to the dead guy the cop tossed his taser down next tot he body. At that point the police narrative became, "Whoops."
No, it's not a silly comparison. Either the life of the officer is threatened or it's not. If the officers didn't shoot because they were wearing riot gear and they were therefor not in a threatening situation, then there's no reason to say that rioters throwing bricks at those officer should be shot. But that's not the reason they didn't shoot.
I think what he's trying to say is, in conversation, particularly abstract hypotheticals, people can talk a good game, but in situations where you actually have to take a life, it's not as easy in the moment as it sounds.If you have an alternate strategy I'm sure we'd all like to hear how you would diffuse a situation that threatens you with immediate and severe bodily harm. Maybe you'd ask the thug(s) about their home life or ask them to discuss their grievances.
