Baltimore Rioting, Looting OK According to Mayor

[Turtle]

Democrats have controlled Baltimore for decades. Implementing Democratic policies and ideas for decades.
Republican and conservative ideas that would likely improve things for their citizens, mostly shut out of the process. Elections have consequences, sadly.

Yeah. What's going on in Baltimore is all about Democrats versus Republicans.

 

[Ragman]

I'm going to assume you're being facetious and that you don't actually believe any of that.

As an example, the riots that were sparked by the Parliament's 1773 adoption of the Tax Act resulted in full-blown revolution and eventual American Independence.
(cue the flag, cue the music,
Mine eyes have seen the glory
of the coming of the Lord...)

I think in the above "revolt" would be a better term than "riot".

 

[Ragman]

Democrats have controlled Baltimore for decades. Implementing Democratic policies and ideas for decades.
Republican and conservative ideas that would likely improve things for their citizens, mostly shut out of the process. Elections have consequences, sadly.

Do you really believe this is a Dem v Rep thing? That is really really sad.

 

[paullud]

The chicken or the egg? Someone who is always a likely target of police (you know, young, male, black) is gonna constantly be in trouble.

That's not true. My neighbors could be a target of police and not be in trouble once.

 

[paullud]

The same reason they're talking about "where are the parents of these rioters?" It's a misdirection. When you're in the custody of the state, the state has a responsibility for your health and well being. He was arrested, according to the police report, "without force or incident." They put him into a transport vehicle, and a few minutes later he developed a partially severed spinal cord, a crushed larynx, and broken ribs. Better to talk about rioter's parents and what the guy was charged with after he was arrested.

The topic of the post is the riots so people are staying on topic and discussing that issue. We have information on the riots but little to talk about as far as the death goes because there is an ongoing investigation. We know that this guy was killed in police custody and that they didn't provide proper medical care. There really isn't anything else to discuss or debate at this point unless we want to get all worked up emotionally and come up with wild speculations about what happened. Maybe it was a CIA cover-up because he wasn't selling drugs, which we all know they use to control the people and they couldn't frame him before with the previous charges so he had to be eliminated?

 

[Turtle]

I think in the above "revolt" would be a better term than "riot".

That's because you ,as a descendant and/or benefactor of the rioters, need to feel better about the rioting, and thus prefer the more noble revolt. How about Independence engineer?

A revolt is to break away from or rebel against something. A revolt is generally a rather passive action. Even as a verb it's merely a spirited protest. Destroying property and assaulting mariners with tar and feathers, in an uncoordinated and uncontrolled manner, is a riot.

 

[Turtle]

That's not true. My neighbors could be a target of police and not be in trouble once.

I didn't say "could be." I said "always likely to be." There's a difference. A big difference.

 

[paullud]

I didn't say "could be." I said "always likely to be." There's a difference. A big difference.

I said could be. My neighbor could be targeted and stopped every day and never have a single issue. Your phrasing doesn't change my point.

 

[aristotle]

I'm going to assume you're being facetious and that you don't actually believe any of that.

As an example, the riots that were sparked by the Parliament's 1773 adoption of the Tax Act resulted in full-blown revolution and eventual American Independence.
(cue the flag, cue the music,
Mine eyes have seen the glory
of the coming of the Lord...)

Not only do good things come from rioting, but rioting is actually economically efficient. As with any cost of goods, punishing bad behavior increases the costs of engaging in such behavior and thereby reduces the amount of it. This is the underlying theory of most criminal justice schemes, and why the initial knee-jerk reaction to rioting, because many people think, as you said "rioting is criminal behavior." But such an "answer" doesn't actually work in punishing rioting. If it did, people wouldn't riot. So punishing rioting doesn't work, yet rioting punishes exactly what the rioting is in response to. Rioting that occurs in response to gross police misconduct and criminal system abuses imposes costs on doing those things. It signals to police authorities that they risk this sort of destructive mayhem if they continue on like this. Punishing rioting doesn't deter rioting, but rioting is a deterrent to the abuses. All else equal, this should reduce the amount of police misconduct as criminal justice authorities take precautions to prevent the next big riot. And if police misconduct and other injustices are reduced, it absolutely reduces rioting.

Riots are good for democracy. Riots are complex, uncoordinated crowd activities, and no one defends every criminal act committed by every rioter. Even in riots motivated by egalitarian and democratic aspirations, individuals often indulge in indefensible attacks on bystanders. We should and do reject the wrongdoings in riots, as we do in other contexts, but we cannot make the mistake of letting the wrongdoings divert and deflect or obscure the fact that outbreaks of determined public defiance can often shift the balance of power between ruling elites and the working-class and poor people that they exploit and oppress. People long dismissed by the powerful suddenly become impossible to ignore or dismiss, once their insistence on being heard finds expression in confrontations with the legal order and its police.

In the aftermath of riots, authorities often set up "commissions" designed to defuse the tension and redress problems. Initiatives are announced, programs are launched. Usually, of course, these do little to advance the public interest, and we rightly view these stratagems with a cynical eye as they come off mostly as lip service. Yet, regardless of their effectiveness, they tell us something important: grievances long ignored now have to be taken into account; that a strategy is now needed to undermine the new boldness of those no longer content to suffer in silence.

It is the very boldness of rioting that serves democracy. The defiance of the riot puts the powerful on the defensive and creates an opening for other, more constructive forms of organizing to take root. To turn the tide against injustice, we need movements that are relentless, escalating and with a broadening base of participation. Riots are no substitute for this effort. But, to the extent that they enable the silenced, ignored and oppressed to find their voice, rioting is an important part of democratic politics. It's a healthy dose of plant food for the Tree of Liberty.

Wow! This kind of thinking would have inspired Saul Alinsky. His book, "Rules For Radicals" is a real eye-opener.

A society interested in self-preservation will not indulge rioting. 99.999999% of Americans aren't rioting because it is an emotional and irrational phenomena. Sort of like a child throwing a tantrum in a public venue. We could have extended conversations about social wrongs and solutions, but that would be a topic for a different thread.

 

[Turtle]

I said could be. My neighbor could be targeted and stopped every day and never have a single issue. Your phrasing doesn't change my point.

Well, your point was "That's not true." Then you created a new context to prove that what I said, in another different context, was not true. That's known as a straw man argument. My phrasing is entirely different than your phrasing. Everyone in this country COULD BE targeted and stopped every day, but they aren't as likely to be targeted and stopped nearly as often as someone who is LIKELY TO BE targeted and stopped every day. Can you not see the difference there? Or is this really more about you being able to tell me that I'm wrong about something?

 

[Turtle]

Wow! This kind of thinking would have inspired Saul Alinsky. His book, "Rules For Radicals" is a real eye-opener.

It's not really as much of a "kind of thinking" as it is an observation of historical events and effects of those events.

A society interested in self-preservation will not indulge rioting.

And yet in almost every case, it's societies that are the most desperate to survive that resort to rioting because they have no other options left to obtain the justice they have been denied.

99.999999% of Americans aren't rioting because it is an emotional and irrational phenomena.

I'm not sure of the exact percentage, but I'll go with yours for simplicity's sake. 99.999999% aren't rioting because they haven't experience systemic injustice and oppression to the point where they feel like there are no other options left to them. Everything we do within society is emotional, from voting to writing letters to Congressmen. As for rioting being irrational (as in not logical or reasonable), nothing could be further from reality. Besides having the voices of people be heard who have been previously ignored and dismissed, rioting usually results in certain outcomes, as I've previously noted. When you do something in order to garner an expected outcome, that's a very rational act. People around the country saw the DOJ report of the Ferguson Police Department and the recommended solutions, and people who have experienced similar treatment from their own police see rioting as a way to have the DOJ scrutinize their own police department, or as a way to get their own police department to alter their behavior in order to avoid either a riot or a federal investigation or both.

We could have extended conversations about social wrongs and solutions, but that would be a topic for a different thread.

I would enjoy that.

 

[muttly]

Do you really believe this is a Dem v Rep thing? That is really really sad.

Failed liberal policies mostly.

 

[Mdbtyhtr]

Turtle, I do not condone the death of anyone in police custody, period. That said, I am also intimately aware if the Maryland Criminal Justice system as both a Bail Bondsman and a licensed Private Investigator with a specialty in criminal defense investigations. Your assumption that the judiciary 's inability to reach a guilty verdict on any of the defendant's previous charges is incorrect. While the record us what it is, it reflects the liberalization of the judiciary in MD and a paradigm shift away from a crime/punishment model. The result is often alternative means of justice based on reformation of the person, and apparently this individual did not receive the message. Lastly, once a person has a felony conviction, and lives in an impoverished neighborhood, there us not much else for them to do but survive through nefarious means.

 

[paullud]

Well, your point was "That's not true." Then you created a new context to prove that what I said, in another different context, was not true. That's known as a straw man argument. My phrasing is entirely different than your phrasing. Everyone in this country COULD BE targeted and stopped every day, but they aren't as likely to be targeted and stopped nearly as often as someone who is LIKELY TO BE targeted and stopped every day. Can you not see the difference there? Or is this really more about you being able to tell me that I'm wrong about something?

You keep focusing on likely to be vs could be and trying to argue that point which has nothing to do with what I said. Again, your phrasing there doesn't change my point. If my neighbor is stopped every day and thoroughly searched based on race he will not constantly be in trouble as you stated. He won't constantly be in trouble because he isn't constantly involved in criminal activity or ever involved in it. Now criminals that get targeted for any reason whether it be because they are black or because it's a white guy in a black neighborhood are going to have problems.

 

[Turtle]

Turtle, I do not condone the death of anyone in police custody, period. That said, I am also intimately aware if the Maryland Criminal Justice system as both a Bail Bondsman and a licensed Private Investigator with a specialty in criminal defense investigations. Your assumption that the judiciary 's inability to reach a guilty verdict on any of the defendant's previous charges is incorrect. While the record us what it is, it reflects the liberalization of the judiciary in MD and a paradigm shift away from a crime/punishment model. The result is often alternative means of justice based on reformation of the person, and apparently this individual did not receive the message. Lastly, once a person has a felony conviction, and lives in an impoverished neighborhood, there us not much else for them to do but survive through nefarious means.

Yes, I'm aware of all that. My point was, if this guy was as evil as some are trying to make him out to be, he would have been convicted of anything and everything they could throw at him. Instead, they chose not to make an example out of a small-time drug dealer because he was so small time it wasn't really worth it. My comment was also a commentary of the ridiculousness of the war on drugs.

 

[Pilgrim]

I'm going to assume you're being facetious and that you don't actually believe any of that.

As an example, the riots that were sparked by the Parliament's 1773 adoption of the Tax Act resulted in full-blown revolution and eventual American Independence.
(cue the flag, cue the music,
Mine eyes have seen the glory
of the coming of the Lord...)

Not only do good things come from rioting, but rioting is actually economically efficient. As with any cost of goods, punishing bad behavior increases the costs of engaging in such behavior and thereby reduces the amount of it. This is the underlying theory of most criminal justice schemes, and why the initial knee-jerk reaction to rioting, because many people think, as you said "rioting is criminal behavior." But such an "answer" doesn't actually work in punishing rioting. If it did, people wouldn't riot. So punishing rioting doesn't work, yet rioting punishes exactly what the rioting is in response to. Rioting that occurs in response to gross police misconduct and criminal system abuses imposes costs on doing those things. It signals to police authorities that they risk this sort of destructive mayhem if they continue on like this. Punishing rioting doesn't deter rioting, but rioting is a deterrent to the abuses. All else equal, this should reduce the amount of police misconduct as criminal justice authorities take precautions to prevent the next big riot. And if police misconduct and other injustices are reduced, it absolutely reduces rioting.

Riots are good for democracy. Riots are complex, uncoordinated crowd activities, and no one defends every criminal act committed by every rioter. Even in riots motivated by egalitarian and democratic aspirations, individuals often indulge in indefensible attacks on bystanders. We should and do reject the wrongdoings in riots, as we do in other contexts, but we cannot make the mistake of letting the wrongdoings divert and deflect or obscure the fact that outbreaks of determined public defiance can often shift the balance of power between ruling elites and the working-class and poor people that they exploit and oppress. People long dismissed by the powerful suddenly become impossible to ignore or dismiss, once their insistence on being heard finds expression in confrontations with the legal order and its police.

In the aftermath of riots, authorities often set up "commissions" designed to defuse the tension and redress problems. Initiatives are announced, programs are launched. Usually, of course, these do little to advance the public interest, and we rightly view these stratagems with a cynical eye as they come off mostly as lip service. Yet, regardless of their effectiveness, they tell us something important: grievances long ignored now have to be taken into account; that a strategy is now needed to undermine the new boldness of those no longer content to suffer in silence.

It is the very boldness of rioting that serves democracy. The defiance of the riot puts the powerful on the defensive and creates an opening for other, more constructive forms of organizing to take root. To turn the tide against injustice, we need movements that are relentless, escalating and with a broadening base of participation. Riots are no substitute for this effort. But, to the extent that they enable the silenced, ignored and oppressed to find their voice, rioting is an important part of democratic politics. It's a healthy dose of plant food for the Tree of Liberty.

You must be confused by the terms "riot" and "protest", or perhaps "peaceable assembly". Unruly mobs of thugs and criminals stealing and destroying the property of people and businesses who benefit them and their community is nothing more than anarchy and/or domestic terrorism. Their violence and destruction is not directed at those who might have wronged them, but inflicts damage upon and violates the rights of others who are nothing more than innocent bystanders and neighbors. Keep in mind that these rioters/criminals are not "silenced, ignored and oppressed", but have for many years enjoyed the benefits of a democracy - not the least of which is their right to vote and choose their community leaders including the doltish mayor who in turn gave them "space" to destroy the property of others (whose rights, by the way were ignored).

In reality these people have no substantial grievances at this point because the legal system is in the process of sorting out the justice that the victim and his family deserve. An investigation is progressing, policemen have been suspended and no doubt the case will go to a grand jury which will likely result in prosecutions. We and they won't know whether justice has been served until the process plays itself out and the end result is known.

The bottom line is that "riots" like these in Baltimore are NOT "good for democracy", but only lead to anarchy and lawlessness which are incompatible with democracy and a civilized society. The mayor of Baltimore and the Gov. of MD have miserably failed their city and state due to their incompetence and indecisiveness that let this situation get out of control. They should have mobilized the full strength of the police and the National Guard at the outset, so this unrest could have perhaps been confined to a protest and not allowed to develop into a full-blown riot. They should have also been aware of the influence of outside agitators whose singular goal is looting and burning. Nothing good comes from rioting, except perhaps the exposure of the incompetence of the leaders elected by the rioters themselves - and their victims. Maybe the city at large will keep this in mind when Stephanie Rawlings-Blake comes up for re-election.

 

[Turtle]

You keep focusing on likely to be vs could be and trying to argue that point which has nothing to do with what I said. Again, your phrasing there doesn't change my point. If my neighbor is stopped every day and thoroughly searched based on race he will not constantly be in trouble as you stated. He won't constantly be in trouble because he isn't constantly involved in criminal activity or ever involved in it. Now criminals that get targeted for any reason whether it be because they are black or because it's a white guy in a black neighborhood are going to have problems.

I keep focusing on it because my phrasing is the key to my point. You changed the phrasing, and thus the context, to show that my statement is "not true." My statement wasn't even a statement. It was part of a question and was a posit, put forth as the basis for discussion.

Dave said, "A known person who constantly gets in trouble is always a likely target of police."

Let's turn that around and look at it from the other angle, I say. I posited whether that was a chicken or egg thing, meaning as to whether a person who gets in trouble a lot is always a target of the police, or is he always in trouble because he's become a likely target of the police.

You said that isn't true, because you have a neighbor that wouldn't get in trouble even though he could be stopped. Well, OK. But we're not talking about someone who COULD BE targeted and stopped by the police, we're talking about someone who ACTUALLY IS more likely to be targeted and stopped.

Incidentally, does your neighbor play golf?

 

[Turtle]

You must be confused by the terms "riot" and "protest", or perhaps "peaceable assembly".

I assure you I'm not.

 

[paullud]

I keep focusing on it because my phrasing is the key to my point. You changed the phrasing, and thus the context, to show that my statement is "not true." My statement wasn't even a statement. It was part of a question and was a posit, put forth as the basis for discussion.

Dave said, "A known person who constantly gets in trouble is always a likely target of police."

Let's turn that around and look at it from the other angle, I say. I posited whether that was a chicken or egg thing, meaning as to whether a person who gets in trouble a lot is always a target of the police, or is he always in trouble because he's become a likely target of the police.

You said that isn't true, because you have a neighbor that wouldn't get in trouble even though he could be stopped. Well, OK. But we're not talking about someone who COULD BE targeted and stopped by the police, we're talking about someone who ACTUALLY IS more likely to be targeted and stopped.

That still doesn't change anything. He could be a target of police but not have drugs or anything illegal on him and he isn't going to constantly be in trouble. He was constantly in trouble because he was constantly doing illegal things. Did he deserve to be killed? Absolutely not and I don't think anyone here has said that.
There is no chicken and egg question here because the reason he was in trouble was because he did illegal things. The stupidity of the war an drugs which seemed to be the source of most of his troubles and whether or not he should have been in trouble for it is another issue.

 

[Turtle]

That still doesn't change anything. He could be a target of police but not have drugs or anything illegal on him and he isn't going to constantly be in trouble. He was constantly in trouble because he was constantly doing illegal things. Did he deserve to be killed? Absolutely not and I don't think anyone here has said that.
There is no chicken and egg question here because the reason he was in trouble was because he did illegal things. The stupidity of the war an drugs which seemed to be the source of most of his troubles and whether or not he should have been in trouble for it is another issue.

Got it. The police never invent charges. Like the police in Ferguson who stopped citizens and trumped up charges to rake in revenue for city coffers. The citizens weren't doing anything illegal, tho.