Rioting in Baltimore...

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Karradin,

But the people being hurt by these riots aren't the powerful. Mom and pop groceries burnt? Think CVS has any qualms about closing their burned pharmacy (the only people hurt there are those who are out of jobs). I see your point but I think the target of these rioters are not the "powerful" people but people within their own communtiy who are as vunerable as fhe rioters themselves.

[Rockroi]

I am still trying to find my own voice on this issue, so please bare with me...

It seems like every time a police officer kills an unarmed person, there is a tide of apologists who chime in, “Don’t judge the police; they have the hardest job in the world.”

And it also seems like every time there is rioting of a largely black population, there is a tide of apologists who chime in, “Don’t judge the rioters; they are the victims of racial oppression.”

Well, if that’s the end of it; if that is the limit of our interface with the issue, both sides have to agree on one thing: they have said nothing. If you are going to excuse murder or gross negligence of force merely because those who wield it have a hard "job," then you are justifying the state's right to kill its own citizens. And conversely, if you are going to excuse random violence, destruction of personal property- ie: Mom and Pop stores run by locals- violence against lawful authority, because, at some level, there is racism, then you are condoning some form of anarchy, lawlessness, and violence.

Does rioting change things? I don't know- ask Palestine. How has that worked out for them? Is that what we want here?

Does NOT rioting work? Ask MLK; ask India; ask Mandela's South Africa. Ask women who fought for the franchise from the 1800s to 1919; ask Civil Rights leaders who remember Jim Crow laws.

If you think rioting is the way to go about this, you're doing it wrong.

My point is that change is slow. It takes time; sometimes far too much time. And its not solved by upsetting everyone's lives. But sometimes- its kind of fast, In 2003, Massachusetts became the first and only state to recognize same-sex marriages. At the time, the majority of Americans were against the practice. In 2010, the State of California actually passed a law that said the state would not recognize same-sex unions.

Its 2015; the VAST majority of Americans support same sex marriage and maybe by October it will be the law of the land. That's 12 years; that;s REALLY gosh-darn fast.

Racism is a huge, near-intractable problem, but was it really to blame here? The police commissioner, the mayor and many on the Baltimore City Counsel are all black; the police has a very significant black population. Its not NEARLY as cut-and-dry as Ferguson; its not nearly as good-ol'-boy dysfunctional. Its not so easy to be so outraged. At least not for me.

The grotesque specter of police violence did not begin overnight- I highly recommend the books "Rise of the Warrior Cop" by Radley Balko, which details the extraordinary increase in police violence, police armament and the mobilization of the police NOT against violent criminals, but against non-violent offenders (ie: warrant-jumpers; low-to-medium drug dealers). And that level of police power has NOT been accompanied by a growing level of control by the civilian authorities; in most cases civilian authorities acquiesce to police officers, their union and their commissioner.

The result is the use of force more indiscriminately and more violently against the populous. Now, don't mistake me, sometimes that force is completely justified. But other times? Mr. Garner may have been pedaling illegal cigarettes, but I don't think he should have been killed for it. Mr. Brown may have stolen cigars from a store, but he certainly didn't deserve to be shot. Mr. Gray had a police record that was VERY significant, but that should not have lead to his death. When you arm the police and give them the carte blanche that we have, you INCREASE THE ODDS that that power will be used incorrectly and that people will be hurt and some others will be killed. And sometimes, innocent people will be as well.

Baltimore is burning.

Just as it would be SO EASY to say, "Police have such a tough job," and be done with reason and accountability, so would the same, exact, unpardonable sin be committed if we just throw up a few regurgitated MLK quotes, and say "Racism is to blame."

[awesome possum]

Not a big surprise to see the usual suspects in here trying to hand wave away the issues that caused the protests and instead just try to make it about rioting.

I mean, it's not like the city of Baltimore has paid out millions of dollars to more than 100 cases of civil/constituional rights violations over the last four years

Since 2011, the city has been involved in 102 court judgments and settlements related to allegations of civil rights and constitutional violations such as assault, false arrest and false imprisonment, making payouts that ranged up to $500,000. (The statutory cap can be exceeded when there are multiple claims in a lawsuit, and if there is malice the cap may not apply.) In 43 of the lawsuits, taxpayers paid $30,000 or more. In such settlements, the city and the officers involved do not acknowledge any wrongdoing.

Many of the lawsuits stemmed from the now-disbanded Violent Crimes Impact Section, which used plainclothes officers to target high-crime areas. Officers frequently wrote in charging documents that they feared for their safety and that residents received the injuries when resisting arrest.

Department officials said some officers were exonerated in internal force investigations, even though jurors and the city awarded thousands of dollars to battered residents in those incidents.

For years, leaders in Baltimore’s Police Department, the nation’s eighth-largest, didn’t track or monitor the number of lawsuits filed against each officer. As a result, city officials were unaware that some officers were the target of as many as five lawsuits.

Geez, it's almost like there's a culture of corruption in Baltimore that people are getting sick of, but oh noes some jackass teenagers and gangbangers burned a CVS. Therefore every single person on the street is a piece of shit.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

Am I among "the usual suspects"?

This is not just a CVS. What about the small businesses that were looted and burned? Tough shit?

[awesome possum]

AP,

Am I among "the usual suspects"?

This is not just a CVS. What about the small businesses that were looted and burned? Tough shit?

Unfortunately, Scot, since you seem focused solely on the riots as if that is all that's been going on out there.

And no, it's not tough shit. It's a horrific thing done by stupid, greedy, immature assholes taking advantage of the circumstances to wreak havok under the cover of mass protests. You're not talking about the 10,000 who protested peacefully, you're talking about the few hundred teens and gang bangers as if they're the only ones out there on the streets. And by doing so, yes, you're adding your name to the list of usual suspects.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

AP,

That would be because I support the goals of the peaceful protestors. And, for the record burning 144 cars, 15 buildings, looting 5 businesses, and injuring 15 police officers (6 seriously) is more than a minor incident unworthy of notice. This is a serious break down of order in a large American city. It is newsworthy in its own right.

[Maithanet]

And that's the shitty thing about peaceful protests. If 10,000 people attend a protest an 100 of them become violent and start burning things, then unfortunately you no longer have a peaceful protest. This is further complicated because a lot of the time the people who become violent weren't even part of the protest, but just attach themselves to it because they want to break things.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Maithenet,

Yup. It is sad and shouldn't reflect on the vast majority protesting peacefully.

[TerraPrime]

First, as with most civil unrests with looting, it is not at all clear at this point that the looters are/were part of the protest. They very well might be non-Baltimore people coming in for their own gains. So this means that imputing intent or strategy regarding the social justice issue to the participants in the civil unrest is problematic at best.

Second, it is important to keep in mind that most of us expressing sympathy for the protesters agree violence and damage to people who are not directly responsible for the death of Gray, and to be sure, even if it were directed at those immediately responsible, do not think that such violence is a "good idea" or even "okay." Saying we understand their anger, and we validate that anger, doesn't mean condoning violence.

But I would like to unpack that second point a bit further, too, about innocence and culpability on the issue of systemic corruption and entrenched racism. It is... disheartening? Phony? Disingenuous? to ask that people come under one flag and one pledge (see the pledge of allegiance discussion earlier) and take shared pride in the achievement of the entire country, assuming that the achievement of some reflects on us all, while we distance ourselves from the collective responsibility of our society in areas when justice and equality breaks down for some. Are we, or are we not, one nation, with shared responsibilities to each other? Are we only one nation when it's for the glory? Fair-weather nationalist?

Supposing that the people causing damages to stores and properties are actually involved in the protest and that they did the damage as a statement to the injustice, which is the narrative being presumed when people criticize the actions as "not helping their goals," it is good to recall that if our society continuously marginalize a group of people, eventually, we will succeed and they will be convinced of the reality - they have no stakes in the prosperity of their communities. It is hard for anyone to care about the CVS and businesses moving in to revitalize the community when they have seen no evidence that their lives will get better when they give respect to other people's property rights. There are two parties to a contract, even a social contract, and the abrogation of terms by one party in reaction to the other party's violation of terms is not only justified, but ethical and moral.

I find it impossible to argue that our system has NOT failed the young black male demographic, and the black community at large. The only remaining topic to argue, imo, is what ought to be their "appropriate" response to that, and whether it's actually even okay for us to dictate that to them when we are part of the system that failed them in the first place.

[The Reckoner]

Don Lemon said the majority of the arrested looters were from Baltimore. It was in an interview with the governor and mayor where some guy in the background started dropping fucks live on air.

[TerraPrime]

This is a serious break down of order in a large American city. It is newsworthy in its own right.

The serious break down of order in Baltimore happened, and has been happening, for a long time, before this incident. It hasn't been that news worthy, even with a popular TV show dramatizing the plight of the residents.

[Rockroi]

To minimize the destruction going on in Baltimore, and then say, cavalierly, that "oh noes some jackass teenagers and gangbangers burned a CVS" shows the distance in the message v. the reality.

On Sunday- if memory serves- Tucker Carlson- of Fox News stupidity- had on the show the Baltimore Chief of Police and scolded the Chief for NOT doing more arrests and allowing the protests to go unanswered. The Chief, supposedly, responded that they had an area where they were allowing the protests to develop and that the police were not going to intervene; the Chief said that by intervening, the police could only escalate things. Carlson nearly had an aneurysm, saying that if the Cops did NOT do something soon, the protests would degenerate into violence and eventually chaos.

Now, my VERY LARGE liberal bias said, "The police are doing it the right way; we saw what happened when police intervened in Ferguson; they made things much. much worse. The Chief is completely correct here; the police are showing incredible restraint. BY doing this the protests will NOT turn violent and will peacefully march on."

And then what happened?

I was wrong and FUCKING Fox News was 100% correct. Its Tuesday morning and with NO police escalation, the protests- on their own- turned violent. Now, you could argue that "these" people who protest are in no way related to "those" people that caused the mayhem, but best of luck with that (already the guild is falling off the apologist lily; its already been debunked that those arrested for looting were from "out of town;" NOPE! From Baltimore). There seems to be some connections here.

I cannot just excuse every act of lawlessness under the rubric of "Its okay: Racism."

Just as I cannot excuse every terrible act done by the police by saying, "Its okay: Law and Order."

[awesome possum]

AP,

That would be because I support the goals of the peaceful protestors. And, for the record burning 144 cars, 15 buildings, looting 5 businesses, and injuring 15 police officers (6 seriously) is more than a minor incident unworthy of notice. This is a serious break down of order in a large American city. It is newsworthy in its own right.

It is, absolutely. Key words there, "in its own right." What you are doing, while maybe unintentionally, is the same ole script we've seen time and time and time again by people who try to use the inevitable violence as a tactic to group protesters and rioters in order to dismiss any and all valid grievances.

And it works brilliantly. This thread is a perfect example.

First, as with most civil unrests with looting, it is not at all clear at this point that the looters are/were part of the protest. They very well might be non-Baltimore people coming in for their own gains. So this means that imputing intent or strategy regarding the social justice issue to the participants in the civil unrest is problematic at best.

I was reading last night that hundreds of Baltimore high schoolers ditched school early to basically go riot. The riots had very little if nothing to do with the protests beyond using them as a cover/excuse.

I was wrong and FUCKING Fox News was 100% correct. Its Tuesday morning and with NO police escalation, the protests- on their own- turned violent. Now, you could argue that "these" people who protest are in no way related to "those" people that caused the mayhem, but best of luck with that (already the guild is falling off the apologist lily; its already been debunked that those arrested for looting were from "out of town;" NOPE! From Baltimore). There seems to be some connections here.

You're wrong. The protests didn't turn violent. People not associated with the protests used the protests as a cover to being violence. As I said above, the major violence yesterday began around, what, 3 or 4? Coincidentally right around the end of the school day. Weird how peaceful protests suddenly turn violent at the end of the school day.

[Rockroi]

You're wrong. The protests didn't turn violent. People not associated with the protests used the protests as a cover to being violence. As I said above, the major violence yesterday began around, what, 3 or 4? Coincidentally right around the end of the school day. Weird how peaceful protests suddenly turn violent at the end of the school day.

No, I'm right because the situation turned violent. You can't just say "Nah- it didn't turn violent." It did. Carlson's whole point was that if the police did not take action, then this situation would matasticize into violence. And he was 100% correct. You cannot just ignore that issue and say "The violence is wholly unconnected."

Now, here you are trying to draw a line of demarcation between the protesters and the violence, and you may be right.

But, AP, you cannot on the one hand say THIS:

Not a big surprise to see the usual suspects in here trying to hand wave away the issues that caused the protests and instead just try to make it about rioting.

I mean, it's not like the city of Baltimore has paid out millions of dollars to more than 100 cases of civil/constituional rights violations over the last four years

And then ON THE OTHER HAND say - "The violence is not connected to the protest"

The first thing you are saying is that the violence is justified because it connects back to police violence against the citizens (otherwise, why say it?).

The second thing you say is that "The violence is not connected to the protests."

Well... which is it? Is the violence the natural by-product of police problems or is it wholly unconnected? You- like me in many instances of liberal generalities - want it both ways.

To me, I would LOVE IT if we could draw a clear, unambiguous line of demarcation between "Protester" and "rioter" and be done with it.

But...

I am sure others would also LOVE IT if we could draw a clear, unambiguous line of demarcation between "Bad Cops" and "Good Cops" and be done with it.

[Maithanet]

I never understood the "from out of town" rationale anyway. Plenty of the protesters in both Ferguson and Baltimore were from out of town, and why not? Just because you live in some other part of Maryland or St. Louis doesn't mean that you don't care about police violence and want to make your voice heard.

The important distinction is not whether you are from the nearby area or not, but whether you are actually engaging in the protest and share their goals, or if you are just someone who knows that protests mean that the police have their hands full, and use it as an excuse to break, burn and steal things. Unfortunately, there is no way to tell apart real protesters from people looking for an excuse to break the law.

[Rockroi]

Unfortunately, there is no way to tell apart real protesters from people looking for an excuse to break the law.

This is what AP was saying (or at least its a pertinent part of what he was saying).

Also, there are reports that this started to get increasingly difficult when rumors started to fly that there would be a "purge" after-as AP was saying - the schools were let out around 3PM. ONe interpretation is the "Purge" from the shitty movie a few years ago where all laws are suspended for 24 hours. The rocks and cinder blocks started to fly.

But there cannot be both thoughts at the same time: are the protests justified? Seems that way to me, but I don't know everything. Was the rioting justified? And that's where it gets lost because some appear to be saying "No... but ... " and then there is this amorphous list of "racism" and "poverty" etc as if one side is trying to justify the violence. Otherwise, why are they saying it? If the two ARE connected, then suddenly we have to explain it?

Either the rioters are disconnected third-parties just hell-bent on causing mayhem OR they are frustrated protesters and very interested parties whose frustration boiled over into violence. And it seems like some people are trying to explain that all away.

And just ETA: I am still not certain how I feel on all this, but I refuse to let my understanding of the situation be hijacked by shallow memes and slogans about "racism" OR "lawlessness." I need more info.

[polishgenius]

No, I'm right because the situation turned violent. You can't just say "Nah- it didn't turn violent." It did. Carlson's whole point was that if the police did not take action, then this situation would matasticize into violence. And he was 100% correct. You cannot just ignore that issue and say "The violence is wholly unconnected."

And what action do you think the police should have taken that wouldn't have had a chance of causing things to turn violent perhaps faster and more drastically? There isn't a binary right/wrong in this.

[TerraPrime]

I am not trying to explain all away.

The situation is developing and, frankly, I don't know that the we would ever know for sure what is what, without some in-depth interviews with a lot of people who were present. So I don't have the urge to box this all up neatly. I am ok accepting that there can be *both* legitimate protesters being provoked, *and* opportunistic criminals exploiting the situation, while also thinking that the root cause of the unrest needs to be addressed.

[Inigima]

Like Terra said, there's an understandable compulsion to put these things into neat little boxes, but it's difficult to do. I think riots are "bad," but playing by the rules hasn't worked out real well for disenfranchised citizens so far, and there's a real human cost to waiting around hoping shit gets better. That cost gets paid by people like Freddie Gray, and it's not even clear that it buys anything. May I suggest that trying to fill those neat boxes is not a good use of your time? It is okay for there to be things that do not benefit from the contribution of your opinion.

Here's an opinion piece hosted by Forbes (note: not a real Forbes article, this is their "sites" thing where anyone can write) that highlights a point Summah made a while back:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/dandiamond/2015/04/28/why-baltimore-burned/

Like the author, I'm a privileged product of the first Baltimore. But it's important to be aware that the second Baltimore is being badly under-served.

[Littlefingers In The Air]

When you have people posting Freddie Gray's rap sheet in an attempt to tell people not to sympathize with him, and you combine it with the fact that said rap sheet is full of drug related arrests that are probably related to the Drug War, I find it hard not to be on the side of the protesters AND the looters. Violence isn't justified, but if it moves the dialogue forward, I will take it and I will feel no shame.