Some background: A guy named Freddie Gray with a long rap sheet was arrested and died in the back of a police van. Although there has been no released report on how he died, there are rumors that he managed to break his own neck by banging his head against the side of the van, in which case he probably wasn't properly restrained. Anyway.
Some high schoolers in NW Baltimore staged a walk out today, with some people apparently itching for a fight; the police showed up in full riot gear with live bullets, tear gas (which is illegal to use in warfare, but not on your own civilians in the U.S.), and pepper spray.
They ordered the kids to disperse ... except that they had shut down public transportation in the area. For some context, all Baltimore high schools are magnet schools, which means most of the students don't live anywhere near their school but bus in; and there are no yellow school busses for high schoolers. So there was literally no way for most of them to get home.
Some rocks were thrown at police cars. The police gassed them and sprayed them with pepper spray. The exact timeline is unclear.
Then the situation continued to escalate. Guns were pointed at protestors. (Remember, they're high schoolers.) More rocks were thrown. A police officer was seriously injured. Twitter gets ugly and, as it is wont to do, incredibly, unbelievably racist. The Police twitter is characteristically tone deaf.
Some cop cars got burned. Then at least one cop van. So far as I can tell, a large part of the property damage is confined to police vehicles, at least for the pictures on my twitter, but I expect a lot of windows will get broken, certainly more than the comparatively minor damage done on Sunday.
Some neighborhood residents are turning out to form a human shield. Some part of the protest is a few blocks away from downtown.
All of this is very far away from where I live. My own little protest is to go downtown, play some music, and hang out with my racially and culturally diverse group of friends at the Teavolve open mic.
From my vantage point, the problems with the Fergusson riots were not learned by the Baltimore Police Department. The police were the ones accused by the public of wrong doing but are still the ones tasked with keeping the peace. It's the fox guarding the henhouse. I am hoping the National Guard gets called in soon so there can be a neutral party watching over the protests. Because right now, Deescalation doesn't seem to be on anyone's agenda.
I'm hoping that anyone who threw a rock feels ashamed tomorrow. But I also hope that whoever decided to gas and mace a bunch of high school students also wakes up ashamed of themselves. There's really nothing good to say about any of this today.
That's all.
Quote from: midwayfair on April 27, 2015, 10:14:24 PM
From my vantage point, the problems with the Fergusson riots were not learned by the Baltimore Police Department. The police were the ones accused by the public of wrong doing but are still the ones tasked with keeping the peace. It's the fox guarding the henhouse. I am hoping the National Guard gets called in soon so there can be a neutral party watching over the protests. Because right now, Deescalation doesn't seem to be on anyone's agenda.
It amazes me that the individuals who hold the power (the police) seem incapable of understanding what is motivating the protesters in all of these situations. The police have an extraordinarily difficult job which is only made more difficult by taking a military-like stance. Protesters generally want accountability which is met by threats of more violence.
Quote from: midwayfair on April 27, 2015, 10:14:24 PM
I'm hoping that anyone who threw a rock feels ashamed tomorrow. But I also hope that whoever decided to gas and mace a bunch of high school students also wakes up ashamed of themselves. There's really nothing good to say about any of this today.
Then you get protesters who respond with violence. This is never acceptable (even if you can rationalize / understand the frustration that made someone think this is OK). The individuals who do this are often responsible for initiating the escalation that leads to others getting hurt.
I hope someone gets smart and figures out how to deescalate.
Thanks for this. I've been trying to follow along fairly closely to the situation, but I'm all the way across the country. Good to hear from someone a little closer.
The frustration is understandable. I hope deescalation can happen and peaceful accountability can be reached.
Personally I can agree with nonviolent protest and feel it is necessary in situations like this. However the moment they go from peaceful to destroying property I can no longer condone those actions.
I am also conflicted by the police tactics used in these situations.
Unfortunately most of the facts in cases like these are shadowed by the cries of racially motivated violence. According to reports Freddie was apprehended unharmed, meaning that while in custody he sustained his fatal injury. Even if the injury was self inflicted the police transporting him were responsible for his safety.
Police are there to protect and serve. They work for the people. Not unlike politicians, there is an increase in the number of police officers who forget that.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
This is one time I'm glad we don't have this problem in the Netherlands. Not that our police force is without problems, far from it, but at least they're more busy hiding in the bushes with speed cameras then doing these kinds of things.
From my vantage point across the pond I do not envy American police officers though. With guns being so widespread anytime they have to approach somebody there is the potential for lethal violence. I can understand why that tends to lead to nervousness and increased police violence.
Quote from: Muadzin on April 27, 2015, 11:26:25 PM
This is one time I'm glad we don't have this problem in the Netherlands. Not that our police force is without problems, far from it, but at least they're more busy hiding in the bushes with speed cameras then doing these kinds of things.
From my vantage point across the pond I do not envy American police officers though. With guns being so widespread anytime they have to approach somebody there is the potential for lethal violence. I can understand why that tends to lead to nervousness and increased police violence.
Not sure I would blame guns. They are simply an inanimate object. Plus legal gun owners are extremely small percentage of violent crime in the U.S.. The gun violence you are referring to is a direct result of the war on drugs. The black market created by substance illegality is a predominant part of inner city gang culture and people within that culture have decided that the drug trade is worth killing and dying for.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Some good news: clergy escorted police to calm the riots, the national guard has been activated, and a curfew is in place for a week. We'll see how the last one holds up. In the meantime community leaders have helped regain control.
I didn't need to act like I understood the situation and further my comment veered into the type of normative political "things Should be like this" conjecture that I so often find distasteful. I'm deleting this when I get to a computer, but for now this will be a place holder.
Looting overnight throughout a pretty wide area. Several fires, including a warehouse fire that's currently 7 hours old and still being fought.
Most of downtown is closed. Schools are closed -- which is obviously a *great* idea since a large number of the rioters were students! Let's make sure they're left at home when they're parents go to work! (Not that I want teachers put in a bad position). Public transportation is avoiding the areas where the bulk of the rioting was.
The governor has moved his office and cabinet to Baltimore. Lots of posturing from groups on both sides.
Also lots of people cleaning up their neighborhoods.
Hey so I feel like I owe an apology for the long and politically charged rant - the only appropriate emotion right now is support for the people of Baltimore. I'm going to go back and delete the message when I get to a real computer.
Wishing you guys all the best - it's a difficult situation and I hope for a good resolution for both sides.
Unfortunately, the peaceful portion of the evolution is over.
We are now on to the "Let's see what we can get for free" portion of the "protests"
I never understood the reasoning behind destroying your own neighborhood in the name of protest. Although... I did read that some of these "protesters" were bussed in from other parts of the country. Although I am sure some of them were there for the peaceful portion.... I would be willing to bet that a lot of them came to town to take advantage of the deep discount pricing.
Quote from: HKimball on April 28, 2015, 12:11:16 PM
Hey so I feel like I owe an apology for the long and politically charged rant - the only appropriate emotion right now is support for the people of Baltimore. I'm going to go back and delete the message when I get to a real computer.
Wishing you guys all the best - it's a difficult situation and I hope for a good resolution for both sides.
I don't think you needed to delete it. It's okay to say what's on your mind; how else can people learn to understand all aspects of the situation if everyone just stops talking about it? As long as someone's not spreading hate, any discussion is welcome. I'm the only one who promised to provide some neutral information.
For anyone who really wants to stop themselves from feeling cheerful for a while, here's the reddit live thread, which culls information from scanners and elsewhere on the net.
https://www.reddit.com/live/ut948b9s23la
I'm going to have some pancakes now. My office is closed. Maybe I'll write some music.
Greg: You are misinformed about the protesters being "bussed in." A huge portion were juveniles, mostly from two high schools as I mentioned above. Even on Sunday, most of the people arrested for looting were local; only three people arrested were from out of town. (I'll try not to comment, but this is a frequent narrative.)
Quote from: midwayfair on April 28, 2015, 12:40:35 PM
Greg: You are misinformed about the protesters being "bussed in." A huge portion were juveniles, mostly from two high schools as I mentioned above. Even on Sunday, most of the people arrested for looting were local; only three people arrested were from out of town. (I'll try not to comment, but this is a frequent narrative.)
So are you saying that none of them came specifically from out of town to participate or have participated in the looting that is going on?
My main point is that it is sad that some have used this as an excuse to destroy their own neighborhoods and loot. Seeing those prescriptions on the street yesterday just made me sad and frustrated for those that now have to go without.
On another note.... how long do you think it will be before the insurance companies of the damaged businesses come after the city of Baltimore for their "let them have room to destroy" ideal? I would be willing to guarantee they at least bring the matter up legally to seek compensation for the payouts.
Quote from: midwayfair on April 28, 2015, 12:40:35 PM
Quote from: HKimball on April 28, 2015, 12:11:16 PM
Hey so I feel like I owe an apology for the long and politically charged rant - the only appropriate emotion right now is support for the people of Baltimore. I'm going to go back and delete the message when I get to a real computer.
Wishing you guys all the best - it's a difficult situation and I hope for a good resolution for both sides.
I don't think you needed to delete it. It's okay to say what's on your mind; how else can people learn to understand all aspects of the situation if everyone just stops talking about it? As long as someone's not spreading hate, any discussion is welcome. I'm the only one who promised to provide some neutral information.
I agree. Your post did have some opinions, but I don't remember thinking they were inflammatory in any way.
At some point, discussion is going to have to happen so that we can reason out why things like this happen and what we can do to avoid it in the future. As long as there is a growing chasm of distrust between the police and the citizens they are bound to protect, this is not going to get better.
Thanks Jon for your info and updates on the situation. Its so frustrating to me that either major side of any issue sticks so much to pushing their narrative that what gets lost so often is that most issues are so much more complicated than what they may seem at superficial glance or watching mainstream media on the issue. I think our culture has become so "Us against them" no matter the issue to the point that we all become villains.
Quote from: Luke51411 on April 28, 2015, 01:10:20 PM
... "Us against them" ....
No comment on Baltimore right now. But this thread needs some music. Seems appropriate.
A drum circle has broken out in front of the CVS that was destroyed last night:
https://v.cdn.vine.co/r/videos/1DDDBE61FA1204876035330609152_37ae3a5df63.1.5.7450746681842076568.mp4?versionId=fI_EDTn08qFZZ13qCHFeocmrVVcs7BgQ
Thanks for talking about this, Jon. I generally come here to talk about pedals and not politics, but I think this is important.
For everyone who dismisses rioters as a knee-jerk reaction, I'd like to politely ask that you read this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
In case you who don't have the time, here's the main takeaway:
QuoteWhen 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.
Riots like this are not the result of one isolated incident. They're the result of systematic racism and oppression by an overwhelming force that refuses to change. Here's what Martin Luther King, Jr. had to say about riots:
QuoteIt is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.
Consider what that means, "a riot is the language of the unheard." There were massive, peaceful protests for about a week after Freddie Gray died. You didn't hear about those and they're still not really being talked about. (Here's an NY Times article from a week ago that mentions them: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/another-mans-death-another-round-of-questions-for-the-police-in-baltimore.html) When did you start to hear? When the rioting started.
I think many of us may not be aware of the problem media has with riots. I personally didn't think much about it until Ferguson forced me to last year. When black people riot, they're presented to us as "thugs" or "looters". When white people riot, nobody cares. For instance: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/white-people-rioting-for-no-reason.html
Is it less legitimate to riot because yet another black man died in police custody than because your baseball team won a game? I was in school in Boston in 2004 when the Red Sox won and caused the riot pictured in that link; the norm for those situations was for people to start flipping over cars and breaking everything they could. One girl was killed by the police. I say "those situations" because this was
a regular occurrence. If the Red Sox or the Patriots won, there'd be riots. I lived around the corner from all of this. It's not okay.
While we all wish reform could occur without violence on either side, the real fact of the matter is that the police use military force on their own civilians as a matter of course. Peaceful protest can't work when the state is throwing tear gas and pepper spray at you, when peaceful protesters are kettled and treated as enemies simply for making their voices heard. The protest movement is called Black Lives Matter because they do, but as a country, our normal course of action is to let centuries of institutionalized racism take precedence. In a very real way, these riots are literally self-defense. They have no power to resist with except violence.
Try not to think of it as "what do the rioters hope to accomplish?" Think of this more as the natural consequence of the state's (and media's) actions. I'm not asking anyone to condone destruction and looting, but it's important to view the rioters as
people who deserve understanding and compassion before dismissing them out-of-hand. Someone on another forum I read said this, and I think it's an excellent summation of the topic:
"I don't think violence will necessarily solve any problems but I also cannot blame a race of people who are being systematically oppressed and murdered for being angry enough to throw bricks at their killers."Slate writer Jamelle Bouie also said it well:
"...one can both disagree with an act but also understand the impulse behind it.
Shocking, I know." (https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/592899257797111808)
This is a very complex and charged subject, and I'm not making any assumptions about anyone's statements or thoughts here. But I really believe we can't have a discussion about this unless we're willing to address the question of why these things happen. (And by "we", I mean we as a country as much as we in this thread right now.)
I'm not saying that I know otherwise but I wouldn't go on assuming that there are no Black members of this community. You have to remember as well that probably more people browse the forum without posting than the numbers that post regularly.
You're completely right, Luke, and I'll edit my post accordingly. Thanks.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 28, 2015, 05:43:03 PM
You're completely right, Luke, and I'll edit my post accordingly. Thanks.
No worries man, its an assumption that could easily be made by anyone and could just as easily be incorrect.
Quote from: pickdropper on April 28, 2015, 01:04:58 PM
Quote from: midwayfair on April 28, 2015, 12:40:35 PM
Quote from: HKimball on April 28, 2015, 12:11:16 PM
Hey so I feel like I owe an apology for the long and politically charged rant - the only appropriate emotion right now is support for the people of Baltimore. I'm going to go back and delete the message when I get to a real computer.
Wishing you guys all the best - it's a difficult situation and I hope for a good resolution for both sides.
I don't think you needed to delete it. It's okay to say what's on your mind; how else can people learn to understand all aspects of the situation if everyone just stops talking about it? As long as someone's not spreading hate, any discussion is welcome. I'm the only one who promised to provide some neutral information.
I agree. Your post did have some opinions, but I don't remember thinking they were inflammatory in any way.
At some point, discussion is going to have to happen so that we can reason out why things like this happen and what we can do to avoid it in the future. As long as there is a growing chasm of distrust between the police and the citizens they are bound to protect, this is not going to get better.
As long as law enforcement officers keep killing people, it isn't going to get better. Nor should it. I don't trust any law enforcement officer, and you shouldn't either.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 28, 2015, 05:27:17 PM
For everyone who dismisses rioters as a knee-jerk reaction, I'd like to politely ask that you read this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
I was going to post that earlier this morning, but I got distracted, and a little depressed. It's simply the best mid-term perspective.
Part of the problem in talking about this is that full context involves decades and decades of local politics, stuff that goes way beyond the relationship between the police and the citizens; it's part of the fabric of Baltimore. It's absolutely exhausting to think about just the racial politics of this city, never mind the perennial post-1970s economic problems. The city is amazingly self-segregated, for instance -- Go two blocks in any direction and you can end up in a different world. I have a firefighter friend who calls it "two blocks from Armageddon." [For reference, my neighborhood is mixed and pretty diverse -- both of my immediate neighbors are black professionals, there is a mixed-race family across the street, and two neighbors across the alley are gay couples. People would still refer to my neighborhood as "white Baltimore," though.] People get irrationally scared to walk around in parts of the city and that drives housing choices. It's self-perpetuating. And if you want to know how far back it goes, there are several confederate monuments in Baltimore, and none to the Union. And the KKK had a presence in a neighborhood a mile from my home until early last decade.
2:00 and 3:30 "purges" were planned. One of the 3:30 ones is a little closer to my house. The 2:00 one looks to have not happened.
Police exchanged gunfire with multiple gangs (as in Bloods, Crips, and Black Guerilla Family, not "gangs" of protesters) on the West Side in the past half hour. This wasn't unexpected; there was a press release yesterday about a credible threat (feel free to browse Twitter for the conspiracy theory responses to that if you need a good head shaking). Police are spread very thin watching large groups of peaceful protestors. Support police are coming from as far as Hagerstown, which is an hour and a half drive west of Baltimore. There's supposed to be 500 more National Guard deployed today, but I haven't seen word on when they'll arrive.
I am now taking bets on whether the end game is a more militarized police force or body cameras*.
*A body camera bill was vetoed by the mayor recently. There were major problems with it, but it was vetoed shortly before the Freddie Gray incident. Bad timing for sure.
Quote from: playpunk on April 28, 2015, 07:11:18 PM
Quote from: pickdropper on April 28, 2015, 01:04:58 PM
Quote from: midwayfair on April 28, 2015, 12:40:35 PM
Quote from: HKimball on April 28, 2015, 12:11:16 PM
Hey so I feel like I owe an apology for the long and politically charged rant - the only appropriate emotion right now is support for the people of Baltimore. I'm going to go back and delete the message when I get to a real computer.
Wishing you guys all the best - it's a difficult situation and I hope for a good resolution for both sides.
I don't think you needed to delete it. It's okay to say what's on your mind; how else can people learn to understand all aspects of the situation if everyone just stops talking about it? As long as someone's not spreading hate, any discussion is welcome. I'm the only one who promised to provide some neutral information.
I agree. Your post did have some opinions, but I don't remember thinking they were inflammatory in any way.
At some point, discussion is going to have to happen so that we can reason out why things like this happen and what we can do to avoid it in the future. As long as there is a growing chasm of distrust between the police and the citizens they are bound to protect, this is not going to get better.
As long as law enforcement officers keep killing people, it isn't going to get better. Nor should it. I don't trust any law enforcement officer, and you shouldn't either.
Again this is a complicated issue. I've known a few great officers, most of them are just trying to do their job, and then there are some bad ones that just sour the whole image and bring down others with them. For a time I worked in an inner city neighborhood with parolees and part or the program there were a few officers that really took things to heart. They went out of their way to get to know the residents of the neighborhood and the people they were working with to the point that some of the parolees consider them friends and brothers. There are good officers out there.
I don't have time to pick through this thread ATM but I will because I am interested in the opinions being expressed. My quick and dirty take:
Of course, I hate violence. True civility is being able to ascend from it even when it is being perpetrated on you (or your community). But, I also understand the reasons for it and it is important to recognize root causes, esp. in Baltimore and elsewhere. As much as I do not want to see people destroying communities and attacking police, I also think that police have to stop.fucking. killing people indiscriminately and getting away with it. And we need to address the out of control corruption that is happening. I'm not talking about legitimate defense of themselves or others when it comes to dealing with real bad guys...the ones that pose and immediate and unarguable threat.
But, the level of violence and oppression police forces are exuding on communities across the US is disgusting. The militarization, the willingness of officers to protect their buddies that are committing civil offenses and abusing power, the hair triggers..it's just got to stop. It's a subject I've been following for a few years but I can't claim to have the answers either. It does seem to me that we need another layer of civil oversight on police forces by the communities they protect. That's kinda the only thing I've been able to come up with.
Anyway I will read some more of the posts when I have more time. I'm okay with this continuing to be a discussion as long as everyone follows the normal rules of conduct we have here.
I'm really on the fence on both sides of this issue (if it's possible to be). I've got no skin in the game either way, nor have I spent an exhorbitant amount of time researching the backstory to what's going on in Baltimore. And I'm Canadian, and typically our civil unrest is usually an order of magnitude less than in the US, for whatever reason.
Where I run into problems with the protesters (or rioters, depending on the context or perspective I guess) is where the line is between people who are legitimately trying to increase awareness/air their grievances, and people who are just piling on or taking advantage of the situation to engage in either gang mentality or in criminal behaviour. And the example I have for that is this. A number of years ago, when the G8 summit was held in Montreal (I think), there was a big protest, rock throwing, riot police, all that fun stuff. A good friend of mine and her boyfriend were part of the protest, and afterwards I asked what they were protesting, as I was curious. The response I got back was something to the extent of a generic "we were protesting inequity and inequality between the G8 countries and the third world." When I asked what their specific concern was, neither one of them could cite a single item which they were concerned with, and it basically came out that they were protesting because they were students and it was the popular thing to do in Montreal that weekend. I often wonder what percentage of protestors/rioters fall into that category. And looting isn't protesting. It's stealing with a lower likelihood of getting caught because the cops are busy with other people.
The number of police involved incidents have been on the rise this year, or at least much more visible, be it because of social media or just the general media's increased sensitivity to it. There is no justification for excessive use of force. But I also wonder if when we're seeing these video clips that get posted if we're getting the whole story (again, not suggesting that anyone that got assaulted/tasered/killed by the cops deserved it).
I am probably a little too sympathetic with the police in most cases. My best friend in the entire world is a 15 year vetern of the police force, including 5 years on the SWAT team. He holds the Order of Canada for an incident he was involved in a number of years ago. I counselled him for a number of months after that incident (and a couple of others), and the details of what he told me will haunt me until I die. Most cops are good, if not great, people. It's unfortunate that a few bad apples ruin it on a very large, public scale for the rest of them.
I'm also in Bmore and I feel like Jon's done a great job of explaining exactly what's happening here. That said, if you're looking for further legitimate, unspun info, I'd point to both the Coates article and the following:
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/how-baltimore-riots-began-mondawmin-purge
http://mic.com/articles/116714/7-facts-everyone-needs-to-know-to-understand-what-s-happening-in-baltimore
http://www.teabreakfast.com/the-more-you-know-whats-not-being-shown-in-baltimore/
Also, currently viral on Facebook:
QuoteFrom eyewitness Dan McGregor
"I want everyone to know what's happening in Baltimore.
I rolled up to Penn and North at 10:30 AM. There was a massive clean-up effort organized to start at 10 AM. When I got there, everything in the public realm was already cleaned up, and people were cleaning up the legendary trash piles that are strewn randomly about the city (if you live in a poorer city or a poorer neighborhood, you know what I'm talking about, the piles of trash that are just around town). The end result was a west side that was going to be cleaner than it was to begin with.
There were 100's of people out, all races, all ages, all demeanors. Totally peaceful, quiet. It was amazing. Everybody was working hand-in-hand to clean up the city, spread out along North Ave and its immediate side streets. People were talking about what was happening and why. People were expressing themselves. This is ideal.
At around 11:30 AM, there was a large-scale police mobilization at Penn and North. No idea why. A bus, an armored vehicle, several vans, several cars. A medium-sized police force, in full riot gear, with automatic weapons, some National Guard troops. The vehicles were all Anne Arundell County and I'm guessing the cops were too.
The cops showed up and shut down a couple of blocks. They cut people off from their residencies and places of work. They stopped people from cleaning. They formed a line and inched forward, telling people to get off the street, that this is a State of Emergency so this street has to be shut down.
Why? Why were the cops there? Why were they shutting down the street? Why did they stop a community effort to clean up? Why did they disrupt the daily business of residents and employees? Why did they arrive in full riot gear to deal with 100's of people armed only with shovels, brooms, trashbags, and gloves?
This is agitating. This is belligerent. This is picking a fight. If the cops hadn't come, nothing would have happened beyond people cleaning and going about another day of their lives. Now that the cops are there, trying to intimidate and agitate, there's a risk of things exploding again.
You know what I saw? I saw police yelling at people, intimidating people, making moves without provocation. And I saw gang members calmly, reasonably asking people to move, asking people to play along, asking people to stay calm and not to provoke the police.
The media won't tell you that. The police state is REAL. This shit HAPPENS. The police are NOT here to protect ANYBODY right now. They are BRINGING THE DANGER WITH THEM. They are BRINGING THE VIOLENCE WITH THEM.
THAT IS REAL, DON'T LET THE NEWS TELL YOU OTHERWISE, THAT IS REAL."
Basically, the national media has totally punted on this story and ignored roughly five major points:
1.) Local gangs created a truce to allow for uninterrupted protests, not the opposite. One of the major reasons violence initially broke out was that drunk, white, belligerent Orioles fans were mad about the peaceful protests; gangs, by comparison, have been by-and-large helpful and compliant, as most of the violence has directly affected where they live. (Yes, I know this seems counterintuitive - it's crazy! But true.)
2.) The police, with their heavy-handed/half-militant approach to every new situation, have catalyzed chaotic action every step of the way.
3.) "Protest" and "riot" are not synonyms; like I said, 1000s of protestors have been completely peaceful and, in many cases, protests have been put together by community organizations, churches, college students, and so on.
4.) The level of institutional racism in Bmore is staggering. Walking into West Baltimore is like walking into another planet, one where it's entirely believable that a cop would just pick up and cripple an unarmed, innocent guy just because he was black and dressed like a "thug" or whatever. People are angry because this is so commonplace - because it seems so obvious and inevitable, which makes it grotesque and (yes) institutional. On the plus side, they also feel emboldened by recent media attention for Michael Brown and Eric Garner to actually do something about it. Unfortunately, that rage came out in less-than-productive ways.
Oh, and 5.)
Half of Baltimore hit the streets to clean up the affected areas today. Most places - even the burnt ones - were swept, mopped, and spit-shined by noon. There is rebuilding to be done, but our local communities have come together in a very real, profound way. Bmore hasn't declined over the space of a weekend into some den of iniquity where people in hoods and scarfs delight in poaching Doritos from their local CVS before torching it; rather, crimes of that nature have been isolated and condemned roundly by 99.9999% of our citizens.
Bmore isn't a hellhole right now and chaos doesn't reign. You should seriously question any sensationalized accounts you see or hear, as they completely dodge the reason things have gotten hairy in the first place: the police murdered an innocent guy - Freddie Gray - and tried to cover it up. And they still haven't fired anyone over this! That's the story.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 28, 2015, 05:27:17 PM
Thanks for talking about this, Jon. I generally come here to talk about pedals and not politics, but I think this is important.
For everyone who dismisses rioters as a knee-jerk reaction, I'd like to politely ask that you read this article: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviolence-as-compliance/391640/
In case you who don't have the time, here's the main takeaway:
QuoteWhen 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.
Riots like this are not the result of one isolated incident. They're the result of systematic racism and oppression by an overwhelming force that refuses to change. Here's what Martin Luther King, Jr. had to say about riots:
QuoteIt is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard.
Consider what that means, "a riot is the language of the unheard." There were massive, peaceful protests for about a week after Freddie Gray died. You didn't hear about those and they're still not really being talked about. (Here's an NY Times article from a week ago that mentions them: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/22/us/another-mans-death-another-round-of-questions-for-the-police-in-baltimore.html) When did you start to hear? When the rioting started.
I think many of us may not be aware of the problem media has with riots. I personally didn't think much about it until Ferguson forced me to last year. When black people riot, they're presented to us as "thugs" or "looters". When white people riot, nobody cares. For instance: http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2014/11/white-people-rioting-for-no-reason.html
Is it less legitimate to riot because yet another black man died in police custody than because your baseball team won a game? I was in school in Boston in 2004 when the Red Sox won and caused the riot pictured in that link; the norm for those situations was for people to start flipping over cars and breaking everything they could. One girl was killed by the police. I say "those situations" because this was a regular occurrence. If the Red Sox or the Patriots won, there'd be riots. I lived around the corner from all of this. It's not okay.
While we all wish reform could occur without violence on either side, the real fact of the matter is that the police use military force on their own civilians as a matter of course. Peaceful protest can't work when the state is throwing tear gas and pepper spray at you, when peaceful protesters are kettled and treated as enemies simply for making their voices heard. The protest movement is called Black Lives Matter because they do, but as a country, our normal course of action is to let centuries of institutionalized racism take precedence. In a very real way, these riots are literally self-defense. They have no power to resist with except violence.
Try not to think of it as "what do the rioters hope to accomplish?" Think of this more as the natural consequence of the state's (and media's) actions. I'm not asking anyone to condone destruction and looting, but it's important to view the rioters as people who deserve understanding and compassion before dismissing them out-of-hand. Someone on another forum I read said this, and I think it's an excellent summation of the topic: "I don't think violence will necessarily solve any problems but I also cannot blame a race of people who are being systematically oppressed and murdered for being angry enough to throw bricks at their killers."
Slate writer Jamelle Bouie also said it well:
"...one can both disagree with an act but also understand the impulse behind it.
Shocking, I know." (https://twitter.com/jbouie/status/592899257797111808)
This is a very complex and charged subject, and I'm not making any assumptions about anyone's statements or thoughts here. But I really believe we can't have a discussion about this unless we're willing to address the question of why these things happen. (And by "we", I mean we as a country as much as we in this thread right now.)
Great post. Sums up my thoughts, and adds to them as well. Thank you.
A distillation of the past several hours:
Not much bad happened in the afternoon. There were a couple shootings, which were not announced to be connected to any protests. There were some tense confrontations but nothing bad. (The police maced a portion of a large crowd after a single protester threw something at them ...). The gang-related violence was not widespread. There are very large marches now and all the large groups have been peaceful protests. There was nothing I could categorize as a riot today.
A lot of local restaurants offered food to students and police. I'm not sure exactly how I feel about them offering to only one group, but I guess it's best not to invite confrontation.
The west side was described as "one giant street festival." A bunch of marching bands broke out the drums. For the most part, it's impassible by car.
Schools are currently scheduled to be open, but there is a 24-hour youth curfew on a hair trigger.
There are two and a half THOUSAND additional national guard troops being deployed tonight to enforce the curfew. Given the much smaller number that was being reported earlier, I'm actually really happy to hear this news. Fergusson's violence was prolonged by the police enforcing a curfew, and as I wrote earlier, I believe that the NG has a better track record of ensuring peace and can act as a neutral party, as they don't have as much skin in the game as the police or protestors. (Also, I think that the military has better diversity training than the police ... and more diversity.)
The protests are downtown again at City Hall. The night's not over and there are only two hours until the curfew goes into effect. I probably will not update this until the morning.
There are lines of protestors blocking other protestors from the police, so that no one gets in anyone's faces.
Also, if anyone wants to follow this story more closely, there is a live feed on Reddit that's been amazing. Be careful about media accounts, even ones that are "embedded." The City Paper has already been caught posting at least one fake photo, and they slandered someone last night saying that she tried to steal someone's bag and the same reporter claimed that a woman threw a stool at them, but uncut video footage not only shows both of those women defending themselves, but the reporter verbally abusing one of the women. City Paper allegedly blocked some people that asked for comment. I'm not trying to trash City Paper, but they royally screwed up at least twice here, and there are watchdogs on Reddit right now. I don't watch national media and I haven't had time to look at more than a couple articles except to get a sense that opinion cites are crap, but I think the local media is actually doing a good job staying balanced. Some people saying they overreported the riots were probably out cleaning up while the stations were reporting on the clean up. :) I have yet to find a better source of info than the Reddit live thread. This is related to vizcities's comment about the "drunk Orioles" fans, too. Not to call him out on it, but video footage of the event is ambiguous. It does look like things were thrown from both sides, but the things thrown at or close to people were things like plastic bottles and cups. (I think it's really important that the rioting was mostly confined to property damage. The looting is worse in my eyes.) There have been several accounts of people shouting slurs, but I haven't seen anything that would confirm either side of the story (as far as "who started it") as fact.
I might give one more summary before I go to bed tonight, even if it's just to say that the curfew went into effect in a timely manner. However, there is an extremely large crowd downtown and at the moment I would think that logistically getting everyone home is going to put people on the streets after dark; inevitably, some people will feel harassed. I'm just hoping for isolated incidents only.
Also, I need to correct some information I gave earlier based on more recent numbers and reports from the police department: Although the riots were started by a confrontation between students and police, the age of the rioters went up throughout the night, and a vast majority of the arrested were adults. I'm glad to learn this, because it does mean that most of the kids got/went home safely at some point.
Here is a picture of a cat in an airplane to wash everyone's brain out, if they need it.
(http://i.imgur.com/8xFb0QA.jpg)
Vizcities, what's the source on that eyewitness account I didn't see it in the articles you linked. I did just skim them though. that is good information. Never mind I see it was something someone posted on facebook.
Quote from: midwayfair on April 27, 2015, 10:14:24 PM
Some background: A guy named Freddie Gray with a long rap sheet was arrested and died in the back of a police van. Although there has been no released report on how he died, there are rumors that he managed to break his own neck by banging his head against the side of the van, in which case he probably wasn't properly restrained. Anyway.
Some high schoolers in NW Baltimore staged a walk out today, with some people apparently itching for a fight; the police showed up in full riot gear with live bullets, tear gas (which is illegal to use in warfare, but not on your own civilians in the U.S.), and pepper spray.
They ordered the kids to disperse ... except that they had shut down public transportation in the area. For some context, all Baltimore high schools are magnet schools, which means most of the students don't live anywhere near their school but bus in; and there are no yellow school busses for high schoolers. So there was literally no way for most of them to get home.
Some rocks were thrown at police cars. The police gassed them and sprayed them with pepper spray. The exact timeline is unclear.
Then the situation continued to escalate. Guns were pointed at protestors. (Remember, they're high schoolers.) More rocks were thrown. A police officer was seriously injured. Twitter gets ugly and, as it is wont to do, incredibly, unbelievably racist. The Police twitter is characteristically tone deaf.
Some cop cars got burned. Then at least one cop van. So far as I can tell, a large part of the property damage is confined to police vehicles, at least for the pictures on my twitter, but I expect a lot of windows will get broken, certainly more than the comparatively minor damage done on Sunday.
Some neighborhood residents are turning out to form a human shield. Some part of the protest is a few blocks away from downtown.
All of this is very far away from where I live. My own little protest is to go downtown, play some music, and hang out with my racially and culturally diverse group of friends at the Teavolve open mic.
From my vantage point, the problems with the Fergusson riots were not learned by the Baltimore Police Department. The police were the ones accused by the public of wrong doing but are still the ones tasked with keeping the peace. It's the fox guarding the henhouse. I am hoping the National Guard gets called in soon so there can be a neutral party watching over the protests. Because right now, Deescalation doesn't seem to be on anyone's agenda.
I'm hoping that anyone who threw a rock feels ashamed tomorrow. But I also hope that whoever decided to gas and mace a bunch of high school students also wakes up ashamed of themselves. There's really nothing good to say about any of this today.
That's all.
That sounds about right.
Seems like nobody wins.
Some disjointed thoughts from my perspective:
Most of this is not so much about what's going on in Baltimore right now because I'm just not that up on it and (let's face it) the facts are far from in.
Coming from the military (I left active duty Army service in December 2012) I'm really starting to resent the term "police militarization." The American military is highly trained, we have recruiting standards, retention standards, physical standards, and we have clear lines of accountability. I also have three generations of cops in my family and due to my job (Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician) frequently worked with local, county/parish, state, and federal law enforcement agencies and I can tell you that everything I just associated with "militarization" does not apply to many police departments. It's downright insulting sometimes that the Barney Fife bullshit that's being called "police militarization" is being associated with what I did. Also bear in mind that we're talking about a term that was invented back in the mid-90s by an academic that (as far as I know) has never spent a single day in uniform then got latched onto by the media in recent years... it's an artificial construct. It's a thesis that some dude turned into a book deal.
I think there are some very severe shortfalls with the areas I mentioned with many departments (which are not all the fault of these departments by the way; for example it's difficult to attract qualified candidates (much less trim some dead weight) when you're paying crap wages for what's actually a very difficult, dangerous, and stressful job). I've seen too many departments who are in the position of taking whoever they can get, are unable to give their recruits anything but the bare minimum amount of training, and then can't hold them to any kind of physical or performance standard once they're in uniform. I'm not sure how responsible you can hold individual officers for doing the best that they can with the crap hand that they're frequently dealt. I too saw how fucked up the Furguson PD's escalation of force (EoF) practices were but how much do you want to bet they were never properly trained on EoF? It's not difficult to do. It's sure as hell a lot easier than dealing with an even angrier mob. In the military we had a system for deliberately reviewing incidents (especially where the was a loss of life), determining lessons learned, suggesting new strategies to counter the problems encountered, and then distribute everything across the entire force – as far as I know there is no such mechanism for civilian law enforcement and that's something else which needs to be addressed.
All that said, the majority of police officers I've met have been dedicated civil servants with an honest desire to help people who are doing the best they can with the tools that they are given. I think there needs to be a push to give them better pay (where needed) and better training but also to hold them to higher standards that we all can be proud of.
Next up, I'd say that the performance of our press has been abominable. They are effectively functioning as tabloid media at this point, latching onto sensational stories and reporting rumors and speculation as facts, whipping the public into a frenzy, and then hurriedly shuffling away when it turns out to be mostly bullshit with – at best – a shade of a retraction left in their wake. The press is woefully inadequate at educating the public, especially on subjects as complicated as this one and I can easily tell by the way that people respond to these stories. The press is also showing abject cowardice when it fails to confront the fact that there are some very serious social issues within the 'black community' (truthfully, I believe it's much more of an urban lower class issue than a race issue) which are feeding this cycle of violence. The same can be said of "leaders" like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson on this point (although in the case of the media I'd say that the root cause is mostly a foolish adherence to political correctness while the latter examples are more concerned with job security).
Anyway, that's some of the junk rattling around in my brain. I'll just conclude for now by saying that I've seen enough death. People need to get right.
I think that the term "Police Militarization" refers more to the oppositional attitude adopted by many police forces, than any specific protocol or set of equipment. Another problem many police forces run into is that the police force's racial and socio/economic demographic does not align with the community it is supposed to be serving, and underlying racial problems become a real problem. Both of these problems are more prevelent in urban areas than rural. The county in which I live, although mainly rural, has a couple of urbanish centers.
There are a slew of social problems that lead to more problems with the police, but that does not justify the actions of way too many police officers. I've had clients arrested for refusing to answer questions posed to them by police officers. That is just an abuse of power - no citizen has any obligation to aid law enforcement, and law enforcement officers would do well to remember that.
Well, now I know about the town for more than Jules Verne's Baltimore Gun Club.
More seriously, I can't help but think of all of Sam Vimes' internal philosophy pertaining to policing in the more recent Discworld books. How he approached the rioting in _Night Watch_ was pretty much opposite to this.
Quote from: playpunk on April 29, 2015, 03:50:25 PM
I think that the term "Police Militarization" refers more to the oppositional attitude adopted by many police forces, than any specific protocol or set of equipment.
Some define it that way, yes. Others in terms of equipment. Others in the increasing prevalence and use of SWAT teams. Yet more people define the term in various combinations of all of these things.
This is what I mean by the term being an artificial construct. It's a just-so story and not an especially helpful one at that.
Quote from: playpunk on April 29, 2015, 03:50:25 PMAnother problem many police forces run into is that the police force's racial and socio/economic demographic does not align with the community it is supposed to be serving, and underlying racial problems become a real problem. Both of these problems are more prevelent in urban areas than rural. The county in which I live, although mainly rural, has a couple of urbanish centers.
That's definitely a problem that I've noticed as well but I have trouble faulting the police for it when I've seen so many departments (even including Furguson, MO) who are actively
trying to recruit minority officers yet almost nobody steps up. People are treating this issue like it's a one-sided thing but the truth is that it's a lot more complicated than that. I've spent
a lot of time looking for work over the past couple of years and at every single job fair I've attended I've seen a booth for the Louisville Metro Police Department. They're desperate to hire people (hell, I went to the grocery store late one night last week and an officer who spotted the EOD badge on my motorcycle vest tried to recruit me in the checkout line).
"It's not a sellout if nobody is buying." Or something.
Quote from: playpunk on April 29, 2015, 03:50:25 PMThere are a slew of social problems that lead to more problems with the police, but that does not justify the actions of way too many police officers.
I think that depends. Look at some of the cases where cops have shot mentally ill suspects; sure, the guy they've shot isn't responsible for his actions and
if you know what to do there are often other ways they can be dealt with, but the fact remains that the vast majority of those officers
aren't trained to deal with mentally ill people and if armed that person
does pose a very credible risk to the officer's life it's unreasonable to fault an officer for using lethal force. You can't expect someone to lay down their life over a non-compliant schizophrenic suspect with a knife or a screw driver when they aren't trained in how to handle that situation any other way.
Now in the shooting of Walter Scott, we have a case where the use of lethal force may have been justified at various points in the incident (there was a physical altercation and there's evidence that Scott got ahold of Slager's taser and tried to use it on him (and no, I'm not talking about when Slager moved the taser to Scott's body)) but at the time the shooting had taken place Scott did not pose a threat and had
clearly broken contact. I can understand Officer Slager's blood being up, I can understand the feeling of
"oh, fuck this shit..." but a line was clearly crossed and Slager needs to be held accountable for it.
Quote from: playpunk on April 29, 2015, 03:50:25 PMI've had clients arrested for refusing to answer questions posed to them by police officers.
Again... training, standards, and accountability. I agree that this is wrong but it's unrealistic to expect the problem to get better if we don't address the root causes.
So a quick addendum - I edited my original post to take out all the opinion stuff. I think we have a difficult situation and when I read my post I couldn't help but feel that it contained some not-so-thinly veiled racism... I can't just find and replace "race" with "culture" and expect people to pretend like there aren't any racial undertones.
I have difficulty expressing my opinion about the situation in a way that acknowledges these deep rifts between predominantly black segments of society and police, and at the same time prescribing a solution for it... I'm not part of the situation and pretending like I know the answer is disinguineous at best and pompous/condescending at worst.
I start many sentences with "I think" which is a problem. Its just impressions and half-baked idealist notions about society. I guarantee that if you put me in a classroom in Baltimore I wouldn't know how to reach the kids any better than the next guy.
At any rate, I still hope for a peaceful and speedy resolution to the situation. It would be great to see a meaningful dialogue come from this but I can't see the future... so, yeah.
So, the National Guard kidnapped Joseph Kent, a 21-year-old peaceful protest leader, on live TV.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/joseph-kent-baltimore-protesters-call-for-release-of-student-kidnapped-by-police-live-on-national-tv-10211500.html
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/29/where_is_joseph_kent_social_media_erupts_after_cameras_capture_activists_suspicious_looking_arrest/
You can't call this an arrest. When someone is arrested, they're told they're under arrest, put into a car, and taken to a station. When someone is kidnapped, they're hustled into a moving vehicle and disappeared in a matter of seconds.
A young man was vanished from the street on live television, and the anchors didn't even comment on it. Watch that video and try not to be horrified.
Quote from: Frag Magnet on April 29, 2015, 07:25:00 PM
I have trouble faulting the police for it when I've seen so many departments (even including Furguson, MO) who are actively trying to recruit minority officers yet almost nobody steps up. People are treating this issue like it's a one-sided thing but the truth is that it's a lot more complicated than that. I've spent a lot of time looking for work over the past couple of years and at every single job fair I've attended I've seen a booth for the Louisville Metro Police Department. They're desperate to hire people (hell, I went to the grocery store late one night last week and an officer who spotted the EOD badge on my motorcycle vest tried to recruit me in the checkout line).
If the police force (and the National Guard, which represents the United States) treats its minority citizens like this -- especially the Ferguson PD, which has a recorded history of discrimination and racism (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/us-details-a-persistent-pattern-of-police-discrimination-in-a-small-missouri-city.html) -- why would they be in any rush to join up?
Quote from: lincolnic on April 29, 2015, 09:17:24 PM
So, the National Guard kidnapped Joseph Kent, a 21-year-old peaceful protest leader, on live TV.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/joseph-kent-baltimore-protesters-call-for-release-of-student-kidnapped-by-police-live-on-national-tv-10211500.html
http://www.salon.com/2015/04/29/where_is_joseph_kent_social_media_erupts_after_cameras_capture_activists_suspicious_looking_arrest/
You can't call this an arrest. When someone is arrested, they're told they're under arrest, put into a car, and taken to a station. When someone is kidnapped, they're hustled into a moving vehicle and disappeared in a matter of seconds.
Here's what one of the articles you
just linked actually
says:QuoteContrary to the name appended to videos of his being detained, however, Kent was not "kidnapped" — he was apparently arrested for having violated the city's 10 p.m. curfew. A Baltimore-based lawyer, Stephen Beatty, claimed to have located Kent last night:
1/2 Re: #JosephKent As a service to the community I can confirm that Mr. Kent is at CBIF awaiting processing. Report is he is ok and safe.
So, he is
in fact under arrest.
Yet again we're putting media speculation and the word of protesters
who have every reason to lie over hard, verifiable facts.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 29, 2015, 09:17:24 PMQuote from: Frag Magnet on April 29, 2015, 07:25:00 PM
I have trouble faulting the police for it when I've seen so many departments (even including Furguson, MO) who are actively trying to recruit minority officers yet almost nobody steps up. People are treating this issue like it's a one-sided thing but the truth is that it's a lot more complicated than that. I've spent a lot of time looking for work over the past couple of years and at every single job fair I've attended I've seen a booth for the Louisville Metro Police Department. They're desperate to hire people (hell, I went to the grocery store late one night last week and an officer who spotted the EOD badge on my motorcycle vest tried to recruit me in the checkout line).
If the police force (and the National Guard, which represents the United States) treats its minority citizens like this -- especially the Ferguson PD, which has a recorded history of discrimination and racism (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/05/us/us-details-a-persistent-pattern-of-police-discrimination-in-a-small-missouri-city.html) -- why would they be in any rush to join up?
First of all, the National Guard does
not represent the United States (unless they're on Federal orders; in other words, "deployed overseas"), they represent their home state and they operate under the authority of that state's Governor.
Second, it's tough to find a more ethnically and culturally diverse organization than almost any American military outfit. (Nothing brings people who would never associate with each other together like being ordered to.)
Third, you step up into a role like that of a minority police officer in a racially charged district in order to be the change you want to see. Because (like most people who take those kinds of jobs) you want to help people and protect your community. Unfortunately, the culture in many of those communities is one that
shuns people who become police officers (you really can't say it's "black culture" because you see it in a lot of lower class communities regardless of race). Frankly, I think that's more of a factor than anything else.
Very large protest at City Hall right now.* I have some friends who were in the march, so I got to watch it happen in real time through their phones. The crowd is much more diverse than previous days.
*EDIT: Apparently the police are trying to divert the protesters. I'm not sure why. Anyone driving downtown right now is probably lost, and there are enough people to completely fill the streets for a couple blocks based on pictures. EDIT again: actually it might be that there's a protest gathering at City Hall AND a march that they're diverting northbound. Okay, I'll stop updating this until it's more clear exactly what the heck is going on. There are a massive number of soldiers downtown right now. I think there are more NG than police in Baltimore at the moment.
Police twitter claims no arrests made since dawn related to the uprising.
The mayor is also considering lifting the curfew early. I expect it depends on the reaction to the curfew tonight.
There was a protest at the State's attorney's office whose purpose was also to draw attention to the dozen police accountability bills that were shot down in previous years. (See the Atlantic article linked in this thread for some more about those.)
Yes, obviously Joseph Kent was arrested by the National Guard for being out past curfew. I did, in fact, read the articles I linked to. But I'm asking you to look at the video footage of it happening. The message of my post was not "a man was literally kidnapped" but "something is wrong with these actions". Is that how arrests generally look? Is that how arrests usually proceed? No, it isn't. That was an unnecessary brute force display that doesn't serve to ease tensions at all.
If someone narrated the events to you, free of context -- "A man was standing in the street. As a car slowly rolled past him, four men rushed from behind with no warning and pushed him into it. Within seconds, all of them were gone." -- would you say that sounds like an arrest, or like a kidnapping?
Quote from: Frag Magnet on April 29, 2015, 10:04:17 PM
First of all, the National Guard does not represent the United States (unless they're on Federal orders; in other words, "deployed overseas"), they represent their home state and they operate under the authority of that state's Governor.
I believe the National Guard actually is under the control of both the state
and the federal government, isn't it? I defer to you on this, since you have actual service experience, but that was my understanding.
Quote from: Frag Magnet on April 29, 2015, 10:04:17 PM
Unfortunately, the culture in many of those communities is one that shuns people who become police officers (you really can't say it's "black culture" because you see it in a lot of lower class communities regardless of race). Frankly, I think that's more of a factor than anything else.
Yes, but why do they shun them? Because law enforcement has a history of systematically oppressing and discriminating against minorities, while those who do so often escape repercussions. It's no surprise that minorities don't want to join that kind of team; the team has been telling them for their entire lives that they're not worth anything. Daniel Pantaleo wasn't indicted for killing Eric Garner, even after it was ruled a homicide. Darren Wilson wasn't indicted for killing Michael Brown. George Zimmerman (though not a police officer) was acquitted of Trayvon Martin's murder. I'm not speaking of the events themselves, I'm talking specifically about the aftermath. Regardless of whether you or I personally agree with those decisions, I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to understand how minority communities can look at these events and walk away with the lesson "they can do anything to you and get away with it".
The police in Ferguson violated the constitutional rights of their black citizens as a matter of course. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/justice-department-finds-pattern-of-police-bias-and-excessive-force-in-ferguson.html?_r=0) The Baltimore police have a long history of brutality. (http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/) How can that not destroy the relationship between police and the communities they're supposed to serve? Why should you trust the people who regularly beat you? I don't see how you can have minority communities trusting the police without serious police reform happening first.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AM
Yes, obviously Joseph Kent was arrested by the National Guard for being out past curfew. I did, in fact, read the articles I linked to. But I'm asking you to look at the video footage of it happening. The message of my post was not "a man was literally kidnapped" but "something is wrong with these actions". Is that how arrests generally look? Is that how arrests usually proceed? No, it isn't. That was an unnecessary brute force display that doesn't serve to ease tensions at all.
Or it was a smart decision based on the context of the situation. Which do you think is more likely to illicit greater violence and more risk to all parties concerned; the police strolling up asking to speak to Joseph Kent, telling him he's under arrest, cuffing him, and reading him his rights as might be 'conventionally' done or snatching him before anybody has any idea what's happening? Based on my experience and the
likelihood that the police would have had to fight their way in and out of the former scenario, I'd say the latter is the better alternative even if it doesn't play well on CNN. Lives come before feels and "optics."
At least in my world, anyway.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AMQuote from: Frag Magnet on April 29, 2015, 10:04:17 PM
First of all, the National Guard does not represent the United States (unless they're on Federal orders; in other words, "deployed overseas"), they represent their home state and they operate under the authority of that state's Governor.
I believe the National Guard actually is under the control of both the state and the federal government, isn't it? I defer to you on this, since you have actual service experience, but that was my understanding
The National Guard belongs to the states. NG units can be lent out to the federal government (which has become fairly common practice since 9/11) but under most circumstances they're strictly under the control of their home states. It's a little more complicated than that; for instance a lot of DoD/Army/Air Force/etc regulations and policies (for instance, the regulations regarding the correct wear of uniforms) apply to NG and Reserve units but unless they're under federal orders, they're under the control of (and paid by) their home state.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AMQuote from: Frag Magnet on April 29, 2015, 10:04:17 PM
Unfortunately, the culture in many of those communities is one that shuns people who become police officers (you really can't say it's "black culture" because you see it in a lot of lower class communities regardless of race). Frankly, I think that's more of a factor than anything else.
Yes, but why do they shun them? Because law enforcement has a history of systematically oppressing and discriminating against minorities, while those who do so often escape repercussions. It's no surprise that minorities don't want to join that kind of team; the team has been telling them for their entire lives that they're not worth anything.
I've really got to take issue with this. I currently live in an
overwhelmingly black neighborhood and while the LMPD sometimes uses some heavy-handed tactics which I certainly find questionable, they're the same tactics used in roughly the same prevalence as the previous neighborhood I lived in which was mostly white. What these two neighborhoods share is that they're mainly lower class and that there's a lot of crime in both neighborhoods. I've also seen this general trend in other areas of the country in which I've lived.
Ever seen someone get pulled over for speeding and react with frothing anger and resentment at the officer for giving them a speeding ticket (even though they KNOW that they were speeding)? I think that's the place that this attitude
mainly comes from. People don't like being told 'no' and when our government makes rules it's ultimately the police who end up as the one saying "no" in person; that automatically puts them at odds with the majority of the population. Then when you start factoring in social factors within a community and police practices (ranging from those which are actually unfair to those which merely isolate police from the community they serve), there's a lot of wiggle room for that divide to get a lot wider.
That's not to say that police officers never do racist shit -- we
all know better but an understaffed police department operating in an impoverished, crime-ridden community isn't going to be well-liked; even if everybody was part of the same ethnic group and 100% of its officers were total saints. The problem is that in these situations the only time the police interact with people is when something bad is happening/has happened. They're there to break up your fun. They're there to arrest someone. They're there to take someone you have social ties with away.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AMDaniel Pantaleo wasn't indicted for killing Eric Garner, even after it was ruled a homicide.
I'm not 100% up on this case nor the law in NY so I'm not going to comment on this one other than to say that a death being classified as a 'homicide' does not necessarily mean that a crime was committed. For example, here in Kentucky, if someone were to break into my home and try to kill me -- all of it caught on camera because I was trying to make a crappy demo of one of my pedals -- and I killed them in self-defense it would still be ruled a homicide. Even though I might have every right to defend my own life with lethal force in that scenario and even though there was conclusive proof of my justification.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AMDarren Wilson wasn't indicted for killing Michael Brown.
Nor should he have been. Contrary to the narrative our media spewed for months on end, the "hands up, don't shoot" story was completely false and was proven so by the autopsy. Michael Brown's finger prints and DNA were on Darren Wilson's gun and the wounds and GSR on his hands are only explained by his hand being on the gun at the time it was fired. The "click, click, bang" part of his narrative that so many people found untrustworthy is in fact a technical issue with that weapon consistent with a struggle for the gun (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1PR9dAr9vDI).
Michael Brown was fighting with Darren Wilson for his gun. Darren Wilson had every reason to be in fear of his life.
Now, did Wilson make mistakes? Sure. I think not waiting for backup and trying to apprehend two suspects by himself in that situation was a huge blunder and one that responsible police departments will be reviewing for many, many years to come as part of their training program. But being overeager to make an arrest does not rise to the level of a criminal act.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AMGeorge Zimmerman (though not a police officer) was acquitted of Trayvon Martin's murder.
Which should have been a surprise to nobody. There was
never sufficient evidence for a murder conviction.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AMI'm not speaking of the events themselves, I'm talking specifically about the aftermath. Regardless of whether you or I personally agree with those decisions, I don't think it's a stretch of the imagination to understand how minority communities can look at these events and walk away with the lesson "they can do anything to you and get away with it".
You're right, it's not difficult to imagine at all but I also see this as signs of failure well outside of our police departments. It's the failure of our educational system (did nobody else take a Civics class?). It's the failure of parents to raise their children. It's the failure of our press to act responsibly. It's the failure of our politicians and community leaders to actually
lead.The very fact that in all of these cases you mentioned the officer/asshat-with-a-concealed-carry-license was tried and convicted in the court of public opinion before the crime scene was even processed should tell you that our perspective of this issue is extremely skewed.
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AMThe police in Ferguson violated the constitutional rights of their black citizens as a matter of course. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/justice-department-finds-pattern-of-police-bias-and-excessive-force-in-ferguson.html?_r=0) The Baltimore police have a long history of brutality. (http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/) How can that not destroy the relationship between police and the communities they're supposed to serve? Why should you trust the people who regularly beat you? I don't see how you can have minority communities trusting the police without serious police reform happening first.
I very much agree that police reform is needed but my concerns are that police reform alone is not enough and that the average American is too uneducated on this topic to push for smart reforms. Very, very few people (who
I know at least) seem to understand that if a police officer is going to use lethal force, they have only a split second to make that decision. I'm always hearing "he should have just used a taser" or "why not shoot to wound" or "the guy
only had a knife" or a dozen other declarations of ignorance (if you've found yourself thinking any of those statements, I highly recommend reading this report (http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/feloniousreport.pdf) on police officers killed in the line of duty; it will be very enlightening for you). I fear that we will put our police officers into a position where they're no longer being asked to risk their lives, but institutionally obligated to throw them away. And no good can possibly come of that.
I don't know you Frag Magnet, but I do like your level headedness.
Canadians are really quiet when you ask them about the issues you Americans are facing. We don't have the same issues, we have different ones.
Jacob
Quote from: Frag Magnet on May 01, 2015, 02:28:34 AM
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AM
Yes, obviously Joseph Kent was arrested by the National Guard for being out past curfew. I did, in fact, read the articles I linked to. But I'm asking you to look at the video footage of it happening. The message of my post was not "a man was literally kidnapped" but "something is wrong with these actions". Is that how arrests generally look? Is that how arrests usually proceed? No, it isn't. That was an unnecessary brute force display that doesn't serve to ease tensions at all.
Or it was a smart decision based on the context of the situation. Which do you think is more likely to illicit greater violence and more risk to all parties concerned; the police strolling up asking to speak to Joseph Kent, telling him he's under arrest, cuffing him, and reading him his rights as might be 'conventionally' done or snatching him before anybody has any idea what's happening? Based on my experience and the likelihood that the police would have had to fight their way in and out of the former scenario, I'd say the latter is the better alternative even if it doesn't play well on CNN. Lives come before feels and "optics."
At least in my world, anyway.
Joseph Kent had his hands in the air the entire time, and was walking slowly. He wasn't acting aggressively, and according to his lawyer (quoted here: http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/apr/29/baltimore-protester-kidnapped-on-live-tv-joseph-kent?CMP=share_btn_fb) he was trying to disperse other protesters. Snatching him into a moving vehicle only makes the police look extremely suspicious in the public eye, and in the long term that's more likely to incite more violence. What countless people witnessed on CNN (and later via social media) reads as another reason for them not to trust the police: throwing a non-threatening, peaceful man into a car with an arrest that looks exactly like a kidnapping. If the arrest had been done by the book, of course they'd still be angry about it, but the manner in which it was performed wouldn't be adding any extra fuel to the fire.
I just noticed that the article I linked to doesn't actually mention Beatty had been retained as Kent's lawyer, but Beatty confirmed that on his Twitter earlier.
Quote from: Frag Magnet on May 01, 2015, 02:28:34 AM
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AMQuote from: Frag Magnet on April 29, 2015, 10:04:17 PM
Unfortunately, the culture in many of those communities is one that shuns people who become police officers (you really can't say it's "black culture" because you see it in a lot of lower class communities regardless of race). Frankly, I think that's more of a factor than anything else.
Yes, but why do they shun them? Because law enforcement has a history of systematically oppressing and discriminating against minorities, while those who do so often escape repercussions. It's no surprise that minorities don't want to join that kind of team; the team has been telling them for their entire lives that they're not worth anything.
I've really got to take issue with this. I currently live in an overwhelmingly black neighborhood and while the LMPD sometimes uses some heavy-handed tactics which I certainly find questionable, they're the same tactics used in roughly the same prevalence as the previous neighborhood I lived in which was mostly white. What these two neighborhoods share is that they're mainly lower class and that there's a lot of crime in both neighborhoods. I've also seen this general trend in other areas of the country in which I've lived.
Ever seen someone get pulled over for speeding and react with frothing anger and resentment at the officer for giving them a speeding ticket (even though they KNOW that they were speeding)? I think that's the place that this attitude mainly comes from. People don't like being told 'no' and when our government makes rules it's ultimately the police who end up as the one saying "no" in person; that automatically puts them at odds with the majority of the population. Then when you start factoring in social factors within a community and police practices (ranging from those which are actually unfair to those which merely isolate police from the community they serve), there's a lot of wiggle room for that divide to get a lot wider.
That's not to say that police officers never do racist shit -- we all know better but an understaffed police department operating in an impoverished, crime-ridden community isn't going to be well-liked; even if everybody was part of the same ethnic group and 100% of its officers were total saints. The problem is that in these situations the only time the police interact with people is when something bad is happening/has happened. They're there to break up your fun. They're there to arrest someone. They're there to take someone you have social ties with away.
It isn't just a matter of people not liking being told "no", or that they don't like being caught doing something wrong, though. In Ferguson, black people are arrested at a rate almost three times higher than white people. USA Today studied arrest records last year (http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/11/18/ferguson-black-arrest-rates/19043207/) and found that in
at least 1,581 police departments all across the country, black people are arrested at rates several times higher than that of Ferguson. We all know that correlation is not causation, and the article also states as much: "Those disparities are easier to measure than they are to explain. They could be a reflection of biased policing; they could just as easily be a byproduct of the vast economic and educational gaps that persist across much of the USA — factors closely tied to crime rates. In other words, experts said, the fact that such disparities exist does little to explain their causes." But, it goes on to say: "Whatever the reasons, the results are the same: Blacks are far more likely to be arrested than any other racial group in the USA. In some places, dramatically so."
That's just a plain fact. They found at least 70 departments across the country where the arrest rate for black people was ten times higher (or more) than people of any other race. And on the flip side, "Only 173 of the 3,538 police departments USA TODAY examined arrested black people at a rate equal to or lower than other racial groups." That's about one out of every twenty police departments -- slightly under 5%.
Regardless of the causes, the result of this is that people notice, and not just statisticians. This is where distrust of the police comes from. Not because they don't like being told what to do. Because if you're black, you have a significantly higher percentage of being arrested for any reason
in 95% of America.
Even discounting arrests, while I have no numbers on a national level, I can tell you that at least locally to me (Brooklyn/NYC), minorities are harassed by police on a far more regular basis than white people. In the past few years there's been a lot of discussion about the NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" policy, in which they randomly stop and search people on the street. (This Wikipedia page is a very good overview on the subject if you're not familiar: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop-and-frisk_in_New_York_City) Between 2002 and 2014, the percentages of people who were stopped and innocent of any crime were generally in the high 80s -- usually between 86-89%. White people made up 9-12% of those stops. The other 88-91% of them were black or hispanic. (http://www.nyclu.org/content/stop-and-frisk-data)
Quote from: Frag Magnet on May 01, 2015, 02:28:34 AM
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AM
Daniel Pantaleo wasn't indicted for killing Eric Garner, even after it was ruled a homicide.
I'm not 100% up on this case nor the law in NY so I'm not going to comment on this one other than to say that a death being classified as a 'homicide' does not necessarily mean that a crime was committed. For example, here in Kentucky, if someone were to break into my home and try to kill me -- all of it caught on camera because I was trying to make a crappy demo of one of my pedals -- and I killed them in self-defense it would still be ruled a homicide. Even though I might have every right to defend my own life with lethal force in that scenario and even though there was conclusive proof of my justification.
You're right that my mention of the homicide ruling is irrelevant, but it must be pointed out that Eric Garner wasn't killed in self-defense. He hadn't attacked anyone, and while he swatted Pantaleo's arms away when Pantaleo tried to handcuff him, as far as it's known that's the extent of his resistance. Pantaleo put him in a chokehold (which the NYPD prohibits) and pushed his face into the ground, while Garner repeatedly told him and the other officers "I can't breathe," before passing out. While Garner died in an ambulance on the way to the hospital, the medical examiner's report found his cause of death to be "compression of neck (chokehold), compression of chest and prone positioning during physical restraint by police."
I mentioned that case specifically because it was the most recent high profile instance that immediately came to mind that illustrate how hard it is to indict a police officer. I don't want to sound like I'm assigning homework, but this article does a much better job than I can of explaining why and how this happens: http://www.thenation.com/article/190937/why-its-impossible-indict-cop
The short version is that US case law gives a lot of weight to an officer's account of a situation, even if that account is proven wrong. Internal Affairs generally only give their police a slap on the wrist, and there's effectively no civilian oversight allowed. Civil suits also don't curb police misconduct, since the burden of paying damages falls to city governments and not the individual police officers or their departments in question. (The link I posted yesterday about the multi-million dollar cost of Baltimore's history of police brutality is a great example of this.)
Quote from: Frag Magnet on May 01, 2015, 02:28:34 AM
Quote from: lincolnic on April 30, 2015, 03:50:26 AMThe police in Ferguson violated the constitutional rights of their black citizens as a matter of course. (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/04/us/justice-department-finds-pattern-of-police-bias-and-excessive-force-in-ferguson.html?_r=0) The Baltimore police have a long history of brutality. (http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/) How can that not destroy the relationship between police and the communities they're supposed to serve? Why should you trust the people who regularly beat you? I don't see how you can have minority communities trusting the police without serious police reform happening first.
I very much agree that police reform is needed but my concerns are that police reform alone is not enough and that the average American is too uneducated on this topic to push for smart reforms. Very, very few people (who I know at least) seem to understand that if a police officer is going to use lethal force, they have only a split second to make that decision. I'm always hearing "he should have just used a taser" or "why not shoot to wound" or "the guy only had a knife" or a dozen other declarations of ignorance (if you've found yourself thinking any of those statements, I highly recommend reading this report (http://www.theiacp.org/portals/0/pdfs/feloniousreport.pdf) on police officers killed in the line of duty; it will be very enlightening for you). I fear that we will put our police officers into a position where they're no longer being asked to risk their lives, but institutionally obligated to throw them away. And no good can possibly come of that.
"Police reform" isn't limited only to the use of force, though that is an inescapable part of it. It's really about accountability, much of which is related to what happens before and after force is used. As the article I linked above discusses, there's almost no meaningful self-regulation in America's police forces. When Internal Affairs bureaus and Patrolmen's Benevolent Associations exist mainly to shield their officers from the consequences of their actions after force is used, then self-regulation does not work. Independent civilian oversight would be one way to address the problem, but (at least in New York, where I live) this is constantly rejected.
If someone is more likely to be arrested for any reason just because they're black, that needs to be addressed as well. (This is the "before force is used" part.) The police need to prove to civilians that they're not specifically targeting black people, especially when hard data suggests otherwise. I don't claim to know what concrete steps need to be taken to accomplish this, but I do think that, again, more oversight and accountability are necessary to the process. Our police are supposed to serve and protect all of us, and they are failing at that task.
The police investigative report was turned over to the state early yesterday. Some details have leaked; a head wound matches a bolt inside the van in which he was being transported. I don't expect too much information to come out that isn't cleanup, analysis, and increasingly smaller protests until the state finishes.
The officers will be charged with a "depraved heart" homicide; the arrest was also ruled illegal as it turned out that the knife he was carrying wasn't even a switch blade -- which is a separate charge*. The report is described as "extremely thorough"; I'm hoping that the text will be released for public review.
Twitter has exploded.
What's a "depraved heart" homicide, you might be asking? Lexa dug up the definition:
"Depraved heart murder is the form of murder that establishes that the wilful doing of a dangerous and reckless act with wanton indifference to the consequences and perils involved, is just as blameworthy, and just as worthy of punishment, when the harmful result ensues, as is the express intent to kill itself. This highly blameworthy state of mind is not one of mere negligence. It is not merely one even of gross criminal negligence. It involves rather the deliberate perpetration of a knowingly dangerous act with reckless and wanton unconcern and indifference as to whether anyone is harmed or not. The common law treats such a state of mind as just as blameworthy, just as anti-social and, therefore, just as truly murderous as the specific intents to kill and to harm."
*I consider the wrongful arrest charge to be huge. Why? Because it challenges the 2000 Supreme Court decision where it was ruled that running from the police in a "high crime" area (plsdefinemmkay?) is grounds for arrest even absent evidence of a crime. That sort of decision should scare the tar out of anyone, regardless of their circumstances, due to its potential for abuse.
Quote from: midwayfair on May 01, 2015, 03:14:16 PM
The report is described as "extremely thorough"; I'm hoping that the text will be released for public review.
I haven't seen the full text of the report anywhere yet, but this NY Times article features more details than I've seen elsewhere so far: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/05/02/us/freddie-gray-autopsy-report-given-to-baltimore-prosecutors.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=a-lede-package-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news
Thanks for defining "depraved heart" murder as well -- I was wondering about that myself.
What's the mood on the streets like at the moment?
lincolnic, everyone who isn't a police office sounds happy.
Okay, okay, some levity. The Baltimore FOP's account (@FOP3) has posted some of the funniest stuff I've read all week. They tried to use a GoFundMe account to raise money for the officers, and then complained when it was shut down with "no explanation" -- the site EXPLICITLY forbids raising money for people facing charges. They asked ...
"Where were all these video bloggers when police officers & fire fighters remained inside the WTC working to save lives?"
Every time I read it, I find some other reason to laugh about it. I'm currently thinking the account is either parody* or hacked.
*It's not parody, it's too old.