Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Big Guy

Baltimore Riots

Recommended Posts

Oh yeah, you can see lots of things in movies. There's a guy in a cape that flys around saving people too!

Yeah a dramatization of Compton is the same as Metropolis......keep on keepin' on brave soldier.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what, if you don't get what you want, it's OK to destroy other people's property?

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the city of Baltimore has paid out millions of dollars in compensation to other people who have been injured, crippled, or killed while bouncing around by deliberately wild rides in the back of Baltimore PD vans.

And, while the police keep insisting these are "unfortunate accidents" and "we are updating our procedures to make sure this doesn't happen again", it keeps happening.

While paying lip-service to the idea that these "nickel rides" are illegal, the Baltimore PD is obviously laughing down their sleeve about these lawsuits that the city has been paying out on their behalf, and it's obvious that the police have no intention of changing. Likely the memo sent out a week before Freddie Gray got his spine broke, reminding officers to use restraints when transporting suspects, was met with huge guffaws in the squad room as well.

I'm sure we all watched the sad-faced police lawyer telling reporters how the 6 officers were "sincerely saddened" by Gray's death. I'm sure they're sad that he died. I'm sure that they didn't mean for him to be crippled by the time he got to the station. I know for certain that they're really sad to be charged with murder, criminal negligence, manslaughter, or whatever the prosecutors end up going with.

But if you look at the route the van took, you'd have to be an idiot to think that what happened to Gray wasn't deliberate. And you've have to be an idiot to think that they "forgot" to restrain him in the vehicle. "The nickel ride" is a long-running practice in Baltimore and in other cities as well. And they had no interest in changing.

In this case, the rioters "getting what they want" means making the police obey the law. And why is that so unreasonable? And why is rioting necessary to make that happen?

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Add that to the ever growing list of reasons that I'm thankful that I don't live there.

Oh sure....things are so much better in Winnipeg...particularly for First Nations who can't even riot for change.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I'm gathering from some in this forum, violent protest is a legitimate means for change. I'm thinking that the anti-big government groups, and pro-life groups should then take a page out of the Baltimore playbook. It's time to start destroying clinics, etc. After all, it's what America was founded on!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think kimmy is bemused and is just playing devil's advocate today, what she's suggesting is quite counter to her positions in the past.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yep...that would be a great way to end President Obama's second term.....a summer of 1960's era "race riots".

That will teach the "pigs"...right on !

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned earlier in this thread, the city of Baltimore has paid out millions of dollars in compensation to other people who have been injured, crippled, or killed while bouncing around by deliberately wild rides in the back of Baltimore PD vans.

And, while the police keep insisting these are "unfortunate accidents" and "we are updating our procedures to make sure this doesn't happen again", it keeps happening.

While paying lip-service to the idea that these "nickel rides" are illegal, the Baltimore PD is obviously laughing down their sleeve about these lawsuits that the city has been paying out on their behalf, and it's obvious that the police have no intention of changing. Likely the memo sent out a week before Freddie Gray got his spine broke, reminding officers to use restraints when transporting suspects, was met with huge guffaws in the squad room as well.

I'm sure we all watched the sad-faced police lawyer telling reporters how the 6 officers were "sincerely saddened" by Gray's death. I'm sure they're sad that he died. I'm sure that they didn't mean for him to be crippled by the time he got to the station. I know for certain that they're really sad to be charged with murder, criminal negligence, manslaughter, or whatever the prosecutors end up going with.

But if you look at the route the van took, you'd have to be an idiot to think that what happened to Gray wasn't deliberate. And you've have to be an idiot to think that they "forgot" to restrain him in the vehicle. "The nickel ride" is a long-running practice in Baltimore and in other cities as well. And they had no interest in changing.

In this case, the rioters "getting what they want" means making the police obey the law. And why is that so unreasonable? And why is rioting necessary to make that happen?

-k

So why aren't they occupying the police stations or the court houses?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I'm gathering from some in this forum, violent protest is a legitimate means for change. I'm thinking that the anti-big government groups, and pro-life groups should then take a page out of the Baltimore playbook. It's time to start destroying clinics, etc. After all, it's what America was founded on!

Send all the rioters to Iraq or Syria...ISIS will be very supportive of their complaints.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, what, if you don't get what you want, it's OK to destroy other people's property?

The media is focusing on the few who are causing damage and the hundreds, if not thousands that are helping to clean up or prevent the looting in the first place. So it's no wonder some here get such a narrow view of events.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see how that relates to an unarmed person who was shackled hand and foot in the back of a van somehow arriving at the station with a severed spine.

-k

I think it relates to the militarization of policing in the US, and all that that entails. The mindset is completely different. The attitude, the way you treat people are different.

As I said before, I've been watching some Brit cop reality shows. They have a number of them. Even the way they talk to people is different, even suspects. The way they treat them is different. They don't search them or cuff them before putting them into their cars to talk, and even their voice is different in that they speak like everyday people instead of that "command voice" thing the cops are taught in the US. Most of all it's clear they aren't anywhere near as scared about being attacked as American cops. So there's less of an 'us vs them' mentality - 'them' being 'the enemy'. They tend to treat even people who are criminals a lot more like they're human beings and not 'perps'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Today, I found another article that says in the US police have killed more people than those Americans killed in the Iraqi war. If the article is true and we'll have to wait and see, the US, this summer is going to be violent and I'm old enough to remember the rioting in the 1960's. http://www.globalresearch.ca/is-the-federal-government-ready-for-war-against-the-american-people/5446852

Why do we always need to have this talk about validity of sources?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From what I'm gathering from some in this forum, violent protest is a legitimate means for change. I'm thinking that the anti-big government groups, and pro-life groups should then take a page out of the Baltimore playbook. It's time to start destroying clinics, etc. After all, it's what America was founded on!

When legitimate problems aren't addressed, desperate people do desperate things.

.

Edited by jacee

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When legitimate problems aren't addressed, desperate people do desperate things.

.

Sweet. I'm thinking that legitimate late term abortion concerns that haven't been addressed require a violent response then. Right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sweet. I'm thinking that legitimate late term abortion concerns that haven't been addressed require a violent response then. Right?

For someone who complains about off-topic comments all the time....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For someone who complains about off-topic comments all the time....

What's off-topic? You guys are asserting that legitimate concerns that go "unanswered" require violent protest, which is acceptable. I'm just wondering if this concept applies to everyone. If not, why not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's off-topic? You guys are asserting that legitimate concerns that go "unanswered" require violent protest, which is acceptable.

Speaking for myself, I'm simply indicating that it's inevitable.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think it relates to the militarization of policing in the US, and all that that entails. The mindset is completely different. The attitude, the way you treat people are different.

As I said before, I've been watching some Brit cop reality shows. They have a number of them. Even the way they talk to people is different, even suspects. The way they treat them is different. They don't search them or cuff them before putting them into their cars to talk, and even their voice is different in that they speak like everyday people instead of that "command voice" thing the cops are taught in the US. Most of all it's clear they aren't anywhere near as scared about being attacked as American cops. So there's less of an 'us vs them' mentality - 'them' being 'the enemy'. They tend to treat even people who are criminals a lot more like they're human beings and not 'perps'.

I get that the mentality between US cops and British cops is completely different. However, the militarization of US police is a fairly recent issue, while as BC2004 indicated earlier, the problem of cops inflicting extra-judicial punishment on suspects goes back decades.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's off-topic? You guys are asserting that legitimate concerns that go "unanswered" require violent protest, which is acceptable. I'm just wondering if this concept applies to everyone. If not, why not?

A key difference between the situations is that the law of the land, and numerous judges and juries, and the police themselves, all agree that these "nickel rides" are completely illegal, while courts have upheld the right to obtain an abortion.

I'm also confused as to why the conservatives on the forum are so upset about the riots. Based on the rhetoric from the NRA types, and the Tea Party types, one thing I know for sure is that conservatives believe that the threat of popular uprising is necessary to keep politicians honest. A great many conservatives argue that the Second Amendment was designed as a check against government tyranny. That viewpoint has been argued by the NRA, by Republicans, by constitutional experts.

Well, in Baltimore you have a group of people who are not just talking, they're putting those words into action. There is, certainly, no more obvious example of government tyranny than police officers slaying a man without trial. And here is a group of Americans who have banded together to take up arms against this tyrannical use of government force and say "this ends here!" and you guys are mad? Why? Why aren't the rioters heroes to you guys? When this stuff happened at Clive Bundy's ranch, Sean Hannity jizzed his pants on-air, he was so aroused by all the freedom. Why aren't you conservatives having freedom parties in honor of the Baltimore riots? I thought you guys loved it when the citizenry rises up against government oppression.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that recent....federal, state, and local law enforcement had their first go round with heavily armed gangsters almost 100 years ago. Gone are the days of expecting police officers to take occupational risks against perps hell-bent on resisting arrest and assaulting/killing law enforcement. The cops have labour unions and contracts too, and cities have to pay lots for disability insurance and settlements.

Well armed gang bangers changed the game forever....new tactics and weapons for police departments. Perps aren't unionized...yet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that recent....federal, state, and local law enforcement had their first go round with heavily armed gangsters almost 100 years ago.

oh sure, but it's only the past 10 years or so that the US government has been dumping used military gear on police departments to the point that even Podunk Idaho now has its own APC and a squad of cops with military body-armor and M4s.

Radley Balko from the Cato Institute has been doing some interesting reporting on this issue and found that the number of SWAT team call-outs has risen astronomically in recent years. As the adage goes, if you're given a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm also confused as to why the conservatives on the forum are so upset about the riots. Based on the rhetoric from the NRA types, and the Tea Party types, one thing I know for sure is that conservatives believe that the threat of popular uprising is necessary to keep politicians honest. A great many conservatives argue that the Second Amendment was designed as a check against government tyranny. That viewpoint has been argued by the NRA, by Republicans, by constitutional experts.

Not many of the conservatives on this forum are Americans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh sure, but it's only the past 10 years or so that the US government has been dumping used military gear on police departments to the point that even Podunk Idaho now has its own APC and a squad of cops with military body-armor and M4s.

Military weapons and tactics had been moving to the state and local level long before that. That includes automatic weapons, helicopters, FLIR pods,

non-lethals, Kevlar vests, etc.

Radley Balko from the Cato Institute has been doing some interesting reporting on this issue and found that the number of SWAT team call-outs has risen astronomically in recent years. As the adage goes, if you're given a hammer, everything starts to look like a nail.

Many SWAT team "call outs" have been prank calls.....it's called "swatting".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not many of the conservatives on this forum are Americans.

Oh. Do Canadian conservatives feel different about abuse of power by the state?

-k

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh. Do Canadian conservatives feel different about abuse of power by the state?

You specifically talked about "the threat of popular uprising is necessary to keep politicians honest". That's a very specifically American point of view. Not many Canadians would agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...