Baltimore: The Next Ferguson? (1 Viewer)

[jonessed]

I have a friend with family in England and I do a fair amount of work with folks over there, big questions about what is going on over here. "Is the racism that bad?" That kind of thing, we're looking bad on the works stage.

They have had huge riots within the last few years. Much bigger than this.

 

[[icon]]

I love this thread

 

[matttyl]

I recommended it because I think it's someone with a unique perspective. He's explaining things in a way you'll never hear in the mainstream media, or during a political campaign.

As for O'Malley, I doubt he was explicit with voters about how he was going to "juke" the stats in his bid to hold political power for umpteen years.

I agree that he has a very unique perspective, and it was an interesting read, and one that you won't see in other places.

As for O'Malley, direct from the wiki page on the 1999 Baltimore mayoral election...

"In 1999, Baltimore experienced high rates of murder and unemployment, and had a failing city school system. O'Malley declared his candidacy, focusing his campaign on a "zero tolerance" approach to crime. He received endorsements from many of the city's African American leaders."

The guy flat out told the voters what he'd do if he'd won, and he did it. Both property and violent crime rates plummeted when he was mayor, and violent crime actually went back up again after he left office. Just saying the guy made it clear what he was going to do it if won the seat, he won - did what he said he was going to do, and got reelected (likely because of it).

 

[RCon]

I'm troubled by this prosecution.

I don't want to assume this is political, and I don't agree with rockaction's accusation that it's a collective prosecution against all police misconduct. But there are some things about it which really troubles me. This is a rather complicated case, and it took them a rather short time to lay charges. It troubled me when the prosecutor said today, "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!" That sounds political to me. It doesn't feel right.

In the Michael Brown case, because there wasn't clear cut evidence either way, my gut told me that Darren Wilson probably committed an unlawful murder because the notion of an unarmed Brown turning around and charging him seemed so unlikely. I still believe that. In this case, my gut tells me that, whatever mistakes these officers made, they didn't intentionally mean to kill this guy or seriously harm him. Why? Because it makes no sense. What makes sense is that they were unaware how serious his situation was, thought he was whining, and ignored him. If I'm right, they deserve to be disciplined for that, maybe even be removed from the force and face some jail time perhaps. But 20 years imprisonment? Murder and manslaughter? That doesn't seem right to me. Again evidence may come in that will change my mind, and for the sake of the prosecution, I hope it does.

But honestly I'm not seeing this.

I will say the same thing on this one that I said during previous investigations/incidents. Let's wait to get all the information before we start making judgements. I assume the prosecutor's office has more information than has so far been reported.

However, if she did, in fact, say "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!", that sounds pretty awful.

 

[timschochet]

I'm troubled by this prosecution.

I don't want to assume this is political, and I don't agree with rockaction's accusation that it's a collective prosecution against all police misconduct. But there are some things about it which really troubles me. This is a rather complicated case, and it took them a rather short time to lay charges. It troubled me when the prosecutor said today, "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!" That sounds political to me. It doesn't feel right.

In the Michael Brown case, because there wasn't clear cut evidence either way, my gut told me that Darren Wilson probably committed an unlawful murder because the notion of an unarmed Brown turning around and charging him seemed so unlikely. I still believe that. In this case, my gut tells me that, whatever mistakes these officers made, they didn't intentionally mean to kill this guy or seriously harm him. Why? Because it makes no sense. What makes sense is that they were unaware how serious his situation was, thought he was whining, and ignored him. If I'm right, they deserve to be disciplined for that, maybe even be removed from the force and face some jail time perhaps. But 20 years imprisonment? Murder and manslaughter? That doesn't seem right to me. Again evidence may come in that will change my mind, and for the sake of the prosecution, I hope it does.

But honestly I'm not seeing this.

I will say the same thing on this one that I said during previous investigations/incidents. Let's wait to get all the information before we start making judgements. I assume the prosecutor's office has more information than has so far been reported.

However, if she did, in fact, say "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!", that sounds pretty awful.

I heard her say it.

Now, in one sense I can understand what she's doing- she's trying to tell the protestors, particularly the young ones, "You see, justice can work here, if we let. You need to channel your energies peacefully and no more violence, etc." And she actually did stress this. If that helps in keeping the peace, then it's a positive. But within the context of an impartial prosecution based on the specific facts of a case, it doesn't sound good.

 

[jonessed]

I'm troubled by this prosecution.

I don't want to assume this is political, and I don't agree with rockaction's accusation that it's a collective prosecution against all police misconduct. But there are some things about it which really troubles me. This is a rather complicated case, and it took them a rather short time to lay charges. It troubled me when the prosecutor said today, "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!" That sounds political to me. It doesn't feel right.

In the Michael Brown case, because there wasn't clear cut evidence either way, my gut told me that Darren Wilson probably committed an unlawful murder because the notion of an unarmed Brown turning around and charging him seemed so unlikely. I still believe that. In this case, my gut tells me that, whatever mistakes these officers made, they didn't intentionally mean to kill this guy or seriously harm him. Why? Because it makes no sense. What makes sense is that they were unaware how serious his situation was, thought he was whining, and ignored him. If I'm right, they deserve to be disciplined for that, maybe even be removed from the force and face some jail time perhaps. But 20 years imprisonment? Murder and manslaughter? That doesn't seem right to me. Again evidence may come in that will change my mind, and for the sake of the prosecution, I hope it does.

But honestly I'm not seeing this.

I will say the same thing on this one that I said during previous investigations/incidents. Let's wait to get all the information before we start making judgements. I assume the prosecutor's office has more information than has so far been reported.

However, if she did, in fact, say "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!", that sounds pretty awful.

It's odd how inexperienced the city leadership is. I wonder why that is.

 

[timschochet]

Blaming O'Malley, or any politician, seems way out there to me. I don't think "zero tolerance for crime" means doing what these 6 police officers are being charged with.

 

[General Tso]

I have a friend with family in England and I do a fair amount of work with folks over there, big questions about what is going on over here. "Is the racism that bad?" That kind of thing, we're looking bad on the works stage.

Yup. The Left once again took a legitimate issue (police brutality) and framed it within the context of white racism. This despite a black Mayor, black Police Chief, and a police force that is predominantly minority. It's an interesting phenomenon, and it must be totally perplexing to the rest of the world.

You are either not paying attention or being disingenuous. The issue has always been framed within the context of racist policing and racism in the American justice system. The color of the officer or public officials has never been particularly important to anyone on the "protest" side. That's why people have been citing disparities in traffic stops and arrests and sentencing with little concern for the race of the officers or the judges or the juries. That's why nobody in Baltimore or elsewhere particularly cares about the races of the officers charged today, which is still unknown.There are some who have tried to cast it as an issue of white racism by pointing to the racial makeup of police forces, but that's mostly a distraction and a creation of the media IMO. The only other people who are casting it this way are whiny white people who want to feel like they are being unfairly persecuted.

So your argument is that there is anti-black racism even amongst black police and black cities? Please expand upon this theory because it interests the hell out of me.

No, the argument, or one of them anyway, is that law enforcement discriminates against the black community in a variety of ways. And it's not really an "argument"- it's been proven with statistic after statistic even after accounting for variables like geography, criminal history and socioeconomic factors. The racial makeup of the city, the police department, city officials or whatever is interesting fodder for some members of the media prone to oversimplification and for conservatives trying to play a stupid game of "gotcha." But it's basically irrelevant.

Do you really think if the officers charged in Gray's death were revealed to be 4 black people and two Hispanic people the protestors would just say "oh, our mistake!" and go home? Of course not. It didn't matter that the supervising officer in the Garner incident was black. And it won't matter here. If you don't get that ... if you literally see all race-related issues as black people vs white people ... I don't know what else to tell you.

ETA: I should add, since you mentioned it earlier, that generic police brutality regardless of the race of the victim IS an element of the anger and the protests as well. I don't get the feeling that it's all about race. The suppression of media coverage has also been part of it, at least in Ferguson.

Tobias, I don't often agree with you but I absolutely love debating with you. I don't think I've ever heard someone raise the specter of anti-black racism coming from blacks.Here's the deal - I think by now you know my position on racism. I think it is totally overblown. Society has tackled the key issues of systemic racism and by and large black people have equal opportunities, at least in law, and in practice for the most part. Racism is a red herring today. It obfuscates the real underlying issue that is going on, and worse than that it divides us and prevents real progress from being made. It also creates a victim mentality among blacks which doesn't serve them well.

 

[General Tso]

Blaming O'Malley, or any politician, seems way out there to me. I don't think "zero tolerance for crime" means doing what these 6 police officers are being charged with.

Exactly. This is where I believe blacks in MD are showing a bit of racial animus. Lots of other MD politicians have run on a get-tough-on-crime platform, including State's Attorney Moseby I might add.

 

[Jack White]

I recommended it because I think it's someone with a unique perspective. He's explaining things in a way you'll never hear in the mainstream media, or during a political campaign.

As for O'Malley, I doubt he was explicit with voters about how he was going to "juke" the stats in his bid to hold political power for umpteen years.

I agree that he has a very unique perspective, and it was an interesting read, and one that you won't see in other places.

As for O'Malley, direct from the wiki page on the 1999 Baltimore mayoral election...

"In 1999, Baltimore experienced high rates of murder and unemployment, and had a failing city school system. O'Malley declared his candidacy, focusing his campaign on a "zero tolerance" approach to crime. He received endorsements from many of the city's African American leaders."

The guy flat out told the voters what he'd do if he'd won, and he did it. Both property and violent crime rates plummeted when he was mayor, and violent crime actually went back up again after he left office. Just saying the guy made it clear what he was going to do it if won the seat, he won - did what he said he was going to do, and got reelected (likely because of it).

Did Carcetti tell voters that his definition of "zero tolerance" would include cops lying in District Court, discarding the 4th Amendment, and making mass arrests of people who had done nothing wrong?

Did he also tell the voters that he was going to retroactively falsify the crime stats of the previous mayor?

 

[whoknew]

Very Interesting read:

David Simon On Baltimore's Anguish

https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-s-anguish?utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=share-tools&utm_source=facebook&utm_content=post-top

Thanks for posting this.

Everyone who lurks or posts in this thread -- hell, everyone in the US -- would do well to read this.

Even David Simon haters.

I've read this, twice now. What would you say to Tso who asks (and I don't want to misquote him) what did they expect when they voted in Martin O'Malley who's entire campaign was to stop crime?

The article has a bolded line on the left reading...."“The drug war began it, certainly, but the stake through the heart of police procedure in Baltimore was Martin O’Malley.”" That's who they voted in and he wasn't vague about what he'd do as Mayor of the city when he ran in 1999, won, and then was reelected 4 years later. If they didn't like his politics, why vote for him and then reelect him?

Again, this was Tso's thought, but at first blush I'd have to agree.

So your contention is that the only way to reduce crime is to destroy good policing?

 

[matttyl]

I recommended it because I think it's someone with a unique perspective. He's explaining things in a way you'll never hear in the mainstream media, or during a political campaign.

As for O'Malley, I doubt he was explicit with voters about how he was going to "juke" the stats in his bid to hold political power for umpteen years.

I agree that he has a very unique perspective, and it was an interesting read, and one that you won't see in other places.

As for O'Malley, direct from the wiki page on the 1999 Baltimore mayoral election...

"In 1999, Baltimore experienced high rates of murder and unemployment, and had a failing city school system. O'Malley declared his candidacy, focusing his campaign on a "zero tolerance" approach to crime. He received endorsements from many of the city's African American leaders."

The guy flat out told the voters what he'd do if he'd won, and he did it. Both property and violent crime rates plummeted when he was mayor, and violent crime actually went back up again after he left office. Just saying the guy made it clear what he was going to do it if won the seat, he won - did what he said he was going to do, and got reelected (likely because of it).

Did Carcetti tell voters that his definition of "zero tolerance" would include cops lying in District Court, discarding the 4th Amendment, and making mass arrests of people who had done nothing wrong?

Did he also tell the voters that he was going to retroactively falsify the crime stats of the previous mayor?

Then why reelect him?

 

[Clifford]

So a message board and a talk radio head. No bloggers. Hardly seems like the "conservative blogosphere is going crazy."

Can you be specific about what Hannity even said?

Yeah. "This is a political prosecution. None of these charges will hold up. There is a conflict of interest. This woman should recuse herself." Etc. You get the general idea.

This sounds fun:

"What's wrong with this country? I'll tell you what's wrong! We coddle career criminals and brand the HEROs who have the GUTS to take them off our streets as criminals! I suppose next we'll be hiring members of Al Qaeda as airline pilots! Remember this day ladies and gentlemen: the day America died."

 

[Jack White]

I recommended it because I think it's someone with a unique perspective. He's explaining things in a way you'll never hear in the mainstream media, or during a political campaign.

As for O'Malley, I doubt he was explicit with voters about how he was going to "juke" the stats in his bid to hold political power for umpteen years.

I agree that he has a very unique perspective, and it was an interesting read, and one that you won't see in other places.

As for O'Malley, direct from the wiki page on the 1999 Baltimore mayoral election...

"In 1999, Baltimore experienced high rates of murder and unemployment, and had a failing city school system. O'Malley declared his candidacy, focusing his campaign on a "zero tolerance" approach to crime. He received endorsements from many of the city's African American leaders."

The guy flat out told the voters what he'd do if he'd won, and he did it. Both property and violent crime rates plummeted when he was mayor, and violent crime actually went back up again after he left office. Just saying the guy made it clear what he was going to do it if won the seat, he won - did what he said he was going to do, and got reelected (likely because of it).

Did Carcetti tell voters that his definition of "zero tolerance" would include cops lying in District Court, discarding the 4th Amendment, and making mass arrests of people who had done nothing wrong?

Did he also tell the voters that he was going to retroactively falsify the crime stats of the previous mayor?

Then why reelect him?

I figured you wouldn't have an answer for those questions.

But I will answer yours: I don't know why he was reelected. I don't put much stock in elections. But I'm willing to guess that what he actually did to juke the stats was unknown to most, if not all, voters.

 

[Clifford]

#### this thread. Hannity Hot takes on Baltimore sound interesting to anyone? Maybe add Sharpton as a foil for the conservatives?

 

[General Tso]

I don't profess to know a ton about the O'Malley administration. But I do know this. The author of the anti-O'Malley article acknowledges that the two of them didn't get along. It is without a doubt heavily biased against O'Malley. When I initially read it the other day I Found myself hating O'Malley. But then I heard an interview with him on the radio and he came across extremely well. He was smart, well informed, and most of all came across as extremely compassionate to the community he served. I'd encourage people not to formulate their opinions about this guy based on the one article posted.

 

[Jack White]

#### this thread. Hannity Hot takes on Baltimore sound interesting to anyone? Maybe add Sharpton as a foil for the conservatives?

Divide and conquer, baby!

 

[GroveDiesel]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

 

[Jack White]

I don't profess to know a ton about the O'Malley administration. But I do know this. The author of the anti-O'Malley article acknowledges that the two of them didn't get along. It is without s doubt heavily biased against O'Malley. When I initially read it the other day I hated the guy. But then I heard an interview with him on the radio and the guy came across extremely well. He was extremely smart, well informed, and most of all came across as extremely compassionate to the community he served. I'd encourage people not to formulate their opinions about this guy based on the one article posted.

They didn't get along because he knew that what O'Malley was doing was specious. And O'Malley didn't like what Simon was doing on The Wire to expose the underbelly of what was really going on.

I do agree that Simon cares about Baltimore and its people.

 

[whoknew]

I'm troubled by this prosecution.

I don't want to assume this is political, and I don't agree with rockaction's accusation that it's a collective prosecution against all police misconduct. But there are some things about it which really troubles me. This is a rather complicated case, and it took them a rather short time to lay charges. It troubled me when the prosecutor said today, "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!" That sounds political to me. It doesn't feel right.

In the Michael Brown case, because there wasn't clear cut evidence either way, my gut told me that Darren Wilson probably committed an unlawful murder because the notion of an unarmed Brown turning around and charging him seemed so unlikely. I still believe that. In this case, my gut tells me that, whatever mistakes these officers made, they didn't intentionally mean to kill this guy or seriously harm him. Why? Because it makes no sense. What makes sense is that they were unaware how serious his situation was, thought he was whining, and ignored him. If I'm right, they deserve to be disciplined for that, maybe even be removed from the force and face some jail time perhaps. But 20 years imprisonment? Murder and manslaughter? That doesn't seem right to me. Again evidence may come in that will change my mind, and for the sake of the prosecution, I hope it does.

But honestly I'm not seeing this.

They assaulted him. That's a felony. He died. That's felony murder.

They didn't have to intend to murder him. People don't intend to murder all the time. That's why we have manslaughter and negligent homicide and things like that.

 

[Jack White]

Forensic pathologist on CNN says it's an "open and shut case."

 

[Jack White]

Anyone think that the charges were announced today to forestall further rioting this weekend, and that there will be some sort of sweetheart plea deal where the six cops get off with some sort of light punishment?

 

[TheIronSheik]

Forensic pathologist on CNN says it's an "open and shut case."

I hope they release some details. I'm not doubting them, but it seems like they have a lot more evidence than is being given to the public. Like, A LOT more.

 

[Gary Coal Man]

I'm troubled by this prosecution.

I don't want to assume this is political, and I don't agree with rockaction's accusation that it's a collective prosecution against all police misconduct. But there are some things about it which really troubles me. This is a rather complicated case, and it took them a rather short time to lay charges. It troubled me when the prosecutor said today, "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!" That sounds political to me. It doesn't feel right.

In the Michael Brown case, because there wasn't clear cut evidence either way, my gut told me that Darren Wilson probably committed an unlawful murder because the notion of an unarmed Brown turning around and charging him seemed so unlikely. I still believe that. In this case, my gut tells me that, whatever mistakes these officers made, they didn't intentionally mean to kill this guy or seriously harm him. Why? Because it makes no sense. What makes sense is that they were unaware how serious his situation was, thought he was whining, and ignored him. If I'm right, they deserve to be disciplined for that, maybe even be removed from the force and face some jail time perhaps. But 20 years imprisonment? Murder and manslaughter? That doesn't seem right to me. Again evidence may come in that will change my mind, and for the sake of the prosecution, I hope it does.

But honestly I'm not seeing this.

They assaulted him. That's a felony. He died. That's felony murder.

They didn't have to intend to murder him.

Correct. There's also a false imprisonment charge which may be easier to prove than the felony assault charges. Since Gray died during the felony false imprisonment, that supports a felony murder charge regardless of whether the officers intended it.

 

[General Tso]

I'm troubled by this prosecution.

I don't want to assume this is political, and I don't agree with rockaction's accusation that it's a collective prosecution against all police misconduct. But there are some things about it which really troubles me. This is a rather complicated case, and it took them a rather short time to lay charges. It troubled me when the prosecutor said today, "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!" That sounds political to me. It doesn't feel right.

In the Michael Brown case, because there wasn't clear cut evidence either way, my gut told me that Darren Wilson probably committed an unlawful murder because the notion of an unarmed Brown turning around and charging him seemed so unlikely. I still believe that. In this case, my gut tells me that, whatever mistakes these officers made, they didn't intentionally mean to kill this guy or seriously harm him. Why? Because it makes no sense. What makes sense is that they were unaware how serious his situation was, thought he was whining, and ignored him. If I'm right, they deserve to be disciplined for that, maybe even be removed from the force and face some jail time perhaps. But 20 years imprisonment? Murder and manslaughter? That doesn't seem right to me. Again evidence may come in that will change my mind, and for the sake of the prosecution, I hope it does.

But honestly I'm not seeing this.

I have the same initial reaction. I was troubled by her speech. Sounded at times like pandering to the angry masses, then at other times like bad schtick at a college campus. "Our time is now!" Easy there Mrs. Moseby. This isn't about you leading a movement. Your role is to be above all that and ensure that justice is meted out fairly.She may end up getting it right but boy did her youth and inexperience come through this afternoon.

 

[Jack White]

I'm troubled by this prosecution.

I don't want to assume this is political, and I don't agree with rockaction's accusation that it's a collective prosecution against all police misconduct. But there are some things about it which really troubles me. This is a rather complicated case, and it took them a rather short time to lay charges. It troubled me when the prosecutor said today, "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!" That sounds political to me. It doesn't feel right.

In the Michael Brown case, because there wasn't clear cut evidence either way, my gut told me that Darren Wilson probably committed an unlawful murder because the notion of an unarmed Brown turning around and charging him seemed so unlikely. I still believe that. In this case, my gut tells me that, whatever mistakes these officers made, they didn't intentionally mean to kill this guy or seriously harm him. Why? Because it makes no sense. What makes sense is that they were unaware how serious his situation was, thought he was whining, and ignored him. If I'm right, they deserve to be disciplined for that, maybe even be removed from the force and face some jail time perhaps. But 20 years imprisonment? Murder and manslaughter? That doesn't seem right to me. Again evidence may come in that will change my mind, and for the sake of the prosecution, I hope it does.

But honestly I'm not seeing this.

I have the same initial reaction. I was troubled by her speech. Sounded at times like pandering to the angry masses, then at other times like bad schtick at a college campus. "Our time is now!" Easy there Mrs. Moseby. This isn't about you leading a movement. Your role is to be above all that and ensure that justice is meted out fairly.She may end up getting it right but boy did her youth and inexperience come through this afternoon.

Yeah, but don't forget how hot she is.

 

[General Tso]

I'm troubled by this prosecution.

I don't want to assume this is political, and I don't agree with rockaction's accusation that it's a collective prosecution against all police misconduct. But there are some things about it which really troubles me. This is a rather complicated case, and it took them a rather short time to lay charges. It troubled me when the prosecutor said today, "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!" That sounds political to me. It doesn't feel right.

In the Michael Brown case, because there wasn't clear cut evidence either way, my gut told me that Darren Wilson probably committed an unlawful murder because the notion of an unarmed Brown turning around and charging him seemed so unlikely. I still believe that. In this case, my gut tells me that, whatever mistakes these officers made, they didn't intentionally mean to kill this guy or seriously harm him. Why? Because it makes no sense. What makes sense is that they were unaware how serious his situation was, thought he was whining, and ignored him. If I'm right, they deserve to be disciplined for that, maybe even be removed from the force and face some jail time perhaps. But 20 years imprisonment? Murder and manslaughter? That doesn't seem right to me. Again evidence may come in that will change my mind, and for the sake of the prosecution, I hope it does.

But honestly I'm not seeing this.

I have the same initial reaction. I was troubled by her speech. Sounded at times like pandering to the angry masses, then at other times like bad schtick at a college campus. "Our time is now!" Easy there Mrs. Moseby. This isn't about you leading a movement. Your role is to be above all that and ensure that justice is meted out fairly.She may end up getting it right but boy did her youth and inexperience come through this afternoon.

Yeah, but don't forget how hot she is.

Ain't that the truth. She's even got a cute little spit gap between her teeth like my ex wife. I'm a sucker for that.

 

[timschochet]

I'm troubled by this prosecution.

I don't want to assume this is political, and I don't agree with rockaction's accusation that it's a collective prosecution against all police misconduct. But there are some things about it which really troubles me. This is a rather complicated case, and it took them a rather short time to lay charges. It troubled me when the prosecutor said today, "You said no justice no peace and I listened to you!" That sounds political to me. It doesn't feel right.

In the Michael Brown case, because there wasn't clear cut evidence either way, my gut told me that Darren Wilson probably committed an unlawful murder because the notion of an unarmed Brown turning around and charging him seemed so unlikely. I still believe that. In this case, my gut tells me that, whatever mistakes these officers made, they didn't intentionally mean to kill this guy or seriously harm him. Why? Because it makes no sense. What makes sense is that they were unaware how serious his situation was, thought he was whining, and ignored him. If I'm right, they deserve to be disciplined for that, maybe even be removed from the force and face some jail time perhaps. But 20 years imprisonment? Murder and manslaughter? That doesn't seem right to me. Again evidence may come in that will change my mind, and for the sake of the prosecution, I hope it does.

But honestly I'm not seeing this.

They assaulted him. That's a felony. He died. That's felony murder.

They didn't have to intend to murder him. People don't intend to murder all the time. That's why we have manslaughter and negligent homicide and things like that.

OK. If you're right about this, then I have no problem with the prosecution. We'll see how the facts come out.

 

[Jack White]

Man, that Clay Davis acquittal is getting this lawyer tons of work!

 

[GroveDiesel]

he evidence was all released in the Ferguson, MO case. I hope the same thing happens here.

I think the charges are probably valid, but it IS annoying how the Prosecutor politicized them.

 

[Soonerman]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

Yep. Dems own big city policies (especially in blue states) about as completely as is possible under the American system.

 

[Jack White]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

Yep. Dems own big city policies (especially in blue states) about as completely as is possible under the American system.

cool sig brohan you can take that to the bank

 

[timschochet]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

Yep. Dems own big city policies (especially in blue states) about as completely as is possible under the American system.

This argument only has merit if the policies that liberals generally desire for the inner city were actually carried out. Now, I don't know enough about Baltimore to know if they were or were not. Historically, liberals want a lot of money spent in 3 areas:

1. To improve public schools enough so that inner city kids receive the chance for an excellent education.

2. Subsidies to bring retail and other businesses into inner city areas in order to improve employment and commerce opportunities.

3. A reform of police and the judicial system in order to eliminate racial profiling and racial inequities in sentencing.

So the question is, did the Democrats in power attempt to do these things? Did they succeed or fail? Because if the answer is no they did not, or that they didn't do it enough, or that they screwed up in the attempt, or that they were corrupt, then all of these ideas remain on the table. Only if it can be demonstrated that they actually did these things and it STILL DIDN'T WORK, only then can you justifiably make the argument that liberal solutions such as these are ineffective.

 

[General Tso]

Mayor SRB this afternoon:

No one is above the law in our city. To those of you who wish to engage in brutality, misconduct, racism and corruption, let me be clear: There is no place in the Baltimore City Police Department for you.

Do you think she is going to fire the black police chief over this?

 

[Clifford]

Forensic pathologist on CNN says it's an "open and shut case."

I hope they release some details. I'm not doubting them, but it seems like they have a lot more evidence than is being given to the public. Like, A LOT more.

Would make a lot of sense to withhold the exact details right now. If the cops did a number on him best to let that come out during the trial.

 

[General Tso]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

Yep. Dems own big city policies (especially in blue states) about as completely as is possible under the American system.

This argument only has merit if the policies that liberals generally desire for the inner city were actually carried out. Now, I don't know enough about Baltimore to know if they were or were not. Historically, liberals want a lot of money spent in 3 areas: 1. To improve public schools enough so that inner city kids receive the chance for an excellent education.

2. Subsidies to bring retail and other businesses into inner city areas in order to improve employment and commerce opportunities.

3. A reform of police and the judicial system in order to eliminate racial profiling and racial inequities in sentencing.

So the question is, did the Democrats in power attempt to do these things? Did they succeed or fail? Because if the answer is no they did not, or that they didn't do it enough, or that they screwed up in the attempt, or that they were corrupt, then all of these ideas remain on the table. Only if it can be demonstrated that they actually did these things and it STILL DIDN'T WORK, only then can you justifiably make the argument that liberal solutions such as these are ineffective.

Maryland is generally viewed as the most Liberal state in the country. And Baltimore as one of the most Liberal cities.

 

[Jack White]

Union: "These officers did nothing wrong."

 

[Soonerman]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

Yep. Dems own big city policies (especially in blue states) about as completely as is possible under the American system.

This argument only has merit if the policies that liberals generally desire for the inner city were actually carried out. Now, I don't know enough about Baltimore to know if they were or were not. Historically, liberals want a lot of money spent in 3 areas:

1. To improve public schools enough so that inner city kids receive the chance for an excellent education.

2. Subsidies to bring retail and other businesses into inner city areas in order to improve employment and commerce opportunities.

3. A reform of police and the judicial system in order to eliminate racial profiling and racial inequities in sentencing.

So the question is, did the Democrats in power attempt to do these things? Did they succeed or fail? Because if the answer is no they did not, or that they didn't do it enough, or that they screwed up in the attempt, or that they were corrupt, then all of these ideas remain on the table. Only if it can be demonstrated that they actually did these things and it STILL DIDN'T WORK, only then can you justifiably make the argument that liberal solutions such as these are ineffective.

Ridiculous. They own the conditions in big cities, because progressive democrats have been completely in charge for decades in a lot of these cities. If they haven't implemented preferred progressive policies, they still own that fact. What would it take to get them to implement those policies then, if they still won't do it given complete control?

 

[Dr Oadi]

I just googled this lady. I thought you all said she was hot. Mayors. 9. Lil miss pros is a 6.

 

[Jack White]

Hottie alert! Baltimore DA on CNN now.

 

[Jack White]

If she wanted justice, she should have become a defense lawyer.

 

[Sinn Fein]

If she wanted justice, she should have become a defense lawyer.

i'd plead guilty if she were my defense attorney.

 

[timschochet]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

Yep. Dems own big city policies (especially in blue states) about as completely as is possible under the American system.

This argument only has merit if the policies that liberals generally desire for the inner city were actually carried out. Now, I don't know enough about Baltimore to know if they were or were not. Historically, liberals want a lot of money spent in 3 areas:

1. To improve public schools enough so that inner city kids receive the chance for an excellent education.

2. Subsidies to bring retail and other businesses into inner city areas in order to improve employment and commerce opportunities.

3. A reform of police and the judicial system in order to eliminate racial profiling and racial inequities in sentencing.

So the question is, did the Democrats in power attempt to do these things? Did they succeed or fail? Because if the answer is no they did not, or that they didn't do it enough, or that they screwed up in the attempt, or that they were corrupt, then all of these ideas remain on the table. Only if it can be demonstrated that they actually did these things and it STILL DIDN'T WORK, only then can you justifiably make the argument that liberal solutions such as these are ineffective.

Ridiculous. They own the conditions in big cities, because progressive democrats have been completely in charge for decades in a lot of these cities. If they haven't implemented preferred progressive policies, they still own that fact. What would it take to get them to implement those policies then, if they still won't do it given complete control?

I am not defending the Democratic party here. All I am suggesting is that your argument doesn't necessarily in itself demonstrate the failure of liberal ideas. I notice that you're also unable to answer any of my questions (not that I know enough to answer them either.)

 

[timschochet]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

Yep. Dems own big city policies (especially in blue states) about as completely as is possible under the American system.

This argument only has merit if the policies that liberals generally desire for the inner city were actually carried out. Now, I don't know enough about Baltimore to know if they were or were not. Historically, liberals want a lot of money spent in 3 areas: 1. To improve public schools enough so that inner city kids receive the chance for an excellent education.

2. Subsidies to bring retail and other businesses into inner city areas in order to improve employment and commerce opportunities.

3. A reform of police and the judicial system in order to eliminate racial profiling and racial inequities in sentencing.

So the question is, did the Democrats in power attempt to do these things? Did they succeed or fail? Because if the answer is no they did not, or that they didn't do it enough, or that they screwed up in the attempt, or that they were corrupt, then all of these ideas remain on the table. Only if it can be demonstrated that they actually did these things and it STILL DIDN'T WORK, only then can you justifiably make the argument that liberal solutions such as these are ineffective.

Maryland is generally viewed as the most Liberal state in the country. And Baltimore as one of the most Liberal cities.

And again, did they carry out liberal ideas as described, or didn't they?

 

[rockaction]

This is obviously biased, but I was looking at these stats from the past couple of days, and they seem to be accurate.

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-05-01/guest-post-whats-really-burning-baltimore-50-years-liberal-welfare-state-policies

 

[The_Man]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

Yep. Dems own big city policies (especially in blue states) about as completely as is possible under the American system.

This argument only has merit if the policies that liberals generally desire for the inner city were actually carried out. Now, I don't know enough about Baltimore to know if they were or were not. Historically, liberals want a lot of money spent in 3 areas: 1. To improve public schools enough so that inner city kids receive the chance for an excellent education.

2. Subsidies to bring retail and other businesses into inner city areas in order to improve employment and commerce opportunities.

3. A reform of police and the judicial system in order to eliminate racial profiling and racial inequities in sentencing.

So the question is, did the Democrats in power attempt to do these things? Did they succeed or fail? Because if the answer is no they did not, or that they didn't do it enough, or that they screwed up in the attempt, or that they were corrupt, then all of these ideas remain on the table. Only if it can be demonstrated that they actually did these things and it STILL DIDN'T WORK, only then can you justifiably make the argument that liberal solutions such as these are ineffective.

Maryland is generally viewed as the most Liberal state in the country. And Baltimore as one of the most Liberal cities.

This is the Maryland where 2 of the last 3 Governors have been Republican, right? Just checking.

 

[The_Man]

Union: "These officers did nothing wrong."

All last week, I heard, "it's real easy to not get arrested, just don't break the law."

Then 6 cops get arrested. And suddenly, it's a rush to judgment by an inexperienced prosecutor.

 

[GroveDiesel]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

Yep. Dems own big city policies (especially in blue states) about as completely as is possible under the American system.

This argument only has merit if the policies that liberals generally desire for the inner city were actually carried out. Now, I don't know enough about Baltimore to know if they were or were not. Historically, liberals want a lot of money spent in 3 areas: 1. To improve public schools enough so that inner city kids receive the chance for an excellent education.

2. Subsidies to bring retail and other businesses into inner city areas in order to improve employment and commerce opportunities.

3. A reform of police and the judicial system in order to eliminate racial profiling and racial inequities in sentencing.

So the question is, did the Democrats in power attempt to do these things? Did they succeed or fail? Because if the answer is no they did not, or that they didn't do it enough, or that they screwed up in the attempt, or that they were corrupt, then all of these ideas remain on the table. Only if it can be demonstrated that they actually did these things and it STILL DIDN'T WORK, only then can you justifiably make the argument that liberal solutions such as these are ineffective.

Well, here's your answer to #1: As of 2013, City Schools has the second-highest per student cost in the nation, spending $15,483 per student per year

No idea on number 2, but I have no idea what the heck you're talking about about subsidies to bring in businesses. The way you bring in businesses is to lower their tax and regulatory burdens or offer tax credits. None of those seem like liberal policies to me.

As for #3, if some of the most liberal Democrats in the country have been running a city and the state for decades and haven't instituted those changes, why should anyone trust those same people now? It seems like those same people are the ones complaining about the current system in place that they are entirely responsible for. If you keep electing the same people over and over and over again, and end up with the same result over and over, how is it anyone but the electorate's fault at that point?

 

[GroveDiesel]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

Yep. Dems own big city policies (especially in blue states) about as completely as is possible under the American system.

This argument only has merit if the policies that liberals generally desire for the inner city were actually carried out. Now, I don't know enough about Baltimore to know if they were or were not. Historically, liberals want a lot of money spent in 3 areas: 1. To improve public schools enough so that inner city kids receive the chance for an excellent education.

2. Subsidies to bring retail and other businesses into inner city areas in order to improve employment and commerce opportunities.

3. A reform of police and the judicial system in order to eliminate racial profiling and racial inequities in sentencing.

So the question is, did the Democrats in power attempt to do these things? Did they succeed or fail? Because if the answer is no they did not, or that they didn't do it enough, or that they screwed up in the attempt, or that they were corrupt, then all of these ideas remain on the table. Only if it can be demonstrated that they actually did these things and it STILL DIDN'T WORK, only then can you justifiably make the argument that liberal solutions such as these are ineffective.

Maryland is generally viewed as the most Liberal state in the country. And Baltimore as one of the most Liberal cities.

This is the Maryland where 2 of the last 3 Governors have been Republican, right? Just checking.

Out of the last 45 years, Republicans have been governor of Maryland for 4 years and about 3 months.

 

[General Tso]

Maybe I'm just a stupid white conservative, but hasn't Baltimore, and largely Maryland in general, been run almost exclusively by Democrats and generally liberal policies for decades?

Yep. Dems own big city policies (especially in blue states) about as completely as is possible under the American system.

This argument only has merit if the policies that liberals generally desire for the inner city were actually carried out. Now, I don't know enough about Baltimore to know if they were or were not. Historically, liberals want a lot of money spent in 3 areas: 1. To improve public schools enough so that inner city kids receive the chance for an excellent education.

2. Subsidies to bring retail and other businesses into inner city areas in order to improve employment and commerce opportunities.

3. A reform of police and the judicial system in order to eliminate racial profiling and racial inequities in sentencing.

So the question is, did the Democrats in power attempt to do these things? Did they succeed or fail? Because if the answer is no they did not, or that they didn't do it enough, or that they screwed up in the attempt, or that they were corrupt, then all of these ideas remain on the table. Only if it can be demonstrated that they actually did these things and it STILL DIDN'T WORK, only then can you justifiably make the argument that liberal solutions such as these are ineffective.

Maryland is generally viewed as the most Liberal state in the country. And Baltimore as one of the most Liberal cities.

This is the Maryland where 2 of the last 3 Governors have been Republican, right? Just checking.

Or, put differently, the Maryland where 2 of the last 8 Governors have been Republican. 2 Republican Governors in the last 46 years. Yeah, that Maryland. Want more facts? Let's look at Baltimore, you know, the city that Mayor Hot Stuff said today has been suffering under oppressive systemic racism:The fine citizens of this metropolis have not elected a Republican as mayor since 1963, before the War on Poverty began. That mayors 4 year term is the only interruption in Democrat rule since 1947. They have had Democrat control for 64 of the last 68 years, and sole control for the last 48 years straight.

Their mayor is black. Their previous mayor, Sheila Dixon, was black. She was convicted of embezzlement in 2010 and couldnt finish her term. They had a white mayor (current Democratic Presidential hopeful Martin OMalley) for eight years. The mayor before him was black.

Their City Council consists of 15 members. All fifteen are Democrats. The Council President is black. Democrats have had control of legislation in Baltimore for the last 50 years. Every program, policy, initiative, or school curriculum that exists in Baltimore was enacted by liberal Democrats.

The Police Commissioner is black. Approximately 50% of the police force is black.

The School Superintendent is black, along with the School Board. The district has an annual budget of $1.32 billion to teach 84,000 kids. The Baltimore school system ranks second among the nations 100 largest school districts in how much it spent per pupil at $15,700 per student. Only NYC spends more. Only two thirds of students graduate high school, despite this high level of spending.

The average SAT scores of Baltimore City public school students are: 379 in Reading; 376 in Math; 381 in Writing. These are the scores of the best of the best in Baltimore schools who actually think they should get into college. The average scores in the country, which still suck, are around 500. Students with these scores have about a 15% chance of graduating college. This is the ROI you get after spending $188,000 per student over their 12 year academic career.

The population of Baltimore is 623,000 and 63% are black. Median household income is $41,000, with 24% living below the poverty line. The home ownership rate is 48%. The percentage of college graduates is 27%.

The population was 950,000 in 1950, so it has fallen by 35% in the last 65 years. The population was 24% black in 1950. Decades of liberal Democrat policies drove most of the white population out of the city.

Baltimores violent crime rate is 370% higher than the U.S. rate. They have over 200 murders, 300 rapes, 3,600 robberies, 4,600 assaults, 7,800 burglaries, and 22,000 thefts per year. These are all 2 to 4 times the U.S. averages per 100,000 people.

Over 35% of all Baltimore residents get food stamps. Over 85% of the kids get free breakfasts and lunches at school. More than 60% of Baltimore residents are receiving some form of government assistance.

Baltimores welfare paradise is paid for by outrageously high taxes. Its income tax rate of 3.2% is on top of the state rate of 4.75%. Its property tax rate is more than double the other counties in Maryland. The sales tax rate is 6%. Corporations pay an income tax rate of 8.25%.

The percentage of out of wedlock births to black women in Baltimore exceeds 72%. Baltimore and Detroit are the two cities with populations over 600,000 with the highest percentage of single parent households 59% to 61%.

The reported unemployment rate for Baltimore is 8.2%, one of the highest in the country. In reality, 42% of the working age population is not working. Young black men between the ages of 20 and 24 have a reported unemployment rate of 37%. But in reality, it is north of 60%. The number of employees in 1990 totaled 475,000. Today they total 365,000, down 23%.

But keep blaming all the problems on Republicans and systemic racism. What a ####### joke.