Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Baltimore: The Next Ferguson?


Recommended Posts

I wonder if the people protesting the cops will get pissed enough at the rioters burning their city down to actually request that the cops step in and stop it.

Hands up, don't shoot... except maybe for that guy that just burned my house down.

Several already have.

Until they shoot that guy and someone claims he was trying to surrender and we're back at square one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't begrudge anyone their right to say whatever they want. I just come at this thread from the totally opposite point of view from most of the posters. Most of you don't care about Baltimore, you

Anyone reading this thread knows my point of view. I think a number of police officers essentially ended the life of a man who wasn't breaking any laws, and need to be held accountable for that crime.

Yes, that is an oversimplification, and likely also a mischaracterization.    People aren't arguing that environment doesn't have a large influence on your life.  Most people are arguing that they're

I wonder if the people protesting the cops will get pissed enough at the rioters burning their city down to actually request that the cops step in and stop it.

Hands up, don't shoot... except maybe for that guy that just burned my house down.

Several already have.

Not much they can do now.

Apparently the mayor has rescinded the free looting zone declaration though so there's always tomorrow.

Let's hope they ask nicely.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This thread is a train wreck! I have not turned on the news tonight but just read most of this thread. Wow.

Free looting zone? Isn't that kinda like Hampsterd....ah forget it.

Edited by PIK95
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the people protesting the cops will get pissed enough at the rioters burning their city down to actually request that the cops step in and stop it.

Hands up, don't shoot... except maybe for that guy that just burned my house down.

Several already have.

Not much they can do now.

Apparently the mayor has rescinded the free looting zone declaration though so there's always tomorrow.

Let's hope they ask nicely.

She claims she never said that. She's making that claim right now again live.

I want to believe her, but honestly, I don't know how to read that original statement any differently from what I did.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the people protesting the cops will get pissed enough at the rioters burning their city down to actually request that the cops step in and stop it.

Hands up, don't shoot... except maybe for that guy that just burned my house down.

Several already have.

Not much they can do now.

Apparently the mayor has rescinded the free looting zone declaration though so there's always tomorrow.

Let's hope they ask nicely.

She claims she never said that. She's making that claim right now again live.

I want to believe her, but honestly, I don't know how to read that original statement any differently from what I did.

why do you want to believe her? She's an idiot.

This is stunningly unimpressive leadership.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

Mayor basically just acknowledged that she ordered the police not to escalate (ie - to stand down I the face of rioting and looting). Also says the National Guard was not brought in earlier because the situation was under control.

This is the part I don't agree with. Why wait until after you lose control to bring in the Guard?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if the people protesting the cops will get pissed enough at the rioters burning their city down to actually request that the cops step in and stop it.

Hands up, don't shoot... except maybe for that guy that just burned my house down.

Several already have.

Not much they can do now.

Apparently the mayor has rescinded the free looting zone declaration though so there's always tomorrow.

Let's hope they ask nicely.

She claims she never said that. She's making that claim right now again live.

I want to believe her, but honestly, I don't know how to read that original statement any differently from what I did.

We'll see what juries say once the hordes of business folk take the city to court for damages done while the police hung back. She opened the door wide to huge liability.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's look at this statement again. She made it on Saturday, regarding the protests and rioting that took place then:

"While we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to deescalate, and thats what you saw." -- Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

No matter how she tries to amend it now, or claim that her words were taken out of context, the bolded statement is problematic. Along with today's inactions, it suggests that the police chose to do nothing, which it appears they did. Does anyone disagree with this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. The '67 riots destroyed my city, it was before I was born but my grandparents lived on the edge of where the riots ended up. Detroit never recovered, anyone with the ability to move out did over the next 20 years and you see where it is today. The interstate system displaced many of the poorest residents in many urban areas, and then the Fair Housing Act of 1966 brought drastic changes to very segregated areas. Then the riots came, and then everyone with means left. Rinse and repeat in St Louis, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore and many more cities across the country.

Long story short since I don't want to get to deep into this, we really haven't learned from what happened almost 50 years ago and we've repeated some of the mistakes that made many urban areas in this country nearly unlivable. Runaway crime, drugs, poverty, and a mentality of the populace of nothing to lose. Part of it is a policing problem but it is a societal problem and we love to just ignore our problems hoping they will dissolve on their own. Well they don't, and the destitute will have their say here and in many places all over the world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayor way too concerned with damage control of her awful quote than any other element... you said it, wear it, fix it... don't say people are twisting your words you quite clearly meant something that was the exact opposite of what you said

I think she meant exactly what she said. Unfortunately, she was naive and thought it would blow over after people let off some steam.

You can't try to walk the middle with these things. There's no nice way to deal with rioters. Shut it down early before they get a foothold.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

Wow. Talk about an abrupt ending to an interview. That was awkward.

Nice touch with the young man yelling "F$&@ YOU" to the departing mayor and Governor on live TV.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Word is the Tigers and Elephants have also been released by and individual with a bandana and visible beanbag wounds.

Giant Octupus started the fire they are showing on CNN right now, I saw the arm slither away in the background with a Zippo he probably stole from a clown.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting. The '67 riots destroyed my city, it was before I was born but my grandparents lived on the edge of where the riots ended up. Detroit never recovered, anyone with the ability to move out did over the next 20 years and you see where it is today. The interstate system displaced many of the poorest residents in many urban areas, and then the Fair Housing Act of 1966 brought drastic changes to very segregated areas. Then the riots came, and then everyone with means left. Rinse and repeat in St Louis, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore and many more cities across the country.

Long story short since I don't want to get to deep into this, we really haven't learned from what happened almost 50 years ago and we've repeated some of the mistakes that made many urban areas in this country nearly unlivable. Runaway crime, drugs, poverty, and a mentality of the populace of nothing to lose. Part of it is a policing problem but it is a societal problem and we love to just ignore our problems hoping they will dissolve on their own. Well they don't, and the destitute will have their say here and in many places all over the world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

Couldn't agree more. However, an "expert" on the Hannity show blamed this all on liberal policies, the inner cities are too reliant on government, etc. It's the same arguments on both sides we've been hearing for 50 years. Nothing changes.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

Let's look at this statement again. She made it on Saturday, regarding the protests and rioting that took place then:

"While we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to deescalate, and thats what you saw." -- Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

No matter how she tries to amend it now, or claim that her words were taken out of context, the bolded statement is problematic. Along with today's inactions, it suggests that the police chose to do nothing, which it appears they did. Does anyone disagree with this?

I think you pretty much nailed it. There is no way the Mayor survives this. She was clearly shown to be unfit for the job. Feel bad for her a little. Like a deer in the headlights.
Link to post
Share on other sites

What if she was right? What if by not engaging, it took the wind out of their sails and disarmed the police vs. blacks narrative they were looking to exploit?

The confrontation fueled the rioters.

As much as it sucks that there was damage done while the police stood there and did nothing, it seems possible that he inaction actually defused the situation and prevented more violence/anger/destruction.

Just a thought.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayor way too concerned with damage control of her awful quote than any other element... you said it, wear it, fix it... don't say people are twisting your words you quite clearly meant something that was the exact opposite of what you said

I think she meant exactly what she said. Unfortunately, she was naive and thought it would blow over after people let off some steam.

You can't try to walk the middle with these things. There's no nice way to deal with rioters. Shut it down early before they get a foothold.

She's just floundering.... I felt like I wanted the fight to be stopped... that police chief is the only guy I would put any faith in.... city council leader wants the media to spot light the good being done, governor passing the buck... clownshow

Link to post
Share on other sites

Word is the Tigers and Elephants have also been released by and individual with a bandana and visible beanbag wounds.

Giant Octopus started the fire they are showing on CNN right now, I saw the arm slither away in the background with a Zippo he probably stole from a clown.

Here is the Zippo, just imagine an octopus arm holding it and that's exactly what I just saw. :shock:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. The '67 riots destroyed my city, it was before I was born but my grandparents lived on the edge of where the riots ended up. Detroit never recovered, anyone with the ability to move out did over the next 20 years and you see where it is today. The interstate system displaced many of the poorest residents in many urban areas, and then the Fair Housing Act of 1966 brought drastic changes to very segregated areas. Then the riots came, and then everyone with means left. Rinse and repeat in St Louis, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore and many more cities across the country.

Long story short since I don't want to get to deep into this, we really haven't learned from what happened almost 50 years ago and we've repeated some of the mistakes that made many urban areas in this country nearly unlivable. Runaway crime, drugs, poverty, and a mentality of the populace of nothing to lose. Part of it is a policing problem but it is a societal problem and we love to just ignore our problems hoping they will dissolve on their own. Well they don't, and the destitute will have their say here and in many places all over the world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The question is why are they destitute and do the comfortable really truly care?

The answer to the second part is clearly "no".

The answer to the first part is much more difficult and goes to much deeper issues than most are willing to acknowledge IMO.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

Holy cow is the Mayor getting evicerated on Fox right now. They are playing her original words, followed immediately by her saying tonight that she didn't say those words (even quotes her exact words to a tee) and demands that the media stop "twisting her words"???

Like someone said already, give her a standing 8 count. Throw in the towel. End the fight. Please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. The '67 riots destroyed my city, it was before I was born but my grandparents lived on the edge of where the riots ended up. Detroit never recovered, anyone with the ability to move out did over the next 20 years and you see where it is today. The interstate system displaced many of the poorest residents in many urban areas, and then the Fair Housing Act of 1966 brought drastic changes to very segregated areas. Then the riots came, and then everyone with means left. Rinse and repeat in St Louis, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore and many more cities across the country.

Long story short since I don't want to get to deep into this, we really haven't learned from what happened almost 50 years ago and we've repeated some of the mistakes that made many urban areas in this country nearly unlivable. Runaway crime, drugs, poverty, and a mentality of the populace of nothing to lose. Part of it is a policing problem but it is a societal problem and we love to just ignore our problems hoping they will dissolve on their own. Well they don't, and the destitute will have their say here and in many places all over the world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The question is why are they destitute and do the comfortable really truly care?

The answer to the second part is clearly "no".

The answer to the first part is much more difficult and goes to much deeper issues than most are willing to acknowledge IMO.

But instead of solely the history of segregation and income inequality, one might also consider political corruption, one-party systemic rule, unsustainable public services, unsustainable union practices, and a breakdown of basic familial and social norms -- it seems like another place to start.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

Not a bad point at all. I was really angry earlier but I'll have to consider what you wrote here. You may well be right.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

Not a bad point at all. I was really angry earlier but I'll have to consider what you wrote here. You may well be right.

It's awfully Rumsfeldian in its logic. "See, there are these known unknowns..." All that serves to do is to put her performance beyond debate. Saying that "one will never know" simply shuts off criticism. Right now, we know that she was going to allow looters and rioters a chance to destroy or thieve personal and public property. Not a great start if we can only debate "knowns."

Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't watch news regularly this Rachal Maddow is awful. When did professional newscasters start using sarcastic teen lingo as the standard? This Lemon guy on the other channel at least doesn't sound like a ##### bag.

I don't have fox.

Edited by Loan Sharks
Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. The '67 riots destroyed my city, it was before I was born but my grandparents lived on the edge of where the riots ended up. Detroit never recovered, anyone with the ability to move out did over the next 20 years and you see where it is today. The interstate system displaced many of the poorest residents in many urban areas, and then the Fair Housing Act of 1966 brought drastic changes to very segregated areas. Then the riots came, and then everyone with means left. Rinse and repeat in St Louis, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore and many more cities across the country.

Long story short since I don't want to get to deep into this, we really haven't learned from what happened almost 50 years ago and we've repeated some of the mistakes that made many urban areas in this country nearly unlivable. Runaway crime, drugs, poverty, and a mentality of the populace of nothing to lose. Part of it is a policing problem but it is a societal problem and we love to just ignore our problems hoping they will dissolve on their own. Well they don't, and the destitute will have their say here and in many places all over the world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The question is why are they destitute and do the comfortable really truly care?

The answer to the second part is clearly "no".

The answer to the first part is much more difficult and goes to much deeper issues than most are willing to acknowledge IMO.

But instead of solely the history of segregation and income inequality, one might also consider political corruption, one-party systemic rule, unsustainable public services, unsustainable union practices, and a breakdown of basic familial and social norms -- it seems like another place to start.

If we are going here shouldn't you start with the war on drugs? Has any single policy wrecked more havoc on our urban centers the past 45 years?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

Ooh I'm not sure I'd fly the "Mission Accomplished" flag just yet. It's still only midnight, and we don't even know for sure if there have been any fatalities yet. What if there are some residents killed during some of these fires being set tonight? The Mayor's policy of "give those who wish to destroy the space to do so" is not just going to look dumb, it might start to look a little criminal. That being said, there's a reasonable debate to be had as to whether or not the policy of standing down during a riot is the lesser of all evils. We'll see.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

Not a bad point at all. I was really angry earlier but I'll have to consider what you wrote here. You may well be right.

It's awfully Rumsfeldian in its logic. "See, there are these known unknowns..." All that serves to do is to put her performance beyond debate. Saying that "one will never know" simply shuts off criticism. Right now, we know that she was going to allow looters and rioters a chance to destroy or thieve personal and public property. Not a great start if we can only debate "knowns."

Says the guy with no answers just shooting his mouth off using the Faux News narrative. Ok, have it your way Copernicus.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. The '67 riots destroyed my city, it was before I was born but my grandparents lived on the edge of where the riots ended up. Detroit never recovered, anyone with the ability to move out did over the next 20 years and you see where it is today. The interstate system displaced many of the poorest residents in many urban areas, and then the Fair Housing Act of 1966 brought drastic changes to very segregated areas. Then the riots came, and then everyone with means left. Rinse and repeat in St Louis, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore and many more cities across the country.

Long story short since I don't want to get to deep into this, we really haven't learned from what happened almost 50 years ago and we've repeated some of the mistakes that made many urban areas in this country nearly unlivable. Runaway crime, drugs, poverty, and a mentality of the populace of nothing to lose. Part of it is a policing problem but it is a societal problem and we love to just ignore our problems hoping they will dissolve on their own. Well they don't, and the destitute will have their say here and in many places all over the world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The question is why are they destitute and do the comfortable really truly care?

The answer to the second part is clearly "no".

The answer to the first part is much more difficult and goes to much deeper issues than most are willing to acknowledge IMO.

But instead of solely the history of segregation and income inequality, one might also consider political corruption, one-party systemic rule, unsustainable public services, unsustainable union practices, and a breakdown of basic familial and social norms -- it seems like another place to start.

If we are going here shouldn't you start with the war on drugs? Has any single policy wrecked more havoc on our urban centers the past 45 years?

The war on drugs has been a disaster. That would be a fine place to start. But are you -- or is anyone -- willing, politically, to get up in front of a crowd and say that a) the war on drugs helped create the crack epidemic and b) that we should now legalize crack and heroin?

Because that's a third rail right there.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

On the other hand, NYC got through the Garner situation with next to no incidents. Also had an incident free scene at Operation Wall Street.... the strategy there was to keep the protestors and the march moving. No stagnating no concentrating, constant dispersal, with a thinned herd. Interspersed, plain clothes detectives in case any major incitements were spread. A march is a march, so march.

The fact that there wasn't signifcant social media monitoring and by her own words and admission they thought it was over on the day this young man was buried, its going to be a play by play of what not to do going foward.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

Not a bad point at all. I was really angry earlier but I'll have to consider what you wrote here. You may well be right.

It's awfully Rumsfeldian in its logic. "See, there are these known unknowns..." All that serves to do is to put her performance beyond debate. Saying that "one will never know" simply shuts off criticism. Right now, we know that she was going to allow looters and rioters a chance to destroy or thieve personal and public property. Not a great start if we can only debate "knowns."

Says the guy with no answers just shooting his mouth off using the Faux News narrative. Ok, have it your way Copernicus.

You get hostile quick about any dissent, don't you? You tried to remove debate off of the table. I'm giving you what we know. Heck, I'm even debating on your terms.

And "Faux News narrative." That's good work even for you, man. :lmao:

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mayor basically just acknowledged that she ordered the police not to escalate (ie - to stand down I the face of rioting and looting). Also says the National Guard was not brought in earlier because the situation was under control.

This is the part I don't agree with. Why wait until after you lose control to bring in the Guard?

I guess they thought bringing in tge guard would escalate things further so they held off as long as possible. Bringing the military in is a huge decision.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

On the other hand, NYC got through the Garner situation with next to no incidents. Also had an incident free scene at Operation Wall Street.... the strategy there was to keep the protestors and the march moving. No stagnating no concentrating, constant dispersal, with a thinned herd. Interspersed, plain clothes detectives in case any major incitements were spread. A march is a march, so march.

The fact that there wasn't signifcant social media monitoring and by her own words and admission they thought it was over on the day this young man was buried, its going to be a play by play of what not to do going foward.

NYC isn't Baltimore, Detroit, or South Central Los Angeles either. I'm sure you must realize this right? What are the major difference between Staten Island and South Central LA? I'll give you two guesses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

Not a bad point at all. I was really angry earlier but I'll have to consider what you wrote here. You may well be right.

It's awfully Rumsfeldian in its logic. "See, there are these known unknowns..." All that serves to do is to put her performance beyond debate. Saying that "one will never know" simply shuts off criticism. Right now, we know that she was going to allow looters and rioters a chance to destroy or thieve personal and public property. Not a great start if we can only debate "knowns."

Says the guy with no answers just shooting his mouth off using the Faux News narrative. Ok, have it your way Copernicus.

You get hostile quick about any dissent, don't you? You tried to remove debate off of the table. I'm giving you what we know. Heck, I'm even debating on your terms.

I did no such thing. You're Captain Meltdown around here, not me. I'm just pointing out that you have no answers, just a bunch of empty criticism and complaints. The biggest crises you probably ever faced was to get cheese on your burger, or cheese on your fries. You don't seem like any kind of expert in this area. :shrug:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

Not a bad point at all. I was really angry earlier but I'll have to consider what you wrote here. You may well be right.

It's awfully Rumsfeldian in its logic. "See, there are these known unknowns..." All that serves to do is to put her performance beyond debate. Saying that "one will never know" simply shuts off criticism. Right now, we know that she was going to allow looters and rioters a chance to destroy or thieve personal and public property. Not a great start if we can only debate "knowns."

Says the guy with no answers just shooting his mouth off using the Faux News narrative. Ok, have it your way Copernicus.

You get hostile quick about any dissent, don't you? You tried to remove debate off of the table. I'm giving you what we know. Heck, I'm even debating on your terms.

I did no such thing. You're Captain Meltdown around here, not me. I'm just pointing out that you have no answers, just a bunch of empty criticism and complaints. The biggest crises you probably ever faced was to get cheese on your burger, or cheese on your fries. You don't seem like any kind of expert in this area. :shrug:

I'm not the one that constantly resorts to personal attacks when challenged. Another Dr. D. post with no substance nor accuracy, even. :thumbup:

You're not Captain Meltdown, you seem to be Captain ####### at times.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

Not a bad point at all. I was really angry earlier but I'll have to consider what you wrote here. You may well be right.

It's awfully Rumsfeldian in its logic. "See, there are these known unknowns..." All that serves to do is to put her performance beyond debate. Saying that "one will never know" simply shuts off criticism. Right now, we know that she was going to allow looters and rioters a chance to destroy or thieve personal and public property. Not a great start if we can only debate "knowns."

Says the guy with no answers just shooting his mouth off using the Faux News narrative. Ok, have it your way Copernicus.

You get hostile quick about any dissent, don't you? You tried to remove debate off of the table. I'm giving you what we know. Heck, I'm even debating on your terms.

I did no such thing. You're Captain Meltdown around here, not me. I'm just pointing out that you have no answers, just a bunch of empty criticism and complaints. The biggest crises you probably ever faced was to get cheese on your burger, or cheese on your fries. You don't seem like any kind of expert in this area. :shrug:

I'm not the one that constantly resorts to personal attacks when challenged. Another Dr. D. post with no substance nor accuracy, even. :thumbup:

Look at all my previous posts which you attacked as "Rumsfeldian." Go back to your Fox News so you can develop an opinion, you certainly have never been able to come up with one of your own. Just a bunch of :hophead: and :cry:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

On the other hand, NYC got through the Garner situation with next to no incidents. Also had an incident free scene at Operation Wall Street.... the strategy there was to keep the protestors and the march moving. No stagnating no concentrating, constant dispersal, with a thinned herd. Interspersed, plain clothes detectives in case any major incitements were spread. A march is a march, so march.

The fact that there wasn't signifcant social media monitoring and by her own words and admission they thought it was over on the day this young man was buried, its going to be a play by play of what not to do going foward.

NYC isn't Baltimore, Detroit, or South Central Los Angeles either. I'm sure you must realize this right? What are the major difference between Staten Island and South Central LA? I'll give you two guesses.

I gave you two recent cases where firm policing didn't result in damage to police, citizens as a whole and property and cited examples of the strategies and policies that worked, but I'll chase your moving yardsticks and ask for the difference between Staten Island and South Central.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Rumsfeldian in its logic. I didn't say you were "Rumsfeld," nor call you "Copernicus," nor insult you or question your background.

I questioned the post, and the debate tactic, and you quickly got huffy and personal.

eta* It's weird. As soon as you wander into one of these threads and give your opinion and get challenged, I know it's only a matter of time before the personal insults start flying. I might have a problem here with trolls, psychopaths, jagoffs, insults, etc. and go off, but you have the habit of getting instantly personal and dismissive whenever somebody disagrees with your arguments. Might want to take that under advisement.

Edited by rockaction
Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. The '67 riots destroyed my city, it was before I was born but my grandparents lived on the edge of where the riots ended up. Detroit never recovered, anyone with the ability to move out did over the next 20 years and you see where it is today. The interstate system displaced many of the poorest residents in many urban areas, and then the Fair Housing Act of 1966 brought drastic changes to very segregated areas. Then the riots came, and then everyone with means left. Rinse and repeat in St Louis, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore and many more cities across the country.

Long story short since I don't want to get to deep into this, we really haven't learned from what happened almost 50 years ago and we've repeated some of the mistakes that made many urban areas in this country nearly unlivable. Runaway crime, drugs, poverty, and a mentality of the populace of nothing to lose. Part of it is a policing problem but it is a societal problem and we love to just ignore our problems hoping they will dissolve on their own. Well they don't, and the destitute will have their say here and in many places all over the world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The question is why are they destitute and do the comfortable really truly care?

The answer to the second part is clearly "no".

The answer to the first part is much more difficult and goes to much deeper issues than most are willing to acknowledge IMO.

But instead of solely the history of segregation and income inequality, one might also consider political corruption, one-party systemic rule, unsustainable public services, unsustainable union practices, and a breakdown of basic familial and social norms -- it seems like another place to start.

If we are going here shouldn't you start with the war on drugs? Has any single policy wrecked more havoc on our urban centers the past 45 years?

The war on drugs has been a disaster. That would be a fine place to start. But are you -- or is anyone -- willing, politically, to get up in front of a crowd and say that a) the war on drugs helped create the crack epidemic and b) that we should now legalize crack and heroin?

Because that's a third rail right there.

I'd say...

Crack and heroin usage is very costly to families, to communities, to society. But criminalizing the activity hasn't prevented the epidemic nor do I believe it has reduced it. Thus no matter how one feels about the evils of usage maybe we should try to better utilize these resources than destroying our urban centers and creating the best economic opportunity for too many,

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of Monday morning quarterbacking in here without any offerings of what should have been done. If you think she didn't get council from some people who have a ton of experience in handling crisis, I think you'd be very wrong. This was the city's strategy and we can't know for sure if it was actually a better decision than an alternative of highly militarized police presence and sweeps. Those didn't work in Detroit in 1967, they didn't work in LA in 1992 either.

Glass is half full, and really a great bottom line for Monday April 27th is: no one died. Plus some fine gentlemen of the ghetto got free TP and Magnum condoms. :2cents:

On the other hand, NYC got through the Garner situation with next to no incidents. Also had an incident free scene at Operation Wall Street.... the strategy there was to keep the protestors and the march moving. No stagnating no concentrating, constant dispersal, with a thinned herd. Interspersed, plain clothes detectives in case any major incitements were spread. A march is a march, so march.

The fact that there wasn't signifcant social media monitoring and by her own words and admission they thought it was over on the day this young man was buried, its going to be a play by play of what not to do going foward.

NYC isn't Baltimore, Detroit, or South Central Los Angeles either. I'm sure you must realize this right? What are the major difference between Staten Island and South Central LA? I'll give you two guesses.

I gave you two recent cases where firm policing didn't result in damage to police, citizens as a whole and property and cited examples of the strategies and policies that worked, but I'll chase your moving yardsticks and ask for the difference between Staten Island and South Central.

I didn't think Operation Wall Street was even serious. Were there like 50 people out there?

NYC is more organized and the most capable police force in the U.S., that's a fact. Maybe Baltimore should have followed their lead. I'm sure Rockaction knows, hopefully they said it on Fox so he has an opinion.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Interesting. The '67 riots destroyed my city, it was before I was born but my grandparents lived on the edge of where the riots ended up. Detroit never recovered, anyone with the ability to move out did over the next 20 years and you see where it is today. The interstate system displaced many of the poorest residents in many urban areas, and then the Fair Housing Act of 1966 brought drastic changes to very segregated areas. Then the riots came, and then everyone with means left. Rinse and repeat in St Louis, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore and many more cities across the country.

Long story short since I don't want to get to deep into this, we really haven't learned from what happened almost 50 years ago and we've repeated some of the mistakes that made many urban areas in this country nearly unlivable. Runaway crime, drugs, poverty, and a mentality of the populace of nothing to lose. Part of it is a policing problem but it is a societal problem and we love to just ignore our problems hoping they will dissolve on their own. Well they don't, and the destitute will have their say here and in many places all over the world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The question is why are they destitute and do the comfortable really truly care?

The answer to the second part is clearly "no".

The answer to the first part is much more difficult and goes to much deeper issues than most are willing to acknowledge IMO.

But instead of solely the history of segregation and income inequality, one might also consider political corruption, one-party systemic rule, unsustainable public services, unsustainable union practices, and a breakdown of basic familial and social norms -- it seems like another place to start.

If we are going here shouldn't you start with the war on drugs? Has any single policy wrecked more havoc on our urban centers the past 45 years?

The war on drugs has been a disaster. That would be a fine place to start. But are you -- or is anyone -- willing, politically, to get up in front of a crowd and say that a) the war on drugs helped create the crack epidemic and b) that we should now legalize crack and heroin?

Because that's a third rail right there.

I'd say...

Crack and heroin usage is very costly to families, to communities, to society. But criminalizing the activity hasn't prevented the epidemic nor do I believe it has reduced it. Thus no matter how one feels about the evils of usage maybe we should try to better utilize these resources than destroying our urban centers and creating the best economic opportunity for too many,

Its a matter of perspective by when suburban people want to get "day high", they have prozac, valium, xanax and maybe some oxy or percs. Free, clear, even covered by insurance.

When lower class and inner city people chase the same feeling to escape the same things... they are criminalized.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

It was Rumsfeldian in its logic. I didn't say you were "Rumsfeld," nor call you "Copernicus," nor insult you or question your background.

I questioned the post, and the debate tactic, and you quickly got huffy and personal.

You mad bro?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest General Tso
Interesting. The '67 riots destroyed my city, it was before I was born but my grandparents lived on the edge of where the riots ended up. Detroit never recovered, anyone with the ability to move out did over the next 20 years and you see where it is today. The interstate system displaced many of the poorest residents in many urban areas, and then the Fair Housing Act of 1966 brought drastic changes to very segregated areas. Then the riots came, and then everyone with means left. Rinse and repeat in St Louis, Newark, Cleveland, Chicago, Baltimore and many more cities across the country.

Long story short since I don't want to get to deep into this, we really haven't learned from what happened almost 50 years ago and we've repeated some of the mistakes that made many urban areas in this country nearly unlivable. Runaway crime, drugs, poverty, and a mentality of the populace of nothing to lose. Part of it is a policing problem but it is a societal problem and we love to just ignore our problems hoping they will dissolve on their own. Well they don't, and the destitute will have their say here and in many places all over the world. The more things change, the more they stay the same.

The question is why are they destitute and do the comfortable really truly care?

The answer to the second part is clearly "no".

The answer to the first part is much more difficult and goes to much deeper issues than most are willing to acknowledge IMO.

But instead of solely the history of segregation and income inequality, one might also consider political corruption, one-party systemic rule, unsustainable public services, unsustainable union practices, and a breakdown of basic familial and social norms -- it seems like another place to start.

If we are going here shouldn't you start with the war on drugs? Has any single policy wrecked more havoc on our urban centers the past 45 years?

The war on drugs has been a disaster. That would be a fine place to start. But are you -- or is anyone -- willing, politically, to get up in front of a crowd and say that a) the war on drugs helped create the crack epidemic and b) that we should now legalize crack and heroin?

Because that's a third rail right there.

I'd say...

Crack and heroin usage is very costly to families, to communities, to society. But criminalizing the activity hasn't prevented the epidemic nor do I believe it has reduced it. Thus no matter how one feels about the evils of usage maybe we should try to better utilize these resources than destroying our urban centers and creating the best economic opportunity for too many,

are you actually calling for the legalization of cocaine?
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.   Restore formatting

  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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...