What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Baltimore: The Next Ferguson? (1 Viewer)

Look Dr. Detroit made one important point: nobody died. Maybe if the police are more active, or the national guard comes in like I wanted, somebody dies.

That doesn't excuse the Mayor's comments from Saturday- they're inexcusable. But it does put her decisions today in a different light. It's something to consider.

 
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?
Not at all, actually. Just pointing out how weird you are. Every time you wander into a slightly political or social thread and somebody disagrees with you, it's inevitable they get personally insulted. I may be Captain Meltdown because of trolls, jagoffs, insults, etc., but you might wanna work on that.

I knew not even to engage you, actually. You wanted to set the terms of the debate, and damn if anybody was gonna stand in your way. I know the jig.

:shrug:

 
What debate tactic? I stated an alternative opinion of approach and that's a debate tactic? I don't understand that, I wasn't even specifically addressing anyone.

Seems like you just wanted to debate Tim and I got dragged in. Should have seen that coming.

 
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.
leadership and experience in a municipal setting is there to be drawn upon. I have been highly critical of DiBlasio and to a lesser extent Bratton but their policies worked in a different situation.

You can say NYC has resources, which it does, but it also has a tighter concentration of people and a greater population. The Mayor had 36 hours to request national guard assistance, that would have been plenty of manpower and presence.

Anyone can have a bad day or moment, and I couldn't have picked this woman out of a lineup 5 hours ago.

But I see a response in action or the lack thereof and I see how she handles herself and how she commands herself in a presser.

She has shown me nothing to earn the benefit of the doubt.

 
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?
Not at all, actually. Just pointing out how weird you are. Every time you wander into a slightly political or social thread and somebody disagrees with you, it's inevitable they get personally insulted. I may be Captain Meltdown because of trolls, jagoffs, insults, etc., but you might wanna work on that.

I knew not even to engage you, actually. You wanted to set the terms of the debate, and damn if anybody was gonna stand in your way. I know the jig.

:shrug:
Put me on ignore, easy as that.

If you're going to directly criticize my posting without addressing me but using Tim as a proxy, then you should expect a response. Especially after multiple critical posts which offered no explanation or solution. Everyone here has Fox News as a channel option, we don't need regurgitated rhetoric that lacks creativeness or true candor.

 
The NYC protests are being slighted here. Shutting down the bridges and tunnels on a couple different instances probably cost more in GDP than all of this Baltimore nonsense.

Keeping the protesters moving did sap the energy to loot, that was a good idea. Di Blasio turning his back on cops...not so much.

There was a protest 2,000 strong for Peter Liang, led by a minority that has also been exploited and the whole thing was orderly and didn't make the news.

 
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,
My argument for legalization:

- Criminalization of drugs hasn't stopped people from using them

- Drugs are more expensive due to illegality and therefore cause more crime from people stealing to buy drugs

- Because drugs are illegal they have unknown impurities and are much more unsafe to use

California has made good steps towards legalization - marijuana has been decriminalized (now only a fine, not a misdemeanor) and possession Schedule III-V drugs have been reduced to misdemeanors. (PDF link, Section 11, page 9).

Legalization will be difficult to pass, but decriminalization seems to be the baby steps to get people comfortable with it.

In Portugal, which has decriminalized all drugs, deaths are down and AIDS/HIV from IV drug use is down 80%.

 
What debate tactic? I stated an alternative opinion of approach and that's a debate tactic? I don't understand that, I wasn't even specifically addressing anyone.

Seems like you just wanted to debate Tim and I got dragged in. Should have seen that coming.
The debate tactic where we pull alternatives off of the table because we can't possibly know what would have happened had she decided to protect all property and not provide safe zones. It tried to set a parameter for the debate about the mayor. I'm not sure how that is hard to understand.

As far as tim, wat? Because of the quote function? I disagreed with both of you, why not include both?

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?
Not at all, actually. Just pointing out how weird you are. Every time you wander into a slightly political or social thread and somebody disagrees with you, it's inevitable they get personally insulted. I may be Captain Meltdown because of trolls, jagoffs, insults, etc., but you might wanna work on that.

I knew not even to engage you, actually. You wanted to set the terms of the debate, and damn if anybody was gonna stand in your way. I know the jig.

:shrug:
Put me on ignore, easy as that.

If you're going to directly criticize my posting without addressing me but using Tim as a proxy, then you should expect a response. Especially after multiple critical posts which offered no explanation or solution. Everyone here has Fox News as a channel option, we don't need regurgitated rhetoric that lacks creativeness or true candor.
I don't ignore people unless they're trolling game threads, and then I try to change back. I'm not scared of reading anybody's opinion.

This has been truly a bizarre exchange.

As far as Fox News goes, I haven't watched it in any meaningful way since the aughts. I hardly think that criticizing the mayor for her response lacks candor. And maybe creativity isn't what we're striving for; maybe it's the truth.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What debate tactic? I stated an alternative opinion of approach and that's a debate tactic? I don't understand that, I wasn't even specifically addressing anyone.

Seems like you just wanted to debate Tim and I got dragged in. Should have seen that coming.
Wat? Because of the quote function. I disagreed with both of you, why not include both?

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?
Not at all, actually. Just pointing out how weird you are. Every time you wander into a slightly political or social thread and somebody disagrees with you, it's inevitable they get personally insulted. I may be Captain Meltdown because of trolls, jagoffs, insults, etc., but you might wanna work on that.

I knew not even to engage you, actually. You wanted to set the terms of the debate, and damn if anybody was gonna stand in your way. I know the jig.

:shrug:
Put me on ignore, easy as that.

If you're going to directly criticize my posting without addressing me but using Tim as a proxy, then you should expect a response. Especially after multiple critical posts which offered no explanation or solution. Everyone here has Fox News as a channel option, we don't need regurgitated rhetoric that lacks creativeness or true candor.
I don't ignore people unless they're trolling game threads, and then I try to change back. I'm not scared of reading anybody's opinion.

This has been truly a bizarre exchange.

As far as Fox News goes, I haven't watched it in any meaningful way since the aughts. I hardly think that criticizing the mayor for her response lacks candor. And maybe creativity isn't what we're striving for; maybe it's the truth.
I was a little hasty in my response. The combination of the "rumsfeldian" and the Tim proxy argument threw me.

You're a good egg, I've always thought so. Hug it out, live to play again tomorrow. :hifive:

 
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.
One party rule leads to situations where the rules are not applied equally and civil servants have a lot of cover from their fellow travelers....just one small aspect of this...

 
Baltimore Burning 2015: the redemption of Don Lemon

Seriously guy has been in good in what ive seen tonight
I don't know. He was grilling the Gov and Mayor about not doing more sooner. Had they done more sooner, he'd be questioning if they incited more aggression/destruction that way.ETA: and he's not alone. Lots of the media hacks armchairing this ####show.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
What debate tactic? I stated an alternative opinion of approach and that's a debate tactic? I don't understand that, I wasn't even specifically addressing anyone.

Seems like you just wanted to debate Tim and I got dragged in. Should have seen that coming.
Wat? Because of the quote function. I disagreed with both of you, why not include both?

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?
Not at all, actually. Just pointing out how weird you are. Every time you wander into a slightly political or social thread and somebody disagrees with you, it's inevitable they get personally insulted. I may be Captain Meltdown because of trolls, jagoffs, insults, etc., but you might wanna work on that.

I knew not even to engage you, actually. You wanted to set the terms of the debate, and damn if anybody was gonna stand in your way. I know the jig.

:shrug:
Put me on ignore, easy as that.

If you're going to directly criticize my posting without addressing me but using Tim as a proxy, then you should expect a response. Especially after multiple critical posts which offered no explanation or solution. Everyone here has Fox News as a channel option, we don't need regurgitated rhetoric that lacks creativeness or true candor.
I don't ignore people unless they're trolling game threads, and then I try to change back. I'm not scared of reading anybody's opinion.

This has been truly a bizarre exchange.

As far as Fox News goes, I haven't watched it in any meaningful way since the aughts. I hardly think that criticizing the mayor for her response lacks candor. And maybe creativity isn't what we're striving for; maybe it's the truth.
I was a little hasty in my response. The combination of the "rumsfeldian" and the Tim proxy argument threw me.

You're a good egg, I've always thought so. Hug it out, live to play again tomorrow. :hifive:
Agreed. Same here. :hifive:

 
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?
Don't leave out Easy access to drugs and a culture which glorifies their usage, the decline of the social structures such as family, church, schools...

 
Baltimore Burning 2015: the redemption of Don Lemon

Seriously guy has been in good in what ive seen tonight
I don't know. He was grilling the Gov and Mayor about not doing more sooner. Had they done more sooner, he'd be questioning if they incited more aggression/destruction that way.
Heavy is the head.

If they had Done the " wrong" thing and it worked, do you think they would have sidestepped credit?

 
The war on drugs might be

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?
Don't leave out Easy access to drugs and a culture which glorifies their usage, the decline of the social structures such as family, church, schools...
And what culture might this be? Black culture? Poor culture?

Rich white kids use more drugs than any other group.

So explain to me what you mean by this.

 
The war on drugs might be

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?
Don't leave out Easy access to drugs and a culture which glorifies their usage, the decline of the social structures such as family, church, schools...
And what culture might this be? Black culture? Poor culture?

Rich white kids use more drugs than any other group.

So explain to me what you mean by this.
American culture
 
The war on drugs might be

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?
Don't leave out Easy access to drugs and a culture which glorifies their usage, the decline of the social structures such as family, church, schools...
And what culture might this be? Black culture? Poor culture?

Rich white kids use more drugs than any other group.

So explain to me what you mean by this.
American culture
Thanks for clarifying that.

 
Ms Mayor talking sounds like every "disagreement" me and Mrs Bats have together:

Me. Well you said xxx xxx xxxx

Mrs bats. No I never said that

Me: yeah, that's exactly what you said

Mrs Bats: well that's not what I meant

Me: how come you never say what you mean?

Mrs Bats: it's always me, I'm always wrong

Me: well, yeah

God help us if we're ever dumb enough to elect a woman president.

 
As a former Baltimore city resident and someone who lived around the Baltimore area for 7 1/2 years, this sickens me. Rawlings-Blake has shown her true colors and needs to resign immediatley. She's been totally useless during this whole situation.

I feel for the good people of Baltimore and had many friends who couldn't even get home last night. Just pathetic what those cowards are doing to the city.

 
What debate tactic? I stated an alternative opinion of approach and that's a debate tactic? I don't understand that, I wasn't even specifically addressing anyone.

Seems like you just wanted to debate Tim and I got dragged in. Should have seen that coming.
I think you're just a lightning rod. I posted almost the exact same thing you said less than a page previous to you and nobody said a word. You post it and rock is going insane and Tim is rethinking his entire life.

Sometimes it's not what is said, but who said it.

 
Apparently a senior center run by a church was one of the buildings burned. That's really sad, a lot if grandmas in that area probably really loved that place.

 
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.
She should not have said it out loud, but in the end it wasn't a bad tactic. They were going to burn down and loot and riot regardless. At the end of the day the community cannot say the police were heavy handed as they did in Ferguson.

 
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.
She should not have said it out loud, but in the end it wasn't a bad tactic. They were going to burn down and loot and riot regardless. At the end of the day the community cannot say the police were heavy handed as they did in Ferguson.
I don't think you would feel that way if it was your loved ones, your home or business threatened, in that situation you want police and NG protecting you. The only way the above makes sense is if there wasn't a presence in place in advance, which is what happened. That's just poor planning and then getting stuck in the consequences of it.

 
Gotta love drama queens nursing on the drama teat.

Agree that it might be time to reconsider complete legalization. Might take letting the pot legalization run for a few beats before starting that conversation, but the inner city culture surrounding drug dealing and gun violence really needs to be considered from another angle. Hamsterdam, baby!

 
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.
She should not have said it out loud, but in the end it wasn't a bad tactic. They were going to burn down and loot and riot regardless. At the end of the day the community cannot say the police were heavy handed as they did in Ferguson.
I don't think you would feel that way if it was your loved ones, your home or business threatened, in that situation you want police and NG protecting you. The only way the above makes sense is if there wasn't a presence in place in advance, which is what happened. That's just poor planning and then getting stuck in the consequences of it.
yeah, hard to say. but the logic is sound.

 
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?
We should also maybe consider the practices that are most directly connected with the attitude currently on display. Everyone who is trying to grasp this situation should read this great Baltimore Sun invstigation into Baltimore PD police brutality from just 7 months ago. Some highlights:

Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights violations. Victims include a 15-year-old boy riding a dirt bike, a 26-year-old pregnant accountant who had witnessed a beating, a 50-year-old woman selling church raffle tickets, a 65-year-old church deacon rolling a cigarette and an 87-year-old grandmother aiding her wounded grandson.

Those cases detail a frightful human toll. Officers have battered dozens of residents who suffered broken bones — jaws, noses, arms, legs, ankles — head trauma, organ failure, and even death, coming during questionable arrests. Some residents were beaten while handcuffed; others were thrown to the pavement.

And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges against the victims — if charges were filed at all. In an incident that drew headlines recently, charges against a South Baltimore man were dropped after a video showed an officer repeatedly punching him — a beating that led the police commissioner to say he was “shocked.”

Such beatings, in which the victims are most often African-Americans, carry a hefty cost. They can poison relationships between police and the community, limiting cooperation in the fight against crime, the mayor and police officials say. They also divert money in the city budget — the $5.7 million in taxpayer funds paid out since January 2011 would cover the price of a state-of-the-art rec center or renovations at more than 30 playgrounds. And that doesn’t count the $5.8 million spent by the city on legal fees to defend these claims brought against police.
Condemn the looting of a CVS or the burning of a police car all you want. I'm 100% with you, all that stuff is worthy of condemnation. But seems like we should be condemning the stuff described in this article much more forcefully and frequently. Did any of the news coverage last night even bring up this huge and damning investigation from just a couple months ago?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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.
She should not have said it out loud, but in the end it wasn't a bad tactic. They were going to burn down and loot and riot regardless. At the end of the day the community cannot say the police were heavy handed as they did in Ferguson.
I don't think you would feel that way if it was your loved ones, your home or business threatened, in that situation you want police and NG protecting you. The only way the above makes sense is if there wasn't a presence in place in advance, which is what happened. That's just poor planning and then getting stuck in the consequences of it.
Don't get me wrong, nobody is more pro police than me. I'm just not sure that there would have been any less damage if the police intervened. These people were determined to tear #### up regardless.

 
Apparently a senior center run by a church was one of the buildings burned. That's really sad, a lot if grandmas in that area probably really loved that place.
It wasn't even open yet.
:lmao:

But but imagine poor granny walking six miles through the stifling 100 degree heat on a cracked cane and no water just for a can of Ensure and some bingo.
I was thinking of an elderly black woman who is a friend of mine. Yep she would walk with cane by hook or crook to get to this place almost every day:

http://judeshrine.com/st-jude-community-center/

As infirm as she was she would bake and help the sick and weak there herself, amazing. She had a lot of friends there and there are a lot of grandmas who are wonderful people there. That's the kind of place I imagined.

But it turns out this was going to be a public housing center built by a Baptist church that was just going to provide housing for the elderly. So you know you're right, now they won't have that now and that really is pretty "funny." Thanks for pointing that out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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?
Yes! I generally oppose throwing resources at problems in a manner that are not only ineffective but makes the problems worst. Maybe the cost-benefits can be altered within the framework of keeping it and others illegal (maybe a more targeted approach) such that I change my mind, but I'm not holding my breath that prohibition will ever work. And I think cocaine is preferable to the random chemistry project alternatives.

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top