Baltimore riots

[Guest Godless]

The thing here is... Mistakes do happen. And there are bad people everywhere.

If a good McDonalds employee make a mistake and give you the wrong burger, you just go get a new free burger... or sue McDonalds for millions of dollars. If a bad McDonalds employee spit on your burger, you sue McDonalds. Nobody riots.

If a good doctor makes a mistake, he kills people. Nobody riots because they just go and sue the doctor for millions of dollars and the guy's family gets rich. Same thing for bad doctors but the bad doctor gets to hang his coat.

If a cop makes a mistake, he kills people. Black people steal TVs.

 

And what happens when the burger spit keeps happening and nothing is done about it? What happens when the doctor kills more members of your family and keeps his license? Riots and looting are obviously unjustifiable, but the frustration that's fueling these actions is not. The violence shouldn't be condoned, but the causes need to be understood, and the media (and social media) reactions make it clear that they are not. The rioters are being accused of destroying their communities. That ship sailed along time ago. These communities are already in shambles. And until now they've been virtually invisible to the rest of us. This isn't just about police brutality. This is about entire sectors of our society that have been left to rot in poverty without any hope of escape. They live in fear of the criminals and gangs in their midst, and they can't rely on the police or the local government to keep them safe. When you live like that every day, your community becomes a powder keg. And it's going to explode sooner or later.

 

The riots will subside and life will eventually go back to normal. But unless "normal" changes for some of these broken communities, the powder keg will continue to fester.

[Litzy]

I read a great education article some months ago that I can't locate at the moment, but it spoke of poverty and its effects in low-performing schools.

 

The solution is very three-fold.

 

The schools need to be fixed, the community needs to be fixed, and the homes need to be fixed. Yes, it's quite the challenge. You'll have the students that will push through and survive and succeed no matter what, but for a greater change all three of these components must be fixed. Leave one out and the assurance of success falls dramatically.

 

The Church teaches so much about values being taught in the home. Everything goes back to the home. And darn it if I don't believe this whole-heartedly. But without community examples everything falls through.

 

It's a big job. Platitudes about families and communities fixing themselves have their fair share of truth but the problem is greater than that.

[unixknight]

The stats do not lie, violent crime is dramatically down over the past 20 years and cops rarely are in mortal danger (more are killed in automobile accidents than someone killing them).

 

Yes but how else can they justify all the military hardware, no knock warrants and battle fatigues?

 

Anywho...

 

Edited April 30, 2015 by unixknight

[bytor2112]

Atlanta should be burning soon.... unless of course his black life doesn't matter.

Edited May 1, 2015 by bytor2112

[yjacket]

That's an intriguing idea, but it's worth noting that per the Spiegel article they did not actually "decriminalize" possession; they just converted it to a misdemeanor rather than a felony and instituted a program that looks very much like a Utah "drug court" on steroids. (Okay, maybe an unfortunate choice of words . . ,)

FWIW, my anecdotal experience in Utah is that simple possession of marijuana cases are usually misdemeanors and rarely result in a jail sentence, EXCEPT where the defendant refuses to attend treatment or otherwise fails to comply with probation. Harder stuff--heroin, meth, crack--those cases usually do start as felonies, but my experience is that judges are usually pretty willing to avoid conviction via a plea in abeyance or diversion to drug court so long as the defendant goes to inpatient treatment; and if you get into the drug court your treatment will be state-funded. (If you live in UT, write to your legislators about drug court. It's a great program, and it really needs all the funding it can get.)

Utah has a very conservative bench, and even *our* judges tend to understand that not much "rehabilitation" really goes on in prison. The people you see incarcerated for possession charges--at least in Utah--are generally the ones who are too mentally ill, too damaged by these "harmless" substances, or just too contemptuous of authority to complete their treatment; and I imagine even Portugal would resort to incarceration for at least some of those folks.

I'd be very interested to know how Portugal treats drug dealers, though.

JAG, I appreciate the time you too to look at the articles and provide a good response, vs. just a reaction.

 

Well the spiegal article is an international article, unless parking violations are truly misdemeanors in Portugal I think the terminology is a little messed up.  A misdemeanor in the US is still a big deal and parking violations are not misdemeanors here.

 

A very important point to understand here is that due to the UN, no country is allowed to completely legalize drugs due to treaties that have been imposed by the UN.  The best a country can do overall is to de-criminalize. If you look at

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drug_policy_of_Portugal#cite_note-22

The personal limits on allowable drugs is listed . . . basically one is not charged with a crime just fined and/or rehabilitated

if one has amounts in those limits. (Which a misdemeanor in the US is still a crime).

 

For the nitty-gritty details see:

http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211621_1.pdf

 

Some very interesting things from this:

1) In general prices of drugs in Portugal have dropped anywhere from 30-50% --so yes anatess, unlike your claim decriminalization does lead to lower drug prices, and lower drug prices overall will lead to less incentive to distribute drugs and therefore point 2 occurs.

2) The amount of individuals prosecuted for distribution dropped about 10-20% and has stayed relatively flat, whereas surrounding countries like Spain have continued to skyrocket in prosecution of individuals distributing.

Other interesting tidbits are in the paper . . .long and short the world didn't come to an end b/c they decriminalized limited possession drugs and their court systems are not clogged with drug cases.

 

3) Which again makes sense, higher prices will encourage more people to bring supply to that market, lower prices discourage people from bringing more supplies online

 

If I can get people to seriously look at even decriminalization I think that is a step in the right direction.  If the Utah courts are like you say then that is a step in the right direction. . . .unfortunately in my neck of the woods it is not like that, 80% of the jails here are full of drug offenders.  

 

And what you say might go for 1st time offenders, but IIRC federal mandatory sentencing eliminates a lot of the flexibility judges have in sentencing. 

 

I'd be really surprised if the local police forces give up on the cash cow of drug raids.  All the police need to do is claim the money and property was somehow involved in drugs and poof it's theirs.  They can then go buy margarita machines with the drug money (yes one police department did just that with seized "drug" money).

Edited May 1, 2015 by yjacket

[yjacket]

Atlanta should be burning soon.... unless of course his black life doesn't matter.

Very sad story . . . obviously the man who shot the cop should pay the ultimate price if convicted. And very sad that man who shot him was an Army Vet supposedly suffering from PTSD.

 

We will never truly know or understand the full costs of at least one idiotic war . . .

[Just_A_Guy]

 A misdemeanor in the US is still a big deal and parking violations are not misdemeanors here.

Depends on the state, I suppose. Utah breaks them out into Class A, B, and C misdemeanors punishable respectively by up to 360, 180, or 90 days and fines up to $2500, $1,000, or $750--and again, it's rare for the jail time or even the full fine amount to be imposed (if you google the Utah Fine and Bail schedule, there are recommended fines for pretty much everything and courts often just follow that).

My point, though, was that--at least here--most traffic offenses are misdemeanors. (There are also "infractions"--offenses punishable by a fine up to $750, but no jail), and some parking issues will come under that--but if you blow off a series of infractions,smoother or later you're going to jail.)

 

The personal limits on allowable drugs is listed . . . basically one is not charged with a crime just fined and/or rehabilitated

if one has amounts in those limits. (Which a misdemeanor in the US is still a crime).

For the nitty-gritty details see:

http://www.beckleyfoundation.org/bib/doc/bf/2010_Caitlin_211621_1.pdf

That's an interesting article, thanks. I would note that the article distinguishes between what it calls decriminalization, and what it calls depenalization (the former still imposing administrative sanctions/mandatory rehab; the latter making the substances completely acceptable). I think when most Americans hear the word "decriminalization", we assume you're talking about depenalization. I know I did. :)

 

If I can get people to seriously look at even decriminalization I think that is a step in the right direction.  If the Utah courts are like you say then that is a step in the right direction. . . .unfortunately in my neck of the woods it is not like that, 80% of the jails here are full of drug offenders. 

 

Oh, don't get me wrong--jails here also have a staggering proportion of addicts. Our drug court programs are woefully underfunded and somewhat intolerant towards relapse even though from a therapeutic standpoint relapse is almost inevitable at some point in the recovery process. And, I just had two clients flame out of drug court less than a month before they were due to graduate. Nasty stuff, meth.

And what you say might go for 1st time offenders, but IIRC federal mandatory sentencing eliminates a lot of the flexibility judges have in sentencing. 

A lot of it does, and it needs to be fixed. But for possession cases where the amounts are small, I find the Feds usually stay out unless the offense took place on a military base, federal government facility, or a national park or federal land.

 

I'd be really surprised if the local police forces give up on the cash cow of drug raids.  All the police need to do is claim the money and property was somehow involved in drugs and poof it's theirs.  They can then go buy margarita machines with the drug money (yes one police department did just that with seized "drug" money).

Don't get me started about civil forfeiture. It can be contested (even the guilty often have cash seized that wasn't part of any illicit transaction), but the really devious prosecutors will file the forfeiture immediately but sit on the criminal charges. If you go to court to protest the forfeiture, you'll have to testify and that testimony may then be used against you in a criminal case.

It's blackmail, at a fundamental level.

[yjacket]

Depends on the state, I suppose. Utah breaks them out into Class A, B, and C misdemeanors punishable respectively by up to 360, 180, or 90 days and fines up to $2500, $1,000, or $750--and again, it's rare for the jail time or even the full fine amount to be imposed (if you google the Utah Fine and Bail schedule, there are recommended fines for pretty much everything and courts often just follow that).

My point, though, was that--at least here--most traffic offenses are misdemeanors. (There are also "infractions"--offenses punishable by a fine up to $750, but no jail), and some parking issues will come under that--but if you blow off a series of infractions,smoother or later you're going to jail.)

 

Interesting . . . I guess I know to stay out of Utah for traffic/parking issues!  Here the vast majority of traffic/parking offenses would be classified as you know it "infractions".  Turning right on red, speeding, illegally parked, etc. are all infractions.

 

The biggest traffic infraction that will get a misdemeanor that I know of is a "super-speeder", 20+ over the speed limit . . . it's really nice, here cops have no incentive to give tickets if you are going 9 or less over the speed limit. The fine is negligible (20-30) and no points. One really needs to be doing something horrible to get a misdemeanor for traffic violations, DUI, reckless driving, etc.

 

If I understand you correctly, I would hate to drive in Utah (I have a clean traffic record), but job apps. always ask for misdemeanors and having to report a bunch of traffic misdemeanors that happened 15 years ago would really suck.

[Blackmarch]

I guess I'm not allowed to have an opinion, but I would sincerely like to know the mindset behind this kind of behavior. You know, the long-term goal and what people are realistically will come of it. 

If it's anything like my experiencein detroit, there isn't much of a longterm goal (so I doubt many of the folks who are on the streets in the riiot are really thinking longterm at all) . Most people in the poor areas were more concerned with the moment.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

This is a great post worth repeating . . .

 

 

 

 

I don't think the complacency of people outside the slums is necessarily due to racism.  I think it is sometimes, but there are plenty of people who have no racism in their heart who still say things like "They ought to just take some personal responsibility and/or move."  A person doesn't have to be a racist to say that.

 

Instead, I think the problem is complacency in general.  As Conservatives, we believe in self reliance and personal responsibility, and we have great faith in our point of view.  I'm a huge believer in the idea that we all make our own destiny.  

 

The problem is that when we have such great faith in that principle, we tend to think that everybody can just get on top of their situation, all of the time.  We kinda need to believe that, because otherwise our sense of personal empowerment becomes threatened.  If some inner city family from West Baltimore can't get out and is stuck in the slums, then that could also have happened to us, and that thought is scary.

 

It's scary to me.  I like to believe... I NEED to believe that as long as I keep doing my best, taking responsibility and working hard, I'll never end up like the people in those slums.  And maybe, as far as my faith in Heavenly Father and His designs remains strong, that won't happen or, if it does happen, things will be ok.  And that's good... but not everybody puts their faith in God.

 

And maybe that's the real problem... maybe there isn't enough of God's presence in the culture of ghetto life... Maybe if more people in that part of town went to church and got closer to God then they'd be able to seize their destiny as a community and make things better... maybe.

 

But when we, as believers, are charged with spreading the Gospel and showing compassion to our brothers and sisters, are we supposed to only show compassion for people who live up to our expectations of how to live?  Are we supposed to only care about the suffering of the people who we, personally, judge to be worthy of it because they've met our standards for trying hard enough to get out of their situation?  Are we released from any obligation toward those who we, in our human wisdom, have determined aren't trying hard enough?

 

The bold is mine.  I think you are so right about this Unixknight, and this idea applies to other parts of our lives as well.  I see this so often we blame the victim because to do otherwise is to admit that said horrible thing could happen to us.  

If God allowed it to happen to them, He could allow it to happen to you to. That's a fact of life.

 

The part I highlighted in RED is what I feel is the essence of this whole conversation.  

Edited May 1, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Vort]

The part I highlighted in RED is what I feel is the essence of this whole conversation.  

 

Ironic, then, that you are so quick to condemn those who don't see things your way.

[unixknight]

Wow that was hostile...

 

Anyway, looks like the officers are being charged.

[Just_A_Guy]

If I understand you correctly, I would hate to drive in Utah (I have a clean traffic record), but job apps. always ask for misdemeanors and having to report a bunch of traffic misdemeanors that happened 15 years ago would really suck.

 

Hmm.  My experience is that most job apps specifically exclude traffic offenses, and I think (I could be wrong) that by law they can only ask if you've been convicted, not if you've been charged.  I don't have statistics; but my anecdotal experience is that most traffic matters (at least, mine--and I've had four or five in Utah) resolve out by a plea in abeyance.  That means that as long as I pay my fine and do traffic school, the case is dismissed without a conviction.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Wonderful news about the officers being charged. Finally some hope of justice and a message to any other renegade police officers.

[Litzy]

I'm glad they're being charged. I hope the police go a step further and review their policies and procedures (I hate to say "fix it" every time one thing goes kaput, but it's at least worth a review).

[unixknight]

Apparently the Feds are getting involved too.  Not sure how I feel about that except to say that if this is what it takes to ensure a thorough investigation, then by all means go for it.

[Guest MormonGator]

Apparently the Feds are getting involved too.  Not sure how I feel about that except to say that if this is what it takes to ensure a thorough investigation, then by all means go for it.

 I'll pass. When the feds get involved the story will linger and simmer. Usually the more the government intervenes the less gets accomplished.   

[unixknight]

 I'll pass. When the feds get involved the story will linger and simmer. Usually the more the government intervenes the less gets accomplished.   

 

Well yeah that does tend to be true... I guess I just welcome ANY outside party to investigate.  I couldn't stop rolling my eyes when they were initially saying the BPD would do an internal investigation.  Noooo conflict of interest there...  I'm glad it wasn't left at that.

[Guest MormonGator]

  Noooo conflict of interest there...  I'm glad it wasn't left at that.

 Oh we are in total agreement there. How about the New Jersey state police or do what Penn State did during the Freeh report? Call in a somewhat objective third party. Yes, I know Freeh worked for the FBI but he wasn't active during the Penn State investigation

[unixknight]

Seems like that stuff should be a no brainer, doesn't it?  And yet...

[bytor2112]

Wonderful news about the officers being charged. Finally some hope of justice and a message to any other renegade police officers.

 

Sad that you have already decided thst the cops are renegade. Oh well, maybe the Doritos won't be walking out of the stores for awhile....

[unixknight]

Sad that you have already decided thst the cops are renegade. Oh well, maybe the Doritos won't be walking out of the stores for awhile....

 

They caused the death of a man.  Even the BPD has admitted they failed to follow procedure.  In what universe is it a bad thing that these men be brought to account for their actions?  If indeed they did no wrong then they'll be exonerated.  If they did wrong then shouldn't they answer for it?

 

Some already decided they're renegade, some have already decided they can do no wrong just because they wear badges.  

Edited May 1, 2015 by unixknight

[bytor2112]

They caused the death of a man.  Even the BPD has admitted they failed to follow procedure.  In what universe is it a bad thing that these men be brought to account for their actions?  If indeed they did no wrong then they'll be exonerated.  If they did wrong then shouldn't they answer for it?

 

Some already decided they're renegade, some have already decided they can do no wrong just because they wear badges.  

 

I think you mean that they allegedly caused the death of a man....I mean in America we are innocent until proven guilty....right? LP has already decided that they were renegade cops and it sounds like you have as well. Not following procedure doesn't = murder/manslaughter......does it? 

 

If the police are found not guilty....wait till you see the riots that occur because the mob didn't get their wish.

Edited May 1, 2015 by bytor2112

[unixknight]

Ok, allegedly.  But be aware, brother, there's a flip side to that coin.  The next time anyone mentions whatever Mr. Gray did to attract the attention of the police, I'm counting on you to come in and make sure they say "allegedly" as well.  Fair?

 

The Baltimore police are well known for their love of excessive force.  The Baltimore city government literally budgets in a few million for settling excessive force lawsuits.  Do I think these guys allegedly killed Mr. Gray on purpose?  No I don't, but intentional or not, their actions (or inaction, depending on exactly what happened) resulted in his death.  Simply put:  If the cops hadn't arrested Freddie Gray, he'd be alive today.  Broken necks don't just spontaneously happen.

 

Incidentally, all indications are that they arrested him for nothing.  According to officials, he ran when they saw him, but the only thing he had on his person was a knife, which is legal in the state of MD to carry.  So, as far as we can tell, he was literally arrested for nothing, and is dead now.

 

So yes, I think LP is quite right to celebrate that charges are being brought against these men.  Because yes, not following procedure CAN mean someone's death, as it appears to do in this case.

 

Are you against having these men answer for Mr. Gray's death?

[bytor2112]

Unix....your statement implies that all cops use excessive force at the BPD and seriously, Mr. Gray was a habitual offender....arrested something like 18 times for drugs. Now, if these particular cops have records of excessive force then maybe...Mr. Gray, while not deserving to die, was certainly a sketchy guy. Maybe if Mr Gray hadn't chose a life of crime he would be alive as well.