Baltimore riots

[Guest MormonGator]

If you're outraged over the riots in Baltimore, you should be. If you're also not just a little concerned about how a man can be taken into custody for 'acting suspiciously' and somehow, during transport, while handcuffed, end up with a severed spine and a crushed voicebox then you're also part of the problem.

Amen. 

[Traveler]

If you're outraged over the riots in Baltimore, you should be. If you're also not just a little concerned about how a man can be taken into custody for 'acting suspiciously' and somehow, during transport, while handcuffed, end up with a severed spine and a crushed voicebox then you're also part of the problem.

 

In today's world - it is hard to be outraged over the Baltimore riots or the loss of life in custody - when taking into account so many other things also occurring.  Both the riots and loss of life of someone resisting custody, seem to me to be well within the parameters of trends very prevalent in our day.  I am more surprised with the shock many engineer despite trends and even divine prophesy concerning the direction we as a society seem determined to follow concerning the importance in keeping marriage as an institution that defines family (birth and raising of children) as the moral means and foundation of society. 

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

 Both the riots and loss of life of someone resisting custody, 

 

Obviously I disagree, but I'm curious how that makes sense to you, and anyone who agrees with this idea.  Eric Garner was alleged to be selling some cigarettes illegally...he deserved to die for that?

 

Freddie Gray was carrying a knife, the prosecutor says it was not an illegal knife and that the reasons for arresting him are questionable.  How does that become a death sentence?

I see this as "blaming the victim"...we (as a culture) do it to rape victims, and victims of any other horrific crime. For example, just last night on the news I saw a story about a motorcyclist who had been an an accident and was pinned underneath a truck and dragged some distance down the road.  My first thought was, "He was probably driving recklessly; they all do."  Therefore, he brought it upon himself.  Then I caught myself, are all motorcyclists reckless?  No, I don't think so.  Some accidents are a result of car drivers not seeing them.

 

The question is why?  Why do we blame the victim?  I think we do it because if we do blame the victim then we don't have to face the fear that said horrific thing will not happen to your or your family.  If we admit that these deaths were wrong, then we have to sit with the fear that our son or daughter could be next . . .

[Guest MormonGator]

Freddie Gray was carrying a knife, the prosecutor says it was not an illegal knife and that the reasons for arresting him are questionable.  How does that become a death sentence?

 

 

Litparakeet (and I love that name, by the way) is 100% correct on this. 

[Traveler]

Obviously I disagree, but I'm curious how that makes sense to you, and anyone who agrees with this idea.  Eric Garner was alleged to be selling some cigarettes illegally...he deserved to die for that?

 

Freddie Gray was carrying a knife, the prosecutor says it was not an illegal knife and that the reasons for arresting him are questionable.  How does that become a death sentence?

I see this as "blaming the victim"...we (as a culture) do it to rape victims, and victims of any other horrific crime. For example, just last night on the news I saw a story about a motorcyclist who had been an an accident and was pinned underneath a truck and dragged some distance down the road.  My first thought was, "He was probably driving recklessly; they all do."  Therefore, he brought it upon himself.  Then I caught myself, are all motorcyclists reckless?  No, I don't think so.  Some accidents are a result of car drivers not seeing them.

 

The question is why?  Why do we blame the victim?  I think we do it because if we do blame the victim then we don't have to face the fear that said horrific thing will not happen to your or your family.  If we admit that these deaths were wrong, then we have to sit with the fear that our son or daughter could be next . . .

 

It is the context not just a single event.  There are accidents and problems that occur.  I remember as a youth reading a story about a criminal running away from a crime when someone that was armed told them to stop.  When the fleeing criminal did not stop the armed individual thought to bring them to justice by firing a warning shot in the air - which ended up happening.  When the shot was fired it happened, out of incredible chance, to have hit a power line and ricochet down hitting the fleeing criminal in the back of the head and dropping them dead.

 

So we pass a law telling law abiding citizens not to fire warning shots?  Does such action teach criminals that running from their crime is acceptable?  Perhaps even the smartest thing to do? 

 

I was once arrested - I had done nothing wrong and I was obeying the law when I was arrested.  I was told not to move and I did not.  I was then thrown to the ground with several guns pointed at me with fingers on triggers.  I was roughed up by any standard, yelled at and accused.  All the time I was completely submissive and as much as possible, cooperative.

 

When conditions are tense and difficult.  There are smart things to do and stupid things to do - as well as legal and illegal things.  Usually dong something illegal is also very stupid - but there can be exceptions.  However, generally I have come to believe that if someone is engaged in a deliberate illegal act and a accident occurs - they should have no recourse or reason to complain - regardless of how severer the accident - unless someone else is also engaged in a deliberate illegal act that is directly related to the accident.

 

But I attempted to make a point far beyond what is legal and what happens when someone is in custody.  Which BTW - it is unlawful to resist and refuse to cooperate when taken into custody - even if you are innocent.   But my point, which seems to have been forgotten is that as families degenerate - so will society. 

[unixknight]

The question is why?  Why do we blame the victim?  I think we do it because if we do blame the victim then we don't have to face the fear that said horrific thing will not happen to your or your family.  If we admit that these deaths were wrong, then we have to sit with the fear that our son or daughter could be next . . .

 

Yeah this.  As I mentioned a while back we do it to separate ourselves from the danger.  "I won't be in a motorcycle accident because I ride very carefully."  "I won't get raped because I never walk around alone."  "I won't have to worry about police brutality because I obey the law."  By acting like the victims caused their own problems, we give ourselves the illusion that we have enough control to never become victims.

 

 

Litparakeet (and I love that name, by the way) is 100% correct on this. 

 

I agree too, and it's an extension of the illusion above.  "Freddie Gray would be alive today if he hadn't run."  "Eric Garner would be alive today if he hadn't been selling cigarettes."  "Walter Scott would be alive today if he paid his child support..."  and then proceed to defend the people who actually killed these men...

 

...yes, there really are people who believe Slager did no wrong in gunning down Mr. Scott.

 

And it's easy to do that.  It means no cop will ever kill you, or any of the good people you associate with.  No worries, it's someone else's problem.. someone else who brought it on themselves.

 

Remember back in the good ol' days when a cop would shoot someone and the rationale was "He had a gun."  And it was usually true.  Later, we became more permissive.  "It LOOKED like he had a gun" became sufficient to absolve an officer of blame.  Now, it's good enough if he just claims "I was in fear for my life."

 

There will always be those who rush to defend the cop, and look down at those who rush to blame the cop, as if somehow they weren't just as biased and unable to look objectively at it.  (Yes, in fairness, that goes both ways.)  

 

The riots in Baltimore happened because our society is much too tolerant of people, especially black people, being gunned down by cops... followed by apologists who say the victim had it coming.  As if selling drugs, failing to pay child support or selling cigarettes was reason enough for them to die. 

 

This is why I said early in the thread that we saw this coming.

[unixknight]

So we pass a law telling law abiding citizens not to fire warning shots?  Does such action teach criminals that running from their crime is acceptable?  Perhaps even the smartest thing to do? 

 

No, we do what we've already done; decide that the use of a deadly weapon is ONLY justified when someone's life is in imminent danger.  If a suspect is running away and the only thing that will stop him is shooting him... then he gets away.  That's how it works.  

 

How desensitized a culture we are where people will say it's better to kill someone and end their life than to risk the possibility that they might escape, especially if they haven't even committed a violent crime.  This isn't war.

[Traveler]

No, we do what we've already done; decide that the use of a deadly weapon is ONLY justified when someone's life is in imminent danger.  If a suspect is running away and the only thing that will stop him is shooting him... then he gets away.  That's how it works.  

 

How desensitized a culture we are where people will say it's better to kill someone and end their life than to risk the possibility that they might escape, especially if they haven't even committed a violent crime.  This isn't war.

 

My point is that I think there is a mistake in calling someone that is breaking the law - a victim. 

 

I also think you are mistaking concerning imminent danger.  At the least the perception of imminent danger ought to be considered? - but perception (as it appears to me) is at the heart and core of the Baltimore problem.  So if individuals of certain cultures are documented to have different perceptions - do we treat them differently - or is the idea of different treatment for different cultures the essence of the problem?

[unixknight]

My point is that I think there is a mistake in calling someone that is breaking the law - a victim. 

 

I also think you are mistaking concerning imminent danger.  At the least the perception of imminent danger ought to be considered? - but perception (as it appears to me) is at the heart and core of the Baltimore problem.  So if individuals of certain cultures are documented to have different perceptions - do we treat them differently - or is the idea of different treatment for different cultures the essence of the problem?

 

So... if I'm murdered while doing something illegal, I forfeit my status as the victim of the murder?

 

Well sure, it's a matter of perception, but if you've got someone in a headlock and they're prone on the ground, or if they're running away, or if they're severely injured, claims of imminent danger don't hold up well to scrutiny.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about people of different cultures having different perceptions.  Are you suggesting the cops' perception of imminent danger is different form that of an inner city youth?

[Traveler]

So... if I'm murdered while doing something illegal, I forfeit my status as the victim of the murder?

 

Well sure, it's a matter of perception, but if you've got someone in a headlock and they're prone on the ground, or if they're running away, or if they're severely injured, claims of imminent danger don't hold up well to scrutiny.

 

I'm not sure what you mean about people of different cultures having different perceptions.  Are you suggesting the cops' perception of imminent danger is different form that of an inner city youth?

 

If you are knowingly and deliberately breaking the law - you cannot claim to be a victim of consequences - especially if the consequences are the result of someone that is not knowingly and deliberately breaking the law.

 

I would also state that I personally have had experience with how professionals report national news items - I do not trust the news outlets to report accurately without some bias.   I am also aware that police officers must pass rigorous background checks and significant training.   Demonstrators or someone being arrested by the police have no such requirement.  BTW - I use to live in Maryland (Saint Marry county) and found the state over ran with political corruption and the education so deplorable (for example high school students that could not recite the alphabet) I moved from that state - so I already have a bias that political officials of Maryland are very much a part of the problem and doing everything they can to blame someone else.   I am not about to even consider blame of front line police officers trying to do their job without definite proof that can be used in court - especially over a community that will turn on their own small businesses and ruin them - far more than just disrespect for the law.

 

What has not been covered in the news is that insurance for homes and small businesses does not cover civil riots.  Uninformed idiots think businesses can recover because insurance - are sadly mistaken and misinformed.  Those in a position of authority and gave a stand down order - in my mind - such disregard for law abiding citizens trying to make a living is close to criminal.  I would not even think about opening a business in down town Baltimore - would you risk your livelihood?

 

It may be possible to blame all this on police - as many are trying to do.  But anyone that thinks about the circumstance should realize that before you can justify blaming the police (which may be completely justified this time) that one must blindly pass through a lot of others to get there.  There may be a few "bad apples" but I do not know anyone that is suggesting that is the problem in Baltimore, St Lewis and much across this country.

 

I think the welfare mom that lost her temper with a son demonstrating against the police best represented my thinking when she said that she reacted realizing that she may someday have to call 911 for help.

[yjacket]

If you are knowingly and deliberately breaking the law - you cannot claim to be a victim of consequences - especially if the consequences are the result of someone that is not knowingly and deliberately breaking the law.

 

Until the laws become so stringent that you find yourself in a situation of breaking the law due to your own moral code outweighing the "law".

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

My point is that I think there is a mistake in calling someone that is breaking the law - a victim. 

 

There's an important clarification that needs to be made here.  We're not calling anyone who breaks the law a victim. That would be incorrect and silly.  We ARE calling someone who was killed while allegedly committing a misdemeanor, a victim.  Selling cigarettes, or carrying a knife (especially if it was not a switchblade) are not offenses worthy of the death penalty.

 

Even if they were, death penalty should be decided upon in a court by judges and juries, and not on the street by police officers.

 

Why do we spend so much time talking about why victims actions instead of talking about what causes SOME police officers to act out violently beyond the limits that are set on them by law...when they are acting in this way they are also committing a crime.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Until the laws become so stringent that you find yourself in a situation of breaking the law due to your own moral code outweighing the "law".

 

Interesting point!  It seems that by Traveler's (and other who agree) opinion, it would have been alright, back in the day, for polygamists to be murdered if they ran from the law.  They were 'criminals' after all.  I don't think this is what you were alluding to, but I think the point is interesting to consider.  

 

And what about modern day polygamists?  

[Traveler]

There's an important clarification that needs to be made here.  We're not calling anyone who breaks the law a victim. That would be incorrect and silly.  We ARE calling someone who was killed while allegedly committing a misdemeanor, a victim.  Selling cigarettes, or carrying a knife (especially if it was not a switchblade) are not offenses worthy of the death penalty.

 

Even if they were, death penalty should be decided upon in a court by judges and juries, and not on the street by police officers.

 

Why do we spend so much time talking about why victims actions instead of talking about what causes SOME police officers to act out violently beyond the limits that are set on them by law...when they are acting in this way they are also committing a crime.

 

I do not think selling illegal cigarettes is a problem of concern.  As I understand, forcefully resisting arrest is a very short road to not being a victim.  If you shop lift a 25 cent item and there are 50 police present to arrest you and you resist with force against the 50 police - it is no longer a question of a 25 cent item - I am very sure myself who I prefer watching little children walk home from school - the 50 police or the person that would single handily take on 50 police officers in order to shop lift a 25 cent item?

 

I believe we have laws to deal with police that overstep their authority.  As I have already stated - If police are consistently getting away with overstepping authority - we need to deal with those in authority over the police as the criminal element.

[unixknight]

The problem is accountability.  The cop who killed Mr. Garner suffered - ZERO - consequences, even though everyone acknowledges that he used a hold technique that was forbidden by department policy for this very reason.

 

As I mentioned earlier... Does anyone believe that Mr. Slager would be facing murder charges if there had NOT been a video of him killing Mr. Scott?

[Backroads]

No, we do what we've already done; decide that the use of a deadly weapon is ONLY justified when someone's life is in imminent danger.  If a suspect is running away and the only thing that will stop him is shooting him... then he gets away.  That's how it works.  

 

How desensitized a culture we are where people will say it's better to kill someone and end their life than to risk the possibility that they might escape, especially if they haven't even committeId a violent crime.  This isn't war.

This is like a wonderfully condensed version of a post elsewhere I read yesterday. Guy had the same philosophy.

Why use deadly force against non-life-threatening criminals? If they escape and keep breaking the law, police will cross their paths again.

Now, the guy understood having to make judgment calls in grey areas, but still felt the bar could be raised a bit. He said if the police had to stop a truly violent criminal for the greater good they could do what they had to do and he would stand behind them 100%.

But the other stuff? Why bother? Get 'em next time.

[Vort]

This is like a wonderfully condensed version of a post elsewhere I read yesterday. Guy had the same philosophy.

Why use deadly force against non-life-threatening criminals? If they escape and keep breaking the law, police will cross their paths again.

Now, the guy understood having to make judgment calls in grey areas, but still felt the bar could be raised a bit. He said if the police had to stop a truly violent criminal for the greater good they could do what they had to do and he would stand behind them 100%.

But the other stuff? Why bother? Get 'em next time.

 

Everybody already believes this. When a cop shoots a fleeing suspect in the back while he's running away, virtually no one defends the cop's actions. This argument strikes me as a straw man. (Not aimed at you, Backroads, just at the particular argument that I have heard from other quarters.)

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I do not think selling illegal cigarettes is a problem of concern.  As I understand, forcefully resisting arrest is a very short road to not being a victim.  If you shop lift a 25 cent item and there are 50 police present to arrest you and you resist with force against the 50 police - it is no longer a question of a 25 cent item - I am very sure myself who I prefer watching little children walk home from school - the 50 police or the person that would single handily take on 50 police officers in order to shop lift a 25 cent item?

 

I believe we have laws to deal with police that overstep their authority.  As I have already stated - If police are consistently getting away with overstepping authority - we need to deal with those in authority over the police as the criminal element.

 

Okay, but have you seen the video of Eric Garner's death?  One minute they were talking, the next the officers descended on him...Mr. Garner didn't have a chance to resist.  I didn't hear the officers say, "Put your hands behind you."  They were talking, he disagreed with them and them they attacked.  

So I'm wondering how do we define resisting arrest?  And is resisting arrest to be considered worthy of the death penalty?  As was mentioned the officer used an illegal move, but again we aren't discussing his wrong doing.

 

With Freddie Gray, he made eye contact with the police and ran.  Okay, not a great idea, but again not worthy of a death sentence.

Then there are all the cases of unarmed black men being killed by police officers who say they felt threatened.  As Unixknight pointed out, would there be charges in Walter Scott's murder if there wasn't a video?  

 

[Guest MormonGator]

So I'm wondering how do we define resisting arrest?  And is resisting arrest to be considered worthy of the death penalty?  As was mentioned the officer used an illegal move, but again we aren't discussing his wrong doing.

 

 

Precisely. That's the key issue. 

And of course resisting arrest isn't worthy of the death penalty. 

[unixknight]

Everybody already believes this. When a cop shoots a fleeing suspect in the back while he's running away, virtually no one defends the cop's actions. This argument strikes me as a straw man. (Not aimed at you, Backroads, just at the particular argument that I have heard from other quarters.)

 

I wish everybody already believed that.  Elsewhere (not in this forum) I have seen people defending Slager... More people than you'd think honestly believe that if a suspect runs from a cop, the officer has not only the right but the duty to shoot them down.

 

Remember the classic, almost meme level line from back in the day?  We heard it in lots of crime TV shows.  "Stop, or I'll shoot!"  Fiction?  Of course... but it did leave plenty of impressionable people with the idea that this sort of thing was legal and justifiable.

[bytor2112]

I concur:

 

If I were a Baltimore police officer, I’d be looking for another job immediately. And as a Baltimore citizen, I may start looking for someplace else to live. When the police cannot depend upon the state’s attorney to be as thorough, competent, non-political and fair with them as she is supposed to be with all citizens, none of us will be safe.

 

[unixknight]

A couple of problems with The Sun article being discussed in that link.

 

"She charged Freddie Gray’s arresting officers with “false imprisonment” because she said the knife that Gray had on him was legal.  In fact, as The Sun reported, the Police Task Force found it to be illegal after all. "

 

This is circular logic.  If the police screwed up on the nature of the knife in the first place, I'm not sure how a police task force is suddenly more credible than the prosecutor.  Also, The cops didn't go after Freddie Gray because he had a knife.  They found that AFTER they ran him down.

 

"And she has created a new expectation in the city: that police officers who arrest without what she considers to be probable cause (a subjective standard) are subject not just to civil action (the current norm) but criminal action. Mere mistakes, or judgments exercised under duress, can land them in the pokey."

 

Well, no.  These officers were charged because their actions directly caused the death of a man who wasn't even committing a crime.  If all they had done was make a false arrest, then this WOULD have remained in the civil arena.

 

The entire mentality behind this article seems to think the fact that these cops KILLED an innocent man is irrelevant and so the article itself amounts to little more than a red herring.

Edited May 7, 2015 by unixknight

[Leah]

There's an important clarification that needs to be made here.  We're not calling anyone who breaks the law a victim. That would be incorrect and silly.  We ARE calling someone who was killed while allegedly committing a misdemeanor, a victim.  Selling cigarettes, or carrying a knife (especially if it was not a switchblade) are not offenses worthy of the death penalty.

 

Even if they were, death penalty should be decided upon in a court by judges and juries, and not on the street by police officers.

 

Why do we spend so much time talking about why victims actions instead of talking about what causes SOME police officers to act out violently beyond the limits that are set on them by law...when they are acting in this way they are also committing a crime.

When you make statements like the bolded above, you are saying that the police officer (s)  made a deliberate, willful decision....this guy is selling loosies, so I am going to kill him for doing that.

 

You are deliberately using inflammatory language to paint an extreme and distorted view of what happened.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

When you make statements like the bolded above, you are saying that the police officer (s) made a deliberate, willful decision....this guy is selling loosies, so I am going to kill him for doing that.

You are deliberately using inflammatory language to paint an extreme and distorted view of what happened.

In your opinion. Unless you are a mind reader you can't be certain what my intention was.

I'll be happy to clarify. People have used the argument "if you don't want to get hurt don't break the law." My statement that you bolded was intended to show the fallacy of this way of thinking.

I don't know what the officers were thinking. But I don't believe in either case their actions were justified. THAT was/is my point.

We are talking about two men's needless deaths, I don't need to use inflammatory language the situation itself is inflammatory enough. Those deaths are what is outrageous here. And what is worse is they are far from the only two needless deaths..they are just the two we are discussing right now.

Edited May 7, 2015 by LiterateParakeet

[Vort]

We are talking about two men's needless deaths, I don't need to use inflammatory language the situation itself is inflammatory enough.

 

LP, when you say patently false and outrageous things like that a man was killed by police for selling cigarettes, then yes, you are being inflammatory.