State of Emergency: Baltimore Edition

Does that mean that those "unheard" using the riot will continue to be "unheard" and are doomed to continue on as the "unheard" until conditions are improved?

I don't fully understand your question or your use of quotation marks.

The quote is saying, I think quite clearly, that riots are the inevitable result of societal ills that have been ignored by the mainstream culture, and that regardless of wether or not riots are a practical or good thing, it is disingenuous and morally irresponsible to judge the rioters and criticize their actions more harshly than the systems of oppression and brutality that led to this point.

To put it another way, condemning rioters as idiots and animals while having no such harsh words for police officers that kill unarmed people and a justice system that protects them when they do is ****ed up.
 
"What did you expect? I don’t know why we’re so surprised. When you put your foot on a man’s neck and hold him down for three hundred years, and then you let him up, what’s he going to do? He’s going to knock your block off." - LBJ, on the Baltimore rots of 1968
 
ETTAJAMES_zps41fgf6dc.png
 
The rioters' actual grievances will go unheard so long as they resort to rioting...instead they'll draw more criticism for their actions with very little change springing from it.

Given you have people that didn't resort to it, I don't see the moral irresponsibility in passing them off as anything more than children having a tantrum, or parasites. I mean, you had the various gangs coming together in the interest of organization and leadership. That's far more impressive than giving the bigots more fuel for their stereotypes. Based on CNN's coverage, I'd say some of them realized this. I think they had only 10 arrests compared to the 200ish of last night. Their message is better communicated through statements like "I didn't want my child to become another Gray," where it sounds like police brutality, or negligence, is the norm.
 
The rioters' actual grievances will go unheard so long as they resort to rioting...instead they'll draw more criticism for their actions with very little change springing from it.

Given you have people that didn't resort to it, I don't see the moral irresponsibility in passing them off as anything more than children having a tantrum, or parasites. Based on CNN's coverage, I'd say some of them realized this. I think they had only 10 arrests compared to the 200ish of last night. Their message is better communicated through statements like "I didn't want my child to become another Gray," where it sounds like police brutality, or negligence, is the norm.

A tantrum is definitionally over something that doesn't matter. You can't write someone off as a child throwing a tantrum when their grievance is about cops murdering people and getting away with it because of an inherently biased justice system. That is inherently morally irresponsible.

Also, you're wrong. Riots have historically lead to enormous change. The gay rights movement as we know it would not exist without the Stonewall Riot.

Also also, it troubles me that so many people here seem to be more bothered by the riots than what they're rioting over.
 
When you can't articulate your point beyond wrecking things, you evidently don't have anything worth saying. These grievances were chillingly clear in the words of the people they interviewed.
 
When you can't articulate your point beyond wrecking things, you evidently don't have anything worth saying. These grievances were chillingly clear in the words of the people they interviewed.

But they clearly do have something worth saying, because their grievances are real and important. Why is property damage so offensive to you that you're willing to right off a rallying cry against police brutality as "not worthwhile?"


TEAPARRTY_zps0ihxfjn0.jpg
 
I think if there ends up being a high profile case of a black person without a criminal record, it will mean more to the masses. The cases with criminals that have long rap sheets, tend to get less sympathetic responses as a whole.
 
I think if there ends up being a high profile case of a black person without a criminal record, it will mean more to the masses. The cases with criminals that have long rap sheets, tend to get less sympathetic responses as a whole.

Which is tragic and reflects poorly on the American people. Having a criminal record doesn't mean you deserve to die at the hands of a police officer more than someone who doesn't. The search of the "perfect victim" is just a way for the people of this country to continue ignoring the problem.
 
Nuance and context are key. I never said I didn't agree with the rallying cries against police brutality. If you will read my posts carefully, you will note that I separated the rioters and looters from the protestors and those that made the simple, yet powerful statements implying that brutality was the norm. Context and nuance. Speaking approvingly of the protestors means I approve of their message. Speaking out against the rioters is indicative of my disapproval of their infantile hissy fits. While I speak of context and nuance, it is important to remember that these are the first casualties of online debate.

The fires certainly rose when they dumped their tea into the harbor. Granted, I haven't had a history course since high school. Its possible I forgot the part where the rioters started setting their own city, Boston, on fire to boil their tea and bake their scones.

Edit: As a post script, it is simply unjust that the rioters destroy the property of their fellow citizens that worked hard for what they have. If they had any backbone, they would've taken themselves to the Baltimore police station and carried on there. But, I may be assuming too much on the behalf of the rioters.
 
Nuance and context are key. I never said I didn't agree with the rallying cries against police brutality. If you will read my posts carefully, you will note that I separated the rioters and looters from the protestors and those that made the simple, yet powerful statements implying that brutality was the norm. Context and nuance. Speaking approvingly of the protestors means I approve of their message. Speaking out against the rioters is indicative of my disapproval of their infantile hissy fits. While I speak of context and nuance, it is important to remember that these are the first casualties of online debate.

The fires certainly rose when they dumped their tea into the harbor. Granted, I haven't had a history course since high school. Its possible I forgot the part where the rioters started setting their own city, Boston, on fire to boil their tea and bake their scones.

Edit: As a post script, it is simply unjust that the rioters destroy the property of their fellow citizens that worked hard for what they have. If they had any backbone, they would've taken themselves to the Baltimore police station and carried on there. But, I may be assuming too much on the behalf of the rioters.


Just so, Vic. Exactly. The rioting never accomplishes anything constructive, it's destructive. But it's the sort of thing made possible by bad policy, bad policing and a sense that a segment of the citizens in my country feel they get different treatment in the American sytem of law and government. The rioters, the looting, that's all opportunistic thuggery at it's highest, but to simply ignore the situations that create the atmosphere that makes these violent outbursts possible ensures that they will happen again.

It is possible to condemn whole heartedly the idiocy and madness, the pure irrational and destructive nature of the looters and rioters and also get that there is a festering problem with the way law enforcement in the U.S. in many areas of the country deal with some of the citizens it's supposed to serve and protect. I see alot of reactionary rhetoric that wants to basically side step the life experience of a nice slice of the American public the majority of which are law abiding.

The ease at which the hot headed youth or the generally criminal can use these situations for mindless violence is a tragedy, but I think it's guaranteed for these events to happen again if there isn't some reckoning as to the way law enforcement handles a segment of society and the way the citizens that make up that segment feel that said treatment is different than the way the rest of the country gets treated, up to an including the death of people at the hands of those empowered as officers of the law.
 
I was talking with friends today about President Obama On the issue. He said, "Why isn't he saying anything??!!" And I said, "Because when he does he's accused for 'race baiting' and when he doesn't he's accused of 'Not saying enough.'" He can't win either way.
 
People can still make their own choices. The members of the black community opposing the rioters is proof of that. There is no justification for wantonly destroying the property and businesses of innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with your grievances.
 
People can still make their own choices. The members of the black community opposing the rioters is proof of that. There is no justification for wantonly destroying the property and businesses of innocent bystanders who have nothing to do with your grievances.

Exactly. Two wrongs don't make a right.
 
I was talking with friends today about President Obama On the issue. He said, "Why isn't he saying anything??!!" And I said, "Because when he does he's accused for 'race baiting' and when he doesn't he's accused of 'Not saying enough.'" He can't win either way.

So he's more worried about what people will think of him than dealing with this situation? What a leader. :whatever:
 
I was talking with friends today about President Obama On the issue. He said, "Why isn't he saying anything??!!" And I said, "Because when he does he's accused for 'race baiting' and when he doesn't he's accused of 'Not saying enough.'" He can't win either way.
I think Obama overall has been a decent President. On issues like this, his words would carry more value if he equally addressed the negative issues in black communities as well. For example, the 70% unwed black mother rate, lack of focus on education towards inner cities, etc... I think he should be looking at the totality of everything. Are there some cases of officers who have abused the law? Yes. That needs addressed, but also being criminals with long rap sheets by your 20's is needing addressed as well. It's tough to balance these areas for him.
 
Also...where are all the rappers...the people many young black men look up to as idols...where are they in this situation. No where to be found aside from the occasional twitter comment and racially generated rants in posts and songs.
 
Eyewitnesses: The Baltimore Riots Didn't Start the Way You Think
Baltimore teachers and parents tell a different story from the one you've been reading in the media.
—By Sam Brodey and Jenna McLaughlin | Tue Apr. 28, 2015 6:00 PM EDT
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2015/04/how-baltimore-riots-began-mondawmin-purge
After Baltimore police and a crowd of teens clashed near the Mondawmin Mall in northwest Baltimore on Monday afternoon, news reports described the violence as a riot triggered by kids who had been itching for a fight all day. But in interviews with Mother Jones and other media outlets, teachers and parents maintain that police actions inflamed a tense-but-stable situation.

The funeral of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man who died in police custody this month, had ended hours earlier at a nearby church. According to the Baltimore Sun, a call to "purge"—a reference to the 2013 dystopian film in which all crime is made legal for one night—circulated on social media among school-aged Baltimoreans that morning. The rumored plan—which was not traced to any specific person or group—was to assemble at the Mondawmin Mall at 3 p.m. and proceed down Pennsylvania Avenue toward downtown Baltimore. The Baltimore Police Department, which was aware of the "purge" call, prepared for the worst. Shortly before noon, the department issued a statement saying it had "received credible information that members of various gangs…have entered into a partnership to 'take-out' law enforcement officers."

When school let out that afternoon, police were in the area equipped with full riot gear. According to eyewitnesses in the Mondawmin neighborhood, the police were stopping busses and forcing riders, including many students who were trying to get home, to disembark. Cops shut down the local subway stop. They also blockaded roads near the Mondawmin Mall and Frederick Douglass High School, which is across the street from the mall, and essentially corralled young people in the area. That is, they did not allow the after-school crowd to disperse.

Meghann Harris, a teacher at a nearby school, described on Facebook what happened:

"Police were forcing busses to stop and unload all their passengers. Then, [Frederick Douglass High School] students, in huge herds, were trying to leave on various busses but couldn't catch any because they were all shut down. No kids were yet around except about 20, who looked like they were waiting for police to do something. The cops, on the other hand, were in full riot gear, marching toward any small social clique of students…It looked as if there were hundreds of cops."

The kids were "standing around in groups of 3-4," Harris said in a Facebook message to Mother Jones. "They weren't doing anything. No rock throwing, nothing…The cops started marching toward groups of kids who were just milling about."

A teacher at Douglass High School, who asked not to be identified, tells a similar story: "When school was winding down, many students were leaving early with their parents or of their own accord." Those who didn't depart early, she says, were stranded. Many of the students still at school at that point, she notes, wanted to get out of the area and avoid any Purge-like violence. Some were requesting rides home from teachers. But by now, it was difficult to leave the neighborhood. "I rode with another teacher home," this teacher recalls, "and we had to route our travel around the police in riot gear blocking the road…The majority of my students thought what was going to happen was stupid or were frightened at the idea. Very few seemed to want to participate in 'the purge.'"

A parent who picked up his children from a nearby elementary school, says via Twitter, "The kids stood across from the police and looked like they were asking them 'why can't we get on the buses' but the police were just gazing…Majority of those kids aren't from around that neighborhood. They NEED those buses and trains in order to get home." He continued: "If they would've let them children go home, yesterday wouldn't have even turned out like that."

Meg Gibson, another Baltimore teacher, described a similar scene to Gawker: "The riot police were already at the bus stop on the other side of the mall, turning buses that transport the students away, not allowing students to board. They were waiting for the kids…Those kids were set up, they were treated like criminals before the first brick was thrown." With police unloading busses, and with the nearby metro station shut down, there were few ways for students to clear out.

Several eyewitnesses in the area that afternoon say that police seemed to arrive at Mondawmin anticipating mobs and violence—prior to any looting. At 3:01 p.m., the Baltimore Police Department posted on its Facebook page: "There is a group of juveniles in the area of Mondawmin Mall. Expect traffic delays in the area." But many of the kids, according to eyewitnesses, were stuck there because of police actions.

The Baltimore Police Department did not respond to requests for comment.

Around 3:30, the police reported that juveniles had begun to throw bottles and bricks. Fifteen minutes later, the police department noted that one of its officers had been injured. After that the violence escalated, and rioters started looting the Mondawmin Mall, and Baltimore was in for a long night of trouble and violence. But as the event is reviewed and investigated, an important question warrants attention: What might have happened had the police not prevented students from leaving the area? Did the department's own actions increase the chances of conflict?

As Meghann Harris put it, "if I were a Douglas student that just got trapped in the middle of a minefield BY cops without any way to get home and completely in harm's way, I'd be ready to pop off, too."

On social media, eyewitnesses chronicled the dramatic police presence before the rioting began: *pictures in the link*
 
I think if there ends up being a high profile case of a black person without a criminal record, it will mean more to the masses. The cases with criminals that have long rap sheets, tend to get less sympathetic responses as a whole.

Nope. Not true at all. Because Tamir Rice had no criminal record. And the "masses" basically treated it as if it was nothing.
 
Also...where are all the rappers...the people many young black men look up to as idols...where are they in this situation. No where to be found aside from the occasional twitter comment and racially generated rants in posts and songs.

Too busy organizing a conference to find a way to get us to pay more money than we already are paying for a music streaming app.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top
monitoring_string = "afb8e5d7348ab9e99f73cba908f10802"