State of Emergency: Baltimore Edition

[DJ Kornphlake]

Do people realize that saying "my cause is more important than your cause" not realize that they aren't the only ones who have something that needs addressing? Do you realize that fracturing and demanding you be special makes your cause just one more in a sea of causes that make progress that less possible overall? Do they realize that in saying "I'm different" they make themselves stand out and isolated from everyone else?

Does inclusion not matter anymore? Or is it only important when it happens to be something about your specific identity?

 

[chaseter]

If people who are subject to cancer are only focused on others with the same exact plight then yeah, they are jaded to the plight of everyone else who may also be dying from a different horrible disease. What about the people who make money off of cancer charities, fundraisers, research? Should the media and politicians only focus on cancer and marginalize all the other horrible diseases? What happens to those people who profit when cancer is cured? Now replace cancer with racism.

 

[Teelie]

The irony of you posting that here is understated.

Seriously, do you have absolutely anything of your own to contribute or are you just going to parrot some other stupid meme?

 

[Teelie]

And right there, you laid out a great beginning to a Federal Prosecutor's opening statement in a Civil Rights Trial.....instead you have a young State Prosecutor that has taken on her own agenda and placed it upon this case and has grossly overcharged in a case where you don't know, when, why, how or who committed the crimes. On top of that you went before the news media and totally played your hand showing that it is a fight in the political ring, rather than a fight in the attempt at justice. She in her own words is fighting for justice for herself, not for the people (all the people of Maryland) that she has given an oath to serve. It is amazing to me that you could have done EXACTLY what they wanted to do, calm the storm, had they simply gone with an indictment that they could back up and allow the Federal Prosecution to do their thing first.

Apparently we learned NOTHING from the Rodney King case and we may very well have the same exact result. So ridiculous...

It's a good thing I'm not in the law then? Because presumption of guilt is exactly what we should not be doing. He's guilty. That's all the justification needed apparently.

 

[Teelie]

What you've described isn't "reality". It's your perspective or opinion, imaging a scenario that might be quite different than what actually went down, or their reasoning for pursuing Gray.

Let's remember he was arrested by cops on bicycles. Do you think they had police scanners in their bike helmets that used facial recognition software to scan Gray's face and pull up his criminal record, and then they decided he'd be an easy target?

Or do you think they maybe pursued and detained Gray because he sprinted away from them as if he was guilty of something, and they then had reason to be suspicious of this man and what he had done / was doing / was about to do?

We know that SOME police are biased. We know that SOME police are corrupt, but you are making an extremely broad generalization that is based on your own perspective and opinion, and not rooted in fact -- at least not based on what we know of this situation YET. How would you feel if someone said, "We are aware that black people are criminals and thugs"? Would that be fair perspective to have?

If I was a police officer patrolling an area with a high level of crime and a person spotted me and then fled, I think I would be justified in assuming that this person was involved in some kind of illegal activity, and I would certainly want to pursue him to find out why he fled or what was going on.

If you were a police officer in the same situation, would you not do the same, regardless of the person's skin color? Or do you think that when a cop sees something suspicious (like a person spotting them and sprinting away), that they should just give them a pass because they hadn't explicitly seen him breaking a law yet?

Remember that police exist not only to detain and punish people who have broken the law, but they also exist to prevent people from breaking the law, along with investigating suspicious people and activity. To use an extreme scenario, if the police had let Gray escape with no consequence and he then went on to murder someone, who would be in the wrong there?

Reports thus far indicate that Gray made eye contact with police and then fled unprovoked. Until proven otherwise, I'm not sure what you mean by "targeted like he was". It doesn't seem like police tried to arrest him and then he ran. Rather, all reports indicate it was quite the opposite.

Furthermore, if you were innocent of a crime and fled from police anyway upon making eye contact with them or even being approached by them, you'd only be making this worse for yourself and could possibly find yourself in a confrontation with police.

Do you not realize that fleeing from police under any circumstances can be considered breaking the law, regardless of other crimes committed? A criminal charge of fleeing or evading the police may be either a misdemeanor or felony charge, depending on the circumstances. For example, fleeing the police in a vehicle is a felony charge, but eluding the police on foot is usually a misdemeanor.

Also, you seem to indicate that you believe that the police actually have the power to arrest anyone they want at any time with made up charges. Does this mean you honestly believe that all 18 of Gray's previous arrests and convictions were not justified? That each time, police planted evidence, lied, forged documents, or bribed witnesses?

http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/freddiegray.asp


Your certainty is quite disturbing, that if he hadn't ran, he would have been arrested for just standing there. Sadly, we'll never know if you're right because he did run, which only served to give police reasonable suspicion that he was up to something.

What all this boils down to is you're guilty merely for running from the police. This is not my "perception" that the police unjustly target black men. It's a fact. It's been reiterated so many times I don't know why you insist on denying it.

The odds are very good thanks to the conditions where you yourself stated it that he had a criminal record. Criminal record does not mean someone has no legal rights which includes being profiled and assumed of committing a crime. The very definition of profiling is what went down here. He was black, he almost certainly had a criminal record because he is black. They don't need facial recognition software or anything else to just assume that. Likely he ran because it would not be the first time they found something to charge him with, whether or not he actually had committed a crime.

None of that is of importance anyway. The important part is why would they assume he was a criminal? He ran because of course he is. His history with the police had no impact on his reasoning? You don't have to be black or in his situation to find that scenario scary that they might just decide to pull you in and find a reason to do so.

So they catch him, then they apparently injure him so badly (either in the arrest or during transport) that he dies from these injuries. The whole thing, start to finish is exactly why so many people have lost trust in the police. There was no prevention of a crime here, it was them committing one against someone who later apparently had nothing criminal going on.

And how was he to know whether or not these particular cops were going to be profiling him and giving him trouble compared to the cops who aren't just looking for someone to hassle?

Every time one of these incidents comes up though, there's always someone who wants to defend it as if the police were somehow in the right to violate the civil and legal rights of someone who was not observed or suspected of committing a crime.

Let me ask this: Why is running from the police itself a crime? Because anyone who runs from them is obviously guilty? Guilty of what? It's suspicious, sure but that itself should not be grounds to arrest someone. It's way too vague. You can take that and justify someone just looking suspicious, which is often what they do, and arrest them on it then later decide what to charge them with.

 

[The Shape]

What all this boils down to is you're guilty merely for running from the police. This is not my "perception" that the police unjustly target black men. It's a fact. It's been reiterated so many times I don't know why you insist on denying it.

I'm not denying that black men are and have been profiled by police, but you seem to be making a ridiculously broad generalization, as if you feel that black men are unjustly targeted in any given arrest scenario. You are not even allowing for the possibility that there are times when black men AREN'T unjustly targeted, or that a man like Gray MAY have done something wrong which is why he fled unprovoked.

The odds are very good thanks to the conditions where you yourself stated it that he had a criminal record. Criminal record does not mean someone has no legal rights which includes being profiled and assumed of committing a crime. The very definition of profiling is what went down here. He was black, he almost certainly had a criminal record because he is black. They don't need facial recognition software or anything else to just assume that. Likely he ran because it would not be the first time they found something to charge him with, whether or not he actually had committed a crime.

It's amazing how you seem to know not only what was going on in the minds of the officers, but also what was going on in Gray's mind at the time. I wish I had those powers.

Gray ran away from the police offers as if they were Boogeymen when he spotted them because he was afraid he would be charged with something for no reason, and the cops chased him because they assumed he had a criminal record and they could hopefully nab him on something, even if they had to pull a charge out of thin air.

Case closed!

None of that is of importance anyway. The important part is why would they assume he was a criminal? He ran because of course he is. His history with the police had no impact on his reasoning? You don't have to be black or in his situation to find that scenario scary that they might just decide to pull you in and find a reason to do so.

When people flee from the police before they are even approached, it invites the idea that they either have been involved in criminal activity, are currently involved in criminal activity, or are about to be involved in criminal activity.

If I was a bystander on a crowded city street, and I saw a white guy bolt away from cops as they walked near him or after he spotted them, I would certainly think that person was suspicious and potentially a criminal. I would likely feel the same if I saw a black guy act in the same manner.

The fact that you seem to actually be suggesting that police should stand idly by as a person suspiciously runs away from them is absurd to me. They are not mall cops whose job is to observe and report. They are real cops and their job is to protect and serve. All race discussion aside, this is a fact.

Cop 1: "Hey, you see that suspicious guy who just sprinted away from us when he spotted us?"

Cop 2: "Ehh, yeah, but he's probably a good guy doing nothing wrong so let him go."

What great policing!

And how was he to know whether or not these particular cops were going to be profiling him and giving him trouble compared to the cops who aren't just looking for someone to hassle?

He's not supposed to know this. He's supposed to act like a law-abiding citizen, allow the officers to speak to him (if that's what they were even going to do), and NOT sprint away like a guilty suspect on Law and Order. Black, white, yellow, or green skin aside -- if everyone would act rationally and within the law by not resisting arrest or evading police, it would prevent potentially dangerous confrontations with police.

That goes for whether you think police are unjustly profiling you or if you've actually done something wrong. Running from police or fighting with them certainly doesn't make anything better for anyone, does it?

And let me ask you this. How do YOU know if they were cops that were profiling him and planning to give him trouble or if they were cops who weren't looking to hassle him at all?

Every time one of these incidents comes up though, there's always someone who wants to defend it as if the police were somehow in the right to violate the civil and legal rights of someone who was not observed or suspected of committing a crime.

Let me ask this: Why is running from the police itself a crime? Because anyone who runs from them is obviously guilty? Guilty of what? It's suspicious, sure but that itself should not be grounds to arrest someone. It's way too vague. You can take that and justify someone just looking suspicious, which is often what they do, and arrest them on it then later decide what to charge them with.

But it doesn't always boil down to police violating people's rights. If police want to question you about something (whether it be in regard to suspicious activity, a crime you committed, a crime someone else committed, or to give you a warning about something), and you choose to run from police, you could effectively be obstructing justice and preventing them from doing their jobs. It's also not uncommon for people to be detained by police for questioning in conjunction with something, and then released without actually being arrested or convicted.

We don't even know if these cops had the intention of actually approaching Gray or even speaking to him. He bolted upon seeing them.


Your racially-driven mentality that cops are always in the wrong and never in the right is pretty disheartening. Your perception that unless they physically observe someone breaking a law, all police officers are corrupt, racial profilers who violate people's rights at will and dictate how, when, and why people are charged with made-up charges. You speak in absolutes, as if you know how everyone thinks and acts in any given situation.

This mentality -- that all cops are evil, corrupt racists who only seek hurt black people and kill them -- is as disturbing as the mentality that most black people are criminals or thugs.

 

[Kelly]

This kind of posting is not needed at all in this thread. GIVE YOUR POINT, or don't post.

 

[Spock]

It seems most logical, that the thugs rioting did not care about Freddie Gray or civil rights. These are the same types of thugs who were beating each other up on the last release of Air Jordan shoes.

 

[Kelly]

It's a good thing I'm not in the law then? Because presumption of guilt is exactly what we should not be doing. He's guilty. That's all the justification needed apparently.

What?

 

[The Shape]

What?

Who knows.

 

[RockSP]

The irony of you posting that here is understated.

I know nothing about that guy and his posting history, but he was right in this particular case about you (and Chaseter also) missing the point. It's not about being "special". Addressing a particular issue does not somehow take away from other issues.

 

[Fading]

I've wanted to say a few things on this topic, but I tend to only read the first few pages of these types of threads as they become pretty argumentative as they go on (plus I don't visit the Hype as often anymore). There are a few things I've wanted to say for awhile though.

First, ending the life of a suspect should be a last resort. Too many officers draw their guns too eagerly anymore. In this case it obviously wasn't a shooting, but seemingly a very careless handling of a suspect that led to the death. However we're having these protests, and national attention because these kinds of occurrences are happening way too often (maybe more thanks to everyone having phones that can record video now). Not to mention it doesn't help when the police continue to get off without jail time from even the cases with obvious wrong doing. For example, the officer who choked out the man selling single cigarettes. The man obviously wasn't resisting, or fighting back. Flat out choking is against police conduct, and the choking continued while he was on the ground saying he couldn't breathe. I forget, but I'm sure the officer lost his job, but I don't remember him getting jail time. Selling single cigarettes should not be a death sentence, and any other member of society choking a person to death, not fighting back, saying, "I can't breath", would definitely be imprisoned for a long time.

Second, I have no problems with protests. However we're obviously getting people mixing in with the peaceful protesters who are hurting their cause. Looting a CVS has nothing to do with anything. Hurting local businesses hurts an already hurt community, and gives a bad rep to the cause. The younger generations who have been doing these things would benefit a lot from learning from the generations before them who fought for them. Selma had an anniversary earlier this year. A nationwide celebration of brave black people who peacefully protested, even while being beaten, and gained positive attention to their cause, helping change many minds. Now some of the people mixing in with the protesters are needlessly hurting the community itself for self gain. What does burning a churches attempt at affordable elderly housing have to do with the death of a young black man?

Third, I definitely think race plays a role in these recent strings of death. I'm not saying they set out on patrol looking for black suspects. However personally I do think that many of these officers have some racial bias. As in they see two people walking down the street in an identical manner, a black guy, and white guy and they make the assumption that the black guy is more dangerous. There are too many reports out showing percentages of various things like more blacks being arrested, pulled over, ect, vs reports of higher drug usage and populations of white people.

I've lived in a small town most of my life, so seeing racism personally isn't something I come across often, outside of the occasional racist joke or anti-Obama comment at work. Even at that it's still easy to recognize it exists. Personally, I hold those in positions that serve national interests, or handle human lives at a higher degree of accountability. If the cook at Burger King forgets the mayo, it's not a big deal. However cops, politcians, doctors, ect., make decisions that can end lives. Jobs like that should require people who take them to not be so cold towards life. I understand split second decisions and all. However in many of these cases it seems like there was ample time to find a different outcome. An unarmed suspect who's shown no danger to those around him/her does not need to be immediately shot. Someone giving up does not need to be choked or have excessive force used on them. To me, officers who resort to deadly measures that quickly aren't fit to wear the uniform, and those who let these guys into a position that oversees life and death decisions need to rethink who they hire, and their hiring techniques.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

Do people realize that saying "my cause is more important than your cause" not realize that they aren't the only ones who have something that needs addressing? Do you realize that fracturing and demanding you be special makes your cause just one more in a sea of causes that make progress that less possible overall? Do they realize that in saying "I'm different" they make themselves stand out and isolated from everyone else?

Does inclusion not matter anymore? Or is it only important when it happens to be something about your specific identity?

That would be a dick move.

But, I don't think just because someone's trying to talk about cancer means they think HIV doesn't matter, for example. I think those people would have to literally say what you're inferring.

 

[ChrisBaleBatman]

It seems most logical, that the thugs rioting did not care about Freddie Gray or civil rights. These are the same types of thugs who were beating each other up on the last release of Air Jordan shoes.

Okay...

I think there's more to it than that. But, I understand you're line of logic, Spock.

 

[Mike_D202]

I agree with theShape on all points.

Furthermore, it seems the prosecution was pretty quick to charge the officers with pretty huge felonies without getting all the facts/evidence, assuming it was to appease the masses. They will lose.

 

[PemLam]

I agree with theShape on all points.

Furthermore, it seems the prosecution was pretty quick to charge the officers with pretty huge felonies without getting all the facts/evidence, assuming it was to appease the masses. They will lose.

And in turn, we'll see more protests, looting and violence...this time in the name of "no justice, no peace".

There are other charges that would be more appropriate (given what little we all know of what actually happened in the van). All this idiot had to do was review the report and other evidence and she could clearly see that murder charges wouldn't stick...but no, she was looking to further her career and as you said, appease the masses.

 

[Ilikecomics123]

When people flee from the police before they are even approached, it invites the idea that they either have been involved in criminal activity, are currently involved in criminal activity, or are about to be involved in criminal activity.

If I was a bystander on a crowded city street, and I saw a white guy bolt away from cops as they walked near him or after he spotted them, I would certainly think that person was suspicious and potentially a criminal. I would likely feel the same if I saw a black guy act in the same manner.

The fact that you seem to actually be suggesting that police should stand idly by as a person suspiciously runs away from them is absurd to me. They are not mall cops whose job is to observe and report. They are real cops and their job is to protect and serve. All race discussion aside, this is a fact.

Cop 1: "Hey, you see that suspicious guy who just sprinted away from us when he spotted us?"

Cop 2: "Ehh, yeah, but he's probably a good guy doing nothing wrong so let him go."

What great policing!

This is what policing is becoming. I'm a cop for a large department in an area that is almost 100% minority in population; my department also has many many minority employees and minority leadership...

We've already been told, or heavily yet discreetly told, we're not chasing after anyone who bolts from us on foot unless we know for a fact they have committed a crime. I've already been on calls where suspects have ran from officers on foot and supervisors have gotten over the radio and told the officers to stand down and let them go.

This is what people who protest don't understand... police departments ARE listening; we're human beings and we care. We care about our communities we serve and we care what people think of us. So if you don't want us chasing after individuals who see us and immediately take off running at the sight of us, fine, we won't chase them anymore.... some agencies even have "foot pursuit" policies and I'm sure more will have them soon...

but here's the catch...

1. more bad guys get away after committing crimes
2. more guns on the street
3. more drugs on the street
4. more bad guys who were about to commit a crime don't get stopped and identified, so that means less information being shared between patrol function and investigative function (detectives) of a police department, so less cases will be closed.

Give it 5 to 10 years. Crime will go up. Citizens will freak out. Citizens will demand the cops do something about it. And there you go - we'll be able to chase after people who run from us again due to suspicion they had committed a crime, were actively committing a crime, or were about to commit a crime....

 

[The Question]

This is what policing is becoming. I'm a cop for a large department in an area that is almost 100% minority in population; my department also has many many minority employees and minority leadership...

We've already been told, or heavily yet discreetly told, we're not chasing after anyone who bolts from us on foot unless we know for a fact they have committed a crime. I've already been on calls where suspects have ran from officers on foot and supervisors have gotten over the radio and told the officers to stand down and let them go.

This is what people who protest don't understand... police departments ARE listening; we're human beings and we care. We care about our communities we serve and we care what people think of us. So if you don't want us chasing after individuals who see us and immediately take off running at the sight of us, fine, we won't chase them anymore.... some agencies even have "foot pursuit" policies and I'm sure more will have them soon...

but here's the catch...

1. more bad guys get away after committing crimes
2. more guns on the street
3. more drugs on the street
4. more bad guys who were about to commit a crime don't get stopped and identified, so that means less information being shared between patrol function and investigative function (detectives) of a police department, so less cases will be closed.

Give it 5 to 10 years. Crime will go up. Citizens will freak out. Citizens will demand the cops do something about it. And there you go - we'll be able to chase after people who run from us again due to suspicion they had committed a crime, were actively committing a crime, or were about to commit a crime....

So, how about we take the third option of putting money and resources into welfare programs, education, mental health care facilities, drug treatment facilities, decriminalizing drugs, and shifting our prison system away from a punitive model and towards a rehabilitative model, all things that have been proven to do way more to lower the crime rate than pro-active and aggressive police tactics? That way, police stop chasing after people and the crime rate goes down. Everyone wins.

 

[warhorse78]

So, how about we take the third option of putting money and resources into welfare programs, education, mental health care facilities, drug treatment facilities, decriminalizing drugs, and shifting our prison system away from a punitive model and towards a rehabilitative model, all things that have been proven to do way more to lower the crime rate than pro-active and aggressive police tactics? That way, police stop chasing after people and the crime rate goes down. Everyone wins.

Oh yeah, it's everyone else's fault except for the people actually committing the crimes. Why is that?

 

[Spock]

How about we get less reliance on welfare? I understand the disabled and elderly who need help, should certainly get help. It is becoming a lifestyle for some people and a way to avoid doing anything with their lives though.

 

[SuperT]

Oh yeah, it's everyone else's fault except for the people actually committing the crimes. Why is that?

That's.....not what he said like....at all.

Also, some people in the thread are very confused. Being pro-black, specifically regarding the Black Lives Matter moment, does not mean you're anti-white. If that's how you're viewing this very necessary movement than that's on you not us because that's the complete opposite of what's being talked about.

How about we get less reliance on welfare? I understand the disabled and elderly who need help, should certainly get help. It is becoming a lifestyle for some people and a way to avoid doing anything with their lives though.

What do you think he means by putting more resources into improving welfare? More funds and improvement into welfare means people getting more support so they have the means to eventually get off of welfare.

This idea that there is a large population of people living cushy lives on welfare and nothing else is a HUGE misconception.

 

[Spock]

Some cops feel like "Black lives matter" and "Cop lives don't matter" because when a black person dies < even with an element of criminal behavior leading to their death> there are protests and rallies. When in reverse, and a cop dies *...* (indifference)

 

[Spock]

^Giving more money to those on welfare that make it a lifestyle, is not going to be productive.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

This is what policing is becoming. I'm a cop for a large department in an area that is almost 100% minority in population; my department also has many many minority employees and minority leadership...

We've already been told, or heavily yet discreetly told, we're not chasing after anyone who bolts from us on foot unless we know for a fact they have committed a crime. I've already been on calls where suspects have ran from officers on foot and supervisors have gotten over the radio and told the officers to stand down and let them go.

This is what people who protest don't understand... police departments ARE listening; we're human beings and we care. We care about our communities we serve and we care what people think of us. So if you don't want us chasing after individuals who see us and immediately take off running at the sight of us, fine, we won't chase them anymore.... some agencies even have "foot pursuit" policies and I'm sure more will have them soon...

but here's the catch...

1. more bad guys get away after committing crimes
2. more guns on the street
3. more drugs on the street
4. more bad guys who were about to commit a crime don't get stopped and identified, so that means less information being shared between patrol function and investigative function (detectives) of a police department, so less cases will be closed.

Give it 5 to 10 years. Crime will go up. Citizens will freak out. Citizens will demand the cops do something about it. And there you go - we'll be able to chase after people who run from us again due to suspicion they had committed a crime, were actively committing a crime, or were about to commit a crime....

The thing is a cop should never use deadly force against someone that is running AWAY from them and is unarmed. Use a taser or something to bring them down. Don't just shoot them because they ran.

 

[The Question]

Oh yeah, it's everyone else's fault except for the people actually committing the crimes. Why is that?

Thanks for making a statement that has literally nothing to do with what I said.

What I wrote in that post has nothing to do with who's fault it is. Fault is irrelevant. It was about what has been proven to be most effective in lowering crime rates. Nothing else matters.

How about we get less reliance on welfare? I understand the disabled and elderly who need help, should certainly get help. It is becoming a lifestyle for some people and a way to avoid doing anything with their lives though.

The only way we could get less reliant on welfare is if we got rid of it altogether. American welfare is a joke, and the notion that there are people living cushy lives off of welfare checks and doing nothing is an urban myth.

Also, scientific studies show that receiving a guaranteed income does not, in fact, encourage people to stop working:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

[YT]u6XAPnuFjJc[/YT]

Some cops feel like "Black lives matter" and "Cop lives don't matter" because when a black person dies < even with an element of criminal behavior leading to their death> there are protests and rallies. When in reverse, and a cop dies *...* (indifference)

That's because the former is the result of systemic political and cultural trends of oppression, bigotry, and violence, and the later is not. Also, when black people get killed, specially when they get killed by police, oftentimes very little comes of it in the criminal justice system. When a cop dies, the local government moves heaven and Earth to make an arrest for it.