Baltimore Calmer; 6 Officers Indicted

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Only if you didn't pay any attention to that case and the reactions of legal experts to it at all.

If those blips hadn't occurred, you'd have found something else to use to call the thing illegitimate. The truth is that many would never have accepted anything less than conviction, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I'm actually willing to go along with the JD report stating that Brown was innocent of wrongdoing.

However, the prosecutor blatantly tanked the case.

[Jamzmania]

I don't know what you mean by backpedaling. The case was not mishandled to the point where you can just say, "He'da been indicted if it wasn't for the evil conspiracy of that conniving DA!"

It's a good thing that not I nor anyone here has said that then.

We've all seen the evidence and it's been pretty apparent that there was never enough to convict, let alone indict.

Please back this up with sources. I don't think you understand just how easy it is to get an indictment and how many experts would laugh at this opinion.

Then let me rephrase. He should not have been indicted because there was never enough evidence to convict.

[United Marxist Nations]

That's not what's being argued.

Again, you didn't answer my question. Why are these things that the government shouldn't be solving?

Because they can't solve them. I did answer your question.

Actually, with a more effective program, the government could do a lot more than it has been in the battle against poverty (ironically, the Republican program toward eliminating homelessness in Utah is a good example of the potential effectiveness we could have).

[Jamzmania]

If those blips hadn't occurred, you'd have found something else to use to call the thing illegitimate. The truth is that many would never have accepted anything less than conviction, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

I'm actually willing to go along with the JD report stating that Brown was innocent of wrongdoing.

However, the prosecutor blatantly tanked the case.

The prosecutor blatantly presented all available evidence to the grand jury and they decided for themselves.

[Mavorpen]

That's not what's being argued.

Again, you didn't answer my question. Why are these things that the government shouldn't be solving?

Because they can't solve them.

Ignoring that this is something you haven't actually substantiated, that doesn't answer my question. Whether it can solve them is irrelevant. I'm asking why they shouldn't try or why we shouldn't expect them to put as much time and resources as possible into working towards doing so. Why do communities deserve the blame and not the government when governments have the direct access to the most resources and the individual communities do not.

I did answer your question.

No, you dodged it.

[Mavorpen]

It's a good thing that not I nor anyone here has said that then.

Please back this up with sources. I don't think you understand just how easy it is to get an indictment and how many experts would laugh at this opinion.

Then let me rephrase. He should not have been indicted because there was never enough evidence to convict.

So you don't even know what indictment means? Because it doesn't mean convict.

[Mavorpen]

I'm actually willing to go along with the JD report stating that Brown was innocent of wrongdoing.

However, the prosecutor blatantly tanked the case.

The prosecutor blatantly presented all available evidence to the grand jury and they decided for themselves.

No, he dumped all the evidence without context and didn't challenge anyone that clearly bullshitted in support of the defense. One person literally lied through their teeth about a bunch of stuff and he didn't question them at all about it.

[Jamzmania]

Because they can't solve them.

Ignoring that this is something you haven't actually substantiated, that doesn't answer my question. Whether it can solve them is irrelevant. I'm asking why they shouldn't try or why we shouldn't expect them to put as much time and resources as possible into working towards doing so. Why do communities deserve the blame and not the government when governments have the direct access to the most resources and the individual communities do not.

I did answer your question.

No, you dodged it.

You asked me why the government should not be solving these problems. I answered because they can't solve these problems, not alone. The government has the capacity to provide support, but the community needs to do quite a bit of work if it wants to go anywhere.

[Jamzmania]

Then let me rephrase. He should not have been indicted because there was never enough evidence to convict.

So you don't even know what indictment means? Because it doesn't mean convict.

It means you're gonna force someone to go through a humiliating (and expensive) trial when you know full well that he'll never be convicted.

[The Althing Confederacy]

From what ive heard up here in the frozen wastes of Canada
Was that the chaos and rioting has abated and changed into celebration once the officers involved where charged.
This being said having charges laid and guilty parties being found guilty are two different things; if at least some of the officers are acquitted then I would predict a resurgence of civil unrest.
Nonetheless at least Baltimore authorities handled this in a far better manner than in Ferguson!

[Mavorpen]

You asked me why the government should not be solving these problems. I answered because they can't solve these problems, not alone.

So you admit that they can actually work towards solving these problems, but they shouldn't?

The government has the capacity to provide support, but the community needs to do quite a bit of work if it wants to go anywhere.

Again, you haven't backed up why this is the case. Communities can't pull money out of thin air, you know.

[Mavorpen]

So you don't even know what indictment means? Because it doesn't mean convict.

It means you're gonna force someone to go through a humiliating (and expensive) trial when you know full well that he'll never be convicted.

So that's a yes, you don't know what it means.

I'll just stop taking you seriously now.

[Vettrera]

It's a good thing that not I nor anyone here has said that then.

Please back this up with sources. I don't think you understand just how easy it is to get an indictment and how many experts would laugh at this opinion.

Then let me rephrase. He should not have been indicted because there was never enough evidence to convict.

Are you familiar with the phrase "you can indict a ham sandwich"?

[Geilinor]

The massive crime rate, destruction of the family, and poverty are notable.

There's also the police harassing, beating, and killing residents of these communities, which is what these riots were about.

I thought you've been insisting this is about wider issues?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's also easy for riots to be ignored, after the news cycle has passed, nobody was even talking about Ferguson anymore.

Of course. Once the report came out and the resignations and firings commenced, there was a sense that something had been accomplished.

But not as much widespread condemnation.

*shrug*

Or as many people seriously discussing the issue.

Usually negative.

It's still attention.

Large, long protests can also inspire immediate reactions. Occupy protest wasn't a riot, even if it got messy at times, and it maintained attention for a long time.

And accomplished jack divided by shit. On the other hand, the riots in Watts and Detroit focused attention on the devastating state of affairs in the inner city, and led to the development of some new programs (which didn't accomplish much, sadly, but it was more than we saw previously), the riot at Stonewall kickstarted the LGBT rights movement, the '92 Los Angeles riots focused major attention on the abuses and corruption in the LAPD, as well as starting a national conversation on what seemed to be two separate justice systems for black and white people, and the riot in Ferguson had the effect that I mentioned earlier.

See, peaceful protests can accomplish much, but they often don't. They can be safely ignored if those in power don't sense a threat behind the marches and the chants. I'd prefer change to occur through peaceful means. I dislike bloodshed, violence, and destruction. I'm too old to romanticize these things. However, the people of Baltimore had been marching previous to this. They'd sought redress through the legal system, often successfully. The mayor and the commissioner were trying to improve things despite the resistance of a recalcitrant police union.

And it was all sadly too little, too late, because it kept happening.

So, no, I don't care for riots. I find them to be horribly unpredictable, and while some good has come out of them in the past, others have had negative effects (such as the riots in the same damned city in '68). But when nothing else works, what else would you have people do? Suffer silently as they're beaten, accept it passively as they're killed? I'm not going to be happy when I see a riot, but I'm not going to issue a blanket condemnation of everyone out there showing their rage, either.

[Mavorpen]

There's also the police harassing, beating, and killing residents of these communities, which is what these riots were about.

I thought you've been insisting this is about wider issues?

Which is why he said "also." It's a combination of all of these factors, really. He's just saying that these particular riots were sparked specifically because of issues surrounding the police. There are of course people also using it to bring attention to wider issues.

[Galloism]

The prosecutor blatantly presented all available evidence to the grand jury and they decided for themselves.

No, he dumped all the evidence without context and didn't challenge anyone that clearly bullshitted in support of the defense. One person literally lied through their teeth about a bunch of stuff and he didn't question them at all about it.

When he knew their testimony didn't fit the physical evidence beforehand. No cross-examination.

That's basically endorsing perjury.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

There's also the police harassing, beating, and killing residents of these communities, which is what these riots were about.

None of which have substantial evidence to support that they are widespread problems.

Ask Novus America, a resident of Baltimore who completely disagrees with me on the ethics of rioting, whether or not police abuse was a widespread problem in that community.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

It's a good thing that not I nor anyone here has said that then.

Please back this up with sources. I don't think you understand just how easy it is to get an indictment and how many experts would laugh at this opinion.

Then let me rephrase. He should not have been indicted because there was never enough evidence to convict.

Then he never should have presented the case to a grand jury.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm actually willing to go along with the JD report stating that Brown was innocent of wrongdoing.

However, the prosecutor blatantly tanked the case.

The prosecutor blatantly presented all available evidence to the grand jury and they decided for themselves.

He did a document dump without context or argument, presenting them with an overwhelming amount of information and not guiding them through it.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

There's also the police harassing, beating, and killing residents of these communities, which is what these riots were about.

I thought you've been insisting this is about wider issues?

It's about a wider issue than a single person being killed in the back of a van, yes. However, that was the flash point, so I'm mildly surprised that a police culture in which "good" officers are expected to cover for abusive and murderous ones or risk their very physical health wasn't mentioned in the list of ills.

[Geilinor]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/01/1381699/-Baltimore-State-s-Attorney-Freddie-Gray-s-death-was-a-homicide-and-criminal-charges-will-be-pursued
Not the best source, but the one I could find.

[Mavorpen]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/01/1381699/-Baltimore-State-s-Attorney-Freddie-Gray-s-death-was-a-homicide-and-criminal-charges-will-be-pursued
Not the best source, but the one I could find.

You're pretty late.

[Dyakovo]

Hopefully, unlike Ferguson, the DA doesn't deliberately sabotage his own case.

A statement which is debatable in itself.

Only if you have no clue as to how a grand jury works.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/05/01/1381699/-Baltimore-State-s-Attorney-Freddie-Gray-s-death-was-a-homicide-and-criminal-charges-will-be-pursued
Not the best source, but the one I could find.

You're pretty late.

*pats Geil on back because I fucked up too*