Baltimore Calmer; 6 Officers Indicted

[Hydesland]

And accomplished jack divided by shit.

Mainly because their demands were either hopelessly vague or completely ridiculous, and were regarding general commentary on the economic system as a whole rather than specific issues affecting the local area that could be immediately solved.

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.

There's no counter-factual, you don't know large widespread protests wouldn't have accomplished the same thing. Also, I'm not just talking about protests. There's civil disobedience, and strikes, which can cause widespread disruptions, but not be as senseless as riots.

what else would you have people do?

Protest more, civil disobedience, strike action, social-media campaigns etc... Protests do get coverage, if they're large enough. And the longer a protest goes on for without those in power promising reform or directly enacting policy, the more embarrassing and politically untenable the situation becomes for them. Riots on the other hand can give them some cause to dismiss them as 'opportunistic thugs'.

[Patridam]

The presence of many opportunistic and morally bankrupt people willing to riot, loot, and commit arson is a condition leading to riots, more necessary than even a perceived injustice.

Could you break down that sentence for me? I'm sure that it's just me, but I'm not sure what you're trying to say.

Conditions that lead to riots:
a.) a reason/excuse
b.) opportunistic, angry, and/or violent people who want to riot

You suggest getting rid of the conditions that lead to riots, while failing to mention that people being willing to riot is a condition leading to riots. Ending police brutality would and hopefully, will, be great. But people will always manage to find a reason to riot and loot, so condition a will just be replaced with something else. Meanwhile, getting people to stop fulfilling condition b would stop ALL riots.

So the interest of the state is kowtowing to the demands of violent rioters?

The interest of the state is to seek justice. The responsibility of the prosecutor seeking an indictment is to lay out the evidence that a crime has taken place. If the prosecutor does not believe that said evidence is sufficient, then no grand jury should be called.

There was never enough evidence to get a conviction in the Darren Wilson case. Had it been another case with the same evidence but without the pressure from riots and national media coverage, any sane prosecutor would not have gone through with it knowing it was a lost cause.

[Dyakovo]

There was never enough evidence to get a conviction in the Darren Wilson case.

So you can see alternate futures?

[Mavorpen]

There was never enough evidence to get a conviction in the Darren Wilson case.

So you can see alternate futures?

There seems to be a lot of people who can do that in this thread.

[Patridam]

There was never enough evidence to get a conviction in the Darren Wilson case.

So you can see alternate futures?

The federal government knew there wasn't enough evidence for criminal charges.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /22127989/

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

There was never enough evidence to get a conviction in the Darren Wilson case. Had it been another case with the same evidence but without the pressure from riots and national media coverage, any sane prosecutor would not have gone through with it knowing it was a lost cause.

If that's actually the case, he should have argued that to the public and showed the evidence that exonerated him, rather than putting on a show trial.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Mainly because their demands were either hopelessly vague or completely ridiculous, and were regarding general commentary on the economic system as a whole rather than specific issues affecting the local area that could be immediately solved.

Then you probably shouldn't have used them as an example.

There's no counter-factual, you don't know large widespread protests wouldn't have accomplished the same thing. Also, I'm not just talking about protests. There's civil disobedience, and strikes, which can cause widespread disruptions, but not be as senseless as riots.

You don't know that they would have accomplished the same thing.

Protest more, civil disobedience, strike action, social-media campaigns etc... Protests do get coverage, if they're large enough. And the longer a protest goes on for without those in power promising reform or directly enacting policy, the more embarrassing and politically untenable the situation becomes for them. Riots on the other hand can give them some cause to dismiss them as 'opportunistic thugs'.

The last massive nonviolent protest to accomplish anything of significance occurred over half a century ago, and followed years of building coalitions, smaller, successful actions, and nonviolent protests that involved massive organization. Smaller protests nowadays don't generally get that sort of attention. Those who are going to dismiss the rioters aren't people who would have been convinced in the first place, as they have absolutely no ability to see the events in any context other than whatever narrative demands the least of them.

[Patridam]

There was never enough evidence to get a conviction in the Darren Wilson case. Had it been another case with the same evidence but without the pressure from riots and national media coverage, any sane prosecutor would not have gone through with it knowing it was a lost cause.

If that's actually the case, he should have argued that to the public and showed the evidence that exonerated him, rather than putting on a show trial.

That is the case, but people wanted a trial and wanted a conviction, with or without the evidence to back it up. He tried to at least give the appearance of meeting their unjust demands, which I can understand but not condone.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Conditions that lead to riots:
a.) a reason/excuse
b.) opportunistic, angry, and/or violent people who want to riot

You suggest getting rid of the conditions that lead to riots, while failing to mention that people being willing to riot is a condition leading to riots. Ending police brutality would and hopefully, will, be great. But people will always manage to find a reason to riot and loot, so condition a will just be replaced with something else. Meanwhile, getting people to stop fulfilling condition b would stop ALL riots.

Great. So you'd have to get people to stop being angry. Best thing to do about that is to remove the conditions. I don't see much sympathy for the opportunistic types who riot after sporting events.

There was never enough evidence to get a conviction in the Darren Wilson case. Had it been another case with the same evidence but without the pressure from riots and national media coverage, any sane prosecutor would not have gone through with it knowing it was a lost cause.

Then he shouldn't have put the case before the grand jury to begin with.

[Russels Orbiting Teapot]

That is the case, but people wanted a trial and wanted a conviction, with or without the evidence to back it up. He tried to at least give the appearance of meeting their unjust demands, which I can understand but not condone.

He assembled a kangaroo court that left Wilson, if innocent, in a worse situation because the thing that should have exonerated him was not carried out appropriately.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

That is the case, but people wanted a trial and wanted a conviction, with or without the evidence to back it up. He tried to at least give the appearance of meeting their unjust demands, which I can understand but not condone.

He assembled a kangaroo court that left Wilson, if innocent, in a worse situation because the thing that should have exonerated him was not carried out appropriately.

Exactly. If he'd made anything approaching an actual case, and not received an indictment, it would have at least been justice. Instead, people to this day believe that Wilson was guilty regardless of the DoJ report.

[Patridam]

Great. So you'd have to get people to stop being angry. Best thing to do about that is to remove the conditions. I don't see much sympathy for the opportunistic types who riot after sporting events.

No. You have to get them to channel their anger to rational and legitimate forms of protest.

Then he shouldn't have put the case before the grand jury to begin with.

I agree, but would you have wanted to go out and tell a crowd of angry rioters that you weren't trying him, knowing full well they'd tear the city apart even further upon such news? They didn't want to hear 'we can't try him, there's not enough evidence'. They wanted, ideally, to hear "we're lynching him without a trial".

[Mavorpen]

Great. So you'd have to get people to stop being angry. Best thing to do about that is to remove the conditions. I don't see much sympathy for the opportunistic types who riot after sporting events.

No. You have to get them to channel their anger to rational and legitimate forms of protest.

Then he shouldn't have put the case before the grand jury to begin with.

I agree, but would you have wanted to go out and tell a crowd of angry rioters that you weren't trying him, knowing full well they'd tear the city apart even further upon such news?

No, I imagine Yumyum in his place would have actually tried in the case for indictment and avoided this.

[Dyakovo]

So you can see alternate futures?

The federal government knew there wasn't enough evidence for criminal charges.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nati ... /22127989/

A conclusion that was reached well after the fact, and was in relation to federal civil rights violation charges, not to the charges that the state was (theoretically) pursuing.

[Patridam]

No. You have to get them to channel their anger to rational and legitimate forms of protest.



I agree, but would you have wanted to go out and tell a crowd of angry rioters that you weren't trying him, knowing full well they'd tear the city apart even further upon such news?

No, I imagine Yumyum in his place would have actually tried in the case for indictment and avoided this.

Kind of difficult to try a case for indictment when there isn't enough evidence in the world to convict him.

[Mavorpen]

No, I imagine Yumyum in his place would have actually tried in the case for indictment and avoided this.

Kind of difficult to try a case for indictment when there isn't enough evidence in the world to convict him.

No, it really isn't. Indictments are incredibly easy to get. Again, I don't understand why you guys don't do the minimum amount of research to learn the difference between a conviction and an indictment.

[Dyakovo]

No, I imagine Yumyum in his place would have actually tried in the case for indictment and avoided this.

Kind of difficult to try a case for indictment when there isn't enough evidence in the world to convict him.

No, it isn't. The standards for an indictment and a conviction are radically different.

[Dyakovo]

Kind of difficult to try a case for indictment when there isn't enough evidence in the world to convict him.

No, it really isn't. Indictments are incredibly easy to get. Again, I don't understand why you guys don't do the minimum amount of research to learn the difference between a conviction and an indictment.

Intellectual dishonesty.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

No. You have to get them to channel their anger to rational and legitimate forms of protest.

Are you missing the part where they've been protesting this for a while, to little avail?

I agree, but would you have wanted to go out and tell a crowd of angry rioters that you weren't trying him, knowing full well they'd tear the city apart even further upon such news? They didn't want to hear 'we can't try him, there's not enough evidence'. They wanted, ideally, to hear "we're lynching him without a trial".

So he was attempting to have it both ways: Placate the crowd with a show of a grand jury proceeding, but not really attempt to do his job. That's entirely unethical and unprofessional.

[Patridam]

No, it really isn't. Indictments are incredibly easy to get. Again, I don't understand why you guys don't do the minimum amount of research to learn the difference between a conviction and an indictment.

Intellectual dishonesty.

I assumed you meant 'tried the case for conviction' instead of indictment, because they did in fact indict Darren Wilson.... so...

[Mavorpen]

Intellectual dishonesty.

I assumed you meant 'tried the case for conviction' instead of indictment, because they did in fact indict Darren Wilson.... so...

No they didn't. You might want to use that search bar at the top of your browser.

[Hydesland]

Then you probably shouldn't have used them as an example.

It's an example of continued coverage and attention, which is what we were discussing.

You don't know that they would have accomplished the same thing.

That's the point, I don't know, but neither do you.

The last massive nonviolent protest to accomplish anything of significance occurred over half a century ago, and followed years of building coalitions, smaller, successful actions, and nonviolent protests that involved massive organization.

That's a bold claim, and again I mentioned strikes as well. Are you going to claim industrial action hasn't accomplished anything for over half a century in the US?

Also, unfortunately very large protests in the US, especially involving serious civil rights abuses, often broke out into riots - it's difficult to get counter-factuals here.

Those who are going to dismiss the rioters aren't people who would have been convinced in the first place

Doesn't matter, I'm talking about their political capital here, not what they personally believe.

[United Marxist Nations]

On the broader topic of race relations in the country, on CNN, they made a show out of crowds marching with Pan-African flags; is there some revival of that ideology in recent years, or is this just CNN trying to hype up the show as always? I tend to think more the latter, but I really have little information on the matter.

[Patridam]

Are you missing the part where they've been protesting this for a while, to little avail?

So he was attempting to have it both ways: Placate the crowd with a show of a grand jury proceeding, but not really attempt to do his job. That's entirely unethical and unprofessional.

I'm not saying I approve, just that I can understand.
Well, what would you have had him do: try his darndest to get a man he thought was innocent convicted, or drop the city into chaos again by refusing to prosecute? Heck, had he refused to file charges I wouldn't be surprised if he'd just have gotten fired and replaced with someone else willing to put on a show.

[Mavorpen]

On the broader topic of race relations in the country, on CNN, they made a show out of crowds marching with Pan-African flags; is there some revival of that ideology in recent years, or is this just CNN trying to hype up the show as always? I tend to think more the latter, but I really have little information on the matter.

That's an interesting question but I doubt it's anymore more than the latter. Though I don't know much either.