Baltimore Calmer; 6 Officers Indicted

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So any actual evidence for this? Because both me and Yumyumsuppertime provided sources for our arguments and he has personal experience.

It's blatantly clear with a bit of research on the topic that the situation in the area is vastly better than previously. Of course there are bumps in the road. The world isn't perfect. The difference is that they're actually addressed though. They don't express blatant conflict of interest in the form of giving the police automatically the benefit of the doubt to the point where it isn't "innocent until proven guilty," but instead "just plain innocent because we can't look bad." The community trusts them. That says a lot more than you claim that it does.

Didit?

The LAPD isn't as bad as the NYPD bot pretending they got better after King.

Who am I kidding, you've officially devolved to full-on supporting rioting.

I'm sure that it means nothing, but with that last shot, I just lost respect for you. I'm discussing how rioting has actually led to positive change. That doesn't make it inherently good. In fact, I want to see riots avoided if at all possible, since they lead to misery, bloodshed, and often to death. However, to say that they've never resulted in positive change is to ignore history. To take a statement of historical fact that I've made and to twist it into a support for violent actions is contemptible. We're done here.

[Ecaria]

Didit?

The LAPD isn't as bad as the NYPD bot pretending they got better after King.

Who am I kidding, you've officially devolved to full-on supporting rioting.

He's not supporting rioting. He's saying the LAPD got better after the riots. And he has ample evidence to support it. You don't however, considering the evidence you gave are the main cause of the 1990s riot and that no new riots have occurred.

I mean seriously, if there's no new riots occurred after a riot, that is definition of "better."

Thank you for arguing this point with civility.

The Rampart scandal happened in the late 1990s. The riots happened in 1992. Most of those controversies I am listing, happened after 1992.

I do not see how a riot increases trust. Are you arguing that one riot made sure no riots would happen again? That it just needed to happen?

[Ecaria]

Didit?

The LAPD isn't as bad as the NYPD bot pretending they got better after King.

Who am I kidding, you've officially devolved to full-on supporting rioting.

I'm sure that it means nothing, but with that last shot, I just lost respect for you. I'm discussing how rioting has actually led to positive change. That doesn't make it inherently good. In fact, I want to see riots avoided if at all possible, since they lead to misery, bloodshed, and often to death. However, to say that they've never resulted in positive change is to ignore history. To take a statement of historical fact that I've made and to twist it into a support for violent actions is contemptible. We're done here.

I was talking about mav, not you, yumyum.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I'm sure that it means nothing, but with that last shot, I just lost respect for you. I'm discussing how rioting has actually led to positive change. That doesn't make it inherently good. In fact, I want to see riots avoided if at all possible, since they lead to misery, bloodshed, and often to death. However, to say that they've never resulted in positive change is to ignore history. To take a statement of historical fact that I've made and to twist it into a support for violent actions is contemptible. We're done here.

I was talking about mav, not you, yumyum.

Apologies. I misread that. However, I also believe that you may be allowing your previous conflict with him to get in the way, since we're making essentially the same point.

Yes, the LAPD still encounters issues regarding abuse and controversial uses of force, including deadly force. This is true of every major police department. However, to say that they haven't improved is to ignore the facts of the matter, and the direct testimony of those most directly affected.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

He's not supporting rioting. He's saying the LAPD got better after the riots. And he has ample evidence to support it. You don't however, considering the evidence you gave are the main cause of the 1990s riot and that no new riots have occurred.

I mean seriously, if there's no new riots occurred after a riot, that is definition of "better."

Thank you for arguing this point with civility.

The Rampart scandal happened in the late 1990s. The riots happened in 1992. Most of those controversies I am listing, happened after 1992.

I do not see how a riot increases trust. Are you arguing that one riot made sure no riots would happen again? That it just needed to happen?

Rampart was another issue that forced improvements. However, without the extra attention being paid to corrupt and abusive police officers in the wake of King, it's likely that it never would have come to light.

[Penguin Union Nation]

Granted, the destruction is counter-productive, but the anger is both palpable and understandable. To completely dismiss these people as "thugs" or "animals" like many are doing in the media (especially the cavalcade of racist or classist sentiment on social media) is stomach-churning. That is the reason this riot started to begin with, the dismissal of the civil rights, the rights to even exist, that have constantly been denied to a community crushed under a mix of apathy and hostility by society at large. A man was killed by the police, men are killed by police for little or trumped up reasons all across the country, and rarely is anything done, because our veneration of law enforcement. Well, law enforcement isn't the law itself, it's the protection of the law, and when it stops being according to that law or even in the spirit of it, it ceases being valid as law, and the people who enforce it stop being peacekeepers.

[Norstal]

He's not supporting rioting. He's saying the LAPD got better after the riots. And he has ample evidence to support it. You don't however, considering the evidence you gave are the main cause of the 1990s riot and that no new riots have occurred.

I mean seriously, if there's no new riots occurred after a riot, that is definition of "better."

Thank you for arguing this point with civility.

The Rampart scandal happened in the late 1990s. The riots happened in 1992. Most of those controversies I am listing, happened after 1992.

I do not see how a riot increases trust. Are you arguing that one riot made sure no riots would happen again? That it just needed to happen?

The scandal was discovered in the late 1990s. No one knows the full extent of the scandal. It's highly probable that CRASH members did things that led to the riots in the past and weren't fully investigated. Course, I could be wrong here.

And no, no one is saying riots increases trusts. It's the response to riots. And these responses are, oddly enough, being ignored by many cities such as Baltimore. The way that Rampart Scandal is being handled would be different if the riots hadn't taken place. That doesn't make the riots good. We should've had all these things before the riots. But history repeats itself it seems.

The point is that we shouldn't repeat history. While the LAPD is not without sin, police departments across the US should take a look at them as a shining example of how to interact with minorities better.

[Ecaria]

I was talking about mav, not you, yumyum.

Apologies. I misread that. However, I also believe that you may be allowing your previous conflict with him to get in the way, since we're making essentially the same point.

Yes, the LAPD still encounters issues regarding abuse and controversial uses of force, including deadly force. This is true of every major police department. However, to say that they haven't improved is to ignore the facts of the matter, and the direct testimony of those most directly affected.

I won't lie and say they haven't improved. I don't think anything directly from the LA riots caused the LAPD to improve. The only thing I believe could happen from a riot is any violent crakdown by the police bringing attention to the police. Because Rodney King wasn't about corruption, it was about the trial and bias in favor of the cops. Rampart was misconduct, swept under the rug.

I'm sorry I'm just giving half-assed answer right now because I'm tired and wasted too much time as is. I can't do the subject justice right now, I have something else to do here then I'm done. I'll continue tomorrow.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Apologies. I misread that. However, I also believe that you may be allowing your previous conflict with him to get in the way, since we're making essentially the same point.

Yes, the LAPD still encounters issues regarding abuse and controversial uses of force, including deadly force. This is true of every major police department. However, to say that they haven't improved is to ignore the facts of the matter, and the direct testimony of those most directly affected.

I won't lie and say they haven't improved. I don't think anything directly from the LA riots caused the LAPD to improve. The only thing I believe could happen from a riot is any violent crakdown by the police bringing attention to the police. Because Rodney King wasn't about corruption, it was about the trial and bias in favor of the cops. Rampart was misconduct, swept under the rug.

I'm sorry I'm just giving half-assed answer right now because I'm tired and wasted too much time as is. I can't do the subject justice right now, I have something else to do here then I'm done. I'll continue tomorrow.

That's absolutely fair.

[Costa Fierro]

sorry, you had a point?

I did. Look at all those examples and look at where the United States is today. Black Americans are over-represented in crime statistics and disproportionately live below the poverty line. Watts and Detroit haven't improved the living conditions for black Americans even today. Detroit especially was hard hit and still remains a city coming to grips with large amounts of poverty.

Stonewall is the same. Yes, homosexuality no longer a federal crime and gay marriage is slowly making its way into every state. But there's still no federal marriage law. LGBT people are still facing large amounts of discrimination and bullying in the United States. Attitudes in many parts of the US are still very much against the idea of homosexuality even being a natural thing.

As for Los Angeles and Fergussson, given that yet more cases of police brutality have been recorded and brought into the public consciousness since then, you have to wonder at how effective rioting is given recent events. Los Angeles and Fergusson are basically the same. These things still happen. If they had any meaningful change, there would be little or no cases of police brutality. Crime rates for black Americans would have decreased. Black Americans wouldn't overwhelmingly live in poverty. Their quality of life would have improved, not worsen over the last seven years.

You talk about riots having a change in society yet I nothing. People riot, people notice the riots and people soon forget as something else comes to light. The public forgets about it. It doesn't change the way things are. It doesn't address any of the social issues. All it does is make innocent people suffer because of the damage done because a few people cannot help themselves but cause destruction.

I don't see how your point stands. You've given evidence that sometimes it doesn't work. Claiming it won't in this case requires a bit more than that.

Why? Did it work in Fergusson? No. All you got was a government report confirming what everyone already knew. There wasn't any substantial change in officer's conduct. It didn't stop police brutality, because since that happened, three additional cases of police brutality have hit the public spotlight. How is that a positive change?

[Mavorpen]

Why? Did it work in Fergusson? No.

Yes.

All you got was a government report confirming what everyone already knew.

In other words it worked.

There wasn't any substantial change in officer's conduct. It didn't stop police brutality, because since that happened, three additional cases of police brutality have hit the public spotlight. How is that a positive change?

Because now the police can't hide it anymore. The bottle has been opened. The federal government now has pressure to take action.

Once again, your unrealistic expectations for an event to magically fix everything the month after its occurred doesn't prove the event didn't result in positive change.

[Norstal]

Why? Did it work in Fergusson? No. All you got was a government report confirming what everyone already knew. There wasn't any substantial change in officer's conduct. It didn't stop police brutality, because since that happened, three additional cases of police brutality have hit the public spotlight. How is that a positive change?

I really don't get people. If you find out that the police are doing bad things, that's a good thing. Not because they did the bad thing, but because you heard about them. Even the most hardcore anarchist should be joyous at the news as it validates their view of cops being assholes.

[The Grim Reaper]

Why? Did it work in Fergusson? No. All you got was a government report confirming what everyone already knew. There wasn't any substantial change in officer's conduct. It didn't stop police brutality, because since that happened, three additional cases of police brutality have hit the public spotlight. How is that a positive change?

I really don't get people. If you find out that the police are doing bad things, that's a good thing. Not because they did the bad thing, but because you heard about them. Even the most hardcore anarchist should be joyous at the news as it validates their view of cops being assholes.

Except the problem isn't that they're hiding it - it's that it happened in the first place.

The validation isn't an issue, because we (speaking as a hardcore anarchist, conveniently, on behalf of whoever happens to agree with me) /already/ believe in that view. Having more evidence to support that position is, from the most 'hardcore anarchist's' perspective, just finding another dinosaur skull.

Yeah, the extra evidence is going right in the evidence locker, but we're quite convinced there's already enough there to justify holding the belief that the institution of the police force includes assholes.

The problem going forward is making them stop being assholes, whether that's possible within the police institution, or by destroying the institution, or by replacing it, or by imposing reform from above or below.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

sorry, you had a point?

I did. Look at all those examples and look at where the United States is today. Black Americans are over-represented in crime statistics and disproportionately live below the poverty line. Watts and Detroit haven't improved the living conditions for black Americans even today. Detroit especially was hard hit and still remains a city coming to grips with large amounts of poverty.

Stonewall is the same. Yes, homosexuality no longer a federal crime and gay marriage is slowly making its way into every state. But there's still no federal marriage law. LGBT people are still facing large amounts of discrimination and bullying in the United States. Attitudes in many parts of the US are still very much against the idea of homosexuality even being a natural thing.

As for Los Angeles and Fergussson, given that yet more cases of police brutality have been recorded and brought into the public consciousness since then, you have to wonder at how effective rioting is given recent events. Los Angeles and Fergusson are basically the same. These things still happen. If they had any meaningful change, there would be little or no cases of police brutality. Crime rates for black Americans would have decreased. Black Americans wouldn't overwhelmingly live in poverty. Their quality of life would have improved, not worsen over the last seven years.

You talk about riots having a change in society yet I nothing. People riot, people notice the riots and people soon forget as something else comes to light. The public forgets about it. It doesn't change the way things are. It doesn't address any of the social issues. All it does is make innocent people suffer because of the damage done because a few people cannot help themselves but cause destruction.

I don't see how your point stands. You've given evidence that sometimes it doesn't work. Claiming it won't in this case requires a bit more than that.

Why? Did it work in Fergusson? No. All you got was a government report confirming what everyone already knew. There wasn't any substantial change in officer's conduct. It didn't stop police brutality, because since that happened, three additional cases of police brutality have hit the public spotlight. How is that a positive change?

Again, "This didn't solve everything, so it didn't solve anything." That's a bizarre way of looking at history, and I'm frankly not sure how to approach it without coming across as totally condescending. That's usually not a problem for me, but you seem like a nice person, and probably not deserving of the attitude.

[Costa Fierro]

Yes.

One government report highlighting racism. Basically telling people what they already knew and lived with. That's not progress. That's just preaching to the choir.

Because now the police can't hide it anymore. The bottle has been opened. The federal government now has pressure to take action.

It's had decades to take action. Nothing has been done about it. The federal government could have done something about police brutality after the 1990's.

Once again, your unrealistic expectations for an event to magically fix everything the month after its occurred doesn't prove the event didn't result in positive change.

It hasn't though. Baltimore won't change that. Riots won't change the view of people towards black Americans, regardless of the culpability of police actions. This is as much about changing perceptions of black Americans as it is about changing what are clearly conduct issues in American police departments. There's no federal body that reviews police conduct. There's no law mandating body cameras. There's no change in how police officers deal with aggressive suspects. I also can't sympathize with people that destroy public and private property and I don't expect many reasonable Americans would either. Rioting hasn't solved anything. It's just provoked a more heavy-handed response from the authorities and gives the detractors something to bitch about.

I'm not saying that all this should be accomplished in a month. But the federal government has had decades to do something about this and it hasn't. Why should anyone expect anything to happen after this when two decades have passed and still no real fundamental changes have been brought about?

[Costa Fierro]

Again, "This didn't solve everything, so it didn't solve anything."

It hasn't. I don't understand why you seem to think that this will result in change when this shit has been happening for over two decades and nothing has been done about it.

That's a bizarre way of looking at history, and I'm frankly not sure how to approach it without coming across as totally condescending. That's usually not a problem for me, but you seem like a nice person, and probably not deserving of the attitude.

Let's look at it this way. Los Angeles clearly was a shocking case and I am sure many Americans wanted something done about it. 23 years after it happened, the same issues are still present and the same questions are being asked and the same response is still being carried out. Nothing has changed since Rodney King had the shit beaten out of him. Why should the people of Baltimore, realistically, expect anything different?

[Costa Fierro]

Except the problem isn't that they're hiding it - it's that it happened in the first place.

The validation isn't an issue, because we (speaking as a hardcore anarchist, conveniently, on behalf of whoever happens to agree with me) /already/ believe in that view. Having more evidence to support that position is, from the most 'hardcore anarchist's' perspective, just finding another dinosaur skull.

Yeah, the extra evidence is going right in the evidence locker, but we're quite convinced there's already enough there to justify holding the belief that the institution of the police force includes assholes.

The problem going forward is making them stop being assholes, whether that's possible within the police institution, or by destroying the institution, or by replacing it, or by imposing reform from above or below.

This. This right here is what I'm trying to say. People keep revealing that there are assholes within the police. But nothing is being done to stop them from being assholes. People riot, people protest. Nothing changes. How do you expect change when the precedence is that change doesn't occur?

[Mavorpen]

Yes.

One government report highlighting racism. Basically telling people what they already knew and lived with. That's not progress. That's just preaching to the choir.

So then the problem is that you just don't understand the significance of it. The report wasn't to tell the citizens what they already knew. The point was to express that the federal government acknowledges the issue. And acknowledgement of an issue is the very first step to solving an issue. What part of this do you not get?

Because now the police can't hide it anymore. The bottle has been opened. The federal government now has pressure to take action.

It's had decades to take action. Nothing has been done about it. The federal government could have done something about police brutality after the 1990's.

You're joking right? Do you sincerely believe the government had the manpower and resources to launch a full scale investigation of every city in the country and fix all police brutality problems? The government aren't genies. This is the real world.

Once again, your unrealistic expectations for an event to magically fix everything the month after its occurred doesn't prove the event didn't result in positive change.

It hasn't though.

You keep repeating this but failing to explain how acknowledging a problem is not a positive step.

Baltimore won't change that.

Again still waiting on evidence for that.

Riots won't change the view of people towards black Americans, regardless of the culpability of police actions. This is as much about changing perceptions of black Americans as it is about changing what are clearly conduct issues in American police departments. There's no federal body that reviews police conduct. There's no law mandating body cameras. There's no change in how police officers deal with aggressive suspects. I also can't sympathize with people that destroy public and private property and I don't expect many reasonable Americans would either. Rioting hasn't solved anything. It's just provoked a more heavy-handed response from the authorities and gives the detractors something to bitch about.

Any actual sources for this or are you just continuing to make stuff up?

I'm not saying that all this should be accomplished in a month. But the federal government has had decades to do something about this and it hasn't. Why should anyone expect anything to happen after this when two decades have passed and still no real fundamental changes have been brought about?

Because of the examples Yumyumsuppertime already gave that you have perpetually ignored.

[The Grim Reaper]

This. This right here is what I'm trying to say. People keep revealing that there are assholes within the police. But nothing is being done to stop them from being assholes. People riot, people protest. Nothing changes. How do you expect change when the precedence is that change doesn't occur?

They don't, but that's no excuse not to try - imagine how happy they'd be if they were wrong.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Again, "This didn't solve everything, so it didn't solve anything."

It hasn't. I don't understand why you seem to think that this will result in change when this shit has been happening for over two decades and nothing has been done about it.

That's a bizarre way of looking at history, and I'm frankly not sure how to approach it without coming across as totally condescending. That's usually not a problem for me, but you seem like a nice person, and probably not deserving of the attitude.

Let's look at it this way. Los Angeles clearly was a shocking case and I am sure many Americans wanted something done about it. 23 years after it happened, the same issues are still present and the same questions are being asked and the same response is still being carried out. Nothing has changed since Rodney King had the shit beaten out of him. Why should the people of Baltimore, realistically, expect anything different?

We've already linked articles on how relations have improved drastically between the LAPD and the black community here. I don't know if you live around here or not, or are at all familiar with the history of these matters, but the fact that 68% of black Angelenos approved of the LAPD's performance in the latest poll that I was able to find is unprecedented in the history of this city. Unprecedented. Between the riots focusing more attention on police abuse in the light of the King verdict, and the Rampart scandal receiving traction as a result a few years later, this city has made serious progress, and while it's disheartening to see you trivialize and dismiss the remarkable efforts of people on all sides to bridge the gap so as to avoid further violence, it also takes nothing away from the astounding work that they've done.

[Beta Test]

So is this the end of the rioting or will it get worse from here come tomorrow?

[Nazi Flower Power]

I have no problem with the peaceful demonstrations, but rioting and looting is not OK.

7-11 and McDonald's didn't kill this guy. What's the point of taking it out on them? If they stormed a police station or something, that would at least have some logic to it. Actually, that would make a big difference in my attitude toward the violence, if it was directly targeted at the police rather than just running around committing random crimes.

Rioters are too afraid to actually attack the police since that could get them killed. Far safer to loot the local mom&pop shop then justify it later.

It is not justifiable, though.

[Costa Fierro]

The report wasn't to tell the citizens what they already knew. The point was to express that the federal government acknowledges the issue. And acknowledgement of an issue is the very first step to solving an issue. What part of this do you not get?

The part where the federal government hasn't introduced any steps to try and resolve it. It's all very well and saying "yes, something's wrong", but there's been no indication since then that the government is actually taking this seriously. Come the election, it might become an election issue but again, why should anyone expect anything from the federal government given their previous responses to previous police brutality cases.

You're joking right? Do you sincerely believe the government had the manpower and resources to launch a full scale investigation of every city in the country and fix all police brutality problems? The government aren't genies. This is the real world.

This coming from someone that thinks a government report saying what everyone else already knows is "the first step to solving an issue".

You keep repeating this but failing to explain how acknowledging a problem is not a positive step.

Because actions speak louder than words. I don't consider something positive unless the government, be it federal or state, or even municipal, does something to address these issues.

You can say "I am aware of the problem", and that's fine. But it's just words. It doesn't have any meaning unless you do something about it.

Any actual sources for this or are you just continuing to make stuff up?

What am I making up?

Because of the examples Yumyumsuppertime already gave that you have perpetually ignored.

I've already addressed what Yumyumsuppertime said. It's a couple or so pages back.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

So is this the end of the rioting or will it get worse from here come tomorrow?

With the National Guard coming in, the safe bet is that things start dying down a bit.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

An interesting situation.
Can anyone really understand the protesters?
A lot of them seem pretty angry.
But maybe it will calm down eventually.

For now, we will have to tolerate it.
This is obviously a bit much.
Police have it under control, though.