Baltimore Calmer; 6 Officers Indicted

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

A CAB FTP?

[Costa Fierro]

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.

And that's good. That is the sort of change that is rare in America. But that still doesn't address that nothing has been done about police brutality and police conduct on a national scale, even if it's something as simple as an operational requirement to have body cameras or even an authority or a body that reviews police conduct.

And that is where real change is needed.

[The Grim Reaper]

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.

A CAB FTP?

ACAB, FTP. All Coppers Are Bastards, Fuck The Police.

[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.

What peaceful demonstrations?

So targeted violence on cops is okay in your book. Good to know. I believe there was a guy in New York who shared your views, and used a couple NYPD officers to express them.

That guy was a dipshit.

He drove up there from Baltimore IIRC. It's up to the people in New York to accept the authority of the NYPD or rise up against it. It's not right for other people to drive over there and start shit.

Secondly, there is a difference between one guy acting alone and the community rising up as a group. If you can't get a group together, not even a small group, then it's not fighting on behalf of the community; it's just murdering cops. New York had had some protests and whatnot, but those murders were just a lone nutjob.

Third, he murdered someone else besides the two cops.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

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.

And that's good. That is the sort of change that is rare in America. But that still doesn't address that nothing has been done about police brutality and police conduct on a national scale, even if it's something as simple as an operational requirement to have body cameras or even an authority or a body that reviews police conduct.

And that is where real change is needed.

Right. Good. We're getting somewhere, and I (hope) finding some areas of agreement. Common ground, even. That would be ideal.

Here's my contention: The riots that swept South L.A. in '92 focused new public attention on the Los Angeles Police Department, as well as federal and media attention. Whereas previous corruption had largely gone unremarked upon on a national level, this increased scrutiny was likely responsible for the increased attention given to the Rampart scandal, which had the effect of bringing down Chief Parker, and additionally led to the consent decree that they were forced to operate under for years. This, in turn, led to a huge period of change for the Department, with further bad apples being weeded out, and new policies experimented with. It largely came to a head with Bratton's installment as Chief, when he implemented a straightforward, back-to-basics community policing approach, the nature and effect of which I've already described.

See, riots don't directly solve problems. I don't think that anyone here is arguing that. I know that I'm not. What riots do is focus attention on a situation that's gotten out of control, one for which the people involved usually haven't found any other workable solution for. This is obviously going to be more common in powerless communities, or communities that perceive themselves to be powerless. In the media age (and notice that all of our examples have been from the media age), this focuses national attention on the people rioting, and the riot itself leads to questions, the first of which is inevitably "Why?". This means that the problem at hand receives increased scrutiny, which almost inevitably leads to change for that community. Not inevitably, mind, because the public may say "Well, that's a stupid thing to riot over", as in the case of sports-related rioting, but almost inevitably. When that scrutiny is applied, it becomes harder for those responsible to play by the old rules, and people tend to be fired, or voted out of office, or reassigned, or demoted where they previously would have received no punishment at all (or perhaps a slap on the wrist). When that happens, it leads to change.

So no, nobody is saying that rioting fixes problems. What rioting does is force attention to the situation so that the process of dealing with it can begin. It's a way of forcing people to look at a situation seriously when you feel (rightly or wrongly) that you have absolutely no other realistic way of doing so. It's a scream of "LOOK AT THIS!" when you feel that all other attempts to be taken seriously have been exhausted. And no, it doesn't fix a problem nationally. It begins to address one locally. The hope, of course, is that it won't take a series of riots across the nation for people to start taking it seriously on a national level. So far, when it comes to the current issues regarding police brutality against black people, I'm afraid that this hope remains unfulfilled.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

A CAB FTP?

ACAB, FTP. All Coppers Are Bastards, Fuck The Police.

Ah. Thank you. Surprised I didn't know that.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

ACAB, FTP. All Coppers Are Bastards, Fuck The Police.

Ah. Thank you. Surprised I didn't know that.

As am I.

[Nazi Flower Power]

You either didn't read what she said or you are not understanding what she is saying.

She never said violence was okay, she said protesting was okay in the manner of peaceful demonstrations.

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.

Uh, no. Explicitly stated support for targeted acts of violence against police officers. Saying "Oh well I don't support violence, unless it's against those damn cops" does not make you anti-violence. Very much the opposite, in fact.

I am very much against random violence, but have mixed feelings about violence which serves a clear and logical purpose. I was not saying they definitely SHOULD storm a police station in Baltimore, just that I would be more inclined to see it as a political statement and think about why they did it rather than looking down on them as a bunch of worthless thugs.

You did misunderstand my post, since the point was not, "Violence is OK as long as it's against cops."

[Costa Fierro]

I don't think that anyone here is arguing that.

Someone said they "had a good record of effecting change".

What riots do is focus attention on a situation that's gotten out of control, one for which the people involved usually haven't found any other workable solution for. This is obviously going to be more common in powerless communities, or communities that perceive themselves to be powerless. In the media age (and notice that all of our examples have been from the media age), this focuses national attention on the people rioting, and the riot itself leads to questions, the first of which is inevitably "Why?". This means that the problem at hand receives increased scrutiny, which almost inevitably leads to change for that community. Not inevitably, mind, because the public may say "Well, that's a stupid thing to riot over", as in the case of sports-related rioting, but almost inevitably. When that scrutiny is applied, it becomes harder for those responsible to play by the old rules, and people tend to be fired, or voted out of office, or reassigned, or demoted where they previously would have received no punishment at all (or perhaps a slap on the wrist). When that happens, it leads to change.

I know what they're trying to do. I am not stupid. What I contend is that I don't understand why they continue to do it, given that there has been a historical precedence of no meaningful change for people after riots have occurred, in America or elsewhere.

What has been done in recent months is that people have being saying "look, there are bad apples in the police force" and calling it "positive change". Nothing has been done about stopping said apples from becoming rotten in the first place.

I'm not saying everything has to be solved right this very moment. I've simply said that nothing has been done on a national level to address this, which is really the only way any real meaningful change is going to be enacted in the United States.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I don't think that anyone here is arguing that.

Someone said they "had a good record of effecting change".

What riots do is focus attention on a situation that's gotten out of control, one for which the people involved usually haven't found any other workable solution for. This is obviously going to be more common in powerless communities, or communities that perceive themselves to be powerless. In the media age (and notice that all of our examples have been from the media age), this focuses national attention on the people rioting, and the riot itself leads to questions, the first of which is inevitably "Why?". This means that the problem at hand receives increased scrutiny, which almost inevitably leads to change for that community. Not inevitably, mind, because the public may say "Well, that's a stupid thing to riot over", as in the case of sports-related rioting, but almost inevitably. When that scrutiny is applied, it becomes harder for those responsible to play by the old rules, and people tend to be fired, or voted out of office, or reassigned, or demoted where they previously would have received no punishment at all (or perhaps a slap on the wrist). When that happens, it leads to change.

I know what they're trying to do. I am not stupid. What I contend is that I don't understand why they continue to do it, given that there has been a historical precedence of no meaningful change for people after riots have occurred, in America or elsewhere.

What has been done in recent months is that people have being saying "look, there are bad apples in the police force" and calling it "positive change". Nothing has been done about stopping said apples from becoming rotten in the first place.

I'm not saying everything has to be solved right this very moment. I've simply said that nothing has been done on a national level to address this, which is really the only way any real meaningful change is going to be enacted in the United States.

Because, again, the change that they cause is local, not national.

It's not progress to say "Look, there are bad apples in the police force". However, changes in hiring did occur in the LAPD, leading to a more disciplined and effective force. In Ferguson, we have yet to see all of the repercussions, but people from the Police Chief on down either resigned or were fired as a result of the report.

National change, though? That's messy. That's significantly more complicated, and it goes beyond anything that can be addressed by local riots. However, people don't riot to effect that sort of change, but rather to draw attention to their immediate problems. You're essentially calling riots useless because they don't address problems that people aren't looking to have them address in the first place.

Most importantly, except on a case-by-case basis (as in Ferguson, and Los Angeles), the national government can't do much regarding local police forces. Cities tend to be jealous of their prerogatives, and it generally takes a dramatic event (such as, say, a riot) for the feds to be able to step in without causing major jurisdictional disputes.

[Costa Fierro]

National change, though? That's messy. That's significantly more complicated, and it goes beyond anything that can be addressed by local riots. However, people don't riot to effect that sort of change, but rather to draw attention to their immediate problems. You're essentially calling riots useless because they don't address problems that people aren't looking to have them address in the first place.

So you are saying that there are people not experiencing these kinds of issues elsewhere and that the issues with police conduct is not something that should be considered or addresses at a national level?

[Imperium Sidhicum]

Am I the only one who noticed that the overwhelming majority of "protesters" belong to a certain ethnic group (again) that is not to be named loudly on grounds of political correctness?

[Yumyumsuppertime]

National change, though? That's messy. That's significantly more complicated, and it goes beyond anything that can be addressed by local riots. However, people don't riot to effect that sort of change, but rather to draw attention to their immediate problems. You're essentially calling riots useless because they don't address problems that people aren't looking to have them address in the first place.

So you are saying that there are people not experiencing these kinds of issues elsewhere and that the issues with police conduct is not something that should be considered or addresses at a national level?

I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. It's been very pleasant up until now. Please don't engage in strawmen.

[Costa Fierro]

Am I the only one who noticed that the overwhelming majority of "protesters" belong to a certain ethnic group (again) that is not to be named loudly on grounds of political correctness?

Well, it was a black American that died in police custody, so I could imagine the anger in that local community. It's basically a case of "no shit Sherlock".

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Am I the only one who noticed that the overwhelming majority of "protesters" belong to a certain ethnic group (again) that is not to be named loudly on grounds of political correctness?

I'm just going to leave this here for posterity in case he thinks better of it later.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Am I the only one who noticed that the overwhelming majority of "protesters" belong to a certain ethnic group (again) that is not to be named loudly on grounds of political correctness?

Blacks? Yeah. It's because it's their people that are being killed.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

Am I the only one who noticed that the overwhelming majority of "protesters" belong to a certain ethnic group (again) that is not to be named loudly on grounds of political correctness?

Well, it was a black American that died in police custody, so I could imagine the anger in that local community. It's basically a case of "no shit Sherlock".

I know, right? It's almost as if a racial group with a history of being abused by the local police would take issue with someone of their race dying in police custody under suspicious circumstances. But that's just crazy talk.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Then you are obviously not reading my posts the way I am trying to present them and rather through your own biases. Which does not surprise me in the slightest.

I never said I supported either one. I just said she probably thinks it would make sense given the circumstances. Here's a tip: stop putting words in my fucking mouth, then read what is being said and don't jump to conclusions over what isn't being said. Then maybe you will learn something about discussing an issue.

There's really no need to get upset here. You expressed your own opinion by stating that attacking cops would "make logical sense". Logical decisions are widely considered (myself included) to be correct decisions.

Apparently this is the source of the confusion. Logical decisions are ones that have a coherent thought process behind them.

If someone else is starting with a different set of premises than I do or approaching a problem from a different point of view, they might make a logical decision, but still do something that is different from what I would do.

I think Soldati and I are both using the word "logical" in this way and not as a synonym for "correct."

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Well, it was a black American that died in police custody, so I could imagine the anger in that local community. It's basically a case of "no shit Sherlock".

I know, right? It's almost as if a racial group with a history of being abused by the local police would take issue with someone of their race dying in police custody under suspicious circumstances. But that's just crazy talk.

What thugs. *insert stereotypical MLK bullshit here*

[Sebtopiaris]

Good. This shows me that even when half of a country doesn't vote in their own elections, they still have the balls to stand up for themselves when they cop shit. If the authorities didn't want this would happen, they shouldn't have treated people of coloured and/or poor backgrounds like shit.

Fight the power, Baltimore!

[Costa Fierro]

So you are saying that there are people not experiencing these kinds of issues elsewhere and that the issues with police conduct is not something that should be considered or addresses at a national level?

I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. It's been very pleasant up until now. Please don't engage in strawmen.

But there are, obviously, some more underlying problems that are in American police forces, regardless of where they are and which communities they serve. Multiple cases of police brutality in different states in the union really shouldn't be treated as a local issue. One would have thought the response to Los Angeles would have provoked some kind of federal response, let alone having the same shit occur again and again over the next two decades.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I love the fact that people who have essentially been coming at this from three different sides can take the time out to express their amazement at the inanity of one other person's post. Makes me all warm, fuzzy, and Kumbaya-ish inside.

[Yumyumsuppertime]

I didn't say that, nor did I imply it. It's been very pleasant up until now. Please don't engage in strawmen.

But there are, obviously, some more underlying problems that are in American police forces, regardless of where they are and which communities they serve. Multiple cases of police brutality in different states in the union really shouldn't be treated as a local issue. One would have thought the response to Los Angeles would have provoked some kind of federal response, let alone having the same shit occur again and again over the next two decades.

Well, it did with the federal consent decree, which led to the new hiring practices and resulted in a huge shift in policy, training, community relations, and just the general manner in which business was conducted. To some degree, you can't avoid having the same shit occur, but you can change your tolerance level for it and how said shit is dealt with. That's what the LAPD has done to great success. Yes, you still get abusive cops on occasion, but they tend to get reassigned to desk duty and/or fired depending on the level of evidence and the severity. Yes, you still get cops who steal or plant evidence, but they get fired. Yes, you still get cops who get involved in controversial shootings, but they get investigated by a Civilian Review Board rather than their own.

I may have edited in my last paragraph a bit too late for you to catch, so I'll take the liberty of pasting it here, because I think that it's relevant to some of your thoughts on the matter:

Most importantly, except on a case-by-case basis (as in Ferguson, and Los Angeles), the national government can't do much regarding local police forces. Cities tend to be jealous of their prerogatives, and it generally takes a dramatic event (such as, say, a riot) for the feds to be able to step in without causing major jurisdictional disputes.

[Islaamistan]

Its a shame to see all this happening really.

[Nazi Flower Power]

Am I the only one who noticed that the overwhelming majority of "protesters" belong to a certain ethnic group (again) that is not to be named loudly on grounds of political correctness?

Is this supposed to offer us some kind of surprising insight?

The root of the conflict involved race issues, so it's really not surprising.