Baltimore Calmer; 6 Officers Indicted

[Jamzmania]

The entire nation's news networks were already looking into the "rough ride" incident, and are now all instead looking at the damage done by riots. If anything, these riots are going to hurt the chances of positive change by reinforcing stereotypes and giving psuedo-justification for police violence.

Actually what reinforces stereotypes and giving psuedo-justification to that are posts like this who continue to insist that expression of anger and frustration, riots being one of the biggest one recognized by many leaders such as MLK Jr as being such, of black people has no legitimate basis.

There is no legitimate basis to riot in this case.

[Patridam]

The entire nation's news networks were already looking into the "rough ride" incident, and are now all instead looking at the damage done by riots. If anything, these riots are going to hurt the chances of positive change by reinforcing stereotypes and giving psuedo-justification for police violence.

Actually what reinforces stereotypes and giving psuedo-justification to that are posts like this who continue to insist that expression of anger and frustration, riots being one of the biggest one recognized by many leaders such as MLK Jr as being such, of black people has no legitimate basis.

I know how we'll overcome those old racist stereotypes of blacks being violent thieves! We'll smash and steal everything, then light it on fire for good measure!

[Ifreann]

I guess all the stores that haven't been robbed, the buildings not set ablaze, the officers not injured, the civilians not injured, and the cars neither flipped nor smashed don't count.

So the rioters have to flip every single car, light every single store on fire, and injure every single officer before you deem the police as not having a hold on the situation?

Of course not. But the police are never able to prevent all crimes. No amount of flooding the streets of Baltimore with soldiers will stop all the looting or property damage. So some crimes last night does not mean that the police have lost control and need the National Guard.

---

And I said it was rational when? I said it was justified when? And riots can affect some positive change, it's just generally not a very good way to do it.

The entire nation's news networks were already looking into the "rough ride" incident, and are now all instead looking at the damage done by riots. If anything, these riots are going to hurt the chances of positive change by reinforcing stereotypes and giving psuedo-justification for police violence.

Yummers has pointed out repeatedly that riots have lead to positive change for various causes because of the national attention they've received.

---

Do the National Guard have personal energy shields or something?

They have quite a bit more protection from injury than police officers do, that's what the kevlar body armor, riot shields, and Plexiglas helmets are for. Not to mention the safety of an APC vs. a Crown Victoria.

The police have body armour and riot shields.

Someone said earlier in the thread that the fires were being fought. Do the fire fighters need protection now?

Protestors have been cutting fire hoses. That not only hurts the effectiveness of their abilities, but it could possibly result in a firefighter getting trapped in a burning building with no means to clear a path out.

Doesn't really answer my question.

Gosh, you'd swear they were just fucking angry or something like that.

Being 'angry' doesn't excuse any of the moral depravity and sheer stupidity of this riot.

Who said it did? Explaining and excusing are different things.

[Hiblaaargh]

Actually what reinforces stereotypes and giving psuedo-justification to that are posts like this who continue to insist that expression of anger and frustration, riots being one of the biggest one recognized by many leaders such as MLK Jr as being such, of black people has no legitimate basis.

I know how we'll overcome those old racist stereotypes of blacks being violent thieves! We'll smash and steal everything, then light it on fire for good measure!

You're proving his point...
then again you're probably too deep into the shit system to comprehend that, and even if you did you would immediately deny it again.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Gosh, you'd swear they were just fucking angry or something like that.

Next time some asshat takes 20 minutes to decide what he wants from McDonalds after standing in line for 30 minutes I'm gonna shoot him right in the fucking kneecaps. And when I get arrested and interrogated I'm gonna say 'I was angry officer!'

[Jamzmania]

So the rioters have to flip every single car, light every single store on fire, and injure every single officer before you deem the police as not having a hold on the situation?

Of course not. But the police are never able to prevent all crimes. No amount of flooding the streets of Baltimore with soldiers will stop all the looting or property damage. So some crimes last night does not mean that the police have lost control and need the National Guard.

---

The entire nation's news networks were already looking into the "rough ride" incident, and are now all instead looking at the damage done by riots. If anything, these riots are going to hurt the chances of positive change by reinforcing stereotypes and giving psuedo-justification for police violence.

Yummers has pointed out repeatedly that riots have lead to positive change for various causes because of the national attention they've received.

---

They have quite a bit more protection from injury than police officers do, that's what the kevlar body armor, riot shields, and Plexiglas helmets are for. Not to mention the safety of an APC vs. a Crown Victoria.

The police have body armour and riot shields.

Protestors have been cutting fire hoses. That not only hurts the effectiveness of their abilities, but it could possibly result in a firefighter getting trapped in a burning building with no means to clear a path out.

Doesn't really answer my question.

Being 'angry' doesn't excuse any of the moral depravity and sheer stupidity of this riot.

Who said it did? Explaining and excusing are different things.

I'd hardly call mass looting and destruction just "some crime".

[Mavorpen]

Actually what reinforces stereotypes and giving psuedo-justification to that are posts like this who continue to insist that expression of anger and frustration, riots being one of the biggest one recognized by many leaders such as MLK Jr as being such, of black people has no legitimate basis.

I know how we'll overcome those old racist stereotypes of blacks being violent thieves! We'll smash and steal everything, then light it on fire for good measure!

The purpose isn't to smash stereotypes. It's to express that change needs to happen.

If you ACTUALLY cared about addressing stereotypes you would not be parroting the arguments of, well, racists. What you people should be doing when you see a riot is emphasizing what riots are and why they occur. They occur out of a pure rage and frustration that has been building up because the people have been ignored. You should be saying "Okay hold on, these people are clearly angry. They may have legitimate grievances and this is just more evidence that we need to listen to them."

That's how you combat stereotypes. You don't say "lel them negros just getting all uppity again." All you're doing now is confirming their already present bias that they already had in the first place. These racists are listening to comments similar to yours and nodding in agreement and using it to justify their bias. And that's going to happen as long as you don't frame the riots in the way riots SHOULD BE framed: as the result of something serious that needs to be addressed.

[Ifreann]

Gosh, you'd swear they were just fucking angry or something like that.

Next time some asshat takes 20 minutes to decide what he wants from McDonalds after standing in line for 30 minutes I'm gonna shoot him right in the fucking kneecaps. And when I get arrested and interrogated I'm gonna say 'I was angry officer!'

I don't know if you actually think I'm saying that it's acceptable and legally permissible to riot if you're angry enough, or if you're mocking the people who think I'm saying that.

[Nirvash Type TheEND]

Next time some asshat takes 20 minutes to decide what he wants from McDonalds after standing in line for 30 minutes I'm gonna shoot him right in the fucking kneecaps. And when I get arrested and interrogated I'm gonna say 'I was angry officer!'

I don't know if you actually think I'm saying that it's acceptable and legally permissible to riot if you're angry enough, or if you're mocking the people who think I'm saying that.

The latter. I know you're a reasonably sensible human being.

[Jamzmania]

I know how we'll overcome those old racist stereotypes of blacks being violent thieves! We'll smash and steal everything, then light it on fire for good measure!

The purpose isn't to smash stereotypes. It's to express that change needs to happen.

If you ACTUALLY cared about addressing stereotypes you would not be parroting the arguments of, well, racists. What you people should be doing when you see a riot is emphasizing what riots are and why they occur. They occur out of a pure rage and frustration that has been building up because the people have been ignored. You should be saying "Okay hold on, these people are clearly angry. They may have legitimate grievances and this is just more evidence that we need to listen to them."

That's how you combat stereotypes. You don't say "lel them negros just getting all uppity again." All you're doing now is confirming their already present bias that they already had in the first place. These racists are listening to comments similar to yours and nodding in agreement and using it to justify their bias. And that's going to happen as long as you don't frame the riots in the way riots SHOULD BE framed: as the result of something serious that needs to be addressed.

No, when we see riots it's time to get out the tear gas and rubber bullets and make sure we got plenty of empty jail cells. Riots aren't any kind of legitimate expression of grievances, they're just crime sprees by thugs and criminals.

[Ifreann]

Of course not. But the police are never able to prevent all crimes. No amount of flooding the streets of Baltimore with soldiers will stop all the looting or property damage. So some crimes last night does not mean that the police have lost control and need the National Guard.

---

Yummers has pointed out repeatedly that riots have lead to positive change for various causes because of the national attention they've received.

---

The police have body armour and riot shields.


Doesn't really answer my question.


Who said it did? Explaining and excusing are different things.

I'd hardly call mass looting and destruction just "some crime".

Looting is a crime. Destroying other people's things is a crime. Attacking people is a crime. All together that makes some crimes. I don't actually know how many crimes, so I'm not going to try to be more accurate than that.

[Mavorpen]

The purpose isn't to smash stereotypes. It's to express that change needs to happen.

If you ACTUALLY cared about addressing stereotypes you would not be parroting the arguments of, well, racists. What you people should be doing when you see a riot is emphasizing what riots are and why they occur. They occur out of a pure rage and frustration that has been building up because the people have been ignored. You should be saying "Okay hold on, these people are clearly angry. They may have legitimate grievances and this is just more evidence that we need to listen to them."

That's how you combat stereotypes. You don't say "lel them negros just getting all uppity again." All you're doing now is confirming their already present bias that they already had in the first place. These racists are listening to comments similar to yours and nodding in agreement and using it to justify their bias. And that's going to happen as long as you don't frame the riots in the way riots SHOULD BE framed: as the result of something serious that needs to be addressed.

No, when we see riots it's time to get out the tear gas and rubber bullets and make sure we got plenty of empty jail cells. Riots aren't any kind of legitimate expression of grievances, they're just crime sprees by thugs and criminals.

I can wait for you to actually read my post so that you understand that I never said that riots are a "legitimate" expression of grievances.

[Ifreann]

I don't know if you actually think I'm saying that it's acceptable and legally permissible to riot if you're angry enough, or if you're mocking the people who think I'm saying that.

The latter. I know you're a reasonably sensible human being.

Excellent, I've got you fool- I mean, yes. Sensible. Human. Definitely.

[Jamzmania]

No, when we see riots it's time to get out the tear gas and rubber bullets and make sure we got plenty of empty jail cells. Riots aren't any kind of legitimate expression of grievances, they're just crime sprees by thugs and criminals.

I can wait for you to actually read my post so that you understand that I never said that riots are a "legitimate" expression of grievances.

No, you're just saying " I don't necessarily agree with the riots, but we should definitely cave to their demands and give legitimacy to their methods."

[Mavorpen]

I can wait for you to actually read my post so that you understand that I never said that riots are a "legitimate" expression of grievances.

No, you're just saying " I don't necessarily agree with the riots, but we should definitely cave to their demands and give legitimacy to their methods."

I can continue to wait for you to read my post and understand that I also am not saying that.

Then "demands" thst should be met and what's "legitimate" aren't the riots. It's the concerns and grievances that enabled the riots to happen in the first place.

[Ifreann]

I can wait for you to actually read my post so that you understand that I never said that riots are a "legitimate" expression of grievances.

No, you're just saying " I don't necessarily agree with the riots, but we should definitely cave to their demands and give legitimacy to their methods."

What demands?

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

No, you're just saying " I don't necessarily agree with the riots, but we should definitely cave to their demands and give legitimacy to their methods."

What demands?

50" LCD flat panel, CVS burned to the ground, and more holes in fire hoses.

[Mavorpen]

What demands?

50" LCD flat panel, CVS burned to the ground, and more holes in fire hoses.

Oh come on that last one is just silly. Imagine making your Christmas list and saying "Hey Santa, I want a PS4, Bloodborne, a new bike, and some holes in all of the world's firehoses"

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

50" LCD flat panel, CVS burned to the ground, and more holes in fire hoses.

Oh come on that last one is just silly. Imagine making your Christmas list and saying "Hey Santa, I want a PS4, Bloodborne, a new bike, and some holes in all of the world's firehoses"

I'm not going to judge their culture. They could have legitimate reasons that I don't understand as a Irish-Japanese male.

[Mavorpen]

Oh come on that last one is just silly. Imagine making your Christmas list and saying "Hey Santa, I want a PS4, Bloodborne, a new bike, and some holes in all of the world's firehoses"

I'm not going to judge their culture. They could have legitimate reasons that I don't understand as a Irish-Japanese male.

Maybe it's a euphemism for some sort of kinky sexual act.

[Ifreann]

I'm not going to judge their culture. They could have legitimate reasons that I don't understand as a Irish-Japanese male.

Maybe it's a euphemism for some sort of kinky sexual act.

Penis piercing. *nods*

[Norstal]

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.

I meant in light of the Ferguson riots. It would extremely suspicious to not find any officers not being charged of police brutality after the community accuses them of being as such.

[Jamzmania]

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.

I meant in light of the Ferguson riots. It would extremely suspicious to not find any officers not being charged of police brutality after the community accuses them of being as such.

The riots only hurt them.

[Ifreann]

I meant in light of the Ferguson riots. It would extremely suspicious to not find any officers not being charged of police brutality after the community accuses them of being as such.

The riots only hurt them.

Like all those example that Yummers has been linking to over and over where rioting sounded the death knell of various causes.

Oh, wait, that's like, the opposite of what happened.

[Lyrian Oligarchic Royal Empire]

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2015/04/28/donald-trump-barack-obama-tweets-baltimore-riots/26500879/

Our great African American President hasn't exactly had a positive impact on the thugs who are so happily and openly destroying Baltimore!

Oh Trump, I do so love that you exist.