A Disgraceful Day For The National News Media

[Big RR]

Liberty--my guess is that it depends on the state, but that most people who carry comprehensive insurance on their cars would be insured in case of a riot. As many cars are financed and the banks will insist on carrying the coverage, a good portion of the people will be covered for the damage--at least up to the limits of the coverage (the value of the car). While an insurer could theoretically exclude coverage for damage from a riot (or an act of war or a flood or anything else) most states (I don't know about Maryland) heavily regulate consumer policies and do not permit insurers to write policies excluding such coverage.

Of course, if they only carry liability (or minimum) insurance (or are not insured) they could be out the money; and if they have an older car with a low book value, they may well not get the value the running car represents to them.

As for protecting property wit deadly force, aside from the ethical issues, I just don't see that making things all that much better. As someone said above, violence begets violence.

[liberty]

[quote="bigskygal"]Dr. King called riots "the language of the unheard."

At least the folks in Baltimore rioting over police brutality have a decent justification for their rioting - institutionalized racism and a city with a terrible history of police brutality, at least judging by the recent number of settlements over excessive use of force cases. http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/

quote]
Well, is rioting the answer or is it more logical and less destructive to have a governmental unit isolated from the police at the state level dedicated to identifying and removing unfit policemen.

[oldr_n_wsr]

At least the folks in Baltimore rioting over police brutality have a decent justification for their rioting - institutionalized racism and a city with a terrible history of police brutality,

How can that be? They have a black mayor and 43% of the cops are black.

[Big RR]

Come on oldr--black cops can't be brutal? Black mayors can't be useless?

And while $5.7 million since 2011 might not sound like all that much money remember, damages are capped at $200,000 per person/$500,000 per incident, so it's a pretty broad problem.

[BoSoxGal]

At least the folks in Baltimore rioting over police brutality have a decent justification for their rioting - institutionalized racism and a city with a terrible history of police brutality,

How can that be? They have a black mayor and 43% of the cops are black.

I'm glad you brought that up, oldr, because it's a hugely important point. The reality of the racial makeup of Baltimore's police and other leadership shows us that systemic racism can still be an issue when blacks are in positions of power.

In my opinion, the issue of police brutality toward and differential treatment of people of color and mentally ill people is about more than race - it's about recruiting, training, and also often pay practices. If you don't pay well at the starting level, you don't attract quality candidates to law enforcement - just because officers with years on the job might do well in some jurisdictions, doesn't mean that they aren't just well-paid bullies with more years of bullying experience.

We need an overhaul of our police practices in this country, regardless of whether those police are white, brown, black, or whatever.

[wesw]

its more about poverty and lack of hope and opportunity in the black neighborhoods . more about the lack of empathy and understanding from the cops. it s more about Obama bending over backwards to embrace illegal immigrants instead of helping his own poor and downtrodden. nothing against hardworking latinos but there are only so many jobs. I could list the industries and trades on the eastern shore where immigrants have replaced black employees and have taken the places of the young white and black men who would have entered the construction trades in years past, but I ll spare you

white society is not inherently racist. elitism in our halls of power is a problem.

[Lord Jim]

the folks in Baltimore rioting over police brutality have a decent justification for their rioting

I find that statement absolutely stunning...

(I really think you should think through that again, and consider re-phrasing it...)

Because of concerns over "police brutality" there was a "decent justification" for destroying dozens of businesses providing hundreds of jobs in a community in desperate need of jobs?

Because of concerns over "police brutality" there was a "decent justification" for burning 144 cars? (not the Jaguars and Porsche's of the "one per cent", but cars owned and needed by decent lower-middle class working types)

I'm sorry, but where you see a "decent justification" I see a "complete disconnect"...

[Econoline]

BTW...just how ironic is it that there is a whole widespread conservative political movement that takes its name from an event of deliberate property destruction in the gestational years of this nation?

[BoSoxGal]

Oh but THAT property destruction was justified, Econoline - after all, it was about TAXATION without representation.

Nothing as silly as some poor niggers* getting offed by agents of the state.



*Yes, I used the N word - because racism is at the root of all this outrage over the JUSTIFIED expression of anger happening in Baltimore and other American cities over rampant police brutality resulting in deaths of innocent citizens.

Because remember, cops don't get to play judge jury and executioner - PRESUMPTION OF INNOCENCE is the sacred right of every American citizen!!!!!

[Econoline]

You've got a point there, BSG. Perhaps the protesters against police racism and brutality should reframe their outrage as a TAX protest? Y'know...something that would get the right wing's sympathy?...maybe something like "WE PAY *TAXES* for police protection but instead get police harassment, brutality and homicide!!!!!"

Hey, just a thought...

[MajGenl.Meade]

WE PAY *TAXES*

Yeah, that one will have the thugs rolling in the aisles.

It's certainly true that some people in Boston chose to dump a bunch of tea into the harbor as a protest - that was "criminal" and the illegal taking of private property. No doubt.

But to compare it with uneducated animals roaming the streets of a city, setting fire to the property of innocent citizens, thieving liquor and other goods, slicing firehoses (a sacred practice engaged in by Union soldiers against the fire fighting equipment of Columbia SC in 1865) and shitting in their own foul nest..... well, that's a bit of a stretch.

Those kinds of people don't give a hoot about racism and police this and that - they are simply criminals doing what criminals do - committing crimes and hating law and order.

Now, that is not the case for those in Baltimore engaging in decent civil protest and struggling against oppressive prejudice and daily risk.

"Justified" my fat arse.

[wesw]

come on meade. 'animals' is a step too far I think. don t take the bait

[Econoline]

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/arc ... ce/391640/

Nonviolence as Compliance
Officials calling for calm can offer no rational justification for Gray's death,
and so they appeal for order.
TA-NEHISI COATES | APR 27, 2015

Rioting broke out on Monday in Baltimore—an angry response to the death of Freddie Gray, a death my native city seems powerless to explain. Gray did not die mysteriously in some back alley but in the custody of the city's publicly appointed guardians of order. And yet the mayor of that city and the commissioner of that city's police still have no idea what happened. I suspect this is not because the mayor and police commissioner are bad people, but because the state of Maryland prioritizes the protection of police officers charged with abuse over the citizens who fall under its purview.

The citizens who live in West Baltimore, where the rioting began, intuitively understand this. I grew up across the street from Mondawmin Mall, where today's riots began. My mother was raised in the same housing project, Gilmor Homes, where Freddie Gray was killed. Everyone I knew who lived in that world regarded the police not with admiration and respect but with fear and caution. People write these feelings off as wholly irrational at their own peril, or their own leisure. The case against the Baltimore police, and the society that superintends them, is easily made:

Over the past four years, more than 100 people have won court judgments or settlements related to allegations of brutality and civil rights violations. Victims include a 15-year-old boy riding a dirt bike, a 26-year-old pregnant accountant who had witnessed a beating, a 50-year-old woman selling church raffle tickets, a 65-year-old church deacon rolling a cigarette and an 87-year-old grandmother aiding her wounded grandson ....

And in almost every case, prosecutors or judges dismissed the charges against the victims—if charges were filed at all. In an incident that drew headlines recently, charges against a South Baltimore man were dropped after a video showed an officer repeatedly punching him—a beating that led the police commissioner to say he was “shocked.”

The money paid out by the city to cover for the brutal acts of its police department would be enough to build "a state-of-the-art rec center or renovations at more than 30 playgrounds." Instead, the money was used to cover for the brutal acts of the city's police department and ensure they remained well beyond any semblance of justice.

Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and "nonviolent." These well-intended pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand the question, it's worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons, ran. The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead?

The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. (“The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.”) There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. (“Bitch, you ain’t no better than any of the other old black bitches I have locked up.”) There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. (“They slammed me down on my face,” Brown added, her voice cracking. “The skin was gone on my face.")

When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the community.

[Lord Jim]

Because of concerns over "police brutality" there was a "decent justification" for destroying dozens of businesses providing hundreds of jobs in a community in desperate need of jobs?

Because of concerns over "police brutality" there was a "decent justification" for burning 144 cars? (not the Jaguars and Porsche's of the "one per cent", but cars owned and needed by decent lower-middle class working types)

BTW...just how ironic is it blah blah blah...

Oh but THAT property destruction was justified blah blah blah

You've got a point there, BSG. Perhaps blah blah blah

Objection! Non-responsive!

Every time some roving hoard of thugs and hoodlums goes on a thieving and destruction spree, reeking havoc and causing severe long term misery in their own community, you can always count on somebody to trot out the Boston Tea Party as though it were some sort of clever debate "topper" rather than what it is; an irrelevant diversionary non-point designed to avoid addressing the actual issue at hand.

(It's a similar tactic to when some clever fellow will bring up the Crusades when we're discussing the latest example of Jihadist terrorism...)

For the record, I'm not a big fan of The Boston Tea Party; I don't think it's one of the prouder moments of American history. General Meade has already quite lucidly laid out most of the glaring and obvious differences between that event what happened Monday in Baltimore, so I won't repeat them. (And I would also like to associate myself with everything else the General said in that post. Spot on. )

I would just add that the Boston Tea Party participants also didn't steal the tea, or burn the boats. Nor did they run through the streets of Boston looting and burning the local pewter shop, sliver smith, and glass maker. Nor did they set their neighbors horses on fire...

(If you want to have a discussion about The Boston Tea Party I'm happy to participate. Feel free to start a thread about it. Might I suggest that the 4th Of July would be a good time?)

Okay, so much for the transparent diversion, back to the actual topic at hand:

To say that what these hoodlums did was "justified" is not only absurd from a logical "action" (police brutality) "reaction" (steal and destroy innocent people's property and thus bring misery and suffering to your own neighbors and families) disconnect standpoint, it's also atrocious from a moral standpoint, because that position callously dismisses the misery caused by these thugs to thousands of innocent (mostly impoverished or lower working class) people to be of no account.

I find the very notion that this was somehow "justified" logically incoherent and morally repellant.

[Lord Jim]

I wonder how "justified" Ms. Gardner feels the thugs were:

Baltimore woman now jobless and homeless after rioting mobs burned CVS where she worked, then torched her home — even after she begged them not to



In one night of mayhem Katrice Gardner lost her home, her job — and nearly her life.

And when dawn broke Tuesday, the 30-year-old Baltimore woman said she couldn’t understand why the mob that battled the police all night firebombed her house and reduced the CVS where she worked as a manager to ashes.

“I was yelling at them, pleading at them not to burn my house," Gardner, 30, said outside her boarded-up rowhouse. “They had set the houses around me on fire. They were throwing stuff into the house. They were throwing Molotov's and very flammable stuff. All I could do was beg them not to burn my house."

Gardner said she — like most African-Americans in Baltimore — is deeply upset about the death of Freddie Gray, allegedly at the hands of police.

But Gardner said she didn’t recognize the people who starting lobbing bricks at cops and looting businesses after Gray’s funeral on Monday.

“These guys aren't from here, they go from place to place causing trouble,” she said. “This doesn't accomplish anything. This is our neighborhood."

Gardner, who is married, said she now has no place to live and no place to work.

"I can't live in my house while it gets renovated and the place where I work got burned down,” she said. “I don't have a home and a place to work. This is a lot of calamity."

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/nationa ... -1.2202301

Oh well, screw her, and screw all the other thousands of cry babies who want to bitch and moan about how they lost their jobs or their homes or their transportation to work, or the stores they depended on for their necessities as a result of Monday's mayhem. And screw the families that depended on them as well. And screw the elderly people who would have moved into decent housing later this year if the Senior Center hadn't been burned to the ground too.

These whiners are just going to have to suck it up and understand that their losses were justified.

[Econoline]

BTW...I agree with Big RR's comment on BSG's post:

I wouldn't call it a justification BSG; I'd call it a reason, maybe even one that is understandable, but not one that justifies the action.

And I want to reiterate a line from the Ta-Nehisi Coates essay I just posted above: "...none of this can mean that rioting or violence is 'correct' or 'wise,' any more than a forest fire can be 'correct" or 'wise.'"

[Lord Jim]

Oh, I agree that what happened is "understandable"...

You had a group of thugs who decided to use the completely legitimate anger and outrage over what happened to Freddie Gray (and questionable treatment by police in general) that is roiling through the community as cover to steal stuff and burn things down.

I understand that completely.

[Crackpot]

When it comes down to it rioters can be broken down into 3 groups: the disillusioned, the opportunists and the anarchists. RR, econo, etc... Are talking absolute it the first group While Jim, Meade and Wes seem to be focusing on the later two.

[Lord Jim]

CP, I would divide it up this way:

I would separate out those who were throwing various projectiles at the police, (and maybe even those who burned and vandalized police cars) as perhaps what you are referring to as the genuinely "disillusioned"...

I'm certainly not approving or condoning (let alone "justifying") that behavior, but at least it relates in a rational and intelligible way to the provocation (police brutality). The target of their anger, (the cops) at least has an internal logic to it. They were taking a real risk by doing what they were doing and venting frustration at those who they perceive as their abusers. Again, I don't approve of the behavior, but I "get" it. I find that behavior to be "understandable" in the way I believe Big RR intended to use the word.

I would call the looters the "opportunists" and the destroyers of private property the "anarchists"...

And it's possible (in fact likely) that some individuals were some combination of the three.

[Econoline]

You've got a point there, BSG. Perhaps blah blah blah

Objection! Non-responsive!

Objection! Out of context!

...blah blah blah blah blah blah...