The city of Baltimore erupted into violence Monday evening, following days of mostly peaceful protests over the death of Freddie Gray, who was fatally injured while in police custody. Monday’s violence throughout pockets of the city frustrated those who had sought a day of quiet as Gray’s family laid him to rest.

 

The Monday afternoon confrontations with police officers, which involved many students, spread rapidly throughout across the city, resulting in a rash of fires, thefts, vandalism, and standoffs between demonstrators and police.

 

It's pretty obvious what happened to Freddie Gray, the police (most likely) harmed him while he was in their custody.

Current: State of emergency in Baltimore along with the national guard. Curfew is also in place to keep people off the streets at night. We'll see how this will erupt. 

It's one more case of police violence  - And it's starting to really get a lot more attention now.

 

 

Regardless, these violent protesters rioters seem to  take advantage of the situation and are doing what they're good at : reinforcing stereotypes.

Edited April 29, 201511 yr by Lanyaie

Protesting or even rioting in some cases can be justified IMO. Looting can not.

I read a news article today in which authorities are looking into a possible rioter connection. Apparently there are some leads that may connect those who instigated further violence in Ferguson may also be behind those instigating violence last night. I will admit I find it odd how both Ferguson and what is happening now occurred during a peaceful event. Ferguson violence erupted out of a peaceful protest, and the events last night happened during/after the church funeral. Mob violence/psychology sure is a difficult thing to predict.

Protesting or even rioting in some cases can be justified IMO. Looting can not.

a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd: defintion of rioting by merium webster

It cant be justified. The literal defintion of a riot cant be justified. A revelution can be justified not a riot.

In my opinion, the earlier protests - coming out and blocking the streets without actually harming people - were those who truly felt something about the issue and wanted to keep a spotlight on it. They may have annoyed people stuck in the Orioles game and unable to leave, but that's still not damage per se.

 

The protesters throwing rocks/etc at the police and damaging police vehicles, etc - tempers run high, the police are the focal point of the anger, and they're RIGHT THERE telling people to go home. While these actions are NOT constructive, they are at least more understandable. Someone who came out to do a peaceful protest can get caught up in the mob mentality or react to something done by the police at the scene and 'fight back' in some form.

 

Then you have the people looting and burning buildings and vehicles NOT involved with the police, but rather just normal people - these are the ones taking advantage of the chaos to do things they probably would have otherwise done anyway, just perhaps not all at once. Opportunistic criminals mugging passers by - I think I heard a story about reporters being similarly waylaid, which is ironic because reporters are exactly who the original protesters WANTED to see what was going on; that's how the message gets out.

 

Whatever investigative attention might have been turned on Freddie Gray's case has been overshadowed by the rioting that has followed.

 

TL;DR: The looters are opportunistic criminals taking advantage of the existing protests as they turn ugly.

 

Protesting or even rioting in some cases can be justified IMO. Looting can not.

a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd: defintion of rioting by merium webster

It cant be justified. The literal defintion of a riot cant be justified. A revelution can be justified not a riot.

 

 

This is a somewhat strange sentiment considering that aside from a few outliers, all revolutions have been composed of a series of riots using the definition given.  Therefore, riots are unjustifiable until they succeed in bringing about political change, then all can be forgiven?

 

How did the US become a country?

Well, a bunch of violent crowds attacked the military of the governing colonial authority until that authority no longer had the means or desire to continue.  Maybe we don't want to think of the Continental Army as being a bunch of rioters, but until the new American government had any international recognition, the members of that army were just crowds disturbing the peace through acts of violent rebellion.

 

 

Protesting or even rioting in some cases can be justified IMO. Looting can not.

a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd: defintion of rioting by merium webster

It cant be justified. The literal defintion of a riot cant be justified. A revelution can be justified not a riot.

 

 

This is a somewhat strange sentiment considering that aside from a few outliers, all revolutions have been composed of a series of riots using the definition given.  Therefore, riots are unjustifiable until they succeed in bringing about political change, then all can be forgiven?

 

How did the US become a country?

Well, a bunch of violent crowds attacked the military of the governing colonial authority until that authority no longer had the means or desire to continue.  Maybe we don't want to think of the Continental Army as being a bunch of rioters, but until the new American government had any international recognition, the members of that army were just crowds disturbing the peace through acts of violent rebellion.

 

Revolution:a forcible overthrow of a government or social order in favor of a new system. Then look at Jus Ad Bellum Theory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum how to justifiy a war. A justified revolution would be conducted by using a series of peaceful protests and media to rile up motiviation then would lead to conflict. Sure in the most literal of senses warfare in itself falls into the defintion which I admit makes it flawed. But in the sense of rioting unless you comply with these principles or are proposing a system of change in a place where a civil right has been violated after sensible debate and consideration and the agknowledment of war. In the sense of rioting that was more what I was going for but I conceed that it was not a perfect analogy/description. It was mean't to applied in a more narrow sense but I get it I made a mistake in delievery. Also everyone seems to revert to the American Revultion as the 'Gotcha' of righteous events but I doubt its a perfect event.

Emudevelopment, I understand what you meant but was being a bit contrarian.

 

Although the idea of Jus ad Bellum theory is a good starting point, it doesn't necessarily get us to a consensus regarding whether any given war (or revolution, attempted or successful, or riot) was justifiable.  For example, on the principle of probability of success, how can we ever, except through hindsight know if this condition was met (and even with the ability to look into the past, this remains difficult to discern, given the large number of serious people who would claim that the Confederacy could have won if only for something, despite the clear manpower and industrial superiority of the north).

 

 

Returning to the actual topic, here's some interesting articles that seem to put the situation in Baltimore, at least among the people who have rational grievances with the city's operation, into context (at least for me):

Here is a 7-month old investigative story by the local Baltimore Sun newspaper on the history of proven police brutality between 2011 and 2014: http://data.baltimoresun.com/news/police-settlements/

This is an article describing the "Law Enforcement Officer Bill of Rights" (LEOBR) laws, of which Maryland was the first to pass, and which may cause people to reasonably think that their police are given greater deference than they deserve or are, to some extent, above the laws which others must abide by: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2015/04/24/the-police-officers-bill-of-rights/

Finally, an article containing a case study of how LEOBR operates in practice, where even video proof of an officer kicking the head of a sitting handcuffed woman, was insufficient to get him jailed, or even automatically barred from remaining a police officer: http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/19/how-special-rights-for-law-enforcement-m

 

That last Reason article describes some differences between in the rights of an accused civilian and an accused police officer, and other privileges that police legally receive:

1. Unlike a member of the public, the officer gets a "cooling off" period before he has to respond to any questions.

2. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is privy to the names of his complainants and their testimony against him before he is ever interrogated.

3. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation is to be interrogated "at a reasonable hour," with a union member present.

4. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can only be questioned by one person during his interrogation.

5. Unlike a member of the public, the officer can be interrogated only "for reasonable periods," which "shall be timed to allow for such personal necessities and rest periods as are reasonably necessary."

6. Unlike a member of the public, the officer under investigation cannot be "threatened with disciplinary action" at any point during his interrogation. If he is threatened with punishment, whatever he says following the threat cannot be used against him.
7. [D]epartments cannot publicly acknowledge that the officer is under investigation; if the officer is cleared of wrongdoing or the charges are dropped, the department may not publicly acknowledge that the investigation ever took place, or reveal the nature of the complaint.
8. If the officer is suspended as a result of the investigation, he must continue to receive full pay and benefits until his case is resolved. In most states, the charging department must subsidize the accused officer's legal defense.

 

It may not be justifiable that someone who sees police as above the law which all others must follow and insulated from their own wrongdoing by the remainder of the police force and/or the local government could choose to riot.  It is probably understandable though.

Edited April 29, 201511 yr by Niels

Protesting or even rioting in some cases can be justified IMO. Looting can not.

words yes, actions no.

 

that said, the words people almost always are long gone when the action people come out and "play".

Causing damage and harm to health and property is a crime, especially if they had nothing to do with whatever is causing the outrage.

 

 

 

Regardless, these violent protesters rioters seem to  take advantage of the situation and are doing what they're good at : reinforcing stereotypes.

This is what is so infuriating about all of these situations. Some people are exercising their right to peaceably assemble, while others are joining to protest violence and perceived injustice by promoting violence and injustice to an extreme. Many of the individuals of Ferguson and Baltimore are doing nothing more than perpetuating and reinforcing the stereotypes that they are screaming are unjust. Larceny, arson, and assault are absolutely unacceptable and each of the persons participating in these activities are taking advantage of the situation because they think they will get away with it given the context. These individuals are not fighting for a cause, they are causing a fight. 

 

On rioting: I don't think the Baltimore riots are justified.

 

But let's say your government  suddenly banned internet use altogether or forced everyone to convert to a particular religion. Wouldn't you protest and if the protests went unheard eventually riot? Because I would, and think it's totally justified, even if it's unlawful.

Edited April 29, 201511 yr by ccabal86

Banning the internet is out of the question. It's too much a part of our freedom of the press, and would never happen. Same with the religion thing... our Constitution would never allow such things to happen. In the USA, no one is supposed to be above the law. I know sometimes that seems to not apply to some, and more to others, but we try. These protests are created to use the law as a means to gather large crowds, and then use them as cover to start a revolution. It will only hurt the communities they target.

I meant "your" in general terms not the US Government In particular - It's obvious it wouldn't realistically happen there. I'm just saying that in some cases rioting would be totally justified, if unlawful.

Banning the internet is out of the question. It's too much a part of our freedom of the press, and would never happen. Same with the religion thing... our Constitution would never allow such things to happen. In the USA, no one is supposed to be above the law. I know sometimes that seems to not apply to some, and more to others, but we try. These protests are created to use the law as a means to gather large crowds, and then use them as cover to start a revolution. It will only hurt the communities they target.

But the law is not equal for allhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/24/former-cia-directors-no-jail-sentence-for-leaking-decried-as-gross-hypocrisy/

 

Banning the internet is out of the question. It's too much a part of our freedom of the press, and would never happen. Same with the religion thing... our Constitution would never allow such things to happen. In the USA, no one is supposed to be above the law. I know sometimes that seems to not apply to some, and more to others, but we try. These protests are created to use the law as a means to gather large crowds, and then use them as cover to start a revolution. It will only hurt the communities they target.

But the law is not equal for allhttp://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2015/04/24/former-cia-directors-no-jail-sentence-for-leaking-decried-as-gross-hypocrisy/

 

CIA Director General David Petraeus resigned his position and plead guilty to talking too much around his girlfriend. I guess anything short of beheading or throwing him off a building is just unthinkable. He took responsibilty for his actions and did the right thing. Comparing him to Bradley Manning or Eric Snowden... two dudes that totally betrayed their country with intent to harm... doesn't even rise to the level of serious critical thinking. Bringing the General up in this conversation is just an example of how no one is above the law. If he was a Democrat he would have taken the 5th, gone on paid leave, and allowed to retire with full pension.

Memorial Day weekend in Baltimore... 32 shot, 9 dead. Baltimore officials are now getting the police force they support.

Actually, I can imagine quite a few scenarios where looting is very well justified...