The list itself states ESPN called that one a riot.
Part of the double standard is that even when it gets called a riot, we don't get the same hand-wringing about "where were the fathers", dog-whistle terms like "urban thugs", etc.
Jumping on your comment since it seems most relevant, but the topic of propaganda is one that has mostly gone unmentioned.
Over the past few days, there has been a massive uptick in the use of social media to spread propaganda and incite further unrest. The most striking examples I've seen are the (seemingly) organized campaign on Twitter called #baltimorelootcrew. This tag is allegedly being used by looters to post images of people they assaulted and of items they stole. If you look at the accounts of the posters, their tweet histories often go back a few days with some really nasty racist stereotypes that would have probably fallen under Poe's Law if not for the fact that earlier Twitter history is loaded with nothing but "gamergate" and other social-justice-trolling stuff. So far it would seem that quite a few of these troll accounts are trying to fan the fire of racial tension.
Then there is the /r/baltimore subreddit. Non-residents from racist and troll subs have piled in and begun posting false "eyewitness" accounts under fake names as well as downvote brigading anyone who is trying to set the record straight (from right there on the ground). While the world is watching the baltimore subreddit, the most upvoted info is often completely fabricated to piss people off.
And then yesterday, there was the reddit live blog which was viewed by at least 10k people at any given time. A few folks who claimed to be transcribing the police scanner logs were in actuality posting false reports of incidents all over the city (which were not actually happening). At one point I messaged the account that was running it and somehow got replies from multiple accounts. When I mentioned that a lot of the info being posted was erroneous, the main poster replied "it's only fake until it's real".
This was also where they kept spamming the alleged flyers advertising more planned riots later in the day. As far as I can tell, these flyers did not originate in the community but from online trolls.
People all over town and around the nation are following Twitter, Reddit, and other social sites but so much of the information is either malicious or part of the dangerous rumor mill that makes claims without verification and only serves to agitate people in a tense situation.
More than pathetic, it proves that a subset of the protestors aren't really sympathetic to the cause - because this does nothing to solve racial tension, if anything, it exacerbates.
Let me help you out here. These were not protestors. These were rioters. HuffPo's coverage of the riots has been abhorrent at best. The gathering of people in the video consisted of teenagers organizing after school yesterday to cause mayhem and "create a purge".
That's a bit of a leap to say that the cops helped start the riots because there are a couple of incidents of cops throwing something.
From the video on the link you referenced, it looked like the cops were in full retreat from a wild crowd throwing objects. One of the cops half-heartedly tossed something back... inappropriate response on his part, but hardly evidence that he was the instigator in anything.
No one's saying that. My comment simply mentioned that cinder blocks were apparently being thrown at firefighters by some protesters. I fully support peaceful protests as they are an effective way to enact change, but violent acts really only harm innocents and turn public support away.
I meant that as a response to crusso. When protesters throw things, it's a blight on all protesters, but when cops throw things, it's just an incident.
Is there a need to twist what I said? I didn't generalize the cops or the protesters.
The poster to whom I was replying stated that the cops "helped start the riots" by throwing objects. I pointed out the problem with that argument, but I'm not excusing the police categorically.
Well in sweden (which is to supposed to be a peaceful nation) there are city districts where the police can't go because the "natives" try to kill them.
Unsurprisingly these places are full of immigrants.
You can pooh-pooh over how they have lousy conditions and are poor and riot because of that, but the fact is that they get everything they need from the state (food, shelter, spending money, schooling, healthcare), and also there has always been poor people in sweden and they haven't had problems with eg. cops or looting and rioting.
So it's probably some kind of cultural thing for people from some places.
You are referring to the report about Malmö & co.? I'm having a hard time finding an english-language analysis which isn't frothing-at-the-mouth xenophobia. If you know of one I would very much like to read it.
FWIW, there are numerous areas in the UK infamous for having firefighters and even medics get attacked in the street - it predominantly seems to be from poor indigenous British kids and teenagers though, certainly not immigrants.
My wife and I live in Baltimore, in Mt. Vernon. We were having dinner the other night in Bolton Hill (a quiet residential area), and four guys ran by the restaurant and tried to throw a chair through the window (chairs turned out to be heavier than they thought). People vandalized the Rite-Aid a few blocks from our apartment, and set fire to a building we could see out our window.
Being from Bangladesh I'm not worried (what's happening in Baltimore happens in Dhaka every other month). But it's a reminder of how fragile the social order is and how close we always are to its collapse.
Probably because there aren't enough people in Greenland to get a good riot going. Shakespeare wrote about riots in England--some of them, to be sure, targeted against Germans. Scotland has had its riots, Berlin has had some. I could mention the Boston Tea Party, but let's face it, those Yankees were immigrants.
The Yankees were colonizers more than immigrants --England had dominion over the territory and people came over to colonize as English subjects. In other words they were 'domestic' immigrants as opposed to alien (Swiss, Spanish, etc.) immigrants.
> But it's a reminder of how fragile the social order is and how close we always are to its collapse.
It makes me wonder if "civilization" really exists, or if we really are just small groups of self-centered "tribes" with sets of overlapping goals...until they aren't.
Fiction writers have made extensive use of this tenuous balance as a plot point. "Under the Dome" by Stephen King comes immediately to mind as one recent example. Once the "boundary" goes up, the town's social order falls apart surprisingly fast (within days, even though power, water, food, and services are still there).
>if we really are just small groups of self-centered "tribes" with sets of overlapping goals...until they aren't.
Look at criminals, especially those who violate moral standards we hold as sacred. Each of us is only a good citizen as long as our goals align, though those goals can be more complex than they first appear (such as altruism).
That's a good point. I had been thinking about the "positive" outcomes of those overlapping concerns but you are right to point out that social mores are a very grey area.
I find your relaxed attitude quite perplexing. Only one moment of chance, madness, and anguish may have shattered your life. Shouldn't you be outraged at the fragility of your social order?
I'm sorry, but you're American. I've read your insightful, articulate comments. You were educated here, you live here, and you contribute to this society. You should be indignant that your conception of your place in America is framed by some past life. First, it is dishonest. You do not live and survive in Dhaka. And second, to me at least, it is an indication of your internalized acceptance of non-American-ness.
This is a problem of America. It is a problem for blacks, it is a problem for the poor, it is a problem for the immigrant, it is a problem for the non-sexually normative, it is a problem for the incarcerated, the list just goes on and on. Yet somehow it is totally un-American to recognize this as a problem. Perhaps it is the very definition of American-ness.
I am a techie. Today, I loved the discussion of Linus on endianness, and poor userland. I can't help but wonder what a gift it is to have him in America, but also wonder if he has fears about the future of the country his children will embrace fully as their own.
My wishes for the safety of you, your wife, and your city.
I'm not relaxed because I think it's someone else's problem. I'm unsurprised because I recognize through past experience that violent rioting is part of the human experience, always closer to the surface than we would hope. But thank you for the good wishes.
I think the context was in order to give space for nonviolent protest, they created a space where some people would act in unproductive/violent ways.
My take was it was meant in a similar spirit as our free speech protections; allowing wide berths for free speech leads to a lot of destructive speech. Preventing nonviolent protests requires militarization a la Ferguson.
While I agree in sprit, I don't think that a quote like that should be spoken at a press conference, chopped, twisted and hashed by the media and then interpreted by already irrational protestors. It's encouraging violence and destruction of others property.
He or she may not feel like exposing their identity but what they say is not that far off. Most of the violence is not by the local people who will be directly impacted by the violence in the neighborhoods. It's by people who found a nice excuse to vent whatever frustration they have violently and anonymously. These acts don't further justice -the same way mistreating arrestees does not further justice. They coopt the frustration of the community and corrupt it and moreover set the community back in terms of forward development.
I think the problem is more your interpretation with what they are saying than what the words they said. Also, who are the people above the law, the rioters, the bad police, its not clear, but we know both contribute to destruction.
There's an article in the Atlantic[1] that explains that there have been a good deal of civil cases settled for police brutality and racism, but none of the perpetrators have been charged. It seems to me that there is no reason for a person to die in custody, but right now, the people in charge of Baltimore don't have an explanation of how Freddy Gray died.
It's not just about the police. It's about an entire society that has self-assembled into a caste system by treating some portions of the society as wards of the state.
The wards of the state aren't expected to be independent and responsible. They're given handouts in exchanges for their votes, and over time you have a whole generation that can't take care of itself. That's when the state steps in to take care of its wards "for their own good", and it's inevitable that over-corrections will happen.
Yes let's blame poor people. You realise we don't have this problem in countries with even larger welfare systems because our police aren't so heavily militarised and given free reign with no consequences?
Where did I blame poor people? Why do discussions like this on HN have to be so twisted and toxic?
If anything, I would blame the political elitist class that uses shiny beads to buy power and then perpetuates the misery of their constituents by not giving them a good education and the means to improve their lot.
I think it was meant to be a complaint about the political party that consistently keeps certain demographics beholden to them with policies that are made in the guise of "helping".
The problem isn't the police. The police are a good target of authority. The real problem is economic.
Even with all the current police injustices, the negative impact from them is less than the impact if they withdrew from the neighborhood. In that sense they are a net good. Of course people want the peace and prosperity reduced crime brings but also want less authority looking down but most of all they want economic opportunity when they know its available to other communities, its the immediate contrast which is most damning. I.e. your neighbors have it good and you don't and society tells you you can have too but for the life of you, it seems like a scam is being played on you.
This however is a long term issue. It's generational. The community has to help itself as much as it needs a helping hand from others. Community organizations which give people support, direction and even punishment. But lots of that is missing and you have disaffected people and opportunists who take these circumstances as an excuse for more violence instead of trying to build something positive.
True, but that's an injustice which affects all poor communities. But I hope this interpretation of fines as revenue stream gets revisited and tossed out. The problem is this came about from anti tax initiatives like prop 13 in Calif. Money has to come from somewhere to keep the lights on.
I also don't think the fines and other ridiculous fees are used as weapons, but rather path of least resistance in generating revenue because people vote taxes down.
It's unfortunate that it had to come to this, but I believe the rioters were justified in their actions. If the police departments in the United States do not account for their actions, or worse, defend officers that have committed acts that show an indiscriminate disregard for the well being of those they're sworn to protect, they should be prepared to face violent resistance from the people.
Were the police justified when they beat an unarmed suspect and denied him medical attention that would have saved his life? Were they justified when they refused to bring those responsible to justice?
There is no system in place where this can end with justice. Every time that justice has been called for in cases of police brutality against minorities over the past year, only once was that justice served. Murderers are at large, and richer for, injustices that were defended by the system. Those that are supposed to deliver justice consider themselves all-powerful and above the laws they should be upholding. Justice failed Michael Brown and all the others that died at the hands of police officers on a power trip. When justice doesn't work, what is there to turn to?
> Justice failed Michael Brown and all the others that died at the hands of police officers on a power trip.
How do you conclude that justice failed Michael Brown? The physical evidence pretty overwhelmingly backs the officer's account of their encounter. See the DoJ's report for a discussion of this.
If you want a face for people unjustifiably killed by police, why not someone like Eric Garner, who was doing nothing wrong before or during his encounter with the police and so whose killing was clearly unjustified?
"I contend that the cry of 'black power' is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard." ― Martin Luther King Jr.
That's an awfully big assumption. Was the fact that the police beat this guy and cracked his spine reported in the Baltimore Sun yesterday?
There has been no conclusion that that is the case. Those that are rioting are guilty of exactly what they accuse the police of. I believe the mayor called them "thugs".
He was able to run away from the police BEFORE they arrested him. After he was transported to the police station, he was found to be severely injured and the folks at the police station sent him immediately to the hospital.
I'm going to use logic here for a minute. There are only two possibilities for how this happened. Either it happened at the hands of the police, or another force.
Who is this other force, and how were they able to overpower the police? Did they overpower them in public? You know, like in the video we can see? Or did they forcibly stop a police vehicle, beat the man half to death and then let the police vehicle continue on. And how did this arguably criminal act go unreported and un-pursued by the police? The police typically take crimes against their own pretty seriously.
If you find the line of reasoning that some other mysterious force caused these injuries suspect, I would tend to agree with you.
It is possible to break a bone and have the injury remain somewhat stable for some time.
I do not offer that as an explanation of what happened, but simply as a third possibility, that he was already injured when taken into custody, but that the severity of the injury was not apparent.
I'm not a doctor but I doubt that your vertebra can be crushed and you can move around as normal. You'd think that a guy who had a broken neck would be trying to get to a hospital, not just hanging out.
If we're really going to stretch, it's possible that God reached into the van and snapped his neck despite the police officers doing an incredibly professional job and it's literally nobody's fault; an act of God.
Sorry, his trachea was crushed and his spinal cord was 80% severed according to his family, which presumably heard it from his doctor. I mis-typed that one.
So let me get this straight. He breaks his neck, but things are mostly OK since he's still walking around. Then he gets arrested and that's when the bones slip and paralyzes him from the neck down? Oh and somewhere in there his trachea gets crushed? Or was that crushed before hand too?
What you're suggesting is very, very implausible and so I wouldn't say that comparing it to something supernatural is all that mocking. The point is that rational people don't know everything about the world and to 100% discount the supernatural is pretty arrogant. But I think the odds that there was a two-factor injury to this guy are about the same as the odds that God snapped his neck. Can't rule it out completely (again nobody knows everything unless you're God), but probably not a good idea to argue it in court.
He was asking for his inhaler during the initial arrest (aka complaining that he was having difficulty breathing).
I don't pretend to be informed enough to say how likely it was he sustained significant injuries prior to the arrest. I guess I think it is more likely that the significant injuries came after the arrest, but given further evidence that more clearly established the nature of the injuries and indicated it happening prior, I wouldn't simply deny the possibility out of hand.
It looks like even if it did happen prior, they still hugely screwed up by not more carefully assessing his injuries (the typical thing to do if a neck injury is even suspected is to immobilize it as soon as is possible).
I find it disconcerting that Lancey's comment is down voted. It's the the only post so far that actually addresses the problem directly and honestly. You can wring your hands about how terrible it is that they rioted, looted, vandalized, assaulted, and that an opportune moment for protest was lost, but then you're ignoring the truth of the matter.
The reality is that this happened, because of ongoing police brutality against a minority that is already feeling the pressure of racism, unemployment, incarceration, and other social disadvantages.
You can't pretend those are just all bad people waiting for a chance for thuggery. We, as Americans, have created this by the way we have structured our society to allow for ever growing inequality. And by allowing the police to become para-military in their methods.
It's obviously too late for protests. You've got civil unrest now. Is it even possible to stop it?
How does "violent resistance from the people" against officers who "show an indiscriminate disregard for the well being of those they're sworn to protect" involve burning down a family owned business[0] that has nothing to do with the Freddie Gray case? How can you justify such acts?
There is no justification for this kind of violence. And it's not even directed against law enforcement.
Further more, in the near future it will be used as an excuse to further militarize the police, increase its budgets and reduce civil liberties even more - think Camden, NJ where drug traffic is an excuse to discourage white people to walk and black people to sit on street corners (VICE S02E12).
>> There is no justification for this kind of violence. <<
This is what I'm talking about in my previous post. It actually ignores that it happened - regardless of how justified or wrong or morally outraged you might feel about it. The reality is it's going on whether you feel it's justified or not.
Are you aware that it's not the police or city who own the CVS? It's also not the police or the city who own the 7-11. It's not police or the city who own Binta's African Hair, or the community center, or the stores in the Mondawmin mall, or the McDonalds, or the majority of the other property that was damaged. It's individuals, private citizens, neighbors of those who are looting. Will you please explain how looting and burning down your neighbors private property is justified by civil rights violations that may have been committed by agents of the government?
A black man killed in police custody and large peaceful protest doesn't even register as a blip on any radar. It was a footnote in the media and something politicans ignore practically every month in the US.
The riots have very significantly raised this issue to the public. Sure a lot of people are just going to write it off as mindless violence (and a lot of it is) but in reality destruction of random private and community property is literally the only way that the rage can be channeled. It isn't feasible for them to burn down the police station, or else they would have.
These people are literally destroying their own community which is failing to serve them. Seems like pretty powerful message and effective imagery for the media to me.
Have you read any history? Riots such as these happened all during the late 1960's in response to much worse oppression during the time period. Virtually all these riots made the black community worse off. Their own business districts were destroyed, anyone with any money fled the city, the tax base collapsed, crime got even more out of control.
If the black community in Baltimore want to solve police oppression, here is a positive way they can do it: 1) form a neighborhood association with a neighborhood police force to handle issues of crime. These police officers would be elected and controlled by the community. 2) Tell the center city police that they no longer have to police the black neighborhoods, which the police would like, it is not a fun job. When a case of police brutality breaks out, tell the police to stay of the hood from now on or face reprisals. 3) Tell their elected officials - (who are black, the majority of the voters are black in Baltimore) to disband the police.
> Have you read any history? Riots such as these happened all during the late 1960's in response to much worse oppression during the time period.
My argument is that we are seeing undirected anger as a hail mary. The people are powerless, they know they are powerless, and they are knowingly making their own community permanently worse just to have their voices heard for one weekend. That isn't the same as making completely irrational decisions: it is weighing being heard today over the long term economic success of the community.
Consider this: what would it take to drive you to this behavior? Do you think that these community members are really so fundamentally different from you and me, or is their powerless so persistent and severe that even you and I would become so hopeless and full of rage that we would burn our own community and challenge militarized police?
> 1) form a neighborhood association with a neighborhood police force to handle issues of crime. These police officers would be elected and controlled by the community.
A random person on the street being detained by a random neighborhood police force? I'm skeptical there is a legal basis to allow this kind of behavior, do you have any reference to this kind of thing? Even separate from the legal implications (which are significant), I'm also skeptical that the Baltimore PD would honestly go along with this plan happily.
I (personally) can almost rationalize rioting if the target of the violence is a symbol of the population that the mob see as their oppressor.
Take for instance, the Los Angeles riots in 1992. If significant mobs of rioters had streamed out of South Los Angeles, marched up La Cienega Blvd., taken a left on Wilshire, and then laid waste to establishments in Beverly Hills, it would make perverse sense.
However, for the most part, this didn't happen. While the violence and looting was geographically widespread across the Los Angeles basin, the neighborhoods where it happened were often the same ones that the rioters lived in. The same neighborhoods that their friends and families shopped in, played in, and ultimately where they continued to live in after the six days of rioting ended.
This represents something else than just a "justification". I'm not a sociologist, but as a person it's pretty clear to me that something else is going on if you decide to, proverbially, "shit where you sleep".
People have been protesting peacefully in Baltimore all last week with 0 answers from the police or elected officials. No media was talking about it, there was no Freddie Gray thread on hackernews, but now the whole world is talking about it.
1. This is a community primarily for technology posts. Occasionally news makes it here but it has to be a pretty big story.
2. Although this is a relatively big story it's a US centric story when HN is a global community. Personally I've seen so many of these horrible police brutality stories from the US in the last year that they've lost my attention. I saw the Twitter hash tag a few days ago, saw it was a police brutality thing, and didn't even bother looking further. It's almost become accepted fact that police in the US are militarised, heavy handed, and criminal, and no matter what the reaction there or around the world is nobody seems to have the ability to (or want to) change things.
> People have been protesting peacefully in Baltimore all last week with 0 answers from the police or elected officials. No media was talking about it, [...]
It's almost a law of the internet that when someone claims media is not talking about something they turn out to be wrong:
April 24th: stories in New York Times, New York Magazine, Wall Street Journal, Boston Herald, NPR, NBC News, ABC News.
April 23rd: CNN, The Guardian, ABC News, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor.
April 22nd: TIME, Daily Mail, New York Daily News, ABC News, Christian Science Monitor.
April 21st: CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, ABC News, Huffington Post, The New Yorker, The Guardian
April 20th: New York Times, NBC News, Washington Post, The Guardian, Slate.
April 19th: CBS News, Al Jazeera America, Wall Street Journal.
Northen America cities are really not geometrically in favour of law enforcement. L1 geometry + size of blocks gives an unfair advantage to the rioters. Which means law enforcement have to resort to excessive violence to squash demonstration, and the government to use excessive measures to protect social peace (such as spying their own citizens).
Designing cities for cars and not the "humans beings" may have been a cost.
Aren't North American cities generally grid based? wouldn't this make it easy for police to for lines, block off several streets, and contain rioters within a block or two?
See New York where protesters could easily avoid cops by creating multiple incidents at once and dispersing in different directions when police resistance arrives. It takes too long for an organized group to move through the city and that can be used to spread police thin.
> Yes, there is a lot to be argued, debated, addressed. And this moment, as inevitable as it has sometimes seemed, can still, in the end, prove transformational, if not redemptive for our city. Changes are necessary and voices need to be heard. All of that is true and all of that is still possible, despite what is now loose in the streets.
> But now — in this moment — the anger and the selfishness and the brutality of those claiming the right to violence in Freddie Gray’s name needs to cease. There was real power and potential in the peaceful protests that spoke in Mr. Gray’s name initially, and there was real unity at his homegoing today. But this, now, in the streets, is an affront to that man’s memory and a dimunition of the absolute moral lesson that underlies his unnecessary death.
> If you can’t seek redress and demand reform without a brick in your hand, you risk losing this moment for all of us in Baltimore. Turn around. Go home. Please.
Well, I guess I shouldn't be surprised that seemingly half the comments here look like they could have been posted on Stormfront, but it's still disappointing.
109 comments
[ 3.6 ms ] story [ 167 ms ] threadThat's pathetic.
http://mic.com/articles/116680/11-stunning-images-highlight-...
Part of the double standard is that even when it gets called a riot, we don't get the same hand-wringing about "where were the fathers", dog-whistle terms like "urban thugs", etc.
Over the past few days, there has been a massive uptick in the use of social media to spread propaganda and incite further unrest. The most striking examples I've seen are the (seemingly) organized campaign on Twitter called #baltimorelootcrew. This tag is allegedly being used by looters to post images of people they assaulted and of items they stole. If you look at the accounts of the posters, their tweet histories often go back a few days with some really nasty racist stereotypes that would have probably fallen under Poe's Law if not for the fact that earlier Twitter history is loaded with nothing but "gamergate" and other social-justice-trolling stuff. So far it would seem that quite a few of these troll accounts are trying to fan the fire of racial tension.
Then there is the /r/baltimore subreddit. Non-residents from racist and troll subs have piled in and begun posting false "eyewitness" accounts under fake names as well as downvote brigading anyone who is trying to set the record straight (from right there on the ground). While the world is watching the baltimore subreddit, the most upvoted info is often completely fabricated to piss people off.
And then yesterday, there was the reddit live blog which was viewed by at least 10k people at any given time. A few folks who claimed to be transcribing the police scanner logs were in actuality posting false reports of incidents all over the city (which were not actually happening). At one point I messaged the account that was running it and somehow got replies from multiple accounts. When I mentioned that a lot of the info being posted was erroneous, the main poster replied "it's only fake until it's real".
This was also where they kept spamming the alleged flyers advertising more planned riots later in the day. As far as I can tell, these flyers did not originate in the community but from online trolls.
People all over town and around the nation are following Twitter, Reddit, and other social sites but so much of the information is either malicious or part of the dangerous rumor mill that makes claims without verification and only serves to agitate people in a tense situation.
From the video on the link you referenced, it looked like the cops were in full retreat from a wild crowd throwing objects. One of the cops half-heartedly tossed something back... inappropriate response on his part, but hardly evidence that he was the instigator in anything.
Protesters do a bad thing: "Pathetic rioters! Ungrateful youths! Sit down and do as you're told!"
The poster to whom I was replying stated that the cops "helped start the riots" by throwing objects. I pointed out the problem with that argument, but I'm not excusing the police categorically.
Unsurprisingly these places are full of immigrants.
You can pooh-pooh over how they have lousy conditions and are poor and riot because of that, but the fact is that they get everything they need from the state (food, shelter, spending money, schooling, healthcare), and also there has always been poor people in sweden and they haven't had problems with eg. cops or looting and rioting.
So it's probably some kind of cultural thing for people from some places.
Being from Bangladesh I'm not worried (what's happening in Baltimore happens in Dhaka every other month). But it's a reminder of how fragile the social order is and how close we always are to its collapse.
Why do countries which didn't have unsafe streets now do after immigration?
Although I seem to distinctly remember my city of Philadelphia rioting pretty good after the Philadelphia Phillies won the World Series...
In fact, America has seen a lot of protests and riots, for example in Brazil and Mexico.
It makes me wonder if "civilization" really exists, or if we really are just small groups of self-centered "tribes" with sets of overlapping goals...until they aren't.
Fiction writers have made extensive use of this tenuous balance as a plot point. "Under the Dome" by Stephen King comes immediately to mind as one recent example. Once the "boundary" goes up, the town's social order falls apart surprisingly fast (within days, even though power, water, food, and services are still there).
Look at criminals, especially those who violate moral standards we hold as sacred. Each of us is only a good citizen as long as our goals align, though those goals can be more complex than they first appear (such as altruism).
I'm sorry, but you're American. I've read your insightful, articulate comments. You were educated here, you live here, and you contribute to this society. You should be indignant that your conception of your place in America is framed by some past life. First, it is dishonest. You do not live and survive in Dhaka. And second, to me at least, it is an indication of your internalized acceptance of non-American-ness.
This is a problem of America. It is a problem for blacks, it is a problem for the poor, it is a problem for the immigrant, it is a problem for the non-sexually normative, it is a problem for the incarcerated, the list just goes on and on. Yet somehow it is totally un-American to recognize this as a problem. Perhaps it is the very definition of American-ness.
I am a techie. Today, I loved the discussion of Linus on endianness, and poor userland. I can't help but wonder what a gift it is to have him in America, but also wonder if he has fears about the future of the country his children will embrace fully as their own.
My wishes for the safety of you, your wife, and your city.
My take was it was meant in a similar spirit as our free speech protections; allowing wide berths for free speech leads to a lot of destructive speech. Preventing nonviolent protests requires militarization a la Ferguson.
It really doesn't matter how well-crafted the statement; we'll misinterpret because we're Americans and that's what we do.
I think the problem is more your interpretation with what they are saying than what the words they said. Also, who are the people above the law, the rioters, the bad police, its not clear, but we know both contribute to destruction.
[1] http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/nonviole...
The wards of the state aren't expected to be independent and responsible. They're given handouts in exchanges for their votes, and over time you have a whole generation that can't take care of itself. That's when the state steps in to take care of its wards "for their own good", and it's inevitable that over-corrections will happen.
If anything, I would blame the political elitist class that uses shiny beads to buy power and then perpetuates the misery of their constituents by not giving them a good education and the means to improve their lot.
Even with all the current police injustices, the negative impact from them is less than the impact if they withdrew from the neighborhood. In that sense they are a net good. Of course people want the peace and prosperity reduced crime brings but also want less authority looking down but most of all they want economic opportunity when they know its available to other communities, its the immediate contrast which is most damning. I.e. your neighbors have it good and you don't and society tells you you can have too but for the life of you, it seems like a scam is being played on you.
This however is a long term issue. It's generational. The community has to help itself as much as it needs a helping hand from others. Community organizations which give people support, direction and even punishment. But lots of that is missing and you have disaffected people and opportunists who take these circumstances as an excuse for more violence instead of trying to build something positive.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2014/11/26/h...
I also don't think the fines and other ridiculous fees are used as weapons, but rather path of least resistance in generating revenue because people vote taxes down.
People only point it out as being some sort of new phenomenon when minorities are the ones lashing out.
What does offend me is your assertion that what I said had ANYTHING to do with race.
How do you conclude that justice failed Michael Brown? The physical evidence pretty overwhelmingly backs the officer's account of their encounter. See the DoJ's report for a discussion of this.
If you want a face for people unjustifiably killed by police, why not someone like Eric Garner, who was doing nothing wrong before or during his encounter with the police and so whose killing was clearly unjustified?
There has been no conclusion that that is the case. Those that are rioting are guilty of exactly what they accuse the police of. I believe the mayor called them "thugs".
I'm going to use logic here for a minute. There are only two possibilities for how this happened. Either it happened at the hands of the police, or another force.
Who is this other force, and how were they able to overpower the police? Did they overpower them in public? You know, like in the video we can see? Or did they forcibly stop a police vehicle, beat the man half to death and then let the police vehicle continue on. And how did this arguably criminal act go unreported and un-pursued by the police? The police typically take crimes against their own pretty seriously.
If you find the line of reasoning that some other mysterious force caused these injuries suspect, I would tend to agree with you.
I do not offer that as an explanation of what happened, but simply as a third possibility, that he was already injured when taken into custody, but that the severity of the injury was not apparent.
If we're really going to stretch, it's possible that God reached into the van and snapped his neck despite the police officers doing an incredibly professional job and it's literally nobody's fault; an act of God.
Since you are mocking me, could you please point out where it is reported that his vertebra were crushed?
So let me get this straight. He breaks his neck, but things are mostly OK since he's still walking around. Then he gets arrested and that's when the bones slip and paralyzes him from the neck down? Oh and somewhere in there his trachea gets crushed? Or was that crushed before hand too?
What you're suggesting is very, very implausible and so I wouldn't say that comparing it to something supernatural is all that mocking. The point is that rational people don't know everything about the world and to 100% discount the supernatural is pretty arrogant. But I think the odds that there was a two-factor injury to this guy are about the same as the odds that God snapped his neck. Can't rule it out completely (again nobody knows everything unless you're God), but probably not a good idea to argue it in court.
I don't pretend to be informed enough to say how likely it was he sustained significant injuries prior to the arrest. I guess I think it is more likely that the significant injuries came after the arrest, but given further evidence that more clearly established the nature of the injuries and indicated it happening prior, I wouldn't simply deny the possibility out of hand.
It looks like even if it did happen prior, they still hugely screwed up by not more carefully assessing his injuries (the typical thing to do if a neck injury is even suspected is to immobilize it as soon as is possible).
IF this event leads to better policing, you'll have an argument.
Nobody that holds power is thinking "these people deserve more" right now.
The reality is that this happened, because of ongoing police brutality against a minority that is already feeling the pressure of racism, unemployment, incarceration, and other social disadvantages.
You can't pretend those are just all bad people waiting for a chance for thuggery. We, as Americans, have created this by the way we have structured our society to allow for ever growing inequality. And by allowing the police to become para-military in their methods.
It's obviously too late for protests. You've got civil unrest now. Is it even possible to stop it?
edit: fixed a typo
[0]:http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2015/04/28/ctn-cuomo-liquor-sto...
Further more, in the near future it will be used as an excuse to further militarize the police, increase its budgets and reduce civil liberties even more - think Camden, NJ where drug traffic is an excuse to discourage white people to walk and black people to sit on street corners (VICE S02E12).
This is what I'm talking about in my previous post. It actually ignores that it happened - regardless of how justified or wrong or morally outraged you might feel about it. The reality is it's going on whether you feel it's justified or not.
The riots have very significantly raised this issue to the public. Sure a lot of people are just going to write it off as mindless violence (and a lot of it is) but in reality destruction of random private and community property is literally the only way that the rage can be channeled. It isn't feasible for them to burn down the police station, or else they would have.
These people are literally destroying their own community which is failing to serve them. Seems like pretty powerful message and effective imagery for the media to me.
If the black community in Baltimore want to solve police oppression, here is a positive way they can do it: 1) form a neighborhood association with a neighborhood police force to handle issues of crime. These police officers would be elected and controlled by the community. 2) Tell the center city police that they no longer have to police the black neighborhoods, which the police would like, it is not a fun job. When a case of police brutality breaks out, tell the police to stay of the hood from now on or face reprisals. 3) Tell their elected officials - (who are black, the majority of the voters are black in Baltimore) to disband the police.
My argument is that we are seeing undirected anger as a hail mary. The people are powerless, they know they are powerless, and they are knowingly making their own community permanently worse just to have their voices heard for one weekend. That isn't the same as making completely irrational decisions: it is weighing being heard today over the long term economic success of the community.
Consider this: what would it take to drive you to this behavior? Do you think that these community members are really so fundamentally different from you and me, or is their powerless so persistent and severe that even you and I would become so hopeless and full of rage that we would burn our own community and challenge militarized police?
> 1) form a neighborhood association with a neighborhood police force to handle issues of crime. These police officers would be elected and controlled by the community.
A random person on the street being detained by a random neighborhood police force? I'm skeptical there is a legal basis to allow this kind of behavior, do you have any reference to this kind of thing? Even separate from the legal implications (which are significant), I'm also skeptical that the Baltimore PD would honestly go along with this plan happily.
Take for instance, the Los Angeles riots in 1992. If significant mobs of rioters had streamed out of South Los Angeles, marched up La Cienega Blvd., taken a left on Wilshire, and then laid waste to establishments in Beverly Hills, it would make perverse sense.
However, for the most part, this didn't happen. While the violence and looting was geographically widespread across the Los Angeles basin, the neighborhoods where it happened were often the same ones that the rioters lived in. The same neighborhoods that their friends and families shopped in, played in, and ultimately where they continued to live in after the six days of rioting ended.
This represents something else than just a "justification". I'm not a sociologist, but as a person it's pretty clear to me that something else is going on if you decide to, proverbially, "shit where you sleep".
1. This is a community primarily for technology posts. Occasionally news makes it here but it has to be a pretty big story.
2. Although this is a relatively big story it's a US centric story when HN is a global community. Personally I've seen so many of these horrible police brutality stories from the US in the last year that they've lost my attention. I saw the Twitter hash tag a few days ago, saw it was a police brutality thing, and didn't even bother looking further. It's almost become accepted fact that police in the US are militarised, heavy handed, and criminal, and no matter what the reaction there or around the world is nobody seems to have the ability to (or want to) change things.
It's almost a law of the internet that when someone claims media is not talking about something they turn out to be wrong:
April 24th: stories in New York Times, New York Magazine, Wall Street Journal, Boston Herald, NPR, NBC News, ABC News.
April 23rd: CNN, The Guardian, ABC News, Washington Post, Christian Science Monitor.
April 22nd: TIME, Daily Mail, New York Daily News, ABC News, Christian Science Monitor.
April 21st: CNN, Washington Post, New York Times, ABC News, Huffington Post, The New Yorker, The Guardian
April 20th: New York Times, NBC News, Washington Post, The Guardian, Slate.
April 19th: CBS News, Al Jazeera America, Wall Street Journal.
Designing cities for cars and not the "humans beings" may have been a cost.
> Yes, there is a lot to be argued, debated, addressed. And this moment, as inevitable as it has sometimes seemed, can still, in the end, prove transformational, if not redemptive for our city. Changes are necessary and voices need to be heard. All of that is true and all of that is still possible, despite what is now loose in the streets.
> But now — in this moment — the anger and the selfishness and the brutality of those claiming the right to violence in Freddie Gray’s name needs to cease. There was real power and potential in the peaceful protests that spoke in Mr. Gray’s name initially, and there was real unity at his homegoing today. But this, now, in the streets, is an affront to that man’s memory and a dimunition of the absolute moral lesson that underlies his unnecessary death.
> If you can’t seek redress and demand reform without a brick in your hand, you risk losing this moment for all of us in Baltimore. Turn around. Go home. Please.