The Dolphins Make Me Cry.com - Forums

I love the fact many blacks have spoken out against the violence in Baltimore and I pray Jesse and Al would take note. Its really the first sign I've seen of being able to get past the dumb things that have happened involving police. The Freddie Gray situation seems screwed up but its really hard to see that when so much other destruction is distracting from the issue.

Here is the latest video from Ray Lewis calling out the kids in Baltimore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0HNCjMnHtj0

Responding with violence and looting muffles the criminal actions of the police. Not to mention, it gives the police an excuse to say "this is why we do what we do. Look at the dangerous people we have to deal with".

The mayor is also responsible with her "space to destroy" comments. Now innocent business owners and citizens are being harmed by her soft-handed approach.

I think the simplest solution for both sides is for all police to wear badge cameras.  It will calm the actions of both the police and citizens.

I'm not sure that's the case. It may help some, but some people already have their mind made up so no matter what they see on video, they will still go to the same place as far as their reaction.

The cycle of problems will not abate until two things happen:

1. The police community must come out strong against police brutality.  When the Rodney King video (and others came out).  LEO at every level across the country (particularly white cops) must condemn the behavior and state unequivocally that the offenders are a disgrace to the badge and do not represent our commitment to protect and serve.

2. The vast majority of blacks who are law abiding citizens must come out strong and unequivocally condemn the rioters. 

Only when both of those thing occur with the cycle be broken.  Occasionally but all too infrequently the second occurs.  The first never occurs. 

Some people, yes, but it will restore (some) faith in the police system that a portion of the general public sees as corrupt.  Part of the argument, I think, is that "this is the stuff that we see on video; imagine all the bad stuff we don't see."

This stuff is documented.  Badge cameras immediately drop both incidences towards police and complaints against police.  It just calms the situation.

I support dashboard and badge cameras.  It shows what actually happened making it easier to stem police misconduct AND gather evidence against actual criminal behavior.  A dash board camera showing the suspect falling down drunk is more compelling than a cop simply saying the guys was drunk when prosecuting a DUI. 

*LIKE* I completely agree with you on this Hoodie and I think what is happening in Baltimore is a great place to start!

Unfortunately, what is also happening in Baltimore is that you have a mayor who did not do what was necessary to maintain the public peace. In my opinion, she is partially liable for what has happened to the private property and businesses of those affected.

I'm not sure how much video will help; Eric Garner was killed on video (using methods explicitly prohibited by the NYPD) and nothing happened.  Nevertheless, it's a start.

You may find this video interesting.  Currently, there is a story circulating (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/28/us/baltimore-freddie-gray.html?_r=0) that Baltimore gangs had “entered into a partnership to ‘take out’ law enforcement officers.”  A local news station interviewed some of Baltimore's gang members at one of the church rallies, and they say that they called a truce to try to stop the rioting:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=135&v=0HaaRZ8nxd4

In any case, while I agree that rioting is not the answer, I don't agree that the way to "get past the dumb things that have happened involving police" is just for black leaders to speak out in favor of civility.  Police brutality is a major problem in America and there are still too many people who don't even seem to acknowledge that it exists at all; law enforcement organizations need to stand up and declare that the kind of brutality we have seen in recent months is unacceptable.

It will take work from both sides to resolve this issue.

Is it wrong that I just want to blast "April 29th, 1992 (Miami)" right now?

The idea behind badge cameras is not just to punish cops that shoot.  It's to keep cops from shooting, because they know they're being recorded.  It's also to keep perps from fleeing, because they're being recorded and they'll likely be caught later anyway.

It's just more transparency to every situation, for all parties.

Police abuse of power across the board is an issue in America, but when you go out and act violent as a mob, endangering businesses and innocent civilians, it gives police an out to say they need to behave the way behave because look at what they are dealing with. It "justifies" the militarization of police.

People are no longer paying attention to the acts of brutality by police in Baltimore. Their attention has now gone to the acts of violence by a mob of thugs and criminals.

The cops are now off the hook despite what appears to be police malfeasance that led to the murder of Freddie Gray.

The people who are rioting are already thugs.  I doubt you find many hard-working family-men, who clock out at 5PM after a hard days work to then flip over a police cruiser and light it on fire.

Nothing can be done for ignorant thugs.  It doesn't mean that the community that is upset doesn't have a point.

I'm surprised no one has spoken about this mother. She slapped her son for being out there as one of the rioters.

http://time.com/3838330/baltimore-mother-slapping-protester/

What constituted "paying attention to the acts of brutality" before the riots?  The police have been in a perpetual state of "off the hook" since all of these killings started, where every incident is classified as either a fully-justified use of deadly force or a lone bad cop gone rogue.  At no point have police departments been held to greater accountability for the culture they have created among their officers.

This is not to justify the riots; as you said, violent protests only serve to distract from the original issue.  However, at a certain level, when people are being killed over and over and nothing is being done, frustration is unavoidable.

That was awesome. ;D

Somehow, I doubt we will see all the same people who jumped on Adrian Peterson and Ray Rice admonishing this mother for domestic violence.

Remember, when a woman is violent, it's funny and/or appropriate...

Somehow, I have a hard time believing that even a Gumby-esque person like you could stretch what this mother did to her 16-year old rioting son to the bloody and bruising beating that Adrian gave his 4-year old son.

I can only assume that a mentally retarded child hijacked your keyboard...

Don't forget, I also compared it to what Ray Rice did to his adult girlfriend.

I am disappointed, but not surprised, to see that after people like Cris Carter were on TV crying and saying that violence against children is wrong! we now have law enforcement openly cheering it.

The main problem I have with this is that we had the media insisting that Peterson didn't just take corporal punishment too far... no, he's a monster and hitting your kids is never acceptable.  I didn't hear any of them making the argument that "it's OK to hit your kids a little bit, but not that much"; the most people would say in Peterson's defense is that he comes from a backward culture and he just doesn't know any better.

I'm just tired of this hypocrisy when it comes to hitting children.  Outlaw it, or don't, but stop playing this game where we cheer parents for hitting their kids some of the time and condemn them for hitting them other times.  (If this was a father hitting his rioting daughter on national TV, the entire media would be losing their effing minds right now.)

^^^ Doesn't context matter? I don't know how Peterson's kid behaves but let's just say he is a normal kid but Peterson decides everyday to hit him with a switch or stick or whatever he used. That's unreasonable. But hitting your kid to stop looting and causing mischief should be applauded. You can't have a broad rule, there has to be exceptions.

No one is talking about Freddie Gray anymore. Thought that was obvious...

 ::)

Please don't let the thread be derailed from the topic of discussion because someone wants to be an agent provocateur.

My bad. I shall go back to the sidelines.

And what did talking about Eric Garner or Tamir Rice or John Crawford accomplish?  You are acting like simply talking about these slayings (while law enforcement is protected from consequences) is some sort of valuable resolution.

edit: Furthermore, even in this thread, the subject was never really Freddie Gray.  The thread was started not to talk about his death, but to praise black leaders who admonish black rioters (and later switched to a discussion of rioting and unrest in general).  To act like now because of these riots, justice for Freddie Gray will be derailed would be laughable if it weren't so depressing; nothing will happen to Freddie Gray's killers, and nothing was ever going to happen to them.

So in short: we can cheer on black people who tell other black people to settle down, and we can cheer on parents hitting their kids for getting out of line, but when it comes to cops killing unarmed people over and over, these same cheerleaders fall silent (when they aren't actively defending the cops instead).

Spider


Here is what the riots do. It allows folks moderate whites to consider the following position at least plausible:

See what they are doing in Baltimore,  white folks didn't riot b/c OJ got off killing a white person.  This shows how violent blacks are.  It is no wonder Baltimore cops don't give black male teenagers the benefit of the doubt,  the whole lot of them are thugs. The cops are justified in putting their safety first during a stop.

Not saying I hold such a position,  but the riots make me less sympathetic to the minority community,  and more sympathetic to the difficult and dangerous job that a Baltimore or LA cop has.

^^^ I heard this argument last night.

OJ Simpson does not represent government authority, so I don't see how that's relevant.  Nobody rioted over Casey Anthony, either.  And to be honest, if these same "moderate whites" hadn't taken a position on the topic after the ~4th highly-publicized killing of an unarmed black man (or boy) in the last year, they effectively have chosen a position: police brutality is a non-issue.

I think the more appropriate question is:  what was the outcome of the Rodney King riots?  How were they resolved?

it is relevant bc a black man murdered two whites in cold blood and escaped punishment yet nobody rioted,

No one is rioting over a random white citizen murdering a random black guy and escaping punishment.  And to be honest, I can't remember a riot (or even a protest) ever happening for that reason; the closest analog would be Zimmerman, and the reason people originally got upset about that was because he wasn't even arrested after admitting to killing an unarmed teenager.

This is a pretty good example of the issue, though: if any black person killed any white person anywhere ever and got away with it, that is cited as an equivalent to state-sanctioned lethal violence against unarmed minorities by law enforcement officers.

Those two things are not remotely comparable and it's ridiculous to present them as such.

(http://i.imgur.com/NYUHSKJ.jpg?1)

1) As you frequently like to point out in these kinds of threads, the black population is not half the size of the white population in America.
2) The problem is not "blacks being killed by police;" most of those deaths go by without a peep from anyone.  The problem is unarmed blacks being killed by police, precisely because it's much more difficult for an armed officer to claim a life-threatening danger from an unarmed man.

Citing total number of deaths by police in these police brutality discussions is like citing total number of black-on-black killings in the Zimmerman discussions:

- the total number of black-on-black killings tells you nothing about how many of those killers were arrested, charged, and/or convicted (Zimmerman originally wasn't even arrested, much less charged)
- the total number of people killed by police (sorted by race) tells you nothing about how many of those people were unarmed

The bolded parts are the crux of the issue.

As I also like to point out, blacks also commit more crime as a group. Not only towards other races, but also towards themselves. Not to mention, that in most of these media hyped stories, the "poor innocent black victim" is a criminal thug with a rap sheet as long as your arm.

(http://i.imgur.com/1JEW5Oj.png?1)

I would counter that the majority of the time, a police officer has no way of knowing who is armed or unarmed. Furthermore, being unarmed as you say, is not really unarmed. Arms, legs, feet, fists, etc are weapons. One good punch or kick and the criminal could have the officers weapon. Just the other day I was talking to my neighbor (a black cop) about this Baltimore thing, and he told me  that if given a choice, he would rather deal with white people on a daily basis. He said that for the most part white people give him less issues overall problems.

Why wasn't there a riot when Gilbert Collar was murdered by a black cop? Hell, why wasn't there even news coverage of it? 

Reading this thread, and watching what happened in Baltimore, I'm honestly very happy to live in Charleston, South Carolina. What happened in North Charleston could've caused an eruption. It didn't. So far, with the wave of nationally-reported police shootings, I think we're the only place who's had a highest-level of coverage type case that hasn't erupted into some violence (tell me if I'm wrong). Ferguson had the post-NO BILL riots, 2 NYPD officers were gunned down for possible revenge, this thing in Baltimore. I suppose there hasn't been any violence in Cleveland either, after Tamir Rice, but it feels (to me) that the Tamir Rice situation just hasn't received the coverage that Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Walter Scott, and Freddy Grey have. I could be wrong.

Anyway, I think it's because Slager was immediately arrested, and because of our system. Only in rare situations is a Solicitor's (assistant DA) office here involved on the front end of an investigation. Normally, the entire investigation - cover to cover - is done by the police, and then the file lands in an ASOL (ass't DA) desk. This means there is almost never an indictment prior to an arrest. Thus, once the video was seen (and, blessedly, SLED [SC's in-state FBI, if you will] reported they had questions about Slager's story from the get-go) we arrested the officer, and he's been in the Leeds Avenue jail here in Charleston county since. He won't bond out for at least 2 - 3 years, if ever, and because we don't have "degrees" of murder here (we do have manslaughter, etc, but not murder 1, murder 2, murder 3) he had to be charged with the crime that, logically, it appears he committed, and that is Murder.

I was also impressed with Walter Scott's family, vs. that of Michael Brown or (even, to an extent) Trayvon Martin. They indicated they didn't want ppl like Al Sharpton to come (even though he did, and was generally ignored) and maintained what may be called a very holy dignity and forgiveness of Ofc. Slager.

The whole thing worked out as best as, I feel, anyone could've hoped for here. No riots, no streets/highways being blocked, no officers being attacked or shot, no insanity, nothing.

It feels like SC's ahead of the curve, but if you live here, you already knew that.

The problem is not black anything. This is not a race issue. This is a law enforcement issue. The problem is the police becoming more militarized and more frequently violating the 4th Amendment of the Constitution without repurcussion. They are above the law. It just so happens that the frequency of issues mentioned in the media recently involve white cops shooting unarmed blacks.

Police don't need to be held accountable for their relations with the black community. Police need to be held accountable for their relations with the community at large. They treat everyone like shit, whether you're a young black man with cornrolls or a young white man with a shaved head and tattoos or a hispanic man dressed in a suit and tie or a pregnant asian woman.

They do not care about the citizenry. They care about protecting their "brothers" and exercising their authority over the citizenry.

This may be the first time I've heard that. I like SC and have visited many times but they really need to reconsider that flag flying over the state house.

where is the like button? 

Interesting article:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/prisoner-in-van-said-freddie-gray-was-banging-against-the-walls-during-ride/2015/04/29/56d7da10-eec6-11e4-8666-a1d756d0218e_story.html?tid=hpModule_99d5f542-86a2-11e2-9d71-f0feafdd1394

Wrong again.  They are convicted of more crime, which is not the same thing.  For example, statistics consistently show that whites and blacks use illegal drugs at ~the same rates, yet blacks have many more convictions.

When the justice system itself is unequal, you can't exactly point at the skewed results as evidence.

In nearly all of these recent high-profile cases, either the officer clearly acknowledges that the deceased was known to be unarmed, or they make an extremely flimsy case to claim that they were armed (in some cases, planting a weapon).

Furthermore, look at the case of Tamir Rice.  The shooting officer claims that he thought 12-year-old Rice was in his 20s and walking around with a weapon; this was used as justification for shooting Rice less than 2 seconds after arriving on the scene.  But white people (particularly "patriots") walk around with rifles in plain view all the time.  So if Tamir Rice was really believed to be an armed adult, why didn't they check to see whether he was exercising his constitutionally-guaranteed Second Amendment rights?

Why is it that we have white people bringing rifles into Chipotle and Target, and yet when a black person has a pellet rifle in Wal-Mart having committed no crime, he is gunned down?  Where were John Crawford's Second Amendment rights?

Look at the incident last year with Cliven Bundy and a cadre of armed white people arriving at his ranch to threaten law enforcement.  Now imagine the New Black Panthers showing up WITH GUNS at a foreclosed business to keep the local sheriff away.  You mean to tell me that said situation would be resolved by law enforcement standing down?!

The double standard is obscene.

The New Black Panthers show up at a polling place with billy clubs and threaten people to vote for one candidate and scare white people off from entering the polling place at all and the DOJ does nothing about it.

You are right. The double standard is obscene.

The claim that Freddie Gray severed his own spinal column and crushed his own larynx gets points for originality, if nothing else.

So let's talk about double standards.

Two members of the New Black Panthers were allegedly intimidating people at a polling place.  One of them (Shabazz) carried a billy club.  He was sent away by police (i.e. law enforcement).  The other one (Jackson) was allowed to stay because he was a certified poll watcher.  The issue has been fully and promptly resolved by law enforcement, yet for some reason, you think the DOJ needs to get involved and do more.  (edit: For the record, the DOJ did open a case, but later dismissed it.)

In contrast, at the Bundy Ranch, a bunch of armed civilians show up to stop the BLM from executing a court judgment on Cliven Bundy.  In response, law enforcement... stands down and walks away.  No law enforcement organization has announced any sort of plan to take action against these armed citizens that were actively obstructing justice (and remember, these "patriots" were openly stating that their express purpose was to prevent law enforcement from executing said judgment).

If this is your best shot at a comparable situation, you are proving my point for me.  When the NBP shows up in large numbers with guns at a polling place while clearly stating, "We are here to keep white people from voting," and the response from law enforcement is, "We'd better stand down or someone might get hurt," then we can have a discussion.

If you would like to argue semantics then I will revise my statement just for you. "As I also like to point out, blacks as a group represent a much higher percentage of convicted criminals than other groups."

Sure, it's a big conspiracy against black people. Everyone's out to get you. Now go check under your bed for the boogeyman.


I'm sure you'll call me a racist but I don't give a shit. In my opinion as a group. Blacks have a chip on their shoulder and seem to think that they are owed something for slavery and racism that exists in the world. As a group they are ruder than others, more violent than others, and think that they are OWED respect. As far as I'm concerned, respect is earned and even if you earn it you may not get it. Black people can't even treat each other good and they want to complain about how everyone else treats them. You're correct Spider, the double standard is obscene, but it's actually reverse of what you think :o

It is not "semantics" to point out that our justice system is biased when two groups who commit a crime at the same rate have vastly different arrest and conviction numbers.  In fact, it is the central argument as to the inequity of the justice system.

We're not talking about our justice system. That is a totally different subject. We're debating on whether blacks are more dangerous as a group compared to other groups. So Spider, what ethnic group has the highest percentage of convicted criminals?

Better yet, the term "convicted criminal" may not be the best choice. As it doesn't refer to someone being dangerous. How does the rate of black convicted murderers compare to the rate of white convicted murderers when compared to the over all population percentage between blacks and whites?

A discussion about conviction statistics is literally inseparable from the justice system, as the justice system is what issues said convictions.

What, do you mean the crescent and palmetto? That's the only flag flying over the statehouse since 2000.

http://www.infoplease.com/spot/confederate4.html


It's probably shoved up your ass, where your head is.

Didn't think you would answer the questions. So is it your position that black people don't commit more crime and/or murders when their total percentage of populations is taken into account?

Per the article, they still have a Confederate flag in front of the capitol building? I guess they have made some progress after all of these years. :)

Nice.

Indeed. A lot more than anyone would expect. This is one of the best states in the union, bar none.

Agree Spider. I am learning that a lot of people don't know what the word "semantics" means. It seems to be their fall back excuse and they throw it around when they are proven wrong

i've been through south carolina a few times .. it's a pretty state .. but quite frankly it smells putrid .. 4 different dumps along the highway through SC is 3 too many .. P U

when my wife and I smell something horribly bad .. we instantly say it smells like south carolina

I've been in Greenville. Nice town. Lots of businesses moving out there and the population is growing.

No one tried to deport me for being hispanic, either.

Can't say the same about central Florida.

People want to simplify this issue, but it's a big, deep-seeded problem tied to history, race, class, desperation, education, poverty, power, inequality, etc.  It's not just about one incident, or one group of incidents.  It's a broken justice system and a broken culture of poverty clashing.  Both will have to change in order to make things better.

It's semantics because we are saying the same thing. He's saying that blacks are convicted of crime at a higher rate. I'm saying that blacks as a group commit more crime. The deciding factor is that when you are convicted of a crime you are officially a criminal. Cry foul if you want. Claim racism if you want. But facts are facts.

Maybe you can answer for me MikeO. Is it your position that black people don't commit more crime and/or murders when their total percentage of populations is taken into account?

Do I think they commit more crimes?  No.

Again, this is most easily seen when comparing drug enforcement in poor areas vs. rich areas.  You don't see NYPD stopping and frisking on Wall Street; that doesn't mean that bankers live a drug-free life.  When law enforcement targets certain groups as a policy, said groups will necessarily have a higher rate of arrest and conviction.

So until you can fix the fundamental problems with the justice system, statistics from that system aren't going to tell you much of value.  To take the argument to the extremes, no reasonable person would look at the incarceration rates of Jews in Nazi Germany as evidence that the Jews are inherently lawless criminals.

I agree with this to a certain point. However Dave, can you honestly tell me that black people aren't more prone to violence and crime? The reasons for criminal acts don't matter, it all boils down to free will and personal choice. According to reports there were more than 20 criminal court cases in Maryland against Gray.

March 20, 2015: Possession of a Controlled Dangerous Substance
March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing
January 14, 2015: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute
December 31, 2014: Possession of narcotics with intent to distribute
December 14, 2014: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance
August 31, 2014: Illegal gambling, trespassing
January 25, 2014: Possession of marijuana
September 28, 2013: Distribution of narcotics, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, second-degree assault, second-degree escape
April 13, 2012: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, violation of probation
July 16, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession with intent to distribute
March 28, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
March 14, 2008: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture and distribute
February 11, 2008: Unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance, possession of a controlled dangerous substance
August 29, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, violation of probation
August 28, 2007: Possession of marijuana
August 23, 2007: False statement to a peace officer, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance
July 16, 2007: Possession of a controlled dangerous substance with intent to distribute, unlawful possession of a controlled dangerous substance

This guy would probably be alive today if he didn't make the choice to be a criminal. No one told him to run from the police. This is not to say that the police are without fault. But his life choices are what caused this.

His life choices may have caused him to run and be arrested. But his life choices aren't the reason his spine was severed while in police custody. His life choices didn't fold him up like a lawn chair.

pondwater, a bunch of weed charges do not justify or excuse police brutality.

If Gray were white, it is unlikely that the police would have been stopping him to discover illegal drugs, because the police essentially don't care if white people (or, more accurately, people in white neighborhoods) have drugs.  So your argument that he earned this brutality because of his life as a criminal is somewhat circular: his criminal career would likely have been dramatically reduced if he wasn't being stopped all the time based on the color of his skin.

This is the key problem: white people use drugs just as much as black people, but while blacks are developing extensive criminal histories (due to being stopped all the time), whites are walking around free and clear.  This is what happens when law enforcement targets one group over another.

This is the part I don't agree with.  I am not defending criminal behavior; but there are reasons that it is prevalent in that culture.

But it's not that black people are thugs.  It's that you're going to get thugs from ignorance, a lack of education, poverty, oppression, etc.  It's a cycle that goes way back to slavery.  The percent chance of you growing up to uneducated parents in the hood with drugs and violence, trying to get a job that pays a living wage, is so much less than if you have a stable environment and all the opportunities that come from being white and middle-class.

It doesn't make rioting OK.  But there are deep seeded issues that tie back to slavery and the civil rights movement and poverty of an entire culture.

But many people are able to break the cycle, so it can be done. So break it, stop making excuses.

A free pair of bootstraps to every poor person.  Just pick yourself up with them!

It seems somewhat relevant to mention that it's a bit easier to pick yourself up when you aren't being harassed by the police for no reason at every turn.

You present this assumption as a statement of act, but have no way to back it up.

Living in bad neighborhoods and being harassed by cops isn't exclusive to blacks.

I know this first hand.

It's not exclusive to blacks; poor whites are also harassed, but not quite as much as poor blacks.

As for my "statement of fact": again, whites use drugs at the same rate as blacks, but blacks have a far higher rate of arrest and conviction.  Do you have some other explanation?

As has been mentioned by you


^^^You cannot just dismiss this persons statement. His statement is more valid than anyone's at this point. At the end of the day, Freddie Gray put himself into this situation.

Who runs from the police? Criminals run from the police. And if you run from the police, they are more prone to use violence to subdue you. Any 10 year old that watches "COPS" could tell you that.

And Hispanics?


So you're answering a question with a question. It means you have no answer.

I am not the video of the arrest.

March 13, 2015: Malicious destruction of property, second-degree assault
January 20, 2015: Fourth-degree burglary, trespassing

Within the past 90 days it looks like he has some issues a little more violent than just "weed charges"

Life sucks. Life's not fair. But that's no excuse to be a career criminal, run from the police, or burn your city down when shit doesn't go the way you think it should.

Many people can break it but not enough to actually turn the tide against it. There is a huge problem in these poor neighborhoods and it has to be solved by the government (I know people are going to flip over that statement), unless you can get a ton of people to do it themselves. It isn't going to happen overnight.

No, but you brought up the statement of the other inmate riding in the paddy wagon. We cannot just disqualify his statement. In fact, unless something else comes out, his statement is probably the most useful at this point in time.

So the argument you are going with is that... Freddie Gray crushed his own larynx and severed his own spine.  OK, then.

It does seem somewhat inconsistent for you to say that Freddie Gray's history as a criminal means he brought this brutality on himself... right before you cite the statement of another accused criminal as the "most valid statement" in this incident.

BREAKING NEWS: Preliminary findings show Freddie Gray suffered head injury in police transport van


Read more: http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/04/breaking-news-no-evidence-found-that-freddie-gray-s-death-was-result-of-police-who-arrested-him-prob.html#ixzz3Yp4UksY2
Follow us: @ABC7News on Twitter | WJLATV on Facebook

http://www.wjla.com/articles/2015/04/breaking-news-no-evidence-found-that-freddie-gray-s-death-was-result-of-police-who-arrested-him-prob.html

It doesn't matter what people have done or what their crime is.  Police aren't judges.  They aren't there to inflict punishment.  This kind of behavior is threat to the civil rights of all of us.

We cannot disqualify it nor can we take it as fact. It goes both ways.

However, the video of his arrest is irrefutable visual evidence. That trumps the statement of someone who may or may not be lying.

Conversely, the public shouldn't be a judge either. There has been a rush to judgment on a lot of these cases, but then the facts come out (see Ferguson) and they prove the rush to judgment was wrong.

That kind of rushing to judgment is a threat to our civil society.

They are excessively targeted by law enforcement as well, though I don't see how that affects the discussion.  I have no objection to Latinos pointing out that they are also unfairly maligned by our justice system.

I already provided an answer:  the explanation for why blacks have the same drug usage rates as whites but much higher arrest/conviction rates is because law enforcement has a racial (and socioeconomic) bias in enforcing the law.

You object to my explanation, so I am asking you for your explanation as to the disparity in statistics.  Why are whites arrested/convicted for drugs at a far lower rate than blacks, if the system is not biased in their favor?

False equivalence.  Police are "acting like judges" in the sense that they are carrying out their own sentences (i.e. brutality).  The public is "acting like judges" in that they are publicly questioning the actions of the officers.  Those two things are not remotely comparable, and in the one case where they are comparable (rioters attacking police), all parties have roundly denounced the rioters.

In contrast, we have people in this thread vehemently defending police brutality.

And yet the crime rate in the Hispanic communities is significantly lower.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/32/USA_2009._Percent_of_adult_males_incarcerated_by_race_and_ethnicity.png)

There could be a hundred different reasons why. Are whites more discreet or careful with their drug use? If drug use is occuring in neighborhoods with lower crime rates, are less cops around?


No it's not. People are making their minds up before getting all the facts and then a police officer who did nothing wrong is forced to leave his job and change his entire life. There are repurcussions to that individual because the public made up their mind about what happened before knowing what happened.

You're only looking at one aspect of this issue.

...so?

Explain the point you are making more clearly.  I am unsure how Hispanic crime rates explains away the vast gulf between white and black conviction rates.

If there are Hispanics growing up in bad neighborhoods and facing harassment from cops (you admitted this earlier), why aren't they seeing the same types of poverty levels and incarceration rates? They are the largest percentage of immigrants by far, so on average they haven't been here as long, and yet by all measurable data they seem to be assimilating faster and in a shorter amount of time.

Could it be that the difference exists within the cultures and the societal and family structures? Is that a component of it?

Hispanics traditionally are more family-oriented and many talk about the breakdown of the black family. I think that plays a role.

I also know many blacks who grew up in less than ideal situations, but due to a strong family structure didn't fall into the same traps.

My point is, don't just blame the system. As Dave stated, the problem is a myriad of things and focusing on one or two things takes away responsibility from the internal issues that exist within a specific community.

I repeat again, you're only looking at one aspect of this. It just so happens to be the aspect that allows the leeway in removing personal responsibility.

You literally just said that answering a question with a question means you have no answer.

The questions you have offered are circular.  It's easy to be more discreet when cops aren't enforcing the law, and reduced enforcement of the law in a neighborhood necessarily means that the crime rates will be lower.

Again, the actual crimes are being committed at the SAME rate, yet one group is labeled as criminals in a crime-ridden neighborhood, while the other is left free and clear, due solely to the decision by police to selectively enforce the law.

Maybe they aren't being targeted as heavily.
Maybe they are committing less crimes.
Neither one is particularly relevant to the gulf between enforcement of the law on whites and blacks.

I fail to see how a strong family structure can reduce the problem of police brutality, particularly when people are being killed after having broken no law.

What law did John Crawford break when he was killed?
What law did Tamir Rice break when he was killed?

Well according to your quote below, Hispanics are excessively targeted by law enforcement also.

However, if that's the case. According to the census bureau, Black or African American make up 13.2% of the population and Hispanic or Latino make up 17.1% of the population. So according to your theory, it would stand to reason that Hispanic or Latino would have higher incarceration rates. However, in reality, incarceration rates for blacks is over 250% to that of Hispanics and Latinos.

I have yet to make any claim that Hispanics and blacks commit specific crimes at the same rate (as I have with whites and blacks), so I don't see where you're going with this line of logic.

Whatever it takes to avoid discussing police brutality, I suppose.

Why exclude Hispanics? Hispanics are supposedly(by you) targeted by police, just like you say blacks are. If that's the case, their numbers should be somewhat similar. But they are not. Also, since Hispanics are targeted more, shouldn't they be getting killed by police to some extent just like blacks? That's why it matters.

Their numbers would only be similar if they were committing crimes at the same rate and law enforcement was targeting them at the same rate, two claims which I have never made.  So you're left arguing against a position that no one is taking.

I'm waiting for you to explain how Freddie Gray's criminal history justifies police brutality.  Is lethal violence against unarmed suspects acceptable if said suspect has a rap sheet?

Your position was that whites and blacks commit crime at the same rate. But you only included "drug use", which is a major flaw in your argument. Did you actually mean just "drug use" or did you intend to imply that whites and blacks commit "all crimes" at the same rate?

Can you or anyone prove police brutality? From the latest news that I've read, his injury is consistent with a bolt mounted in the van. Did he do it purposely? Did he fall? Did he fall while doing it purposely? You and the black community are "assuming" that it was police brutality when in fact there is no evidence at this point that there was any police brutality. You know what they say about assumptions. This reminds me of when you assumed, without proof, that Zimmerman murdered Trayvon. We all know how that turned out. Yep, NOT GUILTY.....

I chose drug use as an example where it's already known that whites and blacks commit crime at the same rate, but blacks are arrested and convicted at a much higher rate.  Such an example serves to show that the law enforcement does apply the law selectively, contrary to your claims.

Furthermore, given that people like yourself frequently cite drug offenses as evidence of lawlessness, the fact that many of those convictions are the result of biased law enforcement undermines your position.

His severed spine and crushed larynx are consistent with self-injury?  This is not a serious response.

There is no excuse too flimsy for you to grasp on to defend the police.  And I don't understand why you're even bothering with an excuse: your previous statements indicate that if the police did inflict these injuries, they were justified in doing so.

Does Gray's rap sheet justify police brutality, or not?

I don't disagree with this at all.

Have you ever lived by the Everglades? Salt, death, and poop. That's Florida's scent to me.

^^^ I've lived in Florida for 17 years, and I've never smelled that.

I will say that the last time I visited South Carolina, I had a Southern Baptist Minister ask me if I was the antichrist... ;D

You are. Except twice his age.

To swing this back to Baltimore, six officer have been charged.

http://news.yahoo.com/freddie-gray-sustained-fatal-head-injury-in-back-of-police-van--report-124521845.html

From Phishfan's link, another quote from the prisoner earlier referred to by pondwater as "more valid than anyone":


Somehow, I'm guessing that the unimpeachable integrity of this person's account is now going to be significantly reduced in the eyes of the pro-brutality camp.

Yes, because of course I have special powers that allow me to know that the story from the only witness in the vehicle was going to change at a later date. However, I think the part of my post in bold below might clear that up for you.


We might also want to focus on another part of the article in Phishfan's link:


I've seen several of the videos of the incident and it seems pretty clear that his neck wasn't broken when they put him in the vehicle.

Well, yes: the "something else coming out" is him saying that the cops' coverup story is a lie.  And based SOLELY on the fact that his story went from supporting the cops to not supporting the cops, you have apparently went from insisting that this prisoner's word is The Most Valid Statement to dismissing it offhand.  It's the least surprising trick in the book: we must treat witnesses as valid only if they are in favor of the cops.

And while we are on the subject of parts of the article to focus on: how about the part where Gray's death is ruled a homicide and 6 officers are charged with crimes ranging from false imprisonment to murder?  That's a pretty relevant part of the article that you seem to have skipped over.

I would also like to point out that the false imprisonment charge means that Gray was detained having broken no law.  So for all the BS nonsense going on about The Breakdown Of The Black Family, it's all a smokescreen: Gray DID NOTHING WRONG and for his trouble, he was beaten to death by police.

But hey, he was caught with some weed a whole bunch of times before, so he probably deserved it anyway, right?

More assumptions by you Spider. This prisoner's story is as valid now as it was when it first surfaced. It is just as important, the details just changed. The first report indicated that he thought that Gray injured himself. This new version doesn't implicate the cops. It simply takes away the "Gray did it to himself" aspect.

Well Spider, that's the reason why they go to trial. Kind of like why all teams in the NFL play the games instead of just automatically crowing the Patriots the champions every year. Seems like these cops were going to be indicted regardless. Just like I remember you crying and bitching about Zimmerman going to trial and then crawfishing and spinning when he was found not guilty. Unlike you, if the jury says these guys are guilty, so be it. I'll accept the verdict and agree that they were guilty. However, from what I've seen in the media, I haven't seen evidence beyond a doubt that the cops are guilty of murder. If they came out with a video of Gray beating his head against the paddy wagon wall  into a coma, you would still find a way to spin it and argue about it.

If, as you just said, "the most valid statement" is just as important as it was before, but now "takes away the Gray did it to himself aspect," then where did these injuries come from?  They could not have come from a legitimate arrest, as the false imprisonment charge indicates that Gray had not broken the law.

What is your current working explanation for these injuries?

You say that as if cops are always indicted after killing an unarmed man.  That outcome is hardly common.

I have consistently maintained that the verdict in the Zimmerman trial means that he is at least as innocent as OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony.  And I accepted that verdict, in exactly the same sense and to the extent that I accepted the Simpson and Anthony verdicts.

You do understand the video(s) evidence shows no police wrongdoing at this point. Who knows where Gray's injuries came from? I can't answer that question, I wasn't there. Can you 100% answer that question? Where did Zimmerman's injuries come from? A few witnesses in the Zimmerman trial changed their story also. If these cops are guilty, so be it. But you're jumping the gun. Let it play out. I find it funny that you support the idea of "gun control" and banning firearms. But yet you think that the cops are killing "unarmed citizens". So then how are we supposed to protect ourselves from the unruly and corrupt cops?  You complain about police brutality. Then you complain about the general population owning firearms to protect themselves from said dangers. Seems hypocritical to me.

And if the cops in question are exonerated? You've already implied that they "murdered" someone. So now what?