juraigamer wrote:
Welcome to looking for excuses part 3, the never ending struggle to ignore another struggle.

 CptJake wrote:
The 'comment alone' was taken out of context.

I think the real issue is did she have decent indicators the protests would remain peaceful, and that therefore it made sense to 'give them space', or were there indicators it could turn violent, in which case perhaps how much space is given and how that space should be enforced/contained differs. And assuming for argument's sake they really did believe it would all remain peaceful, when the first indicators of that not holding true started coming in, how quickly did they adjust their plan to compensate for the change.

I submit, they did a gakky job of adjusting.

Having said that, she and the police probably also remembered the videos of the MRAPs and riot cops beating the feth out of Ferguson protestors which led to a massive escalation of the violence,and did not want to repeat those mistakes.

I don't think they made the right call here, I do think their decision cycle suffered from paralysis and fear of how police 'brutality' would be perceived by the protesters and by the media and the media's audience.

Very brave officers considering these people have likely been drinking all day.

 Frazzled wrote:
I don't know, Chicago PD has historically been a tough group. With a lot of the inner city violence there, would anyone notice?

nkelsch wrote:


Right after the funeral, reports had came in to the people leading the protests that things were turning. One of the major incidents was a High School had 300ish kids walk out after school and begin rioting. Since the alternative was murdering a bunch of kids, the police stood back and tried to get parents to "get your damn kids".

 CptJake wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


Right after the funeral, reports had came in to the people leading the protests that things were turning. One of the major incidents was a High School had 300ish kids walk out after school and begin rioting. Since the alternative was murdering a bunch of kids, the police stood back and tried to get parents to "get your damn kids".

That is an asinine comment. Police have handled riots for decades without resorting to 'murdering a bunch of kids'.

nkelsch wrote:

 CptJake wrote:

nkelsch wrote:


Right after the funeral, reports had came in to the people leading the protests that things were turning. One of the major incidents was a High School had 300ish kids walk out after school and begin rioting. Since the alternative was murdering a bunch of kids, the police stood back and tried to get parents to "get your damn kids".

That is an asinine comment. Police have handled riots for decades without resorting to 'murdering a bunch of kids'.

And yet they can't seem to arrest an adult without killing him... So I would be suspect of many of the Baltimore police's training and ability to handle arrests without harm or killing people. The last thing this situation needed was people getting injured or killed by the hands of police.

And since people in this thread seem to be advocating rubber bullets, water hoses and attack dogs, I think the alternative of securing perimeters, and doing containment was a better choice than escalating force on children. (which it was confirmed that a majority of the violent rioters at that particular location were.)

I for one think killing a man is worse than burning down a CVS, but others seem to devalue people's lives.

nkelsch wrote:
And yet they can't seem to arrest an adult without killing him...

I for one think killing a man is worse than burning down a CVS, but others seem to devalue people's lives.

 CptJake wrote:

Which excuses and which struggle are you referring to?

 CptJake wrote:
And another asinine comment. How many arrests has that police force made without killing?

nkelsch wrote:

 CptJake wrote:
And another asinine comment. How many arrests has that police force made without killing?

Talk about asinine comments... There is a long history of documented police misconduct and violence in Baltimore. People are very distrustful of the police as a whole there, and they should be due to the current policies of that city in regards to law enforcement.

The police went for containment and preventing injury to all opposed to trying to rescue 'stuff' by aggressively harming people and escalating violence. And it worked for the most part.

 cincydooley wrote:


And yet, private business owners seem to be equally, or perhaps more so, distrusting of the "regular population," otherwise CitiWatch wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

 Howard A Treesong wrote:
Businesses pay rates and other taxes that support law enforcement. If the local authority decide to withdraw from actually policing the streets and allowing looter to run riot then they should pick up the tab for the damage, not the businesses or their insurers.

 whembly wrote:
Wo...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/baltimore-city/bal-university-of-baltimore-closes-amid-high-school-purge-threat-20150427-story.html#page=1

"The Purge" was actually coordinated... not spontaneous.

It's crucial to see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy. If it fails to win people over it's a futile tactic

As a nation, we fail to comprehend Black political strategy in much the same way we fail to recognize the value of Black life.

We see ghettos and crime and absent parents where we should see communities actively struggling against mental health crises and premeditated economic exploitation. And when we see police cars being smashed and corporate property being destroyed, we should see reasonable responses to generations of extreme state violence, and logical decisions about what kind of actions yield the desired political results.

I’m overwhelmed by the pervasive slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful. The bad-apple rhetoric would have us believe that most Baltimore protesters are demonstrating the right way—as is their constitutional right—and only a few are disrupting the peace, giving the movement a bad name.

This spin should be disregarded, first because of the virtual media blackout of any of the action happening on the ground, particularly over the weekend. Equally, it makes no sense to cite the Constitution in any demonstration for Black civil rights (that document was not written about us, remember?), but certainly not one organized specifically to call attention to the fact that the state breaks its own laws with regard to the oppressed on a nearly constant basis.

But there is an even bigger problem. Referring to Black Lives Matter protests, as well as organic responses to police and state violence as “non-violent” or “peaceful” erases the actual climate in which these movements are acting, the militant strategies that have rendered them effective, and the long history of riots and direct action on which they are built.

I do not advocate non-violence—particularly in a moment like the one we currently face. In the spirit and words of militant Black and Brown feminist movements from around the globe, I believe it is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy.

Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence.

Militance is about direct action which defends our communities from violence. It is about responses which meet the political goals of our communities in the moment, and deal with the repercussions as they come. It is about saying no, firmly drawing and holding boundaries, demanding the return of stolen resources. And from Queer Liberation and Black Power to centuries-old movements for Native sovereignty and anti-colonialism, it is how virtually all of our oppressed movements were sparked, and has arguably gained us the only real political victories we’ve had under the rule of empire.

We need to clarify what we mean by terms like “violence” and “peaceful.” Because, to be clear, violence is beating, harassing, tazing, assaulting and shooting Black, trans, immigrant, women, and queer people, and that is the reality many of us are dealing with daily. Telling someone to be peaceful and shaming their militance not only lacks a nuanced and historical political understanding, it is literally a deadly and irresponsible demand.

The political goals of rioters in Baltimore are not unclear—just as they were not unclear when poor, Black people rioted in Ferguson last fall. When the free market, real estate, the elected government, the legal system have all shown you they are not going to protect you—in fact, that they are the sources of the greatest violence you face—then political action becomes about stopping the machine that is trying to kill you, even if only for a moment, getting the boot off your neck, even if it only allows you a second of air. This is exactly what blocking off streets, disrupting white consumerism, and destroying state property are designed to do.

Black people know this, and have employed these tactics for a very, very long time. Calling them uncivilized, and encouraging them to mind the Constitution is racist, and as an argument fails to ground itself not only in the violent political reality in which Black people find themselves, but also in our centuries-long tradition of resistance, one that has taught effective strategies for militance and direct action to virtually every other current movement for justice.

And while I don’t believe that every protester involved in attacking police cars and corporate storefronts had the same philosophy, or did what they did for the same reasons, it cannot be discounted that when there is a larger national outcry in defense of plate-glass windows and car doors than for Black young people, a point is being made. When there is more concern for white sports fans in the vicinity of a riot than the Black people facing off with police, there is mounting justification for the rage and pain of Black communities in this country.

Acknowledging all of this, I do think events this weekend in Baltimore raise important questions for future direct and militant action in all of our movements. In addition to articulating our goals, crafting our messaging and type of action, we need to think carefully about what the longer term results of militant action might potentially be. Strategies I might suggest, and important questions I think we should try and answer as we plan or find ourselves involved in political actions are these:

Are we harming state and private property, or are we harming people, communities and natural resources? Is the result of our action disrupting state and corporate violence, or creating collateral damage that more oppressed people will have to deal with (i.e., Black families and business owners, cleaning staff, etc.)? Are we mimicking state violence by harming people and the environment, or are we harming state property in ways that can stop or slow violence? Are we demonizing systems or people?
Who is in the vicinity? Are we doing harm to people around us as we act? Is there a possibility of violence for those who are not the intended targets of our action? Are we forcing people to be involved in an action who many not want to be, or who are not ready?
Who is involved in the action? Are people involved in our action consensually, or simply because they are in the vicinity? Have we created ways for people of all abilities who may not want to be present to leave? Are we being strategic about location and placement of bodies? If there are violent repercussions for our actions, who will be facing them?
We should attempt to answer as many of these questions as possible before action occurs, in the planning stages if possible. We also need backup plans and options for changing our actions in the moment if any of the agreed-upon conditions are not the same when it comes time to act.

I rolled my eyes when inquiries in Ferguson “shockingly” revealed racist emails sent throughout local government, including higher-ups in the Police Department. I think many of us knew the inquiry of virtually any police department would yield almost identical findings. The riots in Baltimore have many drawing parallels between policy and conduct in both cities now. What kind of action brought to light for the less affected what Black people have always known? What kinds of actions will it take to make it widely understood that all policing is racist terror, and justice can only come with its permanent abolition?

Black power, Queer power, power to Baltimore, and to all oppressed people who know what time it is.

 Jihadin wrote:
Holy Crap.....Obama under the impression that only the CVS store was on fire and that media played it over and over again

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Holy Crap.....Obama under the impression that only the CVS store was on fire and that media played it over and over again

He essentially punted it. I didn't hear him condemn the rioting... did I miss it? o.O

 CptJake wrote:

 whembly wrote:

 Jihadin wrote:
Holy Crap.....Obama under the impression that only the CVS store was on fire and that media played it over and over again

He essentially punted it. I didn't hear him condemn the rioting... did I miss it? o.O

Yes he condemned it.

In part:

President Barack Obama on Tuesday called the recent riots in Baltimore counterproductive.
"There's no excuse for the kind of violence we saw yesterday," Obama said. People looting and burning down buildings are not protesting, they are criminals, he added.

 whembly wrote:


Dumbarses...

Spoiler:

Baltimore’s violent protesters are right: Smashing police cars is a legitimate political strategy

It's crucial to see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy. If it fails to win people over it's a futile tactic

As a nation, we fail to comprehend Black political strategy in much the same way we fail to recognize the value of Black life.

We see ghettos and crime and absent parents where we should see communities actively struggling against mental health crises and premeditated economic exploitation. And when we see police cars being smashed and corporate property being destroyed, we should see reasonable responses to generations of extreme state violence, and logical decisions about what kind of actions yield the desired political results.

I’m overwhelmed by the pervasive slandering of protesters in Baltimore this weekend for not remaining peaceful. The bad-apple rhetoric would have us believe that most Baltimore protesters are demonstrating the right way—as is their constitutional right—and only a few are disrupting the peace, giving the movement a bad name.

This spin should be disregarded, first because of the virtual media blackout of any of the action happening on the ground, particularly over the weekend. Equally, it makes no sense to cite the Constitution in any demonstration for Black civil rights (that document was not written about us, remember?), but certainly not one organized specifically to call attention to the fact that the state breaks its own laws with regard to the oppressed on a nearly constant basis.

But there is an even bigger problem. Referring to Black Lives Matter protests, as well as organic responses to police and state violence as “non-violent” or “peaceful” erases the actual climate in which these movements are acting, the militant strategies that have rendered them effective, and the long history of riots and direct action on which they are built.

I do not advocate non-violence—particularly in a moment like the one we currently face. In the spirit and words of militant Black and Brown feminist movements from around the globe, I believe it is crucial that we see non-violence as a tactic, not a philosophy.

Non-violence is a type of political performance designed to raise awareness and win over sympathy of those with privilege. When those on the outside of struggle—the white, the wealthy, the straight, the able-bodied, the masculine—have demonstrated repeatedly that they do not care, are not invested, are not going to step in the line of fire to defend the oppressed, this is a futile political strategy. It not only fails to meet the needs of the community, but actually puts oppressed people in further danger of violence.

Militance is about direct action which defends our communities from violence. It is about responses which meet the political goals of our communities in the moment, and deal with the repercussions as they come. It is about saying no, firmly drawing and holding boundaries, demanding the return of stolen resources. And from Queer Liberation and Black Power to centuries-old movements for Native sovereignty and anti-colonialism, it is how virtually all of our oppressed movements were sparked, and has arguably gained us the only real political victories we’ve had under the rule of empire.

We need to clarify what we mean by terms like “violence” and “peaceful.” Because, to be clear, violence is beating, harassing, tazing, assaulting and shooting Black, trans, immigrant, women, and queer people, and that is the reality many of us are dealing with daily. Telling someone to be peaceful and shaming their militance not only lacks a nuanced and historical political understanding, it is literally a deadly and irresponsible demand.

The political goals of rioters in Baltimore are not unclear—just as they were not unclear when poor, Black people rioted in Ferguson last fall. When the free market, real estate, the elected government, the legal system have all shown you they are not going to protect you—in fact, that they are the sources of the greatest violence you face—then political action becomes about stopping the machine that is trying to kill you, even if only for a moment, getting the boot off your neck, even if it only allows you a second of air. This is exactly what blocking off streets, disrupting white consumerism, and destroying state property are designed to do.

Black people know this, and have employed these tactics for a very, very long time. Calling them uncivilized, and encouraging them to mind the Constitution is racist, and as an argument fails to ground itself not only in the violent political reality in which Black people find themselves, but also in our centuries-long tradition of resistance, one that has taught effective strategies for militance and direct action to virtually every other current movement for justice.

And while I don’t believe that every protester involved in attacking police cars and corporate storefronts had the same philosophy, or did what they did for the same reasons, it cannot be discounted that when there is a larger national outcry in defense of plate-glass windows and car doors than for Black young people, a point is being made. When there is more concern for white sports fans in the vicinity of a riot than the Black people facing off with police, there is mounting justification for the rage and pain of Black communities in this country.

Acknowledging all of this, I do think events this weekend in Baltimore raise important questions for future direct and militant action in all of our movements. In addition to articulating our goals, crafting our messaging and type of action, we need to think carefully about what the longer term results of militant action might potentially be. Strategies I might suggest, and important questions I think we should try and answer as we plan or find ourselves involved in political actions are these:

Are we harming state and private property, or are we harming people, communities and natural resources? Is the result of our action disrupting state and corporate violence, or creating collateral damage that more oppressed people will have to deal with (i.e., Black families and business owners, cleaning staff, etc.)? Are we mimicking state violence by harming people and the environment, or are we harming state property in ways that can stop or slow violence? Are we demonizing systems or people?
Who is in the vicinity? Are we doing harm to people around us as we act? Is there a possibility of violence for those who are not the intended targets of our action? Are we forcing people to be involved in an action who many not want to be, or who are not ready?
Who is involved in the action? Are people involved in our action consensually, or simply because they are in the vicinity? Have we created ways for people of all abilities who may not want to be present to leave? Are we being strategic about location and placement of bodies? If there are violent repercussions for our actions, who will be facing them?
We should attempt to answer as many of these questions as possible before action occurs, in the planning stages if possible. We also need backup plans and options for changing our actions in the moment if any of the agreed-upon conditions are not the same when it comes time to act.

I rolled my eyes when inquiries in Ferguson “shockingly” revealed racist emails sent throughout local government, including higher-ups in the Police Department. I think many of us knew the inquiry of virtually any police department would yield almost identical findings. The riots in Baltimore have many drawing parallels between policy and conduct in both cities now. What kind of action brought to light for the less affected what Black people have always known? What kinds of actions will it take to make it widely understood that all policing is racist terror, and justice can only come with its permanent abolition?

Black power, Queer power, power to Baltimore, and to all oppressed people who know what time it is.

There's some real gems in that comment thread.

There's alot of bad philosophy in that article to take issue with, but I can't help but agree with the sentiment that the wider country pays very little attention to the poverty and violence in urban ghettos until businesses are burning.