News Baltimore riots after Freddie Gray funeral

[russ_watters]

If the ultra-hard right says so, I guess. Maybe I could counter with an article by Chomsky, would you buy it?

It would help if he got himself a degree in economics or political science* --- or even if he wrote in a less crazy-sounding/more intellectual tone. A lot of his writing is really bad, stylistically. Did you read either of the cited articles? They were even-toned and fact-based. Perhaps there are alternative explanations for the phenomena - and I'd be interested to hear/read them - but the case made was pretty strong/logical.

More specifically about the current issue, one thing not discussed previously in the thread is the role of the media and politicians in stirring-up the unrest (though "instigators" was mentioned). The Ferguson coverage, in particular, was a disgrace. Now the "protesters" have a powerful sign and slogan and those that helped create it care very little that it's a flat-out lie. I can't be certain Baltimore's mayor was influenced by the media blaming the police for the rioting in Ferguson, but she made a conscious decision to hold her police back, a dangerously wrong decision:

“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech,” Rawlings-Blake said. “It’s a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

http://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2015/...those-who-wished-to-destroy-space-to-do-that/

That was on Saturday and it has gotten much worse since then.

*That said, professions/major attract people who are passionate about those things. So often political scientists are the most biased - in either direction - about politics. I had a prof in "Public Opinion and Propaganda" who just couldn't help himself derailing entire lectures on tangents to preach his views. He once spent an entire class bragging and arguing about how he succeeded in getting the college to de-Christmas.

 

[russ_watters]

It is a fact that poverty rates are higher in single mother families - irrespective of race.

I think it is an important point that that isn't strictly a race issue. It just looks like a race issue because blacks make-up a larger than proportional fraction of the poor. Still, the narrative is an easier sell as a race issue because if someone asks "why can't I make my own way in the world?", there isn't as convenient/popular of an answer to provide to those of other races.

 

[WWGD]

The really depressing thing is watching CSPAN's book TV. We finally get exposure to many different sides of many issues. Good part ends there; most presentations just preach to their respective choirs; it would be nice to have the views presented to a non-friendly, if not hostile crowd, to force those who hold
a view to tighten it up. Cowards on both side insult those who disagree with them and engage in red herrings, but rarely, if ever to their faces. I have emailed many authors to call attention to this, but only received an answer once.
I ultimately don't have much time to read outside of my school/work, so my best bet is to look for sources I believe are less likely to be biased.

 

[russ_watters]

...so my best bet is to look for sources I believe are less likely to be biased.

I prefer to choose sources with known biases on opposite sides and/or evaluate biases in what I see. The danger in trying to choose unbiased sources is you can fool yourself into thinking your sources are unbiased when they are not and be less on-guard to see through them. The reality is that no one is bias free and some of the biggest danger of deception comes from the softer-toned biases because they are harder to recognize and therefor combat.

Either way, it is bad form to request a source and then hand-wave it away without even reading it (maybe if it was Rush Limbaugh, but it wasn't). If you posted a Chomsky article on the topic, I would at least read it and tell you why I thought it was wrong.

 

[nsaspook]

My bad, I was wrong, sorry.

No sweat. There were groups in the movement that believed violence should be be met with violence and were given time to rant, they have all fallen into the ash heap of history by the hard working people who worked inside the system to change it. I personally think there is no doubt that police violence involves race and it needs to be protested against and stopped but when it comes to anarchy the decision is easy for me to say, they can go the hell, we don't need them.

 

[WWGD]

Well, I am reading excerpts from Sowell's article,
and there are the usual statements like Mr. Williams says that "if there is anything good to be said about the Democratic White House and the [previous] Congress and their brazen attempt to take over the economy and control our lives, it's that the tea party movement has come out of it. But we have gone so far from the basic constitutional principles that made us a great country that it's a question of whether we can get back."

I keep hearing statements like these, but I just don't know what they mean: brazen attempt to take over the economy? Control our lives? We have gone away from basic constitutional principles? These are apparent axioms, assumed but ( in my experience) never explained. It just takes too much time to try to figure out what statements of this sort mean. Maybe the problem is the two sides have stopped talking to each other so neither side is up to par on what the other is thinking. Just like trying to understand what your friend is up to 20 years since you last saw him, never communicating with him/her interim.

Then "We need a constitutional amendment that limits the amount of money the government can spend". Why? IMHO, government is just one institution in a system of checks and balances. There is the market, the church, the family, the military, etc. These are supposed to keep each other in line, preventing anyone institution from gaining too much power. Why do I hear the constant demonizing of the government alone when I read something from the right? And these far out (false) statements about the government never doing barely anything at all right ( winning WW2, sending a man to the moon ,the civil rights movement, laying the groundwork for the internet )

Or: Still, he's concerned about " how far the country has strayed from the type of limited government envisioned by the Founding Fathers" . Not all founding fathers agreed on this perspective.

Ad then there is he fact that Sowell never replied to comments disagreeing with him.

There are just too many assumptions I don't share that are never explained.

 

[WWGD]

I prefer to choose sources with known biases on opposite sides and/or evaluate biases in what I see. The danger in trying to choose unbiased sources is you can fool yourself into thinking your sources are unbiased when they are not and be less on-guard to see through them. The reality is that no one is bias free and some of the biggest danger of deception comes from the softer-toned biases because they are harder to recognize and therefor combat.

Either way, it is bad form to request a source and then hand-wave it away without even reading it (maybe if it was Rush Limbaugh, but it wasn't). If you posted a Chomsky article on the topic, I would at least read it and tell you why I thought it was wrong.

Well, I laid it out as clearly as I could the reasons for why I have trouble reading this article in my prevous post.

 

[Astronuc]

'The Wire' creator David Simon denounces Baltimore riots
http://news.yahoo.com/david-simon-the-wire-baltimore-riots-125848171.html

 

[russ_watters]

Well, I laid it out as clearly as I could the reasons for why I have trouble reading this article in my prevous post.

I replied to your previous post before you posted your critique. In the previous post (and the one before that), you gave several reasons implying that/why you wouldn't read them.

Anyway, while your objections are semi-valid for what they were addressing, you weren't addressing the issue the articles were posted to discuss. I say "semi-valid" because while the Sowell article was written by Sowell, the Willams article was written by a third party about (and quoting) Williams. And the things you were objecting to were not said by Williams. Regardless, whether it is a good or bad theory, it appears most agree that the cultural problem is real: so I'd like to hear a plausible alternate theory on its cause.

 

[WWGD]

I replied to your previous post before you posted your critique. In the previous post (and the one before that), you gave several reasons implying that/why you wouldn't read them.

Anyway, while your objections are semi-valid for what they were addressing, you weren't addressing the issue the articles were posted to discuss. I say "semi-valid" because while the Sowell article was written by Sowell, the Willams article was written by a third party about (and quoting) Williams. And the things you were objecting to were not said by Williams. Regardless, whether it is a good or bad theory, it appears most agree that the cultural problem is real: so I'd like to hear a plausible alternate theory on its cause.

OK, I will read it more carefully. But I am done with the WSJ's editorial page. For one thing, Sowell's article neither cites sources nor "metrics" for his claims.

 

[nsaspook]

'The Wire' creator David Simon denounces Baltimore riots
http://news.yahoo.com/david-simon-the-wire-baltimore-riots-125848171.html

Yahoo was down: http://davidsimon.com/baltimore/

 

[russ_watters]

For one thing, Sowell's article neither cites sources nor "metrics" for his claims.

Are there any contested claims? Again, it is my understanding that people agree on the basic facts. The disagreement is over the logic connecting them.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Interesting commentary from "The Wire" producer
https://www.themarshallproject.org/2015/04/29/david-simon-on-baltimore-s-anguish

 

[russ_watters]

Two new accounts of what happened to Freddie Gray question the narrative that has fueled protests in Baltimore -- the notion that Gray died as a result of police brutality.

The first comes from a woman close to one of the officers involved in the arrest. She told CNN the officer thinks Gray was injured while he was being arrested -- before he was put inside a police van.

The second is an account published in the Washington Post in which a prisoner who was in the van told investigators he thought Gray "was intentionally trying to injure himself."

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-death-investigation/index.html

Wow.

 

[Bandersnatch]

"was intentionally trying to injure himself."

Seriously? A guy whou couldn't see Gray and who was put into the wagon after Gray called for medical help says the man severed his own spine because he heard banging against the wall?

 

[HuskyNamedNala]

I don't think these protests are about police violence so much as they are about an accumulation of issues the US is facing. In addition to police abuse of power we have, poor job prospects, education is increasingly for the rich only, higher costs of living coupled with no increase in wages for the middle and lower class since the 1970's, family bonds are not a strong even as early as 25 years ago, we are becoming increasingly medicated, and our mental health sector (well, healthcare in general) is going to hell.

The way I see it, many of these people don't think they have anything to lose. And while I don't think it is a smart idea to destroy innocent peoples property, they are at least standing up for what they think isn't right. That is more than I can say for 99% of the people I know who are "cultured", "refined", "civilized" and "educated". We are becoming increasingly more wimpy and those in power are simply taking advantage. I really hope these protests lead to reform in this country.

I found a good Time article yesterday, but forgot the title.

 

[russ_watters]

Seriously? A guy whou couldn't see Gray and who was put into the wagon after Gray called for medical help says the man severed his own spine because he heard banging against the wall?

Well, no, not necessarily. The prisoner didn't say that, the lawyer did. Obviously, the prisoner couldn't know what, if any, injuries the banging (if any)would cause. The two reports are not mutually exclusive.

Regardless of what the truth is ultimately determined to be, the common thread in recent cases isn't police brutality, but a rush to judgement in the face of not enough information, and the assumption of a conspiracy to protect a bad cop. In Ferguson, the rush to judge and conspiracy belief caused rioting based on a lie. In South Carolina, there was no rioting because the evidence was clear and the cop was immediately arrested and charged.

People shouldn't get angry until they know there is something to be angry about.

The truly sick irony here is that rioting is more likely when there isn't police brutality (or a coverup or good evidence for either) than when there is.

 

[Rick21383]

Seriously? A guy whou couldn't see Gray and who was put into the wagon after Gray called for medical help says the man severed his own spine because he heard banging against the wall?

Did you even read the passage?

Nowhere does it say or imply that the other prisoner claims he "severed his own spine".

"a prisoner who was in the same police van as Gray said he could hear Gray "banging against the walls" of the van and thought Gray "was intentionally trying to injure himself."

The prisoner was separated from Gray by a metal barrier and could not see him, police have said."

Obviously, there are probably multiple variables that contributed to his death but nothing in that passage is difficult to believe or would require the other prisoner to actually see him. He HEARD him thrashing around and thought it sounded like he was trying to injure himself.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

People shouldn't get angry until they know there is something to be angry about.

Some of the recent police homicides were decided by grand jury so no one has the information they need to get angry. That kind of secrecy angers me too.

 

[nsaspook]

Some of the recent police homicides were decided by grand jury so no one has the information they need to get angry. That kind of secrecy angers me too.

It's a necessary 'evil'. I'd rather have witnesses testify and the deciders decide without being intimidated to see if it's a case that can be tried in open court. The 'people' sit on those grand juries so it's not a star chamber and at least in theory protects both sides from overzealous prosecutions.

 

[Bandersnatch]

Did you even read the passage?

Yes, I did. I was commenting on how it was being spinned.

 

[russ_watters]

Some of the recent police homicides were decided by grand jury so no one has the information they need to get angry. That kind of secrecy angers me too.

I wasn't aware of that: do you have any examples? In Ferguson, for example, the testimony was all released - not that it was really necessary, since the coroner's report was released long before.

In either case, I consider police brutality to be a more serious offense than unwarranted secrecy -- though without specific examples I can't comment on if I think the secrecy is warranted.

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, I did. I was commenting on how it was being spinned.

Then i think you read the spin backwards: you squared a negative to generate a positive that wasn't there.

 

[Borg]

The question that I have is how did Gray's neck get broken to the point of nearly being severed? To me, the use of the word 'severed' implies that some sort of instrument like a knife was used or a collision with something that caused a penatrating injury. However, I haven't seen any description of his actual injuries that actually go into any detail. Did his neck actually get severed or is the media sensationalising the extent of the injuries? The reason that I ask is that I can imagine someone flailing about enough to break their neck but it would take more than that (or really bad luck) for them to nearly sever it.

I'm also curious about whether he has injuries before he even got into the van. In the videos of him being taken to the van, it looks like he can barely hold his head up already. However, at 2:24, it looks like he does manage to lift his head. Another thing about the video is that the bystanders are referring to him being tazed.

 

[nsaspook]

Basilar skull fracture was unfortunately a common occurrence in race driving even during mild crashes until the modern HANS device was mandated. A broken neck from arrest and a rough ride could have easily caused his injury.

 

[russ_watters]

The question that I have is how did Gray's neck get broken to the point of nearly being severed? To me, the use of the word 'severed' implies that some sort of instrument like a knife was used or a collision with something that caused a penatrating injury. However, I haven't seen any description of his actual injuries that actually go into any detail. Did his neck actually get severed or is the media sensationalising the extent of the injuries?

"Severed" is a standard term for a severe SPINAL CORD injury, not just any NECK injury or an indication of a cut or his head nearly falling off. I haven't seen any suggestion that his head nearly fell off.

The reason that I ask is that I can imagine someone flailing about enough to break their neck but it would take more than that (or really bad luck) for them to nearly sever it.

The theory implied by the article I linked appears to me to be that the police fractured his neck verybrae during the arrest, but he severed his spinal cord in the paddy wagon. That seems plausible to me.

There are still crimes implied in that theory, but they may not rise to the level of murder/manslaughter if the police moves were standard, though inherently dangerous.

 

[Rick21383]

Yes, I did. I was commenting on how it was being spinned.

The only people spinning this are the libnuts who are drinking the kool aid. That passage was not at all misleading or out of context.

Neither you, nor myself, nor anyone else on this forum knows exactly what happened, yet you're trying to weave your own narrative from something that isn't there. You took one piece of information (which is simply an account from another prisoner in the van of what he heard and THOUGHT was occurring) and somehow your take from that is "obviously this guy didn't break his own spine!".

Let's wait for the facts before jumping to conclusions.

 

[mheslep]

I wasn't aware of that: do you have any examples? ...

The Garner case in NYC (guy selling cigarettes and died in police choke hold). Grand Jury inexplicably came back no charge. Only reports of the GJ proceeding came by way of some scant DA comments.

 

[Borg]

Thanks nsaspook and russ_watters. I think that I was mixing up some of what I was reading about his neck vs. his spine.

 

[russ_watters]

The Garner case in NYC (guy selling cigarettes and died in police choke hold). Grand Jury inexplicably came back no charge. Only reports of the GJ proceeding came by way of some scant DA comments.

OK...well, in that case an awful lot of the evidence was released directly to the public, so I'm not clear on what more is needed.

Beyond; grand jury testimony isn't generally released unless there is a compelling public interest. I don't see one here (nor did the judge) and I don't see why a law requiring secrecy unless an exception is granted (or the declining of that request) should generate anger. The reason for secrecy is not a contoversial point of law, being unanimously upheld by USSC decision. The primary reason for the secrecy is protection of witnesses.