Originally Posted By ecdc Here's an article that explains why protesters might see rioting and destruction of property in their own neighborhoods as a rational response. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.vox.com/2015/4/29/8513775/baltimore-riots-local-opinions">http://www.vox.com/2015/4/29/8...opinions</a> The tl;dr version is no one pays attention to them unless there's destruction. It's easy to preach nonviolence when you're in a position of power and people already listen to you. But how many people knew protests were going on in Baltimore a week before the riots? I sure didn't. And why is that? Because no one in the media covered it and no political leaders in Baltimore or Maryland responded...until there was violence. Like the bullied kid, these people are invisible to us until they explode, then we wonder what their problem is and lecture them on destroying their own community.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer But the leaders are responding to the violence, not the rationalization behind it. As soon as you break a window or harm an innocent bystander then whatever reasons you may think you have that justifies it is moot and something that I'm not at all interested in hearing about. You don't reward a bullied kid by suddenly paying attention to him when he becomes a bully.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss I'm not even convinced the dead guy was bullied, or that the police were the prime cause of his death.
Originally Posted By ecdc Right, because of a report *written by the police* that say he was thrashing around in the back of the police transport, and a now-debunked report that he had previous spinal cord injuries. And the victim blaming keeps right on rolling. Shouldn't we bring at least a healthy dose of skepticism to what the police say given that their reports keep not matching up with video evidence? Yesterday Baltimore police tweeted out that "criminals" had set a fire in front of a library, but reporters present said it he fire was caused by a gas canister fired by police.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss But didn't the police report include a statement by another prisoner, who said he heard the victim moving around in the back of the van? I guess I am not quite that skeptical yet. Maybe because I read way too many conspiracy theories that make me roll my eyes.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But didn't the police report include a statement by another prisoner, who said he heard the victim moving around in the back of the van?> How in the world does someone sever his own spine? If another prisoner said "I heard him banging his head" and he has head bruises, maybe that fits. But how in the world do you sever your own spine? The police account keeps changing, too: <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-death-investigation/">http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/30/...igation/</a>
Originally Posted By trekkeruss "But how in the world do you sever your own spine?" I don't know, but people do dumb things all the time that gets themselves hurt...or killed. "The police account keeps changing, too" I heard that on the radio, about the extra stop. I don't think that points to anything nefarious.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>But didn't the police report include a statement by another prisoner, who said he heard the victim moving around in the back of the van?<< No, it included a police officer writing down that another witness heard it. There is absolutely nothing in the handwriting of another person who says this is what happened. This is a case study of cognitive biases at work. There is a power dynamic at play here that is deeply inculcated in all of us that is difficult to overcome. We assume that someone who was arrested must've done something to deserve it. We assume that if that person is injured or even killed in police custody, they did something to deserve. This is the narrative we've all been set up to believe since early childhood. Everyone's brains therefore work overtime to reinforce our pre-existing beliefs. So, in this case, dubious stories about Freddie Gray having spinal surgery (he didn't) surface. Stories about him severing his own spine(!) surface. All because it is just that difficult to believe that a man may have been brutally manhandled and ultimately murdered by the police. This in spite of massive evidence to the contrary, both in this case and recent evidence *on videotape* that some police kill black men and lie about it with ease.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <<"But how in the world do you sever your own spine?">> <I don't know, but people do dumb things all the time that gets themselves hurt...or killed.> That's pretty weak. Meanwhile, let's get back to the real world. How do you, shackled in a van, sever your own spine? How, in practical terms, do you do that? <<"The police account keeps changing, too">> <I heard that on the radio, about the extra stop. I don't think that points to anything nefarious. > 1). There was more detail in my link about various changes in the police story. 2). The fact that you heard it on the radio means nothing. What counts is that for 18 days the police - who knew about this extra stop - said nothing about it. Obviously the driver and any other cops in the van knew they made this stop. So why report it only 18 days later AFTER it is discovered that the stop was caught on camera? From the link: "They found out about it after doing this investigation where they interviewed over 30 people," she said. "So what that says to me is that if it's going to take a closed-circuit, private camera to show the stop, that they were not getting that information from the police officers during the investigation." Exactly. Either the police in the van didn't report the stop to the (police) investigators, or the police investigators deliberately did not disclose it for 18 days.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss But why disclose it at all then? If they hold all the cards, as it seems to be implied, why produce this "incriminating" evidence? "We assume that someone who was arrested must've done something to deserve it. " I don't think he deserved to die. Did he deserve to be arrested? Frankly, I haven't seen any video, or know what he was picked up for. I only heard he ran from the police (which in itself, isn't a reason to be arrested).
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But why disclose it at all then? If they hold all the cards, as it seems to be implied, why produce this "incriminating" evidence?> It was caught on a private security camera.
Originally Posted By RoadTrip You can't believe what either side says without investigation. "Hands up, don't shoot" has now been said tens of thousands of times all across the country. The only problem is that NO hard evidence has even been produced to support that... in fact it supports the opposite. I don't necessarily believe the cops, but I don't necessarily believe the community either.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <But they took the only copy of video tape, yes? > The only salient point here is not what was on the video (probably very little - if anything bad was happening it would have been inside the van out of view of the camera) - but that the video exists at all; showing the van in a place the police had not previously acknowledged it being. Again, the driver of the van knew they made that stop, as did any other cop inside it. So why did they not disclose this to their superiors conducting the investigation? Or if they did, why did those superiors not disclose this to the public until 18 days later, AFTER the existence of this private footage became public?
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <"Hands up, don't shoot" has now been said tens of thousands of times all across the country. The only problem is that NO hard evidence has even been produced to support that... in fact it supports the opposite.> Not really. What the report said was NOT (as Fox News tried to claim, for instance) that Brown definitively did not have his hands up. What it said is that some witnesses said he did, and some said he didn't. With conflicting testimony and no video, they simply couldn't prove a case beyond a reasonable doubt, and thus would not initiate a Federal prosecution. The strange thing is, of course, that both the witnesses who said Brown had his hands up, and those who said he didn't, could BOTH have been telling the truth, depending on when they were looking. In the right-wing media bubble, the fact that the Feds didn't prosecute has been taken as "exoneration" or even refutation of the very idea that Brown ever had his hands up - but that's not what the report said. I'm not saying you're part of that bubble, RT (I know you're not), but unfortunately that "take" on things even seeped into more mainstream reporting.
Originally Posted By fkurucz >>That's not productive speech.<< How's your bootlicking going to solve the problem?
Originally Posted By RoadTrip Ballistics tests and blood splatter evidence indicated that he could not have been shot in a hands up position. I discount ALL eyewitness testimony. It is notoriously unreliable.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Ballistics tests and blood splatter evidence indicated that he could not have been shot in a hands up position. > They do not prove he never had his hands up. In fact, almost certainly he did at one point; remember the construction workers who weren't from Ferguson and didn't know Brown, who instantly reacted to the shooting by saying he did, and thus they couldn't believe the cop shot him. That was an instant, visceral reaction, not something they had time to think about and relate later. <a target="blank" rel="nofollow" href="http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/2-men-react-michael-brown-shot-cops-article-1.1935949">http://www.nydailynews.com/new....1935949</a>
Originally Posted By DDMAN26 Threatening innocent people is not protesting. Destroying businesses is not protesting. Preventing firemen from doing their jobs is not protesting. I am 100% for people wanting to make a change. This does not accentuate change. This just makes people look like a-holes
