Everyone in our house popped a huge pot of popcorn because we were laughing our heads off watching Fox. All of Fox’s Blonde, Bleached and Tanned prompter readers demanding justice on the streets of Baltimore… Too funny. You couldn’t make this stuff up. Pass the salt and beer.
If you’re a bit hard of understanding, ‘rioting’ is against the status quo, ‘looting’ is what the less smart concentrate on because it’s an emphasis you’re being directed towards by media.
The former forces consideration of an issue, the latter focuses on actions of some individuals.
It really, really is not that hard but if you can be mugged this simply I guess it explains something.
You wanna cite some case law to support this opinion, or is this just a cranky rant?
So…Baltimore’s “Riot for Nepal” fundraiser seems to be doing well.
Really good turnout.
All I can say is, thank goodness that, unlike Ferguson, MO, Baltimore has long had a mostly black city council and a black mayor.
That’s why the violence that occurred in Ferguson could never happen in Baltimore.
What? Practically everyone on the Left said the problem in Ferguson was that whites held all the political power. If that’s true, SURELY things must be very different in Baltimore.
Good job, astorian - you’ve really knocked the stuffing out of that strawman! Hit it again!
It’s habeas corpus. Or non habeas, as the case might be.
Conservatives wanted to send all the black people back to Liberia. Liberals preached social integration.
Same dynamic with Hispanics, too. Say what you will about conservatives, but at least they’re honest about their hostility to minorities.
Which is why if you’re Mayor you have to be careful what you say and how. You have to consider, “how’s the worst way what that I say can be interpreted?”. “If we’re giving space to demonstrate we’d also be giving space to destroy” is a bad line no matter what, in no small measure because then it could also be twisted all the way in the *opposite *direction into “therefore it’s too much of a risk to give space to demonstrate”.
I heard someone from the police saying in a press conference “we got outnumbered and outflanked” – that’s just bad management and planning. Or that they were so concerned that the blowout could happen anywhere that they had spread too thin, waiting to see where it would happen and by then it was too late for a response. IMO the authorities fell into a huge excluded middle between laying siege and cracking down from hour one, and just letting whatever happen. And now I wonder if assuming a strictly defensive posture unless and until getting specific orders from above to do something was itself an instruction from above, or merely inferred.
I lived in Baltimore for over a decade and have kept going back and forth there over the years, and alas, I have to say that this whole thing does not really surprise me. I got this sense all along that the Law Enforcement structure in the city was in no shape to really deal with these sorts of challenges. The political structure, on its part, is still one of deeply entrenched machines protecting their fiefdoms.
Yeah, unfocused self-destructive rage. Which actually plays into the hands of continued disenfranchisement – “see what sort of people we’re dealing with” kind of statements, or the attitude that “you’ll never change the system, so just seek to be badass and live fast, there’s nothing else to look for”.
I don’t think she was giving the order to let people riot and destroy businesses. No one in their right mind would. But she should have just come out and say that she misspoke and explain what she meant to say, instead of accusing the media of taking her words out of context.
It wasn’t just Fox News that was questioning her leadership last night, CNN and Anderson Cooper were pretty blunt about her poor handling of the entire situation.
Was CNN accusing her of deliberately allowing rioting, or simply saying that she was not handling the situation well? Those are two completely different accusations. I don’t know enough to agree or disagree with the latter.
The right wingnuts wouldn’t be so upset about the mayor’s comment if she had been a white male. The hidden subtext is “see what happens when one of THEM is in charge?” In context, the comments were perhaps inelegant but in no way inflammatory.
Police violence has been there for a long time. Only now due to videos has it been undeniable. This outrage over what has been there for ages and has only recently been publicly demonstrated has been building for months. When pressure builds, it will eventually find an outlet. It just happened to be Baltimore.
They accused her:
- of not providing enough or any police support in many areas early in the afternoon when the rioting began.
- of being irresponsible for not setting the curfew for last night as well.
- of not taking responsibility for misspeaking about the “space for violence” comment, which could have led people to believe that it was “okay” to go and loot and riot.
- of not taking more precautions to anticipate that such events could have occurred (i.e. poor leadership)
Being poor leader is being a poor leader. If what Fox news asserts is true, that’s criminal.
I’ll second that thought and add that it shouldn’t be a surprise. The condition there is nothing new.
Being a poor leader through inexperience or incompetence and being a poor leader by deliberately allowing rioting are two completely different things. The first is unacceptable but the second is criminal.
Who am I supposed to beleive, Rawlings-Blake, or my lying eyes? There are video’s of Rawlings-Blake saying exactly what she said.
*WATCH: Strangely, Baltimore Mayor Says She Gave Protestors ‘Space’ to Destroy Property -
…What no one expected is what Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake admitted in a press conference on Sunday: that she asked the Baltimore Police Department to “give those who wished to destroy space to do that.”*
For those who object to Christian sites, there are other sites which show the same video of Mayor Rawlings-Blake making the same statement.
The Mayor’s office later issued a correction. After the looters, thugs, arsonists, and terrorists had taken to the streets to burn, loot, and throw bottles and bricks at the police. It doesn’t appear that the Mayor’s office issued the clarification to the looters, thugs, arsonists, and terrorists who were already in the streets.
*This clarification is regarding comments made by Mayor Rawlings-Blake during a recent press conference. The mayor’s original quote follows (emphasis and clarification added):
"I’ve 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. It’s a very delicate balancing act, because, while we tried to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also [as a result] 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 deescalate, and that’s what you saw.”*
http://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/MDBALT/bulletins/10158de
Rawlings-Blake later blamed the media for reporting what she actually said, instead of reporting what she meant to say. And she denied saying what the video shows she said.
“Well, there’s one obvious definition, and one really tortured one.”
“Is she a Democrat?”
“Well, yes.”
“You know what to do, son. Twist away.”
^ two up: How long did it take to type that pointless dribble?
Do you think a single rioter even gave a thought to the mayor’s words before rioting?
CNN raised the possibility that her misspoken comment could have led rioters to believe they had tacit permission.