• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Obama Catch-22 on Baltimore(etc?)

Did you say the same thing every other time President Obama or AG Holder commented on similar issues and circumstances? Michael Brown? Treyvon Martin? Eric Garner? If not, your comment here is worthless.

I'm having trouble following your logic. You seem to be saying he should have stayed out of those situations, but should stick his nose into this one. Make up your mind. In or out?
 
How were the police justified in this case?

Because I don't know the details of the incident involving the man who died, it would be foolish of me to claim this or that action the police took was justified, or not. That's what grand juries are assembled to do.

But this kind of rioting has sometimes happened where there was no police misconduct at all. What touched off the Watts riot of 1965, for example, was a white highway patrol motorcycle officer pulling over a young black man, Marquette Frye, early one summer evening, for driving in a way that made the officer suspect he was drunk. He had every right to do that. Police are obligated to stop drunk driving whenever they have good reason to suspect it, because it is a serious threat to public safety.

The officer's suspicion apparently was justified, because Frye failed a field sobriety test. He then became belligerent and began to walk away, cursing and shouting that police would have to kill him to stop him. By then, about fifteen minutes after the stop, other police had arrived, as well a crowd of about 250 sullen locals. These included Frye's mother, who lived nearby--when she first arrived, she had scolded him for drinking--and his brother, who had been a passenger in the car. When officers tried to arrest Frye, who had walked into the crowd, some of these people, including the mother and brother, interfered with them. Police then arrested all three of the Fryes, which made the hundreds of interlopers furious.

The brouhaha at the scene of the car stop spread quickly throughout that area of Los Angeles, becoming more and more violent. The disorderly behavior and disrespect for the law the people in this crowd had chosen to show gave many other people in that area of Los Angeles, almost all of them black, a pretext for engaging in several days of rioting. Thirty-four people were killed as a result of the many felony crimes committed. These crimes also cost about $40 million in property damage, equivalent in today's money to about a quarter of a billion. I suppose that out of racial sensitivity, the officer should just have let Frye keep driving, and if he had run down a couple little kids a few minutes later, so what?
 
I'm having trouble following your logic. You seem to be saying he should have stayed out of those situations, but should stick his nose into this one. Make up your mind. In or out?

It's not me that has to be consistent - it's your President. He's the one who picks black criminals to champion when they get killed in the act, when there's an opportunity to throw a white person under the bus, but he's reticent to get involved when it's a mob of black savages and anarchist destroying property and assaulting innocent bystanders.

If he wants to flame racial tensions he should also be prepared to call out black savages. Maybe by saying if he had a son, his son would never behave the way these cretins have.
 
It's not me that has to be consistent - it's your President. He's the one who picks black criminals to champion when they get killed in the act, when there's an opportunity to throw a white person under the bus, but he's reticent to get involved when it's a mob of black savages and anarchist destroying property and assaulting innocent bystanders.

If he wants to flame racial tensions he should also be prepared to call out black savages. Maybe by saying if he had a son, his son would never behave the way these cretins have.

He already said that if he had a son his son would have been a locker robbing, drug smoking no limit nigga. Oh...no...wait...my bad...his son would have been the cute sweet innocent 9 year old version of the locker robbing drug smoking no limit nigga.
 
Whoever places the President of the United States in that position probably could not care less about justice in the United States. That is what we need to fight for, that is what we teach our children to mindlessly repeat every day, "...with liberty and justice for all." That is what has been sought after in Ferguson, New York City, North Carolina, and now Baltimore. The President needs to be able to either stand by the decisions that the judicial system makes, or take action in appealing to the Supreme Court for a more just outcome, without the scrupulous criticism on either side. Meaning, whether it is just to acquit or convict officers involved in the deaths of Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Jonathan Ferell and Freddie Gray is a question of evidence, morality and legality. So, Obama's race is entirely irrelevant; he was elected to lead the branch of federal government that carries out the laws passed by Congress, and can bring a case to the Supreme Court for Constitutional interpretation when necessary. On a completely separate tangent, Obama is HALF WHITE and HALF BLACK. Any bias in one direction or the other would not only be a huge sign of corruption, but an entirely ironic contradiction of his own part. All in all, these cases are a question of justice, not race.
 
Back
Top Bottom