Thread: Baltimore Police: Gangs Enter Partnership to ‘Take-Out’ Officers [W:99]

Originally Posted by Fenton

She said they gave the protesters the space to destroy things if they wanted to.

Wow.

Thank God I live in Texas. The average law abiding citizen has a pistol either on them or in their vehicle.

yeah not much chance of this nonsense taking place in states where most citizens can own weapons and carry them in public

I have a SW 40 in the car and often a CMMG M4 in the trunk

Originally Posted by Peter Grimm

You want people to listen and solve the problems in your city, rioting is the wrong way to go about it. All you're going to get is blowback. And rightly so.

These perpetrators deserve whatever they get

Two things..

1) Nobody wanted to listen for the last few decades. Nobody.

2) This is the reaction when discourse fails.

Here is an article done by the Baltimore Sun on Police brutality in Baltimore. Written in Sept 2014. And the Atlantic ran it's own cover of it today.

4 years and $5.7m paid on police brutality cases... 100 of them. At which point does the police force, local government, state and federal government look into the situation and rectify it? They still haven't.. and Freddie Gray was another victim of that brutality. At some point, you get fed up and rather burn the whole **** down just to prove the point you are done with it. As your elected leaders don't care and you can't rely on the police so.. anarchy must be achieved to prove the point.

Originally Posted by humbolt

Just because I said one thing doesn't mean I don't know another. You don't know jack **** about me, either. There's no excuse, nor any good reason for what's going on. So can it, and don't presume to be in a position to give me lectures.

You flat out said.. you are somewhat familiar with Baltimore. Did you know the current Mayor (Stephanie Rawlings-Blake) is just as corrupt as Mayor Dixon who she replaced. That SRB (current mayor) has wanted to get rid of "vacant" lots and give them to her political donors that the city owned.. Her words the other day about giving rioters "space" was her hoping they'd burn down other vacant lots so the city could take over them and give them to her donors.

When the Mayor, City Council, and Police are that corrupt and that wicked.. sometimes this is the end result. State and Federal Governments for years have ignored this problem.


I am not excusing the behavior at all. Rather, I am saying people are fed up with the corruption and police brutality and this is what happens when you ignore those who have been years trying to peaceful change the situation.

Originally Posted by Fearandloathing

No I don't know jack **** about Baltimore, but based on these riots and that post, **** it, let it burn

These aren't riots, unless you wanna call what happened in Kiev as riots as well.. Rather this is the militant and fed up side of the underbelly saying enough is enough. It'll die out.. but it can't be ignored anymore.

Originally Posted by Moot

"Rioting is the language of the unheard." - Martin Luther King Jr.

It's alledged that the rioters were mostly kids from the community. So the notion of cops shooting local kids who are rioting because of police brutality is probably not a good idea while the eyes of the world are watching.....live.


But it was very stupid not to call for the curfew tonight instead of tomorrow. I must say, I'm not very impressed with Baltimore's mayor.


Baltimore has a black female mayor, a black police chief, a black congressman and black representatives....so it's not like blacks aren't represented in local government so it must be a systemic problem in the police department. I wouldn't be surprised if the DoJ report on Ferguson also applied to Baltimore as well as hundreds of other urban minority areas.

It started with the kids (high school level). Then as it got into the communities it was everybody. Mayor and State Government couldn't do a curfew tonight. They don't have the assets. So tomorrow is when the rubber had to meet the road.

Originally Posted by austrianecon

Two things..

1) Nobody wanted to listen for the last few decades. Nobody.

2) This is the reaction when discourse fails.

Here is an article done by the Baltimore Sun on Police brutality in Baltimore. Written in Sept 2014. And the Atlantic ran it's own cover of it today.

4 years and $5.7m paid on police brutality cases... 100 of them. At which point does the police force, local government, state and federal government look into the situation and rectify it? They still haven't.. and Freddie Gray was another victim of that brutality. At some point, you get fed up and rather burn the whole **** down just to prove the point you are done with it. As your elected leaders don't care and you can't rely on the police so.. anarchy must be achieved to prove the point.

Wait... you mean that the notion of these riots stopping discussion is exposed as bull**** because the discussion wasn't happening without the riots to begin with? I'm shocked. SHOCKED I TELLS YA! You mean to say that this is simply one more case in a situation that was never being addressed to begin with? That is simply outrageous. Off with your head, heathen!

What seems to be missing from all this is the protestors calling for the local government to resign like they did in Ferguson.
I wonder why that is?

---

Originally Posted by CRUE CAB

The only cans and cones swung around were on cars.

Are you now aware that at the time you said this you were wrong?
Cans were being thrown not just at vehicles.

---

Originally Posted by bicycleman

I hear that peaceful religion, the Nation of Islam, brought the gangs together to attack the police.

Maybe?

---

Originally Posted by soot

But of course they don't make that "credible information" available to we the people.

Of course they wouldn't.
Why in the world do you think they should jeopardize their source?

Originally Posted by soot

Sure.

Makes perfect sense.

Criminals are committing crime so it it's pretty much a foregone conclusion that gangs have entered in to a partnership, forming something like one big supergang, for the avowed purpose of executing police officers.

Like in the Batman movies!

Sorry man, I just don't buy it.

While not indicative of cooperation between the gangs the above image of Blood, Crips and the NOI supports that their may just be.

---

Then there is stuff like this ...

Originally Posted by soot

Well, "feeling threatened" is the "reason" that Michael Slager gave for shooting Scott,

That is only what you were told, and while sufficient that may not be the sole reason.

Originally Posted by soot

so while I agree with you that being assaulted certainly raises the stakes, Slager didn't go with that excuse because he didn't know that he was being video taped at the time of the murder (an oversight for which I'm certain he's kicking himself in the pants).

All around wrong.
1. The assault would have contributed to the fear he experienced.
2. The witness said that the Officer knew he was being recorded.

Originally Posted by soot

Either way, neither "feeling threatened" nor "being assaulted" rise to the standard set by Tennessee v. Garner and Graham v. Connor in respect to shooting a fleeing felon.

You simply have no idea of what you speak.

Originally Posted by soot

In order to shoot a fleeing felon Slager would have to be able to demonstrate that the felon posed an imminent threat either to himself (Slager) or to a bystander.

Maybe you should familiarize yourself with what the jury instruction says, as "immanent" is not the requirement. It follows the holding in Tennessee v. Garner.

Police officer - arrest

During an arrest for a felony, if the arresting officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, the officer may prevent the escape by using deadly Force. ⁷¹

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/jury...nsJune2013.pdf

The Officer had probable cause to believe he was just such a threat, not just after the suspect assaulted him, but also when the suspect took the Officer's taser.
It wasn't murder.

Originally Posted by soot

But, again, since Slager didn't know he was being video recorded he didn't think to make up a big lie about how Scott was running toward "the children" (or some other innocent, defenseless bystander) necessitating the use of deadly force.

What Slager did was shoot a fleeing felon in the back at a distance of 30 or so feet despite the face that Scott posed no imminent threat to anyone.

And that, my friend, is murder.

All nonsensical speculation on your part.
The evidence does not support a murder charge.

Originally Posted by soot

The part of the video that had nothing to do with a cop murdering a guy in cold blood (and then attempting to cover up his crime by tampering with evidence) wasn't released until it was released.

There was no cold blooded murder.
There was an Officer responding to the threat a criminal was at the moment the criminal was a threat.
And securing your weapon is protocol, not tampering with evidence.
And alleging cover-up or staging is asinine, especially as he knew he was being recorded, and because what he dropped was done so in the view of the other Officer.

Originally Posted by soot

because under no circumstances is a cop (or anyone else in America) allowed to shoot a fleeing man in the back from 30 feet away and then stage the scene so it appears as though no crime was committed.

Wrong.
And once you are firing to stop a fleeing felon, you fire until that felon has stopped fleeing.