Those few thugs (used on purpose) caused MILLIONS of dollars in damage on (just) Monday night. Had a curfew been put into effect on Monday, millions could have been saved -- and still allow for all the peaceful demonstration Baltimore wanted during the day.
Personally, I don't have such a tenuous grasp on my civil rights that I am appalled by curfews when thugs are trying to burn down the city and steal every chance they get. You?
You assert that a citywide curfew was the only solution. I do not think it was.
This was not citywide and the problem was dealing with looting and arson at night, while at the same time there were thousands of lawful protesters at night.
Therefore, if there was an emergency situation then it should have been to prohibit gatherings of more than half a dozen people from 10 pm to 5 am in the affected area, and to do the "designated protest area" picking a park, and not a total citywide lock down.
There are other issues such as holding all the police back and not bringing in the Guardsmen earlier. Why wouldn't that have worked? To declare an emergency basis to prohibit large gatherings outside an area such as a park during those hours?
Other issues I have, seemingly a contradict, of why didn't the police charge those small groups - usually 100 or less - throwing rocks and bottles at them arresting them - as they should be arrested and convicted of assault against police - a felony?
What affected my opinion was a Maryland State Senator for that jurisdiction pointing out to FOX news that while they were singularly videotaping about 100 people - a few of those throwing things at the police - there were thousands of peaceful protesters totally ignored by the media and that Baltimore has nearly 700,000 people - for which the ONLY interest was in those 100 or so. And, then, on top of that, little to no effort was made to arrest the 100 or so actually committing crimes.
The criminals? Nothing happened to them. Rather, the action was for the most part against everyone else.
Looting and arson? Happens all over the country. Flash-mobs (looting) has become fairly common. They don't lock down the entire city. Arson isn't rare either.
The MEDIA sold the pitch of OMG BALTIMORE IS BEING BURNED TO THE GROUND - and that wasn't happening. They portrayed that looting and arson were out of control all over the city. That wasn't happening. And they seemed to sell the idea that thousands of people were engaging in looting, which wasn't happening either. This was happening in one poor income neighborhood for which there were probably 20 police for every looter,which rose to about a 50 to 1 ratio.
So then isolate that neighborhood, declare gatherings outside designated areas are illegal at certain hours, and aggressively/instantly go after those few committing crimes in that neighborhood and against the police. In my opinion, the mayor and police were more acting to demands of the media upon the portrayals of the media, than the actual reality.
Maybe it SEEMS trivial, but it would be something taken from my life if told we couldn't do our night-time shark fishing due to it being illegal to tow our boat back home - because there was a higher than usual crime rate going on in a small city miles away. "Well, then why are you bothering us? Go arrest those criminals" would be my attitude.
Also, if you are familiar with Baltimore, there is a very popular tourist beach front - and those are weekend businesses - restaurants and bars - and those also all ordered closed - though NO problems there at all. It is almost like a completely different city. So wreck everyone's once-a-year vacation too?
I really do think that woman had a valid excuse in saying that she lives in that neighborhood and she wanted to go outside and look at the stars. The idea that a mayor can just declare that's a criminal offense seems wrong somehow.
I do understand your opinion and yes there is a balancing act sometimes. I think they went too far.