Inside the Military-Police Center That Spies On Baltimore's Rioters 203
Lasrick writes: Adam Weinstein on a program designed to catch terrorists attacking Baltimore that is now being used to spy on protesters: 'On Ambassador Road, just off I-695 around the corner from the FBI, nearly 100 employees sit in a high-tech suite and wait for terrorists to attack Baltimore. They've waited 11 years. But they still have plenty of work to do, like using the intel community's toys to target this week's street protests.' Great read.
Motive (Score:2)
Re:Motive (Score:5, Interesting)
Yeah... If anything this is a better justification than they had before. There were looters running through stores, rioters burning down buildings, and the one guy even puncturing the fire hose when the fire department tried to put the flames out. There is a much more credible, obvious, proximate threat to life and property than there would be with some shadowy nonspecific radical-jihadist plot. Things were literally on fire, people.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Property? They probably caused a few hundred thousand dollars in damages; I think 9/11 clocked in at around... oh you know, maybe fifty billion. No biggie.
Life? Zero people are dead because of these riots. Wish I could say the same was true for people killed by cops. Or on 9/11.
Re: Motive (Score:3)
Please tell me what these Islamist terrorists are doing. There was shoe bomber, whose comical attempt to light his shoe on fire like wiley coyote was stopped by passenger. underwear bomber who did the same thing. the boston marathon guys were not aligned with a particular terrorist group like AQAP or ISIS, just touched in the head. where are all the boogeymen in the closet?
Re: (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
FTFY
The two are not interchangeable.
Re: Complete Bullshit. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Or is it the lack of jobs that cause people to fall back on illegal means of livelihood that is destroying American society?
Re: (Score:2)
Or is it the lack of jobs that cause people to fall back on illegal means of livelihood that is destroying American society?
I doubt that lack of jobs causes people to turn to illegal means of livelihood. In fact, I think the cause and effect are reversed in that statement.
Re: (Score:3)
What do you do for a livelihood if there are no jobs available? It's rather lay down and die or create a business serving the needs around you. If the only profitable needs are illegal...
Re: (Score:2)
What do you do for a livelihood if there are no jobs available? It's rather lay down and die or create a business serving the needs around you. If the only profitable needs are illegal...
Well, I don't have a job at the moment, but among all of the things that I am considering doing, selling drugs and robbing banks are not on the list. I'd sooner stand on a corner and beg.
Re: (Score:2)
See, and that's why all the good drug-dealing jobs go to the illegals. Americans just think some jobs are beneath them. Tsk, tsk.
(good luck on your job hunt, though).
Re: (Score:2)
From an economic standpoint, drug dealing is the best deal around for anyone who grew up in an inner city slum. It shows more about the parent, that he doesn't get that.
Yes, the risk/reward is steep, but you do what you have to do.
Re: (Score:2)
They did this with Occupy Wall Street (Score:5, Interesting)
They are burning down a city (Score:2)
Just what do you consider sufficient probable cause ?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
They are burning down a city ... For a REASON. Perhaps you should bother to inform yourself on the conditions Baltimore's poorest live In and how the local and state governments do NOTHING to improve things. Corruption. Corruption. Corruption. This was coming and it didn't take a genius to see it. Nobody cared. They silently protested for 5 days. Nobody listened until they got mad. Maybe instead of enforcement we try actual improvements for a change.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Kind of late for that mate, it is already happening and unless you intend to pass on shortly you will be a part of it getting much worse, good luck, you'll need it in America. Emigrate early, rather than late because whilst the asshats that caused it all the 1%, most certainly will make sure they can leave with a substantive portion of their wealth intact, their victims the 99% not so much. Collapsing Empire's trying to force the continuance of their waning dominance, inevitably become self destructive. Th
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
For a REASON
So, the corruption you're worried about is something that you think will be fixed by trashing a liquor store? By looting and burning the local CVS? By burning down an almost completely senior center being built specifically to improve the local quality of life in that crappy neighborhood?
Yes, the democrats that have been running that city for decades have plenty to answer for in the way of imperfect services being rendered. But unless you think it's the city government's role to step in between two peop
Re:They are burning down a city (Score:5, Interesting)
“I was watching the news last night,” said Morgan Freeman. “and said, ‘You know, when we were out here marching peacefully, nobody was here. And now we start burning the place down, everybody is listening. What do you think we’re gonna do to be heard?’
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
And when they were marching peacefully, I thought, that is horrible what happened to that guy. I hope those cops pay for it. When they were burning the place down, I thought this sort of justifies why the cops treat people like animals in some places and it's no wonder they shoot first and ask questions later.
I'm wondering if he thinks the message they want heard is what is actually being heard when everybody is listening?
Re: (Score:2)
do the down mods think they can hide the comment or something?
Seriously, when you act out in order to get attention, the attention you get is often not the type you want. A kid wanting a piece of cake at dinner will likely get an ass whooping instead of a piece of cake if after being ignored he decides to throw things off the table.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I see, you can ignore the point by attacking the messenger. Brilliant debate tactics. You should become a politician.
Re: (Score:2)
Ignoring the problem won't make it go away. Acting out and justifying the treatment you are protesting does nothing to stop the treatment from happening. Idiots like you of all people should know that, you must think everyone is out to get you.
Re:They are burning down a city (Score:5, Insightful)
There was a quote from the Orioles' VP, John Angelos:
"That said, my greater source of personal concern, outrage and sympathy beyond this particular case is focused neither upon one night's property damage nor upon the acts, but is focused rather upon the past four-decade period during which an American political elite have shipped middle class and working class jobs away from Baltimore and cities and towns around the U.S. to third-world dictatorships like China and others, plunged tens of millions of good hard-working Americans into economic devastation, and then followed that action around the nation by diminishing every American's civil rights protections in order to control an unfairly impoverished population living under an ever-declining standard of living and suffering at the butt end of an ever-more militarized and aggressive surveillance state."
People need to understand the above, as it is the root cause for these types of issues. If things continue down the path we're on, the unrest will only worsen. The truly dangerous and foolish will be the ones who advocate for more extreme police measures as a response, rather than addressing the underlying causes of the unhappiness.
Re: (Score:2)
I once was driving through Baltimore and wanted to grab some lunch. I saw a sign for the "Baltimore Travel Center." Hey, sounds like a rest stop, right?
More like Greyhound bus terminal. The neighboorhood surrounding it looked like it should have its photo in the wikipedia entry for "Urban Blight." And that was in broad daylight - I couldn't imagine driving around that area at night. There was trash everywhere - parking lot, inside, etc. The works. I've lived in major cities and downtown doesn't bothe
Re:They are burning down a city (Score:5, Insightful)
The city fucking deserves what it got!
If Baltimore's police wasn't made up of murderous, jackbooted thugs, then there wouldn't be any riots in the first place.
Compare and contrast Baltimore or Ferguson to Charleston and how the latter city handled the Walter Scott murder. Whereas the governments of Ferguson and Baltimore (until recently) dug in their heels against their own citizens in defense of their corrupt police, Charleston's leadership had the basic decency to prosecute a blatantly obvious crime without trying to spin or weasel their way out of it. As a direct consequence, there have been no riots in Charleston.
The lesson for government here is simple: if you don't want riots, then respect the citizens' rights!
Re:They are burning down a city (Score:4, Insightful)
Blah, blah, blah.
I have one word -- just one word -- that renders your entire argument moot. You want to know what it is? Alright, here it comes:
EUROPE.
Somehow, the police in Europe manage to deal with the same kinds of crime we have here, yet manage to do it without killing nearly as many people as our police do. One statistic I've heard is that American police killed more people in March than the UK police have since 1900. That's one month vs. more than a century. (And I don't care that the US population is higher; it doesn't matter -- we're talking orders of magnitude here!) There is no explanation, other than American police having a SYSTEMIC problem of incompetence, corruption, and needless brutality.
Also note that, while bad cops are bad cops, "good" cops that cover for bad cops are bad cops too. The problem in Ferguson and Baltimore is not that one bad cop fucked up, it's that one bad cop fucked up and all the other bad cops -- namely, the vast majority of the cops in those jurisdictions -- defended him!
In other words, it's "only" 99% of cops who make the rest [wikipedia.org] look bad.
Re: (Score:2)
(obviously, we're still better than places that are openly corrupt and allow the crime cartels to run entire cities...but replace "crime cartel" with "large above-the-law corporation" and it's starting to look uncomfortably similar...)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
It amazes me that protesters can be watched like terrorist suspects and "cases built against them". Yet these nazis don't do a damn thing about the corporate execs who have caused way more trouble for thousands of people all over the country.
The license plate reader image from the article shows a category for "other" along with "tax scofflaw". "Other" says nothing but fishing expedition to me. Unbelievable.
Re: (Score:2)
I noticed that too. Not being an American, what is a "scofflaw"? Is it an execution offence?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I understand that you're being facetious, but unfortunately, that doesn't even seem to hold a phantom truth. I seem to hear as much about jobs that pay a livable wage being cut as I hear about job creation. That's the pony show they trot out every time they are attacked, but it's really starting to be a facade. Especially considering that real wages have dropped over the last couple of decades.
Re: (Score:2)
What really chaps my ass is the low quality of the jobs they attract. They will spend gobs of money and trumpet 100 jobs coming to
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't do a damn bit of good, other than there being a record that these results were foreseen.
Like usual, it's not a question of "If it can be abused?", but rather "When will it be abused?".
Re: (Score:3)
There may, indeed, have been some people who were sufficiently scared by 9/11 to think that the change in laws was desireable, but I've never met one. There certainly weren't enough to get the laws changed in less than a month. But certain people in power saw an opportunity and used it, and it MUCH harder to get a law repealed.
I don't think the country, as in most of the people living there, was ever in favor of the draconian and unconstitutional changes in the law. That doesn't much matter when both maj
I don't think it's that complicated (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And it appears lieing and misconstruing facts to someone's advantage is still in practice.
Re: (Score:2)
And it appears lieing and misconstruing facts to someone's advantage is still in practice.
Because the Trail of Tears and other atrocities against "Native Americans" never happened.
Wrong or right, there were atrocities committed by the American government against Native peoples. Perhaps those acts were supported by a majority of the population. Doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Re: (Score:2)
We look at them now as atrocities but at the time, it was not. You specifically brought up the trail of tears and that shows a lot of restraint considering the norm of the time and even biblical reference which describe complete annihilation and enslavement which would have been easy to do.
But go ahead and look at everything from what you think you know today. I bet your dad even raped your mom a couple of times too- because she wasn't really into it when he was. That's what changing definitions midstream d
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, in a war, when one side fights against the other side, people die. Were is the problem outside war existing? As I already said, there was huge amounts of restraint employed compared to normal business as usual for war at or near the time.
Re: (Score:2)
The Supreme Court would have stopped the Trail of Tears. That part of American history is directly responsible for the existence of the US Marshall Service.
There are plenty of parallels to our treatment of Native Americans historically and our treatment of the poor today. It's just harder to resettle and eliminate the poor.
"If you have nothing to hide..." (Score:5, Insightful)
This is a perfect illustration of why the "if you have nothing to hide" argument in favor of government spying is so short-sighted. Yes, they always *say* that they will only use such powers of surveillance against foreign enemies and terrorists and child molesters and so on. But once they have such power, they will *inevitably* start using it against American citizens who are engaged in the Constitutionally protected activity of criticizing their government.
Anyone who has ever argued in favor of government spy powers needs to think long and hard about what kind of country we're becoming as a result of those powers, and whether we really want to be that kind of country.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Sorry but assault, vandalism, arson, destruction of public property, looting, etc are not Constitutionally protected activities no matter what the reason.
Maybe not by the US Constitution(I consider the oversight a deficiency myself), but 35 State Constitutions do recognize it.
Massachusetts's starts with a section that ends with:
"and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness."
followed by:
Article VII. Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity and happiness of the people; and not for the profi
Re: "If you have nothing to hide..." (Score:3, Insightful)
Looting and burning a CVS does nothing to champion liberty or overthrow a tyranny. The founding fathers would not be impressed.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
neither did dumping a bunch of tea in the bay
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it was. Learn a little history. The Boston Tea Party [history.com] was a protest about taxation without representation and specifically taxation on tea.
How do you justify burning down a senior citizen's complex?
Re: (Score:2)
It was also, incontrovertibly, a terrorist act. Does the the intent of that particular bit of civil disobedience out weigh the illegality of the act? If so, at what point to we draw the line between legitimate civil disobedience and outright terrorism? In that vein, what exactly, does this particular CVS have to do with race relations and the actions of the local Police? Is there some collusion between the Police and CVS that is causing Baltimore police to unfairly target specific racial groups?
Since th
Re: (Score:2)
Above where? The comment specifically said "Looting and burning a CVS does nothing to champion liberty or overthrow a tyranny." and the reply was some hogwash uninformed opinion about the Boston tea party. No one in this thread said anything about never acceptable just that certain acts do nothing to champion liberty or overthrow a tyranny. I'm sorry
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And whoever said that was completely correct. The Boston tea party was not constitutional either despite the constitution not even conceived at the time. But it was justified because it was a direct assault on tyranny and oppression in the defense of liberty.
Re: (Score:2)
If that were true, it sounds like nobody would want to work for CVS. maybe it is true but it's the fault of the employees for staying. No one forced them to work there.
Re: (Score:2)
Revolution does not need to include destruction of private property. How is burning down a old age home helping revolution?
Re: (Score:2)
"and whenever these great objects are not obtained, the people have a right to alter the government, and to take measures necessary for their safety, prosperity and happiness."
This is an acknowledgement of a right that people as a whole have.
Individuals do not have this right, neither do small groups of people supporting a common cause.
And the moment a group of people begins to infringe upon someone else's rights, by causing harm to other people's safety, prosperity, or happiness, in a violent manne
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you arguing otherwise?
Yes. A tool that can be used to deal with large events like riots should bot be ignored just because it was originally designed for a different purpose.
Re: (Score:2)
How are they not terrorist? I mean using violence and the threat of violence against the civilian populations in order to influence actions of government is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
Re: (Score:2)
How are they not terrorist? I mean using violence and the threat of violence against the civilian populations in order to influence actions of government is pretty much the definition of terrorism.
Nah; in the US, the term has been "re-purposed". It now means "Anyone that the people currently in power don't like." That definition successfully explains almost all uses of the word "terrorist" now, while the original, obsolete definition you quote doesn't.
Re: (Score:2)
I cannot imagine the people in power like the people looting and setting infrastructure and private property on fire. I guess it meets both versions of the definition then.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Have you ever noticed how some people say the government is out to get them? They get guns, they have a standoff with police, etc etc....
The difference of course is that the old white dudes are usually complaining about some imaginary slight and they are called patriots. They have a standoff and the cops usually show restraint. When poor inner city folks who actually do get crushed by the police regularly complain, well, they're just uppity thugs and vandals.... the cops move in, bash some heads, and it
Re: (Score:2)
To be fair, the police have, occasionally, committed violence and mass murder against white communities. Usually separatist religious groups.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you see no difference between burning and looting and holing up in a compound?
police regularly complain, well, they're just uppity thugs and vandals.
No they are not. Have all the organizes peaceful protests you want and I will not call you thugs and vandals. When they cross the line to include destruction of property and theft then they become thugs and vandals. There is a line between what is lawful protest and what is not. Burning buildings and vehicles and looting from stores is not lawful protest.
Sorry but when you cross that line you lose support for your cause. If you
Re: (Score:2)
the remedy is not so easily arranged.
There is no remedy to death but that does not justify looting and arson of private property.
You seem to hold property in a markedly higher esteem than human life.
I most certainly do not. I also don't see how burning and looting private property has anything to do with how the police treat minorities. Two wrongs do not make a right.
Re: (Score:3)
"......are not Constitutionally protected activities"
Of course they aren't, but really what percentage of the protestors in Baltimore are taking part in those activities? I'd wager that I can display that percentage on one hand. Yet we're told that its necessary to equip police like they're fighting a war, suspend civil liberties and arrest hundreds/thousands all because of the massive amounts of footage of the same 2-5 burning cars and 5-15 damaged businesses probably caused by no more than a few dozen m
Re: (Score:2)
Yet we're told that its necessary to equip police like they're fighting a war, suspend civil liberties and arrest hundreds/thousands all because of the massive amounts of footage of the same 2-5 burning cars and 5-15 damaged businesses probably caused by no more than a few dozen miscreants.
You might want to get your figures correct [baltimoresun.com];
Baltimore Police said 235 arrests were made overnight -- 201 adults and 34 juveniles. Twenty officers were injured in Monday night's violence.
The mayor's office said the city's fire department dealt with fires in 144 vehicles and 15 buildings. Baltimore police said one person is in critical condition after one of those fires.
That is just fires. Then there is the looting that did not generate fires.
So you have greatly exaggerated arrests and greatly under reported vehicle fires.
Re: (Score:2)
Those are the same numbers portrayed on every website & news service, but as your excerpt noted they're all directly from the mouth of the City government which has every reason in the world to embellish them. First off the fires, I can find only 4 considerable fires, a CVS, an under construction senior center, a liquor store and an abandoned warehouse (right next to the senior center). Cars? I can only find images/footage of about a dozen cars with heavy damage, though there are definitely a lot mor
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you think that the new agencies fact checked? I think it is strange that you do all of this "research" but don't cite any references. How did you do your research? Surfing the web? Don't you think that only interesting pictures would be posted? The internet is not a complete history. It only has what people post.
Take a look at these [youtube.com] videos [wjla.com]. Those two groups make up much more than a few dozen.
Re: (Score:2)
News agencies fact checking government press releases? Not likely. And looking at the video links you provided they're showing the same 2 fires (CVS, Senior Center) and the same cars (Police Cruiser/Van fire, Police cruiser swarmed, black car on fire) over and over with a couple dozen people throwing stuff (pop bottles, rocks, etc) at something (cars/police), less than dozen actually on top/near it destroying and hundreds around it watching/video taping.
Re: (Score:2)
showing the same 2 fires (CVS, Senior Center)
Because they are the biggest and need to fit into a 30 second spot.
and the same cars (Police Cruiser/Van fire, Police cruiser swarmed, black car on fire)
See above
According to you the government lies, the news agencies don't check but you can get an accurate picture from a few posts on the internet. That is not likely.
Re: (Score:2)
Show me where the founding fathers burned down private owned buildings and stole from private citizens not directly related to government action? There may be damage during the war but not riots.
PS. The Boston Tea Party does not count as it was a direct protest against the Tea Act in 1773 [google.ca].
Re: (Score:3)
If people honestly consider this "insightful" and not "troll" then we're in worse shape than I realized. Yes, there are rioters, and yes, they should be dealt with according to the law. *Nobody* is saying that arsonists, looters or vandals should be given a pass.
But let's not forget that despite what the evening news likes to insinuate, those people make up a really tiny percentage of the protesters. Are you honestly willing to throw away the ideals of this country and violate the freedom of thousands of
Wonderful (Score:2, Insightful)
Somehow, this being covered by Gawker makes me care less about this subject than I usually do.
Well (Score:2)
All of that "security" stuff is being used against us, I thought that was common knowledge now.
Re: (Score:2)
Which people?
Clearly by "the people" you mean those people currently holding power. For some reason those are the people that I think *should* be held most accountable.
Re: (Score:2)
It you actually believe that, I have a fine bridge to sell you.
Ounce of prevention (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if they'd spent the 11 years using these resources to rein in police racism and brutality, there wouldn't be a need for protests.
Bad cops and systemic police racism are what's terrorizing the populace in cities like Baltimore - that's your terrorist threat right there. But law enforcement are also the ones running these centers. It's the old problem of who's watching the watchers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Cops don't give a shit about race for the most part. They are assholes to everyone and will shoot you and your dog regardless of color. The news media (and their hanldlers) want you to beleve it is all about race. At least police thuggery is starting to be noticed by more of the population now, so I'm glad that they are at least putting it on the air. I guess if white people gave a shit, they would be in the streets too.
Re: (Score:2)
They are assholes to everyone and will shoot you and your dog regardless of color.
Yeah, that's why black people are 3x as likely to be killed by the cops than white.
Re: (Score:2)
"Yeah, that's why black people are 3x as likely to be killed by the cops than white."
Even if that was true (citation please), it could be down to other factors other than simply racism.There ratio of blacks living other the poverty level could be higher, so the police were simply trying to arrest all poor-looking black guys, and they could just as likely arrest a similarly "suspicious" looking white guy. Incidentally, what's the ratio for black girls to white girls getting arrested or shot?
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if they'd spent the 11 years using these resources to rein in police racism and brutality, there wouldn't be a need for protests.
Bad cops and systemic police racism are what's terrorizing the populace in cities like Baltimore - that's your terrorist threat right there. But law enforcement are also the ones running these centers. It's the old problem of who's watching the watchers.
The city is run by Democrats and African Americans, and has been for a very long time. The police are run by the city.
They are messed up alright. but it isn't "racism".
I have an idea (Score:2)
Drone war (Score:2)
Once you have the people and equipment in place, it will be used. Which is why we have an ever expanding list of people to assassinate with hellfire missles shot from drones.
A lot of people actually support the drone program. I seriously don't get it.
Isn't there something better to do? (Score:3)
It just baffles me that someone is willing to pay almost 100 people to sit around waiting for terrorists. Did somebody look at the accounts and think to themselves "Dude, we gotta get rid of this money somehow"? Think of all the great things you could achieve if you put 100 smart people together and gave them all the time and resources they needed. Could we figure out how to provide universal healthcare for half the cost? Create a male contraceptive pill? Or an AIDS vaccine? A battery that stores 10 times the energy in one tenth the weight? Double solar panel efficiency for half the cost? Figure out how to provide a universal minimum income for everyone without disincentivizing hard work in those who are capable? Reduce police brutality? Anything at all that could make the world even marginally better in any measurable way? Nothing?
So the most productive task we can put 100 people towards is sitting around waiting for terrorists.
Agent1: Hay man, seen any terrorists today?
Agent2: Nah. You?
Agent1: Nothing.
Agent2: I saw a cat licking itself. Check this out...
Agent1: Cool
Why is this even tolerated?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet, everyone seems fine with what the Federal government is doing to its citizens.
"Everyone" is most explicitly not "fine" with what the Federal government is doing to its citizens.
...Was Mr. Gray really a victim or part of the greater problem? He was in fact a habitual criminal with past of selling drugs like heroin.
So, this is now a death sentence, to be administered by the police in the back of a van with no trial? The US now has Judge Dredd for our legal system?
Re:Things that make you go hmmm (Score:5, Insightful)
Was Mr. Gray really a victim or part of the greater problem? He was in fact a habitual criminal with past of selling drugs like heroin.
He is the victim. He is a human being with the constitutional right not to have his spine broken by someone. He still has his constitutional rights even if you think he is a bad person. And there is that thing about human rights. You have them as a human, completely independent of you behaviour. I know that some people dream of stripping other people of their human rights because they dislike them. But that's a thinking we usually call totalitarian.
Re: (Score:2)
How about "both". I don't think he was a maltreated innocent, but he didn't deserve summary execution (if you can call illegal assault resultlng in murder execution). And it wouldn't have inspired public rage if he wasn't merely the tip of the iceberg.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The "innocent until proven guilty" bit is refering to the opinion that should be held by a juror, not to facts in the world. Were I a juror I would require that his guilt be proven. As I'm in the role of a reader of an article about it, I cannot take the same stance, lest I not have an opinion about anything.
Yes, it *IS* the task of a court, and in particular of a jury, to decide legal guilt. But legal guilt is not actual guilt, and, in fact, often gets things wrong. (Not, however, as often as a biased
Re: (Score:2)
I'm *NOT* saying he wasn't maltreated. In fact I suggested that he was probably murdered. But I'm also saying that I the evidence indicates that he was not an innocent (which doesn't mean he was guilty of anything in particular).
Please note the distinction between "an innocent" and "innocent".
Re:Things that make you go hmmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Was Mr. Gray really a victim or part of the greater problem? He was in fact a habitual
Judging others is a surprisingly worthless enterprise.
criminal with past of selling drugs like heroin.
One of the underlying problems governments face is they refuse to understand use of force to preserve "freedom for all" only works against outliers.
Illicit drug trade is one of the worlds largest enterprises. Millions of people use illicit drugs in the USA. Governments everywhere are squandering their legitimacy to create artificial scarcity fueling a self-destructive feedback loop. As a result entire countries have or are on the verge of loosing their monopoly on the use of force.
Oh and by the way capitalism, technology and global labor markets are not free. If winners (those who have means) are not serious about helping losers don't expect resulting society to not suck.
have military doing crowd control exercises and practicing for martial law and yet we protest over the death of a drug dealer?
We can all walk and chew gum at the same time. Unprofessional behavior of LEA causes real injury and death. Preparing for the next apocalypse is in and of itself mostly harmless.
Yes, let's disarm the police and see how badly order falls in these neighborhoods.
The more you find yourself having to rely on force, rise of police agencies indistinguishable from military and associated panopticon bullshit that would make NSA proud the more you are losing. The focus should be on winning not losing.
I have a nasty habit of blaming the media. Full of tired, utterly lazy and stupid talking heads who increasingly only cares about itself.. willing to accept no responsibility for the aggregate effect of deliberate intentional selection of train wreck narratives propagated 24x7.
Media promotion of FUD and strife is doing real damage poisoning the minds of voters into seeking out counterproductive policy decisions and dividing rather than uniting tribes.
Re: (Score:2)
"Judging others is a surprisingly worthless enterprise."
Unless you have a political difference with them or those who agree with them. In that case there's a huge amount of "worth", read that as "money", involved in judging them. Just look at all of the ad supported news and political sites dedicated to backing up the judgment that "the other side is a bunch of pooty-heads".
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with selling drugs like heroin? Why is that, or simply getting high, a crime at all? Why do you think it's ok to arrest someone who was not committing a crime, simply because they may have committed a crime in the past?
It is this puritan drug war which is driving all of this police militarization, and especially the hyper-aggressive policing in black city neighborhoods. It is the drug war which creates almost all of the crime in these areas. The drug war is the greater problem, and the root cau
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Military Police? (Score:4, Informative)
No, it's within the limits of the law. The National Guard Military Police units are considered to be troops controlled by the individual state (think the 13 colonies initially). In this case they were ordered onto the street by the state governor.
As for Federal troops, the Posse Comitatus Act deals with using Federal troops in police enforcement and has only been around since 1878. There has been an ongoing tension between what powers belonged to the states and what belonged to the federal government.
Now, in reality, there's relatively little difference between the Guard and federal troops, and the Guard can be "federalized" with an order from the President, and there are several other exceptions to the Posse Comitatus Act. But, it falls within the letter of the law.