Agreed.

freeman3 wrote:Agreed.

See? I don't think it's that difficult.

If Freeman and I can (roughly) agree, then why don't things change?

For starters, because it is easier (and more spectacular) to simply throw money around. "I doubled the funding for . . ." is more of a headline than anything I proposed.

Secondly, what I'm suggesting takes follow-up. It's easier to write a check and assume that solves the issue.

Thirdly, there are entrenched interests (teachers' unions for one) that will fight change. On its face, that is mind-boggling. Who wants to defend the status quo?

I found this following article to be very interesting.
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/la ... _Masur.pdf

What it suggests is that the negative effect of prison on a con's post-prison life ( on health, employment, relationships) differ little whether they are sentenced to one year or 20 years. Put another way, once someone gets sent to prison they are likely to be a drag on society whether they need social assistance or commit more crimes (this is independent of a person's chances of being a success before prison--whatever the chances prison makes it worse)

It seems like you would want to make sure that someone needs to go prison (e.g. violent criminals as opposed to non-violent) and try alternate means of punishment when possible. Putting large numbers of non-violent (particularly drug)offenders in jail creates a downward spiral for them but also for poor communities. (Believe me, I am well aware of the propensity of addicts to commit crimes to support their habit--this is not a simple subject)

freeman3 wrote:I found this following article to be very interesting.
https://lawreview.uchicago.edu/sites/la ... _Masur.pdf

What it suggests is that the negative effect of prison on a con's post-prison life ( on health, employment, relationships) differ little whether they are sentenced to one year or 20 years. Put another way, once someone gets sent to prison they are likely to be a drag on society whether they need social assistance or commit more crimes (this is independent of a person's chances of being a success before prison--whatever the chances prison makes it worse)

You'll be thrilled to know that the "evil" Koch industries has stopped asking this on job applications.

(for the record, I find it humorous that they are so vilified by the Left. They are far more libertarian than they are traditional conservative)

It seems like you would want to make sure that someone needs to go prison (e.g. violent criminals as opposed to non-violent) and try alternate means of punishment when possible. Putting large numbers of non-violent (particularly drug)offenders in jail creates a downward spiral for them but also for poor communities. (Believe me, I am well aware of the propensity of addicts to commit crimes to support their habit--this is not a simple subject)

First, yes, they will commit crimes. They start with family (oddly) and branch out. They will steal anything from anyone. When/if that stops working, they may turn violent. Addiction is a cruel master.

Second, I'd be for rehab instead of incarceration IF the person genuinely wants it. The problem is many are willing to go through the motions of rehab but have no desire to kick the drug. Heroin in particular is tough to beat. I would talk to heroin addicts in their 70's.

Third, of course, heroin addicts in their 70's suggests heroin is not all that dangerous. Well, yes and no. I suppose if the government were producing it, it would be "safe."

That said, there are many drugs that are not safe no matter what. And, what is worse is that new drugs are being discovered/invented all the time. I am not a fan of the war on drugs, but it's not as easy as just giving up either. Furthermore, many of these drugs, even "safe" ones like heroin, are so debilitating that they effectively make you useless. A heroin addict will have a real tough time keeping a real job. He/she is destined to be dependent on the State.

Not bad at all, DF. My pet suggestion would be more cultural in nature. I believe there is an inverse correlation between the percentage of black athletes in professional sports and how African-Americans do as a whole financially. For only a very few is that huge amount of time and effort on athletics rewarded. African-Americans are also well-represented in film and in music. There is nothing wrong with having big dreams, but most people are going to have to find more mundane ways to make a living. We all know how much focus there is in Asian culture and in Jewish culture on education and they have done very well in America as a whole. I think that African-Americans face unique issues due to the legacy of discrimination and segregation, but ultimately the path to overcome bigotry is education. And any solution to African-Americans doing poorly financially has to involve a cultural emphasis on education and not athletics or music as the path out of poverty.

It is my personal belief that positive role models are a positive force for curing many social ills. It's not a whole solution but it is a start. I also believe part of the problem is that without these role models, Americans of African or other non-Caucasian descent feel as though their race is a massive handicap toward the kind of success they believe most white people enjoy. And putting all the emphasis on professional athletes as role models is a bad idea, as freeman just pointed out. Not everything can be traced statistically. Indexes and reports and so forth can only tell us so much; they cannot tell us what people are feeling. And if they feel like "black people almost never do as well as their white counterparts" is it a surprise some people feel like "OK, so why try?" (Not saying everyone feels that way, but certainly many do, and if they do there is a reason for it!)

So if we put all our chips on the professional athletes as role models for young African Americans, or other minorities, we're going to roll snake eyes. Especially with the recent behavior of certain professional athletes, of not just African American descent by the way, in this country...especially from this area [cough-raylewis-cough] being less than....well, model behavior!

I have had the experience of growing up in two different worlds. Not perhaps in the poverty of some parts of Baltimore, but in Baltimore County public schools, in a much higher concentration of minorities there; and also in Carroll County public schools from fourth grade and thereafter. Carroll County public schools are predominantly white (they're also the best performing schools in the state; Baltimore Co. public schools do not enjoy that distinction). But if I remember correctly, history classes would discuss Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, etc....all admirable human beings and worthy role models. But that isn't enough! What about African Americans or Latinos who have made it to the top in the military? Or business? If I cannot remember who was the first black astronaut it is likely because they never discussed him in history class!!! I do not remember *any* mention of the Tuskeegee Airmen or other successful men [and women] in the U.S. Armed Forces; or successful businessmen; or scientists and so forth. PS, half of the teachers there were African-American or other minorities; and the school system in Baltimore County seems (at that time) to have lacked the decency to get their teachers to present such role models to the students of the same race; students who could have been inspired to reach for the stars and know that yes, it's possible to get there.

Ricky can show us this or that report all he wants (and deem us to be racists because we interpret *his* data differently then he does himself). But some things lurk below the surface. And part of the ills of African American society, and I can tell you this without looking at congressional or legislative committee reports, or monographs by sociology professors, is not so much a vacuum of potential role models for African Americans and other minorities but the lack of presentation of the ones who are already there, ready to be presented to and admired by young students of any race.

It's more than numbers, folks...

Cleveland officer who fired 15 shots from hood into windshield of vehicle killing two unarmed black occupants after a high- speed chase acquitted. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... d-suspects

freeman3 wrote:Cleveland officer who fired 15 shots from hood into windshield of vehicle killing two unarmed black occupants after a high- speed chase acquitted. http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... d-suspects

Innocent until proven guilty. A cursory reading of that article shows how difficult that would have been, your excising of exonerating evidence notwithstanding.

In other news, violent crime in Baltimore is way up.

Doctor Fate wrote:In other news, violent crime in Baltimore is way up.

That's what happens in riots.

in the meantime, six officers charged after a Grand Jury hearing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32840776

What happened with Gray undermines confidence in the police. Even if they end up being acquitted, there is going to be a lot of distrust.

hacker

. But if I remember correctly, history classes would discuss Martin Luther King, Harriet Tubman, Frederick Douglas, etc....all admirable human beings and worthy role models. But that isn't enough! What about African Americans or Latinos who have made it to the top in the military? Or business? If I cannot remember who was the first black astronaut it is likely because they never discussed him in history class!!! I do not remember *any* mention of the Tuskeegee Airmen or other successful men [and women] in the U.S. Armed Forces;

You learnt about some specific individuals. Do you also learn about the systemic racism that kept returning Black servicemen from benefiting equally from the GI Bill . The social program most directly credited with growing the American middle class after WWII. A predominantly white middle class?
Its always interesting to know about the individuals that strove to eliminate the systemic racism in society. But there seems to be a shadow of ignorance about the prevalence of racism and how it contributed to black poverty. Being born into poverty, handicaps an individual. The fact there are fewer black success stories is because the hurdles to success are greater for the poor and a greater percentage of blacks have always been poor.
And that has been institutional.

Once they returned home after the war, blacks faced not only discrimination but also poverty, which confronted most blacks during the 1940s and 1950s and represented another barrier to harnessing the benefits of the G.I. Bill, as poverty made seeking an education problematic to while labor and income were needed at home. The United States Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), because of its strong affiliation to the all-white[1] American Legion and VFW (Veterans of Foreign Wars), also became a formidable foe to many blacks in search of an education because it had the power to deny or grant the claims of black G.I.s. Additionally, banks and mortgage agencies refused loans to blacks, making the G.I. Bill even less effective for blacks.

The black middle class failed to keep pace with the white middle class because blacks had fewer opportunities to earn college degrees. In addition to the other obstacles, gaining admission to universities was no easy task for blacks on the G.I. Bill. Most universities had segregationist principles underlying their admissions policies, utilizing either official or unofficial quotas. Even if they could gain admission to universities, public education was in such a poor state for blacks that many of them were not adequately prepared for college level work. Those blacks that were prepared for college level work and gained admission to predominantly white universities still experienced racism on campus.

The inability to rise out of poverty is so often presented as an absence of positive character. The fact is that social mobility is lower in the US than in most other western nations since 1980. The programs that afforded social mobility have systematically be reduced. And when there was a great deal of social mobility in the post war period, blacks were systemically kept from those opportunities.
It wasn't because of the individuals character that they were denied bank loans.... it was the color of their skin.
And lest you believe this is ancient history.
Bank of America pays $335m damages for charging minorities higher interest rates

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z3azslk3e3

hacker

But some things lurk below the surface. And part of the ills of African American society, and I can tell you this without looking at congressional or legislative committee reports, or monographs by sociology professors, is not so much a vacuum of potential role models for African Americans and other minorities but the lack of presentation of the ones who are already there, ready to be presented to and admired by young students of any race.
It's more than numbers, folks

...
Blacks learn about the Tuskegee airmen and the Tuskegee syphilis experiment. One story tells them about brave men and women who were prepared to fight for a nation that treated them unequally. And who were then treated unequally when they returned home. The other group were impoverished share croppers experimented upon for 30 years because they were poor and black.
What do you think blacks learn from these two examples Hacker?

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:In other news, violent crime in Baltimore is way up.

That's what happens in riots.

in the meantime, six officers charged after a Grand Jury hearing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32840776

What happened with Gray undermines confidence in the police. Even if they end up being acquitted, there is going to be a lot of distrust.

Actually, it's way up POST-riot.

Please, tell us what, specifically, the officers did to Gray.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:In other news, violent crime in Baltimore is way up.

That's what happens in riots.

in the meantime, six officers charged after a Grand Jury hearing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32840776

What happened with Gray undermines confidence in the police. Even if they end up being acquitted, there is going to be a lot of distrust.

Actually, it's way up POST-riot.

Please, tell us what, specifically, the officers did to Gray.

They allowed him to die in their care. When the case is heard, we will find out the specifics. Until then we can only deal with the facts we do know. Of course, you can always ask the grand jury that agreed the charges what the details are.

And yes, riots tend to leave things worse than before. Still not sure what your point is....

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:In other news, violent crime in Baltimore is way up.

That's what happens in riots.

in the meantime, six officers charged after a Grand Jury hearing. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-32840776

What happened with Gray undermines confidence in the police. Even if they end up being acquitted, there is going to be a lot of distrust.

Actually, it's way up POST-riot.

Please, tell us what, specifically, the officers did to Gray.

They allowed him to die in their care.

We don't know that they "allowed" that. The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide, but we don't know what role any of the officers may have played in that. That is why I asked you to specify what the officers did. You have no idea whether or not any of them are guilty of anything.

From what I've heard re the local media, there are bigger problems with the BPD than Freddy Gray's situation. The disconnect, for me, is certain people ascribing it to race. BPD is less than 50% white. If there's "racism" being exercised toward the populace by the police, a lot of minority officers know about it and/or are involved.

When the case is heard, we will find out the specifics. Until then we can only deal with the facts we do know. Of course, you can always ask the grand jury that agreed the charges what the details are.

No, you can't ask a grand jury.

What we do know is that the prosecutor is off to a rocky start. She proclaimed she would get "justice for Freddy Gray." Well, that's not our system. Justice is blind. She is just as obligated to "get justice" for the officers as for Mr. Gray. She is playing to the crowd. Furthermore, she has made statements about the knife not being illegal and has subsequently walked those back. So far, she's making a hash of the job.

And yes, riots tend to leave things worse than before. Still not sure what your point is....

Only because you choose not to. It is not true that riots lead, weeks later, to an increase in violent crime. However, in this case they have because the gangs of Baltimore know the police are sitting on their hands. The police are responding to the attacks of Ms. Mosby by letting the crooks have their way. That's not good for anyone.

3 of the 6 officers charged are black. But having a department that is not majority white does not by itself mean a department is not discriminating against blacks. Black cops have been subjected to negative stereotypes regarding their community and may feel that they are one of the "good" blacks who get jobs, are responsible, law-abiding and have stereotypical views against "bad" blacks who they perceive as dealing drugs and committing crimes. When an entire racial group is stereotyped as having some bad characteristic then it is not uncommon for there to be internal stereotyping within the overall racial group. The doll studies used in Brown v Board of Education are an example of a minority internalizing negative stereotypes.

This article discusses how black cops can be involved in discriminating against their own race .http://www.vox.com/2015/5/7/8562077/pol ... licit-bias

Doctor Fate wrote:Please, tell us what, specifically, the officers did to Gray.

They allowed him to die in their care.[/quote]

We don't know that they "allowed" that. The medical examiner ruled his death a homicide, but we don't know what role any of the officers may have played in that.[/quote]So, he was in police custody, and he ended up with fatal injuries, and it's ruled a homicide, meaning that the death was at the very least avoidable. At the very least it looks like a lot of negligence on the part of the officers involved (eg: if he was hitting himself, why did no officer exercise duty of care to stop him?)

That is why I asked you to specify what the officers did. You have no idea whether or not any of them are guilty of anything.

I know what the allegations are - that he was (contrary to Baltimore PD rules) taken on a "rough ride". The timing and route for the vehicle suggests they did not take him straight to the station. He was not buckled in, as he should have been. Now, a court may not accept those as facts, but so far it seems there is something to it. Do you have an alternative theory?

From what I've heard re the local media, there are bigger problems with the BPD than Freddy Gray's situation. The disconnect, for me, is certain people ascribing it to race. BPD is less than 50% white. If there's "racism" being exercised toward the populace by the police, a lot of minority officers know about it and/or are involved.

I have not ascribed it to race. The racial make-up of BPD does not even mean they can't have prejudicial policies, but even so the issue is that a human being died, following a period in police custody, and the police started off denying anything before evidence started to emerge contradicting them.

Policing rough areas is difficult, I know. But if the police are just another violent gang, it doesn't help in the long term.

When the case is heard, we will find out the specifics. Until then we can only deal with the facts we do know. Of course, you can always ask the grand jury that agreed the charges what the details are.

No, you can't ask a grand jury.

Well, you can ask but they aren't supposed to tell.

What we do know is that the prosecutor is off to a rocky start. She proclaimed she would get "justice for Freddy Gray." Well, that's not our system. Justice is blind. She is just as obligated to "get justice" for the officers as for Mr. Gray. She is playing to the crowd. Furthermore, she has made statements about the knife not being illegal and has subsequently walked those back. So far, she's making a hash of the job.

Yeah, how awful of her to fail to get any charges to stick... Oh - the grand jury upheld most of them.

As for her comments, let's see if we can find any other prosecutors in the USA who have talked about getting "justice for" a homicide victim, and were not vilified for it. Will you claim such a thing never happens, when the victim is, for example, a photogenic young girl?

And no, the prosecutor's job is not to "get justice" for the accused. They have defence attorneys for that. The JUDGE and the JURY are supposed to apply the blind justice thing. The lawyers for either side are there to represent the views of their side, not the other.

And yeah, maybe that is hard for a prosecutor who will later have to work with the police, but perhaps the police could be more grown up about it too. Are they smearing the ME as well?

The thing about the arrest and the knife seems marginal. But it's actually immaterial to the circumstances of his death: Even if he was a serial killer or a terrorist, once he has been arrested and his weapon(s) removed, the police have a duty of care, when he is in their custody. Indeed, the word "custody" implies guardianship.

And yes, riots tend to leave things worse than before. Still not sure what your point is....

Only because you choose not to. It is not true that riots lead, weeks later, to an increase in violent crime. However, in this case they have because the gangs of Baltimore know the police are sitting on their hands. The police are responding to the attacks of Ms. Mosby by letting the crooks have their way. That's not good for anyone.

If the police are doing that, they are being unprofessional. Maybe some will cheer them on, and point to increased disturbance as some kind of vindication. I think it's a failure that hits the law abiding people of Baltimore.

If these cops are convicted, then the PD as a whole has been guilty of neglecting their job since the riots, just to score points against a prosecutor. And even now, with it being unproven, they are potentially doing that. Shameful.

danivon wrote:So, he was in police custody, and he ended up with fatal injuries, and it's ruled a homicide,

Those are the facts. However, we don't even know, unless you have some new info, how he received the injuries.

. . . meaning that the death was at the very least avoidable. At the very least it looks like a lot of negligence on the part of the officers involved (eg: if he was hitting himself, why did no officer exercise duty of care to stop him?)

That's all speculation.

I know what the allegations are - that he was (contrary to Baltimore PD rules) taken on a "rough ride". The timing and route for the vehicle suggests they did not take him straight to the station. He was not buckled in, as he should have been. Now, a court may not accept those as facts, but so far it seems there is something to it. Do you have an alternative theory?

I'm waiting for facts, which seems to be a quaint notion.

I have not ascribed it to race. The racial make-up of BPD does not even mean they can't have prejudicial policies, but even so the issue is that a human being died, following a period in police custody, and the police started off denying anything before evidence started to emerge contradicting them.

I am not counting anything the DA says as factual until it withstands scrutiny in a court of law. My opinion (and that's all it is) is that she seems more bent on achieving political popularity (so far) than establishing the truth.

Policing rough areas is difficult, I know. But if the police are just another violent gang, it doesn't help in the long term.

That's an allegation for which you adduce no evidence. I suspect they are not as bloodthirsty as the Bloods and the Crips, who don't have much in the way of restraint.

Well, you can ask but they aren't supposed to tell.

Yeah, how awful of her to fail to get any charges to stick... Oh - the grand jury upheld most of them.

Wow! Nice work!

I mean, who would expect such a thing . . . given there is no defense permitted?

As for her comments, let's see if we can find any other prosecutors in the USA who have talked about getting "justice for" a homicide victim, and were not vilified for it. Will you claim such a thing never happens, when the victim is, for example, a photogenic young girl?

No, but I will claim no prosecutor ever says, "“I heard your call for no justice, no peace,but your peace is sincerely needed as I work to bring justice for (fill in the blank).”

And no, the prosecutor's job is not to "get justice" for the accused.

Her job is to pursue justice. Period. She is not supposed to be in the vendetta business.

And yeah, maybe that is hard for a prosecutor who will later have to work with the police, but perhaps the police could be more grown up about it too. Are they smearing the ME as well?

I don't know.

However, I can guarantee you this: they are charging innocent cops. Some of those 6 had nothing to do with it. They are fishing for a witness. Maybe that will work, but maybe it won't.

The problem: when some of the cops are found innocent, the previous riots will be "the good old days."

The thing about the arrest and the knife seems marginal. But it's actually immaterial to the circumstances of his death: Even if he was a serial killer or a terrorist, once he has been arrested and his weapon(s) removed, the police have a duty of care, when he is in their custody. Indeed, the word "custody" implies guardianship.

No argument, except this: Ms. Mosby alleged "false arrest." If the knife was in fact illegal, then one of the pillars of her case is out the window. The prosecutors now say he was arrested before the knife was found. Good luck proving that.

danivon wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:Only because you choose not to. It is not true that riots lead, weeks later, to an increase in violent crime. However, in this case they have because the gangs of Baltimore know the police are sitting on their hands. The police are responding to the attacks of Ms. Mosby by letting the crooks have their way. That's not good for anyone.

If the police are doing that, they are being unprofessional. Maybe some will cheer them on, and point to increased disturbance as some kind of vindication. I think it's a failure that hits the law abiding people of Baltimore.

I agree it's unprofessional. My speculation would be this is an order from the union. They're going to "show" the mayor and the city how much they have to lose.

On the other hand, when the mayor calls in the DOJ, it's pretty hard to expect the cops to act as if everything is "normal." And, frankly, it's hard for the crooks to miss the signal that the cops are under extra scrutiny so they can get away with more.

If these cops are convicted, then the PD as a whole has been guilty of neglecting their job since the riots, just to score points against a prosecutor. And even now, with it being unproven, they are potentially doing that. Shameful.

I'll wager all 6 will not be. If any of them is, it will be for something very, very minor--nothing akin to "murder." Again, that's a guess. However, as this whole case smacks more of politics than anything else, I think I'm pretty safe in guessing that 2 or 3 of the officers are not in serious jeopardy.