As some of you are aware I live in Maryland, not too far from Baltimore. I was actually born there. Firefighters have been attacked. Police have been attacked. A CVS store and even a home for seniors under construction, almost finished, was burned TO THE GROUND.

A pastor whose church was burned down spoke live on CNN, entirely devastated. The family of Freddy Grey have expressed their distaste--to put it extremely mildly--at the riots, saying that this isn't the right way, and begged protesters to remain peaceful. I cannot agree more.

The mayor announced a citywide curfew beginning tonight (why was it not done sooner?) at 10pm. But martial law, it is said, will not be declared. I'm not personally sure who has the authority to declare martial law, but it seems to me that the Mayor, Mrs. Rawlings-Blake, hasn't reacted to this quickly enough (then again, events have gotten out of hand pretty quickly). Probably people will blame the Governor as much, but a lot of the legal power is actually in the hands of the mayor of Baltimore if I understand correctly. The governor is CINC of the national guard (except units called up by Congress into the service of the United States) but Rawlings-Blake has a lot of the legal power over her own city. Obviously the governor himself didn't want it to turn into Ferguson (it escalated there once the MO national guard was called out by the governor), fine....but the looting and burning has escalated very quickly here.

I agree that showing too much force is an extremely bad idea. But I believe that at this point we are beyond that phase. When this much of the city is burning, firefighters are having their hoses cut and being attacked trying to put out the blaze and churches are being burned to the ground, a "state of emergency" is not enough. They need actual martial law at this point.

One might ask "but is that too much force?" at this point the obvious answer is "no." Baltimore is burning, as CNN put it...but we will know for sure if tonight's curfew does not work. If tonight's curfew does not work...the governor might feel there is no choice. I do not want to see a full-scale martial law happen. But I think things have gone past the stage where "restraint" can be considered anymore.

Here are some stories from various sources.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32490250

This was actually almost as large as the Nepal earthquake story, and right under it (the BBC story about Baltimore). As it was on CBC (Canada) news.

[url]]http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/baltimore-riots-prompt-state-of-emergency-after-freddie-gray-funeral-1.3051048[/url]

sorry about the second link. I tried to get it to show as hypertext like three times and it would not work.

I tend to no on Martial Law. Start with the curfew, bring in police from outside, by all means, and even the NG under police orders. But two wrongs do not make a right.

In general governors have substantially more power than mayors.

Ray Jay wrote:In general governors have substantially more power than mayors.

Yes, but given the racial implications, there is NO WAY the governor was going to bring in the Guard until she asked.

I have no pity whatsoever for people who burn businesses and complain that there are not jobs for them. To me it makes no sense.

As for martial law, do not declare martial law, but come it with enough force and will to arrest ANYONE who is looting, vandalizing, assaulting, or performing ANY criminal activity regardless of race. Once enough of the malcontents are arrested, the calm will return. To let malcontents run rampant incites further violence.

Yes, but given the racial implications, there is NO WAY the governor was going to bring in the Guard until she asked.

Actually, Governor Hogan's comments on TV led me to believe he was ready to pull the "trigger" but was a little disappointed she hadn't asked sooner. As am I. I understand that in Ferguson, MO it exacerbate the situation. But in Baltimore, it looks like it would have saved a lot of property and potentially more lives could have been lost (they got lucky the dead aren't lining the streets). He said that he had made all preparations, but was waiting for Mayor Rawlings-Blake's request. (I think the mayor has to actually request it, in this situation, it seems. But I could be wrong about that. It may vary from state to state depending on the police and military powers given to governors in one state versus another, perhaps.)

As for martial law, do not declare martial law, but come it with enough force and will to arrest ANYONE who is looting, vandalizing, assaulting, or performing ANY criminal activity regardless of race. Once enough of the malcontents are arrested, the calm will return. To let malcontents run rampant incites further violence.

A retired NYPD officer was interviewed on TV and expressed his dismay that the Baltimore Police showed too much restraint, and were more or less moving back as the rioters moved forward. Also, he said two dozen arrests? There should have been hundreds. And sooner, rather than later.

Anyone familiar with late Roman/Byzantine history? Nika Revolt? In Baltimore a house of worship was burned to the ground already. The grieving pastor was interviewed on local TV and on CNN. It was sad. I have no patience for such people (the rioters, not the pastor.) When you burn people's churches, homes, livelihoods, you've lost your "rights" as far as I am concerned. I wan to go on record as saying I do not in any way wish to visit punishment on the righteous right alongside the wicked--speaking of church--but if this so-called "curfew" fails to work, martial law might be what the doctor ordered. Or if not actual "martial law" then at least something pretty friggin' forceful. At this point I believe the world would actually be sympathetic for the "smack of firm government", in Baltimore, at this point. Nobody would blame the mayor for requesting it, except perhaps that she didn't request it sooner.

They've actually got police from surrounding counties to travel to Baltimore to help. Including rural Carroll County, because they're so screwed at this point. The State Police, according to CNN and channel 13, are now in charge, and 1,500 national guard are being deployed.

I understand the mayor's reluctance to request the governor's deployment of the NG, seeing as what happened in Ferguson when they did it, but Baltimore, it turns out, is a little different. We're not talking about a suburban-ish county, here....we're talking about a major city of 662,000, with a total metropolitan area of more than twice that. And lives are at risk, as well as peoples livelihoods (and if rioters do not balk at burning a church to the ground, what do you think they are going to do next??)

bbauska

As for martial law, do not declare martial law, but come it with enough force and will to arrest ANYONE who is looting, vandalizing, assaulting, or performing ANY criminal activity regardless of race. Once enough of the malcontents are arrested, the calm will return

did you know?

Sandtown is also home to the highest number of residents incarcerated in all of Maryland. It costs the state $17 million each year to house the more than 450 inmates, according to the Justice Policy Institute and the Prison Policy Initiative. The groups say Maryland taxpayers are spending $288 million a year to incarcerate people from the city, including $47 million for inmates from West Baltimore alone.

http://fusion.net/story/127163/just-42- ... isisfusion

JimHackerMP wrote:

Yes, but given the racial implications, there is NO WAY the governor was going to bring in the Guard until she asked.

Actually, Governor Hogan's comments on TV led me to believe he was ready to pull the "trigger" but was a little disappointed she hadn't asked sooner.

I'm not sure, but this doesn't seem different than what I wrote. It's certainly not different than what I intended.

As for martial law, do not declare martial law, but come it with enough force and will to arrest ANYONE who is looting, vandalizing, assaulting, or performing ANY criminal activity regardless of race. Once enough of the malcontents are arrested, the calm will return. To let malcontents run rampant incites further violence.

A retired NYPD officer was interviewed on TV and expressed his dismay that the Baltimore Police showed too much restraint, and were more or less moving back as the rioters moved forward. Also, he said two dozen arrests? There should have been hundreds. And sooner, rather than later.

The earlier this is done, the better. As soon as it escalates from protest to riot, swift and decisive action must be taken.

I will make a huge admission: I am not 100% clear (partially clear) on "martial law" except that that would mean the NG or the federal armed forces would take over police powers. (Yes I know I just said it was a good idea, but I do at least have more than an inkling of precisely what it means).

But it does not mean you can lock people up without trial--essentially the suspension of habeas corpus. That cannot be done in this case. It's in Art. I, Sec. 10 of the Constitution. Only Congress can suspend it, anywhere or everywhere, the supreme court has long since interpreted, and IF AND ONLY IF there is an invasion or rebellion affecting the public safety. (It does not read "OR the public safety may require it....")

So we don't have to worry about that, at least.

that's a great read, Ricky, but I don't see what that has to do with the price of tea in China, if you'll forgive me. (Or the price of Over the Counter pharmaceuticals in Baltimore!---referring of course the CVS that the employees had to very quickly evacuate before it was burned to the ground.) P.S., what does that tell you about West Baltimore, btw?

Dr Fate: I know and I totally agree with you. In this case decisive action of some sort may be needed. Whether it's martial law will be seen after tonight. (If they are smart they won't wait yet another night to see what happens, or if the curfew is [dis]obeyed twice.)

What does Sandtown have to do with anything, other than a court of law found a large amount of people there have committed crimes and were convicted of them.

Are you supporting the actions of the looters/arsonists? I am unsure based upon your Sandtown link.

bbauska

What does Sandtown have to do with anything, other than a court of law found a large amount of people there have committed crimes and were convicted of them.

Been locking people from Baltimore up for many years. Doesn't seem to have solved anything.
Has cost a lot to cage them though.

There have been rioters. But there have also been large peaceful protests. And Baltimore is just the latest in a series of protests against treatment of blacks by police.... Some also not peaceful, but most were held without violence
Until and unless there is a serious attempt at responding to the valid complaints of the peaceful protests the more extreme response of riot and looting will be fueled by frustration. And the next time a black man is killed by a police in another community, as is inevitable, there will be many who will want to copy the rioters.

The Baltimore rioters will exhaust themselves or be arrested .... and things will calm down. for awhile. It always does. But the short term response to control the violence and looting won't solve anything long term.

A long term solution would include the mandating of police reporting on violent interactions to the FBI and perhaps an independent (of all current police jurisdictions) investigative body that has authority to investigate all police shootings. The mandating of body cameras to ensure accountability and to protect good police.

If you really want to combat much of the crime, decriminalize drug use, and regulate certain kinds. The taxes raised, and saved on jailing many drug offenders will help deliver on things that will improve the lot of those protesting...

http://wallethub.com/edu/best-worst-states-to-be-a-taxpayer/2416/

As for more taxes, how much? Currently Maryland is #14 in the nation in taxes per capita, and #6 compared to the Cost of Living Index. How much more is needed, when you compare places like Alaska, Delaware and Montana?

As for incarceration rates, are you saying that people should not be incarcerated for breaking the law? I know you want to change the laws, but breaking the law before a law is changed does not make you any less a criminal.

I was not saying ANYTHING about peaceable protests. People have a right to peaceably protest. I applaud the Democratic congressman Elijah Cummings on his role in the protests. I think we are in agreement that peaceable protests are fine. I do not want a violent protestor to "exhaust" themselves. I want them arrested.

As for body cameras, are you worried about privacy issues of police cameras being used for surveillance just because they are on a police officer. I am fine with the body cameras if the evidence gathered can be used legally either against the suspect, or against the officer. It is a two way street, nut just to be used against the police officers.

Given all of the questionable incidents involving the killing of young black men the past few years, what happened in Baltimore seemed inevitable to occur. There are economic and racial fissures in American society that are not being addressed. And we have police in many areas across the country who appear to be adopting more aggressive policies. There are seemingly almost always justifications for police misbehavior (even though good cops would never do what these bad/incompetent/racist cops do). I can tell you that the LAPD is a much better police force than it was prior to the 1992 riots where much of the force was white and lived in white suburbs. Police forces have to be composed primarily of people from the community and have to be answerable to the community. I don't think the changes in the LAPD would have happened but for the riots. Those riots were very scary to live through but positive change did occur as a result .

We have a society where a small amount of input of work/ contribution to society can be rewarded to a few who can make withdrawals of unlimited wealth from the society while many are struggling to get by. I don't see that our system passes any kind of system of ethical /moral/religious values. We can establish policies (tax and otherwise) that reward people handsomely without allowing for astronomical rewards for doing little work. This whole Clinton thing is typical. Yay , cut taxes, cut the power of unions, let American companies go overseas for cheap labor so a few can make lots of money doing little while most Americans' incomes are stagnating . Make lots of money for doing really nothing. Meanwhile, we are doing little to ensure decent economic opportunities for cities like Baltimore, have the police incarcerate them at a high rate and then call them thugs when the unfairness becomes too much to take and they lash out. The social contract is fraying in some/many areas of the country and Baltimore may be just the tip of the iceberg unless we start making changes.

bbauska

As for incarceration rates, are you saying that people should not be incarcerated for breaking the law? I know you want to change the laws, but breaking the law before a law is changed does not make you any less a criminal

Has locking up people solved the crime issue?

In October 2013, the incarceration rate of the United States of America was the highest in the world, at 716 per 100,000 of the national population. While the United States represents about 4.4 percent of the world's population, it houses around 22 percent of the world's prisoners.[2] Imprisonment of America's 2.3 million prisoners, costing $24,000 per inmate per year, and $5.1 billion in new prison construction, consumes $60.3 billion in budget expenditure

Based on this the US should be the safest place in the world..
If the laws are creating criminals for the crime of drug possession, then the law needs to change or be ignored by cops and lawyers. All that the highest incarceration rate in the world, especially since incarceration rates are demonstrably racist - is create broken families and harden people to what they see is an unjust system. (Because it is..)
If only violent criminals ad the ones who damage the most people (like some of the Wall Street Crooks who got away with fines) served time the money not spent locking them away could be spent on programs to improve the lives of the poor and working poor.

bbauska

I was not saying ANYTHING about peaceable protests. People have a right to peaceably protest. I applaud the Democratic congressman Elijah Cummings on his role in the protests. I think we are in agreement that peaceable protests are fine. I do not want a violent protestor to "exhaust" themselves. I want them arrested.

No. but the reason for the violent protests is the lack of any noticeable reaction to all of the peaceful protests. when government does not react and try and meet the expressed needs of its governed they tend to get restless, frustrated and eventually violent.
That's a universal pattern. As for the "exhaustion" thats just the pattern. Its what happened in April 1968 in Baltimore. And its what will happen now.
They don't go on forever...
And no one seems to actually act on what the learn are the causes...

The Maryland Crime Investigating Commission Report of the Baltimore Civil Disturbance of April 6 to April 11, 1968 later summed up the event in a few sentences that could have easily been written yesterday:

[S]ocial and economic conditions in the looted areas constituted a clear pattern of severe disadvantage for Negroes compared with whites... Our investigation arrives at the clear conclusion that the riot in Baltimore must be attributed to two elements -- 'white racism' and economic oppression of the Negro. It is impossible to give specific weights to each, but together they gave clear cause for many of the ghetto residents to riot.

I ca't believe you raise the issue of "privacy" when it comes to body cameras. Its the notion that police act with impunity that is causing the mistrust. Its the private nature of policing that is a partial cause. Body cameras, and dash board cameras make them accountable in ways that they haven't been...
I said this so i think we agree that they have a purpose in protecting police and convicting criminals.

The mandating of body cameras to ensure accountability and to protect good police.