Baltimore erupts in riots after funeral of man who died in police custody

Oh look, the fallacy experts are on the case again - and as usual they miss the point.

The fallacy of relative privation, or appeal to bigger problems, is an informal fallacy in which it is suggested an opponent's arguments should be dismissed or ignored, on the grounds of there existing more important problems, despite these issues being often completely unrelated to the subject at hand.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fallacy_of_relative_privation

Bucket said:

Oh look, the fallacy experts are on the case again - and as usual they miss the point.

No, it is a fallacy because talking about terrorists and automobiles has absolutely no place on this thread.

It's called a comparison. See - in normal discourse, a person can make comparisons between certain facets of disparate subjects. The subjects don't have to be 100% related for the comparison to be valid, only the facets which are shown to be the same.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/comparison

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/29/us/ferguson-missouri-protests-baltimore/

More civil disturbances unfolding in Ferguson, as a response to the events in Baltimore.

Phml said:

This is unacceptably shoddy work. In starting from the assumption your conclusion is correct and working backwards to find a fitting theory, you are unable to present a convincing case for your argument. You must go back to the basics and apply yourself. Come see me after class.

Oh no, no, no, Phml, that's not how it's done! It should go:

Phml should have said:

ZOMGWTFLOL This is unacceptably shoddy work!!! You shall submit to the Master Race while at the same time being rectally sodomized with a diesel-powered gas razor dildo! SIEG HEIL! I now go jakk off to some animu pr0n kthx bye

Take it from the masters.

the_miano said:

Uhhh what??

Your point about Black criminals murdering more Black people than White cops do is about as relevant to the topic as a conversation on car crashes and terrorism.

See, the big difference between a Black criminal and a White cop is that when the former kills a Black guy, it's a crime. When the latter kills a Black guy, it's not a crime; the Grand Jury says so. Not even manslaughter.

The other big difference is that a criminal and a cop are not supposed to be the same thing. Cops do what they do on behalf of society, criminals do what they do on their own behalf. When cops repeatedly kill Black people, and get away with it, it's society that says "killing Black people is okay" and you shouldn't be surprised that you get riots.

Gez said:

This has nothing to do with "a person can choose to be a responsible gun owner" and everything to do with "any person could be an irresponsible gun owner".

Go on. Imagine yourself to be an American cop. There is some thug-looking guy that you need to apprehend. As you approach him, he reaches for something in his pocket -- maybe it's a gun and you'll be dead if you don't react before the end of this sentence. Oh, so you shot him just to be safe. Turns out, he was reaching for his phone because he had just received a message, had not seen you were coming for him, and he had no firearms at all, and actually he was innocent of any wrongdoing, he just looked like the guy you were looking for.

And now there's a riot that has started because you killed a man because he might have had a gun. It doesn't matter how individually responsible any gun owner might be.

You say that as if officers are not equipped with less than lethal means to deal with a possible threat and not fully trained to use them. You also say that as if law enforcement in several other counties are not trained to focus on less than lethal shots when they deal with a threat.

In other countries a person would be shot in the legs if they approached an officer with something like a machete. In the US officers will unload an entire clip in the same person carrying a machete. It's been proven time and time again that officers in the US use lethal force and most of the time excessive lethal force, when non-lethal force would have worked just as well.

Also, comparing a terrorist attack to a car accident is flawed logic at best.

I would really like to see a "Doom: Less Lethal", "Doom: Lawsuit Hell" and "Doom: Gun Control Edition". Then all those theories here would be put to the test ;-)

Wake up people, you're DOOMERS! Players of the most awesome game where you simply shoot stuff up! You can't have such double thoughts and moral dilemmas!

Fulgrim said:

It's been proven time and time again that officers in the US use lethal force and most of the time excessive lethal force, when non-lethal force would have worked just as well.

Yes, and why do they do that?

Fulgrim said:

Also, comparing a terrorist attack to a car accident is flawed logic at best.

Of course it is. That was precisely the point.

Gez said:

Your point about Black criminals murdering more Black people than White cops do is about as relevant to the topic as a conversation on car crashes and terrorism.

No, because it's part of the topic of a media promoting race baiting of blacks making it seem like there is this genocide against them by police officers. The media loves to blow this shit way out of proportion. Thus, giving people the impression that police fatalities on blacks is the number 1 problem within their community when in fact there are far worse problems that the media often disregards. It's basically bullshit

This is kinda in regard to the topic CorSair mentioned earlier about the "media whipping people into rage"


On another note, more whites get killed by police each year than blacks:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/apr/21/police-kill-more-whites-than-blacks-but-minority-d/?page=all

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/21/michael-medved/talk-show-host-police-kill-more-whites-blacks/

the_miano said:

when in fact there are far worse problems

Called it.
Like the racist cops they're defending, the Fallacy Police end up committing what they're sworn to prevent. What would possess you to try to get away with a flawed argument AFTER it's been established as flawed? How deficient can your self-awareness be? I can't believe you actually used the fallacy exactly as it's described in my earlier post.

This is why I don't debate more often. One might have better fighting skills than a toddler, but roundhouse-kicking one in the head just to make a point is pathologically cruel.

the_miano said:

Thus, giving people the impression that police fatalities on blacks is the number 1 problem within their community when in fact there are far worse problems that the media often disregards.

"Society deems it acceptable and normal that cops will kill Black people" is a fairly big problem, and a much bigger problem than "criminals commit crimes".

the_miano said:

On another note, more whites get killed by police each year than blacks:

Yeah, let's look at that:

Based on that data, Mr. Moskos reported that roughly 49 percent of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 were white, while 30 percent were black. He also found that 19 percent were Hispanic and 2 percent were Asian and other races.

Blacks represent 30% of police's victims, against 49% for White victims. That's an interesting data point. Now, let's look at another statistic.
Race and ethnicity in the USA
White American 72.2 %
African Americans 12.6 %

So, 12.6% of the population provides 30% of the victims, while 72.2% of the population provides 49% of the victims. In other words, an individual Black is 3.5 times as likely to be killed by police as an individual White.

That's interesting, don't you think?

Baltimore is 64% black 30% white. Blue is everywhere and less than 1%

Why are they 3.5 more times likely to be killed by cops? Is it because police are extremely racist and just looking for any reason to kill a black person no matter what their age or gender?

geo said:

Why are they 3.5 more times likely to be killed by cops? Is it because police are extremely racist and just looking for any reason to kill a black person no matter what their age or gender?

No, it's because they commit more crimes. Period. End of story.

Gez said:

So, 12.6% of the population provides 30% of the victims, while 72.2% of the population provides 49% of the victims. In other words, an individual Black is 3.5 times as likely to be killed by police as an individual White.

That's interesting, don't you think?

They also commit a disproportionate amount of the murders in this country considering their population size. They are much more likely to be involved in violent crime. Makes sense that they get shot more often by police then.

Snakes said:

Because regular people would rather just throw their hands up and let the problem go away than actually take action? The only reason the country is talking about this is because of the actions being taken. If the standard route would be taken, then we'd get a couple of 'key figures' (Sharpton et. al.) popping in to talk about how yeah it was a tragedy, and we should be upset, and then it would be forgotten. Instead, the whole nation's watching. The more and more this happens, which has been quite frequent of late, the more people are going to realize that these aren't just a series of 'oopsy-daisy what a sad coincidence' deaths and will be forced to swallow the bitter pill that there is still a problem with the system's core.

Man I'm so glad those LA Riots solved all that shit back in the 90s. Oh wait that totally didn't happen and they solved next to nothing beyond a 24 hour media cycle of "black people are violent thugs" being shoved in our face over and over again. Rioting, especially when you're burning down YOUR OWN SHIT does not magically make people go "oh wait these people are really disenfranchised inner city youths fed up with a system that offers them no hope" it reinforces their prejudices and makes it easier to dismiss an entire demographic as "violent thugs".

So yeah, it sucks but you know what the correct response is? To pretty much to do nothing. To live your lives in defiance of the system. Because you can't destroy it and really you can't change it. It has to change itself. The only time "violent uprising" has worked has been when 100% of a country did it and even then, even then, the result generally hasn't been very fucking good and often resulted in a lot of people dying and a new, even more brutal regime taking over.

The little guy has basically never won. The only times the little guy has won has been when it's too inconvenient for the big guy to keep oppressing them or when those with power stop seeing the oppressed as inherently different from themselves. The solution to "how do we make people see other people as people" is never "go burn some shit down".

Edit: Also cops kill a ton of white people too, it's not exclusively a black problem. Poor rural whites have a lot of the same problems as urban blacks, spared only by a lack of population density that makes systematic abuse so easy.

Tarnsman said:

Man I'm so glad those LA Riots solved all that shit back in the 90s. Oh wait that totally didn't happen and they solved next to nothing beyond a 24 hour media cycle of "black people are violent thugs" being shoved in our face over and over again. Rioting, especially when you're burning down YOUR OWN SHIT does not magically make people go "oh wait these people are really disenfranchised inner city youths fed up with a system that offers them no hope" it reinforces their prejudices and makes it easier to dismiss an entire demographic as "violent thugs".

A smart man once said, "a riot is the language of the unheard". I don't condone riots or property destruction but I can understand it in the context of a group of people who have historically been and continue to be systematically oppressed in the exact ways you describe.

Worth pointing out, there were days of peaceful protests in Baltimore that were largely ignored; riots only occurred after police provoked a bunch of schoolkids into violence.

Gez said:

"Society deems it acceptable and normal that cops will kill Black people" is a fairly big problem, and a much bigger problem than "criminals commit crimes".



Yeah, let's look at that:



Blacks represent 30% of police's victims, against 49% for White victims. That's an interesting data point. Now, let's look at another statistic.
Race and ethnicity in the USA
White American 72.2 %
African Americans 12.6 %

So, 12.6% of the population provides 30% of the victims, while 72.2% of the population provides 49% of the victims. In other words, an individual Black is 3.5 times as likely to be killed by police as an individual White.

That's interesting, don't you think?

Its odd that Wikipedia would contradict itself.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_ethnicity_in_the_United_States
White American 77%
African Americans 13.2%

fraggle said:

Worth pointing out, there were days of peaceful protests in Baltimore that were largely ignored; riots only occurred after police provoked a bunch of schoolkids into violence.

Motherjones said:

Several eyewitnesses in the area that afternoon say that police seemed to arrive at Mondawmin anticipating mobs and violence—prior to any looting. At 3:01 p.m., the Baltimore Police Department posted on its Facebook page: "There is a group of juveniles in the area of Mondawmin Mall. Expect traffic delays in the area." But many of the kids, according to eyewitnesses, were stuck there because of police actions.

The Baltimore Police Department did not respond to requests for comment.

Around 3:30, the police reported that juveniles had begun to throw bottles and bricks. Fifteen minutes later, the police department noted that one of its officers had been injured. After that the violence escalated, and rioters started looting the Mondawmin Mall, and Baltimore was in for a long night of trouble and violence. But as the event is reviewed and investigated, an important question warrants attention: What might have happened had the police not prevented students from leaving the area? Did the department's own actions increase the chances of conflict?

As Meghann Harris put it, "if I were a Douglas student that just got trapped in the middle of a minefield BY cops without any way to get home and completely in harm's way, I'd be ready to pop off, too."

Sorry, I don't buy this logic at all. Whether you're frustrated or pissed off by what an authority figure is doing is one thing, and police probably could have handled the situation better, but none of that makes the 'I'm trapped here and I'm angry about it, therefore I'll start throwing bottles and rocks' response any more acceptable or understandable.

fraggle said:

"a riot is the language of the unheard"

And unfortunately it is a language very few bother actually listening to.

"I must confess that over the past few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro's great stumbling block in his stride toward freedom is not the White Citizen's Counciler or the Ku Klux Klanner, but the white moderate, who is more devoted to 'order' than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says: 'I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I cannot agree with your methods of direct action'; who paternalistically believes he can set the timetable for another man's freedom; who lives by a mythical concept of time and who constantly advises the Negro to wait for a 'more convenient season.' Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection."

And the ultimate irony is that what MLK is most remembered and made an icon out of a cherry-picked legacy defined by its ability to appeal to the white moderate.

Also: "The Negro must wait for a more convenient season" is the most accurate description of the American Civil Rights Movement ever seeing as it had existed before even the Civil War and despite numerous attempts (and several high profile race riots) accomplished approximately nothing until the slow march of time and the evolving views of those horrible "maintain the status quo" moderates got to the point where they'd allow it to have an effect.

Tarnsman said:

"The Negro must wait for a more convenient season"

Black really do hate the cold.

Bucket said:

Oh look, the fallacy experts

By the powers of Fedora and Neckbeard I invoke the logical fallacy!

Riots were not what had won African-Americans Civil Rights. Rather, the U.S. government felt growing international pressure, to rectify these social issues, as an effort to gain more leverage in emerging former colonial countries, during the Cold War. Many of these nations had dark skinned constituencies, who would be persecuted within the U.S. This is a fact that the Soviets would galvanize in an effort to curry favor. The fact that non-violent protesters were being blasted with fire hoses, and beaten by cops is what spurred mass sympathy, because it had never been seen before on a mass scale, before television. Being destructive only serves to build resentment among the people that you're trying to reach out to. Nobody outside of the far-left is going to accept rioting as a viable method.

http://polisci2.ucsd.edu/ps154/Skrentny.pdf

John David Skrentny said:

"A more promising approach can be based on the political-process
theory of social movements, associated with Charles Tilly,s Sidney
Tarrow,6 and most relevant to the present study, Doug McAdam.7
The political-process model's emphasis on "political opportunities" in
explaining movement development allows for incorporation of geo-
political variables.8 However, though he clearly recognizes the impor-
tance of the Cold War impact, McAdam devotes only two paragraphs
to this factor in his comprehensive study of the rise and fall of the civil
rights movement.9 He argues that the fact of an "intense ideological
struggle" between the United States and the Soviet Union for influence
over emerging Third World nations strengthened the political position
of American blacks in the United States. Given the "obvious conflict
between this country's professed democratic values and the reality of
racism at home," explains McAdam, "American racism suddenly took
on international significance as an effective propaganda weapon of the
Communists."10 Both McAdam and Tarrow correctly argue that the
situation gave American political elites an interest in civil rights re- " [/B]

I just ordered a cheeseburger from McDonalds and when I opened it at home, there was no fucking meat on it. I'm gonna start smashing windows and flipping cars a few miles away, that'll learn 'em!

Caffeine Freak said:

Sorry, I don't buy this logic at all. Whether you're frustrated or pissed off by what an authority figure is doing is one thing, and police probably could have handled the situation better, but none of that makes the 'I'm trapped here and I'm angry about it, therefore I'll start throwing bottles and rocks' response any more acceptable or understandable.

I do agree for the most part. Something needs to be changed at the core of the justice system for this to be prevented in the future.. Their rioting is not okay, and the best way to stop it is to chnage that "black people are 3.5 times more likely to be killed" statistic. It all boils down to this: Trigger-happy cops need to be punished, responsible cops need to be praised. It's really not that fucking hard to hand out punishment where it's due, but the justice system would have us believe otherwise, for whatever reason..

Maybe I'm blinded by my whiteness but the quote Linguica posted describing white moderates sounds pretty accurate, but it also doesn't sound very oppressing. What exactly are the fundamental differences between justice and maintained order? Why should I humor destructive rioting that mostly effect surrounding people who have nothing to do with the problem at hand? What kind of freedom are these rioters lacking that I have more of -- or more importantly, are not willfully forfeiting with their own actions?

It seems like no one wants equality here. They want separatism and exceptionalism so they can scream when they're oppressed.

Freddie Gray's death ruled a homicide. State prosecutor is to file criminal charges against the six officers involved in his death.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-32554371

Doomkid said:

I do agree for the most part. Something needs to be changed at the core of the justice system for this to be prevented in the future.. Their rioting is not okay, and the best way to stop it is to chnage that "black people are 3.5 times more likely to be killed" statistic. It all boils down to this: Trigger-happy cops need to be punished, responsible cops need to be praised. It's really not that fucking hard to hand out punishment where it's due, but the justice system would have us believe otherwise, for whatever reason..

The thing that needs to change is that people need to stop jumping to conclusions before the facts come out. Each and every time this shit has happened, it has happened before any of the facts had come to light and people were already presuming that some "grave injustice" had occurred. People were already presuming that Michael Brown was innocent, but after the facts had been studied, it was shown that he had assaulted a police officer, tried to take his gun away, and that he never made an attempt to surrender. The whole "hands up, don't shoot" thing was a lie.

Doomkid said:

the best way to stop it is to chnage that "black people are 3.5 times more likely to be killed" statistic.

Rioting makes that worse. A lot of the "tough on crime" policies that disproportional affect blacks and allow cops to target generally poorer neighborhoods thus increasing the likelyhood of death by cop, were under the Nixon Administration. Agnew, Nixon's first vice president, was selected exclusively because of the 1968 Baltimore Riot.