Let's break this down, one statement at a time.

You say no one is above the law. As respectfully as I possibly can, I am going to call BS on this one. The police are above the law by virtue of the fact that they do not police themselves. No matter what a cop does, up to and including murder, other cops won't say a word. You have to get these guys on video or audio to have even a ghost of a chance to see justice served against a cop. What's worse is that rare justice that does happen doesn't come close to the kind of penalties you or I would face for doing the same thing. The jail time you and I would get for beating someone half to death yields nothing more than a paid vacation for a cop. Do not tell me that "No one is above the law". That is a simpleton's platitude that bears no resemblance to the truth in the real world.

Next. I do NOT excuse *these* riots, but I am not blind to the fact that *these* riots have yielded a positive result along with all the destruction they have caused. That positive result being that the 6 cops involved in Freddie Grey's death will be tried for their actions. Also, as long as we are talking about *these* riots, I place a fair share of the blame for them right at the feet of the police. *These* riots never would have needed to happen if the powers that be had come down hard on those 6 cops publicly and quickly, right from the start. I contend that *these* riots are as much a result of the police dragging their feet in bringing their own to justice as the actual neanderthals out there bashing windows.

I accept your entire 3rd paragraph as is.

Skipping forward to the 4th paragraph. The police, as I mentioned above, are above the law whether you care to admit it or not. Say what you want about the Bill of Rights, but the police by and large couldn't care less about it. Your Constitutional rights mean jack squat to a cop when he makes up his mind to violate them. They also mean jack squat to every other cop up and down the line who will provide cover for anything the first guy did. That includes lying under oath, falsifying police reports, joining in on the violations, and any number of other things. You can be beaten, pepper sprayed, tazed, shot and/or caged with or without charges, and the only chance you have to see justice done is if you are one of the incredibly tiny percentage of people who somehow manage to get their interactions with the police caught on camera that you actually have access to. If you're one of the other 99.9% without proof of your word versus all of theirs, you're screwed. If you're counting on other cops to step forward to speak up against his fellow badges, you're a fool. It's just not going to happen. They'd rather an innocent person serve a life sentence in prison than to ever even consider ratting out one of their own. Say what you want about this government czar and that government czar as some kind of theoretical exercise. As for me, that's exactly what I see every time a cop drives by, someone who is above the law making up the rules as they go.

Now, I've answered your points. Would you see your way clear to answering mine? I want to know what you thought of the violence against government agents question I posed earlier. If Hank, Dagny, Ragny, Francisco, etc. can act against the guards at the SSI when John Galt was being tortured, then why would it be so wrong for the people of Baltimore to rise up directly against the police and the District Attorney's office when they were still protecting those 6 cops? The question I posed earlier remains. At what point is it acceptable to bring force to bear against the police when they refuse to do anything to bring their own to justice?

I know there is a chance I will become unwelcome on this board with these kinds of questions, but frankly, I think they need to be asked. I believe I answered your questions. Do me the courtesy of answering mine.

Rather than busting on the cops maybe your friends should pick a different sport while driving around on public highways!

You presume much; I like to deal with facts. No one is above the law. If you think violence is necessary, you had best make sure it is directed specifically at those that have unjustly initiated it; and make sure you can live with the consequences.

I don't excuse the rioting - which by definition has innocent victims. Are *these* riots OK with you...as long as the ends justify the means?

There is no first amendment protection, or excuse, for the 'collateral damage' of criminal rioters. If someone wants to lawfully protest, then please do so. But, that is not a *license* to violate the rights of others. Anyone's damn protest ends at my property line. If someone, in the context of American society today, thinks it takes the destruction of the livelihood, property, and health of innocent people to make a case for their social change, then I want no part of their collectivist justice. The unspoken premise in that destruction is that my rights are granted or removed by the biggest 'gang' on the scene. My rights don't come from them.

If we descend into lawlessness, there won't be a Bill of Rights and we pave the way for whatever governmental czar wants to justify any action in the name of "protect & serve". At that time, we won't have to wonder when it becomes "justifiable to fight back".

Thank you for your service!

I don't live in the inner city. I live in Las Vegas suburb where I think a lot of filling of the government coffers goes on -esp with DUI. (Haven't gotten DUI myself but lots of friends have

I can understand this philosophy and agree with the premise. Doubtful however that cops serving in inner city, drug and crime infested locals are too interested in simple traffic violations. I do hope you don't really believe these incidents start over a tail light being out and escalate to serious encounters. Most of the thugs are already on the radar and although the cop does need some BS reason to pull them over there is almost always more to that story.

These officers are toast regardless of the outcome of the crap charges against them. The good thing for them is they KNOW they need to get the hell out of Baltimore whereas other officers might try to stick it out. Anyone staying in this lost cause called Baltimore will regret their decision.

Personally I have a lot of friends who are street or beet cops and my advice is get more insurance and just be a good witness. Why because if you take actions of any kind the assmption will be you overstepped your authority and the same person you tried to save will be the witness against you. Now that we know that michael Brown actually punched the cops window out to get to him, he is still dead, the cops life is ruined and now what will the toxicology report say on this? But who will open a store now that he was burned down? How quick will a cop respond to a call now? I don't know where I will take my next trip, but I can tell you where it won't be. The bottom line is they overcharged the cops they will probably not be convicted but they will all be fired if they have not been already, and where will they go to burn next when this happens?

Put yourself in the shoes of a cop.
Before arresting anyone for any reason, he'll have to ask himself, "Will I get into trouble if I make this arrest?" Chances are that short of an armed confrontation, he'll say that it's not worth it. What will that do to the local crime rate? If I wanted to stay in law enforcement and not have to put up with this nonsense, I'd become an MP. Unless that also has become subverted. Then, I'd take up baking. Oops! Can't do that either.

those cops are dead meat. Even if they are freed the mob will execute them

Probably a bad thing to say, BUT I really feel better when our cops are NOT around. They seem to be tasked more to bring money into the local government coffers than to protect ME. Cops show up AFTER something happens, so I need some way to protect MYSELF so it doesnt happen. No wonder people want guns.

militarization of police may be just the government protecting ITSELF from citizens. It would seem that the rational approach might be to find ways to non-lethally subdue criminals, instead of shooting them. In this particular case, that might not have helped, but in general it would

They will have to burn the officers, or the riots will start again. I remember WATTS riots in LA, and the Ferguson riots. I wouldnt want to be those cops- heads will have to roll. The look on that attorney general's face was really evil.

Absolutely. A really decent cop never knows when he will be in a situation like this (that he never wanted..), and wind up in court or jail. I say this will discourage good people from being cops. Why risk it all, when you can be a clerk or have a desk job somewhere and have a nice life.

One problem is that most encounters with cops are over relatively stupid traffic laws and result in HUGE fines to fill the local government coffers. As a result, a lot of people just feel better when the cops arent around, and have lost respect for them. If we want people to respect cops, we shouldnt require them to fill the local coffers with fine money.

I think this and other instances will make it very difficult to recruit GOOD cops. Its just not worth the risk. AFter all, you never know who you will meet up with and what you will have to do in the actual situation.

I dont have the real facts, and probably will never know them, BUT I have to say that this whole cop vs citizen thing has gotten out of hand. I think that like with airplane crashes- there is not ONE cause, but a combination of several things gone wrong.
In this case- why did the black dude resist arrest? Its not worth resisting arrest- 99% you wont escape and you will only enrage officers.
Also, Why did he fight with the cops when he had an obvious very severe injury?
And the cops were probably rough with him, in that he didnt knuckle under and show them the respect that cops seem to demand.
And fourth, most likely this black dude was arrogant and encouraged bad cop behavior.
What a mess. The blacks in the neighborhood werent any better by rioting either. Its going to be very hard to sort out whose rights were violated I think.

I am not suggesting that two wrongs should make a right. I am suggesting that cops can and do literally get away with murder unless the people rise up and hold them to account.

In my perfect world, every cop would be required to a wear body cameras (video) and mics (audio) AND those recordings should be made available to the public upon request. The cops who have done nothing wrong can point to video and audio evidence to justify their actions. The cops who break the law, on the other hand, will have nowhere to hide. The thin blue line becomes transparent and useless when there is actual video/audio proof that flies in the face of what some other officer might say to back up their lies.

Do not mistake my words. I do not approve of what the rioters in Baltimore (or Ferguson, MO for that matter) have done. I also do not approve of the Us vs Them mentality that damned near every cop in the world has that allows them to hide behind the Blue Wall of Silence.

Put another way, the people do not trust the police. They do not believe that the system will protect them. In fact, they believe that the system will go to any lengths to protect the police no matter what they may be guilty of. I assume that you would ask that the black community should trust the police and not riot/protest. I ask you, to what end? What have the police done to engender that trust? What have they done for decades on end to destroy that trust?

Hell, I'm a 42 year old white guy business owner who has never been in any trouble with the law, and I don't trust the police any further than I can throw them. Why would I expect any black person to trust them whether they were criminal or law abiding folk just trying to live their lives?

Getting back to the matter at hand. Do I think they should be rioting? No, I don't. Am I sympathetic to their protests. You're damned right I am. If anything, my biggest complaint with the rioters isn't that they are rioting. It is that they are directing their anger at the wrong targets. The guy that owns that Mom and Pop pizza business is not guilty of police violence and the neverending string of lies and coverups that ensue after. The police are the ones guilty of allowing unnecessary police violence to continue. They refuse to weed out the bad cops. In fact, they brag about how they will protect each other no matter what they are guilty of with their Thin Blue Line.

I also want to add one other point. I have no doubt you'll call this an apples vs. oranges comparison, but the point is valid in my mind. In Atlas Shrugged, when John Galt was captured and tortured at the State Science Institute, did Dagny, Ragnar, Francisco and company all sit back and meekly file some kind of formal protest? As I recall, they raided the SSI and killed several of the guards to get John back. In other words, something horrible was done to one of them, and they used violence against the people who did it to right that wrong. Were you morally repulsed when you read that? Do you recoil against the actions of our forefathers who fought back against their British oppressors? That doesn't mean that every SSI guard or British redcoat was a sadistic bastard who enjoyed crushing people. I don't imagine every cop in Baltimore or Ferguson or NYC (Eric Garner) or Cincinatti (Tamir Rice) or Dayton, Ohio (John Crawford) or Sandy,OR (Fouad Kaady) or North Charleston, SC (Walter Scott) or the hundreds of others victims, of whatever race, of unnecessary police violence. That said, if they are going to stand by and watch their fellow cops getting away with murder, then they can't possibly be surprised when they find a target on their own backs. Aiding and abetting is a crime too. Falsifying police reports is a crime. Staying silent in the face of a crime is, at minimum, morally repugnant, and doing that as an officer of the law is unforgiveable.

Maybe I am being naive, but I think the police (meant in the most general sense) can fix this problem by hanging their own out to dry publicly whenever and wherever it happens. Cops cannot be above the law, and as long as they are, you're delusional if you think that people aren't going to fight back with violence when the system simply cannot be trusted to dole out justice through due process. If it were up to me, I would try those cops publicly (meaning video/audio cameras in the courtroom). If their actions were justified and they can prove that, then so be it. Let them make that case. That said, Freddie Grey is dead. He was alive. He was arrested for something that was completely legal. He died of a traumatic spinal injury in police custody. Now, he's dead. I don't think it is too much to ask that the world gets to know why. I also do not think it is too much to ask for those cops to pay for their crimes in the same way any of us would if we were found guilty of the exact same offense. Lastly, I seriously doubt that without those riots in Baltimore, any of those 6 cops would have ever been charged with anything.

I have no doubt that you will want to retch when you read all of this, but I do have one question for you that I am very interested in. At what point does it become justifiable to fight back? How many more people need to be sacrificed to unnecessary police violence with no hope for justice whatsoever meted out afterwards before you come to understand that sometimes violence really is the answer?

One last point. Go watch the video on YouTube entitled "why we need the second amendment". It is about 57 minutes long and it will amaze and disgust you. On a personal level, I am not looking for a fight. I don't want one with anybody. I am, however, prepared for one if one finds me. I would suggest you do the same.

You are correct that the prosecutor adopts a theory when they make the probable cause determination. That just happened yesterday in the Baltimore case. You are also correct that they have no obligation from this point on to search out exculpatory evidence. If they come across it though (say, e.g., while preparing a witness to testify at trial) they must promptly disclose. If they do not, it is grounds for an appeal and may lead to the reversal of a conviction. In this case such a result might lead to the burning down of an entire American city. I think they would try to avoid that at all costs.

I think the exodus is happening, just not en-mass. More laws pit us against them and we all come out on the losing end. The public loses respect for the cops and vice versa. Tough for an honorable person to want to jump into that or stay in that situation so they fill the ranks with the less than honorable. A slow boiling pot.

What he said. ^^ (woodlema)

"The prosecutor is supposed to disclose any exculpatory evidence to the defense."
Yes. What I was saying is the police or prosecutor may choose to _stop looking_ for evidence once they have evidence that supports their theory of the case. If they keep looking and find something like DNA of a convict who had been released at the time of the crime, they have to disclose it. In that scenario, it's up to the defense to keep looking.

I think it's a smart system, but it's one I vaguely understand. Attorneys in an adversarial case start with a desired theory of the case and then look for evidence to support it--- something that must be avoided.

About ten years ago I was working on a wireless device at a job. I said the problem could be as simple as interference from a microwave oven in the break room below the lab. My boss asked me never to utter that aloud b/c if non-scientific people hear the hypothesis, they will notice the time the radio has a problem when a microwave is on and not notice contrary evidence. They will steer the investigation that way without regard to the facts. In the legal world, though, they do start with a theory.

Of course you know how this will play out if the Officers are found Not Guilty.

I'd say they warrant a change in *mayor*. And personal liability by the mayor to the people whose property was destroyed.

This is about the seventh such nationally newsworthy case in two years (depending how you count them). In most of the others, prosecutors quickly decided not to do anything. I can't blame the rioters for believing that the only way they were going to see anything but a similar summary dismissal was to commit acts of war.

I just wish they'd attacked targets that deserved it. Or that the system had publicly decided, much sooner, to put the officers on trial, thus avoiding the need.