Baltimore Cops Should Have Kicked Ass!

[WinterBorn]

Got it. The '68 convention "riots" weren't really riots, it was the cops beating on people.

police riot - History of the Federal Judiciary

Walker Report summary
On September 4, 1968, Milton Eisenhower, chair of the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, announced that the commission would investigate the violence at the Chicago convention and report its findings to President Lyndon Johnson. A Chicago lawyer, Daniel Walker, headed the team of over 200 members, who interviewed more than 1,400 witnesses to the events and studied FBI reports and film of the confrontations. The report released on December 1, 1968, characterized the convention violence as a “police riot” and recommended prosecution of police who used indiscriminate violence.

But this is ok because when the police riot they don't burn & loot. lol

 

[Lakhota]

Baltimore Cops Should Have Kicked Ass!

Maybe they shouldn't kick so hard next time. They broke Freddie Gray's neck.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

Today's press conference

Deputy Commissioner Kevin Davis revealed for the first time that there was a fourth stop made between the time Gray was placed in the transport van and when he arrived at the police department's Western District building.

 

[EverCurious]

Fair warning, incoming wall-o-test and my apologies for taking so long to respond here; my 17 year old pup had a stroke so it's been a bit touch and go with physical therapy and making sure she's not in too much pain to recover. >.<


Anyway, I enjoy researching so I decided to do a deeper search into riots in the past and see if I could hunt down riot tactics involved to correlate any increase/decrease in the level of violence or in the defusing of the situation. I started with riots in England 2004, 2009, 2010, 2011 their tactics are basically trap them all in a defined area until they get tired of rioting – which seems somewhat like what the Mayor of Baltimore did here. (In England’s case, it seems like they kind of deny them water, food, and toilets, until they are "biologically" forced to disperse heh) Either way the "contain" or "siege" technique doesn't seem to be particularly well received on either continent.

So I moved to researching US riots, starting with the Watt’s riot of 1965 suggested earlier in the thread, and after about an hour of digging came up with a detailed post-analysis regarding the entirety of the event, including details about police activity and the National Guard’s involvement. ~ http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/cityinstress/mccone/part4.html

This account does not really support the argument that increased police presence and National Guard activity “fanned the flames,” in fact, quite the opposite appears to be the case as the riot was quelled pretty quickly once boots were put on the ground.

Most specifically I find that the rioters spontaneously decided to start beating innocent people the evening of August 11 1965, despite the fact that the police left the scene with all three of the "offended" Frye's at 7:40pm. Between 8:15pm and midnight the mob stoned passing vehicles, pulled whites out of their cars and beat them, and menaced a police field command post which had been set up in the area.

The police policy decided upon on August 12th was to simply contain the mob in an area and let them riot. The mob, however, broke through those containment barriers shortly before midnight. Five hundred police officers, deputy sheriffs and highway patrolmen used various techniques, including fender-to-fender sweeps by police cars, in seeking to disperse the mob. The police felt they had it under control again around 4am (august 13) and the officers were pulled out around 5am.

On August 13th around 8am (3hrs after the police left) the looting and rioting started up again, by mid-morning there was around 3,000 rioters. By early afternoon, rioters began systematically burning two blocks of 103rd Street in Watts, and drove off firemen attempting to put those fires out with sniper fire and thrown objects. By late afternoon, gang activity began to spread the disturbance as far as fifty and sixty blocks to the north. The first death occurred between 6:00 and 7: 00 p.m., when a bystander, trapped between police and rioters, was shot and killed during an exchange of gunfire. Again using sweep tactics, police were able to clear this area by 3:30 p.m. Guardsmen started riding on the fire engines and effectively stopped the sniping and rock throwing at firemen. Neither the officials of the Los Angeles Police Department nor officers of the Guard deployed any of the [NG] troops until shortly after 10:00 p.m.

Much of the daytime burning August 14 had been along Central Avenue. In the evening, road blocks were set up in anticipation of the curfew. The massive show of force was having some effect although there was still riot activity and rumors spread regarding proposed activity in the south central area. When the curfew started at 8:00 p.m., police and guardsmen were able to deal with the riot area as a whole. Compared with the holocaust of Friday evening, the streets were relatively quiet. The only major exception was the burning of a block of stores on Broadway between 46th and 48th Streets. Snipers again prevented firemen from entering the area, and while the buildings burned, a gun battle ensued between law enforcement officers, the Guard, and the snipers.

August 15, the curfew area was relatively quiet.

7:00pm Officer Minikus, a motorcycle cop, pulls over Mr. Frye for drinking and driving. Mr. Frye failed the sobriety test and was informed that he was under arrest at 7:05pm and radioed for a car to take Mr. Frye to jail and a tow truck to take the vehicle. The passenger in the vehicle, his brother R. Frye, wasn't allowed to take the vehicle so he ran home to get his mother, the owner of the car.

7:15pm a second motorcycle patrolman, a patrol car, and the tow truck arrived; by this time the crowd of spectators had grown from 25-50 to 250-300 people. Mrs. Frye arrived and scolded her son for drinking and driving. Mr. Frye, who had been peaceful until then, pushed his mother away and moved toward the crowd, cursing and shouting that the officers would have to kill him to take him to jail. The officers pursued him and he resisted. The watching crowd became hostile and the officers radioed for more help. Within minutes three more patrolmen arrived. Mr. Frye, and R. Frye, were fighting with the police, Mrs. Frye became belligerent; jumping on an officer and ripping his shirt.

By 7:23pm all three Frye’s were under arrest and the requested backup arrived, other patrolmen, along with the first LA police officers. The crowd was reported to be at 1,000.

At 7:31pm the patrol car with all three now under arrest Frye’s left, and the tow truck removed Frye’s vehicle. A spectator in the crowd spit on an officer and was also detained and placed under arrest.

By 7:40pm all officers had left the scene; the last police car leaving was stoned by the now irate mob.

As has happened so frequently in riots in other cities, inflated and distorted rumors concerning the arrests spread quickly to adjacent areas. The young woman arrested for spitting was wearing a barber's smock, and the false rumor spread throughout the area that she was pregnant and had been abused by police. Erroneous reports were also circulated concerning the treatment of the Frye’s at the arrest scene.The mob did not disperse, they began roaming up and down the street.

Between 8:15pm and midnight the mob stoned passing vehicles, pulled whites out of their cars and beat them, and menaced a police field command post which had been set up in the area.

By 1am the outbreak seemed to be under control, with scattered reports of mobs, vandalism, and rock throwing – 29 people were arrested.

Thursday August 12 1965

4:00pm The police and many town leaders had a meeting to discuss how to defuse the situation. Ultimately though the meeting appears to have turned into nothing more than a forum to air grievances and was considered failed and adjourned. Following the main meeting, certain leaders had adjourned to a small meeting where they had discussions with individuals representing youth gangs [*I don't think they mean like Bloods and Crypts gangs here] and decided upon a course of action. They decided to propose that Caucasian officers be withdrawn from the troubled area, and that Negro officers in civilian clothes and unmarked cars be substituted. Members of this small group then went to see Deputy Chief of Police, where the proposals were rejected by him at about 7:00 p.m. They envisaged an untested method of handling a serious situation that was rapidly developing. Furthermore, the proposal to use only Negro officers ran counter to the policy of the Police Department, adopted over a period of time at the urging of Negro leaders, to deploy Negro officers throughout the city and not concentrate them in the Negro area. Indeed, when the proposal came the police had no immediate means of determining where the Negro officers on the forces were stationed. At this moment, rioting was breaking out again, and the police felt that their established procedures were the only way to handle what was developing as another night of rioting. Following those procedures, the police decided to set up a perimeter around the center of trouble and keep all crowd activity within that area.

Shortly before 12:00am rock-throwing and looting crowds for the first time ranged outside the perimeter. Five hundred police officers, deputy sheriffs and highway patrolmen used various techniques, including fender-to-fender sweeps by police cars, in seeking to disperse the mob.

Friday August 13 1965

By 4:00 a.m. Friday, the police department felt that the situation was, for the moment, under control.

At 5:09 a.m. officers were withdrawn from emergency perimeter control.

Around 8:00 a.m., crowds formed again in the vicinity of the Frye arrests and in the adjacent Watts business area, and looting resumed.

Before 9:00 a.m., Colonel Quick called General Hill in Sacramento from the Emergency Control Center and told him riot activity was intensifying. At 10:50 a.m., Parker made the formal request for the National Guard to Winslow Christian, Governor Brown's executive secretary, who was then in Sacramento, and Christian accepted the request.

By mid-morning, a crowd of 3,000 had gathered in the commercial section of Watts and there was general looting in that district as well as in adjacent business areas. By the time the formal request for the Guard had been made, ambulance drivers and firemen were refusing to go into the riot area without an escort.

At approximately 11:00 a.m., Christian reached Lt. Gov. Anderson by telephone in Berkeley and relayed Chief Parker's request. Lt. Gov. Anderson did not act on the request at that time. We believe that this request from ' the chief law enforcement officer of the stricken city for the National Guard should have been honored without delay. If the Lieutenant Governor was in doubt about conditions in Los Angeles, he should, in our view, have confirmed Chief Parker's estimate by telephoning National Guard officers in Los Angeles. Although we are mindful that it was natural and prudent for the Lieutenant Governor to be cautious in acting in the absence of Governor Brown, we feel that, in this instance, he hesitated when he should have acted.

Feeling that he wished to consider the matter further, Lt. Gov. Anderson returned to Los Angeles by way of Sacramento. A propeller-driven National Guard plane picked him up at Oakland at 12:20 p.m., and reached McClellan Air Force Base, near Sacramento, at 1:00 p.m. Anderson met with National Guard officers and civilian staff members and received various suggestions, ranging from advice from Guard officers that he commit the Guard immediately to counsel from some civilian staff members that he examine the situation in Los Angeles and meet with Chief Parker before acting. Although Anderson still did not reach a decision to commit the Guard, he agreed with Guard officers that the troops should be assembled in the Armories at 5 p.m., which he had been told by General Hill was the earliest hour that it was feasible to do so. Hill then ordered 2,000 men to be at the armories by that hour.

At the time Lt. Gov. Anderson and General Hill were talking in Sacramento, approximately 856 Guardsmen in the 3rd Brigade were in the Long Beach area 12 miles to the south, while enroute from San Diego, outfitted with weapons, to summer camp at Camp Roberts. We feel it reasonable to conclude, especially since this unit was subsequently used in the curfew area, that further escalation of the riots might have been averted if these Guardsmen had been diverted promptly and deployed on station throughout the riot area by early or mid-afternoon Friday.

Early Friday afternoon, rioters jammed the streets, began systematically to burn two blocks of 103rd Street in Watts, and drove off firemen by sniper fire and by throwing objects. By late afternoon, gang activity began to spread the disturbance as far as fifty and sixty blocks to the north.

By 6:00 p.m., 1,336 National Guard troops were assembled in the armories. These troops were enroute to two staging areas in the rioting zone by 7:00 p.m. However, neither the officials of the Los Angeles Police Department nor officers of the Guard deployed any of the troops until shortly after 10:00 p.m.

Having in mind these delays, we believe that law enforcement agencies and the National Guard should develop contingency plans so that in future situations of emergency, there will be a better method at hand to assure the early commitment of the National Guard and the rapid deployment of the troops.

The first death occurred between 6: 00 and 7: 00 p.m. Friday, when a bystander, trapped on the street between police and rioters, was shot and killed during an exchange of gunfire.

Saturday August 14 1965

Much of the Saturday burning had been along Central Avenue. Again using sweep tactics, the guardsmen and police were able to clear this area by 3:30 p.m. Guardsmen rode "shotgun" on the fire engines and effectively stopped the sniping and rock throwing at firemen.

Saturday evening, road blocks were set up in anticipation of the curfew. The massive show of force was having some effect although there was still riot activity and rumors spread regarding proposed activity in the south central area.

When the curfew started at 8:00 p.m., police and guardsmen were able to deal with the riot area as a whole. Compared with the holocaust of Friday evening, the streets were relatively quiet. The only major exception was the burning of a block of stores on Broadway between 46th and 48th Streets. Snipers again prevented firemen from entering the area, and while the buildings burned, a gun battle ensued between law enforcement officers, the Guard, and the snipers.

Sunday August 15 1965

During the day Sunday, the curfew area was relatively quiet. Because many markets had been destroyed, food distribution was started by churches, community groups, and government agencies. Governor Brown, who had returned Saturday night, personally toured the area, talking to residents. Major fires were under control but there were new fires and some rekindling of old ones. By Tuesday, Governor Brown was able to lift the curfew and by the following Sunday, only 252 guardsmen remained.

Coordination between the several law enforcement agencies during the period of the riot was commendable. When the California Highway Patrol called for help on Wednesday evening, the Los Angeles Police Department responded immediately. When the situation grew critical Thursday evening, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office committed substantial forces without hesitation. Indeed, the members of all law enforcement agencies - policemen, sheriff's officers, highway Patrolmen, city Marshalls - and the Fire Departments as well - worked long hours, in harmony and with conspicuous bravery, to quell the disorder. However, the depth and the seriousness of the situation were not accurately appraised in the early stages, and the law enforcement forces committed and engaged in the several efforts to bring the riots under control on Thursday night and all day Friday proved to be inadequate. It required massive force to subdue the riot, as demonstrated by the effectiveness of the Guard when it moved into position late Friday night and worked in coordination with the local law enforcement units.

Working my way through this extensive report I also found an issue I honestly hadn't thought of, but this too needs to be considered when police have to deal with riots. - “The Police and Sheriff's Department have long known that many members of gangs, as well as others, in the south central area Possessed weapons and knew how to use them. However, the extent to which pawn shops, each one of which possessed an inventory of weapons, were the immediate target of looters, leads to the conclusion that a substantial number of the weapons used were stolen from these shops. During the riots, law enforcement officers recovered 851 weapons.”


Next I looked at the Kent State Riot 1970, I wasn’t able to find a very good accounting on this one, but I think I found enough to support argument. Firstly, that both the adult rioters and student rioters, in fact began the whole “protest” with violent actions; the first night the adult rioters threw bottles at police cars, broke downtown windows, including a bank, and further threw bottles at police when they responded, then the students, the next day, burnt down the ROTC building on campus and attacked firefighters and police attempting to put out the blaze. And secondly that through a “show of force” response by police, and in the latter two days National Guard, they were able to successfully disperse both kinds of riots each day, and sometimes twice in the same day; the adults and students.

I will however argue that Kent is not at all a good example of anything SOP in handling riots, and to believe it was is foolish. Firstly I believe it was actually illegal for the Governor to basically declare there could be no protests what-so-ever when martial law had /not/ been declared. Though at the same time I can understand his thinking a bit - the adult protestors and student protestors were in fact /not/ peacefully demonstrating on the previous evenings, and in addition the Governor was apparently acting on the presumption and belief, that there were militant radicals there to destroy his city and university. (Apparently these groups were active in other cities and riots around the country.) And the caveat of the fact that the university had canceled the rally on may 4, so technically, everyone was trespassing - though I don't think anyone would have pressed that charge, it does give the police the right to throw the students off campus grounds.

Secondly it’s not a SOP riot handling because the shooting of students was an egregious accident; at most one can only say that a Sargent of the National Guard was either a psychopathic asshole, and his soldiers who fires as well, or perhaps they merely blindly followed his lead as they were trained to do. At best we can say that the National Guard was telling the truth and a sniper had opened fired at them. But either way you shake what happened there, it's not SOP handling of a riot or a protest in anyone’s book.

That aside though, attempting to disperse the crowds did not “fan the flames” in the way it has been attempted to be argued in this thread, in fact, aggressive dispersal tactics appear to have been successful each evening (may 1 adults, may 2 at least twice, may 3, and may 4), whereas “talking” to the protestors (stern warnings on May 3, and two attempts by the campus itself) was completely ineffective. I will agree that prior to the May 4 shooting mistake a few adult, and student, rioters were injured by bayonets, but so too were officers injured by hurled objects from the rioting (one required medical attention.) Overall, I cannot acquit those rioters, and protestors, who were injured while engaging in violent attacks against the police and National Guard - though I do seriously fault the haphazard 13 seconds of gunfire by the National Guard on May 4.

First thing I see is that the trouble exploded at midnight May 1 when bar patrons began throwing beer bottles at police cars and breaking downtown storefronts, as well as breaking the windows on a bank. By the time police arrived there was a crowd of 120. The crowd then started throwing bottles at the police. A police force consisting of the entire Kent force as well as officers from county, and surrounding communities eventually managed to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them several blocks from the campus. The Mayor declared a state of emergency and called the Gov. for help.

May 2, a crowd on campus was burning down the ROTC building, then stole the firehose and pelted firemen and police with rocks as they tried to put out the fire. Amid threats and rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and university, the Gov. decided he was taking no chances. The National Guard arrived at around 10pm and used tear gas to disperse the crowd.

On May 3, the Governor issued a stern warning to the rioters, “We've seen here at the city of Kent especially, probably the most vicious form of campus oriented violence yet perpetrated by dissident groups. They make definite plans of burning, destroying, and throwing rocks at police, and at the National Guard and the Highway Patrol. This is when we're going to use every part of the law enforcement agency of Ohio to drive them out of Kent. We are going to eradicate the problem. We're not going to treat the symptoms. And these people just move from one campus to the other and terrorize the community. They're worse than the brown shirts and the communist element and also the night riders and the vigilantes. They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America. Now I want to say this. They are not going to take over [the] campus. I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America." Around 8pm another “rally” occurred on campus and was dispersed by the guardsmen and teargas by 8:45pm. A separate group off campus at 11pm, in violation of the curfew, was dispersed as well.

On May 4 the university attempted to ban the previously scheduled protest gathering at noon, but none-the-less about 2,000 people gathered. The dispersal attempt began in the late morning, warning gathered protestors that they needed to disperse or face arrest. Protestors responded by throwing rocks; striking a campus patrolman. Just before noon the Guardsmen returned again to try to disperse them, most of the crowd refused and tear gas was attempted and failed due to wind, another volley of rocks was launched at the guards to chants of “Pigs off campus!” When it became clear they were not going to disperse, the guardsmen began to advance on the protestors, forcing them to retreat; the National Guard got a bit lost; they went one way, protestors scattered with three groups in various areas. While many protestors had left, some had stayed and were angrily confronting the soldiers; throwing rocks and tear gas canisters. A Guardsman was wounded a few minutes before the shooting. At 12:24, according to eyewitnesses, a Sargent began firing with his 45, a number of guardsmen followed suit. The Adjutant General claimed that a sniper had opened fire on the Guardsmen. 4 students were killed, another 9 were wounded.

Ultimately, in reading over the extensive report from Watts and the less detailed accounting of events at Kent, it seems to me that the “trigger point” for violence does not particularly care if police are present or not; mobs who wish to criminally riot, are going to criminally riot. If anything, a show of excessive force quelled their desire to be in the area – thus dispersed them into smaller pockets that are both easier to contain and defuses the psychological effects of the mob mentality. Further, if any of the recent highly publicized incidents are any indication, it seems predisposed for people to run from the police, so in, a rather sad way, it makes sense to me that if officers outnumber and show force, they’re going to run. In Baltimore 2015 we have almost exactly the same argument by the rioters did in Watts 1965, a seemingly very similar response by police in Baltimore 2015 and Watts 1965, and a return to order when the National Guard was called in both times.

By contrast, it seems that if we leave mobs on their own devices in a “sacrifice area,” they begin looting and/or turning to violence on their own accord regardless. It happened in Watts 1965, it happened within two separate protesting entities in Kent 1970, and it’s happened again in Baltimore 2015. I very much suspect that as I research other US riots a similar pattern is going to emerge.

To argue the other side, the “let them destroy” side; I suppose one could argue that it only takes X amount of time for rioters to finish looting and burning an area and thus stop on their own (as was brought up in the analysis of Watt 1965 as well.) However, doesn’t that just point to the fact that these people are NOT actually protesting, they’re just being criminals, and therefore have nothing “positive” to add to any protest in the first place? We’ve heard it straight from the "real protestors" mouths, that these rioters do not represent Baltimore, and do not represent Gray at all, so then who do they represent? Themselves, they’re a bunch of opportunistic thieves, vandals, arsonists, (and as we’ve heard practiced gang members who’ve set out to kill police.) Why then does anyone object to such criminals being removed from the streets ASAP?

Even if you want to argue an alternative excuse for rioting; “oh they’re just venting” it’s stupid to just let them go with it, like it’s an acceptable outlet for angst or something? If you have a dog who is chewing up your house, you don’t just let them continue to do it with no repercussions no matter how much you love him, you teach him that’s not acceptable. If you have a three year old throwing a temper tantrum, you should not award the behavior with free loot, you should teach them that it won't get them what they want. AKA put them in the corner, send them to their room, etc.

If we delve into psychological realms, the mob mentality that leads to criminal activity can be defeated by separating the mob; aka dispersal. Small groups are not cloaked in the faceless "animosity" of a mob and are less likely to risk getting caught doing something illegal. Ultimately it takes less troops to get smaller mobs off the street, which is ultimately less people involved in a riot who might make a stupid mistake that erupts in gun fights. So even if one believes that this Baltimore riot group are /legit/ protestors, it behooves everyone to get the situation off the streets; the rioters, the police, innocent bystanders, the stupid media, and the innocent business owners, and hell insurance companies.



I had also uncovered this site http://advancedsurvivalguide.com/2010/10/05/understanding-riot-control/ with a number of specific riot tactics that are employed (link one is a more in depth discussion on tactics as well as past riot techniques. Link 3 is about tear gas and what not used in dispersing riots. And the last link is the laws pertaining to the Army/National Guard’s involvement, I found the interesting.)

I do note that the first line of the preface for chapter one of the laws pertaining to army/NG involvement in riots is “Under the Constitution, each state is responsible for protecting life and property within its boundaries.”

Another good point in chapter 2 “Crowd Behavior” – “Crowd behavior expresses the emotional needs, resentments, and prejudices of the crowd members. However, a crowd only does those things that most of its members want to do. The crowd is influenced by the concerns of its members as to what is right, based on local custom, convention, and morality. But the emotional stimulus and protection of being in a crowd encourages its members to unleash impulses, aggressions, and rages that they usually restrain. When blocked from expressing its emotions in one direction, a crowd's hostility often is or can be redirected elsewhere. In a civil disturbance environment, any crowd can be a threat to law and order because it is open to manipulation.”

I also found the section of chapter 2 “Crowd Tactics” telling as well – so many of those actions taken by rioters, and police counter moves intended to defuse are instead reported and as police brutality... Then Chapter 8 goes into depth regarding various crowd control formations they deploy.

 

[protectionist]

In both of those cases, the riots, looting, burning, (and the beating of random motorists through the area in the case of Watts) had begun BEFORE the police were called in. Are you really trying to argue that if the police and national guard had NOT gone in the rioting, looting, burning, and random beating of innocents wouldn't have happened "as much" or something?

What is the purpose of the police force if I might ask?

I made no such claim. But the riots lasted 6 days. Police were there the whole time, and the national guard were there most of it.

I am making no claims that it would have been less if the cops had not been there. But sending in force and "kicking ass" has obviously not worked in large riots in the past. To think that is the only answer is to ignore history and the facts.

YOU are who is ignoring history and the facts, probably because you weren't at these riots, and know little about them.

I know enough not to claim that the looting and burning in Watts happened before the cops and national guard were called in.

I know enough not to claim there was no looting or burning in the Harlem or Chicago riots.

I said there was looting and burning in these riots before the police and Guard got involved, and restored order. You and I are not disagreeing here, but you seem to make it seem like we are, simply because you are a troll who just wants to argue. Go away, pest. And I don't want to hear any more of your crap about what I said. If you have point to make about the TOPIC (proper level of force in current/future riots), state it. Otherwise, get lost.

No, you said there was no looting and burning. Then changed your story when it was pointed out that there WAS, in fact, looting and burning.

And the involvement of the cops and national guard did not stop the looting and burning for several days.

No. Sorry. I respond as I see fit and according to the posts made. You can start a thread. But you cannot control all of the comments made within it.

INVALID POST. Lacks Post #s (sources)

Also, there WAS NO LOOTING AND BURNING (after the cops & Guard restored order) Not my fault if you can't understand English.

You're just sore because you came in here supporting a weak response to massive violence and destruction, and now you know that is stupid. Oh God! I'm looking at my TV screen and there is Rawlings walking with guess who > Al Sharpton. Mr Race Hustler himself.

OK here's the recommended methodology for police, the next time the thugs decide to go ape shit again >>>

 

[protectionist]

Fair warning, incoming wall-o-test and my apologies for taking so long to respond here; my 17 year old pup had a stroke so it's been a bit touch and go with physical therapy and making sure she's not in too much pain to recover. >.<


Anyway, I enjoy researching so I decided to do a deeper search into riots in the past and see if I could hunt down riot tactics involved to correlate any increase/decrease in the level of violence or in the defusing of the situation. I started with riots in England 2004, 2009, 2010, 2011 their tactics are basically trap them all in a defined area until they get tired of rioting – which seems somewhat like what the Mayor of Baltimore did here. (In England’s case, it seems like they kind of deny them water, food, and toilets, until they are "biologically" forced to disperse heh) Either way the "contain" or "siege" technique doesn't seem to be particularly well received on either continent.

So I moved to researching US riots, starting with the Watt’s riot of 1965 suggested earlier in the thread, and after about an hour of digging came up with a detailed post-analysis regarding the entirety of the event, including details about police activity and the National Guard’s involvement. ~ http://www.usc.edu/libraries/archives/cityinstress/mccone/part4.html

This account does not really support the argument that increased police presence and National Guard activity “fanned the flames,” in fact, quite the opposite appears to be the case as the riot was quelled pretty quickly once boots were put on the ground.

Most specifically I find that the rioters spontaneously decided to start beating innocent people the evening of August 11 1965, despite the fact that the police left the scene with all three of the "offended" Frye's at 7:40pm. Between 8:15pm and midnight the mob stoned passing vehicles, pulled whites out of their cars and beat them, and menaced a police field command post which had been set up in the area.

The police policy decided upon on August 12th was to simply contain the mob in an area and let them riot. The mob, however, broke through those containment barriers shortly before midnight. Five hundred police officers, deputy sheriffs and highway patrolmen used various techniques, including fender-to-fender sweeps by police cars, in seeking to disperse the mob. The police felt they had it under control again around 4am (august 13) and the officers were pulled out around 5am.

On August 13th around 8am (3hrs after the police left) the looting and rioting started up again, by mid-morning there was around 3,000 rioters. By early afternoon, rioters began systematically burning two blocks of 103rd Street in Watts, and drove off firemen attempting to put those fires out with sniper fire and thrown objects. By late afternoon, gang activity began to spread the disturbance as far as fifty and sixty blocks to the north. The first death occurred between 6:00 and 7: 00 p.m., when a bystander, trapped between police and rioters, was shot and killed during an exchange of gunfire. Again using sweep tactics, police were able to clear this area by 3:30 p.m. Guardsmen started riding on the fire engines and effectively stopped the sniping and rock throwing at firemen. Neither the officials of the Los Angeles Police Department nor officers of the Guard deployed any of the [NG] troops until shortly after 10:00 p.m.

Much of the daytime burning August 14 had been along Central Avenue. In the evening, road blocks were set up in anticipation of the curfew. The massive show of force was having some effect although there was still riot activity and rumors spread regarding proposed activity in the south central area. When the curfew started at 8:00 p.m., police and guardsmen were able to deal with the riot area as a whole. Compared with the holocaust of Friday evening, the streets were relatively quiet. The only major exception was the burning of a block of stores on Broadway between 46th and 48th Streets. Snipers again prevented firemen from entering the area, and while the buildings burned, a gun battle ensued between law enforcement officers, the Guard, and the snipers.

August 15, the curfew area was relatively quiet.

7:00pm Officer Minikus, a motorcycle cop, pulls over Mr. Frye for drinking and driving. Mr. Frye failed the sobriety test and was informed that he was under arrest at 7:05pm and radioed for a car to take Mr. Frye to jail and a tow truck to take the vehicle. The passenger in the vehicle, his brother R. Frye, wasn't allowed to take the vehicle so he ran home to get his mother, the owner of the car.

7:15pm a second motorcycle patrolman, a patrol car, and the tow truck arrived; by this time the crowd of spectators had grown from 25-50 to 250-300 people. Mrs. Frye arrived and scolded her son for drinking and driving. Mr. Frye, who had been peaceful until then, pushed his mother away and moved toward the crowd, cursing and shouting that the officers would have to kill him to take him to jail. The officers pursued him and he resisted. The watching crowd became hostile and the officers radioed for more help. Within minutes three more patrolmen arrived. Mr. Frye, and R. Frye, were fighting with the police, Mrs. Frye became belligerent; jumping on an officer and ripping his shirt.

By 7:23pm all three Frye’s were under arrest and the requested backup arrived, other patrolmen, along with the first LA police officers. The crowd was reported to be at 1,000.

At 7:31pm the patrol car with all three now under arrest Frye’s left, and the tow truck removed Frye’s vehicle. A spectator in the crowd spit on an officer and was also detained and placed under arrest.

By 7:40pm all officers had left the scene; the last police car leaving was stoned by the now irate mob.

As has happened so frequently in riots in other cities, inflated and distorted rumors concerning the arrests spread quickly to adjacent areas. The young woman arrested for spitting was wearing a barber's smock, and the false rumor spread throughout the area that she was pregnant and had been abused by police. Erroneous reports were also circulated concerning the treatment of the Frye’s at the arrest scene.The mob did not disperse, they began roaming up and down the street.

Between 8:15pm and midnight the mob stoned passing vehicles, pulled whites out of their cars and beat them, and menaced a police field command post which had been set up in the area.

By 1am the outbreak seemed to be under control, with scattered reports of mobs, vandalism, and rock throwing – 29 people were arrested.

Thursday August 12 1965

4:00pm The police and many town leaders had a meeting to discuss how to defuse the situation. Ultimately though the meeting appears to have turned into nothing more than a forum to air grievances and was considered failed and adjourned. Following the main meeting, certain leaders had adjourned to a small meeting where they had discussions with individuals representing youth gangs [*I don't think they mean like Bloods and Crypts gangs here] and decided upon a course of action. They decided to propose that Caucasian officers be withdrawn from the troubled area, and that Negro officers in civilian clothes and unmarked cars be substituted. Members of this small group then went to see Deputy Chief of Police, where the proposals were rejected by him at about 7:00 p.m. They envisaged an untested method of handling a serious situation that was rapidly developing. Furthermore, the proposal to use only Negro officers ran counter to the policy of the Police Department, adopted over a period of time at the urging of Negro leaders, to deploy Negro officers throughout the city and not concentrate them in the Negro area. Indeed, when the proposal came the police had no immediate means of determining where the Negro officers on the forces were stationed. At this moment, rioting was breaking out again, and the police felt that their established procedures were the only way to handle what was developing as another night of rioting. Following those procedures, the police decided to set up a perimeter around the center of trouble and keep all crowd activity within that area.

Shortly before 12:00am rock-throwing and looting crowds for the first time ranged outside the perimeter. Five hundred police officers, deputy sheriffs and highway patrolmen used various techniques, including fender-to-fender sweeps by police cars, in seeking to disperse the mob.

Friday August 13 1965

By 4:00 a.m. Friday, the police department felt that the situation was, for the moment, under control.

At 5:09 a.m. officers were withdrawn from emergency perimeter control.

Around 8:00 a.m., crowds formed again in the vicinity of the Frye arrests and in the adjacent Watts business area, and looting resumed.

Before 9:00 a.m., Colonel Quick called General Hill in Sacramento from the Emergency Control Center and told him riot activity was intensifying. At 10:50 a.m., Parker made the formal request for the National Guard to Winslow Christian, Governor Brown's executive secretary, who was then in Sacramento, and Christian accepted the request.

By mid-morning, a crowd of 3,000 had gathered in the commercial section of Watts and there was general looting in that district as well as in adjacent business areas. By the time the formal request for the Guard had been made, ambulance drivers and firemen were refusing to go into the riot area without an escort.

At approximately 11:00 a.m., Christian reached Lt. Gov. Anderson by telephone in Berkeley and relayed Chief Parker's request. Lt. Gov. Anderson did not act on the request at that time. We believe that this request from ' the chief law enforcement officer of the stricken city for the National Guard should have been honored without delay. If the Lieutenant Governor was in doubt about conditions in Los Angeles, he should, in our view, have confirmed Chief Parker's estimate by telephoning National Guard officers in Los Angeles. Although we are mindful that it was natural and prudent for the Lieutenant Governor to be cautious in acting in the absence of Governor Brown, we feel that, in this instance, he hesitated when he should have acted.

Feeling that he wished to consider the matter further, Lt. Gov. Anderson returned to Los Angeles by way of Sacramento. A propeller-driven National Guard plane picked him up at Oakland at 12:20 p.m., and reached McClellan Air Force Base, near Sacramento, at 1:00 p.m. Anderson met with National Guard officers and civilian staff members and received various suggestions, ranging from advice from Guard officers that he commit the Guard immediately to counsel from some civilian staff members that he examine the situation in Los Angeles and meet with Chief Parker before acting. Although Anderson still did not reach a decision to commit the Guard, he agreed with Guard officers that the troops should be assembled in the Armories at 5 p.m., which he had been told by General Hill was the earliest hour that it was feasible to do so. Hill then ordered 2,000 men to be at the armories by that hour.

At the time Lt. Gov. Anderson and General Hill were talking in Sacramento, approximately 856 Guardsmen in the 3rd Brigade were in the Long Beach area 12 miles to the south, while enroute from San Diego, outfitted with weapons, to summer camp at Camp Roberts. We feel it reasonable to conclude, especially since this unit was subsequently used in the curfew area, that further escalation of the riots might have been averted if these Guardsmen had been diverted promptly and deployed on station throughout the riot area by early or mid-afternoon Friday.

Early Friday afternoon, rioters jammed the streets, began systematically to burn two blocks of 103rd Street in Watts, and drove off firemen by sniper fire and by throwing objects. By late afternoon, gang activity began to spread the disturbance as far as fifty and sixty blocks to the north.

By 6:00 p.m., 1,336 National Guard troops were assembled in the armories. These troops were enroute to two staging areas in the rioting zone by 7:00 p.m. However, neither the officials of the Los Angeles Police Department nor officers of the Guard deployed any of the troops until shortly after 10:00 p.m.

Having in mind these delays, we believe that law enforcement agencies and the National Guard should develop contingency plans so that in future situations of emergency, there will be a better method at hand to assure the early commitment of the National Guard and the rapid deployment of the troops.

The first death occurred between 6: 00 and 7: 00 p.m. Friday, when a bystander, trapped on the street between police and rioters, was shot and killed during an exchange of gunfire.

Saturday August 14 1965

Much of the Saturday burning had been along Central Avenue. Again using sweep tactics, the guardsmen and police were able to clear this area by 3:30 p.m. Guardsmen rode "shotgun" on the fire engines and effectively stopped the sniping and rock throwing at firemen.

Saturday evening, road blocks were set up in anticipation of the curfew. The massive show of force was having some effect although there was still riot activity and rumors spread regarding proposed activity in the south central area.

When the curfew started at 8:00 p.m., police and guardsmen were able to deal with the riot area as a whole. Compared with the holocaust of Friday evening, the streets were relatively quiet. The only major exception was the burning of a block of stores on Broadway between 46th and 48th Streets. Snipers again prevented firemen from entering the area, and while the buildings burned, a gun battle ensued between law enforcement officers, the Guard, and the snipers.

Sunday August 15 1965

During the day Sunday, the curfew area was relatively quiet. Because many markets had been destroyed, food distribution was started by churches, community groups, and government agencies. Governor Brown, who had returned Saturday night, personally toured the area, talking to residents. Major fires were under control but there were new fires and some rekindling of old ones. By Tuesday, Governor Brown was able to lift the curfew and by the following Sunday, only 252 guardsmen remained.

Coordination between the several law enforcement agencies during the period of the riot was commendable. When the California Highway Patrol called for help on Wednesday evening, the Los Angeles Police Department responded immediately. When the situation grew critical Thursday evening, the Los Angeles Sheriff's Office committed substantial forces without hesitation. Indeed, the members of all law enforcement agencies - policemen, sheriff's officers, highway Patrolmen, city Marshalls - and the Fire Departments as well - worked long hours, in harmony and with conspicuous bravery, to quell the disorder. However, the depth and the seriousness of the situation were not accurately appraised in the early stages, and the law enforcement forces committed and engaged in the several efforts to bring the riots under control on Thursday night and all day Friday proved to be inadequate. It required massive force to subdue the riot, as demonstrated by the effectiveness of the Guard when it moved into position late Friday night and worked in coordination with the local law enforcement units.

Working my way through this extensive report I also found an issue I honestly hadn't thought of, but this too needs to be considered when police have to deal with riots. - “The Police and Sheriff's Department have long known that many members of gangs, as well as others, in the south central area Possessed weapons and knew how to use them. However, the extent to which pawn shops, each one of which possessed an inventory of weapons, were the immediate target of looters, leads to the conclusion that a substantial number of the weapons used were stolen from these shops. During the riots, law enforcement officers recovered 851 weapons.”


Next I looked at the Kent State Riot 1970, I wasn’t able to find a very good accounting on this one, but I think I found enough to support argument. Firstly, that both the adult rioters and student rioters, in fact began the whole “protest” with violent actions; the first night the adult rioters threw bottles at police cars, broke downtown windows, including a bank, and further threw bottles at police when they responded, then the students, the next day, burnt down the ROTC building on campus and attacked firefighters and police attempting to put out the blaze. And secondly that through a “show of force” response by police, and in the latter two days National Guard, they were able to successfully disperse both kinds of riots each day, and sometimes twice in the same day; the adults and students.

I will however argue that Kent is not at all a good example of anything SOP in handling riots, and to believe it was is foolish. Firstly I believe it was actually illegal for the Governor to basically declare there could be no protests what-so-ever when martial law had /not/ been declared. Though at the same time I can understand his thinking a bit - the adult protestors and student protestors were in fact /not/ peacefully demonstrating on the previous evenings, and in addition the Governor was apparently acting on the presumption and belief, that there were militant radicals there to destroy his city and university. (Apparently these groups were active in other cities and riots around the country.) And the caveat of the fact that the university had canceled the rally on may 4, so technically, everyone was trespassing - though I don't think anyone would have pressed that charge, it does give the police the right to throw the students off campus grounds.

Secondly it’s not a SOP riot handling because the shooting of students was an egregious accident; at most one can only say that a Sargent of the National Guard was either a psychopathic asshole, and his soldiers who fires as well, or perhaps they merely blindly followed his lead as they were trained to do. At best we can say that the National Guard was telling the truth and a sniper had opened fired at them. But either way you shake what happened there, it's not SOP handling of a riot or a protest in anyone’s book.

That aside though, attempting to disperse the crowds did not “fan the flames” in the way it has been attempted to be argued in this thread, in fact, aggressive dispersal tactics appear to have been successful each evening (may 1 adults, may 2 at least twice, may 3, and may 4), whereas “talking” to the protestors (stern warnings on May 3, and two attempts by the campus itself) was completely ineffective. I will agree that prior to the May 4 shooting mistake a few adult, and student, rioters were injured by bayonets, but so too were officers injured by hurled objects from the rioting (one required medical attention.) Overall, I cannot acquit those rioters, and protestors, who were injured while engaging in violent attacks against the police and National Guard - though I do seriously fault the haphazard 13 seconds of gunfire by the National Guard on May 4.

First thing I see is that the trouble exploded at midnight May 1 when bar patrons began throwing beer bottles at police cars and breaking downtown storefronts, as well as breaking the windows on a bank. By the time police arrived there was a crowd of 120. The crowd then started throwing bottles at the police. A police force consisting of the entire Kent force as well as officers from county, and surrounding communities eventually managed to disperse the crowd from downtown, forcing them several blocks from the campus. The Mayor declared a state of emergency and called the Gov. for help.

May 2, a crowd on campus was burning down the ROTC building, then stole the firehose and pelted firemen and police with rocks as they tried to put out the fire. Amid threats and rumors that radical revolutionaries were in Kent to destroy the city and university, the Gov. decided he was taking no chances. The National Guard arrived at around 10pm and used tear gas to disperse the crowd.

On May 3, the Governor issued a stern warning to the rioters, “We've seen here at the city of Kent especially, probably the most vicious form of campus oriented violence yet perpetrated by dissident groups. They make definite plans of burning, destroying, and throwing rocks at police, and at the National Guard and the Highway Patrol. This is when we're going to use every part of the law enforcement agency of Ohio to drive them out of Kent. We are going to eradicate the problem. We're not going to treat the symptoms. And these people just move from one campus to the other and terrorize the community. They're worse than the brown shirts and the communist element and also the night riders and the vigilantes. They're the worst type of people that we harbor in America. Now I want to say this. They are not going to take over [the] campus. I think that we're up against the strongest, well-trained, militant, revolutionary group that has ever assembled in America." Around 8pm another “rally” occurred on campus and was dispersed by the guardsmen and teargas by 8:45pm. A separate group off campus at 11pm, in violation of the curfew, was dispersed as well.

On May 4 the university attempted to ban the previously scheduled protest gathering at noon, but none-the-less about 2,000 people gathered. The dispersal attempt began in the late morning, warning gathered protestors that they needed to disperse or face arrest. Protestors responded by throwing rocks; striking a campus patrolman. Just before noon the Guardsmen returned again to try to disperse them, most of the crowd refused and tear gas was attempted and failed due to wind, another volley of rocks was launched at the guards to chants of “Pigs off campus!” When it became clear they were not going to disperse, the guardsmen began to advance on the protestors, forcing them to retreat; the National Guard got a bit lost; they went one way, protestors scattered with three groups in various areas. While many protestors had left, some had stayed and were angrily confronting the soldiers; throwing rocks and tear gas canisters. A Guardsman was wounded a few minutes before the shooting. At 12:24, according to eyewitnesses, a Sargent began firing with his 45, a number of guardsmen followed suit. The Adjutant General claimed that a sniper had opened fire on the Guardsmen. 4 students were killed, another 9 were wounded.

Ultimately, in reading over the extensive report from Watts and the less detailed accounting of events at Kent, it seems to me that the “trigger point” for violence does not particularly care if police are present or not; mobs who wish to criminally riot, are going to criminally riot. If anything, a show of excessive force quelled their desire to be in the area – thus dispersed them into smaller pockets that are both easier to contain and defuses the psychological effects of the mob mentality. Further, if any of the recent highly publicized incidents are any indication, it seems predisposed for people to run from the police, so in, a rather sad way, it makes sense to me that if officers outnumber and show force, they’re going to run. In Baltimore 2015 we have almost exactly the same argument by the rioters did in Watts 1965, a seemingly very similar response by police in Baltimore 2015 and Watts 1965, and a return to order when the National Guard was called in both times.

By contrast, it seems that if we leave mobs on their own devices in a “sacrifice area,” they begin looting and/or turning to violence on their own accord regardless. It happened in Watts 1965, it happened within two separate protesting entities in Kent 1970, and it’s happened again in Baltimore 2015. I very much suspect that as I research other US riots a similar pattern is going to emerge.

To argue the other side, the “let them destroy” side; I suppose one could argue that it only takes X amount of time for rioters to finish looting and burning an area and thus stop on their own (as was brought up in the analysis of Watt 1965 as well.) However, doesn’t that just point to the fact that these people are NOT actually protesting, they’re just being criminals, and therefore have nothing “positive” to add to any protest in the first place? We’ve heard it straight from the "real protestors" mouths, that these rioters do not represent Baltimore, and do not represent Gray at all, so then who do they represent? Themselves, they’re a bunch of opportunistic thieves, vandals, arsonists, (and as we’ve heard practiced gang members who’ve set out to kill police.) Why then does anyone object to such criminals being removed from the streets ASAP?

Even if you want to argue an alternative excuse for rioting; “oh they’re just venting” it’s stupid to just let them go with it, like it’s an acceptable outlet for angst or something? If you have a dog who is chewing up your house, you don’t just let them continue to do it with no repercussions no matter how much you love him, you teach him that’s not acceptable. If you have a three year old throwing a temper tantrum, you should not award the behavior with free loot, you should teach them that it won't get them what they want. AKA put them in the corner, send them to their room, etc.

If we delve into psychological realms, the mob mentality that leads to criminal activity can be defeated by separating the mob; aka dispersal. Small groups are not cloaked in the faceless "animosity" of a mob and are less likely to risk getting caught doing something illegal. Ultimately it takes less troops to get smaller mobs off the street, which is ultimately less people involved in a riot who might make a stupid mistake that erupts in gun fights. So even if one believes that this Baltimore riot group are /legit/ protestors, it behooves everyone to get the situation off the streets; the rioters, the police, innocent bystanders, the stupid media, and the innocent business owners, and hell insurance companies.



I had also uncovered this site http://advancedsurvivalguide.com/2010/10/05/understanding-riot-control/ with a number of specific riot tactics that are employed (link one is a more in depth discussion on tactics as well as past riot techniques. Link 3 is about tear gas and what not used in dispersing riots. And the last link is the laws pertaining to the Army/National Guard’s involvement, I found the interesting.)

I do note that the first line of the preface for chapter one of the laws pertaining to army/NG involvement in riots is “Under the Constitution, each state is responsible for protecting life and property within its boundaries.”

Another good point in chapter 2 “Crowd Behavior” – “Crowd behavior expresses the emotional needs, resentments, and prejudices of the crowd members. However, a crowd only does those things that most of its members want to do. The crowd is influenced by the concerns of its members as to what is right, based on local custom, convention, and morality. But the emotional stimulus and protection of being in a crowd encourages its members to unleash impulses, aggressions, and rages that they usually restrain. When blocked from expressing its emotions in one direction, a crowd's hostility often is or can be redirected elsewhere. In a civil disturbance environment, any crowd can be a threat to law and order because it is open to manipulation.”

I also found the section of chapter 2 “Crowd Tactics” telling as well – so many of those actions taken by rioters, and police counter moves intended to defuse are instead reported and as police brutality... Then Chapter 8 goes into depth regarding various crowd control formations they deploy.

OF COURSE!

 

[protectionist]

I think it's a good the thing the cops held back. Any white cops would have been putting their careers at risk if they had moved a muscle.

Hey, a few buildings burn, fuck it. Stay out of the way or the PC Police will be all over you.

Good move.

.

NO. Not a good move. A STUPID move. An innocent woman was burned over 90% of her body, in her own home. She is in critical condition, last I heard. You want to go to her hospital bed right now, and tell her it was a "good move" for the cops to stand down as they did ? (if she's still alive). The PCers can go F themselves. The people of Baltimore are who should be cared for, not some PC loons.

I hadn't seen that in the news. Do you have a link?

Not at present. It is one of those things that was reported on the TV news. I don't recall which channel. I watch Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Could have been anyone of the 3. Does this come as a surprise ? I'm surprised there weren't hundreds of people severely burned. (or were there ?)

NOTE: isn't it interesting how little publicity the media is giving to the people who were seriously injured Monday night ?

 

[protectionist]

View attachment 40601

Bullshit! Every reliable statistic shows they are the leading ethnic group engaging in criminal violence.

 

[WinterBorn]

I made no such claim. But the riots lasted 6 days. Police were there the whole time, and the national guard were there most of it.

I am making no claims that it would have been less if the cops had not been there. But sending in force and "kicking ass" has obviously not worked in large riots in the past. To think that is the only answer is to ignore history and the facts.

YOU are who is ignoring history and the facts, probably because you weren't at these riots, and know little about them.

I know enough not to claim that the looting and burning in Watts happened before the cops and national guard were called in.

I know enough not to claim there was no looting or burning in the Harlem or Chicago riots.

I said there was looting and burning in these riots before the police and Guard got involved, and restored order. You and I are not disagreeing here, but you seem to make it seem like we are, simply because you are a troll who just wants to argue. Go away, pest. And I don't want to hear any more of your crap about what I said. If you have point to make about the TOPIC (proper level of force in current/future riots), state it. Otherwise, get lost.

No, you said there was no looting and burning. Then changed your story when it was pointed out that there WAS, in fact, looting and burning.

And the involvement of the cops and national guard did not stop the looting and burning for several days.

No. Sorry. I respond as I see fit and according to the posts made. You can start a thread. But you cannot control all of the comments made within it.

INVALID POST. Lacks Post #s (sources)

Also, there WAS NO LOOTING AND BURNING (after the cops & Guard restored order) Not my fault if you can't understand English.

Yes, there WAS looting and burning after the cops arrived in Harlem and in Watts. The Chicago riots at the Democratic convention may not have had looting and burning, but that was the cops rioting, not stopping a riot.

 

[WinterBorn]

I made no such claim. But the riots lasted 6 days. Police were there the whole time, and the national guard were there most of it.

I am making no claims that it would have been less if the cops had not been there. But sending in force and "kicking ass" has obviously not worked in large riots in the past. To think that is the only answer is to ignore history and the facts.

YOU are who is ignoring history and the facts, probably because you weren't at these riots, and know little about them.

I know enough not to claim that the looting and burning in Watts happened before the cops and national guard were called in.

I know enough not to claim there was no looting or burning in the Harlem or Chicago riots.

I said there was looting and burning in these riots before the police and Guard got involved, and restored order. You and I are not disagreeing here, but you seem to make it seem like we are, simply because you are a troll who just wants to argue. Go away, pest. And I don't want to hear any more of your crap about what I said. If you have point to make about the TOPIC (proper level of force in current/future riots), state it. Otherwise, get lost.

No, you said there was no looting and burning. Then changed your story when it was pointed out that there WAS, in fact, looting and burning.

And the involvement of the cops and national guard did not stop the looting and burning for several days.

No. Sorry. I respond as I see fit and according to the posts made. You can start a thread. But you cannot control all of the comments made within it.

INVALID POST. Lacks Post #s (sources)

Also, there WAS NO LOOTING AND BURNING (after the cops & Guard restored order) Not my fault if you can't understand English.

Wait, you are saying there was no looting and burning after the cops & national guard restored order? Well DUH. There was no looting and burning BEFORE the riot either.

 

[WinterBorn]

First you said there was no looting & burning.

Then you said there was no looting & burning after the cops & national guard got involved.

Now you say there was no looting & burning after the cops & national guard restored order???

 

[protectionist]

Isn't confused & overwhelmed Stephanie in hot water enough, and now she's walking around with Al Sharpton ? Pheeeeww!! (high-pitched whistle; eyes rolling around in head)

 

[protectionist]

YOU are who is ignoring history and the facts, probably because you weren't at these riots, and know little about them.

I know enough not to claim that the looting and burning in Watts happened before the cops and national guard were called in.

I know enough not to claim there was no looting or burning in the Harlem or Chicago riots.

I said there was looting and burning in these riots before the police and Guard got involved, and restored order. You and I are not disagreeing here, but you seem to make it seem like we are, simply because you are a troll who just wants to argue. Go away, pest. And I don't want to hear any more of your crap about what I said. If you have point to make about the TOPIC (proper level of force in current/future riots), state it. Otherwise, get lost.

No, you said there was no looting and burning. Then changed your story when it was pointed out that there WAS, in fact, looting and burning.

And the involvement of the cops and national guard did not stop the looting and burning for several days.

No. Sorry. I respond as I see fit and according to the posts made. You can start a thread. But you cannot control all of the comments made within it.

INVALID POST. Lacks Post #s (sources)

Also, there WAS NO LOOTING AND BURNING (after the cops & Guard restored order) Not my fault if you can't understand English.

Wait, you are saying there was no looting and burning after the cops & national guard restored order? Well DUH. There was no looting and burning BEFORE the riot either.

Well DUH, yourself. Point you swung and missed at was the cops and Guard restored order > by kicking ass. GET IT ? And don't tell me they didn't. I was one of them. And I popped my bayonet into at least a dozen fleeing asses, and broke a few rioter ankles with my steel-tipped combat boots. And that's less that what I would have liked >>>

 

[WinterBorn]

I know enough not to claim that the looting and burning in Watts happened before the cops and national guard were called in.

I know enough not to claim there was no looting or burning in the Harlem or Chicago riots.

I said there was looting and burning in these riots before the police and Guard got involved, and restored order. You and I are not disagreeing here, but you seem to make it seem like we are, simply because you are a troll who just wants to argue. Go away, pest. And I don't want to hear any more of your crap about what I said. If you have point to make about the TOPIC (proper level of force in current/future riots), state it. Otherwise, get lost.

No, you said there was no looting and burning. Then changed your story when it was pointed out that there WAS, in fact, looting and burning.

And the involvement of the cops and national guard did not stop the looting and burning for several days.

No. Sorry. I respond as I see fit and according to the posts made. You can start a thread. But you cannot control all of the comments made within it.

INVALID POST. Lacks Post #s (sources)

Also, there WAS NO LOOTING AND BURNING (after the cops & Guard restored order) Not my fault if you can't understand English.

Wait, you are saying there was no looting and burning after the cops & national guard restored order? Well DUH. There was no looting and burning BEFORE the riot either.

Well DUH, yourself. Point you swung and missed at was the cops and Guard restored order > by kicking ass. GET IT ? And don't tell me they didn't. I was one of them. And I popped my bayonet into at least a dozen fleeing asses, and broke a few rioter ankles with my steel-tipped combat boots. And that's less that what I would have liked >>>

Well aren't you just a badass. You stabbed and kicked unarmed hippes. How manly of you.

Were you part of the debacles at the Chicago Democratic convention?

 

[protectionist]

First you said there was no looting & burning.

Then you said there was no looting & burning after the cops & national guard got involved.

Now you say there was no looting & burning after the cops & national guard restored order???

Sorry "YOU" MAN. I'm discussing the TOPIC. You go bicker with your living room wall, OK ?

 

[WinterBorn]

First you said there was no looting & burning.

Then you said there was no looting & burning after the cops & national guard got involved.

Now you say there was no looting & burning after the cops & national guard restored order???

Sorry "YOU" MAN. I'm discussing the TOPIC. You go bicker with your living room wall, OK ?

Look, if you want to call me out based on what you said, then call my responses to YOU bickering, that is your issue.

I called you out when you claimed one thing.
Then I called you out when you changed what you claim to have said.
And now I called you out again.

It is a debate. If YOU make erroneous claims or tell lies, I am not calling out the entire forum. I am calling YOU out.

 

[protectionist]

I said there was looting and burning in these riots before the police and Guard got involved, and restored order. You and I are not disagreeing here, but you seem to make it seem like we are, simply because you are a troll who just wants to argue. Go away, pest. And I don't want to hear any more of your crap about what I said. If you have point to make about the TOPIC (proper level of force in current/future riots), state it. Otherwise, get lost.

No, you said there was no looting and burning. Then changed your story when it was pointed out that there WAS, in fact, looting and burning.

And the involvement of the cops and national guard did not stop the looting and burning for several days.

No. Sorry. I respond as I see fit and according to the posts made. You can start a thread. But you cannot control all of the comments made within it.

INVALID POST. Lacks Post #s (sources)

Also, there WAS NO LOOTING AND BURNING (after the cops & Guard restored order) Not my fault if you can't understand English.

Wait, you are saying there was no looting and burning after the cops & national guard restored order? Well DUH. There was no looting and burning BEFORE the riot either.

Well DUH, yourself. Point you swung and missed at was the cops and Guard restored order > by kicking ass. GET IT ? And don't tell me they didn't. I was one of them. And I popped my bayonet into at least a dozen fleeing asses, and broke a few rioter ankles with my steel-tipped combat boots. And that's less that what I would have liked >>>

Well aren't you just a badass. You stabbed and kicked unarmed hippes. How manly of you.

Were you part of the debacles at the Chicago Democratic convention?

Don't you ever get anything right ? This just indicates how wrong you are all along. Hey, who am I ? Your cleanup crew ? It wasn't the Democratic National Convention where I was called out to. It was the Harlem riot in 1964. I said that before. Is this your 50th mistake ? You might get a prize when you reach 100.

And the rioters weren't unarmed hippies. They were moron Blacks who just got the 1964 Civil Right Act signed into law a month and 1/2 earlier, on their behalf, starting them off on decades of affirmative action racist discrimination against whites, on their behalf. And they were far from "unarmed". Some had guns. Many had knives. Many more had broomsticks and threw rocks and bottles (glass ones). Some of thes ewere threown from rooftops. They also threw garbage can lids, which we thanked them for, since they made very convenient shields.

PS - they rioted in response to a police lieutenant, who shot a guy who attacked him with a knife. Maybe they expected the cop to let the guy stab him, and then say "thank you" before dying. Morons.

 

[protectionist]

First you said there was no looting & burning.

Then you said there was no looting & burning after the cops & national guard got involved.

Now you say there was no looting & burning after the cops & national guard restored order???

Sorry "YOU" MAN. I'm discussing the TOPIC. You go bicker with your living room wall, OK ?

Look, if you want to call me out based on what you said, then call my responses to YOU bickering, that is your issue.

I called you out when you claimed one thing.
Then I called you out when you changed what you claim to have said.
And now I called you out again.

It is a debate. If YOU make erroneous claims or tell lies, I am not calling out the entire forum. I am calling YOU out.

You haven't backed up anything you've said, and Post # 297 points out 2 more of your latest baseless charges.

 

[Camp]

I think it's a good the thing the cops held back. Any white cops would have been putting their careers at risk if they had moved a muscle.

Hey, a few buildings burn, fuck it. Stay out of the way or the PC Police will be all over you.

Good move.

.

NO. Not a good move. A STUPID move. An innocent woman was burned over 90% of her body, in her own home. She is in critical condition, last I heard. You want to go to her hospital bed right now, and tell her it was a "good move" for the cops to stand down as they did ? (if she's still alive). The PCers can go F themselves. The people of Baltimore are who should be cared for, not some PC loons.

I hadn't seen that in the news. Do you have a link?

Not at present. It is one of those things that was reported on the TV news. I don't recall which channel. I watch Fox News, CNN, and MSNBC. Could have been anyone of the 3. Does this come as a surprise ? I'm surprised there weren't hundreds of people severely burned. (or were there ?)

NOTE: isn't it interesting how little publicity the media is giving to the people who were seriously injured Monday night ?

Where there any serious injuries caused from the riot? Maybe there weren't any and that is why none are being reported.

 

[WinterBorn]

No, you said there was no looting and burning. Then changed your story when it was pointed out that there WAS, in fact, looting and burning.

And the involvement of the cops and national guard did not stop the looting and burning for several days.

No. Sorry. I respond as I see fit and according to the posts made. You can start a thread. But you cannot control all of the comments made within it.

INVALID POST. Lacks Post #s (sources)

Also, there WAS NO LOOTING AND BURNING (after the cops & Guard restored order) Not my fault if you can't understand English.

Wait, you are saying there was no looting and burning after the cops & national guard restored order? Well DUH. There was no looting and burning BEFORE the riot either.

Well DUH, yourself. Point you swung and missed at was the cops and Guard restored order > by kicking ass. GET IT ? And don't tell me they didn't. I was one of them. And I popped my bayonet into at least a dozen fleeing asses, and broke a few rioter ankles with my steel-tipped combat boots. And that's less that what I would have liked >>>

Well aren't you just a badass. You stabbed and kicked unarmed hippes. How manly of you.

Were you part of the debacles at the Chicago Democratic convention?

Don't you ever get anything right ? This just indicates how wrong you are all along. Hey, who am I ? Your cleanup crew ? It wasn't the Democratic National Convention where I was called out to. It was the Harlem riot in 1964. I said that before. Is this your 50th mistake ? You might get a prize when you reach 100.

And the rioters weren't unarmed hippies. They were moron Blacks who just got the 1964 Civil Right Act signed into law a month and 1/2 earlier, on their behalf, starting them off on decades of affirmative action racist discrimination against whites, on their behalf. And they were far from "unarmed". Some had guns. Many had knives. Many more had broomsticks and threw rocks and bottles (glass ones). Some of thes ewere threown from rooftops. They also threw garbage can lids, which we thanked them for, since they made very convenient shields.

PS - the rioted in response to a police lieutenant who shot a guy who attacked him with a knife. Morons.

Sorry, your story changes so often it is difficult to keep up.

But didn't you say that once the cops and national Guard arrived, that the looting and burning stopped?

I guess you want more riot action like at the Chicago Democratic Convention, huh?? A police riot? lol