Rellen in Baltimore #3 Vanavond rematch!

quote:

Op zaterdag 2 mei 2015 17:31 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]


[..]


[..]

quote:

In Baltimore, the Whole Damn System Is Guilty as Hell

quote:

In Baltimore, it's easy to internalize the notion that no one outside of the city gives a fuck about you. You grow up feeling like where you're from is second-rate and nobody makes it unless they leave. Our culture, outside of drugs and vacant houses, is widely unknown but we make our own unique club music, we like slapping Old Bay on everything, we eat chicken boxes—you know, regular, non-The Wire shit. So to be the center of international attention feels strange, especially when that attention could have been so easily avoided if police did not allegedly facilitate the death of Freddie Gray, a 25-year-old black man from West Baltimore. But since that did happen and since the people of Baltimore City decided to respond to that by taking to the streets in anger at not just Gray's death but the whole rigged system, we are where we are: Images of looting replayed on cable news, solidarity protests all over the country, and blacks and whites in Baltimore doing their best to repair their communities.

How is one supposed to act when their lives are decided for them before they're born? How are we as black people supposed to react when we are murdered by police, then blamed for our own deaths? I grew up in East Baltimore and while I can't claim to have suffered the exact hardships that Freddie Gray did, you can only do so much to escape the ills of inner city life as a black person in this town. From an early stage, you quickly learn that police are enforcers rather than protectors in black neighborhoods.

quote:

Op zondag 3 mei 2015 18:57 schreef J0kkebr0k het volgende:

Raw: Man Pepper-Sprayed, Detained in Baltimore

quote:

U.S. Split Along Racial Lines on Backlash Against Police, Poll Finds
Americans are bracing for a summer of racial disturbances around the country, such as those that have wracked Baltimore, with African Americans and whites deeply divided about why the urban violence has occurred, a new Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll has found.

A resounding 96% of adults surveyed said it was likely there would be additional racial disturbances this summer, a signal that Americans believe Baltimore’s recent problems aren’t a local phenomenon but instead are symptomatic of broader national problems.

When asked to explain recent events in Baltimore and other cities that have seen confrontations between police and members of the African-American community, blacks and whites viewed the situation differently.
http://blogs.wsj.com/wash(...)t-police-poll-finds/

quote:

Man shot multiple times by Baltimore police

Baltimore police shot a man multiple times Monday in the same area where massive riots broke out last week over the death of Freddie Gray.

It's unclear what prompted the reported shooting. The man was seen being loaded into an ambulance. His condition is unknown.

http://www.foxnews.com/us(...)by-baltimore-police/

twitter:

LatestAnonNews twitterde op maandag 04-05-2015 om 21:07:47 A man was just shot in the back by #Baltimore Police while in cuffs. http://t.co/LOTPceUAAT #BaltimoreUprising http://t.co/0UUcARSbUt reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 4 mei 2015 21:15 schreef MadameMossel het volgende:
@NewsOnTheMin: UPDATE: Police commander in Baltimore confirms it was a shooting. Man had a gun, police tried to arrest him, it fell and went off, he says.

quote:

Op maandag 4 mei 2015 21:14 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

twitter:

LatestAnonNews twitterde op maandag 04-05-2015 om 21:07:47 A man was just shot in the back by #Baltimore Police while in cuffs. http://t.co/LOTPceUAAT #BaltimoreUprising http://t.co/0UUcARSbUt reageer retweet

twitter:

BaltimorePolice twitterde op maandag 04-05-2015 om 21:23:03 The reports of a man being shot at North and Pennsylvania Ave are NOT true. Officers have arrested a man for a handgun at the location reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 4 mei 2015 21:30 schreef OMG het volgende:
Wat is het nou?!

quote:

Op maandag 4 mei 2015 21:31 schreef YazooW het volgende:

[..]

Wazig verhaal. Getuigen op FOX hebben een heel ander verhaal dan de autoriteiten. Net was er een meisje dat huilend vertelde dat ze vanaf een paar meter afstand zag gebeuren hoe de politie die jongen heeft neergeschoten. Politie komt nu met het verhaal dat er helemaal niet geschoten is op de jongen.

quote:

Op maandag 4 mei 2015 21:30 schreef OMG het volgende:
Wat is het nou?!

quote:

Op maandag 4 mei 2015 21:48 schreef BarryOSeven het volgende:

[..]

Zijn daar beelden van?

twitter:

prettyplusmore twitterde op maandag 04-05-2015 om 21:16:35 #Baltimore woman on the street is crying saying man running positively DID NOT have a weapon. Police shot him anyway. reageer retweet

quote:

Op maandag 4 mei 2015 21:49 schreef Papierversnipperaar het volgende:

[..]

Het is een wapen dat per ongeluk af ging omdat het op de grond viel, de politie die een arrestant met handboeien om neerschiet, of iets ertussen in.

quote:

Op zondag 3 mei 2015 19:19 schreef YazooW het volgende:
Leuk shirt heeft ie trouwens aan. Als je in Nederland ACAB op je shirtje hebt staan zou je gewoon aangehouden worden.

twitter:

Manuel_Rapalo twitterde op maandag 04-05-2015 om 22:14:15 Video I shot on my phone after I heard gun shot in #Baltimore. Unclear if man in video actually sustained a gun shot http://t.co/rTz6y1kCIT reageer retweet

quote:

Police Rethink Long Tradition on Using Force

quote:

WASHINGTON — During a training course on defending against knife attacks, a young Salt Lake City police officer asked a question: “How close can somebody get to me before I’m justified in using deadly force?”

Dennis Tueller, the instructor in that class more than three decades ago, decided to find out. In the fall of 1982, he performed a rudimentary series of tests and concluded that an armed attacker who bolted toward an officer could clear 21 feet in the time it took most officers to draw, aim and fire their weapon.

The next spring, Mr. Tueller published his findings in SWAT magazine and transformed police training in the United States. The “21-foot rule” became dogma. It has been taught in police academies around the country, accepted by courts and cited by officers to justify countless shootings, including recent episodes involving a homeless woodcarver in Seattle and a schizophrenic woman in San Francisco.

Now, amid the largest national debate over policing since the 1991 beating of Rodney King in Los Angeles, a small but vocal set of law enforcement officials are calling for a rethinking of the 21-foot rule and other axioms that have emphasized how to use force, not how to avoid it. Several big-city police departments are already re-examining when officers should chase people or draw their guns and when they should back away, wait or try to defuse the situation.

twitter:

AnonymousGlobo twitterde op dinsdag 05-05-2015 om 05:18:11 You remember from the @BaltimorePolice emails. Here are the passwords of emails. Enjoy http://t.co/mDXmfdd4t8 U mad bro? #Anonymous #AntiSec reageer retweet

quote:

Officer in Freddie Gray case demanded man's arrest as part of personal dispute

quote:

It was previously disclosed that Rice was accused of threatening to kill McAleer and himself during an alleged campaign of harassment between 2012 and 2013, which earned him a temporary restraining order. Rice was twice disciplined in this period by Baltimore chiefs and consigned to paperwork with his police gun and badge revoked, according to police sources.

quote:

Op woensdag 6 mei 2015 01:50 schreef Bram_van_Loon het volgende:
Deze is ook leuk.

Cop Slams Woman’s Face Into Floor [VIDEO]

quote:

Obama ban on police military gear falls short as critics say it's a 'publicity stunt' | US news | The Guardian

Six of the seven items on ‘prohibited list’ have not been distributed to law enforcement for years and skeptics question whether rules will be enforced


Six of the seven items on ‘prohibited list’ have not been distributed to law enforcement for years and skeptics question whether rules will be enforced

It has become an emblematic image of police militarization: a half-dozen heavily outfitted officers, assault rifles drawn, advancing on an African American man in a T-shirt with his hands way up.

Related: Obama to ban police military gear that can 'alienate and intimidate'

The police – photographed in Ferguson, Missouri, last summer – are wearing helmets and goggles and knee pads and gas masks. The man is wearing a cap from Cabela’s, the outdoors store.

The picture would seem to epitomize the kind of “wrong message” President Barack Obama denounced this week in unveiling new rules to ban “equipment made for the battlefield” from the arsenals of local police forces.

“We’ve seen how militarized gear can sometimes give people a feeling like there’s an occupying force,” Obama said. “So we’re going to prohibit some equipment made for the battlefield that is not appropriate for local police departments.”

Yet none of the equipment in the picture, apart from the camouflage uniforms, is mentioned in the new prohibitions. And interviews with government officials and experts suggest the new White House guidelines could fall miserably short of preventing scenes of police outfitted in military gear facing off with unarmed protesters in places like Ferguson, Baltimore, New York and beyond.

Professor Peter Kraska of the Eastern Kentucky University school of justice studies called the White House rollout of its new rules on Monday a “publicity stunt”.

“Basically we had a big announcement that there would be restrictions,” Kraska told the Guardian. “It talked about armored personnel carriers. Lots of the media reported it, verbatim of course, the talking points.

“But all you had to do was barely scratch under the surface – and it’s nothing more than symbolic politics.”

Critics of the new White House guidelines say that the list of prohibited gear is far too brief, and question whether the federal bureaucracy will be up to enforcing rules requiring local agencies to complete training and demonstrate compliance before they are permitted federal dollars to buy certain gear.

The list of prohibited equipment includes seven items: tracked armored vehicles; weaponized aircraft, vessels, and vehicles of any kind; firearms of .50‐caliber or higher; ammunition of .50‐caliber or higher; grenade launchers; bayonets; and camouflage uniforms.

Not on the list are some of the most intimidating items in police arsenals: modified M-16 assault rifles, Humvees, helicopters, night-vision goggles, mine-resistant ambush-protected vehicles (MRAPs), BearCat vehicles, military-style helmets, shin guards, shields – and on.

Of the seven items on the “prohibited equipment list”, six have not been distributed to local law enforcement agencies by the Pentagon for years, according to defense department spokesman Mark Wright.

“The only one that we were still issuing at this time were the bayonets,” said Wright, noting that the blades were not typically used as bayonets attached to rifles, that he knew of, but as “big, sturdy knives”.

“So that’s the immediate effect of the program.”

Related: Wisconsin police send armoured vehicle to collect fine from 75-year-old

The White House declined to comment on the question of whether the new prohibited equipment list is too short, directing questions to Justice Department officials. They said that new restrictions on how federal grants can be spent, and new certification protocols for gear transfers, were as important as the gear lists.

The new guidelines, based on recommendations of a presidential working group, would require local law enforcement agencies to obtain special approval before buying items on a “controlled gear list” (drones, flashbangs, battering rams) with federal money, and require officers to be trained to use the gear.

Police departments would ostensibly be barred from buying the equipment with federal funds, but tracking the buying activities of 18,000 law enforcement agencies – the precise number is unknown, because the federal government is late in delivering its 2012 census of law enforcement agencies – represents a daunting bureaucratic challenge.

“If the federal government really followed through with true oversight, which they have not done for 30 years– these programs have been a fiasco for 30 years – but if this time around, and please note the skepticism, if this time around they manage to pull it off, it could make a small difference,” said Kraska. “But the track record is pretty poor.”

The Pentagon spokesman said that even though certain military gear had been out of circulation for years, there was an advantage to making it official.

“In my opinion, the advantage of the president’s decision is to codify that, so that it’s not just at the behest of a current secretary of defense,” said Wright. “Because another secretary of defense could change his mind, conceivably.”

A Department of Homeland Security spokesman contacted on Thursday morning said it would take additional time to respond to questions about how the new guidelines would change the department’s administration of federal grants.

For some communities, the new rules on banned military gear have come too late to keep weapons of the battlefield out of police arsenals. The federal government had no plans to confiscate locally owned gear, officials said. Any equipment the Department of Defense still holds title to could be recalled, but there were no immediate plans to do so.

Kraska said the public conversation around criminal justice reform, at least, had advanced in a promising direction.

“There is a tremendous space and opportunity for something real to happen here,” Kraska said. “We have high-level politicians, and we have a presidential candidate that’s actually talking about ratcheting back our punitive criminal justice system. Nobody would have predicted that. So there absolutely is a lot of room for optimism.

“But this is, I think, a perfect, emblematic case of how good intentions can lead to nothing substantive.”

Wright described the recent history of distribution by the Pentagon of items on the prohibited equipment list, under the 1033 program to transfer Defense Department property to local and state law enforcement agencies:

Tracked armored vehicles: “We actually stopped providing that ourselves back in 2011, about four years ago we stopped issuing those.”

Weaponized aircraft, vessels or vehicles: “We’ve never issued any weaponized aircraft vessels or vehicles of any kind.”

Firearms/ammunition of .50-caliber or higher: “Firearms of .50 caliber or higher have never been issued, weapons or ammunition … We’ve given out tens of thousands of modified M-16s, modified M-14s, and M1911a1 pistols, the old .45s from World War II.”

Grenade launchers: “We did issue grenade launchers. We stopped in 1999. It’s how the police used tear gas in a riot situation. They were issued the one-shot, the Vietnam-era M79 grenade launchers. That stopped 15 years ago.”

Camouflage uniforms: “We did give those out until 2008 – that was actually stopped by the army, who decided to stop issuing those.”

Bayonets: “Bayonets were provided up till the president decided to put the prohibition on that. The bayonets is an interesting one because people think bayonet, and they think attached to a rifle, held by a soldier to engage in combat.

“We actually asked – because we’ve given out thousands of them – and when’s the last time you’ve seen the cop with a bayonet on the end of his rifle? I’ve never seen that.

“If you take it off the rifle, it becomes just a big sturdy knife, for cutting into car accidents, seat belts … It would’ve been probably less controversial if we put ‘big sturdy knife’ instead of ‘bayonet’.”
Bron: www.theguardian.com

quote:

Op zaterdag 9 mei 2015 15:51 schreef hans1985 het volgende:

[..]

je doet het erom he.
je hoort die agenten ohw roepen en ze staan er allemaal bedonderd bij eerst.
onbedoeld ongelukje.
en dan nog die oprellende opmerking dat ze in haar eigen bloed lag...ja duh, je mag zo'n slachtoffer niet zo verplaatsen.

bah, opruiende media en sukkels die erin trappen.