Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Detroit prosecutor calls for deaths of Baltimore protesters

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Detroit prosecutor calls for deaths of Baltimore protesters

    Detroit prosecutor calls for deaths of Baltimore protesters: ‘Shoot em. Period. End of discussion’

    A Detroit prosecutor suggested a violent solution to ending the protests in Baltimore over a black man’s death while in police custody.

    Teana Walsh, an assistant prosecutor in Wayne County, posted this week on her Facebook account that demonstrators who committed acts of violence or vandalism should be shot, reported WJBK-TV.

    She voluntarily resigned Friday, reported The Detroit News.

    “So I am watching the news in Baltimore and see large swarms of people throwing bricks, etc at police who are fleeing from their assaults,” Walsh posted.

    “(Fifteen) in the hospital already,” she continued. “Solution. Simple. Shoot em. Period. End of discussion. I don’t care what causes the protestors to turn violent…what the ‘they did it because’ reason is…no way is this acceptable. Flipping disgusting.”

    The assistant prosecutor made the post at 10:33 p.m. Monday but has since deleted it, but a local attorney who saw the post shared a photo of the remarks.

    A spokeswoman for the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office defended Walsh, saying the law enforcement official is “known for her great work ethic and her compassion for victims of crime and their families.”
    Raw Story - Full Article

    I saw this pop up when looking at the other Detroit post and thought it was interesting enough to mention, as I'm fairly sure her sentiments aren't too unpopular around here.

  • #2
    The article you cited is attempting blatant spin. It states that the prosecutor called for the deaths of protesters even as it cites that she called for the shooting of vandals and people hurling bricks at police.

    Those aren't protesters. When you assault police and property that is called rioting. And yes rioters should be shot. No shame in calling for that.
    A new life awaits you in the off world colonies; the chance to begin again in a golden land of opportunity and adventure!

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
      The article you cited is attempting blatant spin. It states that the prosecutor called for the deaths of protesters even as it cites that she called for the shooting of vandals and people hurling bricks at police.

      Those aren't protesters. When you assault police and property that is called rioting. And yes rioters should be shot. No shame in calling for that.
      The term protester doesn't apply to the vandals and people acting violently?

      Comment


      • #4
        Seems like an appropriate way to deal with rioters and looters to me. Fire a few shots into the mob and you'd be amazed how fast people decide it might be worth it to stay home.
        "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
          Seems like an appropriate way to deal with rioters and looters to me. Fire a few shots into the mob and you'd be amazed how fast people decide it might be worth it to stay home.
          I wonder if the fear is that shooting even the violent ones burning, looting, and attacking others might only lead to a worse reaction from the wider population. With tensions high and anger towards the police at a critical level, even a fully justified shooting - and someone violently attacking other citizens certainly fits the bill - could just make the situation more dangerous or escalate things wildly.

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
            The term protester doesn't apply to the vandals and people acting violently?
            It does if you add violent, dangerous, or some similar adjective in front of "protester."

            Comment


            • #7
              The alternative is to do nothing and let the mob rule .This is what happens in Europe .

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                I wonder if the fear is that shooting even the violent ones burning, looting, and attacking others might only lead to a worse reaction from the wider population. With tensions high and anger towards the police at a critical level, even a fully justified shooting - and someone violently attacking other citizens certainly fits the bill - could just make the situation more dangerous or escalate things wildly.
                True, you'd have to stay ahead of it. Lots of warnings before hand to make sure everyone understands that lethal force is an option if the riots continue. You'd also need enough force on hand to ensure that the rioters can't out escalate you. That is to say enough force to suppress the entire crowd and secure the area if it comes to that. No matter how much the mob tries to escalate they'll never be able to compete with the National Guard, so escalation is a game that they'll inevitably lose. Essentially treat it like a small rebellion. That's how riot control was often done in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It definitely has the potential to be bloodier in the short term but it put a definitive end to the riots and makes it very clear that that sort of behavior is unacceptable and has severe consequences.
                "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                  True, you'd have to stay ahead of it. Lots of warnings before hand to make sure everyone understands that lethal force is an option if the riots continue. You'd also need enough force on hand to ensure that the rioters can't out escalate you. That is to say enough force to suppress the entire crowd and secure the area if it comes to that. Essentially treat it like a small rebellion. That's how riot control was often done in the 19th and early 20th centuries. It definitely has the potential to be bloodier in the short term but it put a definitive end to the riots and makes it very clear that that sort of behavior is unacceptable and has severe consequences.
                  That's why I'm always loathe to play Monday Morning Quarterback when it comes to these situations because they are not one size fits all. In the heat of the moment even acting with justification and the full support of the law can result in a worse outcome for everyone.

                  It's that golden zone between force and pragmatism that has to be achieved to prevent a bad situation from becoming worse.

                  And the risk of an unwanted escalation only increase when it's the police who are the source of the unrest. If a significant portion of the populace is furious at the police, then a display of force by the police might only make things worse later.

                  Imagine if at the height of the violence the police had shot a half-dozen looters and/or protesters throwing bricks. Do we think that thing in Baltimore would be better or worse today?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I completely agree, that danger is there and that's the tough question to anser. I'm mostly talking about situations that have already passed beyond that where law and order has broken down and you're dealing with violent mobs who are already fighting with police, not just protesting.

                    I guess in my mind there's a point in which the opinions of the mod or even the city in general become secondary to restoring order and protecting the actual law abiding citizens that live there. At that point I don't care if you hate the police, as long as you value your life over expressing that hatred you can go home and sulk, if not then you won't be a threat to civilized society for much longer. The disgruntled populace can be calmed down by the politicians later after there's no threat of innocent people losing their property and lives anymore.
                    "Artillery lends dignity to what might otherwise be a vulgar brawl." - Frederick the Great

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by frisco17 View Post
                      I completely agree, that danger is there and that's the tough question to anser. I'm mostly talking about situations that have already passed beyond that where law and order has broken down and you're dealing with violent mobs who are already fighting with police, not just protesting.

                      I guess in my mind there's a point in which the opinions of the mod or even the city in general become secondary to restoring order and protecting the actual law abiding citizens that live there. At that point I don't care if you hate the police, as long as you value your life over expressing that hatred you can go home and sulk, if not then you won't be a threat to civilized society for much longer. The disgruntled populace can be calmed down by the politicians later after there's no threat of innocent people losing their property and lives anymore.
                      Well one question is really the scale of the violence too. I think there is a limit for when violence is going to be deployed. I guess it's also to do with the nature of the violence: using a brick to bludgeon a cop is different from hurling a brick at a line of shielded riot police and hoping you have enough range to reach them.

                      But you're right, the need to protect the innocent comes first, followed by other concerns. It's just a big mess and in these cases, I guess restraint is actually the smarter option because the nature of the protests being aimed at the police specifically mean the police reaction will play a big role in how the events play out.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Looters should be shot. People throwing rocks at police? Not so much. An officer would have to use discretion wisely in that case.
                        “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                        --Salmon P. Chase

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          How so? Shooting someone attacking a policeman with a rock would be a "justified" shooting according to most policemen. However, simply shooting a looter probably wouldn't be justified.
                          First Counsul Maleketh of Jonov

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Delenda estRoma View Post
                            How so? Shooting someone attacking a policeman with a rock would be a "justified" shooting according to most policemen. However, simply shooting a looter probably wouldn't be justified.

                            DoD basically already answered it.

                            Well one question is really the scale of the violence too. I think there is a limit for when violence is going to be deployed. I guess it's also to do with the nature of the violence: using a brick to bludgeon a cop is different from hurling a brick at a line of shielded riot police and hoping you have enough range to reach them.
                            “I do not wish to have the slave emancipated because I love him, but because I hate his master."
                            --Salmon P. Chase

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                              Raw Story - Full Article

                              I saw this pop up when looking at the other Detroit post and thought it was interesting enough to mention, as I'm fairly sure her sentiments aren't too unpopular around here.
                              Ironic, because we used to shoot protestors, rioters and looters. In fact, Patton, McAurthur and Eisenhower were in charge of the troops shooting veterans who were demonstrating in Washington, D.C.

                              I guess law and order in America went out of style after WWI.
                              Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X