As I write, the civil society is breaking down again, this time in Baltimore. (I don’t have much to say about it, or perhaps I should say that I am not yet prepared to say, in this forum at least, some of the things I might say about it.) Nobody who has been paying attention to the arc of United States history, or to more general realities, should be the least bit surprised by any of this.
I will say this: much is being made of Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake’s remarks after the first night of rioting. In explaining that she had wished to protect the right of protesters to march peacefully, she said the following:
“It’s a very delicate balancing act because while we try to make sure that they (protestors) were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well.”
This has been greeted with more or less universal astonishment all over the Internet, talk radio, etc., on the assumption that she meant that she consciously decided to let rioters “blow off steam” by looting, destroying property, committing felonious assault, and so on. I think, however, that she must actually have meant, especially considering her reference to a “balancing act”, that in creating a “safe space” for protest, she unavoidably, and regrettably, also enabled such mayhem as described above.
That said, though, rioting continued for hours this afternoon without any apparent effort whatsoever on the part of the police to resist them, and for that the buck stops at the Mayor’s desk. Police cars, left abandoned in the streets, were burned. Stores were overrun and looted. The looting is bad enough, but what about the people working in those stores? Had they no right to expect that the city would intervene to protect them? Surely they were calling for help; none came. This is a direct abrogation of the foremost responsibility of any system of government: to maintain public order. If that bedrock obligation is shirked, then nothing else matters, and civilization is dead.
14 Comments
Had they no right to expect that the city would intervene to protect them?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._District_of_Columbia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Castle_Rock_v._Gonzales
It seems well settled in United States jurisprudence that the answer to that question is no.
I stand corrected.
I have a good friend who was formerly a borough commander in the NYPD, and then chief of police of a major Midwestern city. I’m curious to see what he has to say about this.
It is certainly the case that public order depends, ultimately, upon the orderliness of the citizenry, and their willingness to participate in civil society. If that is absent, then the State must assume extraordinary, and arbitrary, power if order is to be kept — and if that power collapses, sanguinary chaos follows. History is replete with examples, many quite recent. We may well be on our way here. Keep your powder dry.
Also, as my lovely wife Nina pointed out to me after I wrote this post, there may well have been nobody at work in any of those stores, given the conditions outside.
http://malcolmpollack.com/2014/12/21/small-world-4/
Are you sure she didn’t mean that they let the rioters have one space, and the college students who were only there to feel important another space, so that there wouldn’t be too many of the former beating up the latter?
Wonder if Holder left any loose ends around the newly sworn Attorney General can be reasonably expected to hop right on?
Hope she’s got Rev’m Al’s number on speed dial.
__________
For those not in the know (like me for instance) the *schoolchildren* [like the hammer wielding *teens* of Ferguson] apparently – somewhat like the Arab Spring Tahrir Square social media operators have their own code. Here.
Last night the sheriff of Milwaukee County, WI– a black man– was interviewed by Fox’s Brett Baier about Baltimore. He covered the triggering event and the investigative process which he believes in but then went farther. The sheriff continued by telling of the decades of a growing black underclass as the result of failed liberal social policies. He also added that the weekly black on black killings in Baltimore and elsewhere provoked no similar outrage. Why? In addition he said the dead black man could have just as easily been killed by some of the thugs in the streets simply by bumping into one or two of them in a club. No outrage would take place.
It is only when police are involved and the opportunity for last night presents itself. The Civil Rights industry springs to action and Democrat pols duck for cover. They dare not confront what the Sheriff boldly stated, as it is true.
In a civilized society, the demonstrator has his rights to protest. In this same society, at the point where protestors devolve into a mob, that changes the equation. The mob will be put down, by force if need be. Failing this, the mob will rule and spread. Force, even lethal may be needed to restore order.
Roll this over to the 50 minute mark – continue to the end:
http://www.c-span.org/video/?323886-1/qa-anthony-batts
Make that the 19:34 mark
LB Diaries:
Baltimore’s Commissioner of Police earlier quoted in an LA Time article:
“We allowed the protesters to start breaking into Foot Locker. They broke into Foot Locker and different places. But we had to do that because we didn’t want to look like this was a police action, where we were responding too soon,” Batts told Oakland North.”
________
http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-baltimore-police-chief-anthony-batts-20150427-story.html
I suppose I ought admit an “uncomfortable acquaintance/knowledge” – though totally un-understood/understanding of why a Commissioner of Police might allow *teens/schoolchildren*
Free Range Looting/Arson – of Anyplace – but a Foot Locker?
I’m fully cognizant of *most* visitors here just, out-of-hand, dismissing anything “we superiors as we of course so sonorously sing”
But there are people who’d kill for footwear – whether such articles appear in either Breitbart or The Atlantic. “Shooting the Messenger” in these partisan-times has gotten totally outta hand.
http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2012/08/the-racial-divide-on-sneakers/261256/
But the Choir it must be admitted has generally, more reliable air-conditioning.
Malcolm:
I agree that the citizens certainly should ought to be able to expect the law to protect them. IMHO, that is part of the social contract. I give up the right to whatever I want to whomever I want in exchange for protection for giving up the right to violence.
This is just another data point showing the decline of the west. And SCOTUS helped lead the charge.
As they so often have, for a century or so — particularly at times of national crisis, such as the World Wars, and the Depression.
“those who wished to destroy space to do that as well”. Her Honor is too sympathetic to hooligans – as long as they belong to a certain race.