In the case of Freddy Gray, when cops didn't follow the rules and he died. At the very least that's gross negligence and warrants a civil trial as a minimum. The larger test is raised by the issue of how much a Black man's life is worth to his peers and to the community at large. Breaking it down: The young Black protestors identify with Gray and they know, given the statistical record, their chance of being in police custody is almost certainly going to occur sooner or later. Many have likely already experienced arrest, some unwarranted, and came away with deep negative feelings towards the police.
Experience is shared and the simple arithmetic ( Freddy Gray + shared experience) =something must be done since our individual complaints go unheeded.
The formulae reveals grounds on which to establish a violation of human rights. Not those necessarily embedded in a Constitutional framework but those endowed by God to whom all men must bow. Freddy Gray was as much a art of We The People as any US citizen and deserves the martyrdom assumed by a cause and carried by his name!
Freddy Gray could have done a lot to save his own life!
IF he WASN'T a criminal and resisting arrest, he would've lived through the night.
Gee, that is a novel idea, "Don't be a life-long criminal, and don't resist when the cops arrest you for another of your twenty crimes (Crimes he has been arrested for, I wonder what the factor is for crimes he wasn't caught for? ... anyone know?), at the tender age of 25".
Steven Biko could have done a lot to save his own life too. He was arrested four times; and ,as you are attempting to portray Robert Gray, was an "enemy of the state."
"During the late '70s, Biko was arrested four times and detained for several months at a time. In August 1977, he was arrested and held in Port Elizabeth, located at the southern tip of South Africa. The following month, on September 11, Biko was found naked and shackled several miles away, in Pretoria, South Africa. He died the following day, on September 12, 1977, from a brain hemorrhage—later determined to be the result of injuries he had sustained while in police custody. The news of Biko's death caused national outrage and protests, and he became regarded as an international anti-apartheid icon in South Africa.
The police officers who had held Biko were questioned thereafter, but none were charged with any official crimes. However, two decades after Biko's death, in 1997, five former officers confessed killing Biko. The officers reportedly filed applications for amnesty to the Truth and Reconciliation Commission after investigations implicated them in Biko's death, but amnesty was denied in 1999.
Biko was a martyr, worthy of being mentioned in the same breath as Dr. King but the sentiments from people like you were with the policemen who killed him. In memory of people like Biko and others, Freddy Gray has morphed into an icon in protest of police brutality.
Let me see if I got this correct ..................
YOU are comparing Steven Bilco to a career criminal (20 arrests by age 25) like Freddie Gray?????
Freddie Gray was and will always be known as a career criminal that was resisting arrest.
Maybe YOU would want to be compared to a career criminal, but I know I wouldn't want to be compared to a career criminal.
The name is Biko not Bilco. My comparison is not of the two individuals but of the attitudes of the police and the general apathy shown by right wingers when a black man dies in custody.
My source indicates Gray was arrested 18 times, mostly for marijuana related offenses.. He was NOT convicted in every case. Some arrests included stacked charges, some of which were dropped. I suppose you could label him a career criminal but does that make his life less valuable than yours or mine in the sight of God? I suspect to you, it does.
There are at least two different arguments going on here, please don't mix them together.
A. one is whether Gray himself deserved to die without due process to prove he did or didn't commit a crime
that this was merited. I think it is clear there was no death penalty warrant or shoot to kill incident involved here.
Can we all agree on that so we don't confuse the two?
B. the other argument is AFTER the fact, after this happens anyway, which by #A we agree it is not the protocol.
Are you going to judge and blame the victim for his background.
Are you going to say the fault is mutual.
Are you going to hold police faultless or the victim faultless.
Personally for me, I'd say for A, no, death is not warranted in this case or with Michael Brown for crime they either committed or suspected that weren't processed legally, but they happened.
And for B why not hold police responsible for their actions
and the suspects responsible for theirs.
If you don't want to be judged by race, then don't judge by race.
Look at the wrongs and those are already chargeable offenses without adding race or hate crimes to it.
As for targeting someone because of their race,
in cases where someone had a criminal background it goes both ways.
You would have to prevent that in advance;
after the fact, it ends up being a mutual conflict, and nobody can blame one side and not the others for their
respective faults going into it.
Remember B is separate from the death in A.
It is already understood that death was not warranted.
I would separate these issues, or admit that neither sides' faults can be separated in a vacuum and hold either side guiltless.
Nobody deserves death for what happened, but what did happen was an escalation due to attitudes on both sides.
Prevention is the best bet, which is best achieved by working together, not dividing over blame.
My prayers to the community, police and families to be uplifted in support and find strength
to work together to solve these problems for the benefit and healing of all.