Baltimore Mayor Throws Police Department Under The Bus

Baltimore Mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, has called on the Justice Department Civil Rights Division to investigate the Baltimore PD for patterns and practices of excessive force, discriminatory harassment, false arrests, and unlawful stops, searches or arrests. The request comes in the aftermath of the recent death of Freddie Gray, a suspect who was arrested and who died while in a police van on the way to the jail.

The case has received nationwide attention and not all of it is good. Many legal experts around the country have questioned the filing of second degree murder charges against one of six officers who were charged, saying none of the evidence made public amounts to a murder charge since for murder the prosecutor has to prove intent. The officer charged with murder is African-American, as are two of his five co-defendants.

The Baltimore PD consists of about 3,000 officers, half of whom are African-American and another 8% or so who are non-white. The mayor, city council president and five others of the 9 member city council, police chief, and top prosecutor are African American. Some critics say African-Americans are under-represented on the police department since African-Americans make up around 65% of the population. But compared to some other police departments in the country (Ferguson, MO comes to mind), having a majority of people of color on the force, with half of them African-American, is huge. And while having an exact racial balance between police and citizens would be optimal, in very few cases would it be an attainable goal.

I found Mayor Rawlings-Blake's choice of words, when she announced she was seeking the federal investigation, very intersting.

"We all know that Baltimore continues to have a fractured relationship between the police and the community," Rawlings-Blake said. "I'm willing to do what it takes to reform my department."

Is she implying that the citizens of Baltimore share no responsibility in the fractured relationship with the police? Is she, like NYC Mayor Bill DeBlasio, assuming the Baltimore PD is made up of racists and bigots who prey on black people, even including the minority police officers? Or is she only accusing the white officers of these practices - even though there are three African-American officers involved in the Gray case?

I find the motive(s) Mayor Rawlings-Blake to be questionable at best. She spoke with the President personally during the rioting two weeks ago and with the new Attorney General, Loretta Lynch, more recently. She also made that infamous statement to Al Sharpton's National Action Network that “We will get justice for Freddie Gray. Believe you me, we will get justice. If, with the nation watching, three black women at three different levels (referring to herself, Marilyn Mosby and newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch) can’t get justice and healing for this community, you tell me where we’re going to get it in our country.”

Isn't justice supposed to be fair and impartial and the accused presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law? It seems the mayor has already made her decision that the police officers are guilty and that Freddie Gray should get justice instead of allowing the process to uncover the truth. And now she has called in the feds to investigate "her" police department for patterns and practices of abuse.

I remember when Michael Brown was killed by Officer Wilson and Eric Holder opened a civil rights investigation immediately - ultimately ending with no charges against Wilson and several allegations of wrongdoing by the department. In this case Holder waited to open an investigation - perhaps because he jumped the gun on the Wilson investigation or perhaps because he was waiting for Loretta Lynch to replace him so it could be her investigation. Doesn't matter. She seems to be Eric Holder in a dress.

We already know that the Justice Department will find things that they will say need to be changed and/or monitored in the future. It will be interesting to see what they accuse the Baltimore PD with. I just read an article about Loretta Lynch meeting with the family of Freddie Gray and promising them that she would "improve the Baltimore Police Department." That indicates that she also has convicted the six officers without trial.

It's going to be very interesting to see how this case proceeds. The police department completed its own investigation and some of the findings were contradictory to those of the prosecutor's office. According to the police, the knife in Gray's possession, while not illegal by state code is, in fact, illegal by Baltimore city code. That would mean the arresting officers had every right to place him in custody. They echo the words of legal experts who say there is insufficient evidence to support the second degree murder charge as there must be a proven intent to kill. The most they should charge would be manslaughter, which is involuntarily causing death. But they have yet to reveal how Gray was injured. Perhaps they are keeping that under wraps or perhaps, as I suspect, they really have no idea. It's hard to prove someone guilty of manslaughter when you can't say how he/she injured the victim.

Lastly, the police investigation revealed that the lead investigator for the prosecutor's office is a former high ranking member of the Baltimore PD who was removed from his position for failing to follow up on a robbery investigation that was not properly reported by two of his subordinate officers. In addition, in 2009, the Baltimore SWAT Team was called to his house for an incident in which he was allegedly drunk and in possession of a firearm. According to a report the police used a taser on him but it doesn't say how the incident ended. There were no arrests.

Prosecutor Marilyn Mosby was contacted by the media for comment on the police investigation and the differences between the two.

"While the evidence we have obtained through our independent investigation does substantiate the elements of the charges filed, I refuse to litigate this case through the media," Mosby said in a public statement. "The evidence we have collected cannot ethically be disclosed, relayed or released to the public before trial. As I've previously indicated, I strongly condemn anyone in law enforcement with access to trial evidence, who has or continues to leak information prior to the resolution of this case. These unethical disclosures are only damaging our ability to conduct a fair and impartial process for all parties involved."

Interesting. Last week when she was announcing the charges she was all about getting in front of the cameras. Now, when her case seems not so cut and dried and may, in fact, be falling apart, she wants nothing to do with the cameras. I hope this prosecutor and the mayor know what they're doing. If Mosby loses this case Baltimore will be on fire - literally.

Public Safety Does Not Trump Freedom Of Speech!

I've been following the controversy in Garland, Texas, following the shooting of two Muslim terrorists who attempted an assault on a freedom of speech rally in that city on Sunday. The rally, hosted by anti-Islam activist Pamela Geller, was held at the Curtis Culwell Center, the very place where, in March of this year, Muslims held a pro-Mohammed event. The center is owned by the Garland Independent School District, which rents it out for public events.

The theme of the rally was a contest where people were invited to draw cartoons of Mohammed, in support of Charlie Hebdo Magazine and the right to freedom of speech and expression in America. Geller's thought is that Americans' freedom of speech should not be curtailed simply because the Islamic world doesn't agree with it. Americans have the right to say whatever they wish with very few exceptions. And we don't need any more exceptions added based on the hatred and violence of people who do not value human life.

The winning cartoon.

As I said yesterday, what surprises me is the number of people, particularly those on the right, who have condemned Pamela Geller for hosting the event, blaming her for the reaction of the two, now dead, gunmen. Some have called it stupid to insult Islam by drawing cartoons of Mohammed - even though they supported the right of that artist years ago who put a crucifix in a jar of urine. They also (liberals at least) praise the Broadway show "Book of Mormon," which pokes fun of the Mormon religion. But hey - don't you ever make fun of Islam because it's insulting to their religion and some of them react with hatred and violence.

The aftermath of the shooting, things that are happening now because of it, are frightening. Not the violence - that's over for now, even though ISIS has put a hit out on Geller.

No, the things that are frightening is how some Americans are responding. They mayor of Garland, Douglas Athas, condemned Pam Geller for hosting the event in his city. She "put my police officers, my citizens and others at risk," he said. "Her program invited an incendiary reaction. She picked my community, which does not support in any shape, passion or form, her ideology. But at the end of the day, we did our jobs,” he added. “We protected her freedoms and her life.”

So the mayor believes Pamela Geller put his city at risk rather than the two gunmen who traveled to Garland all the way from Phoenix to shoot people whose opinions they didn't like? It's interesting that he acknowledged her right to hold the event even while blaming her for the actions of the two gunmen. (Some Garland residents are now calling for the mayor's resignation.)

The Garland ISD is now reassessing their rental policies for the Curtis Culwell Center. Citing security concerns, Garland ISD spokesperson Chris Moore said “We will definitely look into changing how we rent out that arena. We’re going to have to, in light of what happened.”

They are now considering not renting the center out for anything but school related events and cancelling events already scheduled that are not school related. Some groups who have already booked the center are talking about filing a lawsuit should the school district make those changes.

“I know we’re required by those non-discrimination limitations by law, but being equitable still can’t trump safety,” Moore said. “You shouldn’t have things like this happen anywhere, but certainly not at a public school district facility.

He's correct when he says it shouldn't happen anywhere. Hatred should not be allowed to run wild in the United States of America. But the event itself was not the problem. The two Muslims who decided to kill for their hatred was the problem. And that's going to happen more often as time goes by. Radical Muslims don't care about what's right and wrong. They only care about their cause and eliminating those who have different views. 

These Americans criticizing Geller somehow misguidedly believe that if we cower to the extremists they will be pacified and leave us alone. That's a ridiculous and uninformed conclusion. ISIS and other radical Muslim extremists have already declared war on the United States and have told us they're coming. Yet some ignorant Americans want to blame other Americans for it.

I was listening to the Chris Krok Show yesterday and heard him echo other pundits that say the event staged by Pamela Geller was stupid and that insulting Islam by making fun of their prophet is wrong. (Krok is a nationally syndicated, conservative talk radio host on WBAP in Dallas.)

On certain days, Krok has two shows in the same day. He is on from 4-5pm, then again from 8 to midnight. Yesterday I caught both shows due to an engagement in between. I was driving both times. 

Initially I was angry at him because he just didn't get it. He said he was all for free speech but that some free speech should not be uttered if it offends others and causes violent reactions. I was talking to the radio and telling him he was missing the point. (I didn't have time to call him. I had an appointment and didn't have time to wait on hold.)

On the way home I caught a portion of the second part of the show. One caller made him understand what was at stake. He said "Public safety does not trump free speech. If it did the civil rights movement would never have happened." 

He elaborated by saying that the KKK and other hate groups often threatened the safety of civil rights leaders and rallies. They resorted to violence at times. But America did not back down from those groups and did not cower to the violence. Instead they stood up and said "We're going to assert our rights of free speech and freedom of assembly regardless of the threat." And that's exactly what they did. 

And that is the best possible answer. If we, as Americans, give in to the extremists' demands and allow them to silence our right to speak out against them, they have won.

Chris Krok finally got it. He was practically speechless. "You... this call... this was the best call of the day. I get it now," he said. (Or something close to that.) Public safety, at least in this case, doesn't trump free speech. The blame for the violence lies solely on the Muslim extremists who attempted to silence opposition. 

If Americans cower to extremists the extremists win. If we curb certain free speech to appease violent terrorists what will we give up next? 

The winner of the Draw Mohammed contest, Bosch Fawstin, who says he is a former Muslim with a history of drawing provocative cartoons, said it well.

"As people who love freedom, as the entire west, we need to hit back," he told Greta Van Sustren recently. "Not with violence, with the truth, with our art, with our writing. We can't be cowed by this because once free speech goes it's over."

That's the part that some Americans just don't understand. If we give in they win. It's that simple.

Fawstin's friend put it another way: "If everybody in America drew Mohammed, what is ISIS going to do? They can't kill everybody."

Amen to that.

Freedom Of Speech Under Attack - By Americans

The recent shooting at a free speech event in Garland, Texas, on Sunday shows how divided the nation is concerning freedom of speech and how quickly some Americans are willing to give up that right.

On Sunday evening the American Freedom Defense Initiative, headed by political activist Pamela Geller, held a rally in the Curtis Culwell Center, the very place where, in January, Muslims held their annual "Stand With The Prophet In Honor And Respect" conference, described as a “movement to defend Prophet Muhammad, his person, and his message.”

Ms. Geller's organization, which has been deemed a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center, opposes Islam and the spread of Sharia in the United States. Her event, whose keynote speaker was Dutch politician Geert Wilders, who has a death threat against him issued by Al Qaeda, was about the right of Americans to denounce Islam as they wish under the rights guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Two Muslim gunmen, who apparently linked themselves to ISIS, arrived at the event and began shooting in the parking lot. An unarmed security officer was hit in the ankle before Garland police returned fire and killed both of the gunmen, who were wearing body armor and carrying rifles.

Many in the main stream media began criticizing Pamela Geller and the event itself as the problem rather than the gunmen who decided they would not allow American citizens to exercise their right to speak out against Islam. Even some people at Fox News, not exactly known for their liberal views, criticized Geller saying she instigated the shooting with her event. That's frightening.

The event itself was held in support of the cartoonists at Charlie Hebdo, the French satire magazine that was attacked by Muslim extremists in January for publishing cartoons of the Islamic prophet Mohammed. The theme was a contest - who could draw the best cartoon of Mohammed. Apparently the gunmen took offense to the event and decided that the way to silence those who would slander the prophet was by killing them. Fortunately, thanks to an alert security force, their plan was unsuccessful.

It's disturbing to me that so many prominent Americans are criticizing Geller and the event itself more than the actions of the gunmen themselves. They're calling her incendiary, a hatemonger, Islamophobic, and a "carton contest organizer known for her inflammatory rhetoric." It's as if they believe the gunmen were actually justified by what they attempted because Ms. Geller's contest insulted them.

Funny - I remember when some "artist" put a crucifix in a jar of urine and displayed it and no one tried to kill him. The mainstream media didn't condemn him for insulting Christians. Even Fox News didn't say he should never do anything like that because it was insulting to Christians around the world. But they're saying that people shouldn't insult Mohammed because it's an insult to Muslims around the world and could lead to violence.

Donald Trump says Geller was taunting Muslims with her event. Bill O'Reilly said it was stupid and unproductive to insult Muslims in this manner. Fox News' Martha MacCallum said Geller should show restraint when it comes to Islam.

And Chris Matthews, MSNBC's loud mouthed, Obama man-crush, Muslim sympathizing stooge, said that Pamela Geller "caused the shooting by setting a mousetrap for Muslims." Really?

What they all fail to understand is that they're telling America and the world that freedom of speech should be constrained in the name of political correctness toward Islam. They're telling the world that Islam must not be insulted because to do that might cause Muslim extremists to react in a violent manner.

Unlike many other countries in the world, Americans enjoy the right to say pretty much whatever they wish. Or they always have, at least. That freedom includes the right to criticize any religion, including Islam. There is no freedom in America for people who are offended by said speech to murder anyone. You do not have the right to get offended, grab your gun and go kill people simply because you don't like something they said.

The right to freedom of speech is one of the things that sets America apart from other nations. It's one of the things Islam hates about the USA. They believe they should have the right and the authority to tell Americans what they can and can't say about Islam. And now it seems they have help from some people right here in America.

What they don't seem to get is when Americans are forced to remain silent - the terrorists win.

Happy Cinco de Mayo.... Never Mind

I was just about to wish everyone a happy Cinco de Mayo when I realized that if I did someone out there would probably be offended and tell me that I was appropriating someone else's culture.

That seems to be one of the new ways to complain about something that is really nothing. People who have heritage from other countries or in other cultures complain if an American - someone who doesn't have any ties to that country or culture - dons the garb or eats the food or sings the music of that other country or culture. The call it cultural appropriation - as if their culture is being stolen.

Cultural appropriation is defined as: "the adoption of elements of one culture by members of a different cultural group, especially if the adoption is of an oppressed people's cultural elements by members of the dominant culture."

That's a long, drawn-out phrase that means "You're doing something or eating something that came from a cultural system that wasn't yours." Oh, no! Whatever will we do?

Liberals like to jump on the cultural appropriation bandwagon, decrying people who might

If we stop doing everything that was "appropriated" from other countries we'd most likely have to stop speaking English. Today's English, after all, is a language that adapted and morphed from a combination of the Celtic language and Germanic languages after the Germanic tribes invaded the British Isles in the 5th century AD. It then combined again with French and with some Sandanavian languages to eventually evolve into what it is today.

The newest "recognized" language in the United States, Ebonics, would also have to be abandoned since its origins are often traced back to West Africa and/or the Caribbean. Ebonics is a combination of inner city, non-standard English and some words and pronunciations from these other countries. And before anyone accuses me of anything that's not my description but one that comes from http://www.linguisticsociety.org/.

Cultural Appropriation is just one more attempt by liberals to force people to never do anything that offends another person - oh, except for that whole "We will force you to participate in same sex weddings" thing. They're OK with offending people that way because it suits their agenda. The idea that no one can use a language, clothing, food, etc., from another country so those in that other country are not offended is ridiculous.

For the average American using these things has nothing to do with oppression and everything to do with freedom of speech. We in America have the right to pretend we're Mexican on Cinco de Mayo and the right to celebrate Chinese New Year and the right to wear a Geisha outfit if we wish. Those rights are guaranteed by the First Amendment and we don't have to ask permission.

The above description of cultural appropriation is actually quite vague and general and ends with the most important words - "dominant culture." Like it or not the dominant culture will always appropriate or adopt things they like from other cultures. And will millions of people coming into the country and wanting to bring their own customs and cultures with them, rather than assimilate into our culture it's only going to get worse.

I have advice for those who want to bring their culture here but don't want Americans to
share (or steal) it. Stay home. If you don't want to assimilate into our society and be an American stay where you are. America is called the melting pot because people are supposed to come here and include themselves in the American culture, not try to live here in a status of separation.

Now - for all of you who still have a sense of humor...  Happy Sink O' The Mayo!

Why Hate People For Their Skin Color?

After talking with several friends on the social media network "Facebook" this week I was moved to write about racial hatred - hating someone just because of their skin color or ethnic origin. Hating someone because the skin color is different than yours seems to me to be the ultimate in stupidity. If you hate someone because their skin color is different than yours you could easily hate 95% of the world's population. Because very few people are going to have the exact same skin color as you.

I was thinking of this topic as I was driving yesterday and realized that hating someone for their skin color is rather silly - especially when there are so many good reasons to hate people. I mean - come on! You can hate people because of their religious beliefs. You can hate people because of their lack of religious beliefs. You can hate them because they're straight. You can hate them because they're gay. You can even hate them because they're confused about it.

You can hate people because they're rich. You can hate people because they're poor. You can hate them because they're liberal. You can hate them because they're conservative. You can even hate them because they're.... dare I say it.... libertarian or independent!

You can hate someone because they have a nicer car than you have. You can hate them because they drive an old junker in which you'd be embarrassed to be seen. You can hate someone because you think they're better looking than you. Or you can hate them because you think they're just butt ugly.

You can hate people because they can afford to live in a better neighborhood than you, or because they can send their kids to an exclusive, private school while your kids must attend a public school. Hey - you can hate the kid whose parents send him/her to that school and teach your kid to hate them as well.

You can hate your neighbor because he/she has something that you don't have. You can hate someone because they have a nicer, more luxurious home than you have. Or you can hate those who are homeless because, after all, it's their choice.

You can hate the person who pulls up next to you at a red light and has their stereo playing so loud that your car vibrates and you can't hear the music on your own radio. You can hate them simply because you don't like their choice of music. You can hate the kid (or adult) who walks down the street with his pants hanging so low that several inches of his underwear (or butt crack) show. You can hate the person with tattoos, face piercings or purple hair.

You can hate someone simply because they are the type of person you would like to be. Or you can hate them because they are not the person you think they should be.

I suppose I could go on. Hatred finds so many reasons for its existence. And it really knows no color or ethnicity. There are just so many "good" reasons to hate someone that hating them just because of the color of their skin seems pointless, doesn't it? It sure does to me....

Baltimore Police Case Being Politicized And Racialized - By Those In Charge

I wasn't surprised to hear that the state's attorney in Baltimore, Marilyn Mosby, charged the six police officers for the death of Freddie Gray. The evidence made public so far indicates that police procedures were not followed exactly and somehow Freddie Gray ended up dead.  A trial will help sort things out.

I was, however, surprised by a few things in the announcement. I wasn't expecting all six to be charged. I figured one, maybe two would be charged and charges against the others would be dropped. Some legal analysts believe Ms. Mosby will now play the officers against each other hoping that one or two will testify against the others. It's an old tactic used by the police themselves when interrogating suspects. We will have to see if it works.

I was surprised that three of the six police officers are black. I found it interesting that last evening, after the charges were announced and the officers' identities were made public, the whole "Black Lives Matter" mantra changed somewhat since black officers were involved. Suddenly it wasn't white cops that couldn't be trusted but anyone in the blue uniform. Some of the people on the street in Baltimore were asked if it mattered that three of the officers were black and they said no - it was anyone who wore the uniform. Some left wing bloggers said "It's common for co-workers to pick up the attitudes of those they work with," meaning that the black officers had obviously picked up the racist attitudes of their white co-workers.

Just two days ago it was about black men being killed by white cops. Now it's white cops and those black cops that have developed the white cops' racism that are killing black men. Someone always has to play the race card - no matter how ridiculous it sounds.

From listening to legal experts talking about the charges I began wondering if Ms. Mosby can prove the second degree murder charge. Second degree murder means there was an intent to kill. Unless she has information that has not been made public (which is certainly possible) that shows intent, the most she seems to have at this point is manslaughter, but even that seems questionable since they have yet to determine exactly how and when Freddie Gray was injured.

The definition of manslaughter is "the crime of killing a human being without malice aforethought." To convict on a manslaughter charge she will have to show that one or more of the officers directly caused the death of Freddie Gray. That fact that he died while in police custody is not enough to convict on a manslaughter charge. It seems, and the legal experts I listened to last night agreed, the best Ms. Mosby has (again - unless she has information she has not revealed) is negligence on the part of the officers that lead to Mr. Gray's death. Negligence is a civil case, not criminal.

What really surprised me is how the prosecutor, after reading all of the facts that led her to her decision, decided to politicize the case.

"To the people of Baltimore and the demonstrators across America. I heard your call for “no justice, no peace,” she said. "Your peace is sincerely needed as I work to deliver justice on behalf of this young man….."

Her call for peace in the city was fine. But her job is to find the truth and to perform her duties without bias or prejudice. The demand of "No justice, no peace" should have no bearing on her decisions. If she charged the six officers because of this demand she failed in her duties as an unbiased state's attorney. And that certainly seems to be the case.

She closed by speaking to the very young people that were responsible for much of the damage and looting that took place early last week.

“I will seek justice on your behalf,” she said. “This is a moment. This is your moment. Let’s ensure that we have peaceful and productive rallies that will develop structural and systemic changes for generations to come. You’re at the forefront of this cause. As young people, our time is now.”

Again, the call for peace was appropriate. But justice is supposed to be about all people, not a bunch of violent, unlawful street demonstrators who burn and loot businesses. Her statements legitimized the violence.

Another thing that surprised me is how the Mayor of Baltimore, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, made the whole case racial. Following the announcement of the charges against the police officers, Mayor Rawlings-Blake spoke to...  wait for it... an event held by Al Sharpton's "National Racism Action Network," where she said “If, with the nation watching, three black women at three different levels (referring to herself, Marilyn Mosby and newly appointed U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch) can’t get justice and healing for this community, you tell me where we’re going to get it in our country.”

So now it's about black justice? Justice is supposed to be blind. Justice is supposed to be about truth. You'd think Mayor Rawlings-Blake, after having to backtrack statements concerning the violence that was occurring in her city, would have been more careful in her choice of words. I guess your words are directed to your specific audience. 

An attorney for the police officers union said yesterday that the six officers "followed their training" and "did nothing wrong." If the information that has been released is true that officers are required to put seat belts on suspects in the back of the van (and at least two Baltimore police officers, speaking anonymously, have verified it) then they did at least one thing wrong. And according to recent news reports the knife that Mr. Gray had on his person when he was arrested was not illegal. So was his arrest unlawful? Ms. Mosby says it was. But then - she seems to have a personal interest in the case.

It will be interesting to see what happens in this case. Sadly there is one reality that everyone must understand - if the police officers are not convicted the violence in Baltimore will be worse than it has already been. Remember the Rodney King case? Some of the protesters were asked last night what would happen if the cops were not convicted. They made it pretty clear that the violence would begin again. They'll begin the destruction again if they don't get their way.

So much for "justice."

Interesting Responses To The Baltimore Riot

Anyone who has been watching TV knows there has been practically nothing on any news channel(s) this week but coverage of the rioting in Baltimore. As it was in Ferguson last year, reporters are on the streets looking for stories and pundits on both sides are either creating stories or repeating the same ones over and over. Geraldo Rivera is out there arguing with protesters - perhaps trying to get one to hit him in the head with a chair.

There have been some interesting responses to the rioting, beginning with the way it was handled by the Baltimore mayor, Stephanie Rawlings-Blake.

When it began, the mayor apparently told her police department to stand by and allow the protesters to riot, loot and destroy property. She said as much the next day.

"I've made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech," Mayor Rawlings-Blake told reporters.

"It's a very delicate balancing act because while we try to make sure that they 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, and we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate."

Within two days 40 buildings, several private homes and 144 vehicles had been burned. Businesses were looted and at least 15 police officers were injured. Of course, when she came under fire for allowing the protesters to destroy property she denied making the statement she had previously made, saying it was taken out of context.

"I did not instruct police to give space to protesters who were seeking to create violence or destruction of property," she wrote. "Taken in context, I explained that, in giving peaceful demonstrators room to share their message, unfortunately, those who were seeking to incite violence also had space to operate."

Ah, don't you just hate those lying videos, Mayor?

In the days that followed some Baltimore police officers spoke privately to reporters and said the mayor had indeed told them to stand down an not interfere because "it's only property." They also said one of the reasons officers were injured was because the mayor put limits on what equipment they could use to protect and defend themselves. Most of the injuries came from being unable to defend themselves against attacks with rocks, bottles and bricks.

On Tuesday afternoon the mayor said she was putting a curfew in place in the city immediately for people under 18 and for adults the next night. She apparently believed the destruction had all been done by teenagers so she gave the adults one more night to cause trouble. Guess what happened?

It seems that in addition to being a friend of President Obama (She got a personal call from him concerning the riots. The Ferguson mayor got no such call.), Mayor Rawlings-Blake was appointed as a member of the committee charged with reviewing the Ferguson riots and finding better ways to handle future instances. The committee apparently decided that allowing rioters to do whatever they wanted and keeping the police at bay was a good answer. It's just a guess but I would bet the business owners, homeowner and vehicle owners that lost their property would disagree with her tactics.

City officials, from the mayor to the police chief to several city councilmen, complained that the media was showing only the bad things going on and concentrating on the fires and looting rather than the peaceful protests. Duh. When's the last time a news agency filmed a plane landing without incident or a train running on the tracks smoothly and without problems? News agencies always have and always will report the bad things that occur. It's what they do.

President Obama made a statement about the riots saying that the media was taking video footage of one burning building and looping it over and over, making the situation look worse than it is.

That may be one of the most ridiculous lies he's told since taking office. Forty buildings were on fire, Mr. President. Forty. And several private homes. Your statement of the media making it look worse than it really is was pathetic.

Another interesting statement that the mayor and other city officials have made echo those made by some politicians and civilians (and race baiting idiots like Sharpton) following the shooting of Michael Brown last August. Unlike Missouri Governor Jay Nixon, who said before the investigation was completed that Officer Wilson needed to be arrested, charged and convicted, the politicians in Baltimore are saying they want justice for Freddie Gray. The mayor yesterday said "We will get justice for Freddie Gray."

Right now it appears that someone from the police department is going to get charged with something. But what if the investigation revealed the police did nothing wrong? If that's the case and no one is charged isn't that justice?

I have always believed that justice meant seeking the truth impartially. These days it seems justice is whatever someone demands it to be. Family, friends and some politicians screamed for justice for Mike Brown. As it turns out, according to the Justice Department report, Michael Brown got his due justice from Officer Wilson that very day. But I'm pretty sure that's not the justice those people were demanding.