Monday, April 27, 2015

Statement Analysis: Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake

Did this mayor give protestors impetus to destroy?  The following is her statement regarding her directive to the police in wake of protests as well as a video from the scene.  

If protestors were, indeed, given "space" to "destroy", what impact did this have? What impact might this have in future protests? Did it have the desired effect?















"I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech.
"It's a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate."

Here is the statement again:

"I made it very clear that I work with the police 

The word "with" when found between people, indicates distance.  The word "I" and police" are far apart, with the word "with" between them. 
She did not say, "The police and I worked together..." or the pronoun, "we", such as "We worked together..."

and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech.

The reason for her instruction was that the protestors were able to "exercise their right to free speech."  This is an important theme in America as more and more citizens complain that free speech is being taken from them.  

It's a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, 

Note the use of "we" is plural, and it may be that she is referencing the police, and sees herself as unified with them. 
Note also that "they", the protestors, needed protection from "the cars", which is in traffic, but also "other things that were going on" is not clarified as to what "other things" the protestors needed protection from. 


we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. 

"As well" must refer to something else given, which above, was "protection" from "cars and the other things"; but here, something else was also given and it was given by "we":
"space" to "destroy"

And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate."

That is a "balance" between protecting the protestors from cars and other things and allowing them to destroy.  This is the "best position" for something:

"to deescalate."

It would be interesting to interview those who were victims of any "destruction", including property or lives, as well as the cost, afterwards.  


47 comments:

Anonymous said...

Giving space to people who want to destroy is DEAD WRONG. How would she feel if it were something of hers that they destroyed? Our right to "free speech" does not give anyone the right to destroy anything. Police are to maintain public order and protect people and property. Did she really have police "stand down" while people were destroying things? She does not belong in office, IMHO.

rob said...

Easy to give space to destroy, when it's somebody else's property getting destroyed.
As a gov't official, just making that statement shows that somebody is a fool.
Sorry, just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting to interview those who were victims of any "destruction", including property or lives, as well as the cost, afterwards.

The city gonna get suuued big time. What a moron!

Anonymous said...

Wow- poorly worded, but she isn't saying she "gave permission" to destroy.


She's saying that as a result of giving "protestors" space to protest, they also, unfortunately, gave "those who wished to destroy" space to do that as well. If she's saying she "wanted" to give both, then why refer to it as a balancing act"?

That is a "balance" between protecting the protestors from cars and other things and allowing them to destroy

No, the "protestors" is one group of people and "those who wish to destroy" is a different group of people. That's why she uses different words to describe them.

Anonymous said...

Wow- poorly worded, but she isn't saying she "gave permission" to destroy.


She's saying that as a result of giving "protestors" space to protest, they also, unfortunately, gave "those who wished to destroy" space to do that as well. If she's saying she "wanted" to give both, then why refer to it as a balancing act"?

That is a "balance" between protecting the protestors from cars and other things and allowing them to destroy

No, the "protestors" is one group of people and "those who wish to destroy" is a different group of people. That's why she uses different words to describe them.

John mcgowan said...

" we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well"

What is her "subjective internal dictionary" definition of "destroy space"

Anonymous said...

It's not "destroy space"; it's essentially "We gave (those who wished to destroy) space to do that as well...We gave them space.

John mcgowan said...

Thanks Anon for the clarification.

Jen Ow said...

What utter stupidity. Every innocent person who was harmed, and every business owner who's property was damaged, needs to file suit against the city, and HER personally. Freedom of speech does not allow for lawless aggression, physical assault, and destruction of private property. To say that she protected the rioters from the chaos they created, (traffic flow, civilians fighting back) and allowed space for those who wanted to destroy things, to do so, is an endorsement of those activities.

How about protecting the innocent business owners, patrons, and law abiding citizens from the rioters?! She needs to be tossed out of the Mayor's office, AND out of this country, for that matter. Blooming idiot!

Jen Ow said...

"I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech.

"It's a very delicate balancing act. Because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well. And we worked very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate."

------------------

She uses the words "balancing act", but all of her cited actions/goals are geared toward allowing the so called 'protesters' to accomplish THEIR agenda.

In the following order:

- "do everything that they could to make sure protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech".

- "make sure they are protected from the cars, and other things that were going on".

- "also gave those who who wished to destroy space to do that as well".

- "keep that balance and put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate".

She devotes ZERO words to the protection of the public, and innocent bystanders, nor the protection of the business owners. Those who abide by the rule of law, and innocent bystanders caught up in the unchecked violence, (there is even a woman in a wheelchair, with someone attempting to shield her from incoming bottles and debris in one of the videos!) are an apparent non-issue to this mayor, who is only concerned with protecting, and facilitating the needs of the 'protesters'.

John mcgowan said...

Live coverage!

http://abcnews.go.com/live

Anonymous said...

all of her cited actions/goals are geared toward allowing the so called 'protesters' to accomplish THEIR agenda.

Again, the "protestors" and "those who want to destroy" are separate groups.

She does want to allow the "protestors" to fulfill their agenda, and, in providing space for peaceful protests, admits that "those who want to destroy" are also, without the government meaning to, given space.

That's the balancing act:

letting the peaceful "protestors" protest while "de-escalating" "those who wish to destroy."

Jen Ow said...

I posted the quote above. She does not state that they are two different groups, and does not state that in providing space for peaceful protests, they "without meaning to" gave space to those who wish to destroy.

We don't interpret.

Even if you throw her a bone, and believe that she meant to distinguish between "protesters", and "those who wish to destoy", she still completely fails to mention the protection of the public, innocent bystanders, and the businesses. This should be her biggest concern.

Her entire statement focuses on the 'protesters', rather than on the safety of those abiding by, or enforcing the law. Even the word 'de-escalate' gives control of the situation over to the rioters.

(She didn't say, "so we could restore order", or "so we could protect our citizens"!)

sidewalk super said...


This so called mayor needs to get herself out there with her rioters, and experience the de-escalation she thinks will occur, after she resigns for overwhelming incompetency.

sidewalk super said...


Boy, on the news, some of these thugs look just like the ones who were busy destroying Ferguson.

So, don't you wonder what will Loretta Lynch do on her first day of work?f

Lis said...

This is why they can't have nice things.

Anonymous said...


she wants to make sure her dear protesters, looters, rioters, thugs, have room for their high priority pursuits where they won't get hit by cars.

She'll be on abc, cnn, msnbc tomorrow with a new dress and an attitude.

What has happened to our country?

mmmagique said...

A friend of mine just told me that the mayor didn't say any of that. My friend claims that she said "that there will always be a risk for people with ill intent to take advantage of the space that is given to people to express their first amendment right to peacefully protest." but that she didn't say any of that other stuff.

Is there a way to prove this either way?

Anonymous said...

Oh poo. No mater what she said and didn't say, or meant to say, she or no one else is responsible for people acting like animals and destroying the property of others. Every one of these low-life people are responsible for their own actions. That's the problem; others are quick to blame someone else for their own sorry actions. I git sick uv it. I really do.

Anonymous said...

FURTHERMORE, it's illegal in most instances to destroy your own property much less destroy the property of others. Where are the puppet strings this woman pulled that gave license to these people to destroy property that did not belong to them?

It's HER fault? That's like telling someone to jump off the bridge and they do.

You are blaming the wrong person for what these scumbags did. I hope everyone of these scum are prosecuted for the destruction of these properties.

Anonymous said...

She said both. People are interpreting it in different ways, it seems, based on their political leanings. Whether she meant "I gave them the green light to destroy stuff" or "I gave protestors space for peaceful protest and some got violent" cannot be "proven" since the wording is ambiguous.

Jen Ow said...

Now that the Governor has declared a State of Emergency, the riot endorsing Mayor Rawlings-Blake gets to sit back and wait for Obama to chime in with even more racially divisive rhetoric. Of course, he'll also fork over some tax payer funded 'emergency relief' money to rebuild the community that these animals willfully destroyed.

Pretty easy to imagine why she would want to "allow those who wished to do damage space to do so..."!

Anonymous said...

the riot endorsing Mayor Rawlings-Blake

Lol @ "we don't interpret"

trustmeigetit said...

If the "space" was in her neighborhood, he never would have said these words.

I don't see how she didn't mean that she gave them space...to destroy. She flat out said the words.

If we beleive what people say, in SA then we can beleive it.

But she did fail to own it with "I" and instead used "we".


trustmeigetit said...

I agree. I don't think they all felt like it was an invitation. They stole and rioted just because they wanted to.

Stealing food and tvs have never changed anything. So it's selfish acts and nothing more. They are just using it as an excuse and well, it's easier to steal when there's hundreds doing the same.

Anonymous said...

If I say "I gave my husband a cold."

Is that the same as

"I intentionally gave my husband a cold." or "I wanted my husband to have a cold"?

Amelia said...

so Im sorry I dont know but what are they rioting for?

Jen Ow said...

That's not an interpretation of a statement by the mayor, which is obvious as I quoted no statement. It's my opinion of her actions. There's a difference.

Jen Ow said...

Hi Amelia,

Well, in my opinion, they are rioting because they want an excuse to destroy things, and steal.

However the named reason for the 'protest' is a man named Freddie Gray, who was injured either while running from police, or in transport after being arrested. (It is unclear when/where the injury took place, or what caused it, but he sustained a spinal cord injury). The transporting officer has admitted that he didn't obtain immediate medical care for Gray.

The Mayor has been making inflammatory statements since the incident occurred, including calling into question the police department's adherence to procedures, and claiming she "believes an outside investigation is needed, especially given the history of police misconduct."

The police may eventually be found responsible for Gray's injuries, and to have failed to follow protocol in obtaining medical care. However, at this point, the investigation has yet to be completed. In my opinion, her comments are/were irresponsible. As a leader of the community, she shouldn't be stoking the communities anger, particularly when the details of how he sustained the injury are still unknown. She also shouldn't be protecting the rights of protesters, over the rights of citizens to exist without fearing violence, and destruction of their property. Somehow she's gotten her priorities completely reversed.

Jen Ow said...

Link to some of the Freddie Gray updates:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/04/24/us/baltimore-freddie-gray-death/

John mcgowan said...

Baltimore mayor's 'balancing act' gave protestors permission to turn violent

“I wanted to give space to those who wished to destroy,” that is how Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake described her policy Saturday at a press conference. Her words, which effectively told police to stand down as those gathered to protest the death of 25-year-old Freddie Gray smashed store windows, looted 7-Elevens and forced attendees at a Baltimore Oriole-Boston Red Sox baseball game to remain in the stadium because it wasn’t safe outside.

At a press conference on April 25 the mayor said, "“I made it very clear that I work with the police and instructed them to do everything that they could to make sure that the protesters were able to exercise their right to free speech. It’s a very delicate balancing act."

Read more:

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/04/27/baltimore-mayor-balancing-act-gave-protestors-permission-to-turn-violent/

John mcgowan said...


Stephanie Rawlings-Blake
13 hrs ·


There has been some discussion about my remarks on Saturday, some of which were taken out of context. I want to clarify—I did not instruct police to give space to protesters who were seeking to create violence or destruction of property.

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. And we worked very hard to put ourselves in the best position to deescalate those instances.

https://www.facebook.com/stephanie.rawlingsblake

John mcgowan said...

OT:

In the middle of the night, Minnesota 24-year-old vanishes

Officials are asking for the public's assistance in finding Abbey Russell, 24, who was last seen on April 25th at her home in Stillwater, Minnesota.

Investigators told Pioneer Press the 24-year-old, originally from Eau Claire, Wisconsin, went out with friends Friday night and returned home around 8:00pm. Sergeant Jeff Stender of the Stillwater Police Department said Russell's friends texted her asking her to come out later that evening, but she told them she was headed for bed because she had to work a double shift the next morning beginning at 9:00.

Several hours later, Russell's roommate told police she woke up to Russell's phone ringing and her roommate gone.

"It's very, very strange, and we're very worried," Ken Russell, Abbey's father, told Pioneer Press. "We are very concerned. We're hoping to hear from her very soon. We're going to continue to look and continue to search and ask for everybody's prayers."

Extensive ground and aerial searches have been conducted since Russell was reported missing that Saturday morning, according to a press release. Officials were planning to use sonar to search the St. Croix River Monday afternoon. However, police have said they do not suspect foul play at this time.

Abbey is described as 5'7" tall, weighing 150 lbs., with brown hair and green eyes. If you have any information that can help, please call the Stillwater Police Department at (651) 351-4900.

http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/missing-in-america/middle-night-minnesota-24-year-old-vanishes-n349226

Anonymous said...


If this is the kind of politician that people actually vote for in the wake of bho,
folks, we are in all kinds of trouble.

Anonymous said...


Does al sharpton have any daughters?

Amelia said...

Thanks Jen :)

Anonymous said...

These people roamed around and created havoc, breaking & entering and stealing, and causing destruction because that's what they wanted to do. It is no ones' fault but their own.

The po po violently injured the poor young man whether he tried to run or what he did, and left him to die from the injuries THEY caused him, and this is THEIR fault. They murdered him.

I hope they ALL pay for what they've done and not just resting the blame on the mayor, your scapegoat, which seems to be what's being advocated here.

Was she the one breaking into buildings, throwing bricks, rioting and looting? NO she was not. Is she the one who injured the young man and left him to die? No, she did not.

Your 'placing blame' is no different than blaming the little rape victim because she was only wearing a diaper so that spoke clearly that 'she wanted it.'

Git it now?

LisaB said...

That is an interesting interpretation of what she said, and may have some validity. Unfortunately, the majority of people who have heard her statement have interpreted it as Peter did, in essence that it was appropriate to give the protesters room to participate in rioting and looting and other violent acts to help them release their anger over the Freddy Gray arrest. As of 8 p.m. last night - when she finally made her first statement about a situation that had been underway for 5 hours, and had resulted in police cars being burned and many businesses being looted and set afire - she was indicating that her intention was, as you say, not to give permission to the looters and violent protesters, but that by giving space for the peaceful protesters to conduct their activities unimpeded, she inadvertently had to allow some destruction to occur. I do not believe that she gave police the orders to allow destruction explicitly. It was simply a byproduct of hands-off policing.

LisaB said...

If it was her intention to state that by giving peaceful protesters space to conduct their (organized and permitted) protest unimpeded by police (on Saturday), she inadvertently allowed a situation to develop where violence, rioting, looting, and other forms of destruction took place due to her instructions for the police to be as hands-off as possible.
Under that interpretation of her words, the balancing act was between remaining far enough removed to allow the peaceful protest to occur and being close enough to prevent criminal act from occurring during the protest.
needless to say, that strategy failed both Saturday and Monday. The future remains to be seen.

LisaB said...

in her statement at 8 p.m. on April 27th 2015, Stephanie Rawlings - Blake indicated thatit was her intention to distinguish between those participating in a peaceful protest for which the city had issued appropriate permits, and those who took advantage of the situation to do violence, set fires, and destroy local businesses. It would be interesting to get Peter's interpretation of that statement in context of with this one to see whether he feels that she was in CYA mode last night, or if her clarification of her intentions was believable and legitimate.

LisaB said...

At least that's what she said in retrospect, 2 days after her original statement. I don't believe she intended to instigate the kind of violence we saw here in Baltimore yesterday, however her words left a lot open to interpretation, and under the loosest interpretation, did seem to be encouraging violent protest.

Anonymous said...

The impetuous of Statement Analysis is what the subject SAID, not what she didn't say. If she didn't say it, you can't say it for her.

Implied words, or pre-supposition, or what you 'think' she meant, are NOT spoken words.

Anonymous said...

Right, but to assume that by "gave" she means "endorsed" or "supported" or "intentionally gave" pre-supposes "what you think she meant."

Anonymous said...

(You)taught me that.

Anonymous said...

AGAIN your"presuming"leave me alone.

winnie Sharpton said...

Whatcha talkjn b'out Willis?!

Anonymous said...

Ah, I am so disgusted.
Once again, bho is using a crisis (Baltimore) to lecture those of us who might not endorse his liberal/communist/dictator government point of view.
A scolding egomanical narcissistic know it all.
Blame, blame, blame.
Nothing out of that mouth leads to reassurance, stability, progression.

It is time to sanction this divisive president by taking away his microphone and his overused pen !
Congress cannot possibly think he is representing the United States of America in any positive manner.