Thursday, April 30, 2015

Shocking: Woman in Beating Over Parking Spot Goes on TV

Warning:

the following video contains graphic violence and inappropriate language.



Please listen to the words of the man holding the baby. As police were searching for the assailant, both women called in live to WPIX 11, New York. This is shocking.

 Listen to the "interview" conducted live on television in New York. This is most unexpected, as both tell their "side" of what happened.

 The woman who did the punching speaks while the television program runs the video. Use your statement analysis skills to get to the truth.

 What questions would you ask?

 What are the known potential consequences to the children who saw this?

 What do you make of the man who kept the assault uninterrupted? What do you make of the interviewers asking who had the right of way parking in light of the severity of the violence?

 What do you make of the IR seeking to get "both to apologize"? Did the IRs do a good job? In Analytical Interviewing, we do not interrupt anyone, but on live television, they are up against hard breaks in time. What do you make of the IR saying "You were defending yourself. I see both sides of it."? "You ladies need to be held accountable for this." "I was talking to her the whole time like a mother to a child" said aggressor. "She put us in danger. She put us in danger. " Here is the difference between news, entertainment, and discernment.

Statement Analysis: Sheriff: We Were Told to Stand Down

I posted that riots are attended with deception; that is, they can be fueled by deception (recall, "Hands Up" is based upon a fabrication of reality), and that even "professional protestors" can profit from the media coverage that violence brings.

Politicians practice deception for appearance sake, in short term gain, and provide us with lots of examples of which Statement Analysis can discern truth from deception.

The mayor of Baltimore stated that she ordered police to give space to those intent on destruction.  When criticism hit, she claimed that she did not give such an order, and that her words were "taken out of context", first, and then, secondly, "misconstrued."


The local politicians responded to the "give space for those who wish to destroy" with a singular term:

"Thugs."




The next day, the Baltimore politicians went back on television and apologized for using the term "thugs" to classify those who looted, burned and destroyed with violence a neighborhood in Baltimore, and reclassified them as "misguided young men."  What caused this change? Were these local politicians "spoken to" about their words?  With the massive rock throwing at police on video, were these just "misguided youth"?

Almost 100 law enforcement officers injured.


Statement Analysis was done on the mayor's statement in its entirety and it showed a specific order to give space for those who wished destruction.  Analysis of her denial was also done.  Stephanie Rawlings Blake had lied.  Then, she and the Governor went at each other as the Governor got wind that she had possibly delayed police deployment to protect the city

Deception after deception.

What's next, ordering "stand down" so police can be blamed for failing to keep the neighborhood from burning?  One officer said that as he stood outside a church, those inside "gave me the finger."

Backlash 

Did the "stand down" order so fill police with rage that the inevitable backlash began with some police finally throwing rocks back?

The politicians kept at it. They were not satisfied with their deceptive responses.

President Obama, in context of the Baltimore riots, said "Republicans" had "blocked" investments, which now blamed, not the "thugs", but Republicans, for the riot.  He has portrayed police in negative light for years.  It was, however,  likely less inflammatory for him to blame politicians instead of police.

Media responded by reporting that for more than 50 years, Democrats had been controlling Baltimore.  On to another blaming attempt.

Next, politicians stated that the riots were because not enough money was spent to educate the children of Baltimore.

This was met with statistics on money spent, per child, in Baltimore, where, the statistics reported, only 17% of 8th Graders could read at an 8th Grade level, and only 13% of 8th Graders could do math skills at an 8th Grade level. The expenditures were more than double from other school districts, per child, throughout the country and have produced incredibly poor test scores.

We saw next how a CNN reporter blamed the police for the riot, specifically those who were prior military and who have served overseas.

She then stated that she was only quoting someone else.  When she said it, she said, "I love veterans but..." and did not say "someone said" or "someone told me...".  She made it personal, and in comparison to her own emotional status towards veterans.

Then, she said she was sorry for what she said.

Statement Analysis showed that she was lying when she said that someone else had "vocalized" this statement for her.

Deception upon Deception.

I am still waiting for Brian Williams to show up on television with black soot on his face, with a kitten in his arms saying "Look what I saved from the fire in CVS!"


The deception has its cost, as all deception does. Here is a scenario to consider.

Next, what if we learn that Freddy Gray had a severed spine, not due to police, but due to surgery, and was supposed to be in bed, and that police did not savagely sever his spin...and

his mother knew this all along?

What millions of dollars of damage have come from the single, deceptive withholding of the truth, should this prove to be the case?

Whites were targeted, even those in media, or who came to support the protest.  Businesses burned.  Close to 100  law enforcement injured.

What if the mother deliberately withheld this information so that "anger" could be evidenced in the streets of Baltimore?

What part of looting sneakers, jackets and large quantities of drugs, from CVS, constitutes "community anger"?

What if it was all based on a lie?

What if there was a connection between the "protestors" in Ferguson, which was based upon a lie, and the "protestors" in Baltimore?

Riots are rife with deception.

Statement Analysis was done on her denial which was deemed "Unreliable" as stated.  Her statement, in context was clear, and media did not remove its context to change meaning, and as far as being misconstrued, this officer says it was clear to him and his fellow officers, that they were ordered to "stand down" to the rioters who looted and destroyed in Baltimore.

here is an edited article with Sheriff Michael Lewis' statement attesting that he was informed of the "stand down" policy.

Michael Lewis is the Sheriff in Wicomico County, and was also a Sergeant with the Maryland State Police. 
Lewis said it wasn’t his intention to come to Baltimore, a drive of about two hours, but he felt it was his duty to help. Here are his statements: 

“I hadn’t planned to go to Baltimore at all. I watched the events unfold Saturday night like we all did, and was very concerned about what I saw, and the the lack of response Saturday night,” he said.

 “I immediately rallied up the troops. We made sure our MRAP was prepared and ready. … We were assigned to assigned to protect Baltimore City Police headquarters, all of E. Fayette Street up to City Hall, to include City Hall. There wasn’t a whole lot of activity taking place at all. We could smell that putrid smell of burning tires and a city on fire when as we came into the city. Had lots of concerns like everyone else. We maintained our post all night long until we were relieved.”

But what shocked him the most, he said, was when city police told him not to confront and accost the rioters.

“I was sick to my stomach like everybody else. … This was urban warfare, no question about it. They were coming in absolutely beaten down. The [city officers] got out of their vehicles, thanked us profusely for being there, apologized to us for having to be there. They said we could have handled this, we were very capable of handling this, but we were told to stand down, repeatedly told to stand down,” he said. “I had never heard that order come from anyone — we went right out to our posts as soon as we got there, so I never heard the mayor say that. But repeatedly these guys, and there were many high-ranking officials from the Baltimore City Police Department … and these guys told me they were essentially neutered from the start. They were spayed from the start. They were told to stand down, you will not take any action, let them destroy property. I couldn’t believe it, I’m a 31-year veteran of law enforcement. … I had never heard anything like this before in my life and these guys obviously aren’t gonna speak out and the more I thought about this, … I had to say a few things. I apologize if I’ve upset people, but I believe in saying it like it is.”

Lewis said though he didn’t hear the order to stand down come from the mayor, he did hear it from police officials.

I heard it myself over the Baltimore City police radio that I had tethered to my body-armor vest, I heard it repeatedly. ‘Stand down, stand down, stand down! Back up, back up, retreat, retreat!’ I couldn’t believe those words. Those are words I’ve never heard in my law enforcement vocabulary,” he said. “Baltimore City police, all law enforcement agencies are very capable of handling that city. They’re trained to handle that city. These guys were hearing words that had never been echoed in their lives, in their careers.”

Lewis claims after the riots many officers told him they were done being cops in the city and how heartbroken they are that they were not allowed to defend their city and stop businesses from burning.

another story:'


BREAKING NEWS: Preliminary findings show Freddie Gray suffered head injury in police transport van

BALTIMORE, Md. (WJLA) -- An investigation into the death of Baltimore resident Freddie Gray has found no evidence that his fatal injuries were caused during the videotaped arrest and interaction with police officers, according to multiple law enforcement sources.
The sources spoke to ABC7 News after being briefed on the findings of a police report tuned over to prosecutors on Thursday as well as preliminary findings made by the medical examiner's office.
Sources said the medical examiner found Gray's catastrophic injury was caused when he slammed into the back of the police transport van, apparently breaking his neck; a head injury he sustained matches a bolt in the back of the van.
Details surrounding exactly what caused Gray to slam into the back of the van was unclear. The officer driving the van has yet to give a statement to authorities. It’s also unclear whether Gray’s head injury was voluntary or was result of some other action.

CNN: Brooke Baldwin Statement Analysis


Statement Analysis is the scientific process of analyzing words for deception, truth, and content.  Here is a simple example of how it works.  

In a discussion about police training in Baltimore, CNN's Brook Baldwin made this statement.  We look at context in two ways:

1.  The context of the statement.  This is why, when available, we use the full statement.  It can be unjust to pull something out of context, as claimed by the Baltimore mayor.  In her case, the entire statement was posted.  This is the larger context.  

2.  The context of the wording, itself.  For example, which words are next to which words, and what is the order of the words.  This is a smaller context.  If one says "girl" and later "woman", about the same person, we look at the smaller context to ask, "What event took place that caused that "girl" to now become a "woman" in the person's mind?  It is likely that the person did not stop and say to himself, while freely speaking, "Hmm.  I think I will now call her "woman" here." The process is too fast for this.  

The larger context:  The Baltimore Riots and specifically, the training of Baltimore's police.  

“I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.”

The context was those who served in the military, returned to the United States, and went into law enforcement.  

This was then met with outrage as the blaming and demonization of police continues.  She apologized with:

"Folks. Please don't misunderstand me. Dear friends/family of mine are veterans. I was repeating a concern vocalized to me lately. That's it."

This was then met with anger, as it is not an apology.

She then went on CNN television (in person) and said this to apologize. The apology has been praised in media. We analyze it for content:

"I made a mistake yesterday. We were in the middle of live TV, I was talking to a member of Congress, and I was recounting a story, a conversation I had had recently just referring to police. And I absolutely misspoke, I inartfully chose my words 100 percent and I just wish speaking to all of you this morning: I wholeheartedly retract what I said. And I’ve thought tremendously about this, and to our nation’s veterans, to you — this is just who I want to speak with this morning — I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform. And I wanted you to know that this morning, so to all of you, I owe a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry."

Let's analyze her statement for veracity and content.  

I.  First statement:  “I love our nation’s veterans, but some of them are coming back from war, they don’t know the communities, and they are ready to do battle.”

The subject is intelligent and may have up to 30,000 words in her personal dictionary.  She was speaking "live."
This means that when she responded to the discussion about Baltimore police, she:
1  Went into her personal dictionary of perhaps, 30,000 words
2.  Decided which words to use
3.  Which words not to use
4.  What order to use them in
5.  Where to place them
6.  What tenses to use 

All this took place in less than a micro-second.  This speed of transmission from the brain to the tongue gives us our accuracy in analysis.  The average human being has 25,000 words in his or her personal dictionary.  Above average could be 30,000, and the brightest as much as 30,000. 

No person can tell us everything in his or her mind.  They must edit.  This editing process along with the words they use, reveals:  personality, background, experiences, gender, and so on.  We analyze not only for the purpose of detecting deception, but for content; that is, the things the person may be withholding from us.  

Please note:

"I love our nation's veterans, but some..."

The use of "I" is very strong and often an indicator of truth.  The subject begins with the pronoun "I" indicating personal connection to the statement.  Statements without pronouns are more often deceptive, and with the pronoun "I", she does not seek to hide, remove herself, or even 'share' her view with another.  This is very likely to be truthful and it is her own thought, as she takes ownership of it.  

Remember:  as English speaking humans, we have been using the pronoun "I" since the earliest days of speech, and having used it millions of times, it is intuitive.  It is, therefore, reliable in analysis.  

"I love our nation's veterans but..."

The word "but" seeks to refute, or minimize, by comparison, the words just spoken, signaling that what comes after "but", is more important than that which preceded it.  "I like pizza, but I love lobster"  compares pizza, unfavorably, to lobster.  "I want to go with you, but I can't", meaning the words that follow "but" are more important than the words preceded it, to the person who asked, "Will you come with me?" as it answers the question. This is how "but" is used in communication in the English language. 

The words "I love our nation's veterans" is now placed subordinate to:

"but some of them are coming back from war , they don't know the communities and they are ready to do battle."

That they are "ready to do battle" after coming back from experiencing "war" is more important to the subject than her love of veterans.  

She does not qualify her words, nor show signals of deception.  

Context:  Baltimore riots, burning, looting, injuring of police officers. 

Analysis conclusion:  This is likely, on its form, to be a truthful statement, expressing her opinion about police officers in the riots. She believes that they are provoking violence because of their experiences in overseas war.  It is to place responsibility for the violence upon police.  It is a personal opinion of hers.  No deception indicated. 

II.  The Defense, or First Apology 

When this was met with outrage, she then issued this statement:  

"Folks. Please don't misunderstand me. Dear friends/family of mine are veterans. I was repeating a concern vocalized to me lately. That's it."

1.  "Folks" is to attempt to connect personally with viewers that have expressed anger or outrage or even disagreement with her opinion. 

2.  "misunderstand" owns the words spoken, but does not want them to not be understood as she spoke them.  This is:  "do not assign a meaning different than the meaning I gave."

In her original statement, she made a strong, truthful statement of opinion.  She owned it with the pronoun "I", did not use qualifiers, nor confusing or misleading words.  She was clear when she spoke, yet she does not want "folks" to "misunderstand" her. 

3.  "Dear friends/family" are now different than "folks" and it includes the word "dear", or 'to endear' or 'endearment' with an increase in politeness, different than "folks" they are "mine", that is, dear to her as she knows them.  These "dear family/friends" are "veterans."  

4.  "I was repeating a concern vocalized to me lately. That's it."

Please note she does not say "I repeated" but "I was repeating", which draws out a period of time, rather than focusing on the singular event that took place.  This is a slight reduction in commitment. Our formula of commitment is First Person Singular, Past tense verb. 
Here is an example of the slight distancing, or weakening, of the statement from an example I used recently. 
In a discussion of reading, I said, "I read Churchill."
Later, I said, "I have read Calvin."
What is the difference?
When I said, "I read Churchill" I was specifically thinking of the 6 volume set of which I read cover to cover, hence, the strength of my answer.  When I mentioned John Calvin, I was thinking of his 22 volume commentary set of which I have read portions from over many years, but not cover to cover.  Hence, "I have read Calvin" shows a weakness. 
I did not stop myself and say to myself, "Hmm. Which past tense should I use?"  It just came out due to the rapid transmission in the brain. 
"I was repeating" is weak.  We do not conclude deception upon one signal, however. 
Next

5.  "I was repeating a concern vocalized..."
"vocalized" is an unusual (unexpected) word.  
She avoided saying "I repeated a concern told me" but "vocalized", that is, "given vocal enunciation" to. 
We sometimes use "vocalized" when a person with developmental disabilities struggles to speak, and often communicates through other means.  It may also be in a crowd where there is a lot of noise.  
It is not expected and is a signal of weakness.  If it is from a crowd, overheard "vocally", why is it weak?
Answer:  "to me" indicating that it was not just something that rose above other sounds, but was specified, that is "told" or "said" to her, specifically, as intended audience, hence, it is not only weak, but in passive voice, which seeks to conceal identity or responsibility. 

6.  "lately" is unnecessary.  Sometimes deceptive people pile on unnecessary words in an attempt to convince the listener.  This is another signal of weakness, that when added up gives us a conclusion. 
7.  "That's it" is to end all discussion.  She will not say who "vocalized" it, nor "when", since time ("lately") is sensitive to her.  The word "that" is also distancing language, with "this" indicating that something is closer.  "I don't want that one, I want this one" here, closer.  She distances herself from the 'apology' with this word, and closes off any further discussion.  This is an indication that the subject does not want to be asked any more questions. 

analysis conclusion:  Deception Indicated

The subject is not truthful but is attempting to mislead the audience regarding her own opinion, expressed truthfully.  Perhaps the "vocalization" came from herself.  
She is deceptive about her truthful statement, in an attempt to ascribe her own opinion to another. 

III.  The Apology 

"I made a mistake yesterday. We were in the middle of live TV, I was talking to a member of Congress, and I was recounting a story, a conversation I had had recently just referring to police. And I absolutely misspoke, I inartfully chose my words 100 percent and I just wish speaking to all of you this morning: I wholeheartedly retract what I said. And I’ve thought tremendously about this, and to our nation’s veterans, to you — this is just who I want to speak with this morning — I have the utmost respect for our men and women in uniform. And I wanted you to know that this morning, so to all of you, I owe a tremendous apology. I am truly sorry."

Deception Indicated

The subject's apology is sensitive and uses additional  unnecessary language, including change of language.  In fact, if she was simply quoting someone else, she has nothing to apologize for:  it is not her opinion.  This is why being "sorry" is qualified with "truly" sorry, indicating that she has other forms of being "sorry" that may not be "truly" sorrowful.  This is distancing language. 
Note "story" became "conversation", without any contextual justification:  an indication of deception in her language. 
Note "had had" expresses time. 
Note "absolutely misspoke" but does not say what was "misspoken."  
"I wholeheartedly retract what I said" in which area?  That it was her words, or, as claimed, it was a "vocalization" from another entity?  

This shows a deep need to persuade (NTP) rather than truthfully seek forgiveness or pardon from the audience. 

Conclusion:

The subject is of the opinion that police that come from the military are too aggressive and dangerous.  This is her opinion expressed plainly, in truth. 
Her responses indicate deception. 

next up: Using Statement Analysis to spot a scamming thief on Ebay.

Wednesday, April 29, 2015

"There Are No Thugs in Baltimore"

Politicians' language changes often, but not this fast...from the Washington Post where politicians are falling over each other...for the spotlight...
and for blame. Note the quotes and change of language.

In Baltimore, questions about policing ensnare mayors past and present

Maryland Gov. Larry Hogan on Tuesday sought to take command of the simmering aftermath of Baltimore’s riots, planting himself in the city and vowing that National Guard troops and police would not tolerate any more chaos.
Yet the governor’s capacity to control a freewheeling crisis remained tenuous, as people threw rocks and bottles and police in riot gear braced for confrontations past a 10 p.m. emergency curfew.
The hostility directed at both the police and the state’s political establishment also ensnared Martin O’Malley, the former governor and potential presidential contender. As he toured the city, O’Malley (D) was heckled over the zero-tolerance police strategy he imposed when he was Baltimore’s mayor.
Facing his first high-profile test as governor, Hogan, a white Republican, found himself navigating complex political terrain with Baltimore’s Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, an African American Democrat presiding over a majority-black city.
The crisis underscored the tension between their diverging responses to the chaos, a difference that first flared Monday and continued Tuesday. While the governor expressed eagerness to send in troops, he needed consent from the mayor, who sought a “balanced response.”
Gov. Larry Hogan called a decision to deploy the Maryland National Guard a "last resort" to restore order after violent protests erupted in Baltimore on Monday. (WUSA9)
Both leaders also appeared to understand the need to join forces and keep their own conflict from undermining their response to the riots. Hogan at first raised questions Monday about the mayor’s approach, then played down their differences by praising her. But on Tuesday, he reverted to shifting responsibility to Rawlings-Blake when reporters asked why he did not summon National Guard troops sooner and why police did not respond more quickly to Monday’s looting.

“We deferred to the mayor and the police chief,” Hogan said as he toured the damage to Mondawmin Mall, among the places looters had stormed.

Later, he said, “We did quite a bit. But we waited until the mayor asked us to come in. We didn’t think it was appropriate to come in and take over the city without the request.”

At another point, the governor invoked Rawlings-Blake when reporters asked whether there had been concern that calling in the National Guard would prompt the type of clashes that flared between police and demonstrators in Ferguson, Mo.

“Those are questions you should probably discuss with the mayor,” Hogan said. “I didn’t have discussions with her about Ferguson or why she was holding back.
Rawlings-Blake was forced to play multiple roles overseeing the city’s police force while showing empathy for residents infuriated by the death of Freddie Gray, who was injured while in police custody.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake issued a curfew for residents on Monday in the wake of violent protests in the city. (WUSA)
On Tuesday, the mayor repeated her defense of her administration’s handling of the rioting. “We responded quickly to a very difficult situation,” the mayor said. “There is a delicate balancing act to respond but not over-respond.”

After touring riot-scarred pockets that volunteers had helped clean up, the mayor suggested that the city was on the mend. “We saw people coming to reclaim our city,” she said. “This can be our defining moment and not the darkest days that we saw yesterday.

‘His fault!’

At Bethel AME Church in West Baltimore, where the mayor met with members of the clergy, a participant took issue with her having referred to the rioters as “thugs” on Monday.

There are no thugs in Baltimore,” the mayor said. “Sometimes my own little anger translator gets the best of me. . . . They’re going to regret what they’ve done, but it’s not too late.”

The mayor became tearful as she recounted struggling to answer a young girl who asked why her neighborhood had been destroyed. “It breaks my heart,” the mayor said, adding, “We will recover.”
As Hogan and Rawlings-Blake answered questions about their response to the crisis, Baltimore police commanders said their plan had been to confine and disperse rioters, even as it appeared that officers were allowing them free rein.

“They’re old enough to be accountable, but they’re still kids,” Baltimore Police Commissioner Anthony W. Batts said of many of the rioters. “And so we had to take that into account while we’re out there.”
The day’s raw emotions touched O’Malley, the former mayor, who interrupted a trip to Ireland to return to Baltimore because of the riots. At dusk, O’Malley traveled to a West Baltimore intersection where looting had occurred, talking to residents and posing for photos before a stranger cursed at him.

“This is his fault!” said Wayne Grady, 47, who described himself as a developer, referring to the aggressive police policies O’Malley imposed when he was mayor that resulted in tens of thousands of arrests, many for minor offenses.

“He had his chance to fix this,” Grady said. “He’s part of the frustrations that are built up in these black young men.”
O’Malley, pausing to address reporters, declined to defend his police strategy at length. But he said that mayors everywhere seek “the right balance, to save as many lives as we possibly can.”
“We’re a safer city than we were,” he said, “but we still have a lot of work to do, you know?”

A moment of outsize crisis is a time-honored way for politicians to define themselves in the public realm. After rioters tore up parts of Baltimore following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr., then-Gov. Spiro T. Agnew, a Republican, summoned the National Guard. Agnew accused black leaders of doing too little to discourage the violence, drawing notice from Richard M. Nixon, who asked him to join his presidential ticket.

In New York in 1991, then-Mayor David N. Dinkins (D) faced accusations that the police force allowed rioters to rampage in Crown Heights, a charge he denied but which contributed to his failure to win reelection. After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then-Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani won worldwide praise for his stoic management of the aftermath.

Hogan, according to a senior aide, had been preparing to declare a state of emergency since late last week. Once he did, he announced that he was relocating his office to Baltimore.
Hogan’s initial remarks sounded critical of Rawlings-Blake. Later, as they stood side by side on CNN, she thanked the governor for his help — and he declared that she had “done a terrific job.”
The rioting began at 3:30 p.m. Monday, but it was not until 8 p.m. that Rawlings-Blake made her first public statement on the issue. By then, the state’s political establishment was questioning whether she had waited too long to communicate with the city. Her public silence seemed to parallel what millions of Americans had been seeing on television for most of the afternoon — looters ransacking shops without an adequate response from police.
The mayor “wasn’t acting like we were in an emergency,” said Baltimore City Council member Carl Stokes. “They hold press conferences and don’t say anything, and the people get angrier and angrier.”
Rawlings-Blake, a rising star in the Democratic Party who has been mayor since 2010, has strained for more than a week to manage a crisis triggered by Gray’s death. Six police officers have been suspended with pay pending an investigation into how Gray died.
On Monday, Rawlings-Blake attended Gray’s funeral, after which she returned to City Hall to hold meetings before heading to a civic association in West Baltimore.
The mayor spent part of the day trying to clarify remarks she had made over the weekend, in which she appeared to signal that police had intentionally allowed demonstrators to become violent Saturday.
“While we tried 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,” she said Saturday.
On Monday, the mayor tweeted that her remarks had been “taken out of context.”

Note previously she said her statement was "misconstrued"

“I did not instruct police to give space to protesters seeking to create violence,” she wrote. “In giving peaceful demonstrators room to share their message, unfortunately, those who  seeking to incite violence also had space to operate.

By around 3:30 p.m. Monday, when the disturbances began, the mayor headed to an emergency command center. For the next 4 1/hours, she remained out of public sight. Her Twitter account, which had been active, was dormant until just after her 8 p.m. news conference began.

Del. Jill P. Carter (D-Baltimore) said city residents needed to hear from their leaders soon after the disturbances began, “to make people think it was under control.”

Instead, Carter said, people were asking, “ ‘Where’s the mayor?’ It fosters a sense of no confidence, and that’s no good.”

Tuesday, April 28, 2015

Statement Analysis: Bernard C. Young on Gang Members and Looters

Last night in a live broadcast, City Counsel President Bernard C. Young said he was "pissed" about the violence in Baltimore and said it was the "thugs" who caused it. This is pretty much what most people saw in the attacks on police, business and citizens.  

Today, however,  a change has taken place.  It is in language, and in demeanor.

The Bloods and Crips are not just violent and dangerous gangs of criminals who work mostly in narcotic distribution and prostitution, selling drugs to children, violently oppressing women, and upholding strict standards by death, but are now protectors of the peaceful protestors in Baltimore, and the "thugs" are just "misguided youths" who injured police, burned, and looted.

Someone has been given a good talking' to about his words.

Gang members are publicly 'coming out' against violence. This should reassure the citizens of Baltimore.  You don't need the Guardian Angels, you need the gangs, instead.

“What we’re seeing today is not about Freddie Gray,” Young said. “It is about the pain, the hurt and the suffering of these young people. There’s no excuse for them to loot, riot and destroy our city. I made a comment out of frustration and anger when I called our children ‘thugs.’ They’re not thugs. They’re just misdirected. We need to direct them on a different path by creating opportunities for them.”



Here is the Baltimore Sun's article:

Self-identified gang members stood with the Baltimore City Council at City Hall Tuesday to call for an end to the violence and rioting that broke out across the city Monday.
A gang member who identified himself as “Trey” wore a red bandana on his arm. He and another self-described gang member, who also wore a red bandana, said they were “against the violence” and prevented stores from being looted.

Gangs call for calm in Baltimore

“If we can stick together doing something negative, then we can stick together doing something positive,” the man identified as "Trey" said. “I need a job. Most of the youths need a job. We need help. It ain’t right what people was doing, but you’ve got to understand. Some people are struggling.

City Council President Bernard C. “Jack” Young said politicians, faith leaders and gangs must come together to stop the violence in Baltimore.
“These men have been out on the street quelling the senseless violence that has consumed our city,” Young said.

Baltimore Police said Monday they had received a "credible threat" that rival gangs have teamed up to "take out" law enforcement officers. Police said in a statement that they have received information that members of "various gangs" — including the Black Guerrilla Family, the Bloods and the Crips — have "entered into a partnership" to harm police.
Young called those comments “false” Tuesday.




Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake instituted a weeklong citywide curfew from 10 p.m. to 5 a.m. starting Tuesday.
Young also apologized for comments he made Monday night in which he referred to rioters as “thugs.

 “What we’re seeing today is not about Freddie Gray,” Young said. “It is about the pain, the hurt and the suffering of these young people. There’s no excuse for them to loot, riot and destroy our city. I made a comment out of frustration and anger when I called our children ‘thugs.’ They’re not thugs. They’re just misdirected. We need to direct them on a different path by creating opportunities for them.”
Councilman Nick Mosby called the riots a “wake-up call” for Baltimore.
“Our city is hurting,” he said. “Our youth are hurting.”
(end of article)

Deception and the Baltimore Riots

Riots are sometimes fueled by deception, but even if not the principle force behind a riot, deception will be present wherever opportunity exists to profit.  For some, it is the profit of money, while others, it is the profit that comes from fame which leads to prominence, which leads to money.  Ask Al Sharpton how this works.

How did Freddie Gray die?

What caused his death?

Why are people looting sneakers, leather coats and other such items?

How much narcotics was taken out of CVS?

Did Gray have a pre-existing condition of spinal fracture, or was blunt force trauma inflicted upon him, causing his death?  Or still, was it something else?

What is taking so long? Why don't we have the information?

Why did the mayor deliberately say she gave space for destruction?

Professional protestors?

These are not just ambulance chasers.  Could a correlation exist between "community activists" and the mayor's statement?  Did the statement have an impact upon behavior, at any point in the rioting?

Was there any planning by anarchists?

Was there any planning among "activists" who receive tax payer dollars, in the protests or even in the rioting?

We have more than a few questions.

Head spinning, yet?

                                               Deception is everywhere in bedlam.

Last night, while facing an accusation that her words helped fuel the destruction in Baltimore, the Mayor fought back to defend herself.  "I never said..." was used, with the unreliable "never", used instead of "did not", or "didn't."  She also switched from "I" to "we" in her defense.

She was not truthful.

Deception does not help.

Did her words give some encouragement to looters early on, or was there something else going on with her words?

                                         We saw the violence escalate over time.

Some channels are now calling it a "race riot" as reports of attacks on whites and asians increased into the night with some reporters stating that black youths are targeting for violence any white person, even in media.

What we still do not have is a formal statement from police on how the man in custody died.  What caused his injuries?  Were they pre-existing?  If not, what blunt force trauma caused a spinal fracture in a grown man?

These questions need answers and the delay has added to the trouble.

Deception always brings trouble.

 Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said, "Media misconstrued our words."  This was said last night while some protestors complained to media that "outsiders" were involved in the protests.  "They're not from this neighborhood" others reported.  Were these the paid protestors that receive government funding for politicking?

Later, pundits stated that "no one in their right mind thinks she meant she wanted violence."

We learn from statement analysis that intention may not matter:  the words freely spoken come rapidly and we are responsible for what we say.

Another reporter said that 'kids saw, on television, other kids coming out of stores with new sneakers and police standing by, doing nothing, so they came out too...' reporting that passivity of police encouraged looters.  The video seems to support this, at least, earlier in the looting process.

Riots are always rife with deception, whether it be "Hands up!" deception, or just those who seek to capitalize on the pain of others, deception is employed.  

Another report stated that funded Baltimore Peoples Assembly were present early on, and may have wanted trouble to break out, as trouble brings publicity and may have even encouraged it.  

Regarding the mayors original statement:  I read one news report that was critical of media for "taking it out of context" that is, alone.  
Here is the entire quote allowing for context.  In the analysis, the entire statement was given.  Did this change the analysis?  

Another question:  Would the presence of "professional protestors" change your view of the statement about allowing space for those who would destroy?  

here is the statement by itself:

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

here it is in context:  



"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."

There was a change in the protest, overall, where peaceful marching gave way, more and more, to violence and theft (looting).  
Did these words impact what happened?

Lastly, here are two clips from Fox News, which had a company analyze data from the Ferguson riot:


EXCLUSIVE - An analysis of social media traffic in downtown Baltimore Monday has unearthed striking connections to the protests in Ferguson, Mo. last year, according to a leading data mining firm that shared its findings exclusively with Fox News.
The firm, which asked to remain anonymous because of its government work, found between 20 and 50 social media accounts in Baltimore that were also tied to the peak period of violence in Ferguson. While further analysis is being conducted on the data, it suggests the presence of "professional protesters" or anarchists taking advantage of Freddie Gray's death to incite more violence.  
Gray, 25, died April 18, a week after being injured while in police custody. A wave of violence erupted in Baltimore following his funeral Monday.
***********************************************************************************************************One account, which also tracked the recent union protests in New York City as well as other disturbances, tweeted photos of Gray's funeral and used language that seemed to anticipate violence in Baltimore.
The use of social media to fuel violence in Baltimore has already been highlighted by law enforcement. On Monday, police said an online call was issued for a "purge" at 3 p.m. ET, starting at Mondawmin Mall and ending in the downtown area. That type of threat is based on a movie called “The Purge,”  the plot of which involves rampant lawlessness.
The Washington Times also reported Monday that law enforcement intelligence officials issued a warning after someone sent a text urging people to “kill all white police officers” in reaction to Gray’s death. The text has fueled fears that the violence in Baltimore could spread nationally, according to safety memos obtained by The Washington Times
Next, why don't we know what happened to Freddie Gray?  What is taking so long to give an autopsy report? Who fractured his spine?

Gray's arrest record is not good.  It appears to include almost 2 dozen arrests, over the years, for drug charges.  It is also immaterial to the lack of information regarding  the cause of death.

If he was murdered, justice must be served no matter what his record was.
If he had a weakened spine from prior injuries, why not tell us?  Next, if he had damage to his spine, what pressure caused it to fracture?

We do not know because we are not being told.

Deception cuts in all directions.  Please note that the following is a copy with "let the truth be known" added, as if a criminal record justifies his death.  It does not.

This, however, does highlight how divided our nation has become, far worse than any time in my own life.  "Let the TRUTH be known", in context, is taken to mean that a lengthy arrest record justifies his death?

We have courts to punish crime, and this is done in due process.  We, as a nation, need to know what happened to Gray to cause his death.  We need to be told the truth and the truth is becoming a rare commodity in our country today.

Transparency in government has all but disappeared.



Here is a "primer" from the Washington Post about Freddy Gray

A Freddie Gray primer: Who was he, how did he die, why is there so much anger?

The death of 25-year-old Baltimore resident Freddie Gray is sparking demonstrations and riots in the city. Take a look at Gray’s past and the video that shows his arrest just days before his death. (The Washington Post)
Who was Freddie Gray?
Freddie Gray, who at this moment is the nation’s most prominent symbol of distrust in police, went by the nickname “Pepper.” Gray, 25, grew up in the impoverished neighborhood of Sandtown-Winchester on Baltimore’s west side.
In 2008, a lead-paint lawsuit was filed on behalf of Gray and two of his sisters against the owners of the home in which they grew up. Court papers described his difficult upbringing: a disabled mother addicted to heroin who, in a deposition, said she couldn’t read; walls and windowsills containing enough lead to poison the children and leave them incapable of leading functional lives; a young man who was four grade levels behind in reading.
Such lawsuits are so common in Gray’s neighborhood that the resulting settlement payments — which Gray lived off — are known as “lead checks.”
Close friends of Gray, who was 5-foot-8 and 145 pounds, described him as loyal and warm, humorous and happy. “Every time you saw him, you just smiled, because you knew you were going to have a good day,”  said Angela Gardner, 22, who had dated him off and on over the past two years.
But Gray also had frequent run-ins with the law.
Court records show he was arrested more than a dozen times, and had a handful of convictions, mostly on charges of selling or possessing heroin or marijuana. His longest stint behind bars was about two years.
Courtesy of the Baltimore Sun.
Courtesy of the Baltimore Sun.
How did he die? 
Gray died of a severe spinal injury on April 19, one week after being arrested by police following a foot chase in his neighborhood. It wasn’t clear why he ran when he saw the police. The officers said they found a switchblade in his pocket.
Video shot by a civilian bystander shows officers dragging Gray, who appeared limp, after he was handcuffed. Officials say he was able to climb into the back of a police van.
The driver of the van made at least one stop on a 30-minute ride to a police station to put Gray in leg restraints, police officials said. Officials said Gray was angry and talking when he was first put in the van but was not breathing when it arrived at the police station.
Baltimore police have acknowledged significant errors in the moments that followed: Gray was not seat-belted after being placed in a transport van, a violation of department policy; Gray was not offered medical attention, despite several requests; and officers did not call for an ambulance when he was arrested, as they should have.
Police have said they don’t know whether Gray was injured during his arrest or while in the van.
Six police officers have been suspended while authorities investigate. Those involved in the arrest denied using force.
City officials have promised to finish their investigation by May 1 and will then allow prosecutors to decide whether criminal charges should be filed.
The Justice Department is also investigating the incident to determine whether civil rights violations were committed.
Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake said in a statement that she welcomes the additional scrutiny to help “get answers to the questions so many of us are still asking.”
Why is there so much anger?
The violent, fiery riots that consumed Baltimore on Monday began days earlier as peaceful protests of what activists say is a much larger national issue: police mistreatment of black men.
Police-involved deaths over the past year include Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., Tamir Rice in Cleveland, Eric Garner on Staten Island and Walter Scott in North Charleston, S.C.
Those tensions were only heightened in West Baltimore, where relations between residents and police have long been strained. On Saturday, a lengthy and largely peaceful march of about 1,000 people ended with flashes of violence outside Camden Yards.
“People want justice,” said Adam Jordan, 27, who leads one of the Baltimore protest groups. “They want the officers to go to jail. But most of all, they want reform — sweeping reform.”
As the city spiraled into chaos Monday, protest organizers were quick to draw a distinction between themselves and the violent rioters who set cars ablaze, looted businesses and injured more than a dozen officers.
A protester rides his bike in front of a police line at North and Pennsylvania avenues on Monday. (Algerina Perna/Baltimore Sun)