Most Read
Image 01 Image 02 Image 03

Baltimore Cops Say They’re Doing Less Out of Fear

Baltimore Cops Say They’re Doing Less Out of Fear

As the city’s crime rate soars.

Baltimore is caught in a law enforcement conundrum. People rioted over what they claimed was police brutality and as a result, cops are doing less than they used to.

Can you blame them?

Public backlash and fear of prosecution have caused them to switch from proactive policing to a reactive mode.

This chart from the Baltimore Sun illustrates the gravity of the situation by comparing arrests from 2014 and 2015:

Allahpundit of Hot Air points out some grim statistics:

There were 23 homicides and 39 nonfatal shootings in Baltimore in May 2014. Through 29 days of May 2015, there were 42 homicides and 104 nonfatal shootings. Gulp.

Gulp indeed.

Two long serving Baltimore police officers sat down with CNN’s Brooke Baldwin to explain what’s going on and hid their identities. This is what we’ve come to:

The people of Baltimore are learning a tough lesson.

You can’t accuse cops of being violent racists without consequences.

Featured image via YouTube.

DONATE

Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.

Comments

This is a great opportunity for 0bama’s sons to increase their collective rape and pillaging of inner city Balto … summer’s almost here and just think of all the ripple, flat screen TV’s, and Nike shoes available for the taking. Sharpton will justify this as “getting even with whitey” and Mosby will nod in agreement. It’s a pure dem utopia moment, all while 0bama tees up another drive ….

    Midwest Rhino in reply to walls. | June 11, 2015 at 8:11 am

    “great opportunity for 0bama’s sons”

    The tea party had the sons of liberty, Obama has the sons of tyranny. They look a lot like him.

Unintended consequences? Perhaps, perhaps not.

    Spiny Norman in reply to Obie1. | June 11, 2015 at 11:06 am

    Exactly. “Unintended” by whom?

      Sammy Finkelman in reply to Spiny Norman. | June 11, 2015 at 11:33 am

      I’m of the opinion that a lot of people doing the organizing of the protests, and/or supporting them, were and are pro-crime, plain and simple, nothing more, nothing less..

      They are pro-crime because of one or more of the following reasons:

      1) They get money from people who have illegal businesses, and, furthermore, some of these illegal businesses depend upon street crime – that is, ordinary people stealing, so they have to be in favor of whatever leads to more of that, too. They get money in the form of campaign contributions, or legal fees.

      2) Low levels of crime endanger some politicians’ political base. Other people will move in, [gentrification] and more campaigns will be undertaken, and they might lose.

      In the meantime, the Voting Rights Act, as interpreted so far, protects them, after the next Census, from the redistricting consequences of population loss resuting from people voting with their feet. This is because their districts will be maintained by being expanded in order not to reduce the number of “minority” districts. They will not be wiped out. Instead, neighboring districts will be wiped out, even though they didn’t lose population.

With its usual sloppy terminology and fuzzy thinking, CNN seems to be dancing around the issue. Is the problem systematic assault on the police by street-level thugs, or it is assault from above by politicos?

If someone genuinely believes that he’s likely to face serious criminal charges simply for doing his job, he’s likely to stop doing that job.

It’s not at all clear that this is a recoverable situation for Baltimore. Until city management can clarify just what it wants for law & order, it’s likely to get little of either.

IMO CNN itself has been a big contributor to the immediate crime issue(s) in Baltimore. A TV “news” network that has no moral compass, let alone the tiniest conscience. What it has by the truckload is hubris. They fanned those flames then reported the fire. $.02.

Midwest Rhino | June 11, 2015 at 9:39 am

One month of data is too little to tell if the cause of more shootings is a police stand down, or mostly due to the rabble rousing done by Mabry, plus the “give them space to destroy” mayor, along with the “Sharptonites”.

I mean, even if cops were still aggressively interacting and arresting, it is likely shootings would be way up. The criminal element has been motivated by these politicians that think instigating race riots is somehow their road to higher office.

It MIGHT be that things would be even worse if cops were still more aggressive, as the mob is looking for a fight. So for the short term, the stand down might not only be necessary for the cops, but also better for the whole community situation. A strategic retreat, so to speak, for the time the mob is amped up by the Sharptonites, and all those drugs from the 27 looted drugstores work through the system.

I wonder if some of those drug looters found out the hard way, that dealers will murder someone selling drugs on “their turf”. And if Mabry called police to Freddie’s specific area, and Freddie was a snitch, why would they want him dead?

The fish rots from the head down. We still don’t know why Holder delivered guns to the cartels in Fast and Furious, or why Lynch gave HSBC such a light penalty for laundering drug money. But surely the trillions dollar tax free drug industry has no political power over border security of police prosecution?

In this agreement, HSBC admitted to massive money laundering violations for narco-traffickers, terrorists and tyrants. This involved more than $200tn in wire transfers. But Lynch did not bring criminal charges against HSBC or any HSBC executives for this admitted money laundering.

Instead, the deal required that the bank pay $1.9bn, about five weeks profit in fines – money that was effectively paid by shareholders.

That’s right … $200 Trillion. 200,000 Billion. Holy Cow.

Of course placating the racist mob is wrong, and a switch can’t be thrown to put cops back in aggressive mode, since they’ll be held criminally responsible for reasonable mistakes, or just for being a ham sandwich close to any bad result.

But the mayor and our president are willing to make that political gambit, as the race card still trumps logic. As in Ferguson and McKinney, it seems the prosecuted six will have to find new careers, or at least move out of town, even if vindicated. But we can rest assured that connected drug dealers sleep peacefully now.

    “We still don’t know why Holder delivered guns to the cartels in Fast and Furious,”

    Sure we do. The gun haters started the lie that 90% of the guns used in Mexican crimes came from the US. It was proven to be a lie, so Holder and Co. came up with F&F to pad the numbers. So far hardly any of the over 2000 guns have been recovered. There has been however, over 1000 Mexican citizens and a unknown number of American citizens murdered with F&F guns. The guns that Holder allowed to go over the border, will be killing people for years on both sides of the border. Nice legacy.

    I mean, even if cops were still aggressively interacting and arresting, it is likely shootings would be way up.

    I tend to agree. Police, even those intent on “actively policing,” aren’t necessarily going to be able to prevent people who are intent on shooting one another from shooting one another. I mean, look at Chicago. Their police aren’t on any kind of “stand-down” or “slow-down” that I know of; and they weren’t last year; and yet shootings wax and wane (mostly, wax) with the weather and the presence of holiday weekends, regardless.

    And as you point out, the criminal element in Baltimore has to be feeling emboldened, not so much by lack of active policing, but more by the subtle and not-so-subtle (even overt) messages being sent down from “on high.”

    I think you’ve put your finger on a big part of the problem. What’s scary is, it’s not a problem that throwing a few more police onto the streets is going to help at all. It’s a structural, socio-political problem, and it’s going to get more and more deeply embedded the longer it’s allowed to go on.

      Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | June 11, 2015 at 5:18 pm

      Police, even those intent on “actively policing,” aren’t necessarily going to be able to prevent people who are intent on shooting one another from shooting one another.
      —————————————-
      We all note (or should) you resort to weasel wording, Amy.

      “Nessarily” and “intent”.

      Yuh. Durh. But we also note that…wherever it is practiced…the lives of poor people and people of color are spared.

      Don’t try to deny it, Amy. Your cred here has taken a lot of hits lately.

You get what you vote for!!!!

Baltimore is just a spillage of the boiling pot of feel good politics. Eventually, some will prefer the term “at long last”, the city of Baltimore, and the supporters of feel good politics, are seeing the consequences of what happens when you vote to let people feel good.

The reality is, your government cannot make people behave, it can only shoot them or lock them up. Everything else is just subsidization of government mandated unintentional consequences.

YOU GET WHAT YOU VOTE FOR. Even if you thought you were doing the right thing, ie “you thought you were being high minded (feels good) with your ballot.

Please note that it is only Democratic strong holds that are experiencing these less than intended consequences. This is not a blanket indictment of all constituencies.

All are welcome to continue voting they way they normally do.

Midwest Rhino | June 11, 2015 at 9:44 am

here’s the link to that blockquote
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/feb/10/loretta-lynch-fumbled-hsbc-jail-attorney-general

and it should have read: surely the trillions dollar tax free drug industry has no political power over border security OR police prosecution?

I couldn’t believe it was 200 Trillion, but checked the linked pdf and indeed it was.

Empress Trudy | June 11, 2015 at 9:51 am

This is only germane in so far as the government and city and community leaders actually care. Which they probably don’t. Everyone seems perfectly happy to destroy the city if it means they can stay in power or get more power and money. Figure Baltimore whines to the Federal government for a few hundred billion dollars to rebuild. Even 1% of that skim is a nice present for the city council, the mayor, the unions, the ‘community organizers’. If it were me I’d open a Mercedes dealership next door to city hall tomorrow.

So if cops can’t kill with complete impunity those they’ve chased down for allegedly “illegal pocket knives”, they just aren’t going to play at all?

It never occurred to them that they could still arrest people, but that they should just be a little more careful about delivering them to the station alive and breathing?

Maybe they should stop fighting the “war on drugs”, and the “war on loosies”, and the “war on burnt out tail lights”, and the “war on possibly ‘illegal’ pocket knives”, and the “war on not respectin MAH AUTHORITAH” (sit! face on the ground! stay! bad dog!), and concentrate on REAL crime? Or is that too hard?

    Sanddog in reply to Miller. | June 11, 2015 at 10:51 am

    Real crime? Like Heroin dealers?

    Don’t blame cops for enforcing the laws that politicians put into the books. Don’t blame them for doing what their mayor and city council demand.

      Miller in reply to Sanddog. | June 11, 2015 at 1:27 pm

      Cops obviously have the autonomy to decide which “crimes” to go after, since right now, they’ve decided not to go after ANY of them.

      If they have the autonomy not to go after, yanno, armed robbers or rapists or murderers, well then they also have the autonomy to not go after sellers of loosies or drivers with broken tail lights or potential carriers of “illegal” pocket knives.

      So don’t try that “just following orders” crap.

        Sanddog in reply to Miller. | June 11, 2015 at 2:47 pm

        So you advocate getting rid of all beat cops and only having detectives who swoop in after the fact and interview the victims friends and family members?

    Milhouse in reply to Miller. | June 15, 2015 at 1:53 am

    How would going only after real crime protect them from vindictive bosses like the mayor and Mosby? Do you think if Freddie Gray had been carrying a kilo of heroin, or if he’d been a bank robber or a rapist, Mosby would not have gone after them?! So long as they’re in danger of being prosecuted should an arrest go sour, they will be very reluctant to make any arrests, no matter what the crime. Because they know that any one of them could easily have been one of the Baltimore Six. Nobody’s yet identified anything those six did that was wrong, and yet the prisoner died and they’re being held responsible. What prudent person would put himself in that situation?

Police in a reactive mode is the only constitutionally legal mode of operation. To be proactive requires that a police officer issues and executes his own warrant based solely upon his own judgment.

Is this ‘less safe?’ Of course it is, but surrendering freedom and liberty for safety is no bargain either.

    Ragspierre in reply to MSO. | June 11, 2015 at 11:18 am

    See, this is why Ronulans and other radical libertarians can’t have nice things.

    Like respect.

    The Constitution limits ONLY the Federal government in its original form.

    The idea that a police agency exercising state police powers can ONLY clean up your cooling carcass (reactive “policing”) is really too stupid to countenance.

    As is the false dichotomy that you can have EITHER liberty and freedom or public safety. The Founders never made that argument, but they DID understand there is tension between the two concepts, and that Americans would always have to find the point on the continuum that struck the best balance.

    Doing THAT is worthwhile and rational.

      Miller in reply to Ragspierre. | June 11, 2015 at 1:31 pm

      “The Constitution limits ONLY the Federal government in its original form.”

      So local police are allowed to violate citizens’ Fourth Amendment rights for instance? And all their other rights? Because the Constitution limits only what FEDERAL agents of the government can do?

      …I don’t think so bucko!

        Ragspierre in reply to Miller. | June 11, 2015 at 1:40 pm

        You don’t think at all. Much less comprehend what you read.

        Ronin0985 in reply to Miller. | June 12, 2015 at 4:04 am

        I love how liberals love to thump the Bill of Rights in these situations without ever stopping to consider how the Supreme Court may have amended them over the years.

        Milhouse in reply to Miller. | June 15, 2015 at 1:57 am

        The 4th amendment does not apply to local police. The 14th does. If you didn’t know that you should not comment on the constitution at all.

    Milhouse in reply to MSO. | June 15, 2015 at 1:56 am

    There is no need for a warrant to arrest someone whom one sees committing a crime. Therefore police have no need to “issue their own warrant”. There’s your fundamental mistake right there. With that sort of ignorance you have no credibility to talk about the constitution.

My husband is an officer. I am terrified that he is not only more likely to face violence but that he could end up in prison for doing his job. He is looking for a different career path as it’s not worth the risks that police face today. Sadly, you will not only start to see less proactive policing but you will also lose the great police that you have. Just recently his department was hiring and only received 4 applications versus the hundreds they used to receive. The 4 didn’t even meet the basic educational standards.

    Anonamom in reply to ESH. | June 11, 2015 at 12:48 pm

    I hope that he soon finds other work, ESH. My husband retired early for these same reasons-and we abandoned the rat hole that is Central California. I am so, so glad that he did-and that we moved. Good luck to you.

    Sammy Finkelman in reply to ESH. | June 11, 2015 at 1:38 pm

    Just recently his department was hiring and only received 4 applications versus the hundreds they used to receive. The 4 didn’t even meet the basic educational standards.

    That could be abad trend, if it persists.

    Is there any special reason that policemen would be avoiding that jurisdiction?

    Miller in reply to ESH. | June 11, 2015 at 1:39 pm

    Your husband is in one of the safest jobs in America. Being a cop doesn’t even make the top ten of “most dangerous jobs” in America.

    Taxi drivers are much more at risk.

    Garbage collectors.

    Roofers.

    Fishermen.

    Construction workers.

    Iron & Steel workers.

    Truck drivers.

    Power line workers.

    When we talk about “brave Americans who put their lives on the line everyday,” THESE are the people you should be thanking. Not cops.

    Man up, cops. Be at least as brave as a garbage man, willya??

    http://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2015-dangerous-jobs/

      Ragspierre in reply to Miller. | June 11, 2015 at 1:47 pm

      You simply are too stupid to be allowed to post here, in addition to being a complete asshole.

      You can’t even read your own crap. 2013 stats are passe.

      LEO deaths are up very significantly over a period of decline from a few years ago.

      TRY to keep up, ya moron.

      ESH in reply to Miller. | June 11, 2015 at 2:54 pm

      I could write an essay on the violence and danger that my husband has experienced. Not only are police brave and put themselves in situations that you wouldn’t dream of entering yourself but they do wonderful things for the community. The positive impacts that I have witnessed have been moving. It’s to bad that you can’t respect their very difficult and very meaningful positions. I guess showing that respect wouldn’t meet your narrative would it.

        My garbage collector puts himself in greater danger performing his daily duties than your husband does.

        Not only are garbagemen brave and put themselves in situations that you wouldn’t dream of entering yourself but they do wonderful things for the community. The positive impacts that I have witnessed have been moving. It’s to bad that you can’t respect their very difficult and very meaningful positions.

          (Sorry, but like some others here, I’m a little over the police worship thing here.)

          ESH in reply to Amy in FL. | June 11, 2015 at 3:50 pm

          Amy,

          I don’t think there’s a competition here over who has a more important or dangerous job. Safe to say each job is important. Also safe to say that both deserve respect. No? I don’t think there is police worship here. Just a glimpse into what they deal with in their day to day lives.

          I apologize, ESH. I took out some frustrations that had built up through reading a bulk of comments, none of them yours, and used your comment to springboard a knee-jerk response. I was wrong to do that. Nothing that you personally said justified that. I’m sorry.

      Milhouse in reply to Miller. | June 15, 2015 at 2:03 am

      Policing is not one of the ten most dangerous jobs, but it’s not one of the ten safest either. It’s a lot more dangerous than most jobs. But the point here isn’t the danger from criminals; that they sign on for when they accept the job. What they don’t sign on for is the danger from their own bosses. When Darren Wilson was forced to resign, when the Baltimore Six face criminal charges and are suspended without pay, every policeman has to wonder whether he is next, and whether his boss is preparing to stab him in the back.

The Ronulans must have put out a “wake up call” today, so they could come here and troll.

Sammy Finkelman | June 11, 2015 at 11:44 am

There are all sorts of businesses that depend upon a high level of crime.

Bail bondsmen for instance.

The New York Times reports today that efforts to replace monetary bail by something, as was done in Washington D.C. have faled in Baltimore because of the political influence of bail bondsmen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/11/us/when-bail-is-out-of-defendants-reach-other-costs-mount.html

In Maryland last year, a pretrial reform committee appointed by the governor at the time, Martin O’Malley, issued a host of recommendations, including the use of risk assessments and the elimination of money bail. None have been adopted — in part, said Mr. DeWolfe, the public defender, because of opposition from the powerful bail bond industry.

Well, these bail bondsmen don’t just want bail, they want crime, and arrests.

You don’t get large numbers of arrests without a high crime rate.

Of coure now that arrests are also going down, you get some complaiants about police being “on strike”

That’s not quite the effect the bail bonds industry wanted.

Sammy Finkelman | June 11, 2015 at 11:45 am

Not to mention that some people depend on the low rents created by a high crime rate.

Baltimore is just a mess. I can understand anyone with the means to do so, getting out. But if the police there don’t want to do their jobs anymore, they should do the honorable thing and quit.

    Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | June 11, 2015 at 4:37 pm

    You’re confused, Amy. Not for the first time lately, either.

    You can have a company of fine, well-trained soldiers, but when you put them under blue helmets and court-martial one or two for being soldiers, they become different things than they were. They learn, and there’s nothing “dishonorable” about that.

    They are still soldiers, and some of them will honorably put in their years and punch out at retirement. But you can have Marines or you can have Blue Hats. It all depends…

      Civilian law enforcement officers are in a different situation entirely to our armed military forces. Conflating the two leads to all manner of troubles.

        Ragspierre in reply to Amy in FL. | June 11, 2015 at 5:03 pm

        Yeah, that’s just disingenuous and you know it.

        I hate seeing you go that way.

        You can make the same analogy with firefighters or any number of others, and it still holds true.

        At least be honest, Amy. At least.

          If your garbageman decided that he didn’t like the environment in which he worked anymore, should he quit and go elsewhere where he’d be happier, or should he stay on the public payroll, keep collecting his checks, but just do a half-arsed job to let everyone know how unhappy he is with the environment in which he’s working?

          Law enforcement officers are civilians, not military. No one expects them to “honorably put in their years” if they’ve stopped liking where they work and aren’t willing to do the job they hired on for anymore. The only people they’re possibly hurting by staging a slow-down are the law-abiding citizens of Baltimore that they’re paid to serve and protect. How is that fair? Or honorable? Or honest?

          Ragspierre in reply to Ragspierre. | June 11, 2015 at 6:06 pm

          Poor Amy. You’ve let your integrity go.

          Well, your call.

          Too bad…

Font Resize
Contrast Mode
Send this to a friend