Gotta respect that.

Many of those people spent a day in jail and were released without charges; many others were arrested on simple marijuana possession.

He was a big fan of Rudolph Guiliani's "broken window" policing.

No thanks.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-baltimore-blew-up-20150526?page=3

Most Americans have never experienced this kind of policing. They haven't had to stare down the barrel of a service revolver drawn for no reason at a routine stop. They haven't had their wife and kids put on an ice-cold sidewalk curb while cops ran their license plate. They haven't ever been told to get the fuck back in their car right now, been accused of having too prominent a "bulge," had their dog shot and their kids handcuffed near its body during a wrong-door raid, watched their seven-year-old dragged to jail for sitting on a dirt bike, or dealt with any of a thousand other positively crazy things nonwhite America has come to expect from an interaction with law enforcement. "It's everywhere," says Christen Brown, who as a 24-year-old city parks employee was allegedly roughed up and arrested just for filming police in a parking lot. "You can be somewhere minding your business and they will find their best way to fuck with you, point blank. It's blatant disrespect."

This system, now standard in almost all of urban America, is Mayberry on one side and trending Moscow or 1980s South Africa on the other. Why? Because America loves to lie to itself about race. It's able to do so for many reasons, including the little-discussed fact that most white people have literally no social interactions with black people, so they don't hear about this every day.

SNIP

Though academics were already claiming that stop-and-frisk tactics didn't work, those critiques didn't yet enjoy the consensus they do now. In fact, stop-and-frisk wasn't just still hot at the time, it was intellectual chic. In 2000, America's leading fast-food philosopher, Malcolm Gladwell, helped launch his career on the back of a half-baked analysis of Broken Windows in a book called The Tipping Point.

So when O'Malley started his version of Broken Windows, he had a mandate, and it's not surprising that Baltimore's program was wildly aggressive. At its peak, in 2005, an incredible 108,000 of the city's 600,000 residents were arrested. Later on, critics like The Wire creator David Simon, would describe O'Malley's police department as obsessed by statistics, determined to produce crime-reduction rates that were "unsustainable without manipulation." The emphasis on stats, Simon said, "destroyed police work," forcing cops into the roles not of investigators and protectors, but of strong-armers bent on producing numbers above all else. Zero tolerance also forced cops to behave in ways that were virtually guaranteed to piss people off on a mass scale.



SNIP

...and it shows just how much you care about this issue to try and spam that into another disassociated thread.

on his qualifications to be President.

Which, in the end, is what this is all about.

Why is it fair to bring up other issues in threads about Clinton but not about O'Malley?

...you can't wrap everything up in that single issue you've been spamming.

Trying to hijack this thread with that issue is as absurd as it is deliberately disruptive. You don't even bother to address the subject of the thread. That shows just how little you care about the issues raised. It's baiting, pure and simple.

to the discussion by bringing up unrelated issues concerning her fitness to be President.

There is no rule about that on DU.

...but I've never come onto a thread about Hillary trolling about some unrelated issue. I've actually made a few attempts to promote her efforts when I agree with them. I don't think it's too much to expect the same consideration.

If you want to discuss policing, then start a thread on it or participate in other threads on the subject. That makes more sense than spamming and disrupting every thread I post about O'Malley with this single, unrelated issue. I promise I'll join in the discussion there and provide whatever opinion or defense I'm inclined to. I have, already, on several occasions; most recently in another thread where I responded TO YOU fully and as completely as I could. You may well have disagreed with my opinion, but you can't argue you didn't have your say or receive a response from me. I really don't understand this type of hijacking, except to view it as disruptive and basically unfair to the discussion of the issues raised in the post.

Maybe you're confusing me with someone else.

...with an issue that we already discussed in full (on a thread about an article written with 'Herald' Ford about the 2008 election).

This has absolutely zero bearing on economics or the corruptive influence of Wall Street on our politics or legislation. The only thing you're accomplishing here is rattling someone who is more than willing to engage in a discussion with you on this issue - someone who already has, as comprehensively as I was able. I'm not a politician, an official, or a pundit. I'm just a low-wage night grocery worker trying to participate in this election by offering up details I can gather together about records, issues, as well as my own perspective on it all. It's both cathartic and a sobering and often frustrating encounter with so many motivations and interests other than my own.

We're not going to resolve this issue of yours between us, but I think we've certainly heard each other out. That's as much as I think we should expect from a discussion board. Let me know if I miss your individual post about O'Malley's policing. I hope I can provide a constructive response. We'll likely not agree, but I do read and understand what you've posted, so far.

Looks like you've succeeded in diverting this thread to your issue, though, so, congrats.

I realize it's what your source said, but Rolling Stone botched the statistics. (Note the innumeracy of the American public and the mass media.) The actual statistic is that, in 2005, the one year the critics choose to focus on, "there were more than 100,000 arrests in a city of 640,000." You can read that to mean that "an incredible 108,000 of the city's 600,000 residents were arrested" only if you assume that each arrest was of a new suspect. That's a ludicrous assumption. I'm sure that in Baltimore, as in every large city, there's a comparatively small number of people who (rightly or wrongly, often rightly) get arrested many times. So, no, it is not the case that his policies "led to the arrest of 1 out of 6 residents".

O'Malley's explanation of his policies is that he came to office at a time when Baltimore had a serious crime problem, affecting people of color as well as whites. Per the linked article, O'Malley gave

People need to hear this message and every Democrat should be saying it. And mean it, LOL. Good on him.

want to learn more about him.

He's a Clinton protege and a long time member of the DLC. I think this is just Wall Street covering their bases and O'Malley is their stealth minion...just in case Hillary loses again.

...I like the fact that it's catching more attention and getting under the corporate skin.

The major sleazy trick that has been picked up by everyone from Wall Street CEOs to referral business models is if you give the little people just *enough* of a stake that he is makin *any money at all*, they will lay their lives - and their grandchildren's lives - on the line to protect polices that ENRICH the the fatcats of Wall Street! They will go to the mattresses for a corporate CEO's tax-free billions if it will protect their 50 cent/month commission. Sadly, the honest fact is that certain economic levels that 50 cents actually makes a difference.

Politicians need to do a better way of educating people about this sort of scheme and letting people know how the alternatives will pay off SPECIFICALLY for them if they shut the sucker's game down. Too often people are asked to help shut down the con game, but then they are left with nothing, and the politician's cronies all get promotions for making it happen.

What I applaud here is O'Malley's "zero tolerance" for Wall Street criminals.

Wall Street is afraid of this guy. He is not afraid of them. From the link: