One teacher's Facebook post describes what she saw Baltimore cops doing before the riots broke out.

There are always two sides to every story.

By now, you probably know about the riots in Baltimore.

The vast majority of residents, angered by the still-unexplained death of Freddie Gray, engaged in peaceful protests. But some clashed violently with police.

If you were reading the official police account, you might think that this all started when a bunch of hulking brute maniacs armed with bricks and rocks just came out of, like, freaking nowhere and started gleefully attacking police officers who were minding their own business.





But these tweets leave out a big part of the story.

Many of the original "rioters" and "looters" weren't hulking brute maniacs. They were kids. And they were just getting out of school when the violence began.

Baltimore schools don't have yellow buses. Most kids ride home on public transit. And according to one woman, a teacher in Baltimore who was on the scene, the mayhem began when cops started pulling kids off of buses as they were trying to make their way home.


Now obviously, this is just what one woman saw.

But the point is this.

If you've got a bunch of stressed out teenagers full of...

And...

And...

...taking away their ride home and meeting them in the street like this...

...is not exactly a recipe for success.

Numerous studies have found that the presence of heavily armed police in angry crowds can aggravate the situation, rather than de-escalate it. That's what we saw play out in Ferguson, Missouri. And there's a strong possibly that's what we're seeing play out now in Baltimore.

Now, obviously no one should attack police officers. But police officers are professionals. If they can't calm down a bunch of teenagers without letting it escalate into chaos, then there's probably something wrong with the way they're doing their jobs.

As one Baltimore resident astutely put it:


It's a really good question.

More
Photo by Hunters Race on Unsplash

If you're a woman and you want to be a CEO, you should probably think about changing your name to "Jeffrey" or "Michael." Or possibly even "Michael Jeffreys" or "Jeffrey Michaels."

According to Fortune, last year, more men named Jeffrey and Michael became CEOs of America's top companies than women. A whopping total of one woman became a CEO, while two men named Jeffrey took the title, and two men named Michael moved into the C-suite as well.

The "New CEO Report" for 2018, which looks at new CEOS for the 250 largest S&P 500 companies, found that 23 people were appointed to the position of CEO. Only one of those 23 people was a woman. Michelle Gass, the new CEO of Kohl's, was the lone female on the list.

Keep Reading Show less
popular

Netflix

How much of what we do is influenced by what we see on TV? When it comes to risky behavior, Netflix isn't taking any chances.

After receiving a lot of heat, the streaming platform is finally removing a controversial scenedepicting teen suicide in season one of "13 Reasons Why. The decision comes two years after the show's release after statistics reveal an uptick in teen suicide.

"As we prepare to launch season three later this summer, we've been mindful about the ongoing debate around the show. So on the advice of medical experts, including Dr. Christine Moutier, Chief Medical Officer at the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention, we've decided with creator Brian Yorkey and the producers to edit the scene in which Hannah takes her own life from season one," Netflix said in a statement, per The Hollywood Reporter.

Keep Reading Show less
Culture

At Trump's 'Social Media Summit' on Thursday, he bizarrely claimed Arnold Schwarzenegger had 'died' and he had witnessed said death. Wait, what?!


He didn't mean it literally - thank God. You can't be too sure! After all, he seemed to think that Frederick Douglass was still alive in February. More recently, he described a world in which the 1770s included airports. His laissez-faire approach to chronology is confusing, to say the least.

Keep Reading Show less
Democracy

Words matter. And they especially matter when we are talking about the safety and well-being of children.

While the #MeToo movement has shed light on sexual assault allegations that have long been swept under the rug, it has also brought to the forefront the language we use when discussing such cases. As a writer, I appreciate the importance of using varied wording, but it's vital we try to remain as accurate as possible in how we describe things.

There can be gray area in some topics, but some phrases being published by the media regarding sexual predation are not gray and need to be nixed completely—not only because they dilute the severity of the crime, but because they are simply inaccurate by definition.

One such phrase is "non-consensual sex with a minor." First of all, non-consensual sex is "rape" no matter who is involved. Second of all, most minors legally cannot consent to sex (the age of consent in the U.S. ranges by state from 16 to 18), so sex with a minor is almost always non-consensual by definition. Call it what it is—child rape or statutory rape, depending on circumstances—not "non-consensual sex."

Keep Reading Show less
Culture