A great debate is going on in Baltimore right now. Was the mayor right to call the people rioting Monday night "thugs?" ("The problem with 'thugs,'" April 29.) I really feel sorry for the people who've lined up against the mayor in this case. I would beg any of these touchy feely idiots to tell me the definition of a thug. I looked and found "bully, gangster, hood, hoodlum, hooligan, ruffian, and tough," and at that point I felt that I had enough to go on. I feel that I saw all of these words very well represented Monday night and I wouldn't hesitate to describe the rioters with those terms. Boohoo, I might hurt their feelings. Meanwhile the mayor is under attack from another group whose great criticism is that she was too timid and didn't show herself in public and didn't have the police act forcefully enough to stop the vandalism (I can add vandal to the list above). So if I understand this now, the mayor did too little and spoke too much.
Hmm. I may as well pile onto this group, too. They're idiots. The mayor probably didn't sleep eight hours in three days. She had to coordinate the activities of her city police force, coordinate the police help she got from seven surrounding jurisdictions and two other states, while coordinating with the Maryland State Police and the governor and a two-star general of the National Guard with 5,000 troops on the ground. It was made clear from the beginning of the troubles Saturday night that the mayor's policy was that the police were not going to shoot unarmed people and her police force was not going to drive armored vehicles through crowds to disperse them.
Just to keep score, the rioting did not extend to a second night Tuesday. The city seems to think things are quickly getting better. All the folks from all around the region who came to help were able to help effectively and work with locals in an integrated fashion, and the police didn't injure anyone including those who deserved it. The mayor won!
Kirk Shriver, Baltimore