Detailed Instructions: In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.
Problem:ADVERTISEMENT 
  
 Unlike Stephanie Rawlings-Blake, I am not a lifelong resident of Baltimore. 
  
 I know the city barely at all: from friends, from The Wire, from occasional visits up the parkway to Camden Yards and the Inner Harbor, from glimpses through the curtained windows of an Acela train as it chugs north to Philadelphia. 
  
 That's why, as mayor of Baltimore, Rawlings-Blake gets to call the people who assaulted police officers, the instigators of Monday's violence, "thugs," and I don't. 
  
 Really, most of the people who get paid to talk on television should be careful about making that judgment, too. 
  
 Not because we shouldn't be able to see something wrong and say it's wrong, but because those of us who aren't there — those of us who didn't grow up poor, or simply, black in Baltimore — offer nothing constructive when all we do is make the easy call, when we bemoan violence and decry rioting. We wield no power, and speak no truth. We just contribute stigma. We rehearse the lines that make us feel better about ourselves. 
  
 It's harder to put yourselves in the sneakers of the young men who were out on the streets last night — so let's do that. Let's imagine, for a moment, that instead of sitting comfortably, you're standing outside, on a relatively cool night, the acrid stench of smoke in the air. If everyone around me was exhorting me to protest, if they were reminding me of what I saw on television, of a young man my age, whose neck had just been cracked, whose leg dragged against the ground, because his brain could not coordinate with his quadriceps, because the connection had been severed, by a police maneuver gone horribly wrong — what would I do? 
  
 The perpetrators of that bit of violence stand before me, in a sea of metallic blue, ready to shoot if I move in their direction. I know that individually, a lot of these police officers are all right, and I know that some of them even live here, in the city of Baltimore, and not outside the Beltway in a better neighborhood. So the police to me are the army of the state, their violence I see on a regular basis, violence I think is arbitrarily applied to people who look like me. There's supposed to be a social compact, where the police and the courts get to mete out justice and we follow their instructions. It's supposed to keep us safe. But when the justice is applied unequally, I don't care how it looks to people outside of my neighborhood; I just know how it feels to me. I don't think I'd be moved to violence, but I know I'd be really, really, really angry, and I sure as hell wouldn't trust authorities, officials, the media, or anyone else who tries to tell me how to feel or what to think. 
  
 There's another set of people, a much larger set of people, who deserve genuine empathy: the large majority of Baltimore residents who experience urban poverty, fear the police, and who have never been violent. Not Monday night, not ever. Their grocery stores and laundries are being set in flames, and whatever progress has been made in their neighborhoods over the past decade has been blown apart. If I was supposed to get groceries for my family today, and the corner store that sells me fruit was torched last night, what the hell am I supposed to do? 
  
 I was thinking about these people when a commentator on CNN sneered about the mayor's "narrative of control." 
  
 Rawlings-Blake was talking about calling in the National Guard to protect these folks. The commentator, whose name I didn't get, was applying a fashionable gloss. He couldn't outright say it but he implied that truly, Baltimore residents would be better served by allowing for total unmediated ventilation of anger, by anarchy, rather than the state. He linked the violence Monday to protest movements around the world. This commentator, some academic somewhere, needs an empathy boost too. 
  
 Baltimorean anger against the police is deep and complex, but I'm just as certain that most of the victims of the violence know that they, and not the police, not the power structure, will be the biggest victim, period, of the violence. I don't think that most Baltimoreans identify with the people who are creating more chaos in their neighborhoods. 
  
 Ta-Nehisi Coates wrote last night, "When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con." 
  
 Order, I think, is legitimate. But non-violence preaching by the state — the governor, major, the police — is a con when state-sanctioned force is not applied with rigorous fairness, without bias, proportionately, and transparently. The still-unexplained death of Freddie Gray at the hands of the state should give everyone who believes that justice is real, binding, and generative, another reason to look at the world through the eyes of people for whom justice is merely a word. ||||| The sickening few in the media who welcomed the Baltimore riots 
  
 posted at 9:01 am on April 28, 2015 by Noah Rothman 
  
 Days after Freddie Gray died prematurely in police custody, the city of Baltimore exploded in violence. Gray’s family didn’t want violence. The community that exploded didn’t want violence. The owners and patrons of the local businesses that burned didn’t want violence. Only a small handful of aggressive young people participated in acts of vandalism, and their actions were facilitated by a lethargic mayoralty and an ill-prepared police force. It was more a perfect storm of incompetence that enabled criminal opportunists than an organic uprising targeting systematic oppression. That hasn’t stopped the vile members of the media’s familiar agitators from arguing, as they always do, that the tragic phenomenon the nation witnessed in Baltimore last night was a welcome display of resistance. 
  
 Of course, enter Vox.com: 
  
 This is the perfect response to anyone calling for nonviolence in Baltimore http://t.co/XRZjjSLCfN pic.twitter.com/d57iLszUGV — Vox (@voxdotcom) April 28, 2015 
  
 Vox’s Dara Lind noted that The Wire creator David Simon chided the rioters for abandoning the “real power” associated with the largely peaceful demonstrations against the Baltimore Police Department and engaging in violence. Quoting extensively from The Atlantic’s Ta-Nehisi Coates, “one of America’s best living social critics,” she seemed to agree that sometimes “nonviolence is compliance.” 
  
 Though she did not quote this passage, it is the most instructive: 
  
 When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is “correct” or “wise,” any more than a forest fire can be “correct” or “wise.” Wisdom isn’t the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the rioters themselves. 
  
 Couched in ersatz-intellectual terms is the justification for nearly all senseless gang-related street violence: Subjectively defined violations of an arcane code of respect. Gray’s death is a tragedy that demands an investigation and possible criminal prosecutions, if that is the determination made by investigators and a subsequently convened grand jury. Nothing justifies spasmodic episodes of self-destructive aggression, even if you perceive yourself to be regularly disrespected. To suggest otherwise is pitifully juvenile. 
  
 But Coates wasn’t the worst offender. In a discussion on CNN led by Don Lemon that took place late Monday night, former White House green jobs czar Van Jones played the role of conservative panel guest. Yes, really. Even Jones was clearly disturbed by the justification for violence he heard from HuffPost Live host and Morehouse College professor Marc Lamont Hill. 
  
 “There shouldn’t be calm tonight,” Hill said in response to the various calls for peace from figures infinitely more responsible than himself. “I think there can be resistance to oppression, and when resistance occurs, you can’t circumscribe resistance.” 
  
 He noted that there should be “ethics” associated with the ongoing civilizational collapse in Baltimore, but it would be wise for these panel guests to mind their own morality and grow more upset over “the destruction of property than the destruction of black bodies.” 
  
 “I’m not calling these people rioters, I’m calling these uprisings,” he added. “The city is not burning because of these protesters. The city is burning because the police killed Freddie Gray.” 
  
 This virtual incitement to violence clearly made Hill’s fellow broadcasters nervous. “Black lives matter, but, you know what? Black jobs matter, and black business matter, and black neighborhoods matter, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to give any kind of suggestion that the destruction of black communities is a positive or can be positive in this context,” Jones said. 
  
 Hill accepted the critique, but he noted that it was wise not to see the burning of trash in the streets, kids driving stolen cars into buildings, and business owners and families watching as their livelihoods burned to the ground in “too narrow” a framework. He further advised the violent to “be strategic in how we riot.” 
  
 anyone that encourages rioting should not be given air time. @cnn should remove marc lamont hill. — Matthew Dowd (@matthewjdowd) April 28, 2015 
  
 Indeed. 
  
 These and other valueless, onanistic exercises in self-aggrandizing masquerading as social commentary are not only irresponsible but dangerous, particularly when the fires are still burning and lives are still at risk. 
  
 For Americans who are teaching their children that nothing ever justifies violence beyond defending themselves against an imminent threat to one’s own life, these commentators have made that job quite a bit harder. In their own way, they’ve sown the wind that will be reaped in the months and years to come when the overly impressionable take these justifications for property destruction to heart. But those are consequences that others will have to contend with. When the whirlwind comes, these commentators and their ilk will be sheltered in cable news studios. It will fall to the police to struggle against violent agitators in an effort to keep their communities safe and still come home to their families alive. 
  
 An earlier version of this post asserted that violence broke out “weeks” after Gray’s death in police custody. The riot exploded less than two weeks after Gray’s death. 
  
 Related Posts: ||||| Now, tonight, I turn on the news and I see politicians calling for young people in Baltimore to remain peaceful and "nonviolent." These well-intended pleas strike me as the right answer to the wrong question. To understand the question, it's worth remembering what, specifically, happened to Freddie Gray. An officer made eye contact with Gray. Gray, for unknown reasons, ran. The officer and his colleagues then detained Gray. They found him in possession of a switchblade. They arrested him while he yelled in pain. And then, within an hour, his spine was mostly severed. A week later, he was dead. What specifically was the crime here? What particular threat did Freddie Gray pose? Why is mere eye contact and then running worthy of detention at the hands of the state? Why is Freddie Gray dead? 
  
 The people now calling for nonviolence are not prepared to answer these questions. Many of them are charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm. But there was no official appeal for calm when Gray was being arrested. There was no appeal for calm when Jerriel Lyles was assaulted. (“The blow was so heavy. My eyes swelled up. Blood was dripping down my nose and out my eye.”) There was no claim for nonviolence on behalf of Venus Green. (“Bitch, you ain’t no better than any of the other old black bitches I have locked up.”) There was no plea for peace on behalf of Starr Brown. (“They slammed me down on my face,” Brown added, her voice cracking. “The skin was gone on my face.") 
  
 When nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself. When nonviolence begins halfway through the war with the aggressor calling time out, it exposes itself as a ruse. When nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con. And none of this can mean that rioting or violence is "correct" or "wise," any more than a forest fire can be "correct" or "wise." Wisdom isn't the point tonight. Disrespect is. In this case, disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the community. |||||
Solution:
Baltimore native Ta-Nehisi Coates grew up around where yesterday's riots started, and he's written one of the most talked-about responses to the violence in the Atlantic. In the essay, he takes issue with city officials' "well-intended" pleas for non-violence, given that they come in a city where he says police violence against citizens is the norm. The mayor and police chief still haven't fully explained what happened to Freddie Gray, which he doesn't think is surprising. They and others demanding non-violence are "charged with enforcing the very policies that led to Gray's death, and yet they can offer no rational justification for Gray's death and so they appeal for calm." The problem, he writes, is that "when nonviolence is preached as an attempt to evade the repercussions of political brutality, it betrays itself." And "when nonviolence is preached by the representatives of the state, while the state doles out heaps of violence to its citizens, it reveals itself to be a con." He likens the rioting to a forest fire and says it's all about "disrespect for the hollow law and failed order that so regularly disrespects the community." Opposing view: At Hot Air, Noah Rothman thinks Coates is being dangerously irresponsible. "Couched in ersatz-intellectual terms is the justification for nearly all senseless gang-related street violence: Subjectively defined violations of an arcane code of respect." In agreement: But at the Week, Marc Ambinder thinks Coates nailed it. The state's preaching of non-violence "is a con when state-sanctioned force is not applied with rigorous fairness, without bias, proportionately, and transparently." Click to read Coates' full essay.