http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Massacre

Eight British troops were arrested, six were aquitted and the other two convicted of manslaughter and although facing hanging had their sentences changed to branding on their thumbs.

One of the five Americans killed and apparently a leader of them at the time was Crispus Attucks, a man of Native American/African descent who was possibly a runaway slave.

But since we can :

“what did the original civil rights leader Martin Luther King want?”

Civil rights and Black Americans being treated fairly and equally and having their lives matter.

Oh & on riots specifically, MLK said :

“But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”

— “The Other America,” 1968 ” (Emphasis added.)

Source : http://www.salon.com/2015/04/30/fox_news_mangles_martin_luther_king_jr_9_quotes_you_wont_hear_in_the_mainstream_media/

So, yes, its pretty clear that Martin Luther King would’ve been on the side of the Baltimore rioters here or at least that he would’ve understood what was happening in a way you seem to miss.

“However why is it that BLACKS only see what they want to see and most of you thought that OJ SIMPSON was innocent JUST because he was BLACK. ”

Not being black I don’t know and, incidentally, you may want to reflect on the reality that blacks are as individual as you and I and will have a range of views of anything just as we do.

Perhaps, my guess would be , they were more willing to think OJ was innocent because of their knowledge of police frame -ups and mistreatment of people of their ethnicity over times. They knew the police could be more corrupt and less honest in their experiences than we privileged white folks know them to be in ours. Perhaps part of it was that OJ was a hero of many of them and no one whatever their colour likes to find their heroes flawed and a many respond to such a accusations with denial. perhaps there were other factors too such as the polarisation, peer pressure, media bias – ours as well as theirs, etc …

Whatever the case, how is OJ ‘s case related to this one? Why do you feel its in anyway relevant here? Hint : It isn’t. Not in my view and I think most others anyhow.

” You just prove your ignorance because
I admit when WHITES act irresponsibly why can’t BLACKS
admit when they do.”

What makes you think they don’t admit to getting things wrong and being irresponsible on occassion – even this one?

“We are all part of human race so try
to also act responsibly no matter what the color of your skin.”

Again, what makes you think they aren’t or haven’t been trying to do so?

I think the rioting is the exception to the rest of the lives of most of the people here – it happening because black lives are being lost to racist police brutality all the time and nothing has changed and no justice ever seems to happen. As the video linked here by #24. Douglas C Alder shows, a lot of white people riot over far less reasonable motives and causes.

I thought the actual Boston “Massacre” concerned a small number British soldiers shooting at a mob that threatened their lives. If I recall correctly, they were tried in a local court, defended by John Adams, and most acquitted.

The fictional Boston Massacre, as distorted through propaganda and embellishment, is of course something different.

… The state can thrive and plunder only if it will harm or kill you for disobediance. Of course … The police of course will fine you first but if you resist then you will be imprisoned. And if you continue to resist the police will kill you. No exceptions.

Every law, no matter how trivial, will be enforced with violence against you. Remember those words: AGAINST ME!

A government that operates through coercive force is also pointing its guns at you every single day. Violence, and the threat of violence, is the only way this system can be maintained. After all, how else can you enforce slavery?
Police don’t arm themselves with kind words and flowers…

… All this has been massively veiled through the guise of our own protection.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jf_Sl3BlsVc&list=PL06FD9016D7842E49

What she said originally:

“It’s a very delicate balancing act because while we try to make sure that they were protected from the cars and the other things that were going on, we also gave those who wished to destroy space to do that as well, and we work very hard to keep that balance and to put ourselves in the best position to de-escalate.”

And her clarification:

“I did not instruct police to give space to protesters who were seeking to create violence or destruction of property,” she wrote. “Taken in context, I explained that, in giving peaceful demonstrators room to share their message, unfortunately, those who were seeking to incite violence also had space to operate.”
http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/baltimore-unrest/mayor-stephanie-rawlings-blake-under-fire-giving-space-destroy-baltimore-n349656

======
Spotted on dailykos:
“So, we have ‘white riots’ (because we lost the game), and ‘black riots’ (because we’re losing our lives). Guess which riots national and mainstream media choose to demonize?”

https://youtu.be/Tk-gjRM49p8