You should add this to your diary. I bet if you publish it someday it would make for quite the page turner.
Why is there a need for a balance between those two? Are you suggesting that if you increase one, the other goes down and vice-versa?
this statement makes very little sense there should be no police brutality period. you are implying there is some kind of cause and effect with police brutality and letting crime get out of hand when in reality neither of things should happen.
As others have said, the police can do their jobs and keep the crime rate down without violating people's rights. This looks like a police "I'm taking my ball and going home" gesture.
Kansas - what happens when you put the right in charge of a state. So funny that BigTexxx attacks liberal mayors of cities consider that most cities have democrat mayors, including Houston - which happen to generate most of the wealth in the USA.
Let's just say there are "makers" and there are "takers" in Houston. The makers aren't voting for the liberals...
that is a weird concept. because you typically hear that the more educated you are the more likely you are liberal. and then there is people like you that say all the taxpayers are conservatives. those are two very conflicting statements it seems.
Republican strategery. We'll dumb it down as much as possible, hell we'll even rhyme it for you if it gives you a false sense of superiority. We hate the blacks and the gays too! Vote for us!
OP seems to assume that violence is up because police are disengaging or being more cautious in their policing tactics. If the violence is related to the police brutality case, I would think it was on the other side, though. That residents are feeling more disenfranchised and disrespected now and a bit more nihilistic, or maybe now more defiant, because of the police brutality case and the national reaction to protests and riots, and on the margin are engaging in incrementally more anti-social behaviors.
They already were disenfranchised. I don't know if they felt it so acutely. Just like an errant drone strike may catalyze Taliban recruiting, or a 'Happy Holidays' might galvanize Christians to fight against the War on Christmas, or an airplane flown into a tower full of people might inspire overreaching but patriotically-named legislation to allow the government to spy on its citizens or a new and ill-advised war on a country that wasn't looking for trouble -- so might a ripe case of police brutality (or a whole series of them blowing up in social media one after another for a few years) cause a reaction that might be rash, or might be irrational, but is a wholly relatable human reaction to oppression that we've seen a million times before. People are angry about it -- I'm angry about it -- but they can't necessarily channel the anger in a useful direction or even at the people they are angry at. So if you're angry at the government or mainstream white America, but you're also engaged in a turf struggle with the guys down the street, the guys down the street might be the ones to get the brunt of your anger. Basically, I think we need a big group hug and hug it out.
It is skewed by all of the people with doctorates in things like social work and gender studies. The Democrats coalition is the ivory tower intellectuals, minorities, and women. The Republican coalition is white males (basically).
Apparently arrests are down 56% in May so it's definitely the police sulking and pulling back from doing their jobs. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/rash-of...imore-have-residents-asking-where-are-police/
