>which I am honestly not sure how it is meant to be interpreted Here's how: we have entire movements preoccupied with spreading FUD over any policy that aims t

>which I am honestly not sure how it is meant to be interpreted Here's how: we have entire movements preoccupied with spreading FUD over any policy that aims to curb crime. We have movements preoccupied with letting violent criminals out of prison (trust me, there is no way to reduce the prison population without releasing violent offenders). This story is an example of this. Look at the facts: Baltimore is one of the most violent cities in the world (not just in Maryland, not just in USA, in the effin world). What that means is that there are a lot of innocent people being victimized by criminals. There are parents trying to raise their children in these neighborhoods and are desperately hoping that they their children don't get assaulted, killed or recruited into gangs or drugs, as they walk to school. All those tech bros in this thread wouldn't drive through some of these neighborhood. They wouldn't even let their children watch PG-13 movies due to the violence ... but there are children living in those violent neighborhoods day-in and day-out. Who is standing up for them? I don't see ACLU lawsuits to protect their rights - do you? There is an attempt to curb this by introducing a drone program to attempt to provide some relief for this by improving police investigative powers and catch more criminals. And this program is the opposite of 'tough policing'. ACLU and other organizations focus lawsuits on this program to get rid of it (not to create common sense policies around, but to get rid of it) - why? Because they care more about safeguarding criminal rights, then the rights of citizens to safety. It's fucked up and that's what I mean by "Victim-rights trump criminal-rights."