corrupt_measure

That video is a 5 second long anecdote. Regardless, the woman was probably told to move and was refusing. When you disobey riot police in a riot situation that's what happens and I absolutely side with the police.

Data literally supports what I'm saying. A distorting narrative is what's driving all the recent calls to action and solidarity. People are being lied to and misled, either that or they are just using the narrative to push their own agendas.

Genuine unprovoked and unnecessary police brutality incidents are incredibly rare (relative to all police interactions) and hardly an epidemic. When someone is breaking the law and resisting arrest the police have no choice but to be violent with the resistor. Unfortunately these incidents often get categorized as "police brutality" when they're really just a necessary use of force.

More broadly, the entire narrative of police brutality and killings of minorities is basically nonsense. When controlling for violent encounters with police and crimes committed, blacks (armed and unarmed) are actually less likely to be killed by police than whites.

Sites like this and an irresponsible media simply exaggerate the issue and needlessly inflame tensions without providing proper and necessary context.

I actually am trending towards the view that once a social network reaches a certain size, all users must register their real identities with the network owner to maintain their accounts.

This information would not need to be stored, it would just be needed to verify an account as belonging to a real person.

Except it wasn't glorifying violence. Like at all. He was not saying that if looting continues then police would start shooting, that's a twisted and strained interpretation.

He was stating simply that looting begets violence, meaning that the looting must be stopped before things become more violent. It is a call to action to those who appear content to let the looting run rampant as if it's somehow OK or justified.

In such an escalation both protestors and counter protestors would be shooting, so bringing the situation under control quickly is in the best interest of the protestors and the community as a whole.

It is a clear example of the dangers of allowing Twitter to moderate when such an egregiously bad interpretation of Trump's tweet triggers moderation.

The government doesn't appear to be breaking any laws though.

You're assuming that a single variable is being changed, but the far more likely explanation is that, given the high complexity of the situation, there are some other variables that you're not accounting for.

The New York Times appears to me and many others misguided on the issue of race.

The 1776 Wikipedia page does not appear to be slated for deletion, I'm not sure what you're talking about there.