After years of declining crime, a spike in U.S. city violence

Could it be police afraid to do their job? With all the false attention on police mishandling, the POTUS commenting abuse, when high level investigations prove justifiable each case it can leave the patrolman and women a bit apprehensive.

When the people of a community lie, loot and destroy in protest and they get what they want they still complain. Recognize the problems, purge the creeps out of your communities. It wasn't the police! The problems are now enpowered and escalating their lifestyle.

A frustrated Police Superintendent Garry McCarthy said the laws are so toothless that gang members are more worried about being beaten up by their gangs for losing a gun than going before a judge after being caught with one.

Conveniently ignoring that Chicago has been extremely violent for years in spite of some of the toughest gun laws in the country, while states like Montana with high gun ownership have crime rates on par with European countries. Graph gun crime versus gun ownership per state and you'll find no statistical correlation between the two. With this in mind, clearly the reason for this kind of violence is demographic.

With all the false attention on police mishandling, the POTUS commenting abuse, when high level investigations prove justifiable each case it can leave the patrolman and women a bit apprehensive.

You mean all the correctly deserved attention on police mishandling, the POTUS commenting on a real problem, with investigations that lead to those that are guilty being let off by a system that is biased towards the police.

There is no reason for the police to be apprehensive if they are acting correctly.

The Michael Brown incident is the perfect example. With the FBI investigating proved the shooting was justified. You can't argue this one! In Baltimore the case seems to be falling apart. We've yet to see the outcome however I will not be surprised one bit if they are not guilty.

Any police killing is sad, especially Micheal Brown. He was a young man who made stupid and fatal mistakes that day. It didn't have to end that way.

I personally knew two people shot by police. One died one not. They both resisted arrest for minor incidences and the result was escalation. My point is police must be respected no not rejected as is the case lately. Not all police officers are always doing the right thing but most are. I support them!

The Michael Brown incident is the perfect example.

Yes, it's a perfect example of a system that is extremely biased towards the police. If anything, it should give police more confidence in shooting suspects, since it's very clear that they can pretty much do whatever they want, and they will not end up being convicted, or in the case with Brown's murder, even sent to trial. And it may have very well emboldened the police - look how many police shootings there have been since.

Mark G- I hear you. I hate da police, but wen one tells me to stop, I'm going to stop. No need to resist. If I need to complain, den I can go to da police station and talk to one supervisor...alive an den.

Crime is down because so many people conceal-carry now. And that sort of worries me because you still have groups of thugs acting up and attacking individuals and video-taping it (knock-out game etc). Eventually you may see whole groups of these young emboldened thugs get shot.

The media really tries to hype up these crimes, but in reality few cities have any issues. City of Detroit is number one, but since the City of Detroit doesn't even register many of these crimes anymore they are not even on this list. I highly doubt Milwaukee would make the top 10 or even top 20. Philadelphia should be in there and is maybe 3-5x worse than Baltimore.

LOL! Noting like not undertanding spirit of Aloha, braddah Houli

with investigations that lead to those that are guilty being let off by a system that is biased towards the police.

Liberals have no respect for the justice system. Being found innocent by a jury of your peers is no longer sufficient in the mind of liberals. The system must be letting them off because the system must be racist. After all, if the system isn't racist then liberals would have to accept that blacks have responsibility for their current state.

Liberals have no respect for the justice system.

What a ridiculous comment. I'm about as liberal as it gets, and I have total respect for the justice system. I certainly would not want to live in a state of anarchy. But neither do I want to live in a police state, and neither am I going to give the state an open license to do whatever they want, simply because a justice system is required.

I assume you got that talking point from Faux News?

Being found innocent by a jury of your peers is no longer sufficient in the mind of liberals.

There is no such thing as being 'found innocent'. There is guilty or not guilty. And in this case, the officer wasn't found not guilty, the grand jury found no likelihood of a conviction, and therefore there was no trial.

The system must be letting them off because the system must be racist.

I didn't make any references to race or racism whatsoever. I would be calling it murder whether the officer shot a white or black person.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3152998/The-city-mistake-Illegal-immigrant-shot-San-Francisco-woman-appears-court-amid-media-circus-Hillary-Clinton-joins-Republicans-condemning-city-releasing-kill.html

You have illegals with criminal history going to these Lib "safe havens/sanctuary cities" and are protected by the local justice system. ==> You have a few people that are allowed to commit many crimes and they are becoming emboldened because they know they are protected.

@IllyasJUL. 12, 2015 - 12:16PM JST with investigations that lead to those that are guilty being let off by a system that is biased towards the police. Liberals have no respect for the justice system. Being found innocent by a jury of your peers is no longer sufficient in the mind of liberals. The system must be letting them off because the system must be racist. After all, if the system isn't racist then liberals would have to accept that blacks have responsibility for their current stat

'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''

You mean all killers are liberal? you sound you are are expert about liberal. Are you one of them/

I live in a city where the head of household is required to own a firearm AND ammunition. Our crime is 30% less than similarly sized metro areas in the USA.

There are exceptions for some specific reasons. Don't think I'd file for an exception - it would be like a Steal stuff here! sign for crooks.

How can crime be up? Gun sales have been through the roof. Makes no sense.

How can crime be up? Gun sales have been through the roof. Makes no sense.

Now you're just trolling. How about starting with the title "a spike in U.S. city violence" and read "inner city" into that.

There is no such thing as being 'found innocent'. There is guilty or not guilty. And in this case, the officer wasn't found not guilty, the grand jury found no likelihood of a conviction, and therefore there was no trial.

Innocent until proven guilty. If you're not found guilty then you are PRESUMED INNOCENT. You don't get to walk around claiming that someone is actually guilty when they haven't been charges/have been found not guilty. That's libelous.

Innocent until proven guilty. If you're not found guilty then you are PRESUMED INNOCENT. You don't get to walk around claiming that someone is actually guilty when they haven't been charges/have been found not guilty. That's libelous.

That doesn't change anything I said. There is no such thing as a finding of innocence, only a finding of not guilty. They are semantically different. A finding of not guilty can mean that there was plenty of evidence that makes it look like the person may be guilty, but not enough to determine it with a reasonable doubt. So the person is not found guilty. A finding of innocence would require enough proof to show that there is no doubt the person is definitely innocent. The closest thing is when a charge gets thrown out with prejudice.

As for your libel comment, it's way too broad of a comment to have any meaning.

@Strangerland

Of course you know more than me about the law in the States, but in England "not guilty" is definitely considered "innocent".

Scottish law used to have a verdict of "not proven", which meant, as you suggested, a lack of proof for a guilty finding so the accused maybe "got away with it". This verdict no longer exists and now, anywhere in the UK, "not guilty" is synonymous with "innocent".