I am writing my critique on a blog from Grits For Breakfast. The article is titled Austin may follow Houston, SA, creating non-jail alternative for public intoxication, authors name Grits. The article talks about reducing arrest for public intoxication by creating a place for people to sober up without taking them to jail.
The grits starts his article agreeing with another article in Austin Statesman Newspaper written by Eric Dexheimer and Tony Plohetski who says that getting arrested and criminally charged with public intoxication in Travis County is a common thing on Sixth Street and soon it might stop. In this article the evidence they use to support this idea is that over the past five years they have had about 27,000 arrests in Austin and they are taken to jail, have their mug shots taken, fingerprinted and face future court hearings and costs. They want this to stop so many medical officials, law enforcement and more want to open a sobriety center “drunk tank” which they believe it would decriminalize public intoxication.
By this plan they plan not to arrest the intoxicated suspects but just take them to the center which Grit’s agrees because they believe this way the police officers would get back to their duties more rapidly and attend for more serious offences. Also Grits uses another good evidence from the Statesman who tells the opinion of a Travis County-at-Law Judge Nancy Hogengarten, who believes that people actually recognize that the substance use is a problem in the community, but putting them in jail doesn't solve the problem. At the end Grits agrees with this idea and the last evidence they give are the examples of Houston who opened a similar sobriety center and how San Antonio has operated one since 2008 so it wont be the first time they ever do this.
The author gives some good evidence in their blog but mainly just from one source which I don’t like. They are very good points, but he could use more than one, get more evidence and examples from other people. Also I am not sure if I agree with Grits, its sounds good but also if you think about it, it gives more rights for people to get drunk knowing they are not going to jail or get in trouble. They wont learn from their consequences. I don’t fully agree with this plan, but at the end it might always help to try something new.
Tuesday, March 18, 2014
Monday, February 24, 2014
The Right Weapons
The editorial I read from San Antonio Express-News talks about how Texas Education Agency (TEA) should take away Tasers and other weapons like pepper spray from schools.
The evidence the author uses to agree that this should happen is an incident that happen at Bastrop County of a student getting zapped with a Taser in November, his name is Noe Nino de Rivera. Apparently when this happen he fell to the floor and hit his head. Noe was in a coma for more than 50 days. The Bastrop County Sheriffs said they were trying to break up a fight of two girls when Noe acted very aggressively towards them. But in a video that Austin American-Statesmen shows that the fight had been over for a few minutes and Noe showed no signs of aggression when on of the officers shot him.
Another way the author backs up his agreement is by saying that Tasers can shock up to 50,000 volts. He says there is no reason for this kind of weapon to be use on students in schools, which I agree. He approaches the fact that there is many other tools they can use for law enforcement officers. No reason to use a Taser to control students. He gives an example of how in Houston Independent School District officers use pepper foam instead of spray, less likely to harm people.
At the end the authors talks about how a number of civil rights and social justice organizations have asked the TEA to ban Tasers and other weapons like pepper spray.
I do agree with the author when it comes to using less harmless weapons for students. There is no need to use such powerful weapon when officers can use different techniques. The author gave great points and good evidence to back up why he agrees.
The evidence the author uses to agree that this should happen is an incident that happen at Bastrop County of a student getting zapped with a Taser in November, his name is Noe Nino de Rivera. Apparently when this happen he fell to the floor and hit his head. Noe was in a coma for more than 50 days. The Bastrop County Sheriffs said they were trying to break up a fight of two girls when Noe acted very aggressively towards them. But in a video that Austin American-Statesmen shows that the fight had been over for a few minutes and Noe showed no signs of aggression when on of the officers shot him.
Another way the author backs up his agreement is by saying that Tasers can shock up to 50,000 volts. He says there is no reason for this kind of weapon to be use on students in schools, which I agree. He approaches the fact that there is many other tools they can use for law enforcement officers. No reason to use a Taser to control students. He gives an example of how in Houston Independent School District officers use pepper foam instead of spray, less likely to harm people.
At the end the authors talks about how a number of civil rights and social justice organizations have asked the TEA to ban Tasers and other weapons like pepper spray.
I do agree with the author when it comes to using less harmless weapons for students. There is no need to use such powerful weapon when officers can use different techniques. The author gave great points and good evidence to back up why he agrees.
Monday, February 10, 2014
So I decided to read an article in The Austin Chronicle by Richard Whittaker where he explains how for next fall the Austin Independent School District will be opening two single sex schools. Girls will go to one school and boys to a different one. Girls will be going to Pearce Middle School, while boys will go to Garcia Middle School. I found this article very interesting to read and I believe some of you all will too. It says how this idea will bring no gain to education and plus how the community does not support single-sex schools. There are very different opinions, Janet Shibley Hyde agrees with this by saying its helps students achieve more and have more academic interest. Is going to be a big change for students next year, a lot of things are going to change for them. I mean do you imagine going to school of all girl or all boys?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)