News » Letters

On last week's cover story, " 'Protect and serve' vs. 'patrol and control' in Little Rock"


From the web

In response to last week's cover story, " 'Protect and serve' vs. 'patrol and control' in Little Rock":

Fact of the matter is murders have dramatically decreased after this past summer's spike and the increased patrols coincide with the drop. Fact of the matter is, if you see a patrol car is close by, the odds of you breaking in that car, house, etc. go down.

Either the P.D. takes steps to reduce crime, or the people will. I would rather the police do it.

Case closed as far as I'm concerned.

Rick 1

Reply to Rick 1: What are the odds that YOU would get followed to your home by a patrol car and have an officer unholster their gun while watching you? This isn't about the cops stopping people, it's about the systematic overreach or disregard by procedures by said cops. Nor is this crime control. It's harassment and intimidation.


It's not community policing when the police officers don't live in the community. If they're going home to somewhere else, it's not their community and they're more focused on enforcing the law than in keeping the peace.


Little Rock had been experiencing for at least a year a disturbing increase in the number of murders, assaults and other violent crimes, culminating in the Power Ultra Lounge shooting on July. The community understandably and rightfully demands swift actions by city leaders that immediately restore safety and peace of mind. We also have a police force that is severely understaffed and underpaid, to the point that many of its officers can only afford to live outside the city they serve. It's easy to be critical of the steps taken and some of that criticism may be warranted. But let's say it's now your job to address these concerns in ways that are both quickly effective and not seen as overreaching, intimidating and harassing, and, most importantly, you only have the same tools that are now available to the police chief, city manager and others. Go ...


In response to Billy Fleming's Jan. 4 column, "Will Arkansas join the red state revolt?" in which he wrote that 16 of the 76 seats held by Republicans were likely to flip to Democrats in the state House of Representatives:

It's an exciting time to be a Democrat. As devastating as the current administration is, it's likely to be digging its own grave. Hopefully seats will flip all over this country, but you're right, the South is gonna have a huge impact. The longer the uber rich are in power the more these lower-earning communities are starting to see the light.

Jason Bradberry

Well, it's always funny to read the crazy stuff the AT has to offer. Actually surprised they are still in business.


Highly unlikely the left will get more than five seats. Former Gov. Mike Beebe and now Governor Hutchinson have both played down the middle in doing what is best for the state. Tax reform in the state is coming but it won't be until after this next cycle of elections. Also, why is the left still being referred to as "progressives" when that isn't even close to the truth? You can twist and spin it all you want, but the left has never been progressive, only passive aggressive.

Sean Cash

In response to Jay Barth's Jan. 4 column, "Arkansas's Trump?" about Hot Springs Jan Morgan's decision to challenge Governor Hutchinson in the GOP primary:

Arkansas politics is why I only drink bottled water.


Arkansas politics are why I drink.


The same fools who voted for sheer idiots like [state Sen. Jason] Rapert would vote for this numbskull. She is the backwoods "Deliverance" version of Michele Bachmann.


In response to the Jan. 8 Arkansas Blog post "Oprah for president?":

My girlfriends and I discussed this into the wee hours last night. Only thing we couldn't agree on was who would make the perfect VP ... Joe Biden, Tom Hanks or Michelle Obama.


Actively thinking? Wow! That would be a welcome change from all the self-glorification, self-adulation rhetoric, and of course all the suck-up talk (major part of the job description, I'm sure). Donald has such unique standards.


In a couple of days, the online Webster's Dictionary will have a picture of Oprah next to the phrase BARN BURNER! The speech she gave last night is among the handful of speeches I've heard in my life that knocked my socks off and reduced me to tears while cheering.  Ohmagod did Oprah knock one out of the park! And gentlemen, she put us on notice that the millions of years of male dominance and sexual harassment and sexual abuse of girls and women and second-class citizenship for women IS OVER! If you think male heads have rolled in the last couple of months, we ain't seen nothing yet! I personally think that Oprah isn't willing to take a demotion in order to become the next president of the United States. She's smarter than that and she's of far more use to this country as a free agent, but she COULD run this country with her eyes closed.  I predict our next president will be a woman! And Congress will turn pink over the next couple of election cycles. Ditto the Arkansas Legislature. Bring it!


The root question as I see it is whether or not being elected U.S. president and never having held another public office is rational or even sane. In my opinion the clear answer is no.  The answer doesn't depend on whether the views of someone agree wholly or partially with our own, but simply on whether the job of being president requires some prior experience that clearly indicates the individual can handle the job. We witness daily, and have for the past year, what happens when we elect a clearly unsuitable person, an ongoing train wreck, to the office. Must we turn the office of president into some reality program or celebrity contest? If so, let me off that train.

Sound Policy

It would be worth it to have Oprah as president just to watch all the red necks turn purple.


Why not? She is better qualified to hold the office than Obama was.


Well, yes, let's elect another entertainer with absolutely no experience in government. It's worked so well before.



Billy Fleming's Jan. 4 column, "Will Arkansas join the red state revolt?" mistakenly dated state Republicans ending the Democratic supermajority in the state House and Senate as 2008 instead of 2010. It also misstated that Republicans have had a stranglehold on state government for more than a decade.

Add a comment