When a law gets broken, the very last thing one should do is release the criminals.
Temporary facilities can be made available to accommodate rather than permitting lawbreakers loose to break the law once again.
One county 100 miles from Dallas I am familiar with has a youth detention center that is unused at the present, as an example.
Riots have been occurring for months, so law enforcement budgets should be prepared to enforce with facilities like this, for the public good.
What is more important, fancy digs for criminals or keeping them off the streets to once again do harm to others?
I'm sure you are aware that the people released were not running amok, burning, stealing and looting. They blocked the Margaret Hunt Hill Bridge marching around, carrying signs and shouting "no justice, no peace". Although not a major thororfare, they did defy the law and it was illegal. I would have been truly p.o.'d if stuck in the traffic from that back up.
So they were zip tied and charged...later dropped.
As far as opening a juvenile facility that had been closed (for how long) I wonder how that would work. Staffing? Food? Transportation? Those things don't happen in an hour. Especially for these snowflakes that Mommy and Daddy are going to bail out asap. If you are talking about moving the already incarcerated, same questions. Plus, I'd have to look at the laws transferring inmates from one county to another. It can be done...at cost.
I totally agree, criminals should be incarcerated. But from what I saw/read...these idjits, had they not impeded traffic, would have never been apprehended in the first place.
Thanks for your reply
@IsailedawayfromFR
