What credible evidence did Baltimore police have that gangs were unifying to take them out?  Or is that classified?  It provided a convenient excuse for the police to suit up in military gear to provoke a bunch of high school kids.

Parents and teachers report that "…police actions inflamed a tense-but-stable situation."  Police reportedly turned away school buses and prevented students from dispersing.  Was there a strategy and tactical plan?  Or is that classified?

In the National Review, a columnist blames Democratic policies and practices, suggesting racial arrest disparity exists because "Criminals make their own choices..", that "Meretricious “black rage” rhetoric…" props up "..not a revolt, but a crime spree."  The author admits police can be undisciplined, calling it political "..incompetence and corruption..", "..the product of the progressive wing of the Democratic party enabled in no small part by black identity politics."

Maybe we shouldn't blame the kids, blacks or the cops - or the Democrats. Sure, there will always be unruly children, undisciplined police and bad public management, but isn't it time to admit that the militarization of police has steadily made things worse?  Democrats don't have any monopoly on militarization.

When you can't see the difference between our civilian police force and soldiers in the National Guard, we've crossed a line that could be difficult to retrieve.  It won't get anything but worse without more transparency and vigorous debate.  Civil order is a delicate balance served neither by hooliganism or a police state. Only words can keep sticks and stones at bay.  Bring on 2016!