Police are Human. But Good Humans, please.

Police need to be better (on the average) than the people they're arresting, right?  They should, on the average, be a better behaved than normal folks while on the job, exercising the public trust to enforce the law.  When off the job, they should be like us, but still not criminal.  "Oh, you're doing 75 in a 65?  Yeah, well, no problem."  But if you're going to wear the badge, you can't be committing felonies, stalking people, abusing your families, going off the deep end.  We need emotionally healthy people exercising power over others.

So, if they commit an honest error and maintained their and the perp's dignity, and are like, "My bad,"  we should be like, "No, I got you, man."  But when they are arrogant, scofflaw-ish, thuggish, or negligent, we should be rightfully, "Oh no you didn't!"  On duty, they need to be held to higher standards than the civilians.

How does a police officer act to the suspect who doesn't answer questions?  Well, of course they're not going to like it because it gets in the way of their doing the job.  How should I act to the police officer who does not offer and does not answer when asked why I'm being pulled over or detained?  When I heard the tape today of a black man being pulled over and asking why he was being detained over and over again, only to be met with silence, I can no longer be on the side of this officer.  I WANT to be on the side of the police!  I WANT to believe that the police officer was being a good, honest person like me!  A trustworthy and effective law enforcement program make me feel safe and protected from those who would do me harm.  Anything that puts that into jeopardy makes me want to prepare to take my protection on myself, get a gun, and makes me skittish if I'm ever pulled over for some minor infraction (like jaywalking or taillight).

Partial Water Solution -- Start from basic rights.

From a residential standpoint, can we start by agreeing on a minimal amount each person needs for basic living?  Say, 3 flushes, 5 gallons for shower, 2 gallons for cooking, 5 gallons for cleaning, 5 gallons per week to wash clothes.  Whatever it is, for every man, woman, and child in a household, that should be granted for a flat and affordable, administrative fee (the water itself, free). Say $5 a month?  $10.  For every gallon after that, you pay a higher rate up to double the average usage amount.  When you hit triple, you pay a way higher rate.  Quadruple, way higher. If you want to use 10 times the amount of water a person needs to live a reasonable, basically hygienic life, you need to pay whatever it takes to provide the additional infrastructure (water, energy to move or process it, additional through-put, administer, etc.)

So if you just can't do without your own swimming pool, fine.  But you're going to pay for that luxury.  You want a big yard that sucks water?  You pay more.  You want to provide some of your produce from your garden and fruit from your trees?  Fine, you pay more.  You want to wash your car at home?  Pay for it.

That way, people who are saving absolutely, not compared to some arbitrary "historical usage" or whatever other unit not based on the human right to water, That way, the homeowners are incentivized to conserve or literally pay for the infrastructure to produce more fresh water for luxurious purposes.  And the economically struggling are not gouged.  The conservative minded can spend their money on other luxuries, like travel, solar panels, etc.

Egregious Rush To Judgment

Egregious rush to judgment?

Tell that to the black men killed by police who have immediately judged and killed them on the street.  Are you trying to tell me there wasn't enough evidence to bring the officers up on charges?

Please.  Who are you trying to convince?  "... for something that my simply be negligence?"  Please.  I can't even hear you when you say that.  It fails the reasonable man (person) theory.  You are clearly being political.