<u>The correct answer is A. What proof the tipster is able to provide.</u>
The reason why it's anonymous is probably because <em>the person providing the information doesn't feel comfortable providing their identity</em>. That's why we have so many tip lines that assure us we won't be asked for our names, information about where we live or even how we know what we know. All they care about is the information we provide and the accuracy of it.
Hence the correct answer can't be C or D. Just imagine what would happen to the tipster if they are quoted or exposed. They want the crime to stop but they don't want to be harmed for being the people talking about it.
In order to stop the crime or expose it, it is<u><em> necessary</em></u> for the reporter to have <em>concrete evidence</em> of it. Without proof, the reporter won't be able to check if the tip is true. His reputation is also undermined if what he publishes turns out to be fake, so proof is very important.
Answer B it's also incorrect because the <em>intention </em>of the tipster should be <em>irrelevant</em>. Also by stating why they want to talk, they'd be revealing who they are to the criminals (or at least give them an idea) and they wouldn't remain anonymous anymore.
He’s not a good president. he’s just a president.
I THINK it might be almost but im not sure
I can't help you with the answer as I haven't read the book. I can help you get to your own answer, though.
For question 5, think about how the book ended. What do you think will happen to the main character now? Think of the resolution as the "happy ending" where the big problem or conflict is solved. Include the quotations and parts of the book that helped you figure out what is going to happen to the main character.
Question 7 is asking you about the book's theme. Basically, it's asking what the moral or lesson of the story is. Does the story teach you about anything?
In their research article, <em>Intergroup Dynamics of extra-legal police aggression: an integrated theory of race and place</em> by Malcolm D. Holmes and Brad W. Smith, the authors debate the issue of use of excesive force by police authorities to control and maintain order in communities where there is presence of racial minorities that are perceived sometimes as a threat to the larger community. They define extra-legal police aggression as the use of extra means, sometimes unnecessary and illegal, to enforce control and good behavior within communities. These extra means can be the use of actual physical force, coercion, threats, verbal abuse, and others. Also, it seems that this attitude on the part of police forces comes in direct response to the presence of racial and ethnic minorities in communities, that for some reason are perceived as factors for greater criminal activities and unsafety. The authors mention in their article that sometimes, due to the characteristics of a community, especially those with the presence of minorities, where in fact there is a higher criminal rate, police officers seem to feel almost forced to use extra means of control, because their regular tactics do not produce the desired effects and they are the ones who suffer the consequences, both public and personally. It seems that the use of certain extralegal tactics, such as verbal threats and certain attitudes from police officers, instead of the use of outright force, are preferable because while they give results, they are not producing direct violations to human and civil rights and also because the use of physical force only produces the use of more violent acts, instead of helping control violence and crime.
