reply to post by poet1b
Two hundred people setting things on fire? And this isn't an exaggeration on your part?
When several people (new faces cycling into and out of the event) set a fire, with over 200 people cheering in support - what would you call it?
Obviously, due to this thing called physics, two 'bodies' cannot occupy both the same space and the same time.
You make it sound like a mob running around with torches out to burn down the town.
And you make it sound like they lit up the barbecue grill.
Two, three, maybe a few more people started a small fire off the side of the road, where for some strange reason they burn a bicycle, then
throw a stop sign on top. From the beginning I have wondered how they got that stop sign out of the ground. Typically those things are cemented, and
it takes quite a bit of work to get one out of the ground. How did patrolling police not notice that activity.
Three or four people can remove a stop-sign from its base. If a car will go right over them like they aren't even there - a few people can pull them
up out of the ground.
It would take all of thirty seconds to pull a stop-sign out of the ground with about three people. By this time, the police were responding to the
mob that had formed.
Police are not omnipresent. Again - you want to use a lack of omnipotence in defense of obstructive behavior.
There aren't 200 people chanting, twenty, thirty tops. Pause the video and count, I get about 19 in the main body of guys chanting f--=k the
police, and it sounds like that is about all they are. The rest of the crowd are just standing off in the distance, watching.
That's a negative. Videos that have a wider scope show the group cheering on the destruction of the stop-sign and a much more prolific "# the
Look at the video, they are laughing. Not exactly a vicious bunch of thugs looking to burn down the town the way you want to describe. They are
a bunch of drunk college kids trying to act cool, and hoping to get laid later on, not a bunch of thugs looking to bring down death and
Who have repeatedly obstructed police and emergency medical service efforts.
They had already started adding to the fire - a stool and what appear to be parts of a chair have been added. Perhaps they were "donated" - perhaps
not. That situation was growing out of hand: of the people involved to control themselves.
Police efforts to operate in the area had continually been obstructed, and in order to make arrests of those being destructive and breaking laws - the
group had to be made to disperse.
God forbid that the well paid cops, with their job security and extremely generous retirement plans have to actually do their job and deal with
a small group of college kids.
That's exactly what they did.
They had been routinely harassed when attempting to escort EMS to individuals with critical levels of alcohol poisoning. The likely result of a small
cadre of police coming in to arrest the 'heroes' of that group of 200+ people would have been not unlike the response to the officers at the squad
car - or the riot-equipped officers, once they began to advance (except non-riot equipped officers would have been driven back - because taking beer
bottles to the skull takes its toll)
You don't think the police in a college town should know how to deal with drunken college students at a college party? That is their job.
Those are their customers, and they should be doing their best to keep them happy. Their college loans are what is paying the bills.
Over half the people at the party were not residents or college students.
There isn't any fighting going on here, no demonstrations of violence at all.
Other than setting things on fire and tearing up public property.
What? Should we be expecting the riot police spraying people down with mace everytime a fight breaks out at a local event?
Sure, if you stand in the way of police officers when they try to do their job.
This is a school known for its law program - most of the students enrolled are students of law. A number of the police in that force have attended
these parties back in their college years.
What the police should have done, let them have their moment, watching from a respectable distance, then when it winds down, walk up and put
out the fire, arrest any trouble makers if they hang around.
When the police did finally show up (and before the riot-equipped officers were deployed) - the response was "# you!" by a large group surrounding
the individuals causing trouble.
No, instead they go crazy, break out the riot police, and the noise weapons, and apply copious amount of pepper spray on any students who get
within their range.
The response was quite measured. Unless you were brain-dead and couldn't figure out how to keep your distance - you were fine. Sonic weapons are
obnoxious - but, again - when tear gas and sound weapons come out, I tend to move where they aren't.
Now - a few of the individuals involved took things a bit too far - running up and spraying down a whole porch full of people is not necessary.
The police reaction was way overboard.
It really wasn't.
I'm not unfamiliar with crowds or the concept of dealing with them. We have the state fair in this town - and the population doubles over a two-week
period. If a group in the trailer parks started setting fire to things and tearing up road signs while screaming "# the police" when officers
arrive to get a hold of those causing trouble... it pretty well indicates that a fairly high percentage of those in the immediate area are looking for
I'm not sure if this area is really equipped to handle riots or not - so the situation may just end up turning into a shoot-out.
Which is why people don't really understand how to handle this "riot" control. It was once a very specialized type of policing and only supported
and trained for in areas that held large sporting events and other types of similar activities. It has recently become more affordable and
multi-jurisdiction task forces can now muster together a riot control team that offers non-lethal solutions to law enforcement.
Solutions that were otherwise unavailable.
The available solutions, without riot control, are "set up a cordon and hope the situation contains itself" or "confront an obstructive group of
superior numbers and likely result in a live-fire exchange."
With riot control, lethal force doesn't even have to enter the picture - so issues that would, previously, have never been addressed now have a
solution that does not involve killing half a dozen people to arrest five people for vandalism.
Now - we can argue all day about whether or not it was necessary.
From our perspective - it's really irrelevant. The community there decides whether or not it was necessary and whether or not that is the kind of
law enforcement they want.
From the perspective of you and I - it's merely a matter of accepting that the police were not -wrong- in what they did. They were completely within
their legal authority.
Maybe their chief was a little anxious to deploy the riot police and that affected his/her judgment. Maybe not.
From the details I have been able to gather and piece together - the response was justified. Police payment and retirement plans don't fall into the
picture - that is a completely separate issue of government. Now - I am trying to remember what side of the issue you were on - but I seem to have
you placed in the category of "people who were against placing limitations on public-service unions." Which is a bit silly, given your criticism of
the department, here.