3 ms·
So you're saying that the police antagonized people, and that made them so angry that they set a limo on fire? That doesn't ring true to me. It makes much more
by Meekro 10y ago
So you're saying that the police antagonized people, and that made them so angry that they set a limo on fire? That doesn't ring true to me. It makes much more sense the other way: the police were there because they were needed, to protect bystanders and property from the mob.
- scrollaway 10y agoPolice is always there during these types of protests. There's plenty of peaceful protests with police around. It's absolutely possible that, if the police starts being violent, the violence spreads very quickly and cars get set on fire. Crowd control has a lot of strategy to it...
- huragok 10y ago99% of people walk a march and 1% torch private property (a limousine): clearly the "mob" is in the wrong.
- olalonde 10y agoThat's a pretty uncharitable interpretation of parent's comment. I read it as "to protect bystanders and property from the mob [that was violent]". And his point seemed to be that police being "noticeably absent" from peaceful protests is more simply explained by the fact that those protests were peaceful rather than police presence being the source of violence. Police brutality is a real issue but indiscriminately blaming the police every time they show up doesn't help the cause.
- huragok 10y ago> Police brutality is a real problem but blindly blaming the police every time they show up doesn't help the cause. Let's not give the police the benefit of the doubt. Time and time again across the nation it has been shown that law enforcement is not for the populace-at-large but for the betterment of the state and its agenda - whoever the party in charge.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- jeffdavis 10y agoDo you have evidence that the police arrested the peaceful ones?