3 ms·

> it's also reasonable to assume a group of rioters would attack other precincts in the area and that they acted based on proximity Its reasonable assumption t

> it's also reasonable to assume a group of rioters would attack other precincts in the area and that they acted based on proximity Its reasonable assumption to assume that they might attack another precinct, not a reason to assume that a precinct will fall. If they say, barricaded the bridge between the two precincts or setup a cordon, that would seem like a prudent response. If the rioters were at the gates and they initiated this policy, that also would be reasonable. Jumping straight to destroying evidence in the precinct is not a reasonable response. They need to provide evidence that the situation was so dire that they had to resort to their last ditch policies, and they have not done that. Pointing towards riots miles away is an insufficient excuse; they need to provide evidence of an immediate threat of the precinct falling. > there's no evidence to suggest they're covering up for something, but it's reasonable to assume that this would be a good opportunity for someone looking to do that. You’re sidestepping the issue. I think they’re lying about why the destroyed the evidence. Once I believe that they’ve lied once, why should I continue to give the benefit of the doubt to them? More investigation is obviously needed, but I personally smell a rat.

kodah 5y ago
> Its reasonable assumption to assume that they might attack another precinct, not a reason to assume that a precinct will fall. If they say, barricaded the bridge between the two precincts or setup a cordon, that would seem like a prudent response. If the rioters were at the gates and they initiated this policy, that also would be reasonable. We're also dealing in hindsight. I still think given the climate back then and that a group of people stormed a police station is a pretty incredible circumstance to be dealing with. Now, whether their bias to action was innocent or correct is up to investigation to determine. It's perfectly okay to speculate and ask for investigations. It's less okay to speak in very definitive terms about something that is quite in flux. That's why I'm a bit wishy-washy on what I believe happened, because any number of variables can produce each outcome -- or both. I am not "side-stepping" the issue. You think they lied and now you're into searching for an MO to match that. To me, that's pretty improper and it's not how I come to conclusions. I don't give them the benefit of the doubt, that would imply a conclusion. This, to me, has not concluded. Both theories are still plausible based on the information we have today.
- ashtonkem 5y ago
  > We're also dealing in hindsight. The entire purpose of the justice system, including the police, is to judge people in hindsight. Why can’t we judge them in hindsight?

kodah 5y ago

> Its reasonable assumption to assume that they might attack another precinct, not a reason to assume that a precinct will fall. If they say, barricaded the bridge between the two precincts or setup a cordon, that would seem like a prudent response. If the rioters were at the gates and they initiated this policy, that also would be reasonable. We're also dealing in hindsight. I still think given the climate back then and that a group of people stormed a police station is a pretty incredible circumstance to be dealing with. Now, whether their bias to action was innocent or correct is up to investigation to determine. It's perfectly okay to speculate and ask for investigations. It's less okay to speak in very definitive terms about something that is quite in flux. That's why I'm a bit wishy-washy on what I believe happened, because any number of variables can produce each outcome -- or both. I am not "side-stepping" the issue. You think they lied and now you're into searching for an MO to match that. To me, that's pretty improper and it's not how I come to conclusions. I don't give them the benefit of the doubt, that would imply a conclusion. This, to me, has not concluded. Both theories are still plausible based on the information we have today.

ashtonkem 5y ago
> We're also dealing in hindsight. The entire purpose of the justice system, including the police, is to judge people in hindsight. Why can’t we judge them in hindsight?