DarqueMirror
Posts: 1262
Joined: 3/21/2011 Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: errantgeek Most occupy groups have organized and self-identified (visually and verbally) volunteer medic corps, who are generally trained first responders at least. Bullshit. This "movement" is anything but "organized." Furthermore, I saw no protesters wearing EMT uniforms nor carrying signs indicating such. I saw a group of civilians advancing on a police barricade, in direct defiance of crowd-control initiatives used by armored, armed police. To any rookie cop or veteran, when a crowd sees a group of armed and armored police officers and STILL advances on their position, the police HAVE to assume and prepare for the worst, lest they take a risk of orphaning their kids that night. quote:
ORIGINAL: errantgeek Telling enough, in that video there were no visible, attending medical professionals in the event a protester or officer was injured. Also telling enough, despite the fact there was a clearly-wounded person on the ground absolutely no attempt was made by the police to secure the immediate area or the injured person, temporarily extend the barricade to secure the injured person nor even a warning given to stay back so the injured person could be secured. Wanna try and guess why? Go ahead. Take a guess. Medics aren't armored *or* armed. The barricade marked the "front lines" as it were. Medics don't come in until order is restored. How many medics do you see rush into a hostage situation while the police wait outside? How many medics rush into a prison riot while the doors are still locked and the tear gas is still flying? NONE. You have to secure the area BEFORE letting the medics in to do their jobs or you're just adding potential victims. This ain't rocket science dude. Had the group of protestors continued dispersing, you'd likely have seen the police move up, call in medics and tend to the injured. But when the crowd turned around, the area was still unsecure. quote:
ORIGINAL: errantgeek Moreover, the demonstrators were clearly by body language and by actual movement not advancing on the barricade and had no hostile intentions towards the police. To wit, they were moving slowly and intentionally towards the injured person clearly indicating their intent to help the injured person through voice and body language. Moreover, officers were actively monitoring the situation, including the one who intentionally waited until the protesters had gathered around the wounded person to throw the flashbang. That's what you claim. You weren't there. We're going off the same video and I see something different. Remember, much like sports fans picking apart their team's decisions on Monday at the water cooler, you have days and weeks to second-guess a choice that had to be made in SECONDS on the scene. Again -- armed, armored officers, crowd moving in....seconds count. Do you want to see your wife and kid tonight? What do you do? It's easy for you to answer now, you have all the time you need. You can look at the question now. Watch the video, make a choice, watch the video some more, re-think your choice, watch the video again, eat lunch, watch the video again, think some more. Cops get SECONDS to make that choice that you're spending a week picking apart. Oh...and about your 'expert' analysis on when the flashbang was thrown -- those things are devices that make a loud "bang" (hence the name) and a bright flash of light. The further you are from the device when it goes off, the less effect it has on you. Thus, to ensure maximum dispersal, you have to lob it directly into the room you're entering or, as in this case, the group you're trying to disperse. That's kinda how they work.
|