This is not a SFW instance. NSFW communities will be tagged, and efforts will be made to keep SFW communities clean, but proceed at your own comfort level.
Because there’s more to it than just that quote, such as:
“We certainly talked to the mayor about this. It was not safe for us to make any sort of arrests on those individuals in that large crowd,” Peterson continued. “The best thing, from my perspective, was what did occur and direct those vehicles to leave the area, which essentially de-escalated things.”
It could (very likely) be complete bullshit, or maybe this decision did actually come from the mayor’s office for genuine de-escalation purposes. At any rate, providing the complete context behind the police’s decision (as described in this article anyway) would have required copy-pasting several paragraphs, and I was trying to keep my reply as succinct as I could for visibility reasons.
Moreover, the question of “why did they do that” is a detour from the specific point I was trying to make, which was that the commenter I replied to made it sound like Lang had not been arrested at all, a misconception I wanted to dispel (because in this era of rampant misinformation, the truth needs to be illuminated wherever possible, and as everyone knows, no one actually reads the article).
Giving two, conflicting explanations is a sign of someone telling a lie. He says they couldn’t direct them, then says they consulted the mayor and successfully directed them away. Which was it?
He says they spoke to the mayor, but not when they did. Would they genuinely have the time or inclination to consult him in a rapidly escalating situation like that? He doesn’t even say what the mayor said, just kind of implies it by planting that sentence around what seems to be his own opinions.
If you’re so concerned about misinformation then maybe don’t believe that cops are doing anything but covering their ass. You don’t need to give the benefit of the doubt to them, they’ve absolutely not earned it.
Because there’s more to it than just that quote, such as:
It could (very likely) be complete bullshit, or maybe this decision did actually come from the mayor’s office for genuine de-escalation purposes. At any rate, providing the complete context behind the police’s decision (as described in this article anyway) would have required copy-pasting several paragraphs, and I was trying to keep my reply as succinct as I could for visibility reasons.
Moreover, the question of “why did they do that” is a detour from the specific point I was trying to make, which was that the commenter I replied to made it sound like Lang had not been arrested at all, a misconception I wanted to dispel (because in this era of rampant misinformation, the truth needs to be illuminated wherever possible, and as everyone knows, no one actually reads the article).
Giving two, conflicting explanations is a sign of someone telling a lie. He says they couldn’t direct them, then says they consulted the mayor and successfully directed them away. Which was it?
He says they spoke to the mayor, but not when they did. Would they genuinely have the time or inclination to consult him in a rapidly escalating situation like that? He doesn’t even say what the mayor said, just kind of implies it by planting that sentence around what seems to be his own opinions.
If you’re so concerned about misinformation then maybe don’t believe that cops are doing anything but covering their ass. You don’t need to give the benefit of the doubt to them, they’ve absolutely not earned it.
Why are you driving a point so fucking hard against someone agreeing with you