Re: Los Angeles Has Surrendered

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Tue, 10 Jun 2025 13:43:57 -0000 (UTC), Adam H. Kerman <ahk@chinet.com>:

shawn <nanoflower@notforg.m.a.i.l.com> wrote:

Mon, 09 Jun 2025 22:50:35 -0700, The Horny Goat <lcraver@home.ca>:

Mon, 9 Jun 2025 19:27:13 -0000 (UTC), BTR1701 <atropos@mac.com>:

Were these the same 'reports' that told you everything was 'mostly
peaceful', Dimensional? The crowd sizes were a helluva lot further
north than 100.

https://ibb.co/HDVhqC0s

Unless the scenes I saw were from somewhere outside the United States,
what I saw wasn't peaceful at all.

Then you weren't looking very hard. Yes, there were protests that
weren't peaceful, but there were also protests going on with large
numbers of people that were completely peaceful. Though the violence
is what is always going to get covered the most.

Do you think the chief of police uses a crystal ball, shawn, to make
decisions about predicting violence breaking out once large numbers of
people start protesting? Can he take that chance?

(I'm not clear what your comments have to do with my comments but hey,
I'll play along.)

You made an assumption that a very large number of protestors, while
intially peaceful, will not turn violent. The chief of police cannot
afford to make that assumption.

He doesn't get to make that choice. If the protestors are peaceful and
following the law then there's nothing for the police to do. Sure,
they need to be around and monitoring the situation but that's the
extent of their involvement.

A very large group of protestors requires a large group of police
officers for crowd control and basic security, at the very least. It
means officers will have been called away from patrol duties.

If there is violence or law breaking then they need to step in.

If there is crime taking place elsewhere at the same time, the city will
quickly run out of cops.

. . .