It never ceases to amaze me, how people can view pretty much the same facts, and yet come to polar opposite conclusions. And this from people with little or no direct connection to the events being discussed. What it does make me realize is how easy it is for real conflicts and wars can escalate when people with passions and direct stakes in the outcomes are involved.
tshile, I basically disagree with every point of your last statement, but I don't think it's unreasoned, or inherently biased. Likewise, I have no axe to grind, and come from a pretty basic Republican background, though I am a pretty strong Libertarian at this point, I've even voted for 1 (
). To me, this was an extreme case of police overreach and covering their own ass to the detriment of the community they work for. As I read you, it was merely a (possibly) overaggressive response to a community that was out of control.
I don't think I ever would be behind police assault tactics like we saw used on civilians and journalists in the way we saw them (and when I was an MP, I trained with riot gear frequently). I guess you are saying that there are cases where a police force should be able to use those tools on journalists and unarmed civilians.
I guess we can always agree to disagree.