I understand the reasoning behind the decision and the result of standing down and making the arrests after the fact IMHO did avoid further aggravating the crowd and giving them another reason to lash out while emotions among the protestors was running high. Angry people don't think very far into the future and when the herd mentality kicks in individuals are more likely to follow the crowd than think for themselves.
That being said, my inner sheepdog would have liked to see the vandalism stopped as soon as it started and the instigators made examples of. Had I gotten my wish would a riot have erupted? Would harm to people and damage to property have taken place? IMHO, probably.
I can explain it to you but I can't understand it for you.
"Any man who thinks he can be happy and prosperous by letting the Government take care of him; better take a closer look at the American Indian." - Henry Ford
Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges; When the Republic is at its most corrupt the laws are most numerous. - Publius Cornelius Tacitus
ramage wrote: What is the other "ill" that this is the lessor of?
The one ill is the misdemeanor that was committed when the memorial was desecrated. The other ill would be the potential escalation of force on both sides if the officers acted to either prevent the desecration or to act immediately when the memorial was desecrated. There is not a single doubt in my mind that the purpose behind desecrating the memorial was to incite the police into using force to make an arrest which would give the mob the excuse they were looking for to escalate their behavior as well.
But I struggle a bit with the decision. One wonders how the mayor and chief would respond to a group that was intent on desecrating a MLK memorial statue in similar fashion, or the entrance to the mayor's office. Would they tell the rank and file to stand down and allow the vandalism under those circumstances too?
