Pixiq

I love the first commenter on the website you linked to.

Not enough information to go on here but based on my extensive experience dealing with bar fights and large crowds, it sounds like the police were breaking up a large hostile crowd and using the horses for crowd control.

I wonder how scared the original writer would have been if the police never showed up?
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

I don’t worry too much about drunks, even in large numbers (unless they’re operating a vehicle or carrying a weapon). Even parade-sized crowds of drunks are usually more chaotic than anything else. While they’re dangerous to property, unless you provoke them (e.g. wearing the wrong team jersey) the threat to other people is due to recklessness.

On the other hand, police trying to break up crowds usually bring things like firearms, Tasers, clubs, OC, and horses trained to trample people. The threat posed by police is distinct and direct; they are acting intentionally or knowingly.

Given a choice between ill-equipped, poorly-organized drunks and Police breaking up ill-equipped, poorly-organized drunks. I’ll take my chances with the drunks, thank you very much.

Honestly, if you’ve done crowd control in a situation that got out-of-hand what would you tell someone about the wisdom of approaching the police?? Do you approach them or run from them? Why?

My worst fear about drunken bar brawls is that off-duty cops will be participants. Not that “any review is needed”, according to their chief.

http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?articleId=b5a47c58-6306-4f8e-a8b...

Troll

I would tell people to leave the area. The cops are concerned with maintaining order and if there is an out of control crowd, they probably don’t have time to listen to people complain that they have to go out their way to get to their car.

The only thing accomplished by hanging out and watching the show is that you contributed to the crowd and you risk getting caught up in things. Just like this author observed

Lulz. Feelings hurt, Johnny?
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

Trolls troll (present tense trolling). If he’s only trolling you, then he’s not a troll.
If he were trolling the entire commenter base it would sound something like this: “The cops involved here did nothing wrong. People should just do what the police say and they won’t get hurt.”

That’s trolling.

Have a nice week.

“but based on my extensive experience dealing with bar fights and large crowds”

Dude, stop, your killing me… XD

You mean your extensive experience being at least slightly smarter and far better armed than drunk people?

It’s not rocket science… until the cops bring the tear gas launchers.

I wonder how much violence there would have been if the police hadn’t stuck around?
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

Next he’ll be getting involved in a land war in Asia.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

Or fighting a war on two fronts. I heard that’s a good idea too.

Second verse. Same as the first.

From wikioedia:
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room or blog, with the primary intent of provoking other users into an emotional response[1] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.[2]

That fits about half the people that post here.

No, wait, first he’s going to keep mis-using the word.

We should cut him some slack though, he only discovered Godwin’s Law last week. He’s still living in Eternal September.

Better hope he never discovers Encyclopedia Dramatica.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

ironic comment is ironic.

There’s way less than half that troll here. Also, stop projecting.

(yes, this is a troll)

The true twisted genius of this is that Johnny has managed to do everything in that definition in that very post.

That’s some *quality* trollin’ right there.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

Don’t get me wrong, i like jlaw, but his irony meter needs to go in for extensive repairs.

Ah, a story about the filth abusing the plebs, why am I not surprised. I am just a peon, a lowly pleb of Rome.
Jody´s last blog ..Massachusetts: 2nd Amendment does not apply to states

I agree with the first part, “The cops are concerned with maintaining order.” The problem is just that, safety of persons and maintaining order are not the same thing. In fact, when the tools for maintaining order include horses, fists, and Tasers (not necessarily in that order), the two are often, if not usually, in opposition.

This makes me think that a reasonable answer to your original question, “I wonder how scared the original writer would have been if the police never showed up?” is: less scared. The OP would be reasonable to conclude that armed BRPD officers on a crown control mission that includes threatening people for “legally taking pictures” or “asking questions” are a greater threat to his safety than “dealing with crowds of drunk people”.

Panem et circenses tibi.

Dumb cops don’t seem to understand that it’s gonna take time for a crowd to disperse, and that good people get trapped amongst the troublemakers. You always hear cops say anyone caught up in a protest or crowd was asking for it cause they didn’t *choose to* leave. When stuck in a big crowd you CAN”T leave in 60 seconds. What would happen if 200 drunks starting running all at once?

Tibi gratias agimus quod nihil fumas.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

Et agio gratisa tibi verbis, sed non sequitur, nonne?

@capn_amurka

You keep saying they were just “asking questions”. Like I said, when dealing with an unruly crowd, they don’t have time to answer questions. What usually happens is someone will come up to demand to know what’s happening or want to get through the cops because it’s a shortcut to their car. The police tell them to leave because they are busy. The person (probably drunk) continues to stand there and pester the officer. Inevitably the officer threatens to jail them unless they get the hell out of there.

Same with photos. The cops are trying to clear and area and some fool thinks that having a camera means they can ignore them. Take your pictures from distance when the police are doing crowd control.

It is really common sense and most people get it. However there are always folks that are wearing their “I’m special” hat and then get offended when the cops force them to move.

I’m not sure how you would go about dispersing a large crowd without using some level of force.
Your comment that officers are a bigger threat than drunk people is laughable. I see the results of violent assaults by drunks every night in my patrol area. Stabbings and bottles over the head are common.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

@florida

Right, because nobody would decide to stick around and watch the show right? And drunks are perfectly reasonable people and would comply immediately right?
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

Lorem ipsum.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

You’ll note that Johnny immediately starts talking about people who choose to stay (the opposite of the group being asked about) and drunks. He doesn’t even stop to consider that there could be people who want to leave and can’t quickly enough, because that would require him to stop and think… and Johnny *can’t* accept that those people could possibly exist. Thugs aren’t *paid* to think, they’re there to keep order and follow orders. No future, don’t think, only the orders.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

“Your comment that officers are a bigger threat than drunk people is laughable. I see the results of violent assaults by drunks every night in my patrol area. Stabbings and bottles over the head are common.”

Yeah, cops who commit assault use pepper spray, fists, feet, clubs, TASERs, tear gas, handguns, shotguns, etc. and wear armor while they do it. They’d never use knives or broken bottles, they might hit one of their own and most body armor doesn’t stop sharp/puncture weapons. Friendly Fire Isn’t.

And there’s clearly no need to ever fear misconduct assault from police, because that never happens, ever. Laughable!
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

@michael42

“Yeah, cops who commit assault use pepper spray, fists, feet, clubs, TASERs, tear gas, handguns, shotguns, etc. and wear armor while they do it. They’d never use knives or broken bottles, they might hit one of their own and most body armor doesn’t stop sharp/puncture weapons. ”

yeah I suppose we could do crowd control with feather dusters and silly string but I doubt it would be as effective.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

@Johnny

I said “committing assault” not “doing crowd control.” Read, Johnny, READ.

It’s entirely possible to do crowd control without engaging in misconduct. Too bad it doesn’t always happen that way, and it’s too bad you clearly can’t see the difference.

BTW, you forgot the part about fearing police misconduct and their being a greater threat than some drunk people being “laughable.”

What’s not laughable is you can’t even recognize it’s a legitimate fear.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

Well I didn’t expect to hear anything different coming from “Johnny Law”. After all.. in his eyes the cops can do NO wrong!

The news article said “a float broke down, and someone tried to ask the officers some questions to which the police replied they’d arrest him for asking too many questions.”

The reporter commented that “police shouldn’t threaten people for legally taking pictures, shouldn’t arrest people for asking questions and shouldn’t make bystanders feel less safe than the bad guys made them feel.”

Yep, you’re right “Johnny Law”..the cops can do NO wrong!

@michael42

“I said “committing assault” not “doing crowd control.” Read, Johnny, READ.”

Then perhaps you should stay on subject. We were discussing police dealing with a drunken crowd. You want to throw around the word assault and a rational person would think we are still talking about dealing with crowd control.

Of course I should have remembered how much trouble you have staying on topic when you are so desperate to disagree with me on any issue.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

“You want to throw around the word assault and a rational person would think we are still talking about dealing with crowd control.”

Oh really? Or maybe they just read

“The OP would be reasonable to conclude that armed BRPD officers on a crown control mission that includes threatening people for “legally taking pictures” or “asking questions” are a greater threat to his safety than “dealing with crowds of drunk people”.”

Just because you don’t want that to be the subject doesn’t mean it’s not. I realize if you’re not allowed to change what we’re talking about there’s really no way you can say much (that is positive about police,) Johnny, but that’s just the way it is.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

Your quote even mentions the term “crowd control”. Thanks for proving my point with that fail post.

“Your quote even mentions the term “crowd control””

Yup, and

“BPRD officers …are a greater threat to his safety”

i.e., talking about officers hurting (assaulting, engaging in misconduct) people.

Oh wait, you think if the EXACT WORD isn’t there we can’t talk about it. What are you, seven?

No, you’re a control freak, Johnny. You *have* to have *absolute control* of the conversation, and you just ignore the parts you don’t want to deal with. Sorry, you don’t get that here.

Sure, you might get to do that out on the field, but you don’t have your little toys to beat people into compliance with here.

Still

“Your comment that officers are a bigger threat than drunk people is laughable”

is just insane. And even presented with evidence (the National Police Misconduct Statistics and Reporting Project link) you just conveniently ignore it and suddenly claim it’s off-topic.

I think we all see how you’ve failed here.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

Johnny: Happy drunks aren’t the problem. Captain already addressed that one. Sure, if something’s going down that’s going to attract attention from those nearby. But you still failed to address the fact that in a crowd like that there are people who might want to move but CANNOT because they are boxed in. You don’t to get to punish everyone for the actions of a few.

@Johnny Law:

The details regarding “asking questions” and “taking photos” are included as a reference to the conduct of the crowd and are not critical to my point: that a reasonable person can find a parade-sized crowd of drunks far safer than the police sent to control said crowd.

“I’m not sure how you would go about dispersing a large crowd without using some level of force.” Agreed, but that supports my point: when the police show up, a reasonable person expects them to start using force. When their tools are batons, people get hurt. Whether stupid enough to hang around voluntarily or are unlucky enough to be unable to get away quickly enough, the people in the crown have a reasonable apprehension of being attacked by the LEOs. By contrast, a similar apprehension of attacks by drunks wouldn’t be reasonable.

“Your comment that officers are a bigger threat than drunk people is laughable. I see the results of violent assaults by drunks every night in my patrol area. Stabbings and bottles over the head are common. ” While it’s probably true that many drunks are violent, that isn’t the issue; the issue is whether drunks are *more or less* violent than crowd control police. I submit that once the crowd control police arrive, the people in a crowd are *less safe* than they were before and your own arguments support that. As you noted, the violence by police is deliberate and pre-meditated for lack of other crown control options. Stated another way, the police have the means, method, opportunity, and motive to attack people in the crowd.

A reasonable person can easily conclude that the police are a *far* greater threat than were the random drunks could ever be.