As the temperature rises and political violence is in the air, Las Cruces discusses why two demonstrations, held on consecutive days at the same location, were policed differently.
The disparities between the Friday and Saturday rallies have not been explained. There is no way to connect permitting or lack of it with a police presence Friday and a police absence on Saturday. The threats aimed at Saturday's rally had nothing to do with permits, and the permits were no protection against those threats. Story just tells stories.
sorry, you didn’t understand my comment which was challenging the implied logic that the permits had something to do with the threats or the police protection or lack thereof
I understood your comment just fine. You are linking permits to there having been threats online about the protests. These two things are not related to one another. The chief said that one reason the presence at the two protests was different was because one organizer had gotten a permit and they had a point of contact. As I argue in my piece, I don’t think this explains it.
There is no connection anybody is making between the threats and the permits.
Algernon, you’re just trying too hard to find fault with something that was stated very clearly by me and which story himself linked together. I’m sure you’ve got better things to do.
I choose how I spend my time, and I respond to questions and comments on my writing. I see no need to defend that.
This is consistently how you argue, Michael. You like to fight. You like to scold, lecture and dismiss people. A problem you run into sometimes, as in here, is when you misread something and then double down on being wrong.
In this case, you are insisting that Chief Story drew some connection between online threats and the fact that Indivisible Las Cruces got a routine permit for their demonstration. In fact, as the organizer told me directly, they simply obtained a permit because they were expecting a large turnout and wanted to coordinate with the city as well as the police. This is a routine transaction for people organizing large demonstrations on public property.
The chief only mentioned the permit in explaining why one protest was policed differently than the other, as the other was spontaneous and did not involve a permit or contact with the city. This is not confusing. Yet you are insisting he said something he did not say.
But since I pointed out your error, you are reacting by insisting on your point. Go ahead and believe what you want. If you think these things are related somehow, then that’s what you think. But if you read the reporting closely, or review the meeting yourself on YouTube, what was stated is in public view.
I think this will be our last conversation, Michael, unless you are willing to be a little bit more reasonable in your approach.
"The chief only mentioned the permit in explaining why one protest was policed differently than the other, as the other was spontaneous and did not involve a permit or contact with the city."
If you had read my blog, you might have understood my point. Since the Saturday rally received a threat, the police might have been present and prepared for it. Why were they not? What about having a license had anything to do with deterring a threat?
A very informative report. It seems to also include suggestions that could bring peaceful peotesters and law enforcement closer together
Alerting the public to sites suggesting violence can help too.
The disparities between the Friday and Saturday rallies have not been explained. There is no way to connect permitting or lack of it with a police presence Friday and a police absence on Saturday. The threats aimed at Saturday's rally had nothing to do with permits, and the permits were no protection against those threats. Story just tells stories.
Who said the threats had anything to do with permits?
sorry, you didn’t understand my comment which was challenging the implied logic that the permits had something to do with the threats or the police protection or lack thereof
I understood your comment just fine. You are linking permits to there having been threats online about the protests. These two things are not related to one another. The chief said that one reason the presence at the two protests was different was because one organizer had gotten a permit and they had a point of contact. As I argue in my piece, I don’t think this explains it.
There is no connection anybody is making between the threats and the permits.
Algernon, you’re just trying too hard to find fault with something that was stated very clearly by me and which story himself linked together. I’m sure you’ve got better things to do.
I choose how I spend my time, and I respond to questions and comments on my writing. I see no need to defend that.
This is consistently how you argue, Michael. You like to fight. You like to scold, lecture and dismiss people. A problem you run into sometimes, as in here, is when you misread something and then double down on being wrong.
In this case, you are insisting that Chief Story drew some connection between online threats and the fact that Indivisible Las Cruces got a routine permit for their demonstration. In fact, as the organizer told me directly, they simply obtained a permit because they were expecting a large turnout and wanted to coordinate with the city as well as the police. This is a routine transaction for people organizing large demonstrations on public property.
The chief only mentioned the permit in explaining why one protest was policed differently than the other, as the other was spontaneous and did not involve a permit or contact with the city. This is not confusing. Yet you are insisting he said something he did not say.
But since I pointed out your error, you are reacting by insisting on your point. Go ahead and believe what you want. If you think these things are related somehow, then that’s what you think. But if you read the reporting closely, or review the meeting yourself on YouTube, what was stated is in public view.
I think this will be our last conversation, Michael, unless you are willing to be a little bit more reasonable in your approach.
"The chief only mentioned the permit in explaining why one protest was policed differently than the other, as the other was spontaneous and did not involve a permit or contact with the city."
If you had read my blog, you might have understood my point. Since the Saturday rally received a threat, the police might have been present and prepared for it. Why were they not? What about having a license had anything to do with deterring a threat?
Projection is your game, not mine.
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1YndH3kdGN/