you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 58 points 10 hours ago (1 child)

Lang wasn't arrested immediately, but he was arrested. From the very article you linked:

During the press conference, Mayor Jacob Frey and MPD announced the arrest of Lang and his co-conspirators, with help from state troopers, after both vehicles were stopped and shortly impounded following the events at City Hall.

The article goes into why he wasn't arrested at the scene. You can disagree with this decision (I certainly do), however don't make it sound like Lang and Co got away scot-free.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 7 hours ago* (1 child)

    Why vaguely talk around the reason instead of just quoting it?

    “I don’t know that officers had the opportunity to direct those vehicles specifically one way or another.” -Police Chief Peterson

    The counter protestors weren't even allowed to park their vehicles nearby. How is it that they can "direct" all of those vehicles without issue, but this one is somehow undirectable? This is some pretty clear bullshit made up after the fact to justify protecting this guy from a justifiably angry mob. If he's not charged with anything then he basically did get off scot-free arrested or not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 6 hours ago (1 child)

    Because there's more to it than just that quote, such as:

    “We certainly talked to the mayor about this. It was not safe for us to make any sort of arrests on those individuals in that large crowd,” Peterson continued. “The best thing, from my perspective, was what did occur and direct those vehicles to leave the area, which essentially de-escalated things.”

    It could (very likely) be complete bullshit, or maybe this decision did actually come from the mayor's office for genuine de-escalation purposes. At any rate, providing the complete context behind the police's decision (as described in this article anyway) would have required copy-pasting several paragraphs, and I was trying to keep my reply as succinct as I could for visibility reasons.

    Moreover, the question of "why did they do that" is a detour from the specific point I was trying to make, which was that the commenter I replied to made it sound like Lang had not been arrested at all, a misconception I wanted to dispel (because in this era of rampant misinformation, the truth needs to be illuminated wherever possible, and as everyone knows, no one actually reads the article).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 hours ago*

    Giving two, conflicting explanations is a sign of someone telling a lie. He says they couldn’t direct them, then says they consulted the mayor and successfully directed them away. Which was it?

    He says they spoke to the mayor, but not when they did. Would they genuinely have the time or inclination to consult him in a rapidly escalating situation like that? He doesn’t even say what the mayor said, just kind of implies it by planting that sentence around what seems to be his own opinions.

    If you’re so concerned about misinformation then maybe don’t believe that cops are doing anything but covering their ass. You don’t need to give the benefit of the doubt to them, they’ve absolutely not earned it.

  • source
  • parent