Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the gist of it. Of course I left out a lot of things, and not all of them are in the protesters's favor. > early on the police were ordering people to disperse even though there was no violence at that time. But did the police use violence first? > late in July there were increasing attacks on protesters in which police stood by as people were attacked with poles. It seems that in this case, it was the police…
>When you treat the police like your enemy, how do you expect them to rush to your help the moment you need it? And seeing that the protesters were more than capable of violence themselves, why would the police rush to help? Because you have a sense of honor and duty? Because you want to preserve the possibility of peaceful protest? The reasons go on.
I'm not say that makes them right. I'm saying I can understand why they stayed on the sideline. And I wouldn't disagree that those in charge at the scene should be held accountable for their inaction.