I have to get this off my chest and this seems like the place to do it. You guys heard about the baker gang shootout on Waco, right? Well the police there had a response of arresting 192 people, locking down the entire city, and arresting anyone on a bike that was coming into town. The spokesman then went into a long tirade when he called the bikers dangerous, violent, no regard for human life and the city wasn't going to take it anymore. A pretty strong response, right?
I see people on social media mad because he didn't specifically use the word "thug". I am trying to wrap my head around that. So he basically calls them the definition of a thug, more importantly he arrested anyone who may or may not have connection to the event, but dammit he didn't call them "Thugs"!!! I asked if anyone complaining had ever heard the spokesman speak, did he ever use the word thug before in connection to other violent attacks? The response I got was, it doesn't matter if he never has said thugs, he should have used it in the press conference.
I am cramming to understand the logic here. If the Sgt had said some crap like, "Oh this was just a few bad apples and biker gangs are just dandy in general," and let them walk, I would be pissed. But damn the police came down hard as fuck on the gangs and people are focusing on the wording of the press conference? Is this what is really important? So if he called them thugs and didn't arrest anyone, would that be fine? I just don't get it. There are plenty of injustices to get pissed about, not calling people who are in custody thugs isn't one of them, IMO.
Sorry, just had to vent somewhere about this.