> if a precinct is in reasonable danger of falling into someone else’s hands then it makes sense to destroy sensitive data.

Maybe. If there is no reasonable way to safely move the sensitive material to someplace safe. Of course, the set of situations ever where that would be the case and it would be even practical to destroy the material rather than abandoning it to effect a safe retreat is really stunningly narrow. You can construct highly-contrived scenarios, but...

Neither of these camps of thought know whether it was or wasn't. My point was to say both are plausible at this point.

I mean, we have actual maps of where damage was done, you posted one, and it shows no riot damage reported close to the precinct. The closest damage was relatively minor both in type and amount.

So, we actually do know that the 2nd precinct never came anywhere close to falling. The question now is whether they’re lying about destroying evidence maliciously, or lying about having panicked.

Maybe you guys are arguing the wrong point?

The police are fundamentally different from the US Marines in almost all ways, in practice and in reality.

My position is that there is NEVER a situation where it makes more sense for the police to devote manpower to destroying evidence over restoring order. Police agencies shredding files on the way out the door are, historically, not doing it to protect anyone but themselves.

I’m inclined to agree. I think by the time destroying evidence makes sense we’re already talking about a precinct burning (in which case the fire will do it anyways), or a revolution (in which case it doesn’t matter). Maybe there are some other cases out there, but it seems a bit silly imho.

Either way, it’s pretty clear that Precinct 2 never got anywhere close to such a convoluted hypothetical. That leaves the question why they did it, to which I believe the Roman jurors said it best: cui bono?