> Its reasonable assumption to assume that they might attack another precinct, not a reason to assume that a precinct will fall. If they say, barricaded the bridge between the two precincts or setup a cordon, that would seem like a prudent response. If the rioters were at the gates and they initiated this policy, that also would be reasonable.

We're also dealing in hindsight. I still think given the climate back then and that a group of people stormed a police station is a pretty incredible circumstance to be dealing with. Now, whether their bias to action was innocent or correct is up to investigation to determine.

It's perfectly okay to speculate and ask for investigations. It's less okay to speak in very definitive terms about something that is quite in flux. That's why I'm a bit wishy-washy on what I believe happened, because any number of variables can produce each outcome -- or both.

I am not "side-stepping" the issue. You think they lied and now you're into searching for an MO to match that. To me, that's pretty improper and it's not how I come to conclusions.

I don't give them the benefit of the doubt, that would imply a conclusion. This, to me, has not concluded. Both theories are still plausible based on the information we have today.