In common parlance, a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of debate. In taking this position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position. It can also refer to someone who takes a stance that is seen as unpopular or unconventional, but is actually another way of arguing a much more conventional stance.
In this case, an untrained 19 year old who had already been wounded required a major city to essentially shut down. Hundreds, if not thousands, of law enforcement personnel conducted a 20 hour manhunt to apprehend him.
Though law enforcement did succeed, it must be taken into account this suspect had not made prior preparations for countering a large manhunt, had no sympathy or support for the local population and was not actively trying to counterattack the police.
Imagine if you will a group of ten men, perhaps three with formal training who have spent months preparing supplies, caches and safe houses. In addition they have a political agenda that is sympathetic with 5% of the population. While this population will not aid them in direct action they will give aid and succor. The men can reasonably expect food, short term shelter, medical assistance and passive obstruction of police operations.
Now the end result is the same. These ten men would end up dead or apprehended eventually. What would the cost be in time, dollars, manpower and public support. Too heavy of a hand could increase the percentage of population that supported their cause.
To win, an insurrection does not need total victory...
= new reply since forum marked as read