. . .gassed, sonic/blasted, and the rest.
I've heard three attributed to him (like all statements reported, they are subject to interpretation and verification). . .
One was that they were pursuing the person who fired the gunshot(s) and needed the demonstrators to move. I find that ridiculous. Tear gas and smoke grenades scattered demonstrators and no shooter was caught, as of this writing. The gunshot at(?) a police vehicle he described doesn't appear to have been proven to have come from this group. And, it was demonstrators who actually transported the victim of the other gunshot to the hospital.
Two, that they had reports of snipers on a roof somewhere who were going to shoot at them if they tried to move the demonstrators. I find that unbelievable. As I stated in an earlier thread, Johnson talks of responding to a disturbance, which looks to be mostly unrelated to the group, and the police who moved en masse toward the demonstrators didn't go anywhere else - the bulk of them went nowhere else except right at these demonstrators who were gathered in the middle of a street, not at the building he described.
Three, Cpt. Johnson tried to justify the use of smoke bombs (and tear gas, which someone on the force first denied was used) by asserting that the crowd wouldn't disperse . . . so what? That's no reason to gas and smoke bomb demonstrators. It's the exact thing he said earlier wouldn't be resorted to.
I hope that helps. It's just my own view, of course, and it's my sincere hope that those questions of mine about his supposed remarks don't take away or diminish your view or others' of the great good that I believe he's done so far.
Joy Reid @JoyAnnReid · Aug 16
Are Ferguson police deliberately undermining Capt. Ron Johnson's command? HT @Marmel - http://crooksandliars.com/2014/08/tension-flares-ferguson-after-police … pic.twitter.com/NtRf41Jaqy”
= new reply since forum marked as read