Your interpretation is much more lenient than mine. I can understand the theory of crowd containment and not wanting to escalate the situation. However, these are vicious people, LEO is playing with fire, and they know it.
I don’t understand why the Hyatt would have been subject to allowing a riot on their property. Their number one responsibility is the safety and comfort of their guests. It would have been smart to have rejected trespassers. Hyatt could be held liable for injuries on their property. What about the other hotel guests? Why should they be subjected to personal risk? Why are they to be held hostage in the hotel, praying the lynch mob does not break through.
Instead of an effigy of Trump, what if they had torched the trees or the hotel? They looked liked the type of trash that wouldn’t hesitate to be flamers. The hotel had to padlock some of the supplemental entrances from the inside once the thugs broke down the barricades. How insane is that?
Anyone coincidently staying at the Hyatt and facing a mob on their property should have been demanding a free stay and police escort to one of their other properties. Riots at the Hyatt is bad for business and destroys their **** ratings.
I don’t have a problem with the way you describe it.
I view us as each filling in a bit of the details, and neither of us being particularly wrong.
It’s a nasty situation. We agree to that.
I think it should have been controlled much more than it was.