I'm not commenting on this particular case, since we don't have all of the facts yet, but it should only take seconds to comply with a lawful order, not minutes.
Just watch the video; it was a live broadcast of the whole encounter. They were told to move, asked where was OK to move, the cops didn't give an answer (ostensibly communicating with superiors over radio), and then they were simply arrested.
Y'all were right, the footage I saw earlier was clipped after the girl had ran.
That's enough of trying to see all sides for me today. This week is hell.
-----------------------
It was not a live broadcast of the "whole encounter" it was a live broadcast that started in medias res after the reporters were clearly surrounded by multiple officers of the law.
Not to mention that for the hour preceding 05:00 CDT, the National Guard and Minnesota State Troopers were announcing over loudspeakers that anyone in the area was to disperse immediately or face arrest.
So, it begs the question - what happened in the minutes leading up to when the camera started rolling?
Is it possible the crew had already been told to leave or they would be subject to arrest, and the crew did not follow this?
Are we counting being skeptical of a claim as taking the opposite side? Seems like the user is trying to understand the situation rather than advocate for a side.
It's not being skeptical, it's in fact the exact opposite of any form of skepticism: it's being so credulous to one "side" that you make up falsehoods to excuse bad behavior, instead of using that same time to look for actual facts.
I don't know how this style of thinking has in the past decade or so come to be thought of as "skepticism," it's just incredible bias against one side. A skeptical though process would be inventing equally fabulous motivations in all directions, not just one.
