|
February 14, 2005Erin and I started today on a grim note: an article about the weekend rioting in University of Maryland, College Park after the Maryland-Duke basketball game. Check out the Police Use Riot Gear video."If you do not disperse, you are subject to arrest and possible exposure to chemical agents." Pretty clear message, no? What we have is a massive group of college students: a couple posing for pictures, a couple setting fire to something, some visibly drunk, some climbing on top of cars, many chattin it up on their cell phones, many screaming into the wind, all super excited about Maryland's win, all ignoring the pleas of police to please step aside. "Come on, please, let's go, move it!" What I don't understand is, in a group that is that large and that unwilling to do anything the police ask them to do (to please do), how is a group of policemen expected to carry all blame for any injuries? The new UMD policy:
The first of Jon Stewart's two central truths is appropriate here: society needs laws. While anarchy can often turn a hum-drum weekend into something unforgettable, eventually the mob must be kept from stealing the conch and killing Piggy. And while it would be nice if that something was simple human decency, anybody who has witnessed the 50% wedding dress sale at Filene's Basement knows we need a back-up plan, preferably in writing... In a Washington Post article:
An account of a similar incident in 2002 comes from this here blog, The Fly Bottle. What do you want to do with hundreds of drunk 20 year olds on a tribal testosterone/seratonin kick? Well, attack them of course. I don't know -- what do you do with hundreds of drunk 20 year olds whose parents are paying tuition at your school under the assumption that you will deliver them, alive, to graduation? Who's going to get sued if little Erin gets caught up in a sea of drunk-and-testosteroned 20 year olds and is trampled underfoot: the sea of 20 year olds, the police who failed to save her, or the university that failed to protect her? |
|