Troopers 2016

[Granny Smith]

I see a lot of posts picking one side or the other, with absolute certainty. Anyone beside me think that both men were at fault?

Nope. Equivalency is a fallacy. That's one of the single biggest ailments in our western cultural thinking.

[corps8294]

"C-C-C-Can't we all *sniff, sniff* just get along?"

[TroopAlum12]

We do not know what he was saying to the LOS guy. For all we know that guy felt he was being threatened and punched first in what he felt was self-defense. Once the guy was on his back and people were pulling them apart, there was no need for the last punch to the face. This could have easily ended much worse - for example, LOS guy getting punched in the face and breaking the back of his skull on the pavement. There are only a few people who know exactly what led up to the confrontation and I am not one of them, but I do know when something goes beyond the point of "defending" one's self, and the last punch was going too far.

Actually we do, because there was a lot of people standing around watching, and I've spoken to a few of them. Tim was simply telling the guy - who had already expressed aggressive behavior by throwing props and yelling at the staff - to chill out and the corps would move after they finished singing battle hymn. That is not threatening. That was an attempt at de-escalation.

Edited August 14, 2016 by TroopAlum12

[njthundrrd]

Well, I think I must needs say something about all of this. Physical fighting is something that should make us all a bit squeamish and uncomfortable. But what should make us more uneasy is the idea of men not being able to defend themselves against violence and others sitting sanctimoniously behind their computer screens crying foul—as if you would sprout angel wings and blow kisses if another man began to assault you.

P.S. Those who have invoked Jim Jones have no idea how he would have responded—Shoot, back in the day this is exactly how he used to handle marching members who repeated a mistake. I jest (a bit).

I was waiting for your response. Spot on as usual.

I know Tim well enough to caption the video...

"wtf"

"WTF?!"

"Oh no, you didn't!"

On a final note... I've seen more out of the Troopers hornline watching somebody trying to break their ranks in the late 70's

[shofmon88]

Nope. Equivalency is a fallacy. That's one of the single biggest ailments in our western cultural thinking.

This is the best thing I've seen on DCP, and it doesn't even really relate to drum corps.

[packetslave]

I hear the Troopers drum major tried to help, but it took him 20 minutes to walk over there.

[2muchcoffeeman]

Nothing justifies this response.

When sorting out true from false, and right from wrong, in specific situations, I find absolutist positions to be less than helpful.

One can take the position that one should "never" hit a person who lies upon the ground. It seems a meritorious position -- until the person on the ground tells you that if he ever gets up, he's going to knife you.

Someone, somewhere in this thread, postulated that Person A may have said something threatening to Person B, prompting B to throw the elbow out of pre-emptive defense.

Maybe. Anyone got audio to back that up?

Or, maybe, once on the ground, Person B threatened to slice up Person A like a filleted trout, giving Person A a justifiable reason to make sure Person B did not get the opportunity.

Maybe. Anyone got audio?

Point is, none of us know. The video tells much of the story. It does not tell all of it. That's why we have police and witnesses and, if it comes to it, depositions and sworn testimony and judges and juries.

Speaking of the courts, someone somewhere else made this out to be some kind of legal slam-dunk, that LOS had all kinds of "rights" to demand Troopers do whatever it wanted, and that Troopers had every obligation in the world to know every possible manifestation of its responsibilities in every circumstance -- including, one presumes, when confronted by flying elbows.

Whatever duties and obligations the Troopers had related to its use of LOS are a matter of contract -- of tort -- not of criminal law. I've not read the contract, but I'm willing to wager that among the terms of that contract specifying the performance remedies available to LOS, elbow thrusts and chokeholds are not among them. I could be wrong, but . . .

Put another way: LOS may have been permitted by its contract to insist that Troopers stand over there, not here. Troopers may have felt justified in asking for a bit of temporary leniency, given the precise moment, and given that other DCI corps had been granted the same forbearance. Whatever. I think it's safe to say the contract does not grant LOS permission to use physical violence to enforce its contract.

More speculation on my part: That all parties sincerely wish that this episode never would have occurred.

Prudence, to say nothing of a sense of fair play, demands that a full accounting of the facts precede making any conclusion. All the facts available to me so far give me no reason to conclude the Troopers are in the wrong.

Edited August 14, 2016 by 2muchcoffeeman

[jwillis35]

However employee throwing a punch unprovoked can screw the stadium big time which is what happened

Yeah, I definitely changed my tune on this when I saw the 2nd video. All bets are off when you are attacked and you did not provoke such a response. Most of us would fight like heck if someone threw an elbow to our neck or tried to choke hold us. I wonder what made the LOS security guy so crazy? He seemed to overstep his authority. Either way, there is a story on each side and I'm sure it's getting hashed out.

Edited August 14, 2016 by jwillis35

[Rileydog]

It was a huge parking lot. Plenty of space for other corps to maneuver.

He's a security guard. He has no legal grounds to use force to instill his will. No badge. No oath. No anything. As soon as he crossed the line, he was wrong period. If he felt threatened, radio one of the 50 policemen on site. His demeanor showed he thought more of his position than the job description allowed.

[HornTeacher]

If, as has been reported, the police did in fact offer Mr. Snyder the option of pressing charges against the attendant, I find that to be rather telling

I am going to assume that the attendant is a resident of Indiana...or Indianapolis itself. Mr. Snyder (as well as the entire Trooper organization) can be thought of as being "outsiders" -- there for a short duration of time, then returning back home. I would think that it is simply common human nature to show, even subconsciously, a bias toward a fellow individual of common residence to one's self. Though I would (and almost always DO) attempt to extend a feeling that a law enforcement official would be of a "justice first" philosophy, I also think that he (or she) might have that subconscious bias toward one of his own. To almost immediately take the side of an outsider against a "local" speaks volumes to me, especially when it would have been just as easy to give the individuals their space and allow time to hopefully heal the wounds.

Edited August 14, 2016 by HornTeacher