Serious question: Have you ever gone on any type of march? You stay right within the immediate area where you gather. It's not as if they were going to go to Palm Springs. They would have gone a couple exits and been done. Half-hour, maybe. Instead, by overreacting, the police dragged it out.

"Happening" before, now "whitey"? I refuse to believe you are not a bit player from a Dragnet rerun.

It was publicized. Also, it's a pretty flat area. You'd know that there were a ton of people in your path ahead when you saw the ton of people in your path ahead, from a long distance back.

It's not all that different. If a couple people are being jerks, you deal with that couple of people. You don't indiscriminately start pulling the trigger on a crowd.

You let them naturally disperse. They were marching, not sitting. They would have been gone fairly quickly. This is why the police in most cities just let this stuff play out. Instead, by overreacting, the LAPD put the demonstrators into a defensive mode, which actually prolongs the situation.

By the way, I just realized you said getting to a hospital to say goodbye, not getting to a hospital in general. Sorry. Still, I stand by my overall point.

Frances? Francine?

Wait, no, gotta put on my 'Merica cap: Franklynne.

I have a friend who got a really nasty burn from one in Gaza that led to an infection and a pretty lengthy hospital stay to combat necrosis. Those things are harsh as hell.

Thank you for engaging and for demonstrating that even people unwilling/unable to take to the streets can still do something.

You tell 'em! It's WAY better for White America to continue not giving a shit like they have for hundreds of years!

I've done my share of marches in my time, and I can't fathom any group of demonstrators not allowing free access for ambulances that need to get through in an emergency. Also, there is usually (though I can't speak to this case) one lane or footpath or expanse of lawn or whatever else kept clear for the protection of…

Well, yeah, I'm looking at the legal ruling of a legal case through a legal lens. ;)

Here, in case this helps:

No, your last sentence is incorrect. The American legal system does not find people innocent. It finds people not guilty. Not innocent means "charge proven false." Not guilty means "charge not proven." There is a big distinction there.

My (very bright) teenage niece is convinced that only widows can use "Ms.," because her widowed grandmother and great-aunt told her that, and that means she has to use "Miss." What.

This is America; do it up right.

Are they going with "ROSE-uh-velt," "ROSE-velt," "ROOZ-uh-velt," or one of the other nine hundred pronunciations I've heard on the History Channel?

You can't try him for the same charges again. You can theoretically come up with new charges, like if you found he didn't legally own the gun or something, but that kind of thing mostly only happens in Lifetime movies. It's generally a pointless proposal.

So I knew you all had quick minds and what not, buuuuuut...

"Not guilty" also does not mean "innocent," but apparently no one in America understands that anymore. :/ It simply means "government case not proven."