All I'm saying is, if you're going to go on TV and tell everyone that you heard someone in the attic moving and coughing, you SAW a human form on a thermal imaging camera, and spend seven hours using various technologies, knowing you're being filmed throughout the whole thing, and then just fizzle into nothing, without explaining what the hell happened, it looks pretty foolish on their part. Then to hold two separate press conferences the following morning in which you sound like you have no idea what's going on, contradicting things you said earlier, and completely avoiding any sort of explanation for your false statements to the press, some egg is on their face.
I'm not saying I could do it better. I'm not saying they owe me an explanation personally. I understand it may not be necessary to tip their hand.
I'm just saying, it looks pretty disorganized on this end.
And I don't see how not completely ignoring the questions they were asked about why they were so confident that someone was in that attic, siting specific things like the thermal readings and hearing a person coughing is sensitive information, but I guess I don't know.
Thank you!
It's like anything else, you're giving a critique after the fact, with the outcome known. They were on the ground live, with the information that was current to them at the time. If anything, their biggest error was giving out too much info while it was still unfolding.
I've also not been able to see every presser, or hear everything said by police media liaisons, or whatever. I don't know how much of the information you think (or anybody else thinks) came directly from them, vs what got reported, ie Tate's assertion that it wasn't tear gas, and what is attributed to them. And, maybe you can just accept it as fact that, at some time yesterday, they had the thermal images, and heard what they thought was a cough, and it turned out not to be the suspect? Technology can fail, or mislead, and it could ever be that from whoever was running the "technology" one thing was said, and by the time it got to a media liaison, it was somehow altered. "We think we have a heat signature, and we're trying to confirm it's likely human" to "We have a heat signature on our infrared equipment, and have confirmed it's appears to be human." (Or whatever was said)
Here's what I'm 100% sure of: Yesterday they acted on a tip they felt was credible. When they arrived, they garnered further information that further supported that tip, and they acted accordingly. I can't say if the tip was good or not, but in the end, the suspect wasn't where they thought he was. I'm satisfied knowing that.