You can desire the police cooperate with the hostage takers, without taking the side of the hostage takers.

The proof is in the pudding - the police ended the hostage taking with no lives lost. To after the fact continue to take the side of the hostage takers is pretty terrible to me. All of this is Olsson's fault.

What constitutes "taking the hostage takers' side"? She's not begging that the police release the perps, she's not saying that they were within their rights to rob the bank or anything like that. It's more complicated than just "she is taking the police's side" vs "she is taking the perps' side".

But the fact that she's talking fondly of the hostage takers is exactly the evidence of phenomena of the stockholm syndrome.

Could police have done things better? For sure. Were they inexperienced with the hostage situation? Yeah.

But to speak negatively of the people trying to diffuse the situation and positively of the hostage takers is what is definition of the stockholm syndrome, because clearly none of it would've happened if it wasn't for the hostage takers.

The fact that she's not actively condemning the criminals and hostage takers speaks volumes to me.

Maybe chill out on criticizing the reaction of someone involved in such a traumatic scenario where they’re not treated well by any side. It’s not what the article is about and it’s pretty gross.