Maybe he should have just left the police alone to do their job?

[Doc]

Not sure how many saw this one:

link (https://www.foxnews.com/us/buffalo-mayor-75-year-old-man-pushed-agitator)


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SR5tIELdM-g

I'm not seeing it as bad as many. Of course the guy bleeding from his head, and being seriously injured is gruesome, sad, etc.... but focusing on the police officers, I don't think what they did was excessive. The man came at them and they attempt to go past. He continued the confrontation and they did push him but clearly their only reason he fell and smacked his head was not because they threw him to the ground. I would also question the "the officer continued by without stopping". He did stop but his supervisor pushed him forward while calling on the radio (for medical help I would assume).

Look, when you confront the police and attempt to inhibit them from doing their jobs, I don't have a lot of sympathy. I'm sure the officers told him to get away/leave/whatever yet he continued to obstruct. Its not like the officers went aggressively at him, and I would not label it "police brutality". And I do have sympathy for the man but he did have some contributory actions. But in the current atmosphere it will be labelled as the officers fault (100%) and the actions of the older man dismissed. Imagine somebody interfering with you doing your job and the reaction.

[KSRBEvans]

Excessive, IMHO. A reasonable person would not perceive him as a threat in those circumstances. They could have and should have walked around him. And the failure to render aid is just as bad, if not worse, IMHO.

[UKHistory]

Officers asked to clear an area are doing what they are told. But is there any thought given to the order or the actions to necessary to carry out the orders?

An old man and women are not as big a threat a young big guy but many will look at this as excessive

You can’t push an old man like you can a young man

But just the action of pushing an old man looks bad. Ant it is bad. Mindless bully work.

Why push anyone in this manner? Walking past a single, unarmed man show more strength and contempt for the protest than knocking hi to the ground.

Knocking that old man down makes more want to misbehave frankly.

57 Buffalo police officers quit when two of their own were suspended. Loyalty to the team over protecting the rights of others.

The action of quitting the force speaks to the issue of what constitutes excessive force in the minds of the elected government, law enforcement and the governed.

That is a larger issue here that is being missed in the protest. Does the general public support the tactics the police use to ensure safety of people and property.

Everybody here celebrates the 4th of July the British in Boston were no worse the our cops today. I handling the protest.

Our sons of liberty Are as bad or worse than the protesters we are seeing in film

The looting is worse today. But the Boston tea party was an exercise in property damage and theft.

[Doc]

Excessive, IMHO. A reasonable person would not perceive him as a threat in those circumstances. They could have and should have walked around him. And the failure to render aid is just as bad, if not worse, IMHO.

Excessive? I would agree. Brutal, as in Police Brutality? I don't think so. Actually hitting him, or choking, would constitute brutality in my opinion.

[KSRBEvans]

^Understood. It's not egregious, like what was done to Floyd. Not in the same area code IMHO. I was responding to your comment, "I don't think what they did was excessive."

[Doc]

I agree that the officers walking off the job in a show of solidarity is wrong. Officers should be suspended as the incident is investigated. It sends several messages. 1) regardless of what any officer does, they believe they are above reproach 2) it says that citizen safety is secondary to having your co workers back 3) it shows a lack of understanding if the current environment.

But I do still hold the man as partially culpable. Protest but leave the police to do their job.

[Doc]

Excessive, IMHO. A reasonable person would not perceive him as a threat in those circumstances. They could have and should have walked around him. And the failure to render aid is just as bad, if not worse, IMHO.

I should have said brutal, not excessive

[kingcat]

Not a major crime, but worthy of assault charges and losing his job. And those who support him should also lose theirs, with reinstatement dependent on accepting the public views and legality of such actions, and demotion.
The badge they wear is not their honor...but is instead an honor to wear. Being entrusted to them by every citizen of the United States. They are not military combatants and are bound by the precepts put forth in the Constitution.

I have had several friends, and in the past, family in law enforcement.
All understand this.
They were Andy's and proud of it. Willing to set examples for the public to follow.

[Darryl]

That is laughable, obviously a former Dukie taking a “charge”.

Give me a break about excessive force.

Darryl

[blueboss]

I agree with Doc, it was not excessive in the way that he shoved the guy. No one knows what the guy said to the cop, not that it should matter, the police have to rise above senseless insults.

I do think the shove was overly aggressive and I think the LEO was a bit surprised at the result of the shove.

Old guy just got a huge bonus in his retirement portfolio.... could be, that’s what he was looking for.

Pick a fight with a cop, get it on film, settle out of court for high six figures... that’s where we are these days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[kingcat]

I'd read Docs posts again more thoroughly Boss.

When they walked on past the man bleeding on the street I think they threw any defense out the window.

He was firmly shoved by a baton held by two hands and another officers single hand simultaneously. Two officers in fact shoved him.
Watch the back of the mans head hit the sidewalk. That it was some degree of assault is not in question. Was it justified?
I say no even though he may have taunted them with whatever he was waving at them..


https://youtu.be/SR5tIELdM-g?t=65

[kingcat]

I guess a lot of it depends on how one feels about the mans justification for protesting in the first place.

[CitizenBBN]

I guess a lot of it depends on how one feels about the mans justification for protesting in the first place.

This.

If you're "peacefully protesting" and the police ask you to leave an area, is it still peaceful if you don't leave? I'm not saying it is or isn't, just that's the question.

Most peaceful protests are designed to create a PR problem. Sit ins where people have to be carried off by the cops are a great example. They chain themselves together, then they do it with pipes over the chains, all to make it a bigger event to have them removed. It draws more and more attention, and more and more sympathy.

that's what protesting is about once it crosses the line of candlelight vigil to political statement where the cops get cast as the bad guy.

So the cops end up shoving and injuring an old man, they look horrible, then the politicians have to respond, the police are hacked b/c they were doing the job they were told to do and this guy wasn't obeying and was trying to get a media event out of it, and the whole thing spirals.

Which, of course, is the whole goal.

[CitizenBBN]

FWIW, I think the police messed up in this case, but context is important. Tensions are high, this is an old man who won't hurt them, so they need to be more patient, and try to take a different approach.

But, if this were just a simple traffic stop and ANYONE went up to a cop and got that much in their face with their phone, taking it close to their GUN and shooting video of it, etc. they're likely to get worse. Seriously, if you got out of your car and did that you'd be told to step back. If you didn't you're across the hood of your car with cuffs.

That's how it works. You do what the officer says. Even Kentucky's CCW class has a section that says explicitly to always obey the officer, even if you know he's wrong, b/c you can address the wrong later, but you never confront an officer.

This guy intentionally confronted the officers. They needed to handle it very very differently, and I doubt they meant him to fall and hit his head and be injured, just to step back, but they have to have better situational awareness.

But I know also that the police feel they did not do wrong b/c it's pretty much a universal rule you don't physically confront an officer and you for sure don't take your hand near his weapon, even with a phone in it. (at least I think that's what he's doing).

The world has sure turned ugly fast this year.

[Doc]

FWIW, I think the police messed up in this case, but context is important. Tensions are high, this is an old man who won't hurt them, so they need to be more patient, and try to take a different approach.

But, if this were just a simple traffic stop and ANYONE went up to a cop and got that much in their face with their phone, taking it close to their GUN and shooting video of it, etc. they're likely to get worse. Seriously, if you got out of your car and did that you'd be told to step back. If you didn't you're across the hood of your car with cuffs.

That's how it works. You do what the officer says. Even Kentucky's CCW class has a section that says explicitly to always obey the officer, even if you know he's wrong, b/c you can address the wrong later, but you never confront an officer.

This guy intentionally confronted the officers. They needed to handle it very very differently, and I doubt they meant him to fall and hit his head and be injured, just to step back, but they have to have better situational awareness.

But I know also that the police feel they did not do wrong b/c it's pretty much a universal rule you don't physically confront an officer and you for sure don't take your hand near his weapon, even with a phone in it. (at least I think that's what he's doing).

The world has sure turned ugly fast this year.

This most closely describes my thoughts, and does so much better than I did.

One should always follow the directions of an officer regardless of if they are right or wrong. I just do it, period. The police need offer no explaination for their directions. They clear an area because that is part of their job, and they have the authority to do so. No different then clearing the park by the White House. They instruct, you reply. If you ignore all bets are off

The actions/results were not intended. He was not shoved aggressively or with malitious intent. In most cases a push of that magnitude is not going to result in injury. The man stumbled and fell which resulted in him hitting his head.

In the linked segment, it was a flat out lie the "officer keeps walking" while the man lies there bleeding. Its statements like that that make people suspecious of the media. The officer did stop and was getting ready to render assistance when his supervisor ushered him along so he could call for help (as he did).

The man reaching is as bad as the push in my opinion. It certainly could have been a reach for his weapon (although that is not my belief). He was the one who instituted the interaction. Protesting and obstructing are two different things.

No excuse or justification but the officers have been subjected to quite a bit of abuse of late. Violence upon them, including murder is every bit as troublesome as their violence on George Floyd and others.

[blueboss]

First of all the ABC clip shows 3-4 different occurrences that shed a bad light on the police. A guy handcuffed with a mask, LEO moving around aggressively spray mace/pepper spray etc, a small child in serious distress and getting some type of mace/ pepper spray treatment.

Showing those videos in the context that ABC showed them is doing nothing but juicing up the viewer to be angered by the LEOs actions. Then they end the piece with the old guy getting shoved.... this is typical main stream media tactics, just showing cut clips of an event that fits their agenda.

Maybe the old guy shouldn’t have been shoved, “we” don’t know the whole story behind the situation. The small child should have never been put in the middle of what is potentially explosive situation to be subjected to anti-crowd disposal tactics. The parents should be charged with child endangerment..... sure, sure, sure this is America and we wanted to teach our small child about their right to free speech and their right to peacefully assemble. Unless that snippet was taken on the very first day of the protests in the first hour before it was established nationwide that a lot of the protests turned into riots.

...but I digress, in this case ABC incited hatred with their selective editing, and to magnify the old man shove.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[UKHistory]

No argument about a kid. Certainly editing can grab one emotionally

But the old man, unarmed and clearly much more more physically weak than the police should not have been pushed.

At some point I am not sure who the police are protecting.

And we need police. We need to be respectful.

But this is a nation horn in treason for the purpose of ensuring liberty

I am not sure from Flynn to George Floyd that law enforcement policies and procedures have the true consent of the governed

[Catonahottinroof]

Editing can make things look a certain way for sure. Im not sure we are seeing the full context of this situation either. On its face, it looks like some senseless police strong arming though.
I’ll wait on what else comes out on the scenario before my opinion becomes solid about it. Was he or anyone else told to vacate the area? Was he individually told to or does the video actually depict the situation in its entirety?

[suncat05]

Judas H. Priest!

I am so glad that I am retired.

And I just have one little question: how many of you guys have EVER been on a riot line? Acting under the color of State/Federal government authority?

Because, just by reading the comments here, I am believing that some of you think you know how to act during a dynamic swirling civil disturbance where the dynamics change BY THE SECOND.......

Disturbances like the ones happening around our country move at lightning speed, and if you haven't surmised yet, it's close quarters combat.

That guy put himself in harms way of his own volition. And sometimes when people play stupid games, they win stupid prizes. I don't like it when anyone on either side gets injured or worse, but hey, when you put yourself out there like that, you can pretty much expect to get injured somehow. JMHO. Having been in the other side of the equation.

[UKHistory]

SunCat,

Great to hear from you in this conversation. Your insight and experience dealing with tough situations in real time is something to consider.

Glad to get your thoughts.

[suncat05]

When you are standing in a riot line, when you get the command to advance, that is exactly what you do.
The line may be balanced to the left, or the right, or in the famous "V" formation.
In any of those lines, you move forward, make contact if necessary, and keep moving forward. There are officers behind the line that are specifically designated to pick up any injured rioters. And if an officer falls out of formation, then the officer behind him moves into his slot, and someone moves into that officer's slot.
You cannot break ranks, thereby weakening the formation and setting yourselves up for failure. And when you make contact, it has to be with the resolve that you are NOT GOING TO DIE, because at that point, it is now Close Quarters Combat. And you must believe that if given the chance, the rioter on the other side fully intends to injure, maim, or kill you.
That is the brutal, harsh reality of it.
The officers in this riot formation will hopefully be among the best in the Agency. They need to be fighters. The kind of fighters that refuse to lose.
I am not the know all, be all of police work. Even after all of the years in different agencies at different levels, I still don't know everything, and would never be arrogant enough to say otherwise. But having been on the receiving end of rioting, I can tell you the pucker factor is excessively high.
Bottom line: losing is not a option. Break up the disturbance, restore civil order, and move on to the next assignment.