The Situation with the Police in Buffalo is More Complex than it Seems

Great Debates
21

How fast aid arrived and whether the cop knew his exact age is a ridiculous defence.

Cops aren’t allowed to send citizens to hospital for being at a protest, standing in their way, or being in their face. Ever.

No matter how old anyone is, or how soon aid comes afterward, because it’s a crime. For which they have properly been charged.

Your defence, on such weak tea points, of a clear attack that sent an elderly man to hospital and fighting for his life, is THE reason this has devolved.

Your true colours are shining through.

22

…the video of the entire incident (up until the point the cameraperson is asked to leave) is out there on the web. It isn’t hard to find. I’m surprised you haven’t already seen it considering you’ve constructed an entire Great Debate out of the events that happened here.

Can you explain why you think that these were appropriate circumstances to be “pushing anyone out of the way?” Do you consider this normal police behavior?

The possible charges add nothing to the complexity of the situation, which is what this debate is allegedly all about. I haven’t heard a single person claiming that “the intent was to throw the man down in order to cause a concussion and death”. So it appears the entire premise of this debate is based on nothing more than a strawman.

You’ve been very clear on what you claim it is you want to debate. But you haven’t demonstrated how this situation is any more complex than what it is we already know.

23

OK, so if what the police did was reasonable, then that’s what the investigation will find. Why is the rest of the force raising such a stink about an investigation? What’s the “complexity” behind the mass response?

24

I think you are placing far too much emphasis on “intent matters”. Yes, intent matters, but I don’t think it absolves the actor of all responsibility like you seem to think “there would (I suppose) be no charges at all”. I’m no lawyer, but I don’t believe that’s accurate, nor should it be.

Intents matter, but results do, too. If a man runs a stop sign and someone is killed in the resulting accident, we don’t just say, “Hey, he didn’t intend to kill anyone. Let’s just charge him with running a stop sign”. I would expect charges along the lines of Negligent Homicide.

And let’s face it: He did intend to shove him. Don’t ever shove someone without being prepared to be responsible for the consequences. In my hometown, a few years ago there was a bar fight. One man was knocked down and hit his head on the curb; he was killed. The other man didn’t intend to kill him, but he was charged with far more than just fighting: He got involuntary manslaughter and unlawful wounding. And I think that’s the way it should be; you have heard the words “involuntary” and “negligence” in criminal charges before, haven’t you? That implies “intent” is not always necessary, does it not? I have to ask, because you seem so stuck on “intent matters”. I find it difficult to believe this is new to you (I’m mystified you could be so ignorant, honestly); it really seems like you’re going out of your way to spin an indefensible act. For what purpose, I do not know.

Being a cop doesn’t give him absolution, either. In fact, given the powers that a cop is authorized to wield, we should hold him to a higher responsibility. Society should never tolerate any abuse of that power that results in gross injury.

25

No native English speaker thinks this.

26

How very odd. I am a native-speaker of English and and am trained in combatives and I think that. It is almost as if you are mistaken.
I am glad we are reaching consensus that intent matters.

27

It seems the police union are being bunch of jerks. This is something the mayor pointed out on the Maddow show the other night. Nothing wrong with an investigation and if need be charges and if need be punishment. Certainly an investigation is called for.

28

Like many incidents, there are many factors to consider. For this one, unless there is some video I haven’t seen, part of the event happened off camera, possibly significant parts.

Based on what I have seen, the guy was pushed backwards unexpectedly and couldn’t keep his balance. What the trigger was for him to fall is not seen (something in the sidewalk, someone else’s body in the way?).

What I find most disturbing is to watch one cop leaning down to help, then the cop behind him grabs his collar and pulls him up and away. I interpret that to mean that one cop was telling the compassionate one to not get involved. He might have been a superior, and not to be questioned.

As far as the 47 that resigned (from whatever), I say let 'em go. Good riddance. They are on the wrong side of empathy.

29

You’re the one who wrote “definition”. Let’s see your evidence.

30

I agree with Musicat completely.
This seems more complex than some would make it seem and well worth an investigation.

31

People are arrested and convicted for pushing and shoving all the damn time. That the officer could have been more violent is irrelevant. A push, a shove, a “stuff arm”, is a violent assault. It is not a defensive move when there is nothing to defend against.

32

I suppose an investigation will get to the bottom of that. I can see what both sides.

33

…can you be specific and say exactly what it is that is “more complex than some would make it seem?” Musicat may not have been able to figure out what the “trigger was for him to fall” was but they can’t have seen the video in question because we can say without a doubt that “someone else’s body” wasn’t in the way because there clearly wasn’t someone else’s body even in the frame of the shot.

You are well aware that an investigation is currently taking place. That isn’t up for debate. Are you sure that you were actually looking for a debate, or is your mind already made up?

34

Evidently you have never watched American football where the runner with the ball stiff arms defenders.

Again, there’s just so much wrong with your posts (like basic things that most people learn by the age of ten “Gee officer, I didn’t intend to kill him”…“I know, just do better next time, son. You’re free to go!” :rolleyes:) that I have to wonder: Is your ignorance real or merely feigned?

35

That part does seem to be more complex than what was initially reported. Apparently the police union announced that they were no longer going to cover the legal fees for officers on the Emergency Response Team who get caught up in shenanigans like this one. The 57 officers who resigned did so because they believed it was too risky for them to do their jobs if they are now liable for breaking the law.

Sure, I can understand why they would quit. If you are used to doing a job in ways that skirt the line of legality and decency, then yeah, it’s scary to think what would happen if you are now subject to the same penalties as everyone else.

But seems to me the notion that you can’t do good police work without occasionally busting some heads is the main problem. If bad apples can rest assured that their police unions will always have their backs, then it doesn’t matter how many protest marches we have. Innocent people will continue to be victimized. And remember: every single person the police deal with are innocent since they haven’ been convicted of anything. No one should be killed just because they resisted arrest.

36

I find it remarkable the great many things you know about me. You seem to know English is not my first language, that do not know how to fight, and that I have never seen an American football game.

But as you said, the runner uses the stiff arm to protect himself. We are moving toward agreement and that makes me happy.

Are we back to debating the importance of intent in the law? I had hoped we moved beyond that. If the policeman had intended to kill the citizen then the charge would be attempted murder. If the policeman intended something less than the charge would be something less.

Can we agree on that?

37

I am dreadfully sorry. How did you get the idea that I write definitions? I use a stiff arm to defend myself. I use other techniques to kill.

38

I would argue that people very quickly poked holes in your original, flawed statement.

39

I’m going to be unpopular here, and give some (limited) support to the OP.
The situation is more complex that I thought.

From reading (not watching) the news, I had assumed that this episode was yet another case of intentional police brutality. But this thread caught my interest, so a did a quick youtube search and found this clip:

(which I’m sure everybody else had already seen.)

From my earlier reading, I had assumed that a perfectly innocent civilian just walked up to a single cop standing on the side of a road somewhere , and the cop violently attacked him for no reason.

But after watching the video, I see it differently: context matters.
There’s a large group of tough-looking cops in riot gear descending on the area, displaying their batons and weapons. They are walking quickly and purposely together, obviously intending to set up a formation and do their job.
And then the 70 year old man intentionally interfered with them.

Not only talking to one policemen, but stretching out his right arm to slow the progress of a second policeman, and apparently slapping him on the hand with his cellphone. Look carefully at 0:08 seconds into the clip in my link.
At that point, the 2 cops, plus a third policeman approaching, all get irritated, and push back.
A tragic accident occurred, but nobody had any intention to harm the guy, and nobody in uniform realized that the push they gave him would be dangerous. And nobody should be accused of acting due to the “violence inherent in the system”*.
For comparison, take a look at this video of an armed guard shoving an innocent person: in this case, it is the Queen’s Guard at Buckingham Palace shoving an innocent tourist out of the path where guard is walking.

That’s an intentional act, and is a violent enough shove to cause injury if the person falls down. And there are lots of similar clips on youtube–this is clearly standard procedure for the Queen’s guards.But nobody accuses them of oppressing the British citizenry.

I’m not saying that the cop in Buffalo is justified…he should have been more careful.
But there was no intentional violence, and the civilian was actively inserting himself into a situation where an average person would think twice: Blocking the path of a large group of armed officers on a mission.

So, as the OP says, this case is more complex than it has been presented on the news.

And this incident must not be treated on the same level as the George Floyd murder, or any of the other cases we have seen where cops are too quick on the trigger.
Imagine what would have happened if the 70 year old man had been black–there would be entire cities burning down. We need more responsible journalism, and we need to keep a more rational view during these emotional times.

  • (yes, it’s a quote from Monty Python)
40

Thank you, chappachula.