Well, actually, you didn’t. Here’s your quote again:
(bolding mine)
In general, yes (like if you’re driving down the interstate at 70mph and somebody jumps 50 feet in front of your car–Not only is there no intent, there’s also no chance to even avoid injuring the person). In this case, no. The shove was far too violent for the situation involving and elderly man. And while I don’t think the cop actually intended to hurt, it was an irresponsible use of force. Also the fact that the cop lied after the fact establishes mens rea (actually, I’m no lawyer. That may not be the term I’m looking for. The term I’m looking for translates roughly as “He knows he fucked up”).
When I say we are reaching agreement surely you can see that I am agreeing with you on some points. You seem to be thinking that I am claiming some sort of victory by convincing you. That is not the case. We have more in common that which separates us.
Certainly an investigation is called for.
If you are defending yourself from a person who in trying to interfere with you the law and justice would take your motivation and intent into account.
The police rendered aid. The policeman who did the pushing did not. The mayor said aid was rendered by a police medic, that being his job to help. It was not rendered by the guy that did the pushing, that not being his job.
I agree with all of this. There are too many variables here to conclude definitively that these officers committed a crime or even did anything improper. IMHO, my first impression is that they did nothing wrong.
First, this guy was not in a place where he had a legal right to be. Curfew had started. He was to be home. He then intentionally injects himself into a situation where he knows that the police must respond to clear the streets and illegally disobeyed the order to leave as he had no right to be in public at the time.
In addition, he batters one of the officers by touching his hand with his cell phone and continued to waive it very close to the officer’s waist near his weapons. Given the tense situation, the officer is unsure if his attention is being redirected to get hit by a brick in the head from the other side.
The officer responded with a fairly mild shove that for whatever reason caused the old man to go ass over teakettle. I don’t want to call it a flop, but it wouldn’t surprise me. More likely, being old, he was just unable to balance himself in a way that most other people would and cracked his head on the pavement. In no way from that shove can any serious intent to injure this guy be shown.
And yes they walked by because it was their mission to clear the street. The officer immediately got on the radio and called for medical help.
Some of you guys seem to be saying that anyone can shut down a police operation like this by just standing in their way, and because they can’t touch you, they just have to go back to the station. That’s a call for anarchy.
This doesn’t fit the narrative anyways. I thought old white guys were treated like gold and it was only black dudes that the police specifically targeted for violence. What gives here?
Bull fucking shit. Two officers pushed him, one of them holding his baton with both hands so as to increase the force. They did not react as if he was a threat rather that he was a nuisance.
One of the people you’re claiming agreement with denies it in the post just above yours.
You are not agreeing with me on any point that I can see. So no, surely I cannot see that.
We are both mammals, both humans, both alive at this time, both have computer access, both can even communicate, more or less, in English. Of course we have things in common. That doesn’t mean that we agree on any specific issue.
Nobody said they couldn’t touch him. You can’t think of any way that that many police officers could get one old man out of their way without knocking him down?
Two guys can take him one by each arm and move him aside, firmly and safely, to where they want him to be. Reaching out and shoving a man backwards shouldn’t even be on the menu in this situation. It doesn’t matter if they “intended” for him to fall over. They didn’t care if he fell over. And as officers of the law charged to protect and serve that should have been something they cared about a great deal.
Clearly we won’t agree on this, but they are trying to clear the streets. What’s the point of doing that if you just get people out of your way and leave them behind you? You might as well have not started doing it in the first place.
Plus it is illegal and it obstructs them. If there are 100 police and you are an organized protest in violation of curfew, just ask for 100 volunteers to go occupy the 100 cops while they formally arrest you. Then, again, the mission is thwarted.
I could agree with what you are saying if they just beat this guy senseless. But they gave him a shove after repeated provocation and failure to obey binding lawful directives.
Please tell me what they are to do while still being a viable police force that can actually do anything.
I think it’s necessary to take a bit of a Hammurabi view of police action.
If you want the right to put an old man in the hospital to complete your mission, to knock people down, taser them, pepper spray them, hit them with sticks or rubber bullets, that mission had better be important. The health and safety of human beings had better fucking well be at risk if your mission fails.
However, in HUGE swaths of police violence, nobody’s health or safety is at risk. People are beaten, tased, pepper sprayed or killed because they are inconveniencing the police.
They are:
obstructing
provoking
failing to obey
disrespecting
hindering
passively resisting
For these petty crimes (if they are crimes at all) the citizenry of this country are routinely assaulted. Police response needs to be proportionate to the act. Your view is police response should be whatever the police need to do to “complete their mission”, without regard to the importance of the mission, or the actual actions of the person in the way.
If they actually do have to get everyone other than themselves out of the area, then what they are to do is arrest him.
Police arrest people all of the time, including at protests, without cracking their skulls open.
Sometimes, indeed, they do crack people’s skulls open; or do equivalent or greater damage; even when it’s in no way essential to save their own lives or anyone else’s. That’s what these protests are about.
People raised the gentleman’s age as an issue. I was replying that the policemen did not know the gentleman’s age. That seemed to upset a number of people who could spot an elderly man with a glance.
I posit that 99% of all cases, any mentally competent adult is capable of correctly gauging a person’s age within a range of 10 years, following a 5-second face-to-face conversation. Do you challenge this?
Since the police outnumbered other people (hardly makes sense to even call them protesters given above descriptions of the scenario), one for two is fine. We’re doing law enforcement, not playing a video game.
When he runs back in front, three guys arrest him, carefully, so that they can continue to execute their duty to protect and serve that citizen.
It’s not difficult, really. What surprises me are people that pretend it’s difficult to do. Tell me honestly: If you were to guess a man’s age, how close do you think you could get, on average? 10 years? 20? I’ve been joking with you about 50; do you think you might be that far off?
I also question the precision you used in your wording:
…as if an inability to pinpoint his age as precisely 74 is somehow relevant. No. What’s relevant is that I think that most anyone would easily estimate his age to be in the 60s-70s range; it’s not hard. Really. And the police ain’t got no business shoving a man of that age around. Period.