I have watched the video of an elderly protester being shoved by police in Buffalo at least a dozen times. After being shoved, the man struck his head and was rather obviously seriously injured. I want to offer some observations in bullet form.
- The use of force by the police was excessive.
- The first rule of self-defense is to avoid situations in which you may need to defend yourself.
- Revolution is a young man’s game.
- When you obstruct or impede police officers, you are no longer merely demonstrating. You are engaging in civil disobedience. One of the key aspects of Gandhian civil disobedience, long forgotten or ignored, is that it also requires that you be prepared for the consequences of that disobedience and willing to accept them.
- When police approach you keep your hands in plain sight. Absolutely, positively do nothing that the police officers may construe as reaching for their belts. All police training of which I have ever heard trains police officers to consider that a deadly threat.
In reaction to the Buffalo shove the police officers were suspended and charged with assault. In solidarity the entire 57 officer membership of Buffalo’s Emergency Response Team resigned.
Were they right or wrong?
I’ve watched that video as well. The man put a hand on the police officer first, as a line of officers were walking purposefully forward, probably to confront some protesters. The officer, who the man laid a hand on, pushed him aside and continued walking forward. The older man stumbled backwards at first, then lost his balance and fell on his back. IMO, the older man, described by people, as a known agitator, was at least partially, if not wholly responsible for his fall.
Any excuses for the police involved are invalidated by the fact that having clearly seriously injured an old man, these ‘heroes’ didn’t stop to render assistance. As for their colleagues resigning in protest, as long as police put loyalty to their colleagues ahead of performing their duty according to the law, they’re not ‘law enforcement’ (how can you enforce the law if you don’t follow it?) but just another street gang.
Does that apply to mayors, governors, and presidents, too?
The police were clearly at fault. The guy was not at all a risk. He was a PITA and was bothering them. It would have been very easy for them to step around him. His fall was clearly the result of being pushed. The only way it is conceivably his fault is if it now illegal to even talk to the police and they are allowed to use whatever level of force they want when someone tries to talk with them.
Steve
“Absolutely, positively do nothing that the police officers may construe as reaching for their belts.”
The police get to kill anyone whose hand goes near their belt? No. Context matters. An angry gang member wearing a jacket so you cant see what is at his belt line? You get to repsond. An old guy with both hands full already? Not wearing anything that could easily conceal a weapon? No way. Especially not when you are surrounded by another 30 police.
As I understand it, the 57 police resigned from the Response Team. This is part of our problem. Just like police stop working if they lose out on a contract, or whenever they face reforms, they always band together to protect bad cops/bad actions.
If cities actually do defund or even eliminate police, pretty soon people will want even the bad cops back. Especially if the alternative is a few Kent States.
Long way from Mayberry, ain’t it?
The Police were moving with purpose and in formation. The man purposely obstructed their path. Like walking into traffic .
The only way for the Police to avoid bumping into him would have been to abort their mission, which their (leader?) obviously did not wish to do when one team member tried to offer assistance. Very light shove.
Old man trying to punch above his weight.