Brutal Video of Police Officers Shoving an Elderly Man

dadsfadsfdasfdsafdas wrote:

Anyone else think that was a pretty gentle shove and that guy have zero balance (i.e. a some what normal case for 70+ year olds). It was a back up push since we can't let you behind our lines versus a I am push you hard so you fall over.

I posted that above. I got shouted down, though. That's not an approved opinion.

plantanation wrote:

BUNKER BI wrote:

He’s giving his mind a treat. Th British army directly killed just over 300 people during the troubles.

While colluding with loyalist paramilitaries they aided in the murder of countless civilians.

I was going to say "officially" in response to your first paragraph. But you covered that with your second.

The troubles resulted in thousands dead.

Maybe his point was that they didnt shove or kill people at protests. They did it later when nobody was watching. Both sides killed a lot of people. Criminal organizations made a lot of money in the business of that underground war.

That is one thing to the credit of BLM. Black people in america really are poor, these protests arent a business.

Our police kill far fewer than what were killed in the troubles. We probably jail more for less, though.

That would be categorically wrong also. If you like I’d be happy to supply evidence.

Jail more for less? Maybe, but you’ve got to understand that the British imposed internment without trial in Ireland, which was of course a shocking abuse of human rights.

I disagree that “criminal organizations” made a lot of money during the troubles.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

Yeah you're a real tough guy, LMAO. If you think lightly pushing the guy is "beating him up" then you should join the UFC and I'm sure you'll win just by pushing your opponents.

You must be a cop, because you're as stupid and ignorant as they are.

It's sickening that you still don't say anything about the people running over cops, shooting cops, stabbing them. They beat up and dragged a female cop along the the street. You should be outraged at that, not this stupid little accident where they CLEARLY weren't trying to hurt the guy.

Personally, I have no empathy for any cop who knocks a 75 year old man down on the back of his head and calls it a love tap, nor for any idiot like you who condones, supports and encourages that type of ignorant and disgusting behavior.

My apologies mistook you for your alter ego corey giles.

I've read every message in this thread. There's no clear evidence about what the old guy was doing. Some say he was doing a good deed and returning an officer's helmet. It's possible, but seems doubtful after watching him casually leaning back on video talking to other protestes while holding on to that helmet.

After reading all the message and linked articles, it seems to me that the old guy wanted to visibly confront police and did so. It wasn't especially threatening and a light shove to remove him as an obstruction seemed proportionate. If he had simply stumbled back a couple steps but stayed upright, no one would have given a second thought to the situation.

He tripped and fell. It seems like an accident. If the police wanted to take him to the ground, I think it would have looked very different.

The response to the accident is what I have trouble with. The man was seriously injured. Even if there is a medic onsite, each police officer is trained in first aid, and at least one should have paused to care for the injured man. There was obviously no emergency that would have prevented it. The entire force came to a halt for an extended period of time.

I would guess that we've all been in a situation where we've accidentally knocked someone to the ground. It might have been the other person's fault, but the decent thing to do is to make sure the person is ok.

I don't think the police officers committed a crime here. The old man might have committed a crime depending on what happened prior to the video starting. No one should be arrested/charged with a crime.

I do think the police officers made their jobs much tougher in the future but their apparent indifference to what was obviously a serious injury to someone they are to protect and serve. I would think that should be noted in their professional record.

Another Option wrote: a light shove to remove him as an obstruction seemed proportionate. If he had simply stumbled back a couple steps but stayed upright, no one would have given a second thought to the situation.

One cop checks the old man with a baton. The other cop one arm pushes man. Granted, its not two NFl lineman running at this guy, but old guy was being pushed backwards by two cops.

Old people are infirm, as a rule. You dont push them backwards, lightly or not, because they might fall and when old people fall, it's a big deal. They break easily...hips, backs, limbs, etc.

Same scenario, handled differently: Cops gently walks old man out of the way. Even if they do it to arrest guy or cite him, OK, but they're taking efforts not to hurt him.

If in this alternate history, old guy fell...OK. Sad, but cops were doing the responsible thing and he fell. And these cops dont get suspended and its not the PR nightmare its become.

Instead those cops escalated a situation instead of de-escalating and almost killed an old man because of it and raised tensions at a volatile time. Officers, find another line of work.

and one more video from a slightly different angle showing a few more seconds before the fall happened.

https://twitter.com/Merlisser88/status/1268789706965356551?s=19

the man was basically sauntering up to the cops while they were just standing there. when he was a few yards away they cops began advancing.

i do think he fell easily, but also he's an old man, the cop could see that he's an old man and old men are known for falling easily. when the cop pushed him he assumed responsibility for anything that happened to the old man in the next few moments.

this idea is a corollary to a bar fight where someone is punched, the punch causes them to fall and hit their head on the hard floor and then die. the puncher gets charged with manslaughter. yeah in this hypothetical the puncher didn't mean to kill the guy and reasonably wouldn't have expected him to die, but he did. so he's responsible. the cop should be held to at least this standard, if not a higher standard.

dindu wrote:

I bet black lives matter aren't gonna say fvck all about this one.

well... here's an update on that:

Well said. If the man was breaking a law by violating curfew or approaching the cops, he should have been arrested. Instead of, ya know, assaulted and ignored.

I agree if that push didn't put him in the hospital, there would be less backlash. But he DID crack his head open as a result of inappropriate force. Should police indiscriminately use the same measures against a pre-teen, young adult, or elderly man? There's an eggshell law that states if you inure somebody who is extremely frail with a small force, you're still liable for their injuries.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/eggshell_skull_rule

Pretty shocked to see people who believe the light shove was appropriate. This was a single old man against an army in body armor. Again, the lying on the initial report implies wrong doing.

This isn't really directed at you or any specific poster, just some thoughts I've had.

This is a reasonable opinion. He was not returning a helmet. You can clearly see the helmet is different than what the police are using.

Where I disagree is with the response. It's bad optics for the cops not to rush over to the guy, but they called a medic, and presumably an ambulance, and within 20 seconds the medics were there. That's exactly how it's designed to work. It's not like they ignored him for 5 minutes.

Well, except for Bloody Sunday.

Bloody Sunday, or the Bogside Massacre,[1] was a mass shooting on 30 January 1972 in the Bogside area of Derry, Northern Ireland, when British soldiers shot 26 unarmed civilians during a protest march against internment without trial. Fourteen people died: 13 were killed outright, while the death of another man four months later was attributed to his injuries. Many of the victims were shot while fleeing from the soldiers, and some were shot while trying to help the wounded.[2] Other protesters were injured by shrapnel, rubber bullets, or batons, and two were run down by army vehicles.[3][4] All of those shot were Catholics.

Fat Albert Einstein wrote:

https://twitter.com/beccabell28/status/1269113046510841857

This video proves everything I've been saying. The old man is an agitator. He said he came to the riots "for fun". He's using the plight of the african american community for his own personal or political pleasure.

He's holding the helmet there, it's clearly his own helmet. He was not returning a helmet to the police.

One of the men in the video said Gugino came there looking to get hit in the face. He was right.

It wasn’t compulsory for the officers to oblige.

They did and now they have been charged.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52952237

Go away you tedious dolt.

BUNKER wrote:

It wasn’t compulsory for the officers to oblige.

They did and now they have been charged.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52952237

Go away you tedious dolt.

You should apoligize for saying he was just returning a helmet. That was FAKE NEWS and you had no evidence to support it.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

BUNKER wrote:

It wasn’t compulsory for the officers to oblige.

They did and now they have been charged.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52952237

Go away you tedious dolt.

You should apoligize for saying he was just returning a helmet. That was FAKE NEWS and you had no evidence to support it.

Did I say that?

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

BUNKER wrote:

It wasn’t compulsory for the officers to oblige.

They did and now they have been charged.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-52952237

Go away you tedious dolt.

You should apoligize for saying he was just returning a helmet. That was FAKE NEWS and you had no evidence to support it.

What a crybaby

BUNKER wrote:

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

You should apoligize for saying he was just returning a helmet. That was FAKE NEWS and you had no evidence to support it.

Did I say that?

I said he wasn't returning a helmet. You said "Fact Checker lies about everything, this is NO different.

You can see the 75 year old man carrying a helmet as he approaches the police."

You accused me of lying, and your implication was that he was returning a helmet. Both FALSE.

fact checker 642572498 wrote:

BUNKER wrote:

Did I say that?

I said he wasn't returning a helmet. You said "Fact Checker lies about everything, this is NO different.

You can see the 75 year old man carrying a helmet as he approaches the police."

You accused me of lying, and your implication was that he was returning a helmet. Both FALSE.

I see you’re not using my actually quote. All I said is that he is clearly carrying a helmet. Wrong once again FC.