Buffalo PD assault older gentleman, leave him to bleed

[JoPoy88]

15 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:

 

His head didn't split open.

 

Here is the twitter thread:

 

https://twitter.com/Inevitable_ET/status/1268739744990507009

 

I displayed as link for due to the pic that would show if embedded.

another liberal conspiracy you say?! Man, they fooled me again. Guy is probably on Hillary’s payroll too.

[cle23]

2 hours ago, Back2Buff said:

 

His F the police tweet should be in every newspaper, news report, and court document out there.  You can't say stuff like that, and then do what he did last night.  I would take it as a threat if I was an officer.

 

 

 

Are you insinuating that the officers had seen his old Twitter posts and reacted to a perceived threat because of it?

[Reed83HOF]

31 minutes ago, JoPoy88 said:

another liberal conspiracy you say?! Man, they fooled me again. Guy is probably on Hillary’s payroll too.

 

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

3 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

So he was waiting around until after the imposed curfew to give back the helmet and touch a few cops in riot gear along the way? Does this sound like normal behavior to you. Do you do things like this? I for one do not.

Call me crazy but perhaps he could have dropped it off at any police station the following day, before the curfew time, no?

Bill, the answer seems to me to be that every incident must be judged as if every party involved knows with certainty how it will turn out, protestor included. It feeds the narrative, it conflates a series of unfortunate events with police brutality, and completely ignores context. 

 

The officer is charged with a job that sucks across the board. Gear up, form a line, enforce a curfew.  Follow protocol, if you defend yourself with any sort of force your $#!@ing life better be in danger, and we'll let the politicians decide what you should have done after the fact and be ready to be offered up to the masses.  

 

The injured guy should not have approached and confronted the officer, and when he did, he escalated what was already a tense situation.  He may not have seen it that way, he may think he's the nicest guy in the world and would never stab an officer in the throat.  Interestingly, he was the only protester doing what he did.

 

 

With fellow officers being shot, stabbed, hit by cars, beaten etc, the officer has no idea at all what comes next.  It appears he viewed the guy as nuisance and pushed him.  It appears the man lost his balance and fell.  

 

It's a shame across the board.   The solution for law enforcement is to stop enforcing the laws, call in sick or revolt against the order.  The easy solution is for people to respect the impossible situation the officer is in, but that's not going to happen. 

 

 

[Reed83HOF]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

Bill, the answer seems to me to be that every incident must be judged as if every party involved knows with certainty how it will turn out, protestor included. It feeds the narrative, it conflates a series of unfortunate events with police brutality, and completely ignores context. 

 

The officer is charged with a job that sucks across the board. Gear up, form a line, enforce a curfew.  Follow protocol, if you defend yourself with any sort of force your $#!@ing life better be in danger, and we'll let the politicians decide what you should have done after the fact and be ready to be offered up to the masses.  

 

The injured guy should not have approached and confronted the officer, and when he did, he escalated what was already a tense situation.  He may not have seen it that way, he may think he's the nicest guy in the world and would never stab an officer in the throat.  Interestingly, he was the only protester doing what he did.

 

 

With fellow officers being shot, stabbed, hit by cars, beaten etc, the officer has no idea at all what comes next.  It appears he viewed the guy as nuisance and pushed him.  It appears the man lost his balance and fell.  

 

It's a shame across the board.   The solution for law enforcement is to stop enforcing the laws, call in sick or revolt against the order.  The easy solution is for people to respect the impossible situation the officer is in, but that's not going to happen. 

 

 

How about this - do nothing and de-escalate the situation?

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

1 minute ago, Reed83HOF said:

How about this - do nothing and de-escalate the situation?

 

I already said that. The guy should not have escalated the situation. 

[Reed83HOF]

2 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I already said that. The guy should not have escalated the situation. 

Not who I was referring to, the officer's first thought should have been to de-escalate. I'm  not sure where anywhere allowing a cop to do that is acceptable and that should be lower down the list of tactics to use against a 75 yr old. I have seen your post history, so your response is honestly not surprising...

[Johnny Hammersticks]

45 minutes ago, Back2Buff said:

 

You mean the helmet he just happened to have in his hand hit the concrete ball next to him?  There are videos of people questioning why he was there with a helmet at 7:40.  Said he was there to have "fun"

 

...and the blood leaking out of his head/ear?  I supposed that’s computer generated imagery?  Perhaps a packet of fake blood?  How about the hospital?  Providing phony reports about his “fake treatment?” 

 

Again, explain why you think this is a “set up,” and also explain how this was executed.

[PastaJoe]

2 hours ago, KD in CA said:

Thank you for this post Bill.  I had thought about writing something along these lines but obviously it is much more meaningful coming from you.

It’s unfortunate the man was injured, but what do people expect cops to do?  Just stand there while any random nut blocks their path?  It’s not like the cops were bull rushing a group of people, this guy specifically sought out to engage them.

 

Reverting to the Obama era strategy of demonizing all police will prove counterproductive to the goal of weeding out the bad cops and promoting racial justice.

Holding police accountable is not “demonizing all police”. Perhaps the police wouldn’t feel so emboldened to use excessive force on civilians if Trump hadn’t given them the green light.
 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/06/trump-doj-obama-policing-reform.amp

 

‪https://twitter.com/MeidasTouch/status/1267230766196355073/video/1‬

 

 

[Reed83HOF]

 

 

[PastaJoe]

3 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

 

[Reed83HOF]

Here is my point, none of this should be a political discussion at all. Now there can be dissection of the video, and making some judgments (correct or not) to fill in missing parts (what was said, etc).. I'm not saying all of that can just be tossed to the side, but the discussion should be more around the morality of this situation. Not everything has to be wrapped in blame based on one's political ideology, because that should have zero bearing on how any of this should be handled. What is a role of a police officer and what tactics are acceptable or not - you don't need politics or racism or anything to discuss that and to know what is right vs wrong...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

8 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

I don't know, but it begs the question: what was he doing there to begin with? Once again, I would make a huge wager that he has a psych history. Would you walk into police in riot gear and proceed to touch them?

 

These are dangerous times. A NYC police officer was stabbed in the neck 2 nights ago. I am guessing that a police officer would feel guilty sitting in the station house for hours processing this old, apparent lunatic through the system while his fellow officers are in danger out there. 

 

The entire episode just sucks but imo, for someone to equate it in any way to Minnesota is wrong and probably agenda driven. I am saddened and sickened by what happened there.

 

I don't equate it to Floyd's death in Minnesota.  But neither can I condone referring to the guy as having "slipped and fell".  He was clearly pushed.

 

If you watch both videos, it's clear the timing sucked - the police were standing there when he started approaching them, by the time he was there the order to move had been given.  At that point I can see that the police are on the spot.   Even if he looks harmless, proper procedure precludes them letting him get behind their line. 

 

But I think this is one where there's a divide between how citizens see an action, and how police officers see an action.  I understand that what the officers did, given their orders to clear the square and enforce the curfew, does not intrinsically represent egregious behavior or excessive use of force.  But in the specific - dealing with an elderly man - it clearly had harmful consequences.

 

It's like a lot of situations where I can understand the justification for each step (from the LEO viewpoint) but the unasked question becomes why was the choice made to play it out along those steps?  Why did they have to shove him?  Why did one officer have to push him with two hands on his baton while the other straight-armed him (this can be more easily seen from a different video).  Why couldn't they use the batons to keep him at arm's length and and give him a moment to move back?  Isn't that a baton procedure that's taught - using the baton to create body-space for the officer (I know I'm not using the correct term)?

 

It appears to me that the officers are initially listening to him and a third officer-maybe a supervisor?  strides up rapidly behind them and says something.  That same officer prevents the one officer from stooping to render aid, but does appear to say something into a push-button transmitter on his collar, presumably calling for medic.

 

Again, the question of why the choice to play it that way?  They did wind up leaving the old man behind their line, just on the ground and bleeding out of his ear.  If he was clever and playing possum, that could have had evil consequences for them.

PS I will say that when I first saw the man approaching the officers, my thought was "wow, that guy is entitled" - he clearly expected to have a positive reception by the officers.  I'm not sure how that fits in with your comments about being sure he has a psych history.  Heh.

 

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

33 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

Not who I was referring to, the officer's first thought should have been to de-escalate. I'm  not sure where anywhere allowing a cop to do that is acceptable and that should be lower down the list of tactics to use against a 75 yr old. I have seen your post history, so your response is honestly not surprising...

I agree, the officer could have de-escalated as well.  He could have simply ignored the man, walked past, and hoped for the best,  I don't know that that is going to happen all that often in these situations, but it certainly was an option.  I admire your commitment to rationalizing that the officer should have known there was no threat to him, but given what's happening in the country to people who look like him, I don't pretend to think I know what was going through his head. Then again, I wouldn't think an Ivy league educated lawyer would fire bomb the police, be bailed out by a major political player, that the mayor of a city as large as NY would have a daughter participating in the same thing, that people of all ages would throw bricks, urine or acid at another humane being, or that 'protestors' would assassinate police officers guarding city hall.  

 

As far as my posting history, on these issues, I felt that the officers should be charged for that horrific event involving George Floyd, on the young man in Georgia I felt the video tape showed a couple rednecks murdering a guy in broad daylight.  Do we disagree there? 

 

 

Edited June 5, 2020 by leh-nerd skin-erd

[Reed83HOF]

1 hour ago, Back2Buff said:

 

His head didn't split open.

 

Here is the twitter thread:

 

https://twitter.com/Inevitable_ET/status/1268739744990507009

 

I displayed as link for due to the pic that would show if embedded.

 

I gave you credit for bringing up a good point about the helmet, but this is nonsense. A reasonable assumption can be made that you are law enforcement or know people in law enforcement or even know the officer in question with the lengths you are going to here. Blaming a twitter feed and that cops had the ability to know he said F the police, implying that saying F- the police somehow eliminates your equal treatment under law (violating your free speech) and invalidates what the police's supposed to "serve and protect" all citizens implies. And then you call out that this may be a set up? Sorry dude your credibility is shot in regards to this thread.

[Reed83HOF]

5 minutes ago, leh-nerd skin-erd said:

I agree, the officer could have de-escalated as well.  He could have simply ignored the man, walked past, and hoped for the best,  I don't know that that is going to happen all that often in these situations, but it certainly was an option.  I admire your commitment to rationalizing that the officer should have known there was no threat to him, but given what's happening in the country to people who look like him, I don't pretend to think I know what was going through his head. Then again, I wouldn't think an Ivy league educated lawyer would fire bomb the police, be bailed out by a major political player, that the mayor of a city as large as NY would have a daughter participating in the same thing, that people of all ages would throw bricks, urine or acid at another humane being, or that 'protestors' would assassinate police officers guarding city hall.  

 

As far as my posting history, on these issues, I felt that the officers should be charged for that horrific event involving George Floyd, on the young man in Georgia I felt the video tape showed a couple rednecks murdering a guy in broad daylight.  Do we disagree there? 

 

 

We totally agree there and I apologize if I offended.

 

I will say on the officers side, they are being overworked, put in very uncomfortable situations by the politicians from both parties and asking to make snap judgements. I think one thing all of us have seen is that the concept of de-escalation is a missing tactic. Once an engagement starts, it suddenly becomes very violent and that isn't how it should go and I understand that it is very tense out there. The role if you will of a police officer is to keep the peace and protect and serve all; not everything has to go to 0-100 in a second, but it does. All I am arguing is that more of that has to be on the officer as that is what their job is and the expectations that come with it - you all have to be good, just like a medical doctor. It almost feels like that the country as whole has too many officers that are littered through the various skill categores and not truly enough elite ones. A lot of these situations should never have to occur and it more or less is an officer's job to be able to keep the peace, which is far from easy and might be one of the most thankless and hardest jobs there are...

[Hapless Bills Fan]

9 hours ago, Bill from NYC said:

Now, here comes the old man. He looks harmless enough, but he seems to be accosting (or do you prefer the word "touching) two police officers after walking into moving lines of officers in riot gear.

 

OK, couple of follow-ons.  Having watched both videos again....as the man is approaching, the police are standing there in a line, they don't start to move until he is pretty close.  It is not clear to me from both videos that he actually touches an officer.  He holds out a helmet to one, and holds out his hand holding what appears to be a cell phone towards the other.

 

I don't bring this up to be difficult, but just to point out that different observers can watch the same video and come to different conclusions about what happened.

[Back2Buff]

14 minutes ago, Reed83HOF said:

 

I gave you credit for bringing up a good point about the helmet, but this is nonsense. A reasonable assumption can be made that you are law enforcement or know people in law enforcement or even know the officer in question with the lengths you are going to here. Blaming a twitter feed and that cops had the ability to know he said F the police, implying that saying F- the police somehow eliminates your equal treatment under law (violating your free speech) and invalidates what the police's supposed to "serve and protect" all citizens implies. And then you call out that this may be a set up? Sorry dude your credibility is shot in regards to this thread.

 

Not sure I'm looking for credibility.  I'm just showing other sides on what is out there in regards to the event.

 

There are two sides to every story.  I think when before the incident another protestor is literally saying the guy is here is looking to get his butt whooped, why does he have a helmet, he is here just for fun, and is looking just to get punched in the face, you start to question some things.  Then you go to his twitter feed and the whole thing is about people getting beat up by police.

 

Let's wait to pass judgement on these officers.  I think people calling it excessive force is ludicrous. 

[KD in CA]

1 hour ago, Margarita said:

maybe do their jobs and arrest the guy rather than shove him out of the way and expect nothing bad would happen for starters.......

 

It was a pretty gentle shove.  They attempted to do him a favor by not arresting him and there was no apparent intent to knock him to the ground.  They probably figured the video of them arresting the guy would be what triggered all the outrage (and it likely would have in the current environment). 

 

If we are to expect better from the cops (and we certainly should), we need to expect better from the citizens.   Being an activist doesn't bestow one the right to interfere with the police.

[Bad Things]

For those of you who see no problem with this... I guess you're all getting what you deserve.

Way to go!