Please stop parroting stupid stuff you've heard on the radio or on Fox News. Anyone can watch the incident, someone shared the link on youtube in another comment.

> Seems like the loss of balance and fall was out of their control

They pushed him and caused him to fall over backwards.

> raising your hands toward their weapons

He's got stuff in both his hands and he's very clearly not trying to take their weapons away. His hands are roughly at the same height as their "weapons," yes.

Yours is a rhetorically sneaky way of suggesting it was reasonable for them to believe he was reaching for their batons. It's similar to the way LA cops used to murder unarmed people and suggest that they were "reaching for their waistband." Literally anyone whose arms are of normal length is at any given time "reaching for their waistband" if their hands aren't on their heads. Don't be this dishonest, it's pathetic.

> He's got stuff in both his hands and he's very clearly not trying to take their weapons away. His hands are roughly at the same height as their "weapons," yes.

They've got a fraction of a second to decide whether someone is a threat or not. That's why there is procedure when someone runs up on them, regardless if there is “stuff” in his hands or not.

> They've got a fraction of a second to decide whether someone is a threat or not.

A fraction of a second? They weren't piloting an F-14 in Top Gun or something, there was a visibly unarmed elderly guy shuffling towards them alone on the sidewalk. It was literally the opposite of a situation that demanded split-second decision making.

As with the grandparent comment, I question whether you even watched the video of the incident or if you are just repeating some stupid stuff you heard about the incident.

> They weren't piloting an F-14 in Top Gun or something, there was a visibly unarmed elderly guy shuffling towards them alone on the sidewalk. It was literally the opposite of a situation that demanded split-second decision making.

Yea, life isn't a movie, don't you know? Regardless of how old he was, or how harmless he was trying to look, he could still be a threat.

> As with the grandparent comment, I question whether you even watched the video of the incident or if you are just repeating some stupid stuff you heard about the incident.

Yea, I did, several times. It looked weird to me. The push wasn't enough to knock him over.

I also just found out there is some evidence this was a staged event, complete with fake blood.

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2020/06/did_an_aged_act...

The loss of balance happens when someone uses excessive force and pushes a person.

He never reached for any weapon. Take a better look.

This is not excessive force.

Yes, it is.

What should have they done, run away? Just stand there? Put yourself in their shoes, and remember you have a fraction of a second to decide.

Giving a huge benefit of doubt, that barely explains their initial behavior. The guy had two hands full when he was shoved. We can see that in the video. The officers continued to get closer and closer to the man. They were approaching him. They could have kept their distance and instructed him. They chose to approach him and get that close to him. That was not a fraction of second decision.

But let's assume their only option was to shove him for some reason that repeated examination of the video for sure does not reveal. Now explain why they just continued walking past him, watching him bleed on the ground. Once they were safe, what is their excuse for not immediately helping the person they just injured? In fact you can clearly see that one of the police started to bend down to do something - we could assume to help the guy - and the other officer stopped him.

What's the excuse for lying about the man tripping? If their actions are defensible, why did they lie at first?

> Giving a huge benefit of doubt, that barely explains their initial behavior. The guy had two hands full when he was shoved. We can see that in the video.

What does it matter whether he was carrying something in his hands?

> The officers continued to get closer and closer to the man. They were approaching him. They could have kept their distance and instructed him.

He was walking towards them, as well. Even if they stopped dead in their tracks, he would have walked into them.

> But let's assume their only option was to shove him for some reason that repeated examination of the video for sure does not reveal. Now explain why they just continued walking past him, watching him bleed on the ground. Once they were safe, what is their excuse for not immediately helping the person they just injured? In fact you can clearly see that one of the police started to bend down to do something - we could assume to help the guy - and the other officer stopped him.

Because the USA is extremely litigious, and if they touched him, they could get sued. You can also see them immediately radioing for a medic. If they are so heartless and cruel, why would they have done that?

> What's the excuse for lying about the man tripping? If their actions are defensible, why did they lie at first?

There is no excuse for that, but it is understandable. Cops, heck, anybody who does anything physical to someone else, often has to face enormous consequences. Because a split second decision, the police officer was possibly facing losing his job, being sued for hundreds of thousands of dollars, and even jail time.

> He was walking towards them, as well. Even if they stopped dead in their tracks, he would have walked into them.

Both he and the police were standing still and talking about the helmet when the Lieutenant gave an order to move, followed shortly by the push.

Yea, looking at it again, you're right. The cop was definitely wrong here. Sorry about that.