If he was breaking the law, why did they assault him rather than arresting him?
Also, how do we know the orders were lawful?
> If you have a peanut allergy you shouldn't be hanging around in peanut factories looking for trouble (as the old guy was on video laughing earlier that day)
How is it relevant that he was laughing earlier?
The point is that it's incumbent on the police to determine the appropriate amount of force to use, not on civilians to retreat based on a worst–case scenario of what the police can do to them. They exist to serve us, not the other way around.
Yes? If they're incapable of enforcing their orders without hurting people they should not be trying to enforce them.
It's bloody alien seeing Americans arguing over this sort of thing as if there's a context that makes hurting the people you're sworn to protect okay. The rest of the world seems to understand what the point of police is.
I expect them to not shove the elderly onto concrete and then walk away as blood flows out of their ears.
That's not a high bar.
This is a null category. Free people don't take orders from their employees.
Giving orders to disperse to does not give police a license to physically assault civilians without provocation.
> if the man had been 20 years younger his stumble would not have resulted in a fall
Is this supposed to be exculpatory? If I throw peanuts on someone with a peanut allergy, is "they would have been fine had they not been allergic" an acceptable defense?