Quote (Goomshill @ Jun 7 2020 12:35am)
And yet their orders were pretty clearly to march forward and push back any protesters who run up to their line, as is completely normal in riot suppression. It doesn't mean they can pull out an AK47 and spray bullets, but using their shields/batons to push anyone in their path is exactly what they're supposed to be doing, with good and ethical reason. Like all less-lethal force, it still carries risks. Someone lost an eye to a rubber bullet, people got their hands burned trying to pick up gas canisters. Who's fault is it that the "unarmed 75 year old man" got injured? He was out at a riot breaking multiple laws and was trying to face off against police who had issued warnings and made it clear they were going to sweep people out of the street. The police used the same standard procedure all other riot cops use.
One party in this story was clearly breaking the law, the other party was doing their job.
You didn't really do anything to counter what I posted. You just reasserted "they were following orders" and followed it up with "other departments do this so it must be fine".
Not often you see somebody making the same arguments that literal Nazis used to justify their actions.
Being told "march forward" or "clear the streets" is a legitimate order, but when the individual officer while following that order injures a 75 year old unarmed man, then that officer is not fit to serve because his/her judgement is simply not good enough to adequately fill the role. "There are risks" doesn't justify this situation, because the officer has the responsibility to make good judgement in how he carries out the orders.
This post was edited by Thor123422 on Jun 6 2020 11:49pm