As a trial lawyer, I do love me a good jury, if for no other reason than you stick a bunch of disagreeable people in a small room and you tell them that that's where they'll sit until they reach a solution. So I'd put a representative of each in this room: a Republican, a Democrat, a police officer, a business owner, a minister, a teacher, a protester, and I don't know, but you get the picture. And their task will be to set up a march and to offer a speech, and they will need to figure out what they all need to say in unison. And if they can't figure out what they all agree upon and need to say, then they'll sit in that room until they get hungry enough, thirsty enough, and ornery enough to knock on the door and let us know they've reached a verdict. Surely there is something everyone wishes to say. — Hanover

Sounds like an excellent way of catering to the lowest common denominator and stick with the status quo.

This strikes me as far afield and an entirely useless discussion from a pragmatic perspective. If you are able to prove the illegitimacy of the US government from a moral perspective with absolute certainty, the police will still keep doing as they are doing as will the citizens. It's not like a good solid argument is going to change the world or even change a single interaction between the government and its citizens. — Hanover

It's completely relevant, it's the essential point of relevance in this whole conversation.

If the state is legitimate, then there are better methods available to change the policy of the state than through violent confrontation with the police, rioting, and other revolutionary activity.

If the state is illegitimate, then evaluating such illegal activity becomes a question purely of effectiveness in changing the policies and essential character of the state, despite the state not wanting that to happen.

Therefore, a legitimate state should be able to easily explain to any citizen how to engage in political processes to attain political ends, and how those processes are fair and effective if the majority of people agree.

Maybe things aren't fair right now, but a legitimate state (and the vast majority of its citizenry) can easily explain how things can be made more fair without recourse to violence; that is the whole point of democratic legitimacy.

A legitimate state has nothing to fear from its citizenry nor analysis of what it means to be a legitimate state.

US black people, and now a large portion of young people of all colours in the US, do not currently view the US government as legitimate.

It is of critical importance whether this belief is true, and therefore should be brought to its logical terminus, or untrue, and therefore explained as a misguided notion and that better political means are available to achieve changes to state policy and essential state character.

Sounds like an excellent way of catering to the lowest common denominator and stick with the status quo. — Benkei

The status quo, by definition, is what is occurring right now. Right now there are protests. Tomorrow the protests will end, but the anger won't. So how is my attempt to resolve that maintaining the status quo? I suspect what you mean by "status quo" is any solution that doesn't give the protesters everything they want. My objective is compromise. The status quo is to just have the gnats continue to agitate the elephant.

It is of critical importance whether this belief is true, and therefore should be brought to its logical terminus, or untrue, and therefore explained as a misguided notion and that better political means are available to achieve changes to state policy and essential state character. — boethius

Protests, like voting, lobbying, bribing (or whatever) are a form of political expression, aimed at obtaining something currently not received. The morality of the political demand is only relevant to the extent the person truly cares about such things. Typically people aim to get what they want just because they want it, regardless of any moral analysis, whether that be new tax breaks, new guns laws, or new emissions standards.

While you may be totally driven by morality, you can't just impose that motivation on the whole population. My feeling is that African Americans are protesting what is happening in their communities by the police because they are subject to that violence and they want it to end. While they do believe what is going on is immoral, it's not their primary driver. If morality were the primary driver behind these protests, you'd expect the Hispanic community to be as outraged. They're not, not because they don't understand morality, but because it's not their ox being gored.

All of this is to say, even if I could objectively show that the US government was legitimate and that the current method of policing was the only effective and proper means of law enforcement, it's not like the African American community would be at all persuaded to accept their lot, put on a smile, and get back to work.

Yes, let's compromise on justice. Great idea.

Is anyone who is an object of some study thereby objectified? — Echarmion

Yup.

I disagree with that definition of objectification. By this logic, trying to guess how a person might react to something I say is objectifying them. As is trying to figure out why an infant might be crying. — Echarmion

Nope.

Trying to understand an individual is an I-thou relationship Very very different to trying to measure an abstracted average five-yr-old, or whoever.

This post is the first time you ever actually provide an argument, your protestations that it's all so simple and obvious notwithstanding. — Echarmion

I quoted my own thread where I discuss this in some detail and with further references, I also linked to a book that makes part of the argument by a well respected author and with his wiki page. Nobody has mentioned any of this either to discuss, or dispute at any point. I have always regarded this as extremely tangental to the topic of systemic racism, but that certain aspects of psychology are important. If you know something about socio-political psychologies, then you will see it straight away, but I still think this is not the ideal place for a detailed discussion of the philosophy of psychology. However if someone wanted to find details of my argument or of David Smail's, the links are there. I have now given a very brief outline here, and I also contributed to the thread that @boethius linked to. So if you are interested, you can find plenty more of me and others on the history and philosophy of psychology. It's a particular interest of mine.

And I suppose there is some sociological evidence to back this claim up? — Echarmion

I think you can find your own evidence, but here's something to get you started. But the close connection of psychology to advertising goes back to Bernays, as you will have seen in my thread already, or not.

My feeling is that African Americans are protesting what is happening in their communities by the police because they are subject to that violence and they want it to end. — Hanover

Is this really just a feeling for you at this point?

All of this is to say, even if I could objectively show that the US government was legitimate and that the current method of policing was the only effective and proper means of law enforcement, it's not like the African American community would be at all persuaded to accept their lot, put on a smile, and get back to work. — Hanover

Translation: "Boohoo, the oppressed classes are revolting, it's not like providing an argument that I don't have is going to get them back to work. What I do have is the whip though, and therefore should use that whip to get things back to the way I like it."

It's almost like maybe a state that asks a whole community "to accept their lot, put on a smile" is not a legitimate state, that even if there was a majority of people who wanted to oppress this community, that again, that would still not be legitimate because there would be no moral foundation to it.

Also for the discussion about psychiatriy, relevant quote: "One of the things neoliberalism does is take social and economic problems and turn them into emotional and individual problems". — fdrake

I think that's true to an extent, but if you want to avoid claiming social and economic problems are mentally harmless, then the current social and economic system causes mental harm. Are we supposed to refuse to treat it in the best way we can as some kind of protest against the conditions which cause it. Are we on the verge of some seismic change if only the psychiatrists would get on board? It seems unlikely.


Im not suggesting for a moment that modern psychiatry has got it right, I'd be happy to see the whole discipline discarded and started again from scratch. But until we change the social and economic causes of mental harm, there will exist some need to try and alleviate that harm.

Ending the war is the best way to stop soldiers from dying, but you don't then go to war without a medic.

All that notwithstanding, unenlightened has made it quite clear that we're not actually talking about psychiatriy at all, but the whole field of psychology.

I'm guessing you meant to say psychotherapy or psychiatry right? — Isaac

No. I meant what I said, and it is a generalisation about mainstream psychology. — unenlightened

Something about the entire field of study is somehow responsible for class oppression and racial segregation. I'm still unclear what the obvious connection is.

Yes, let's compromise on justice. Great idea. — Benkei

Yes, let's sit in a room and figure out once and for all what justice is exactly and then let's take out our hammers and forge it in place. That'll work. I know that once someone impresses upon me what justice is, no way I'll object. How could I? It's sacred justice for God's sake.

no way I'll object. How could I? It's sacred justice for God's sake. — Hanover

History teaches us something else:

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, but must be violently taken by the oppressed.

"Boohoo, the oppressed classes are revolting, it's not like providing an argument that I don't have is going to get them back to work. What I do have is the whip though, and therefore should use that whip to get things back to the way I like it." — boethius

I've not said they should just get back to work. I said they should find common ground. Apparently that's a controversial idea. Who'd have thunk?

History teaches us something else:

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, but must be violently taken by the oppressed. — boethius

That was the message you derived from MLK?

I've not said they should just get back to work. I said they should find common ground. Apparently that's a controversial idea. Who'd have thunk? — Hanover

It is extremely controversial, and simply wrong, in the way you present it.

For nothing in what you say is a democratic process, but rather a fictitious fairness between you and your ideological opposition regardless of the numbers of who believes what.

Did the American founding fathers get in a room and compromise with King George? Did FDR get in a room with Hirohito and Hittler and find "common ground"? Did president Bush get in a room and compromise with the Taliban, or Sadam, or Bin Laden for that matter?

When it is your class using violence to reach political objectives, it's "serious discussion", "just war theory", "tough love", "doing what it takes", "no bleeding heart liberal hippy bullshit".

Yet, as soon as other classes express their power for violence to reach political objectives, it's "woe, woe, peaceful protest! peaceful protest! Violence isn't the answer bro! This isn't the non-violence of Martin Luther King! For the love of God, listen to MLK, just listen! Partake with me in the sacred compromise in the arms of the Holy Goddess!"

The way that people are brought together is, well, by bringing them together. Explaining the psychology of the situation, even if you're dead on, really isn't going to move the needle one way or the other in terms of resolution. — Hanover

Hanover, I think you might be right. Perhaps the philosophy of psychology should be discussed in a separate thread, although I still think David Smail's way of understanding the connections between macro-economics and psychological distress is worth looking at in this context. But I won't press it.
:rofl:

@Echarmion has already highlighted the majority of the problems with this completely unsupported tirade so I won't repeat the list of assertions requiring evidence which have already been highlighted. I'll just add one that was missed.

social behaviour is heavily influenced by the prevalent psychological worldview. — unenlightened

Is it? Presumably you'd have some evidence of this too? Though without doing social psychology I'm not sure how you'd gather it.

All you've done is presentated a story of societal decline which has psychology as the antagonist but, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, how am I supposed to take it seriously? Should I be grateful for every story anyone wishes to tell of our decline? Was it the promiscuity of the sixties, the decline of family values, globalism, the cold war, population density, immigration, the European Union, the bankers, the Lizardmen from the centre of the earth ... Everyone and their dog has some theory or other. Am I supposed to take every one to heart and treat it as gospel? All I've done so far in this entire conversation is ask you and boethius for clarification.

That's supposed to be what politics and Parliament is for. It doesn't work to correct racial and socio economic injustice. This "play nice" has to go until such time as there's some assurances with regard to policies that work so that police brutality will stop. No sitting in a room until there's a genuine offer of good will from the rest of society. Until that time the rest of society can majorly fuck off.

Much more good stuff going on between police and protesters, all very welcome, as are @Wolfman's comments, which give us an insight into things from the police's perspective.

Stuff like this though:



Needs to stop now. Stop assaulting peaceful protesters. How hard is that? How hard is to train police to restrict themselves to a reasonable level of force appropriate to the situation?

EDIT: Just looked back and saw @StreetlightX already referenced this.

That's supposed to be what politics and Parliament is for. It doesn't work to correct racial and socio economic injustice. This "play nice" has to go until such time as there's some assurances with regard to policies that work so that police brutality will stop. No sitting in a room until there's a genuine offer of good will from the rest of society. Until that time the rest of society can majorly fuck off. — Benkei

So what are you advocating if not playing nicely? What I've seen from not playing nicely is bricks through windows and looting. Surely that's not what you're suggesting, but I don't know. You'll need to clarify.

You can find that in my recent post history actually. But yes, you are asking obedience in the guise of rationality. You love order above justice whereas I think civil disobedience is a duty where society perpetuates injustice where fundamental rights are infringed by state actors. Depending on the circumstances that may include violence.

Did the American founding fathers get in a room and compromise with King George? Did FDR get in a room with Hirohito and Hittler and find "common ground"? Did president Bush get in a room and compromise with the Taliban, or Sadam, or Bin Laden for that matter?

When it is your class using violence to reach political objectives, it's "serious discussion", "just war theory", "tough love", "doing what it takes", "no bleeding heart liberal hippy bullshit".

Yet, as soon as other classes express their power for violence to reach political objectives, it's "woe, woe, peaceful protest! peaceful protest! Violence isn't the answer bro! This isn't the non-violence of Martin Luther King! For the love of God, listen to MLK, just listen! Partake with me in the sacred compromise in the arms of the Holy Goddess!" — boethius

Right, and did the Democrats sit in a room and work out the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or did they go to war? It seems like those divisions were far greater then than today, yet the non-violence thing you mock actually worked.

So, I can either accept your view that because sometimes war is necessary it's always necessary, or I can realize that sometimes the things that separate us are less than those that bind us and we don't need to go to war. And let's be realistic here, the closer this gets to actual war, the worse off for the protesters. The moment the government convinces itself there is a true existential threat, it will unapologetically eliminate that threat. The point being that my desire to reach compromise does come from a place of seeking justice and having sympathy. It's not like the US government really is against the ropes and being forced into compromise.

Again, I suggest the tool of reading to participate in text base discussion: — boethius

I think this discussion has gotten too heated. I apologize for being condescending or insulting. And I'd ask you to not engage in these little jabs either.

To adress what you wrote here:

The same can only be said of all academic scientists: the primary roll of mathematics, physics and engineering becomes the arms industry, the primary roll of "political science" becomes apologetics for the state, the primary roll of creative pursuits becomes entertainment and distraction, the primary roll of psychology becomes manipulative marketing, the primary roll of philosophy becomes the denial of moral courage as a component of "the good life", if not the denial of any moral truth as such. — boethius

All that seems to be saying is that all knowledge can be abused, and all people can be corrupted. Which may be true, but doesn't say anything specific about psychology. Are you of the opinion that, say, physicists should have formed a conspiracy to keep the secret of building nuclear wepaons out of politicians hands?

I am using the term "academics" to refer to the group of people in academics, not as synonymous with knowledge.

So, if you're trying to say the academic is a tool of state authority, I agree. If you are trying to say that knowledge is a tool in the hands of the academic to service state authority, I agree. — boethius

But how does one avoid becoming a tool, outside of simply not existing?

If you are trying to say the process of selection of who gets to be an academic is independent of state policy, then I disagree. — boethius

No, it's not independent. Academia relies on grants and funding. Privately funded studies have been cause for concern in a number of fields now. The solution would seem to actually be more state funding in academia, not less. And if relying on state funding makes you an extension of state authority, then almost all public life is an extension of state authority. The term would become so broad as to be essentially meaningless.

Again, what's with the not reading things? — boethius

I indead did not read that part. Apologies.

We morally condemn the serial killer of legitimate state agents, we morally condemn illegitimate states and their killings and their state agents who kill.

When a illegitimate state kills a lot of people we say it is "mass murder" (i.e. serial killing, just with a difference in scale).

The nuances you might like to get into I am aware of and refer to as "with varying degrees of apologetics we can engage in depending on the Nazi". I agree each individual Nazi may not have the state of mind of a serial killer, but it is only because they are fully convinced they are engaging in just warfare on behalf of a legitimate state. Who we are not so morally lenient with are those orchestrating the serial killing and have the intellectual capacity to evaluate their actions and the system they are promoting as a whole.

However, you said specifically: — boethius

Actually, the belief to be engaged in "just warfare" isn't even required. Lots of states of mind can lead to people doing monstrous things. That's why I think you are oversimplifying things. There isn't any one "serial killer mindset" that could be blankedly applied to any and all unjust killing. And if there were, you'd obviously need psychology to tell you that. So your very analysis presupposes knowledge you seem to reject.

You are not referring to individuals soldiers who may not know better (and have been selected by the organization for this quality), but you are referring to the organization as a whole and its process of selecting and killing victims.

This process of the organization as a whole is no different in it's essential quality than that of the individual serial killer: They do it because they can and it brings them immense fascination and satisfaction. — boethius

Again, this is little more than a naked claim, and not a very believable one in my opinion. Organisations don't work like minds. Prima facie, organisations and minds are entirely different in their physical constituents and the way they make decisions. To argue there are "no essential differences" would require an analysis of how all the parts of one map to the other.

Trying to understand an individual is an I-thou relationship Very very different to trying to measure an abstracted average five-yr-old, or whoever. — unenlightened

But our I-thou relationships rely on abstracted knowledge. We learn social interactions by observing, and use the abstracted knowledge of what we learn to interact with new people. In that sense, we are constantly engaged in the study of other humans, which according to you is constant objectification. But without that, none of us would be able to deal with all the relations we have to other humans. Saying that there are certain qualities of an "average human" does not deny or diminish the subjectivity of any specific individual human.

I quoted my own thread where I discuss this in some detail and with further references, I also linked to a book that makes part of the argument by a well respected author and with his wiki page. Nobody has mentioned any of this either to discuss, or dispute at any point. — unenlightened

Of course noone is going to dispute points written somewhere in a book you pointed out (which, per the abstract, doesn't seem to be about anything like the things you are saying) or some 30+ page thread. To expect people to do so is to set yourself up for disappointment.

I think you can find your own evidence, but here's something to get you started. But the close connection of psychology to advertising goes back to Bernays, as you will have seen in my thread already, or not. — unenlightened

I am not disputing the connection between psychology and advertising, which is obvious enough. I am questioning to what extend the "values taught in psychology" really affect the society, which I figure would be an extremely difficult question to answer. It also looks to be a somewhat circular questions, since it basically requires us to use psychology to figure out to what extend psychology predisposes us.

You can find that in my recent post history actually. But yes, you are asking obedience in the guise of rationality. You love order above justice whereas I think civil disobedience is a duty where society perpetuates injustice where fundamental rights are infringed by state actors. Depending on the circumstances that may include violence. — Benkei

Describe what that civil disobedience looks like instead of having me sort through your post history. Does it include taking liquor from stores?

And the irony of course in that today I am accused of being a dove while you proudly proclaim you're a hawk.

The problem with inviting everyone to the table, including the police, the businessman, etc., is that not everyone is effected the same by police targeting black people. The policeman, the businessman, the politician -- those are the people that have been in charge, and we all already know the results of them being in charge.

It seems to me that governors are actually quite concerned with the demonstrations. Hence the curfews and police repression. They wield a big stick, but in doing so they lose more legitimacy in the eyes of the people they serve.

Hence why there have also been concessions in direct response to the rebellion -- to placate the people into going home and returning things to a normal order. But the concessions so far haven't been structural changes -- they have been the sorts of things which the government should have already done, if it were applying the law fairly: indicting the police officers on criminal charges.

As small a victory as that is -- who really wants to have to destroy businesses and loot them just to make the state do their job every damn time a cop kills someone unjustifiably? That is madness. -- there are structural changes which as being brought up by black-led organizations. After all, unless you plan on using the stick, these organizations are likely the ones that can placate the crowd without using the stick.

It seems to me that it'd be better to implement those as concessions if they want everyone to return home.

@boethius What do you think about Stoicism in relation to mental health amidst societal injustice? (Which was the historical context in which Stoicism arose). I see clinical psychology and psychiatry as trying to serve the same ends as Stoicism by (sometimes) different means.

I have severe anger management problems that I’ve struggled with all my life, that I’ve always defended as reasonable anger in response to genuine wrongs, even though my angry responses only ever made things worse for me, not better. Last year I started having crippling panic and anxiety problems over nothing that I could identify (everything in my life was the best it had ever been at that time), which finally made me go looking for medication to help bring that under control. It did, I think, though it took a long time and was uneven in progress so it’s hard to tell.

I say “crippling” literally, in that I was not able to function as well in pursuit of my own goals, not able to get up the guts to face the things that I was panicking about. In retrospect I see my anger problems as crippling in a different way: I could have more effectively done something about the things I was angry about if I hadn’t been so overwhelmed with rage and out of control that I couldn’t think straight.

A calm, clear, focused mind is not necessarily one that is unquestioningly accepting of everything going on. It’s just a mind that is in control of itself, beholden only to its own reason, one that can decide rationally what is or isn’t actually a problem and what the best responding to that problem would be, and then most importantly, is able to do that best response because it is the best response, rather than feeling irrationally compelled to behave differently, hiding under the covers or punching holes in one’s own walls or whatever else one’s overwhelming emotions might otherwise push one to do instead of, you know, solving the problem.

Stop assaulting peaceful protesters. How hard is that? How hard is to train police to restrict themselves to a reasonable level of force appropriate to the situation? — Baden

It's interesting really because I do think this is more the issue than has been discussed. The guy was white who was pushed over. This had nothing to do with race.

American police are mean as shit. It's a thing. I hear how black parents lament the fact they have to teach their children to be careful around cops, but I can't say I learned anything different. If my son (for example) told me that he stood in the path of police in riot gear and he got shoved to the ground, I would ask him why his crazy ass was in the way of police. If they say move, you move. I think they are taught to take charge like that. Is that not a thing in Europe?

Yes, nothing racial about this I know, but seeing as police brutality is one of the specified topics of the OP... Anyway, the context is the guy is old and not a threat. Shoving him to the ground is dangerous and unnecessary. So, yes, if the police say "move" then generally speaking you should move, but that doesn't justify any response to you not doing that. Also, the cop walking on and leaving the guy on the ground unconscious and bleeding is mind-boggling. I mean if you unintentionally use excessive force at least try to help your victim.

American police are mean as shit. — Hanover

Which is why many people hate them. In most countries I've been to it's not actually the case. And it shouldn't be. Considering most protesters are otherwise generally law-abiding, stepping all over them is stupid and self-defeating. Hearts and minds and all that. Keep the gung-ho shit for hardened criminals.

I quoted my own thread where I discuss this in some detail and with further references — unenlightened

I've been through the whole nine pages (you can't just repost the links?). I can't find a single reference to any evidence of what you're asserting here.

psychology as an industry is largely in the business of undermining any class consciousness, and supporting, in the first place the individualising and fragmenting of society, whereby poverty and unemployment is an internal psychological failure of ambition, and from there a reintegration along race and national lines and the projection of the internalised resentment onto the 'other'. — unenlightened

All your previous thread says (again without much evidential support) is that psychologists are responsible for the effectiveness of advertising. Again, a very small number of people from a small branch of psychology. You're own source you later cute has it as less than 3%.

A small branch of engineering has been responsible for some of the most deadly machines known to man. A small branch of physics created the atomic bomb. A small branch of philosophy supports selfish greed. A small branch of economics supports free-market competition as a solution to poverty...and so on. Give me a single academic study which has not been used in some way to maintain or enhance the power of the wealthy and privelidged, hell even literature's implicated by your standards.

David Smail's argument is about clinical psychology, you indicted the whole of psychology. So far we've had a spurious argument about the activities of less than 3% and an argument for how the clinical side of things could be improved (much of which is being acted on, and the evidence for which actually came from within psychology).

I think you can find your own evidence, but here's something to get you started. — unenlightened

Your claim...

Psychology graduates go into advertising, into human resources (there's an objectifying phrase for you) into health, social work, education, and they bring and promote the values and views they have been taught. — unenlightened

I can't speak for @Echarmion, but I'm fairly confident the main sticking point is "they bring and promote the values and views they have been taught" not the fields of work they go into.

Seems that you either don't get my point or have some bone to pick.

And I've said multiple times that the whole culture has to change, or that whole departments simply have to be totally shut down. No single changes like some hours of training will do the change. Changing a culture is a huge thing, not a thing a small reform will do. Let's hope that something better can come out of this, that it's not brushed aside as one of "those riots" in a long history of riots. Not to refer to "riots" would be one start, actually

And for your question, "Why is there not universal denunciation, from police departments all across the US, and promises to do better?" the simple fact is that there isn't anybody to give that. Except perhaps Trump :roll: .

:up:

History teaches us something else:

Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, but must be violently taken by the oppressed.
— boethius

That was the message you derived from MLK? — Hanover

The lesson of political history. (e.g. Hobbes & Marx) :point:

Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will. Find out just what any people will quietly submit to and you have found out the exact measure of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these will continue till they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. — Frederick Douglass

I'm interested in clarifying concepts and not in normalizing confused usage of terms.

Much more good stuff going on between police and protesters, all very welcome, as are @Wolfman's comments, which give us an insight into things from the police's perspective. — Baden

Since you asked me, I'll try to give you some insight into what the police were probably thinking. This comes with the disclaimer that this is an explanation of what happened, and not a justification or normative evaluation.

So at the start of the video it looks like the police are moving forward on a skirmish line. They usually do this because they want to clear out an area. I don't know why they wanted to clear out the area, but there could be many different reasons.

Generally speaking, before the line moves forward, officers give anyone in the area a number of warnings to disperse. It might be something like, "This area is being cleared out. You are ordered to disperse. We will dispense tear gas. You are being warned." This usually goes on for about 5-15 minutes on a bullhorn, but most departments want to give as many warnings as possible (for legal and political reasons if for nothing else).

After the warnings are given, the police will move forward, and anyone in their path will be pushed back. At this stage there is no talking or debating with people. The police consider everyone warned, and now they will proceed to clear the area. Sometimes people will push their luck by lingering around the skirmish line, even as police officers are moving forward. Most of these people end up dispersing at the very last moment, but some people do not. I have seen people walk up trying to give the cops flowers. I have seen people with signs reading "free hugs," walk up and try to hug the police officers, despite being given those warnings to disperse. What usually happens is police will continue moving forward whilst pushing back anyone in their way. They might give commands like, "Get back! Clear the area!"

At this point the hug people, flower people, and people who want to continue debating, get pushed back, and they usually have a sad, betrayed, astonished look on their face like, "Why did you do that to me? That's assault." The look I usually see on cops after that is like, "Man, we told you to leave."

It looks like the man in that video was a debater, or at least someone who wanted to continue talking to the police. For whatever reason he was not satisfied with leaving the area.

The cops walked forward and pushed the man. He fell down and was injured. The cop whose first reaction was to render aid and check on the man was probably thinking, "Oh shit. Are you okay?" as he went to bend down. The other cop was probably like, "Maintain your ranks. We have EMTs and nothing you can do will help him much as he's down on the ground a few seconds longer." The cop who told him to maintain ranks tells another cop to get two people away from the line, then radios for medical. Then it looks like they cuff one of the other guys with a zip tie and take him into custody.