Police ran over the Average man! Or did he?

Here we have an interesting scene full of potential images of classed bodies. The setting for this scene takes place during the wall-street occupation. Looking at the back drop we can see one very intriguing detail. Every person in this picture is white, other than one officer. The main subject focused here is a white male being what looks like, ran over by an officer. In the background we have some photographers taking pictures of the incident, but not a single person is making a phone call for emergency assistance or even coming to his aid. The police officer seems hardly distressed over the seemingly brutal act. Next to him we have an upright strong presenting dark skinned male who is just holding zip-cuffs.

The greatest detail I found in this image is the fallen man's leg positions. The image seems to be arguing for police brutality towards those whom the are suppose to protect, but I think that it is misrepresented. Being hit by a motorcycle would cause the rider to have to shift weight and regain control of the vehicle, even at low speeds. The police officer only has two fingers on the brake and the clutch. If impact was imminent, the body naturally reacts by placing the majority of your hand on these handles for better control and grip. The man on the ground has hips tilted to the side, one foot under a side fairing, not in the trail of the front tire, the other leg seems tucked in away from the back tire. The cops reaction gives it all way. He seems hardly bothered, one leg out to push the man aside. You might think it is for balance, but an experienced motorcycle rider does not use legs to balance the bike. Weight shifting is the only thing that helps keep it upright along with momentum. They wouldn't just let a rookie ride a bike through a heavy protest area.

With all this data, now look at the fallen man's face. He seems like in sheer agony. Like he had been ran over, not pushed over. This image taken by the photographer is meant to argue the view of the protester, but instead of making the government look bad, it actually rides against the protester.

My reaction at first when I saw this image was a sign of sheer disgust towards officers. Serving in the military, seeing a figure who swore to protect people being so negligent is a travesty. Then I looked deeper, read this image and became outraged. This man who was protesting pushed the limits and the officer doing his duty probably was trying to get by when he was nudged off to the side. Dramatizing the event by falling and appearing to be hit brings about an image that is not all that it seems. In the end an officer who was doing his duty is now seen as an assailant against protesters, showing how the government is not helping the common folk.

The political work that this image is doing is brought up in the wrong light. It is trying to argue us into a position that believes that police are being brutal and the people are not being heard. It also shows that there is a huge cultural shift in development. This image shows the majority being white, wearing middle class clothing, and protesting. The occupation's main goal was towards capitalists abusing the laborer. That laborer is white and male. Dyer argues that this image is the normal average person. Poverty was often seen as a racial boundary, where the colored were filling the void of being jobless and homeless. Now it's being depicted as your "average" man. Much of this is a warranted reading of the image but what it is doing wrong is the political construction of officers.

Showing them as brutal and uncaring for their actions. That even the normal man is subject to persecution from the government for fighting for what he believes in. It gives the world the view that it is okay to push down anyone under the class of government authority.