If that is the case, then you arrest the person for “Resisting a direct police order.”
In the McKinney incident, the officer is left in the position of tackling someone who he did not see needed to be arrested.
Did she or did she not, in your words, “Resist a direct police order?”
Answer the question please:
Did she or did she not, in your words, “Resist a direct police order?”
Yes or no?
Did she or did she not “Resist a direct police order?”
Because to most IMPARTIAL people, he told her personally, at least THREE times to disperse and leave the scene, which she not only did NOT do, but was DELIBERATELY inflaming the situation.
So, answer the question please. Did she or did she not “Resist a direct police order?”
If she did NOT “Resist a direct police order?”, what was she doing? An order was given. Multiple times. She didn’t leave the scene.
So, if you, as an IMPARTIAL observer, must concede, that she WAS “Resisting a direct police order?”, IS THAT OR IS THAT NOT GROUNDS FOR ARREST?
Yes or No?
In YOUR world, IS THAT OR IS THAT NOT GROUNDS FOR ARREST, YES OR NO?
Please answer the question.
And by the way, please don’t resort to your circular logic of “She wasn’t arrested, so there weren’t any grounds to arrest her”.