Am I missing something here
You probably are.
We are missing what the thoughts and thinking process everyone has to make a 100% call on what happened. But since none of what a person thinks can be substantiated in any way, especially after the fact. We can only at be assume things.
Also, I don't have this info from a source, as I remember reading it in this very thread. That the female protestor was supposedly removed, but made her way around towards the area where Mark Field was. But the tables prevented her from being to progress further towards the Chancellor.
With security still on the other side attempting to block access towards the Chancellor (at a near 1.5/2 security to 1 protestor ratio), where most of the protestors were located at (in long video clip). This lone protestor made their way to somewhere they clearly shouldn't have. With no further way to progress towards the chancellor (she is seen looking around for a way around to them that didn't involved climbing onto tables and over guests), she hurridly (increased pace) made her way around the side (this is shown in most videos) where she encounters Mark Field.
During the filmed evidence, the protestor was seen to have been alone (no security targetting her) and moving around before Mark Field attempted to restrain her, was at least 6-8s alone where none of the guests would do anything to her, and no staff attempted to apprehend her either. But during that time, we can see her go from a more slow movement, to after finding the way around towards the Chancellor, being to increase her pace. Take what that means as you like.
If he's this great, noble defender of democracy protecting the chancellor from a knife or worse, a milkshake, then why didn't he stand in her way when she started to walk his way?
He waited until she was pretty much next to him before he got up to pin her to the pillar. If he'd wanted to remove her peacefully he'd have stood up and blocked her way long before she got near him then used the enclosed space to Shepard her back out.
Whether you agree with him getting involved is not the point, the point is that he chose the most aggressive and forceful way to deal with the situation and that's not a trait I want to see in any elected official.
I won't disagree that it was very last minute. But again, with no idea what any of them was thinking, we can't make any judgements on any of it. It would just be a lot of "What ifs", but not "impossible" outcomes. So we can only make judgements on what we do have: Video evidence.
And in the video evidence, we do see that it is through the struggle to not be restrained, that the protestor was forced back into the pillar/wall. Because of Mark Field attempting to stop her through grabbing her arm from moving past him, her attempt to escape his attempt to restrain her forces a still sitting Mark Fields into the need to extend his reach and to commit to a full attempt to stop the protestor. But this overextention of the arm will cause anyone still sitting to not have control of how much force they release, and the continuing resistance of the protestor to avoid being caught causes the crash into the pillar/wall. Mark Field did not "Throw" the protestor into the wall (you can watch the video yourself if you don't trust me).
At no point was Mark Field doing anything that if it was male/male, female/female, would it be classed as inappropriate. And even in this case of male/female, Mark Field at no point demonstrated any inappropriate touch towards the protestor that can be considered to be realistically avoidable (the female protestor swung her arms and body around a bit in the effort to escape, so any glanced touches cannot be expected to be classed as inappropriate, especially when the video clearly shows at no point was Mark Field attempting to touch anywhere for an extended period of time other than areas that would not constitute sexual molestation; all touches that were near sensitive areas were like the security, had his hand pull quickly away to prevent such a view).
Note, I am not saying that Mark Field didn't leave it till last moment, and there might be other factors involved that would certainly make them guilty as to what everyone is supposedly saying he is guilty of. But from the short clip (and the only long clip I can find so far), nothing inside those videos on examination shows someone who is being excessively violent or inappropriate towards a person. So to claim a person (Mark Field) is aggressive, was inappropriate, etc (or anything that also relies on feeling of the situation), is certainly not supported by the video evidence (that everyone is also pointing towards as their own evidence in support of their own view of the situation strangely).
