Jump to content

"innocent" man dies after police assault


Seats

Recommended Posts

The tactics of the police to pen everyone in may account for how long he was there. I, however, obviously have no idea how long he was there, just like everyone else on this forum........i presume.

 

I get the impression that he was probably trying to walk home through a city that was under lock-down. I'd imagine if the police were refusing to let me walk home my reaction would be "Oh for fecks sake". I dare say that was probably the "altercation".

 

If the original incident was anything serious - physical or verbal threats - Mr Tomlinson would have been lifted there and then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 305
  • Created
  • Last Reply
maroonlegions

Just a thought here, the next time anyone is coming home from work and gets caught up in a protest or scuffle and is told to move on and is trying too but not at the polices satisfaction.Then one gets smacked across the legs with a baton and pushed to the ground and hit again twice , would you feel that it was necessary or justified.The point here is WHY did they use excessive force when they could have apprehended him in a more non violent way?What kind off training do these policemen go through???Even if he was involved previous arguments with the police he did not deserve the kind of force used on him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression that he was probably trying to walk home through a city that was under lock-down. I'd imagine if the police were refusing to let me walk home my reaction would be "Oh for fecks sake". I dare say that was probably the "altercation".

 

If the original incident was anything serious - physical or verbal threats - Mr Tomlinson would have been lifted there and then.

 

Exactly. Or it's certainly what should have happened. And before anybody starts saying this is naive or something similar, there were plenty of other people who were arrested, if they were actually committing a crime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
I get the impression that he was probably trying to walk home through a city that was under lock-down. I'd imagine if the police were refusing to let me walk home my reaction would be "Oh for fecks sake". I dare say that was probably the "altercation".

 

If the original incident was anything serious - physical or verbal threats - Mr Tomlinson would have been lifted there and then.

 

 

 

 

"If the original incident was anything serious - physical or verbal threats - Mr Tomlinson would have been lifted there and then"

 

NAIL ON HEAD.The fact that he was allowed to continue and not be arrested is testimony that he was in fact NOT A THREAT.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
Just walking home is not an and never was an arguement.

 

The evidence is there. In complete clarity for anybody to see. Unfortunately some people can't bear to accept any wrong-doing from the police for some bizarre reason and are determined to cloud the issue with "battling alcoholism" and "antagonising the police".

 

It's a simple yes or no question. Did you witness an assault on the video footage?

 

No. If it had been a member of the public doing it then its defo an assault as members ot the public are not accountable for law enforcement. The problem is that the Police are accountable and are permitted within the law to use "Reasonable Force" to do manage the situation. You clearly don't think what the cop did was reasonable.

 

On the other hand I have said that I will look at the evidence of the previous 90 minutes before I decide whether it was reasonable or not. You are not interested to consider that aspect so thats your prerogative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He didn't murder anyone as there was no way he could have known his actions would lead to the guys death. If anything he could be disciplined / sacked.

 

However, as for the other couple of posters making their pathetic childish attempts at trolling :stroker:

 

Sorry, not murder - manslaughter.

 

Definition (wikipedia)

 

"Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.

 

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill?a state of mind called malice?or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing, but with a willful disregard for life.

 

Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter."

 

Involuntary manslaughter;

 

"Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
Just a thought here, the next time anyone is coming home from work and gets caught up in a protest or scuffle and is told to move on and is trying too but not at the polices satisfaction.Then one gets smacked across the legs with a baton and pushed to the ground and hit again twice , would you feel that it was necessary or justified.The point here is WHY did they use excessive force when they could have apprehended him in a more non violent way?What kind off training do these policemen go through???Even if he was involved previous arguments with the police he did not deserve the kind of force used on him.

 

He was not hit again twice after he was pushed. He was pushed, he fell down, turned round and said something to the Police, and then got up and walked away. The Police were not trying to apprehend him - they were trying to move him. There was no attempt to arrest him as he had commited no crime.

 

Apart from all that your post is fine! lol

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. If it had been a member of the public doing it then its defo an assault as members ot the public are not accountable for law enforcement. The problem is that the Police are accountable and are permitted within the law to use "Reasonable Force" to do manage the situation. You clearly don't think what the cop did was reasonable.

 

On the other hand I have said that I will look at the evidence of the previous 90 minutes before I decide whether it was reasonable or not. You are not interested to consider that aspect so thats your prerogative.

 

The Doctor has already commented that it is the minimum force required. He is involved in policing so i'm going to take his word for it. That certainly was far from the minimum force required.

 

Ask yourself why a senior police officer would call for his arrest. I'd imagine he was pretty clued up on an officers code of conduct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
Sorry, not murder - manslaughter.

 

Definition (wikipedia)

 

"Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder.

 

The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill?a state of mind called malice?or malice aforethought, which may involve an unintentional killing, but with a willful disregard for life.

 

Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter."

 

Involuntary manslaughter;

 

"Involuntary manslaughter, sometimes called criminally negligent homicide in the United States, gross negligence manslaughter in England and Wales or culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence."

 

The problem will be proving this. It looks to me like the guy was already in the early stage of heart-attack. That is possibly why he was walking slowly. I have been on the scene for 2 heart-attacks and both were preceded by the victim displaying noticeable distress for about 20 minutes before he keeled over. I think that is normal for heart-attacks although I am no Doctor. If that is the case then the guy was probably already in deep trouble, so proving that the copper caused it will be tricky. It certainly won't have helped the guy but whether it can be proven that the copper caused the heart-attack will be difficult.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

boabyarsebiscuit
Just walking home is not an and never was an arguement.

 

The evidence is there. In complete clarity for anybody to see. Unfortunately some people can't bear to accept any wrong-doing from the police for some bizarre reason and are determined to cloud the issue with "battling alcoholism" and "antagonising the police".

 

It's a simple yes or no question. Did you witness an assault on the video footage?

 

Lucky he wasn't a "Cokehead Brazilian"!

 

Another smear campaign - and the hard-of-thinking swallow it. The Police attitude on this sickens me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The problem will be proving this. It looks to me like the guy was already in the early stage of heart-attack. That is possibly why he was walking slowly. I have been on the scene for 2 heart-attacks and both were preceded by the victim displaying noticeable distress for about 20 minutes before he keeled over. I think that is normal for heart-attacks although I am no Doctor. If that is the case then the guy was probably already in deep trouble, so proving that the copper caused it will be tricky. It certainly won't have helped the guy but whether it can be proven that the copper caused the heart-attack will be difficult.

 

 

I would actually agree with you here. However, this sounds like it could be slightly more possible to prove:

 

"culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence."

 

If, and i mean if, the policeman is found to have hit this guy without any form of justification (i would venture it looks likely), could this not be deemed criminal negligence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
I would actually agree with you here. However, this sounds like it could be slightly more possible to prove:

 

"culpable homicide in Scotland, occurs where there's no intention to kill or cause serious injury, but death is due to recklessness or criminal negligence."

 

If, and i mean if, the policeman is found to have hit this guy without any form of justification (i would venture it looks likely), could this not be deemed criminal negligence?

 

It could be - but the incident didn't happen in Scotland.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

boabyarsebiscuit
So he was there earlier. So he wasn't "just walking home" after all. Its a pity the evidence gets in the way of a good conspiracy against the murdering Police.

 

Look at where he worked. Look at where he lived. Check it out on a map.

 

I work half a mile away. I was working that day. All the buses were off - he had no choice but to walk, and his route home (right through the City) was blocked off by Old Bill.

 

And since when has David Icke's messageboard become an authority.

 

This is bonkers.

 

I despair at how stupid some people are. This shouldn't be a matter of politics. A crime was committed, on camera, by a man who is supposed to protect the public. No excuses.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ally Alexander

DeesideJambo

 

You seemed to have latched onto the Daily Telegraph's emphasis that he had 3 altercations with the police - yet the Telegraph states

 

"An unconfirmed report suggested the first altercation happened at about 6pm". It should have be easy to corroborate this by asking his co-worker the time he left his work.

 

Boabyarsebisciut makes a minor error when he states that he worked at Bank Station. He worked at Monument Station. According to the timeline printed in the Guardian and on their website, Tomlinson walked down King William Street (from Monument Station) at 7.00 towards the Bank of England on his way to his hostel at Smithfields where he was going to watch the England match.

 

The "altercations" would have been him just trying to get home by the quickest route.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
Look at where he worked. Look at where he lived. Check it out on a map.

 

I work half a mile away. I was working that day. All the buses were off - he had no choice but to walk, and his route home (right through the City) was blocked off by Old Bill.

 

And since when has David Icke's messageboard become an authority.

 

This is bonkers.

 

I despair at how stupid some people are. This shouldn't be a matter of politics. A crime was committed, on camera, by a man who is supposed to protect the public. No excuses.

 

Look at the evidence. I know that is tricky for you. He was pictured there 90 minutes before the incident. If he was just walking home then how come he was still there 90 minutes later?

 

Keep calling me stupid if you want, but answer the question while you are at it - how come the guy was there for 90 minutes? As I have repeatedly posted - if it can be confirmed he was involved in 3 skirmishes with the Polis during the 90 minutes then your "just walking home" argument will look a bit moronic.

 

True about the Icke comment though. They think the Police Officer was a reptilian on that forum.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
DeesideJambo

 

You seemed to have latched onto the Daily Telegraph's emphasis that he had 3 altercations with the police - yet the Telegraph states

 

"An unconfirmed report suggested the first altercation happened at about 6pm". It should have be easy to corroborate this by asking his co-worker the time he left his work.

 

Boabyarsebisciut makes a minor error when he states that he worked at Bank Station. He worked at Monument Station. According to the timeline printed in the Guardian and on their website, Tomlinson walked down King William Street (from Monument Station) at 7.00 towards the Bank of England on his way to his hostel at Smithfields where he was going to watch the England match.

 

The "altercations" would have been him just trying to get home by the quickest route.

 

90 minutes in the same location doesn't seem that quick to me, but there you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So he was there earlier. So he wasn't "just walking home" after all. Its a pity the evidence gets in the way of a good conspiracy against the murdering Police.

 

Maybe he was taking a while to get home due to the, you know, thousands of police and protesters everywhere?

 

Besides. It's irrelevant. He could have been a Guevera wearing, commie protester and still not deserve the treatment he received.

 

Top marks on describing something that is shown with video footage as a "conspiracy theory" though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

deesidejambo
Maybe he was taking a while to get home due to the, you know, thousands of police and protesters everywhere?

 

Besides. It's irrelevant. He could have been a Guevera wearing, commie protester and still not deserve the treatment he received.

 

Top marks on describing something that is shown with video footage as a "conspiracy theory" though.

 

Thanks for the top marks. Glad you see things my way. Watch out for those Police horses at Hampden - they are murderers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ally Alexander
Look at the evidence. I know that is tricky for you. He was pictured there 90 minutes before the incident. If he was just walking home then how come he was still there 90 minutes later?

 

Keep calling me stupid if you want, but answer the question while you are at it - how come the guy was there for 90 minutes? As I have repeatedly posted - if it can be confirmed he was involved in 3 skirmishes with the Polis during the 90 minutes then your "just walking home" argument will look a bit moronic.

 

True about the Icke comment though. They think the Police Officer was a reptilian on that forum.

 

As Lombard Street is about a minutes from his Newspaper Stand - he may have just be having a fag break! And checking out what was going on just like the person who took the photo!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions

So the argument now is not the justification of excessive use of force but now if he deserved this use of force if he had previous arguments with the police.He did not deserve this excessive use of force in either of these circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you're gonna explain to me how some guy with his hands in his pockets gets pushed to the ground but doesn't connect his face with the pavement.

He sticks his hands out to cushion the fall - watch the slow-mo.

Is this really all you have? A punch, a shove - what difference does it make? Both are attempts at physical contact to cause physical harm.

 

Let's wait till the second post-mortem comes back and see what that says. I struggle to believe a man is hit with a baton, pushed to the ground then has a heart-attack by coincidence.

 

Of course physical force was used. The question is, was it reasonable force.

To answer that; you'd need to know what was being said to the victim, and the general situation around him.

Was he warned, if so how many times? Was he being deliberately obstructive, where were the officers going, were they attending an incident or in danger themselves.

You've made your mind up based on one or two videos where you cant even tell the difference between a punch and a push, and are assuming he's hit his head on the pavement.

One of the most sensible posts on this therad identifies how the poor chap could already have been having a heart attack.

 

Put your pitch fork down for a second and wait for the facts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He sticks his hands out to cushion the fall - watch the slow-mo.

 

Of course physical force was used. The question is, was it reasonable force.

To answer that; you'd need to know what was being said to the victim, and the general situation around him.

Was he warned, if so how many times? Was he being deliberately obstructive, where were the officers going, were they attending an incident or in danger themselves.

You've made your mind up based on one or two videos where you cant even tell the difference between a punch and a push, and are assuming he's hit his head on the pavement.

One of the most sensible posts on this therad identifies how the poor chap could already have been having a heart attack.

 

Put your pitch fork down for a second and wait for the facts.

 

Facts -

 

The police strike a man with a baton then push him to the ground when he poses no threat.

 

Feel free to try lower that into a debate on semantics all you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
I've also not claimed he should be charged in connection with the guy dying, unless it is proved he was responsible.

 

It does look, however, that he could at least be charged with assault. The comments in the Guardian from the former police officer should have more bearing here in terms of what may / may not happen.

 

I haven't read the Guardian piece. Was the former police officer on the scene or in some other way privy to more information than we have available here?

 

Perhaps he's just another rent-a-gob, friendly to the Guardian's agenda?

 

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/Tomlinson-Case/

 

 

Sign up here if you feel injustice has been done.

 

Crikey! Sign up if you want the world to know that you're a knee-jerk reactionary.

 

Why is the IPCC investigation inadequate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
Incomplete Facts -

 

The police strike a man with a baton then push him to the ground when he poses no threat.

 

Feel free to try lower that into a debate on semantics all you want.

 

There you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't read the Guardian piece. Was the former police officer on the scene or in some other way privy to more information than we have available here?

 

Perhaps he's just another rent-a-gob, friendly to the Guardian's agenda?

 

 

 

 

 

Perhaps he has a better understanding of police procedure than most other folks.

 

And it's tough to condemn the Guardian. They've released this video when many other papers wouldn't have. No matter if they have an agenda, they've at least allowed the questions to be asked.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
He sticks his hands out to cushion the fall - watch the slow-mo.

 

Of course physical force was used. The question is, was it reasonable force.

To answer that; you'd need to know what was being said to the victim, and the general situation around him.

Was he warned, if so how many times? Was he being deliberately obstructive, where were the officers going, were they attending an incident or in danger themselves.

You've made your mind up based on one or two videos where you cant even tell the difference between a punch and a push, and are assuming he's hit his head on the pavement.

One of the most sensible posts on this therad identifies how the poor chap could already have been having a heart attack.

 

Put your pitch fork down for a second and wait for the facts.

 

 

 

 

I see your points you have raised and understand were you are coming from, i have a few of my own on your post.

 

1.In these kind of protests you are lucky if you get a warning never mind several, if he was being abusive or non- co-operative the first time he would have been arrested and never made it to were he was assaulted.

2.The baton hit to his leg to me was excessive .(as so were the other 2 he received).

3.Are we really led to believe that a man with medical and health problems and showing no signs of being armed or aggressive( prior to his attack by the policeman), was that much of a threat, that this kind of force was needed or (thought out enough),justified?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There you go.

 

What other facts do you need? What possible evidence could come out which would make the police officers actions in the video "ok".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/85-minutes-death-How-G20-victim-blocked-police-van-argued-officers-shortly-fatal-collapse.html

 

 

 

 

The above link to the story of how he argued and blocked a police van to me is still not allow the justifications of his treatment from the police.WHY was he not arrested the FIRST time for being drunk and blocking the police van.Why could have not the police just restrain him or put in the van for being drunk and a bit disorderly.??This does not add up for me anyway.

 

 

All the police should or could have done the first time was to arrest him the first time after all they must have known he was drunk and not in full control of his manner or actions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Facts -

 

The police strike a man with a baton then push him to the ground when he poses no threat.

 

Feel free to try lower that into a debate on semantics all you want.

 

With such a brilliantly precise summing up of the facts, one wonders if there's any need for a public enquiry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
I haven't read the Guardian piece. Was the former police officer on the scene or in some other way privy to more information than we have available here?

 

Perhaps he's just another rent-a-gob, friendly to the Guardian's agenda?

 

 

 

Crikey! Sign up if you want the world to know that you're a knee-jerk reactionary.

 

Why is the IPCC investigation inadequate?

 

 

And what makes you think that they will not look after one of there own, not kneek-jerk reaction Just exercising a basic freedom and to let the powers at be know that there are some people who can see through a layer of bull**** covered by a layer of talcum powder.Just my view.The guy that was shot on the tube not so long ago is a starter for why one has doubts of the IPCC investigation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From the BBC:

 

 

 

The officer captured on video apparently pushing a man during the G20 protests in London has been suspended, police have said.

 

Ian Tomlinson, 47, died from a heart attack minutes after the incident on 1 April, near the Bank of England.

 

The Metropolitan Police suspended the officer after the Independent Police Complaints Commission (IPCC) called for the penalty.

 

The IPCC has launched a criminal investigation into the death.

 

In this case, we have expressed the view that the officer in question should be suspended from duty, in the public interest

 

IPCC

 

Additional footage from Channel 4 News appeared to show him being hit with a baton.

 

A statement from the IPCC said: "The IPCC called for the officer to be suspended. The MPS has now informed us that the officer has been suspended with immediate effect.

 

"Although decisions about suspension are a matter for the Chief Officer of the police, when there is an IPCC investigation, the police are obliged to consult with us over the suspension of officers.

 

"In this case, we have expressed the view that the officer in question should be suspended from duty, in the public interest."

 

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "In order to maintain public trust in the police handling of public order events A Metropolitan Police territorial support group police constable has been suspended, effective immediately, in relation to the IPCC investigation into the death of Ian Tomlinson.

 

"Although the Metropolitan Police consulted with the IPCC, the decision was taken independently by the Metropolitan Police having considered all the circumstances."

 

'Cover-up' denied

 

The IPCC began an independent criminal probe on Wednesday after the first video footage of Mr Tomlinson being shoved to the ground emerged.

 

It has ordered a second post-mortem examination as part of the inquiry.

 

Kit Malthouse, deputy chair of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), said he met IPCC investigator Deborah Glass on Thursday and reiterated the force's support for a "rigorous and speedy" investigation.

 

On the suspension he said: "We believe that is the right course of action.

 

"It is important that everyone, including the media, realises that things they say and write in the public arena must not prejudice the outcome of the investigation or indeed any criminal charges that may result.

 

"The MPA has asked that members receive a thorough briefing about the tactics employed during the G20 protests, and I confirm that the matter will be discussed during the next meeting of the Police Authority on April 30."

 

On Thursday the Met acknowledged Mr Tomlinson came "into contact with police" before he died.

 

Initially the force said it was unaware he had sustained the alleged assault and said its officers' first contact with him was when they gave him medical aid before he died.

 

But it denied trying to "cover up" the incident.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As it is coming out that the guy was involved in at least 3 earlier skirmishes with the Police over a 90 minute period prior to the one in the video, it is probably reasonable to assume that he wasn't just walking home from work. He was there to be part of the pagger, otherwise he wouldn't have been there for 90 minutes for the earlier altercations.QUOTE]

 

Unless the same officer was involved in all 3 of the previous incidents then they don't really have any bearing on the actions of the officer - do they?

 

The fact that the Met again deny any incident occurred until discrepancies are highlighted in the media must cast doubts on their senior officers ability to manage the rank & file.

 

Feel free to pop out to my neck of the woods any Friday night. I'll show you plenty of drunk alcoholics with fags in their mouths taking more than 90 minutes to get home.

Any or all of them deserve a minimum force whack on the back of the legs and a friendly push in the direction of home?

 

Just as well he wasn't one of the famous tartan army. Being drunk in a public place, football shirt on, fag in mouth, very slow to follow police instructions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder which has more baring - Public opinion, Hearts supporters opinions or facts?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you read the Guardian article there are some very disurbing aspects to this :

 

The PC who hit the now dead bloke has his face covered by a balaclava (even though most of his colleagues don't).

 

he has removed his epaullettes (or whatever they are called) which have his police number (this is quite clear from pics taken by a banker who was present at the time). There is a very clear pic in the paper.

 

The IPCC said basically there was no case to answer : even though they hadn't even interviewed ANY of the non Police witnesses to the incident.

 

The Police issued a statement from the family in which it was alleged the family were being kept fully informed : they were not. The Met was witholding details from them re the attack.

 

At a service for the dead bloke someone warned off the Guardian journalists and told them to stay away from the family for '48 hours' and complained they were upsetting the family. It is far from clear the family were actually upset and have even thenked the Guardian for exposing the details of this.

 

Journalists asked about the PM : what injuries did the PM detail ? No one will tell them.

 

The IPCC denied there had been any attack on the man right up until the video clip was made public - even though there had been many reports from members of the public about it.

 

There isn't much that's independent about the IPCC.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was criticised earlier in the thread for suggesting the guy was not innocent when I didn't have all the facts. It now appears that most people on here are perfectly happy to judge the office and IPCC guilty based on random newspaper reports and one or two conspiracy theories - i.e without the facts.

 

Is that the waft of hypocrisy I smell?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I P Knightley
What other facts do you need? What possible evidence could come out which would make the police officers actions in the video "ok".

 

All of the relevant facts, please.

 

I've reiterated that I think the copper's treatment appeared heavy handed.

 

You, yourself, may not be in the "Hang him high" camp or the "ACAB" camp on this so please don't take my post as criticism of what you're saying.

 

But before the guy's death is linked to the push from the copper, we need all the facts.

 

An over-the-top shove deserves a slap on the wrist and some re-training. Manslaughter's a very different kettle of fish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions
I was criticised earlier in the thread for suggesting the guy was not innocent when I didn't have all the facts. It now appears that most people on here are perfectly happy to judge the office and IPCC guilty based on random newspaper reports and one or two conspiracy theories - i.e without the facts.

 

Is that the waft of hypocrisy I smell?

 

Even if the guy was ,as you put it ,"not innocent", what was he guilty of apart from being drunk ,blocking a police van and remember he was drunk, so the blocking part might just be because of his drunken state. Would that deserve such excessive force and why, as i have said before, was he not arrested in such a state the first time.The fact that the police lied about any contact before the incident is to me a sign of guilt.If they have nothing to hide then why lie in the first place.??To me that is were the real hypocrisy has its roots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maroonlegions

As it is coming out that the guy was involved in at least 3 earlier skirmishes with the Police over a 90 minute period prior to the one in the video' date=' it is probably reasonable to assume that he wasn't just walking home from work. He was there to be part of the pagger, otherwise he wouldn't have been there for 90 minutes for the earlier altercations.QUOTE']

 

Unless the same officer was involved in all 3 of the previous incidents then they don't really have any bearing on the actions of the officer - do they?

 

The fact that the Met again deny any incident occurred until discrepancies are highlighted in the media must cast doubts on their senior officers ability to manage the rank & file.

 

Feel free to pop out to my neck of the woods any Friday night. I'll show you plenty of drunk alcoholics with fags in their mouths taking more than 90 minutes to get home.

Any or all of them deserve a minimum force whack on the back of the legs and a friendly push in the direction of home?

 

Just as well he wasn't one of the famous tartan army. Being drunk in a public place, football shirt on, fag in mouth, very slow to follow police instructions.

 

Agree, no person in a drunken state deserves to be treated the way he did or the force used upon him. As i have said before ,WHY was he not taken away in other less excessive ways the first time.Surely the police must have been concerned that to be that state in that vicinity and with the protests under way it would have been better to get him away from there for HIS OWN SAFETY AND OTHERS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although unlikely - what if the guy has a gun in his pocket on the blind side of the video clip and the policeman thinks he is going to draw it.

Who knows? not me.

How many people think they could sit indepnedantly on a jury if they were called to court to judge on it?

There is no doubt the video clip looks very bad, but it is only one piece of a large jigsaw, we don't know what how the other pieces fit together.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although unlikely - what if the guy has a gun in his pocket on the blind side of the video clip and the policeman thinks he is going to draw it.

Who knows? not me.

How many people think they could sit indepnedantly on a jury if they were called to court to judge on it?

There is no doubt the video clip looks very bad, but it is only one piece of a large jigsaw, we don't know what how the other pieces fit together.

 

 

Ok, ok, you win.

 

If Ian Thomson had a gun in his pocket I would agree with the police officer's reaction.

 

:sorcerer:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was criticised earlier in the thread for suggesting the guy was not innocent when I didn't have all the facts. It now appears that most people on here are perfectly happy to judge the office and IPCC guilty based on random newspaper reports and one or two conspiracy theories - i.e without the facts.

 

Is that the waft of hypocrisy I smell?

 

Nope i've got perfectly clear video footage with which to judge the officer guilty.

 

Nice try though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

With such a brilliantly precise summing up of the facts, one wonders if there's any need for a public enquiry.

 

Translation - I can't disagree with anything you've posted so i'll make a facetious comment so I get the last word.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Honestly the sheer stupidity of some people on this board -- sometimes what you see is what happened.

 

No protection for the police in this case -- I mean to even push someone who has their hands in their pockets is stupidity at best -- if you can't get your hands out in time to break your fall then your head has a fair chance of hitting the ground first.

An earlier video also showed them hitting same person 30seconds before round his legs -- no wonder he wasn't too steady.

 

Police are well paid for the job they do and are even reluctant to work the hours where they are required -- there should be more on duty at nights/weekends for example but their all powerful union prevents many changes to their working conditions meaning we pay for a service that could be better with a few easy changes -- IF THEY DON'T LIKE THEN RESIGN -- you don't need brains to be a regular bobby -- most of them are thick as 2 planks -- just watch most of them on match days. They couldn't compete with most of the public for other jobs.

The only good reason for their high salary is danger and because of that I am happy to pay them well but they are not 'sacred cows'

Regular soldiers put their lives on the line more often and have in most cases more discipline in difficult situations -- their pay is far less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I did a bit of research by the way:

 

The Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 says the person using force must honestly believe that it was justified, and not excessive. Force is deemed acceptable in self-defence, defence of another person or property, prevention of crime or lawful arrest.

 

Who's up to embarrass themselves next then?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...