[Closed] G20 Protest death - Ian Tomlinson - have we done this yet?

well the Police must be thanking their lucky stars he wasnt black!!!

I am going to keep a close eye on how this pans out - our home secretary and her able assistant (husband) need to 'come' good on this one otherwise all hell will break loose.

To defend what appears in that video is very difficult. If there is in fact some context that justifies it, fine. But it had better be good.

I can't think of [i]any[/i] context that would justify what happened.

If he'd been behaving in such a way as to need knocking to the ground (to protect himself or others), then surely he'd then have been arrested?

We don't know what was happening in the lead up to it. I heard on newsnight that he was 'not a protestor', if not then what was he doing there? There is no sound on the film. But in any case the way he was pushed to the ground looks like an over reaction.

But if he had a heart attack shortly afterwards then it was just a matter of time anyway. If not that day then a few months later when he gets his next shock to the system. Someone with medical knowledge please correct me if I'm wrong.

Looks like a tragic accident to me.

And I'm a right-on Guardian reader who supports the protest.

I agree Mike. But the video does not (to my mind) show even that he was "asking for it" by provoking them until they became angry and lashed out at him.

If there is evidence that he did then that makes it more understandable and slightly less frightening, even if still dead wrong. I understand that angry young men with clubs will occasionally lose their cool and go off the rails when people wind them up, even if we would strongly prefer it if they didn't. 😕

Llama - I can get sound, but it doesn't help explain it particularly.

OK I did not view a copy with sound. But it does not change anything.

Police over reaction.

Tragic accident.

I personally know alot of coppers and they do a good job and take alot of sh*t with it.

its easy for us to sit on the fence and shout, if the guy was not part of the protest he didnt really help himself buy walking like he did, for all we know he could have been saying anything under his breath which was not picked up on the film. He actually seems p*ssed the way he is walking....

I'm not saying the copper was right, but lets not all get high and mighty when non of us know the truth or have a full account of what actually happened.

I'll repeat other peoples points - police over-reacted to an idiot purposefully obstructing them. Neither is excusable, but likewise neither is wholey to blame - the protester shouldn't be taking the P by obstructing when the police were trying to clear an area and the officer shouldnt have lashed out in a manner that was totally over the top for the situation wheere no-one was in immediate danger and there was no threat to themselves. I'm all for having the right to protest but there's no need to act like a moron and, again as said earlier, it just detracts from your argument. If you head out into such protests you know what's likely to happen. If you're caught up in such protests as a by-stander you dont wander around like a fool with your hands in your pockets.

he could have been saying anything under his breath which was not picked up on the film.

What could he have been saying which would have justified assaulting him?

dont wander around like a fool with your hands in your pockets.

I'm amazed that people are genuinely suggesting this is a valid reason to assault someone (who subsequently died). Calling him a fool is charming too.

Police over reaction.

Tragic accident.

Not an accident. An 'accident' would be if he'd fallen over all by himself, or down some stairs or something. He fell over, because he was assaulted.

If I, as an ordinary non-Babylonian citizen, pushed someone over in the street and they died, I would get done for contributing to their death somehow, rather than simple common assault.

The copper responsible should face the same penalty, or the Law is thus unjust and unfair. The Woodentops are servants of society; they should not be afforded any special protection beyond any others.

That copper acted beyond' reasonable force'. Therefore, he should face the consequences of his actions. Let Justice run it's course, unhindered.

apparently there are more photo's / videos in the pipeline, it appears he had the cheek to have a look at the protest on the way home from work, get caught up and held in the kettle and the police refused to let him leave, when he complained they beat him to the ground, the video is a few minutes after this as he was trying to get away from them when they killed him.

seems reasonable to me 😐

to all the people who think this was reasonable, may I ask how they would feel if their loved one was in London that day (at work) and went to have a look at the demo in there lunchbreak/after work to see what the fuss was about, and were killed for it?

In the small town I grew up in a few people were sent to jail for manslaughter for pushing people to the ground in unprovoked attacks and they died minutes/hours later from brain injuries. Just because someone doesn't die the moment you hit them, doesn't mean you didn't land the killing blow.

I'm amazed that people are genuinely suggesting this is a valid reason to assault someone (who subsequently died). Calling him a fool is charming too

I never said it was a reason to assault him - if you actually read my post instead of just posting inflammatory responses you'd see I said neither was excusable. However if you're willing to knob about in front of the police in a near-riot situation you can expect to be removed from the scene, although not permanently or by excessive violence.

I call a spade a spade, he was acting foolishly, therefore he is a fool - his death doesnt make me change my views of him.

Richc - yep, it's all a big misunderstanding, the police just enjoy beating people up. I'd expect members of my family to have the sense not to go near protests if they didn't want to get caught up in it.

i see it as quite a simple issue: the man was offering no threat, the police had three options:

talk to him
arrest him
neither of the above, ie leave him be.

reasonable force is not the question here - there was no need for [b]any[/b] force.

Maybe his [pissed up] demeanour was a result of him being ill?

there were protesters launching objects at the police and generally trying to provoke violence, so neither side is without blame

Sorry, but it is not a question of "sides" The problem with most of the comments on here is that they are either on the police "side" or the protest "side". As it happens this guy was neither.

I heard on newsnight that he was 'not a protestor', if not then what was he doing there?

Going home from work.

I'm sure there were lots of police doing a fine job, but the one in the video wasn't - even if the guy

could have been saying anything under his breath

seems p*ssed the way he is walking

But if he had a heart attack shortly afterwards then it was just a matter of time anyway.

So he was expendable?

Actually, for all of us it's "just a matter of time anyway" but the thing is, what makes humanity different to krill for example, is that we (well most of us) have some regard for our fellow man.

Tragic accident.

No, manslaughter. Under the "eggshell skull" principle, if you push someone over and they sustain a fractured skull, break their pelvis or die from a heart condition, you can't just shrug your shoulders and say "it was an accident".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/money/2007/jun/08/yourrights.legal1

What if the poor chap had been hard of hearing or mentally handicapped in some way and didn't hear / didn't fully understand the (hard working etc etc) police man? Would that be ok?

Shocking - and like the OP I will not be satisified until the individual officer involved is out of a job and up on criminal charges.

I never said it was a reason to assault him - if you actually read my post instead of just posting inflammatory responses you'd see I said neither was excusable.

You said neither was excusable, but then basically went on to say that he was asking for it.

seems p*ssed the way he is walking

well if you had already had a shoeing from the Police wouldn't you be staggering a bit?

If I, as an ordinary non-Babylonian citizen, pushed someone over in the street and they died, I would get done for contributing to their death somehow, rather than simple common assault.

If you pushed someone over - not at random but in some context - they were a bit dazed, got up and walked away, then later collapsed. What would you be 'done' with? I'm not so sure you would be that heavily penalised if it turned out the person had an existing heart condition. That would not seem fair.

It was clearly an overreaction and the police have not got a leg to stand on. But should the policeman be prosecuted? With what - assault? manslaughter? I am not so sure in this case.

get caught up and held in the kettle and the police refused to let him leave,

Tragic as the death is I would rather see an investigation into the way the police use this tactic. I think they are in danger of going too far and it might provoke more violence than there would otherwise be.

Just by way of general information following Mr_Agreeable's post, extracts from Halsbury's Laws on Involuntary Manslughter. (I am some way off my subject here, so anyone who knows what they're talking about please do help out!)

[i]Involuntary manslaughter is committed [b]where the defendant does not intend to kill or cause grievous bodily harm but where death results from an unlawful act which any reasonable person would recognise as likely to expose another to the risk of injury[/b] or is caused by a grossly negligent act or omission, or where the person who causes death is reckless as to the risk of serious injury.

Where death is caused by an unlawful act, [b]the person doing that act is guilty of manslaughter if it is dangerous in the sense that any reasonable person would inevitably recognise that the act would expose some other person to the risk of at least some harm.[/b] This type of manslaughter is often described as 'constructive manslaughter'. The objective test mentioned above is applied on the basis of the facts known to the defendant at the time of his unlawful act.

To be an unlawful act, the act must constitute a criminal offence; an unlawful act does not include an act which is [a civil wrong] but not criminal, nor does it include an act which becomes unlawful merely because of the negligent manner in which it is performed. Thus a person who causes the death of another while committing the offence of careless or inconsiderate driving is not necessarily guilty of manslaughter. It would also seem that a distinction is to be drawn between omissions and acts of commission; only an unlawful and dangerous act of commission resulting in death suffices for constructive manslaughter.

Although it need not be proved that the defendant himself intended, or even foresaw, harm to another, the requirement of an unlawful act will ordinarily require proof that he had the requisite [mental state] to render the act unlawful. Thus where, for example, the unlawful act alleged is an assault, a verdict of manslaughter cannot be supported unless it is shown that the defendant had the [mental state] for an assault.[/i]

(my emphasis)

Timeline of events: http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson

what I like particularly about this story (I use the word "like" advisedly) is that without technology, this would be open and shut.
Like the NY cop who pushed the guy off his bike during a peaceful event, without the evidence provided by the mobile phone\other portable media device that more or less all of us carry, no one would have been any the wiser to the arrogant and unacceptable acts of the individuals who commited the assault, which were then "covered up" by the authorites, only to change their mind when the video evidence surfaced.
In my view the policeman who performed the assault should be held personally responsible for his actions. It wasn't an effect of police training, police state or anything else.
Just another idiot who is crap at his job.
God knows I work with enough.

If the police did have some legitimate justification for what they did, why did they lie about the incident and try to cover it up?

It's very worrying that even apparently intelligent, thoughtful police (as Rudeboy says of Munqe-chick - I wouldn't know), and idiots like 2hottie, seem to think it's best to close ranks, and automatically 'stick up for your own'. It's this kind of attitude that breeds contempt for the police.

I am not sure whether they will have lied or covered it up, it's just thatt he initial statement seems to have been incomplete. Presumably the officers who helped him when he collapsed 10 minutes later were not the ones who knocked him down, and it has taken a while to link this incident with the death.

You said neither was excusable, but then basically went on to say that he was asking for it.

He put himself in harms way, on purpose by the looks of it. No-one worried about their own safety wanders about with their hands in their pockets in front of police lines, slower than the crowd they are trying to move, like that - it's just not common sense. That doesnt excuse the officers actions, but likewise it doesnt mean the man is completely devoid of blame.

The problem is what are the police meant to do in that situation with a lone-wanderer - assuming they are moving a riotous crowd on due to the risk of them doing damage in an area, or trying to disperse them they can...

1) Allow him to pass through the police line, assuming he is not going to cause trouble. So where do they stop - 1 person, 10, 100? When the trouble then breaks out behind as well as in front?
2) Arrest him and remove him, possibly be had for false arrest and also have no-where to take him anyway, so making themselves and him the target for more violence.
3) Ignore him and trample him.
4) Give him a "nudge", the odd push and shove to move him forward is hardly a problem - unfortunately the officer in question decided giving him a good kicking was in order. In all honesty that blow with a batton wouldnt have caused more than a bit of bruising and a good sting to a healthy person and would have made them leg it but it still doesnt make it right. I suspect the blow with the batton didnt start a heart attack, probably the fact that he was overweight and already predisposed to the that sort of event and caught up in a high-adrenalin situation triggered it. Had he been part of the crowd and not hit it may still have occurred.
5) - I'm not sure what else could be done.

I just dont think it's as clear cut as the OP makes out, I dont think either is blameless but I do think a) you dont need to beat someone to the ground for them to move on and b) if you arent interested in being in a riot situation dont put yourself in one.

lone wanderer in criminal assumption shocker - how can you assume that he

put himself in harms way, on purpose by the looks of it

This

In all honesty that blow with a batton wouldnt have caused more than a bit of bruising and a good sting to a healthy person and would have made them leg it but it still doesnt make it right.

@ richc

I don't think that anything produced so far justifies saying the police 'killed' him. maybe their actions [u]contributed[/u] to his subsequent heart attack - and I for one can't see how they would have helped - but until that is shown to be so claiming the police as killers doesn't add to the argument.

One or more may be considered thugs, liars, but active killers - not yet.

[i]He put himself in harms way, on purpose by the looks of it.[/i]
By walking in front of a line of police? I thought the police were there to protect the public. Obviously I was wrong.
[i]5) - I'm not sure what else could be done.[/i]
Well, not beating him with a stick and throwing him to the ground would be a start, I suppose.

put himself in harms way, on purpose by the looks of it

The police were the source of harm then?

Aren't the police supposed to protect the public from harm rather than actually be the cause of it?

[i]EDIT: similar post to the doc but I'll leave it[/i]

coffeeking, do you think that women who walk around on their own late at night are 'asking for it'?

[i]That doesnt excuse the officers actions, but likewise it doesnt mean the man is completely devoid of blame.[/i]

In the same way that women that wear short skirts are partially to blame if they get raped, you mean?

/boggle

The Met and some other Police forces should abide by the principle of "when in a hole stop digging". They have forgotten that CCTV will also record their actions, misbehaving in central London and then lying about it is not the mark of a credible and intelligent organisation. I may just have found a justification for CCTV in large cities.

Being discussed on R2 presently

"the important thing is that it appears that 99% of the police did an excellent job"

The important thing is that on 99% of the days last year, I did *not* kill anyone. Why is everyone so quick to pick on the 3.6 days of the year when I did? I think your ranting just betrays your anti-me-ist prejudice. I have a tough enough job to do not killing people without people like you making it more difficult for me, constantly bleating about the few occasions when I do kill people.

"But if he had a heart attack shortly afterwards then it was just a matter of time anyway..."

You're right - in fact, the cop was probably doing him a favour. I mean, when would be a better time to have a heart attack than when there are so many people trained in first aid all around? And sure, he died quickly - but isn't that matter than some horrible long drawn-out illness?

In fact, why don't we introduce a scheme where everyone in the country is shoved to the ground by a riot cop once a year in order to screen them for heart disease? It could save the NHS millions!

Coffeeking is making some lucid, but rather brutal points. I agree in a way, but I do not want to have to.
🙂

If I was wandering around near a football stadium after a match which the away side had just lost because of a bad penalty decision, say, and I tried to get home past a large group of drunken hooligans but instead got beaten up I would agree that I would be "putting myself in harm's way" or "asking for it". I would go so far as to say, in those circumstances, that it was wrong for taxpayers money to be spent on paying those hooligans to beat me up. Then I might recall that it isn't.

I am simply not willing to hold the police to the same standards, and treat them with the same extreme caution, as I would any other group of armed young men.

If they get themselves away with this I will have to accept that I should. That would be deeply disappointing. 😕

Too many responses to answer individually, but plenty of people here suggesting it was wrong (I agree) but unable to offer a viable alternative.

acjim - not sure why that beggars belief?

coffeeking, do you think that women who walk around on their own late at night are 'asking for it'?

Not really analogous, the guy in the video is CLEARLY (IMO) doing it on purpose to obstruct the police. To modify your analogy to be more correct I'd ask if someone were completely blameless if they purposefully flirted with a convicted sex offender, then complained when they were attacked. The guy can see police trying to push forward in a violent and tense situation and continues to provoke. If you can't see he is provoking them I really do wonder about what you consider normal behaviour.

ChrisHeath - while you can't really lay any blame on the woman for being raped, it is after all the mans choice to do what he does, not hers, surely she should be aware that she is likely to invite such an occurence. We know rapists exist, we know if you hang around alone at night dressed in a short skirt you're more likely to be attacked - yet the woman is not at fault at all, however if someone walks into any other dangerous situation they are considered entirely to blame. I'm not sure where the line is drawn, but I know if I were a woman I'd not walk places alone at night in a short skirt?

At no point do I condone what the police did, or the rapist!

Meanwhile, back in the real world...

"I still dont know why they dont have the G20 on an Oil Rig. All incidents like this solved."

Well, yes - this is what the Gleneagles approach was - try to hold a conference somewhere remote in order to make sure no-one's photo op is spoiled by the slightest indication of democratic dissent or any hint of how unpopular these politicians are. Unfortunately, actually holding it offshore would just give the lie to how far the leaders need to be insulated from debate and demonstration - which, btw, is an integral part of the democratic process, not some kind of luxury add-on that should be barely tolerated or (if at all possible) criminalized.

"If I, as an ordinary non-Babylonian citizen, pushed someone over in the street and they died, I would get done for contributing to their death somehow, rather than simple common assault."

Well said, that [wo]man. Is anyone seriously suggesting that if I shoved Jacqui Smith (who, by the way, is the same age as the man who died, I believe) to the ground and she died of a heart attack, that I would/should not be immediately arrested and charged with manslaughter?

If the police force is genuinely composed of mostly good blokes who are just out their to serve their community, then what's the big problem with the Police Association fronting up and saying "it's shocking, the guy's let everyone down, and the only way of having justice seen to be done is to have a criminal trial"? The answer, of course, is that for them loyalty is more important than justice or the law.

"Its a shame a man died but to blame it all on the police isn't realistic. He could have walked away quicker.."

Out in the street, they call it murder...

Llama, Coffeeking and others, I agree that it's common sense that not everyone is going to die if you hit them or shove them. But legally, as BD explains, it's really clear-cut, and if anyone should be aware of the potentially tragic effects when you treat people this way, and the consequences of this in criminal law, it should be the police.

konabunny - reductio ad absurdum, pointless argument.

Mr Agreeable - as I may have mentioned once or twice, I agree the police should not have done it, it was wholely wrong. Although I'm not sure what the right thing to do is in that situation (putting myself in their shoes). However I do not agree that his death was necessarily the fault of the cop, I'm fairly sure that no doctor on the planet would say that being slapped in the legs is a direct cause of a heart attack. Clearly the cop had no intention of killing the person, and aimed for a spot that would normally cause no harm other than a sting (the point of it, to get him moving) and a bruise (although acjim seems to struggle with that idea).

"purposefully flirted with a convicted sex offender,"

Aren't you disgusted with yourself for comparing fine, honourable police officers to the likes of rapists? How dare you suggest that every policeman is a dangerous and violent person whose brutality is just bubbling under the skin and waiting to explode?

I'm not sure what the absurd element of the argument is - that a newspaper seller is entitled to the same legal protection as the Home Secretary?

"I agree that it's common sense that not everyone is going to die if you hit them or shove them"

Innit - and as you say, the reason the law is the law is written that way is to discourage people from going shoving people unless there is a ****ing good reason for it. I believe - and hope the courts will agree - that "he wasn't walking as quickly as I wanted him to" doesn't fall in that category.

According to the general STW train of thought, people can decide whether or not to decide that a certain law applies to them - for instance speeding or driving through a red light. So as long as the bizzie in question doesn't believe that pushing a bloke over is wrong, it's all alright, isn't it?

(AndyP - jurists usually distinguish between acts [i]mala in se[/i] and those which are merely [i]mala prohibita[/i], in other words between things which are prohibited on grounds of general rule-utility and those which are prohibited because they are in themselves wrong. Speeding and RLJing are clearly just mala prohibita, while personal violence is not. So we might get a useable distinction here. 🙂 )

Aren't you disgusted with yourself for comparing fine, honourable police officers to the likes of rapists?

No, because I'm able to separate two items by analogy, rather than assuming that one is as bad as the other because of the use of analogy, it's a concept I grasped in high school like most people of that age.

You keep reducing the argument to absurdly simple black and white situations, life is not black and white regardless of how much you'd like it to be. Let me try that and lets see your answer...

People taking part in a martial arts sport - one person gets a kick to the head in the heat of the moment of competition, dies a short time later. Charge the person who kicked him with manslaughter as he purposefully set out to injur him in the competitive fight.

Coffeeking - you wouldn't in that situation. There is clear law on injuries picked up while doing sports that involve acts which would be unlawful outside the context of the sport.

Coffeeking, you're verging on trolling.

what are the police meant to do in that situation with a lone-wanderer - assuming they are moving a riotous crowd on

So why do you ASSUME that? I didn't see any "riotous crowd" in that footage. Indeed the footage was taken by banker! Clearly the other bystanders weren't doing a lot of "rioting" The window smashing took place round the corner later.

The guy had just tried to get through the police lines to go home but been turned back - maybe that was why he looked a bit truculent?

The guy can see police trying to push forward in a violent and tense situation

There you go again - the only violence I saw was from the policeman who pushed the guy.

Also

plenty of people here suggesting it was wrong (I agree) but unable to offer a viable alternative.

Actually plenty of people have pointed out the alternative, which was to arrest him for obstruction.

And finally,

I really do wonder about what you consider normal behaviour.

Policemen upholding the law rather than assaulting people.

Coffeeking - I saw a bloke being put on the ground in quite a brutal and purposeful fashion. That's the sort of treatment that can seriously injure or kill someone who is elderly or infirm. The police know this and I'm sure they have a set of procedures that they will follow to minimise the chance of harm - which isn't taking someone's legs out from under them. Bear in mind, also, that we haven't seen whether anything happened to the bloke beforehand.

As for your views on rapists and women "asking for it", your argument is a load of discredited bollox. In the great majority of crimes, and I'm sure rape is no exception, the victim and perpetrator are already known to each other - so by that logic human beings should avoid any contact with people they know, as it's clearly putting them in a dangerous situation. 🙄

OK, so organised sport was a bad comparison. But the point still stands, if you put yourself in a situation you can expect some problems. Likewise while the other person may have done something wrong, they are not necessarily directly responsible for your death.

coffeeking: my comment was to your inference that; as the result of a tap with a batton was light brusing and a stinging sensation it really wasn't that bad a thing to do.

MrA - I didnt see an elderly or infirm bloke, I saw a normal bloke taking the mick on purpose to slow the police?

I'm not sure my argument is bollox as we were not discussion the "rape at home" situation, we were analogising with random attacks by strangers. Unless you personally know all of the police force? I never said "asking for it" - I simply imply a lack of caution to a known danger. In your thought process, and to take konabunny's lead, people who speed should be held entirely unaccountable in an accident as they knew it might happen and their actions may increase the likelyhood but was stil highly unlikely.

my comment was to your inference that; as the result of a tap with a batton was light brusing and a stinging sensation it really wasn't that bad a thing to do.

I never infered that, I said in the very sentence you quoted that it was wrong, just that the expected result is not death.

. Likewise while the other person may have done something wrong, they are not necessarily directly responsible for your death.

Ultimately, he was pushed to the ground with enough force to flatten him, whilst he was walking along with his hands in his pockets. If they wanted to move him along faster surely not decking him might have worked better. He then died 2 minutes later.

If you or I in any circumstances did this to a member of the public we would be investigated and more than likely charged with manslaughter.

facts seem to be: man walking too slowly for Police's liking, with his back to them and his hands in his pockets, man gets pushed over with enough force that he is going to hit the floor, man dies 2 minutes later.

OK the Policeman didn't mean to kill him, thats why its manslaughter, and believe it or not 'I didn't mean to kill him/her' doesn't mean that you can get away with something

"People taking part in a martial arts sport - one person gets a kick to the head in the heat of the moment of competition, dies a short time later."

Implied consent - there's no assault if the contact is part of the game. A rugby tackle isn't an assault, but a punch in the face (even if it's on the pitch) is an assault.

You're actually thinking along the right tracks though: whether or not the death is manslaughter depends on whether the initial blow was an assault. In this case - unless there's something really astonishing happening off camera - I'd say that it is an assault.

In all honesty that blow with a batton wouldnt have caused more than a bit of bruising and a good sting to a healthy person and would have made them leg it but it still doesnt make it right

followed later by this

Clearly the cop had no intention of killing the person, and aimed for a spot that would normally cause no harm other than a sting (the point of it, to get him moving) and a bruise

to me suggests that you feel the batton hit was justifiable force, which I disagree with

[i]a lack of caution to a known danger[/i]

"a known danger" - i.e. the police. OK - as long as we know where you stand.

"people who speed should be held entirely unaccountable in an accident as they knew it might happen and their actions may increase the likelyhood but was stil highly unlikely."

This is the wrong analogy to make because the cop shoving the man wasn't an accident, it was a deliberate act.

An accident due to speeding is caused by negligent driving i.e. you didn't intend to hit someone, but it was reasonably forseeable that (say) driving at 50mph around a blind corner might cause you to hit someone.

The right analogy would be if you deliberately drove into another car because you were frustrated that they were driving too slow, you wanted to shove them out the way, but you hadn't expected the car to skid and hit a lamppost, killing the driver...which would be manslaughter.

Seems odd that somewhere along the line people have assumed I was suggesting the police were right in their actions. I'm not, I've never said that (quite the contrary). However what I am suggesting is that the person was not entirely innocent either - its not like he was just walking along listening to his ipod. It's not hard to knock over a bloke with his hands in his pockets - lets not make it sound like he was savagely beaten to the ground, we have no knowledge of whether the bloke previously had been hurling abuse at the police, throwing things, kicking off and the police ignored it until this point - we are in no position to argue. What I am suggesting is that its usually 6 of one and half a dozen of the other.

I may just have found a justification for CCTV in large cities.

Plenty of CCTV cameras in Stockwell Station that coincidentally were not working the day Jean Charles de Menezes was shot.

I wonder how many CCTV cameras were not working on Royal Exchange.

Signing out, work to do - enjoy the argument guys 🙂

Coffeeking, crap example. Speeding is illegal. There's no law against walking slowly, especially if you're confused, lost or have just been smacked over the head. 😐

The "normal looking bloke" thing is tosh too. You take your victim as you find him. An outwardly normal-looking person can have a heart condition, diabetes, haemophilia or osteoporosis. So unless they're really jeopardising your safety, or behaving aggressively, you don't slug them with a truncheon, or use excessive force. I wouldn't be surprised if the police have tried to bury this to be honest - I think heads are going to roll.

A new spade for CK please 😀

[i]What I am suggesting is that its usually 6 of one and half a dozen of the other. [/i]

Ridiculous. Six of "bloke in T-shirt walking in the street with his hands in his pockets", half a dozen of "copper in riot gear beating a guy with a stick and then shoving him to the ground".

Not a crap example, I was not considering legality, only cause and consequence as an example of liability for consequences of actions - I thought people could grasp that, clearly I'm wrong. As for normal looking bloke - he wasnt, while appearing outwardly mobile and able to judge his actions he was causing obstruction to the police who were trying to control a crowd - you have no idea how he was behaving prior to this, how many officers he had injured etc - you cant make that judgement, neither can I. What I can say is that if you put yourself in a riot situation you can expect some consequences.

DrJ - if you think he was just a bloke walking down the street with his hands in his pockets I suspect you're particularly naive. Must be nice to live in such a fluffy bunny world. As for beating with a stick and shoving him to the ground, in actual fact if you watch it all that happens is one bloke slaps him with a stick once and he stumbles away and falls over, quite contrary to your suggestion that they lay about him with truncheons and beat him until he falls.

Thought you had work to do?

I suppose that he could have just chucked a petrol bomb at them and be making his escape. Doesn't really look that way to me though.

CK so can you provide some insight/evidence/links into why he wasn't just a bloke trying to get home from work who went to have a look at a protest and was killed by the Police for his curiosity? which last time I checked wasn't a crime.

Also if he had injured officers he would have been arrested, and I don't know what video you have been watching but he wasn't in a riot he was at a protest which is a bit of a different thing.

Unless you think protest = riot & protester = rioter = terrorist?

As for he stumbles to the ground after been hit with a baton, have you watched the video as I can see him being barged to the ground with a Policemans hands/shoulder after the baton swipe

rich - he is clearly asked by the police to move on in the first place, one taps him on the shoulder, he turns round and communicates with them. He starts walking away slowly, still in their way, then one slugs him. It's not acceptable behaviour by the police, but he clearly isnt just caught up, surprised and then saying "ok, sure I'll leave quick" and toddling off like any normal person would. I only hope it wasnt that he was walking slowly because he was ill/suffering chest pains - that would be a great injustice. Considering the fact that the protests were predicted to be violent I do connect protester with violence and riots. This is why I would not attend ont myself. If I knew it was going to be a simple quiet protest I'd have no qualms.

I do, I just cant ****ing resist these arguments and people leaving snipey comments when they know I've gone lol. Ah well, all entitled to an opinion - enjoy yourselves!

Gone this time.

has anyone mentioned that he was wearing a Millwall shirt?

CK - I agree with what you have said. I may be the only one on here, but there is a lot of sense in what you have said. He must have been able to see the police, and hear the dog, and I would hope that the police also verbally encouraged him to move out of the way, and he did not react. As yet we do not know the full story and until it comes out I will reserve my judgement, rather than tar the whole police force.

has anyone mentioned that he was wearing a Millwall shirt?

Yes.

It's irrelevant, however.

was it irrelevant to the policeman who pushed him over?

he is clearly asked by the police to move on in the first place, one taps him on the shoulder, he turns round and communicates with them. He starts walking away slowly, still in their way, then one slugs him. It's not acceptable behaviour by the police

good we agree on that at least, ultimately the Police are *not* allowed to do this, and thats why people are wound up by this.

The Policeman that knocked him to the ground should be sacked for his actions, not only because they are illegal, but also because it was ****ing stupid. Any idiot who can't spot everyone and there dog watching and recording your actions and still can't control their temper has no place in the Police force, as just imagine what he thinks he could/can get away with when the cameras aren't there.

"I suppose that he could have just chucked a petrol bomb at them and be making his escape. Doesn't really look that way to me though."

Even if he had, the same action would still have been (IMO, AFAICS, IANAL etc) assault/manslaughter because there was no justification for the use of force - it wasn't an attempt to arrest him.

But you're right - it's possible that the video clip doesn't show some crucial, vital fact that totally changes our perception of the whole affair. I'm buggered if I can imagine what that would be, though.

I'm buggered if I can imagine what that would be, though

maybe a sign on his back saying 'push me'

Why didnt the police just walk around him rather than push him and hit his legs with a baton. The police seem to be able to get away with violent acts all to easily, when the guy was pushed it would of put him under a lot of stress and IMO had a direct influance on putting extra strain on his ticker contributing to his heart attack and death.

I wonder if the PC in question is called constable Savage and has previously arrested people for stepping on crack in the pavement, perhaps thats why he was pushed.

I'd been thinking of Constable Savage too - as I always do when we get stories like this.

For those too young to remember, here he is - about 4.40 in.

[url=

perhaps the policeman was pushing him out of the way of a falling piano....

whoops, no piano....

[url= http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6058186.ece ] Profile of Mr Tomlinson, from The Times[/url]

Mmm, forgot how lovely Pamela Stephenson was...

[img] [/img]