Forum menu
[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]
If you were to run up behind someone this evening, whack them in the legs and push them over, then 10 minutes later that person dies, you would initially be charged with murder. !! especially if it was on CCTV.
I actually fail to see why the guy was causing a problem, his back was turned, his hands were in his pockets and he was walking away. Not threatening in my book or in the immediate action of about to carry out a movement that endanged himself, other persons or indeed the police on duty that night.
IMO the policeman who came and did the deed is a thug and not in control of his emotions, do we need, want deserve police like that patrolling our streets.?
By the way i am no left wing tofu eating mincer but this episode is another case that lets the police service down of which in the main has some excellent officers serving in it.
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.
According to eyewitness accounts, he'd been knocked to the ground and hit with a baton a couple of times about ten minutes before the video was shot. He could have been concussed from that.
Channel 4 / ITN apparently have film of the baton strike. Not the crappy Guardian footage, but proper telly quality stuff.
Personally I'd just leave it to the IPCC to sort out. The fella in question will probably lose his job, his pension, and face a prison sentence at the very least, assuming that it is as portrayed.
Assuming that G, I hope so.
If that happens, and they at least have a hard think about whether kettling is a good plan in the first place then that will be fine.
Agreed.
KennyNI enough CCTV was working at Stockwell to show that the uniformed gang were lying from the moment he entered the station.
A lot of the cameras in the city are owned and operated by the banks and other institutions, so I suspect there may be problems suppressing this as well.
Maybe CCTV should be taken away from the police control and handed to an independent Civil Body with no connection to them. ie No sinecures for retired policemen. "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes"
Nother one. This time 'cos of [url= http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tyne/7990188.stm ]dangerous driving[/url].
I reckon that coppers convicted of crimes should get a much higher sentence than civilians, as they, above all others, should be obeying the Law. Light sentences don't act as a deterrent enough, for coppers to commit crimes like this. Some of them take the piss something rotten.
"I reckon that coppers convicted of crimes should get a much higher sentence than civilians,"
Mmm, I don't know about that - I am a bit unconvinced by exemplary sentencing. I was "surprised" that the death by dangerous driving cop wasn't immediately fired instead of being suspended (by which I mean I am not surprised, but he should have been).
I was under the impression that crimes committed by those "in positions of trust" were always considered to be more serious by the courts ?
Looks now as if Ian Tomlinson's attacker wasn't wearing any epaulets.
What I find [i]really[/i] scary about all this isn't the police brutality, I've seen enough of that not to be shocked, it's the tactics decided by the senior officers - there really should be enquiry imo. I'm starting to think the thug who attacked Ian Tomlinson might end up just being used as a scapegoat, when in reality he probably just did what he thought was expected of him.
I want to know why senior officers allowed him not to wear shoulder numbers. I want to know why senior officers allowed him to cover up his face. I want to know where the intelligence that Molotov cocktails might be thrown at police officers came from - I don't recall petrol bombs ever been throw during demonstrations in Britain.
I want to know which senior officers decided that dogs were appropriate for a demonstration. Dogs are rubbish in a riot and are likely to just get in the way and get injured. Dogs are used by repressive regimes to intimidate people, such as the use of dogs by the Apartheid regime to bite black people during their struggle for freedom.
Putting [i]all[/i] the blame on the thug is a real cop out imo. When you have a young man who believes everything he reads in the Sun and the Daily Mail that those opposed to war or are concerned about climate change are "scum" (as some of the coppers on here do) When you have a young officer who hears his CO say "we're up for it". When that officer is told that the crowd might try and kill him with petrol bombs. When he is then allowed to cover his face and remove his number. When you make him wait in anticipation for what he is told will be a violent confrontation. When you finally put him on the street surrounded by barking dogs and a truncheon in his hand ...... when you've done all that, how the fukk do you expect him to behave - like your "village bobby" ffs ?
Those responsible for Ian Tomlinson's attack include imo, all those highly paid senior officers who took the decisions which led to those circumstances.
And of course the [i]final[/i] responsibility, lies with the government. It is [i]the government[/i] which the people entrust to ensure that Britain is properly policed. ......still I guess you can't expect too much from a government that launches illegal wars based on lies.
Great post grizzly. It's slightly depressing that various columnists will be payed 10 times as much as you to write something far less eloquent tomorrow 🙁
lol thank you IanMunro. TBH when I read it back I thought, "that sounds a bit crap - I'm sure it sounded better in my head !" Oh well, I'm glad if it came out better than I thought 8)
Apparently that was the second time he was hit by police that day (first attack was 15 minutes previously).Maybe why he was walking about apparently drunk as some have suggested was in actual fact that he previously had been hit on the head.And the ironic thing is the cop who may have dished out the fatal blow may remain anonymous.
"Looks now as if Ian Tomlinson's attacker wasn't wearing any epaulets. "
Huh - nothing shocking there. I have seen cops covering up/failing to wear their epaulettes numerous times when in riot gear (or whatever the proper name for it is). Some of the helmets/shields have numbers on the back of them, but I have no idea whether anyone writes those numbers down.
"Maybe why he was walking about apparently drunk as some have suggested was in actual fact that he previously had been hit on the head"
Given that the victim was unfortunately an alcoholic (according to Guardian profile yesterday), it's probably more likely that he was in fact drunk (or perhaps had some sort of alcohol-related damage before he was hit by the cops).
By coinkydink, I happened to come across this today:
As Professor Goodheart has said, "Although it may not be probable that any particular man may have an unusually thin skull or a weak heart, nevertheless it is a fact which is easily forseeable. A man who strikes another ought to forsee that his victim may be suffering from some weakness. We all know that the average man in the street is not necessarily the average man".
Judge Evatt in Chester v Waverley, 1939, High Court of Australia.
There's a lovely photo [url= http://www.bloggerheads.com/archives/2009/04/how_does_this_s.asp ]here[/url] of a police [b]medic[/b] "We turned to see the police hitting people. A whole line of them lashing out indiscriminately again and again. Two officers close to me who had "Police Medic" written on their back were walking up and down behind the line of their colleagues, protected from direct assault, reaching over and thrashing with the most gusto of all."
I think this sums up a lot of peoples' thoughts:
"The instant the officers started raining down blows the heads of anyone and everyone I lost all sympathy for them. In a flash they had gone from being on my side, there for my protection and safety, to causing harm to innocent people. I actually became afraid of being hurt by the police."
- [url= http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/1056 ]http://london.indymedia.org.uk/articles/1056[/url]
I find your comments less balanced and as everyone here has the benefit of hindsight the high moral ground has quickly become crowded!
I want to know why senior officers allowed him not to wear shoulder numbers. I want to know why senior officers allowed him to cover up his face. I want to know where the intelligence that Molotov cocktails might be thrown at police officers came from - I don't recall petrol bombs ever been throw during demonstrations in Britain.
Petrol bombs have been used in mainland Britain on many occasions over the last decade against riot police. Before you mention it these have taken place during riots and not demonstrations however many in London during these demonstrations likely had a riot on their mind. As you I only saw the mainstream footage and some of what I saw could be described as rioting.
I want to know which senior officers decided that dogs were appropriate for a demonstration. Dogs are rubbish in a riot and are likely to just get in the way and get injured. Dogs are used by repressive regimes to intimidate people, such as the use of dogs by the Apartheid regime to bite black people during their struggle for freedom.
Ah I see it has now become a riot because it suits your argument. Dogs are ineffective for the reasons you state however they do intimidate which I suspect against rioters intent on causing damage and mayhem intimidation is a legitimate tactic.
Putting all the blame on the thug is a real cop out imo. When you have a young man who believes everything he reads in the Sun and the Daily Mail that those opposed to war or are concerned about climate change are "scum" (as some of the coppers on here do) When you have a young officer who hears his CO say "we're up for it". When that officer is told that the crowd might try and kill him with petrol bombs. When he is then allowed to cover his face and remove his number. When you make him wait in anticipation for what he is told will be a violent confrontation. When you finally put him on the street surrounded by barking dogs and a truncheon in his hand ...... when you've done all that, how the fukk do you expect him to behave - like your "village bobby" ffs ?
A huge leap here and largely unsubstantiated opinion and baseless assertions. What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence!
still I guess you can't expect too much from a government that launches illegal wars based on lies.
At last the crux of your argument. "where you stand depends on where you sit" as the quote goes.
Gus, all good points as ever. I gather from this morning's Metro that the officer has identified himself and the IPCC are going to interview him ASAP.
Well a few years back the FN (rasist political party in France) use to have a campain about journalism
'If you see a journalist hit him. If you don't know why he knows"
Maybe we should have the same approach with the ****ers in uniform.
'If you see one in the street kick the shit out of the bastard he'll know why'.
Disgusting bunch of subhuman being facist ****. Never trust a cop and if you see one run away.
OK, coffeeking and surfer, watch[url=
this[/url]
if you arent interested in being in a riot situation dont put yourself in one.
Did they?
many in London during these demonstrations likely had a riot on their mind.
Yes, and I think we know who they were.