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 any 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 any 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

or

seems p*ssed the way he is walking

that is completely irrelevant – no one, and especially a police officer has the right to assault someone. The police are supposed to stay emotionally detached, that is part of the job. The copper who pushed him over was a bully and a thug.

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!)

Involuntary manslaughter is committed 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 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, 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. 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.

(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

. Apart from the obvious cause and effect that he walked home and as there were police present harm was in his way.

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.

just beggars belief.

@ richc

I don’t think that anything produced so far justifies saying the police ‘killed’ him. maybe their actions contributed 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.

He put himself in harms way, on purpose by the looks of it.
By walking in front of a line of police? I thought the police were there to protect the public. Obviously I was wrong.
5) – I’m not sure what else could be done.
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?

EDIT: similar post to the doc but I’ll leave it

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

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

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).