Discussion:
Video of the bloke who died at the demo
(too old to reply)
DVH
2009-04-07 20:08:37 UTC
Permalink
Stills here:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html

Video here:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
2009-04-07 20:24:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
That policeman is in BIG trouble.
[For failing to spot the camera and not arresting the photographer]
--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
Logician
2009-04-07 21:00:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-mom...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
That policeman is in BIG trouble.
[For failing to spot the camera and not arresting the photographer]
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff
The person filming is up for serious charges of filming an officer (10
year sentence).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7988828.stm

Anyway, it just shows a man being pushed over by a cop who has a
masked face. The cop did not even kick the man or punch him to "stop
the man from hurting himself."

A cop recently punched a woman in the face three times to stop her
from hurting herself.
lmnw43771
2009-04-07 22:56:43 UTC
Permalink
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk:80/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2009/04/07/csa-orders-dad-to-cough-up-3p-or-face-the-bailiffs-72703-23329762/
Post by Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-mom...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
That policeman is in BIG trouble.
[For failing to spot the camera and not arresting the photographer]
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence
UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political
partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird
stuff
The person filming is up for serious charges of filming an officer (10
year sentence).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7988828.stm

Anyway, it just shows a man being pushed over by a cop who has a
masked face. The cop did not even kick the man or punch him to "stop
the man from hurting himself."

A cop recently punched a woman in the face three times to stop her
from hurting herself.
Maria
2009-04-07 23:00:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by lmnw43771
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk:80/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2009/04/07/csa-orders-dad-to-cough-up-3p-or-face-the-bailiffs-72703-23329762/
Post by Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-mom...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
That policeman is in BIG trouble.
[For failing to spot the camera and not arresting the photographer]
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence
UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political
partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird
stuff
The person filming is up for serious charges of filming an officer (10
year sentence).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7988828.stm
Anyway, it just shows a man being pushed over by a cop
'Just'
Try pushing a copper over and see what happens.
Bernie
2009-04-08 09:29:54 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by lmnw43771
http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk:80/north-east-news/todays-evening-chronicle/2009/04/07/csa-orders-dad-to-cough-up-3p-or-face-the-bailiffs-72703-23329762/
Post by Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-mom...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
That policeman is in BIG trouble.
[For failing to spot the camera and not arresting the photographer]
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence
UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political
partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird
stuff
The person filming is up for serious charges of filming an officer (10
year sentence).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7988828.stm
Anyway, it just shows a man being pushed over by a cop
'Just'
Try pushing a copper over and see what happens.
You can't approach them on equal terms. They bring out the big state
sanctioned stick every time - intercourse of any form with these people
on equal terms is impossible. Social/communication inadequacies on their
part are escalated to violence and they never take responsibility for
their actions. They are allowed to use the state to hide behind like a
child who hits and runs behind his mothers skirts.
Mark, Devon
2009-04-09 16:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-mom...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
That policeman is in BIG trouble.
[For failing to spot the camera and not arresting the photographer]
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/- Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/- A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5- Our podcasts on weird stuff
Apparently there are now allegations that the police culprit may have
covered his number and shoved on a balaclava before the assault? If
this is so, what the hell does this say about his police colleagues in
their silence, Rowing and others? If this proves to be the case there
should be more officers at least given formal warnings over this
incident. as for the criminal 'officer the of the law' himself, any
excuse for his not being suspended without pay?

The police force are already considered poorly by the public....any
police officer who actually cares about the state of their service
should absolutely and without hesitation report immediately to their
superiors ANY wrongdoing by their colleagues. For the sake of justice
and protection of the public, which is every police officer's first
duty, police wrongdoing has got to stop NOW. Every cop out there
THINK...and NOT only when you might be on camera. you are there to
serve every man, woman, and child in this country with courtesy,
respect, and honesty. Get rid of every cop who is arrogant.
s***@googlemail.com
2009-04-09 17:27:22 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
Post by Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-mom...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
That policeman is in BIG trouble.
[For failing to spot the camera and not arresting the photographer]
--
Dirk
http://www.transcendence.me.uk/-Transcendence UKhttp://www.theconsensus.org/-A UK political partyhttp://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5-Our podcasts on weird stuff
Apparently there are now allegations that the police culprit may have
covered his number and shoved on a balaclava before the assault? If
this is so, what the hell does this say about his police colleagues in
their silence, Rowing and others? If this proves to be the case there
should be more officers at least given formal warnings over this
incident. as for the criminal 'officer the of the law' himself, any
excuse for his not being suspended without pay?
The police force are already considered poorly by the public....any
police officer who actually cares about the state of their service
should absolutely and without hesitation report immediately to their
superiors ANY wrongdoing by their colleagues. For the sake of justice
and protection of the public, which is every police officer's first
duty, police wrongdoing has got to stop NOW. Every cop out there
THINK...and NOT only when you might be on camera. you are there to
serve every man, woman, and child in this country with courtesy,
respect, and honesty. Get rid of every cop who is arrogant.
The policeman who was responsible for pushing Tomlinson will have
nothing to fear from a manslaughter charge. He and any colleagues
called as witnesses will just lie through their teeth, as they did in
the Menezes case ("armed police" shouted according to them, but not a
single civilian witness heard that) and probably many other lower
profile cases.

Where the institutionalised racism may have been highlighted, the
institutionalised contempt of court by serving police officers has
not.
aracari
2009-04-09 22:33:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mark, Devon
Apparently there are now allegations that the police culprit may have
covered his number and shoved on a balaclava before the assault? If
this is so, what the hell does this say about his police colleagues in
their silence, Rowing and others? If this proves to be the case there
should be more officers at least given formal warnings over this
incident. as for the criminal 'officer the of the law' himself, any
excuse for his not being suspended without pay?
The police force are already considered poorly by the public....any
police officer who actually cares about the state of their service
should absolutely and without hesitation report immediately to their
superiors ANY wrongdoing by their colleagues. For the sake of justice
and protection of the public, which is every police officer's first
duty, police wrongdoing has got to stop NOW. Every cop out there
THINK...and NOT only when you might be on camera. you are there to
serve every man, woman, and child in this country with courtesy,
respect, and honesty. Get rid of every cop who is arrogant.
Fine words, but it is your beloved NewLab govt who have caused
the police to behave like jackboots.
--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run
aracari
2009-04-07 20:35:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
Nope, video still doesn't appear on my system.
--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run
DVH
2009-04-07 20:40:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by aracari
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
Nope, video still doesn't appear on my system.
Are you running Flash 10?

If not, it would help...

Alternatively, what manner of devilry have you placed in your hosts file?
aracari
2009-04-07 21:33:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
Post by aracari
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
Nope, video still doesn't appear on my system.
Are you running Flash 10?
Yes, and YouTube vids show just fine.
Post by DVH
If not, it would help...
Alternatively, what manner of devilry have you placed in your hosts file?
Lots ...but there's nowt in there which causes this problem.
It *might be* my DNS server <OpenDNS>.

All I get on the Guardian webpage is a big white space where
the player should be. Text is OK.

Still, I saw the vid on Sky and C4 News.
--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run
aracari
2009-04-07 21:39:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by aracari
Post by DVH
Post by aracari
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
Nope, video still doesn't appear on my system.
Are you running Flash 10?
Yes, and YouTube vids show just fine.
Post by DVH
If not, it would help...
Alternatively, what manner of devilry have you placed in your hosts file?
Lots ...but there's nowt in there which causes this problem.
It *might be* my DNS server <OpenDNS>.
All I get on the Guardian webpage is a big white space where
the player should be. Text is OK.
Still, I saw the vid on Sky and C4 News.
Fixed it! My browser has an option: <Enable Ad Blocker>
which I have activated without a problem for vids usually.

The Guardian vid must have summat odd about its URL which
makes the browser think it's an ad.
--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run
Delta
2009-04-07 20:53:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
what a thug. hope his police colleagues identify him, as he was
concealing his identity as were several of the so called police.
Mel Rowing
2009-04-07 22:13:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Delta
Post by DVH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
what a thug. hope his police colleagues identify him, as he was
concealing his identity as were several of the so called police.
I was waiting for you to turn up!

I did not see him hit on the head with a baton.

I did not see him hit his head in the pavement.

I did not see an officer hit him twice with a baton whilst he was on
the ground.

.. all these things are alleged by "witnesses" to have happened.

I did see him pushed to the ground as he was probably hit on the back
of the legs with a baton as he walked away from a police line. No
doubt that matter will be looked into in due course with a view
towards disciplinary action whether or not a complaint has been laid
(though you may recall that the MP themselves immediately referred the
matter to the IPPC) Then again you might choose to forget.

I did see Mr Tomlinson receiving treatment from a police paramedic
despite, according to the Gazasolidarity blog;

http://gazasolidarity.blogspot.com/search/label/protests

"For the Sun and Daily Mail readers out there, please take note of the
'helpful' posture of the riot police, possibly shortly after the first
assault - don't exactly look like they are offering first aid do they?
Also, note, no missiles. *It was the protesters that called an
ambulance and provided first aid.*

So it seems he was attacked at least twice,

I must have missed the second attack

I did see a bottle thrown during the time Mr Tomlinson was receiving
treatment that apparently necessitated him being moved round the
corner an incident again according to "witnesses did not happen.

I am also aware of the vulnerability of video to editing.

BTW police officers do not roll up the collars of their sweaters to
hide their identities. That would be a rather futile process when the
ID no is written in 1.5 inch letters on the back of his riot helmet.
They do it as a defence against spitting (not nice) and the throwing
of missiles like coins, washers and pieces of broken glass. The visor
is down for the same reason. Nice company you associate yourself with!

I've just watched an interview on Newsnight featuring a Green member
of the London Police Authority. It was not difficult to see why she is
described as green and it's nothing to do with environmentalism. I
want one of those sponge bricks that one can buy to throw at the TV
screen!

Anyway what have we got? Out of 5000 officers on duty then one behaved
inappropriately and I have every confidence that he will be dealt with
appropriately in due course. The incident which had been previously
hyped up on the net was professionally contained and casualties on
both sides were few and non serious. damage to property was limited.

It all boils down to the question as to whether Mr Tomlinson died as
the direct result of police action. It looks as if you are to be
disappointed. The indications still are that he died of a heart
attack. Of course, we can never know to what extent his immediately
previous experiences aggravated an obvious pre-existing condition.
That will depend on the post mortem.

If he were hit on the head or hit his head as he fell the evidence
will be there. If there were an embolism it will still be there. Any
marks inflicted by police batons will still be there. Photos and
footage which, as yet we have not seen will exist also. It will all be
properly looked into and at the end of the day the evidence will be
presented to a coroner which is as it should be. This is not a police
state.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that you will not be called upon as a
witness.
Maria
2009-04-07 22:21:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Delta
Post by DVH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
what a thug. hope his police colleagues identify him, as he was
concealing his identity as were several of the so called police.
I was waiting for you to turn up!
I did not see him hit on the head with a baton.
I did not see him hit his head in the pavement.
I did not see an officer hit him twice with a baton whilst he was on
the ground.
.. all these things are alleged by "witnesses" to have happened.
I did see him pushed to the ground as he was probably hit on the back
of the legs with a baton as he walked away from a police line. No
doubt that matter will be looked into in due course with a view
towards disciplinary action whether or not a complaint has been laid
(though you may recall that the MP themselves immediately referred the
matter to the IPPC) Then again you might choose to forget.
I did see Mr Tomlinson receiving treatment from a police paramedic
despite, according to the Gazasolidarity blog;
http://gazasolidarity.blogspot.com/search/label/protests
"For the Sun and Daily Mail readers out there, please take note of the
'helpful' posture of the riot police, possibly shortly after the first
assault - don't exactly look like they are offering first aid do they?
Also, note, no missiles. *It was the protesters that called an
ambulance and provided first aid.*
So it seems he was attacked at least twice,
I must have missed the second attack
I did see a bottle thrown during the time Mr Tomlinson was receiving
treatment that apparently necessitated him being moved round the
corner an incident again according to "witnesses did not happen.
I am also aware of the vulnerability of video to editing.
BTW police officers do not roll up the collars of their sweaters to
hide their identities. That would be a rather futile process when the
ID no is written in 1.5 inch letters on the back of his riot helmet.
They do it as a defence against spitting (not nice) and the throwing
of missiles like coins, washers and pieces of broken glass. The visor
is down for the same reason. Nice company you associate yourself with!
I've just watched an interview on Newsnight featuring a Green member
of the London Police Authority. It was not difficult to see why she is
described as green and it's nothing to do with environmentalism. I
want one of those sponge bricks that one can buy to throw at the TV
screen!
Anyway what have we got? Out of 5000 officers on duty then one behaved
inappropriately and I have every confidence that he will be dealt with
appropriately in due course. The incident which had been previously
hyped up on the net was professionally contained and casualties on
both sides were few and non serious. damage to property was limited.
It all boils down to the question as to whether Mr Tomlinson died as
the direct result of police action. It looks as if you are to be
disappointed. The indications still are that he died of a heart
attack. Of course, we can never know to what extent his immediately
previous experiences aggravated an obvious pre-existing condition.
That will depend on the post mortem.
If he were hit on the head or hit his head as he fell the evidence
will be there. If there were an embolism it will still be there. Any
marks inflicted by police batons will still be there. Photos and
footage which, as yet we have not seen will exist also. It will all be
properly looked into and at the end of the day the evidence will be
presented to a coroner which is as it should be. This is not a police
state.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that you will not be called upon as a
witness.
Mel - in that video, it is indisputable that not only did a police
officer assault a member of the public with absolutely no lawful excuse,
but his colleagues stood by and did nothing about it - not to the guy
that did it, nor to help the man up.
They look like a gang of yobs, and acted like one.
JNugent
2009-04-07 22:27:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Delta
Post by DVH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
what a thug. hope his police colleagues identify him, as he was
concealing his identity as were several of the so called police.
I was waiting for you to turn up!
I did not see him hit on the head with a baton.
I did not see him hit his head in the pavement.
I did not see an officer hit him twice with a baton whilst he was on
the ground.
.. all these things are alleged by "witnesses" to have happened.
I did see him pushed to the ground as he was probably hit on the back
of the legs with a baton as he walked away from a police line. No
doubt that matter will be looked into in due course with a view
towards disciplinary action whether or not a complaint has been laid
(though you may recall that the MP themselves immediately referred the
matter to the IPPC) Then again you might choose to forget.
I did see Mr Tomlinson receiving treatment from a police paramedic
despite, according to the Gazasolidarity blog;
http://gazasolidarity.blogspot.com/search/label/protests
"For the Sun and Daily Mail readers out there, please take note of the
'helpful' posture of the riot police, possibly shortly after the first
assault - don't exactly look like they are offering first aid do they?
Also, note, no missiles. *It was the protesters that called an
ambulance and provided first aid.*
So it seems he was attacked at least twice,
I must have missed the second attack
I did see a bottle thrown during the time Mr Tomlinson was receiving
treatment that apparently necessitated him being moved round the
corner an incident again according to "witnesses did not happen.
I am also aware of the vulnerability of video to editing.
BTW police officers do not roll up the collars of their sweaters to
hide their identities. That would be a rather futile process when the
ID no is written in 1.5 inch letters on the back of his riot helmet.
They do it as a defence against spitting (not nice) and the throwing
of missiles like coins, washers and pieces of broken glass. The visor
is down for the same reason. Nice company you associate yourself with!
I've just watched an interview on Newsnight featuring a Green member
of the London Police Authority. It was not difficult to see why she is
described as green and it's nothing to do with environmentalism. I
want one of those sponge bricks that one can buy to throw at the TV
screen!
Anyway what have we got? Out of 5000 officers on duty then one behaved
inappropriately and I have every confidence that he will be dealt with
appropriately in due course. The incident which had been previously
hyped up on the net was professionally contained and casualties on
both sides were few and non serious. damage to property was limited.
It all boils down to the question as to whether Mr Tomlinson died as
the direct result of police action. It looks as if you are to be
disappointed. The indications still are that he died of a heart
attack. Of course, we can never know to what extent his immediately
previous experiences aggravated an obvious pre-existing condition.
That will depend on the post mortem.
If he were hit on the head or hit his head as he fell the evidence
will be there. If there were an embolism it will still be there. Any
marks inflicted by police batons will still be there. Photos and
footage which, as yet we have not seen will exist also. It will all be
properly looked into and at the end of the day the evidence will be
presented to a coroner which is as it should be. This is not a police
state.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that you will not be called upon as a
witness.
Mel - in that video, it is indisputable that not only did a police
officer assault a member of the public with absolutely no lawful excuse
That is FAR from indisputable on the evidence of the video.

Whether it is disputed at all remains to be seen.
Maria
2009-04-07 22:33:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Maria
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Delta
Post by DVH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
what a thug. hope his police colleagues identify him, as he was
concealing his identity as were several of the so called police.
I was waiting for you to turn up!
I did not see him hit on the head with a baton.
I did not see him hit his head in the pavement.
I did not see an officer hit him twice with a baton whilst he was on
the ground.
.. all these things are alleged by "witnesses" to have happened.
I did see him pushed to the ground as he was probably hit on the back
of the legs with a baton as he walked away from a police line. No
doubt that matter will be looked into in due course with a view
towards disciplinary action whether or not a complaint has been laid
(though you may recall that the MP themselves immediately referred the
matter to the IPPC) Then again you might choose to forget.
I did see Mr Tomlinson receiving treatment from a police paramedic
despite, according to the Gazasolidarity blog;
http://gazasolidarity.blogspot.com/search/label/protests
"For the Sun and Daily Mail readers out there, please take note of the
'helpful' posture of the riot police, possibly shortly after the first
assault - don't exactly look like they are offering first aid do they?
Also, note, no missiles. *It was the protesters that called an
ambulance and provided first aid.*
So it seems he was attacked at least twice,
I must have missed the second attack
I did see a bottle thrown during the time Mr Tomlinson was receiving
treatment that apparently necessitated him being moved round the
corner an incident again according to "witnesses did not happen.
I am also aware of the vulnerability of video to editing.
BTW police officers do not roll up the collars of their sweaters to
hide their identities. That would be a rather futile process when the
ID no is written in 1.5 inch letters on the back of his riot helmet.
They do it as a defence against spitting (not nice) and the throwing
of missiles like coins, washers and pieces of broken glass. The visor
is down for the same reason. Nice company you associate yourself with!
I've just watched an interview on Newsnight featuring a Green member
of the London Police Authority. It was not difficult to see why she is
described as green and it's nothing to do with environmentalism. I
want one of those sponge bricks that one can buy to throw at the TV
screen!
Anyway what have we got? Out of 5000 officers on duty then one behaved
inappropriately and I have every confidence that he will be dealt with
appropriately in due course. The incident which had been previously
hyped up on the net was professionally contained and casualties on
both sides were few and non serious. damage to property was limited.
It all boils down to the question as to whether Mr Tomlinson died as
the direct result of police action. It looks as if you are to be
disappointed. The indications still are that he died of a heart
attack. Of course, we can never know to what extent his immediately
previous experiences aggravated an obvious pre-existing condition.
That will depend on the post mortem.
If he were hit on the head or hit his head as he fell the evidence
will be there. If there were an embolism it will still be there. Any
marks inflicted by police batons will still be there. Photos and
footage which, as yet we have not seen will exist also. It will all be
properly looked into and at the end of the day the evidence will be
presented to a coroner which is as it should be. This is not a police
state.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that you will not be called upon as a
witness.
Mel - in that video, it is indisputable that not only did a police
officer assault a member of the public with absolutely no lawful excuse
That is FAR from indisputable on the evidence of the video.
Whether it is disputed at all remains to be seen.
Is there something wrong with my eyes, or are there lawful excuses for
pushing over an ambling person, for whatever reason he was ambling?
JNugent
2009-04-07 22:39:14 UTC
Permalink
[ ... ]
Post by Maria
Post by JNugent
Post by Maria
Mel - in that video, it is indisputable that not only did a police
officer assault a member of the public with absolutely no lawful excuse
That is FAR from indisputable on the evidence of the video.
Whether it is disputed at all remains to be seen.
Is there something wrong with my eyes, or are there lawful excuses for
pushing over an ambling person, for whatever reason he was ambling?
Obstruction of the police would be an obvious one (especially given the
danger in which officers might feel themselves in when being baulked in their
advance - an attempt being made to keep them in one spot or to prevent them
from being somewhere else), but the fact is that you don't know (as neither
do I) what happened *before* the video starts recording events.
Mel Rowing
2009-04-08 08:23:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Is there something wrong with my eyes, or are there lawful excuses for
pushing over an ambling person, for whatever reason he was ambling?
The only lawful excuse for assault that I am aware of is that of self
defence and it does not seem to be applicable here. The officer
concerned will without doubt be held to account which does not mean he
should be publicly pilloried.

Having conceded that, had Mr Tomlinson got up, walked away and gone
about his lawful business, then we probably would have heard no more
of the matter. However, unfortunately, he died. As far as I am aware
there is no evidence that attributes his death to police action. The
two incidents were completely separate events. No police officer
"murdered" or even in any way killed a member of the public on the
streets of London. The man had a fatal heart attack by all accounts
and dropped dead in the street. It happens! It happened to my own
father out of the blue.

However, I will go on to say this. If you are going to allow certain
individuals to assemble in London or anywhere else with the sole
intent of engaging in riot and public disorder, having given every
indication of such intent (internet forums) then you are going to get
many more instances like the one you saw last night. If you want to
protect these people's freedom to riot then let them get on with it
and keep the police out of it.

It is invariably forgotten that there are tens of public protests in
London every year and nearly all pass off without either arrest injury
or incident. However, there are certain events and I believe this to
be one of them where the police receive little or no cooperation
whatsoever from the organisers. The only difference between these
"peaceful protesters" and rioters is that the latter come to create
mayhem and the former disruption. The question should be asked whether
I too am entitled to walk the streets of London unhindered.

Our police (note the possessive pronoun) are acknowledged as the best
in the world at this sort of thing. We've come a long way from the
days when totally inappropriately attired and equipped policemen
defended themselves with dustbin lids as the did in the Notting Hill
riots.

They do not confront rioters/demonstrators at distance using
indiscriminate weapons like water cannon, tear gas shells, baton
rounds and even bullets. Ours go eyeball to eyeball. That in itself
enhances the safety of the interaction. However, just like in anything
else, there is a price to be paid. That is that matters can become
more personal. It's not nice to spat upon by a member of the public or
otherwise abused. It's even less nice to spat upon and abused hour
upon hour. Policemen are not saints and one should not be too
surprised if from time to time one lashes out. I don't know is its
generally known that an extendible baton is a light aluminium alloy
tube and as such far less lethal than the old style beechwood
truncheon.
aracari
2009-04-08 11:10:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
The only lawful excuse for assault that I am aware of is that of self
defence and it does not seem to be applicable here. The officer
concerned will without doubt be held to account which does not mean he
should be publicly pilloried.
Having conceded that, had Mr Tomlinson got up, walked away and gone
about his lawful business, then we probably would have heard no more
of the matter. However, unfortunately, he died. As far as I am aware
there is no evidence that attributes his death to police action. The
two incidents were completely separate events. No police officer
"murdered" or even in any way killed a member of the public on the
streets of London.
That remains to be seen. How can you prejudge it?

It may be determined that Tomlinson's heavy fall onto the pavement
after being fiercely pushed from behind by a Met police officer
without provocation, was a probable cause of his heart attack a
few minutes later. In this respect, I wonder if the post mortem is
carried out by independent experts?

Looking ahead, IMO the CPS will come to the conclusion that there
is insufficient evidence to bring any sort of prosecution.

This incident will then become another deMenezes case...

As a side issue, not related to the Tomlinson incident, the police
tactic of 'kettling' appears to amount to unlawful imprisonment,
yet it continues. I wonder what would happen if the demonstrators
forced their way free from that and police officers were injured?

It should amount to self defence on the part of the demonstrators.
Post by Mel Rowing
The man had a fatal heart attack by all accounts
and dropped dead in the street. It happens! It happened to my own
father out of the blue.
Indeed it does, but nobody knows that that is what happened on
this occasion.
Post by Mel Rowing
However, I will go on to say this. If you are going to allow certain
individuals to assemble in London or anywhere else with the sole
intent of engaging in riot and public disorder, having given every
indication of such intent (internet forums) then you are going to get
many more instances like the one you saw last night.
What evidence do you have that stuff posted on Internet forums
was by the same people as who attended? There were thousands of
demonstrators, but it only takes one person to post Internet stuff
Post by Mel Rowing
If you want to
protect these people's freedom to riot then let them get on with it
and keep the police out of it.
It is invariably forgotten that there are tens of public protests in
London every year and nearly all pass off without either arrest injury
or incident. However, there are certain events and I believe this to
be one of them where the police receive little or no cooperation
whatsoever from the organisers.
I don't know about that. There are legal requirements for
demonstrators to provide details. Perhaps some information is
withheld because they know the police use 'kettling' tactics
to effectively suppress demos.
Post by Mel Rowing
The only difference between these
"peaceful protesters" and rioters is that the latter come to create
mayhem and the former disruption. The question should be asked whether
I too am entitled to walk the streets of London unhindered.
Our police (note the possessive pronoun) are acknowledged as the best
in the world at this sort of thing.
By other govts and police forces, who collectively measure success
as whether the demo was effectively suppressed?
Post by Mel Rowing
We've come a long way from the
days when totally inappropriately attired and equipped policemen
defended themselves with dustbin lids as the did in the Notting Hill
riots.
Indeed. Suppression of demos is now a major police objective
and they are equipped accordingly.
Post by Mel Rowing
They do not confront rioters/demonstrators at distance using
indiscriminate weapons like water cannon, tear gas shells, baton
rounds and even bullets. Ours go eyeball to eyeball. That in itself
enhances the safety of the interaction. However, just like in anything
else, there is a price to be paid. That is that matters can become
more personal. It's not nice to spat upon by a member of the public or
otherwise abused. It's even less nice to spat upon and abused hour
upon hour. Policemen are not saints and one should not be too
surprised if from time to time one lashes out. I don't know is its
generally known that an extendible baton is a light aluminium alloy
tube and as such far less lethal than the old style beechwood
truncheon.
Most of the demonstrators last week did not speak for me, but
this is not about that. It's about the tactics used by police to
suppress demos and their frequent breaking of the law without
accountability.

Even you must admit that that is a slippery road and can easily
lead to a police state.
--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run
Mel Rowing
2009-04-08 13:32:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by aracari
Indeed. Suppression of demos is now a major police objective
and they are equipped accordingly.
The maintenance of the Queen's peace is a primary objective of our
police force and so it should be.

Where a demonstration degrades into a riot or major disorder then
those who step over the line need and deserve to be confronted. It was
not police officers who broke into and committed criminal acts inside
the RBS.

We have known for two or three weeks about what was about to happen
just as we know well in advance what will happen at the the annual May
Day punch up which in the first? instance did degenerate into a full
blown riot.
Post by aracari
Most of the demonstrators last week did not speak for me, but
this is not about that. It's about the tactics used by police to
suppress demos and their frequent breaking of the law without
accountability.
Even you must admit that that is a slippery road and can easily
lead to a police state.
I don't admit anything of the sort.

I once went on a demo in London. I doubt whether even a toffee paper
was dropped. The police presence was light. But ...

Well before hand, the organisers consulted with the police over route
and times. Every bona fide demonstrator was badged. The demonstration
assembled in Hyde Park and dispersed after a mass meeting in Central
Hall Westminster. A small group, by arrangement, detached itself from
the main parade to lobby MPs in the HoC.

The difference is of course that we were civilised. Has dignity gone
out of fashion?

The characters who organise the type of event we are discussing seem
to be of the view that a point is not made unless people's lives are
disrupted. They refuse to consult or cooperate and make disruption
their objective. They seem to tacitly approve of mischief makers in
their ranks by virtue of the attention they draw to the event.

Well as I often say every action has a cost and this is no exception.
If things start to get out of hand it's not a question of whether the
police should intervene. They have a duty to intervene. When they do,
it's no use these "genuine" badly organised demonstrators putting up
their hands and saying "Nuthin to do with me guv" They walked into
this circus with open eyes.

Over recent years or perhaps some way before that there seems to an
increased tendency for large scale,badly organised, demos over a
multitude issues on behalf of a multitude of nebulous organisations
(for want of a better word) to degenerate into violence and serious
public disorder. One should not be too surprised therefore that, over
the years police have learned, developed, practised and honed
strategies to deal with such contingencies. That's what we the
respectable majority pay them for.

The net result is what you call kettling a concept so beautiful and
creative in its simplicity. Instead of dispersing trouble makers, they
are surrounded by selective street blocking and pushed into less and
lass space. The they are allowed to cool their heels for an hour or
three before being gradually released in manageable groups. In the
meantime anyone wanting a fight with the police can have one but he
will be through those lines and into the back of one of those vans
without his feet touching the ground.

Unfortunately even kettling comes with cost. It means that everybody
is detained "genuine" protesters, trouble makers and bystanders. I
sympathise with bystanders, hopefully they understand the need for the
inconvenience. However, if individuals or couples approach a police
cordon they will almost certainly be allowed through. Groups will not.
Better still if those totally non-involved in the event make an active
effort to avoid it or get away from it if they find themselves in it
before the inevitable happens.

Genuine protesters? Well if you involve yourselves in a Fred Kano
event with little or no organisation then you should suffer the
consequences that are not after all too severe. The difference between
you and the policeman that stops you going away when you tire of the
event is that he has to be there. Perhaps event organisers might get
the message and organise their demos properly and with due
consultation with the authorities if only out of consideration for the
safety of participants. If they don't then their demo is likely to be
kettled and folk are less likely to follow them next time. However, I
noted some of them to be holding a dance. If they were having such a
jolly time then what are they complaining about?

The others? They deserve all they get. I understand there was quite an
extensive operation for the next couple of days knocking on doors
yielding the usual crop of weapons, drugs, stolen property/credit
cards etc. These events can be quite remunerative for the police too.
Everyone's a winner!

Of course, given sufficient public concern, the practice of kettling
could be discontinued tomorrow. The alternative is forced dispersal.
At one time given such an event the Riot Act would be read and the
crowd ordered to disperse. Within a short time of that militia would
be deployed to ensure that they did with any weapon at their disposal
cutless, rifle bayonet or whatever. Casualties and even deaths were
inevitable Read up on the Peterloo Massacre.

Even these days foreign forces tend towards forced dispersal and there
are deaths and injuries, vehicles and other property burns and the
disturbances can go on night after night for days. Is that what people
want?

I don't!
Onlyme
2009-04-08 14:37:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
The maintenance of the Queen's peace is a primary objective of our
police force and so it should be.
Where a demonstration degrades into a riot or major disorder then
those who step over the line need and deserve to be confronted.
"Step over the line"
Have you heared yourself...you spineless toady!

1 million people peacefully marched past Downing Street over Iraq.
The government stuck two fingers up at this peaceful mass display of
objection to government policy.

The government harp on about us having the right to peacefull protest.
But what exactly is the fucking point of peacefull protest if the same
government then turn a blind eye to public opinion?

It's your fucking beloved nu-labour government that cause demostrations to
decent into chaos.
And your beloved police force happily serve that government!

It's not 'the queen's peace' that the police are maintaining.
They are complicit in government treason against the people of this country.

And before you harp on about 'that's what elections are for'...just remember
that the current government is unelected (in England) and is lead by a
leader who has NEVER been elected to that position.

Together with the police who happily serve then...this is little more than a
Junta.!
JNugent
2009-04-08 14:52:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Onlyme
Post by Mel Rowing
The maintenance of the Queen's peace is a primary objective of our
police force and so it should be.
Where a demonstration degrades into a riot or major disorder then
those who step over the line need and deserve to be confronted.
"Step over the line"
Have you heared yourself...you spineless toady!
1 million people peacefully marched past Downing Street over Iraq.
The government stuck two fingers up at this peaceful mass display of
objection to government policy.
If they felt that strongly about it, why didn't they all vote against the
governing party at the last GE?

*That* is the citizen's sanction for a government or Parliament who won't
listen. But you can be sure that not many of the million will have changed
their vote as compared with the previous GE.
Mel Rowing
2009-04-08 14:56:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Onlyme
Post by Mel Rowing
The maintenance of the Queen's peace is a primary objective of our
police force and so it should be.
Where a demonstration degrades into a riot or major disorder then
those who step over the line need and deserve to be confronted.
"Step over the line"
Have you heared yourself...you spineless toady!
1 million people peacefully marched past Downing Street over Iraq.
The government stuck two fingers up at this peaceful mass display of
objection to government policy.
If they felt that strongly about it, why didn't they all vote against the
governing party at the last GE?
*That* is the citizen's sanction for a government or Parliament who won't
listen. But you can be sure that not many of the million will have changed
their vote as compared with the previous GE.
Now he'll accuse you of being me!
Onlyme
2009-04-08 15:22:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Onlyme
Post by Mel Rowing
The maintenance of the Queen's peace is a primary objective of our
police force and so it should be.
Where a demonstration degrades into a riot or major disorder then
those who step over the line need and deserve to be confronted.
"Step over the line"
Have you heared yourself...you spineless toady!
1 million people peacefully marched past Downing Street over Iraq.
The government stuck two fingers up at this peaceful mass display of
objection to government policy.
If they felt that strongly about it, why didn't they all vote against the
governing party at the last GE?
*That* is the citizen's sanction for a government or Parliament who won't
listen. But you can be sure that not many of the million will have changed
their vote as compared with the previous GE.
Now he'll accuse you of being me!


Why not pull your heads out of your arses and research exactly how many (in
England) *did* vote labour at the last election.
You both would have no idea how many amongst that 1 million voted against
labour at the last election.

What we do know is that many life-long labour voters turned away due to
Iraq.
And we also know that had it not been for the scottish vote carrying them,
we would not have a labour government today!

Labour are unelected (in England)
Brown is unelected in Labour
The police are little more than a militia serving a Junta.

...and as for their appologists...you aren't even in their pay, yet you
follow them and fawn over them like some snivelling little shit trying to
suck up to the school bully.
How you can stand tall in front of a mirror...I'll never know!
Blue
2009-04-08 15:56:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by aracari
Indeed. Suppression of demos is now a major police objective
and they are equipped accordingly.
The maintenance of the Queen's peace is a primary objective of our
police force and so it should be.
With such arguments you could introduce the final solution.
Post by Mel Rowing
Where a demonstration degrades into a riot or major disorder then
those who step over the line need and deserve to be confronted.
'... and when coppers get all steamed up they can assault, attack
and riot on anyone and anything that gets in their way including the innocent...
As long as they cover it up afterwards.'
Post by Mel Rowing
It was not police officers who broke into and committed criminal acts inside the RBS.
Neither was it Ian Tomlinson.
aracari
2009-04-08 17:47:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by aracari
Indeed. Suppression of demos is now a major police objective
and they are equipped accordingly.
The maintenance of the Queen's peace is a primary objective of our
police force and so it should be.
The Queens peace? What about MY peace? YOUR peace?

According to Jenny Jones (Met Police Authority) 30mins ago the
police duty is to help people exercise their right to demonstrate.

Do you accept that?

Was the police behaviour last week in accord with that right?
Clearly, many police do not understand that and this probably
stems from their view of the public.

Jones is concerned at the Tomlinson incident and other incidents
where police have shown excessive violence toward demonstrators
and violated their right to demonstrate.

She also expressed concern at police 'kettling' tactics, which
(IIUC) is in fact 'unlawful imprisonment'.

In her view, the police have a number of aggressive thugs within
their ranks and this needs to be rooted out, if the police are to
regain the trust of the very people they are paid to serve.

Do you accept that police are a public service?

...or do you prefer to see them as zookeepers? with a right to
treat people like unruly animals?
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by aracari
Most of the demonstrators last week did not speak for me, but
this is not about that. It's about the tactics used by police to
suppress demos and their frequent breaking of the law without
accountability.
Even you must admit that that is a slippery road and can easily
lead to a police state.
I don't admit anything of the sort.
Unsurprisingly.
Fortunately, you are in a growing minority as more people take the
view that police are becoming far too politicised and too powerful
and too keen to throw their weight around.

My comments are made with full recognition of the difficult task
that police sometimes have in dealing with incidents and most
people give them leeway.

It comes down to recruitment vetting, training and operational
control. The de Menezes incident proved the latter was seriously
lacking. Police lies at the inquest proved there is something
rotten going on.

May I remind you that Britain is supposed to be a democracy.
We cannot tolerate police going around assaulting people or
killing people without good reason and without accountability.

Do you accept that?

A democracy and police state are incompatible.

Do you accept that?

-snip-
--
uh oh...black helicopter ... gotta run
Mark, Devon
2009-04-08 04:36:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by Mel Rowing
Post by Delta
Post by DVH
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
what a thug. hope his police colleagues identify him, as he was
concealing his identity as were several of the so called police.
I was waiting for you to turn up!
I did not see him hit on the head with a baton.
I did not see him hit his head in the pavement.
I did not see an officer hit him twice with a baton whilst he was on
the ground.
.. all these things are alleged by "witnesses" to have happened.
I did see him pushed to the ground as he was probably hit on the back
of the legs with a baton as he walked away from a police line. No
doubt that matter will be looked into in due course with a view
towards disciplinary action whether or not a complaint has been laid
(though you may recall that the MP themselves immediately referred the
matter to the IPPC) Then again you might choose to forget.
I did see Mr Tomlinson receiving treatment from a police paramedic
despite, according to the Gazasolidarity blog;
http://gazasolidarity.blogspot.com/search/label/protests
"For the Sun and Daily Mail readers out there, please take note of the
'helpful' posture of the riot police, possibly shortly after the first
assault - don't exactly look like they are offering first aid do they?
Also, note, no missiles. *It was the protesters that called an
ambulance and provided first aid.*
So it seems he was attacked at least twice,
I must have missed the second attack
I did see a bottle thrown during the time Mr Tomlinson was receiving
treatment that apparently necessitated him being moved round the
corner an incident again according to "witnesses did not happen.
I am also aware of the vulnerability of video to editing.
BTW police officers do not roll up the collars of their sweaters to
hide their identities. That would be a rather futile process when the
ID no is written in 1.5 inch letters on the back of his riot helmet.
They do it as a defence against spitting (not nice) and the throwing
of missiles like coins, washers and pieces of broken glass. The visor
is down for the same reason. Nice company you associate yourself with!
I've just watched an interview on Newsnight featuring a Green member
of the London Police Authority. It was not difficult to see why she is
described as green and it's nothing to do with environmentalism. I
want one of those sponge bricks that one can buy to throw at the TV
screen!
Anyway what have we got? Out of 5000 officers on duty then one behaved
inappropriately and I have every confidence that he will be dealt with
appropriately in due course. The incident which had been previously
hyped up on the net was professionally contained and casualties on
both sides were few and non serious. damage to property was limited.
It all boils down to the question as to whether Mr Tomlinson died as
the direct result of police action. It looks as if you are to be
disappointed. The indications still are that he died of a heart
attack. Of course, we can never know to what extent his immediately
previous experiences aggravated an obvious pre-existing condition.
That will depend on the post mortem.
If he were hit on the head or hit his head as he fell the evidence
will be there. If there were an embolism it will still be there. Any
marks inflicted by police batons will still be there. Photos and
footage which, as yet we have not seen will exist also. It will all be
properly looked into and at the end of the day the evidence will be
presented to a coroner which is as it should be. This is not a police
state.
I'm sorry to have to inform you that you will not be called upon as a
witness.
Mel - in that video, it is indisputable that not only did a police
officer assault a member of the public with absolutely no lawful excuse,
but his colleagues stood by and did nothing about it - not to the guy
that did it, nor to help the man up.
They look like a gang of yobs, and acted like one.
Further, if you or I attacked without provocation, a person in the
street, and it could be reasonably ascertained that the attack led to
that person's death, then we should rightly be charged with murder.
And if we had 'mates' who witnessed this attack and they didn't come
forward they would be accomplices.

Message for Mel for being so simple - when the police abuse their
powers they quickly become filth in the eyes of the public.
Justifiably so, and rightly so.

This filthy officer should be suspended today and no later, without
pay, and banged because he is a danger to the public. Even if the guy
had said something to the cops he should NOT have been assaulted that
way. FFS Mel the most likely scenario is that he was walking home and
got caught up in the demo etc. And don't give us any junk about how
hard it is to be a cop, and how much 'pressure' they are under. You're
under more pressure to yourself if you're a bus-driver or taxi-driver
in Wolverhampton than being a cop, with all the protection of your
mates to hand, as well as a baton. The police should NEVER abuse that
position....that baton, and any other weapon the police posess, is
there primarily for ONE REASON - to protect the public first, and
secondly to protect themselves if their physical wellbeing is
genuinely in danger.

And finally that action should have NOTHIING whatsoever to do with the
fact that he was recorded on camera....any cop who witnesses any abuse
of power whatsoever should report immediately that abuse to his
superiors, the media, member of parliament or whoever to see that such
an abuse is dealt with. And his/her superiors, if they are worth their
salt (highly questionable), will commend that officer who reports
abuse.
Blue
2009-04-08 12:07:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
I did not see him hit on the head with a baton.
I hear the police say he died of natural causes.

But now eveidence emergers of Ian Tomlinson being marshalled away
from his home and being hit and pushed. No police it seems had come forward
to admit this. It seems to me they would just keep quiet forever
hoping no one had filmed them, or at least could identify them
behind their masks.

Is that why the Police cover their faces? So they can get away with unprovoked
attacks on the innocent?

Tony Virasami received four years for manslaughter. What will
happen to this police officer being investigated by the Police?

What have the police so far claimed before the video.
'he was a vagrant, probably very sick before the G20..'
It means they are more concerned with spewing misinformation
and blackening his name. And this comes from the top.

It means that not only did they not bother to find out if
he was an innocent local just trying to get home at the time. It means
they can't even be bothered to find out the facts even after the event.
It means they are more concerned with spinning lies and covering up.
With the press invovled this strikes me as really dumb.
Post by Mel Rowing
I did not see him hit his head in the pavement.
With a walk home, with being barred from getting to your home to rest.
With a gang of unhelpful police marching you down a street.
With their dogs snapping at your heals.
With a hit by a batton to the back of your legs.
With a shove in the back powerful enough to send your sprawling to the floor.
Who's heart wound't be racing faster than normal?
Post by Mel Rowing
I did not see an officer hit him twice with a baton whilst he was on
the ground.
I didn't hear about a policeman coming forward and telling his bosses
he made contact with Ian Tomlinson, allowing his bosses to claim there
was no contact.
Post by Mel Rowing
.. all these things are alleged by "witnesses" to have happened.
I hear the police were removing cameras from people.
Post by Mel Rowing
I did see him pushed to the ground as he was probably hit on the back
of the legs with a baton as he walked away from a police line. No
doubt that matter will be looked into in due course with a view
towards disciplinary action whether or not a complaint has been laid
It's just as well he has some family then and he's not a vagrant
as the police have told us or hoped.

Ian Tomlinson wasn't rioting, wasn't attacking the police.
The police did not need to defend themselves here.
Post by Mel Rowing
(though you may recall that the MP themselves immediately referred the
matter to the IPPC) Then again you might choose to forget.
I recall the IPPC have given the matter over to the same police force that
have already been so helpful. The IPCC to date, will play a hands off, review role.
Post by Mel Rowing
I did see Mr Tomlinson receiving treatment from a police paramedic
despite, according to the Gazasolidarity blog;
It's a shame the police only recalled their duty to protect and serve
the innocent when Ian Tomlinson was flat on his back dying.



--
Blue
True Blue
2009-04-08 14:28:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Mel Rowing
Out of 5000 officers on duty then one behaved
inappropriately and I have every confidence that he will be dealt with
appropriately in due course.
God, I hate modern English.
Blue
2009-04-07 21:27:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
He wasn't some youth. The police should have varified his story about wanting
to go home.

It seems they just blocked his way and he took some blows to the head.
This might lead to him walking slow, along with his age.

The video clearly shows a dangerous unprovoked assault. The police will say
he was walking too slow, but if he had already been injured by them and was dying
from the stress then it's not surprising he was walking slow.

I'm not sure if it's Murder. But pushing an old man to the floor with
his hands in his pockets does seem likely he could smash his head on the pavement.
Hard to see if he hit his head on the pavement.

If manslaughter then any other injuries caused by other officers would need to be looked at.

The Police excuse that the protesters threw a plastic bottle makes little difference
here I think.

However if there were no protesters then they'd have been no police and the man
would have made it home safely. If Gordon Brown didn't hold the G20 summit
here the man would be alive.


The police behaviour didn't take into account those that lived in the area,
or those with illnesses. The police duty should have been to protect Ian Tomlinson,
not kill him.


--
Blue
Dirk Bruere at NeoPax
2009-04-07 22:04:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Blue
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
He wasn't some youth. The police should have varified his story about wanting
to go home.
It seems they just blocked his way and he took some blows to the head.
This might lead to him walking slow, along with his age.
The video clearly shows a dangerous unprovoked assault. The police will say
he was walking too slow, but if he had already been injured by them and was dying
from the stress then it's not surprising he was walking slow.
I'm not sure if it's Murder. But pushing an old man to the floor with
his hands in his pockets does seem likely he could smash his head on the pavement.
Hard to see if he hit his head on the pavement.
If manslaughter then any other injuries caused by other officers would
need to be looked at.
The Police excuse that the protesters threw a plastic bottle makes little difference
here I think.
However if there were no protesters then they'd have been no police and the man
would have made it home safely. If Gordon Brown didn't hold the G20 summit
here the man would be alive.
The police behaviour didn't take into account those that lived in the area,
or those with illnesses. The police duty should have been to protect Ian Tomlinson,
not kill him.
And what will the street surveillance cameras show, I wonder?
Oops - lost the tapes sir....
--
Dirk

http://www.transcendence.me.uk/ - Transcendence UK
http://www.theconsensus.org/ - A UK political party
http://www.onetribe.me.uk/wordpress/?cat=5 - Our podcasts on weird stuff
JNugent
2009-04-07 22:22:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
On the basis of that video, I find it hard to accept that the
recently-deceased man was just walking home from work and just happened to
encounter the demonstration by accident. Immediately before he is allegedly
struck by a police baton, he appears to be either standing still, or
shuffling at a snail's pace with his legs apart at an angle not conducive to
purposive walking anywhere. Its far more as though he was trying to obstruct
and baulk the police line behind him.
Maria
2009-04-07 22:32:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
On the basis of that video, I find it hard to accept that the
recently-deceased man was just walking home from work and just happened
to encounter the demonstration by accident. Immediately before he is
allegedly struck by a police baton, he appears to be either standing
still, or shuffling at a snail's pace with his legs apart at an angle
not conducive to purposive walking anywhere. Its far more as though he
was trying to obstruct and baulk the police line behind him.
He might have been deaf, or with learning difficulties, or drunk, or
nuts. He was living in a hostel which suggests he had some kind of problems.
But in any case, what lawful excuse is there for pushing him over, which
is plainly assault?
JNugent
2009-04-07 22:35:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by JNugent
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
On the basis of that video, I find it hard to accept that the
recently-deceased man was just walking home from work and just
happened to encounter the demonstration by accident. Immediately
before he is allegedly struck by a police baton, he appears to be
either standing still, or shuffling at a snail's pace with his legs
apart at an angle not conducive to purposive walking anywhere. Its far
more as though he was trying to obstruct and baulk the police line
behind him.
He might have been deaf, or with learning difficulties, or drunk, or
nuts. He was living in a hostel which suggests he had some kind of problems.
But in any case, what lawful excuse is there for pushing him over, which
is plainly assault?
On *the basis of the video* (which was your claim), you have no idea what
happened before he came into shot.
Maria
2009-04-07 22:37:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Maria
Post by JNugent
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
On the basis of that video, I find it hard to accept that the
recently-deceased man was just walking home from work and just
happened to encounter the demonstration by accident. Immediately
before he is allegedly struck by a police baton, he appears to be
either standing still, or shuffling at a snail's pace with his legs
apart at an angle not conducive to purposive walking anywhere. Its
far more as though he was trying to obstruct and baulk the police
line behind him.
He might have been deaf, or with learning difficulties, or drunk, or
nuts. He was living in a hostel which suggests he had some kind of problems.
But in any case, what lawful excuse is there for pushing him over,
which is plainly assault?
On *the basis of the video* (which was your claim), you have no idea
what happened before he came into shot.
Please answer the question! Is there any lawful excuse for pushing him over?
There may have been lawful excuses for restraining him, or arresting
him, but he wasn't - he was pushed over.
JNugent
2009-04-07 22:42:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Maria
Post by JNugent
Post by Maria
Post by JNugent
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
On the basis of that video, I find it hard to accept that the
recently-deceased man was just walking home from work and just
happened to encounter the demonstration by accident. Immediately
before he is allegedly struck by a police baton, he appears to be
either standing still, or shuffling at a snail's pace with his legs
apart at an angle not conducive to purposive walking anywhere. Its
far more as though he was trying to obstruct and baulk the police
line behind him.
He might have been deaf, or with learning difficulties, or drunk, or
nuts. He was living in a hostel which suggests he had some kind of problems.
But in any case, what lawful excuse is there for pushing him over,
which is plainly assault?
On *the basis of the video* (which was your claim), you have no idea
what happened before he came into shot.
Please answer the question! Is there any lawful excuse for pushing him over?
There may have been lawful excuses for restraining him, or arresting
him, but he wasn't - he was pushed over
...or pushed, at any rate.

And yes - I can easily imagine the police pushing someone who was obstructing
them in a dangerous situation.
Maria
2009-04-07 23:11:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
Post by Maria
Post by JNugent
Post by Maria
Post by JNugent
Post by DVH
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-moment-G20-bystander-flung-ground-police.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
On the basis of that video, I find it hard to accept that the
recently-deceased man was just walking home from work and just
happened to encounter the demonstration by accident. Immediately
before he is allegedly struck by a police baton, he appears to be
either standing still, or shuffling at a snail's pace with his legs
apart at an angle not conducive to purposive walking anywhere. Its
far more as though he was trying to obstruct and baulk the police
line behind him.
He might have been deaf, or with learning difficulties, or drunk, or
nuts. He was living in a hostel which suggests he had some kind of problems.
But in any case, what lawful excuse is there for pushing him over,
which is plainly assault?
On *the basis of the video* (which was your claim), you have no idea
what happened before he came into shot.
Please answer the question! Is there any lawful excuse for pushing him over?
There may have been lawful excuses for restraining him, or arresting
him, but he wasn't - he was pushed over
...or pushed, at any rate.
And yes - I can easily imagine the police pushing someone who was
obstructing them in a dangerous situation.
Doesn't look dangerous. All I see is a group of police with the one
civilian walking in front. They are all spaced out, they all have dogs -
it's not even crowded.
As I said, I don't think they can or will connect the fall with the
heart attack, but he was evidently assaulted.
I presume that pushing someone over in a dangerous situation is a lawful
excuse then? Not a police officer taking hold of one arm each side and
escorting him to 'safety', as you would expect.

You know, this 'police brutality' thing is going to end up like the
racism thing if we are not careful. For years the police and the
establishment would not admit that there was racism in their ranks, even
though police officers, being only human and all that, are prone to
errors, misjudgments, and even downright acts of malice. Then we had
MacPherson and look what happened. Overkill and a serious injury to the
Rule of Law.
Now if the police (and people who can always be relied on to defend them
whatever the circumstances) would just admit when there are mistakes, or
that they sometimes do come across genuine cases of police brutality,
they could clean up their act and we would all have confidence in them.
At this rate, they will end up being so tightly regulated that they dare
not arrest anyone in case they end up being accused of 'institutional
brutality'.
Just my humble opinion.
(it would help if we saw genuine cases of police brutality answered with
prosecutions)
Ariadne
2009-04-07 22:37:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by JNugent
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Caught-camera-The-mom...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
On the basis of that video, I find it hard to accept that the
recently-deceased man was just walking home from work and just happened to
encounter the demonstration by accident. Immediately before he is allegedly
struck by a police baton, he appears to be either standing still, or
shuffling at a snail's pace with his legs apart at an angle not conducive to
purposive walking anywhere. Its far more as though he was trying to obstruct
and baulk the police line behind him.
I thought his gait was very strange.
But 2.02 mins of video: what did that omit?

From Harry's Place:

He was already dazed and confused before they pushed him, so the fall
does not look to have anything to do with his death. He talked with
the police right afterward. It’s questionable whether it was right of
the officer to push him from behind, however Tomlinson did look to be
uncooperative to their calls to clear the street. His hands cushioned
his fall so no blow to the head seemed to occur. The alcohol confirmed
to be in his system is what probably gave him the heart attack.

A sad and peculiar incident. No other person who came into contact
with the police that day suffered any hospitalising injury - just
bruises and scrapes - so it is very bizarre and unfortunate that
someone collapses of a heart attack like this.


parity ErRor
7 April 2009, 9:08 pm

I though “Oh yeah” when I heard about this but having seen the video I
AM shocked!

I note that before being struck he was walking quite strangely and I
wonder if he was on the verge of a stroke where possibly his oxygen
level was dropping and that made him slightly woozy. Its NOT an excuse
for anything but an attempt to understand that maybe he was already at
serious risk.

I have no doubt that the way he was barged to the floor would have put
him through considerable shock and his cushioning of the fall was
delayed slightly by his hands in his pockets. Given his size and
weight the impact of the fall and total system shock cannot be under
stated.

Its the sort of thing that could happen to any of us being in the
wrong place at the wrong time.

God Rest his soul and condolences to the family. Not that its any
consolation but they are due a huge pay-out over this.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...