# Totally amazed and genuinely ashamed to be a British citizen



## clived (May 6, 2002)

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/0 ... ce-assault

Amazing peice of video - but not it a good way. Am I naive to think that this just shouldn't happen - no excuses?


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

that it totally sickening!

no doubt there will be some lame excuses already in place to protect the policemen involved :?


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

KammyTT said:


> that it totally sickening!
> 
> no doubt there will be some lame excuses already in place to protect the policemen involved :?


I wouldn't go as far to say it was sickening :?


----------



## ag (Sep 12, 2002)

There are probably two very reasonable sides to this story. Unfortunately we will never get either. Dave Tomlinson is dead and the Police will feel obliged to "fabricate" a version of events to downplay their part in his death.

The guy did look pretty dazed on the ground, but he did prior to falling! Does anyone else think he seems "out of it" already as he walks away from the Police? If I'd have been in a similar situation to the late Mr Tomlinson I would have made a greater effort to remove myself from the area. This does not condone the actions of the police.

It does remind me of a case many years ago when an employee came to me rather bewildered to ask which machine to work on. I told him that I wasn't expecting him on that shift. He left very confused and was found dead of a Heart Attack an hour later! Mr Tomlinson's demeanour reminds me of the guy that died.


----------



## cuTTsy (Jan 31, 2003)

ag said:


> Does anyone else think he seems "out of it" already as he walks away from the Police? If I'd have been in a similar situation to the late Mr Tomlinson I would have made a greater effort to remove myself from the area. .


Agree seemed like he was wondering along hands in pockets head down in front of a line of riot police very strange...


----------



## zedman (Jan 31, 2005)

well leaving the root cause of his death aside, there seems to be no reason for him (so far) to have been attacked in that way by the policeman therefore personally i think it is disgusting, - be interesting to see whether any action is taken by the fuzz, i rather think the poster above is correct, the police will just 'fabricate' a version of events to suit them....


----------



## Hark (Aug 23, 2007)

I agree with both sides. Shouldn't have happened, but wtf did he walk right across the path of riot police. He shouldn't have been hit, but he also looks stoned to me.


----------



## sporTTyminx (Mar 5, 2009)

He did look stoned or pissed or something and he should have got out of the way. Of course he didnt deserve to be shoved to the ground in the way he was.

Seems like he had also been involved with the police earlier on, if you read the article below the video.

There are always 3 sides to a story. His side, the police's side and the truth. Unfortunately we'll never know his side.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Given that our police force is known to have recruited rapists and violent offenders, it's hardly surprising.

That doesn't of course excuse their behaviour but maybe now our 'honourable' Home Secretary (she of the porn on the taxpayer), will actually act on her claims to be the guardian of homeland security.

Yeah right.










Cheers

rich


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

sporTTyminx said:


> He did look stoned or pissed or something and he should have got out of the way. Of course he didnt deserve to be shoved to the ground in the way he was.
> 
> Seems like he had also been involved with the police earlier on, if you read the article below the video.
> 
> There are always 3 sides to a story. His side, the police's side and the truth. Unfortunately we'll never know his side.


" he is pissed or stoned so lets beat him up "" what ??????????????????????????????????? he had been " involved " with the police earlier on , this was not the first time that he had been asaulted .


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

He was just walking home from work - which is probably why he's not paying much attention to the police as he's nothing to do with G20 at all.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

Ashamed? Yes, but not ashamed to be British or ashamed of our Police force. I'm ashamed at the pathetic left wing drivel that papers such as the Guardian can get away with. Drivel that has nothing more than one aim: for people to jump on a bandwagon and incite even more unjust hatred violence.

The facts? Facts are largely irrelevant in all this now, because judging by some of the responses on this thread people have made their own mind up about who's to blame.

But for those who may be interested let me point out a few things - anybody who has witnessed these 'protests' first hand will be able to tell you that they are not peaceful, nor are they harmless. There are a large (it is NOT a minority) proportion of people who turn up with one aim in mind, to cause trouble and incite violence. Cornhill is a very 'rats nest' type area with lots of ratruns that protesters try to escape though to cause more trouble. These policeman are given orders to ensure that these so called 'protests' are kept under control, which is something they have to do with split second decisions, because the situation can get out of hand VERY quickly. Just look at the May Day riots for example - I have witnessed these first hand and they are not a pretty sight when things get out of control in a matter of seconds!

In this particular instance it would seem an innocent person has got caught up in the trouble. But playing devils advocate I think it's important to take into consideration that at the present time we don't know for sure if he was involved or not (we only have the word of protesters now calling themselves "G20 Witness Group"!). We have to ask how he got into the already cordoned off area if he was just trying to 'get home?!? The routes into Cornhill would have been blocked off, and the direction he is going would suggest that his previous altercations with Police might mean some sort of involvement. But as I said, NOBODY knows for sure!

It may well be that he was innocent, and his death is a wrong doing, but, the only blood on peoples hands should be the hands of the so called protesters, not the Police who were just doing there job, a job where they don't have time to start asking people if they are going to be good or glass them in the face. It's all done on split second reactions.

It's very convenient that papers such as the Guardian have left out the violent footage of bottles being thrown at the police cordon and various other missiles pelting officers as they stand there. Even in that specific video you can hear people chanting "who let the dogs out" in an inciteful manner. Dogs? the left wing violence inciting scum who call themselves protesters are the dogs. IMO if it hadn't been for them there wouldn't have been a need for a Police presence and the man (if he is indeed innocent) would still be alive.

It's a simple matter of cause & effect.


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> Ashamed? Yes, but not ashamed to be British or ashamed of our Police force. I'm ashamed at the pathetic left wing drivel that papers such as the Guardian can get away with. Drivel that has nothing more than one aim: for people to jump on a bandwagon and incite even more unjust hatred violence.
> 
> The facts? Facts are largely irrelevant in all this now, because judging by some of the responses on this thread people have made their own mind up about who's to blame.
> 
> ...


For perhaps the first time ever I find myself applauding your words and agreeing entirely.

It is an effect of the media driven world we live in and the constant zeal for negative spin stories. The Guardian piece is not what you would call balanced is it?


----------



## sporTTyminx (Mar 5, 2009)

> " he is pissed or stoned so lets beat him up "" what ??????????????????????????????????? .


Another example of taking things out of context, rather like the media do.
I did not say that, i simply made an observation.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

kmpowell said:


> Ashamed? Yes, but not ashamed to be British or ashamed of our Police force. I'm ashamed at the pathetic left wing drivel that papers such as the Guardian can get away with. Drivel that has nothing more than one aim: for people to jump on a bandwagon and incite even more unjust hatred violence.
> 
> The facts? Facts are largely irrelevant in all this now, because judging by some of the responses on this thread people have made their own mind up about who's to blame.
> 
> ...


Kev, I agree with a lot of what you say. But you can't get away from the fact that he was walking past in front of the line of police with his hands in his pockets. There was no threat, no verbal abuse, no aggressive body language. He wasn't even looking at them or more importantly the officer behind him who just pushed him to the ground.

Why he was there is anyone's guess. Whether he should've been there or not is largely irrelevant. The question is was the officer right to attack him in the manner he did? For my money, split second decision making is not a requirement against an apparently innocent man caught up in a melee... it all smacks of another Jean Charles de Menezes type of incident.

Cheers

rich


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

rustyintegrale said:


> But you can't get away from the fact that he was walking past


He was walking towards, not past. The video shows him walking away/across the police line, but in the first instance he had walked towards the police line and was repeatedly asked to move back. He is prompted to do so a fair few times, but he bumbles his way back in a stumbling type manner. I know for sure that if it were me facing a line of police like that and I were 100% innocent, I would be moving out of the way as quickly as possible, but he seems not to bother.



rustyintegrale said:


> There was no threat, no verbal abuse, no aggressive body language. He wasn't even looking at them or more importantly the officer behind him who just pushed him to the ground.


How are the officers supposed to know what he has in his pockets? How are they supposed to know if he is a innocent bystander or somebody intent in stirring up violence? His manner of not moving away as quickly as possible would suggest something might be wrong. It is at that time they make the decision being that he isn't desisting, thus taking action.



rustyintegrale said:


> The question is was the officer right to attack him in the manner he did?


Unfortunately that REALLY isn't the whole question Rich. That narrow question is the one being imposed by the Media and is largly irrelvent. The question should be two fold:

Were the police (as a whole) acting in an inappropriate manner towards a group of people intent on causing trouble? and, in this particular instance, did they have enough information to suggest he wasn't part of that group that were cordoned in?

The answers are simple: Yes, and No.

I still maintain that it's all largely irrelevant anyway - because if it weren't for the left wing trouble making scum who attend these protests intent on violence, the situation wouldn't have arose in the first place, meaning the guy would still be alive.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

kmpowell said:


> I still maintain that it's all largely irrelevant anyway - because if it weren't for the left wing trouble making scum who attend these protests intent on violence, the situation wouldn't have arose in the first place, meaning the guy would still be alive.


All down to interpretation I guess, but I can't argue with the above statement...

I just question if you would argue so strongly in the view of the Police if this story had been published by any media other than the Guardian?

I'm no Grauniad fan either btw... :lol:

cheers

rich


----------



## sporTTyminx (Mar 5, 2009)

Would he still be alive?
Might he not have had a heart attack wherever he may have been that day?

Or are we saying that because of his treatment by the police he had a heart attack?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

sporTTyminx said:


> Or are we saying that because of his treatment by the police he had a heart attack?


I should imagine the shock of the assault did nothing to prevent it. Who knows? I guess a post-mortem might reveal an existing heart condition. He didn't look the healthiest guy on the street did he?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> I know for sure that if it were me facing a line of police like that and I were 100% innocent, I would be moving out of the way as quickly as possible, but he seems not to bother.
> 
> How are the officers supposed to know what he has in his pockets? How are they supposed to know if he is a innocent bystander or somebody intent in stirring up violence? His manner of not moving away as quickly as possible would suggest something might be wrong. It is at that time they make the decision being that he isn't desisting, thus taking action.


So what you're basically saying is because he didn't behave as you would have behaved, he might have been guilty of "something" and that it is legitimate for the police can attack someone because something might be wrong - based on the fact that he had his hands in his pockets? If as you say however they have made a decision that he isn't desisting, why the need need to take any action? Even if he had been desisting, surely the right thing to do is arrest him, not beat him?


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

The only reason he fell the way he did was because he had his hands in his pockets walking in a way to deliberatley stop the police from moving forward from what i saw, Anyone in their right mind would of found a different route home and if he had of would he be any worse than he is now, that we will never know :?


----------



## sporTTyminx (Mar 5, 2009)

How many people would walk very slowly in front of a police riot line with their hands in their pocket and weave about and not move on when requested to do so?

Would anyone on here do that :?:


----------



## Private Prozac (Jul 7, 2003)

Why was it filmed in the first place? :?

It was hardly the centre of the major protest so what was the deal of just filming the police in a line! :?


----------



## KammyTT (Jun 28, 2006)

its a conspiracy neil :wink:


----------



## sporTTyminx (Mar 5, 2009)

KammyTT said:


> its a conspiracy neil :wink:


Are you joking? The British media would never do anything so wrong as that would they?


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

clived said:


> surely the right thing to do is arrest him, not beat him?


Clive, I'll be honest, having got to know you over many years I am very surprised that a reasoned and balanced person such as yourself has what appears to be such a narrow-minded view on this particular subject. Using a word like the above in your argument is just plain wrong and symptomatic of the left-wing press. A 'beating' did NOT happen. The persons manner and behaviour were that of somebody who might not have been innocent. The police took the decision to warn that person several times, to which he didn't respond and he became awkward. He was then struck once, not beaten.

*beat*
1. to strike violently/forcefully repeatedly.
9. to strike (a person or animal) repeatedly and injuriously


----------



## nilanth (Mar 30, 2007)

Ok I have just seen the video.

What was the need to push him from behind..the officer who did it surely must have know he was bound to fall if shoved in the back and also coupled with the fact he had his hands in his pockets.

Surely they could have taken him aside and arrested him if he was deemed a threat.

It's just wrong no matter how you look at it in my eyes. There is always a better option than to physically assault someone, espescially if you are the police!


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

To me, having only viewed the video briefly on the news this morning, it looks to be a cowardly 'shove-in-the-back' from a presumably adrenalin-fueled police officer.

Just as there are a hardcore group of 'protesters' who are there simply for the ruck, just like at football matches, so I believe that the boys in blue are also likely to get rather a buzz from policing such a situation, and sporadic events like this are always on the cards. When the pack mentality takes over, normal behaviour takes a back seat. Human nature...

I dont condone the attack, but I do also question why he was there, and why he appeared pretty much unaware of his surroundings. Whether the police did call out to him or not, I have no idea... I didn't catch that on the video, and witness for each side are likely to be unreliable.

I have no doubt that nothing would be made of this, if he hadn't died a short while later. In the grand scheme of things, it isn't Rodney King. If the incident eventually resulted in his death, then the police officer needs to be dealt with, just like anyone else who inadvertently causes the death of someone else. If there is no connection, then I think it should be dealt with internally, and not blown out of proportion any further.


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> Clive, I'll be honest, having got to know you over many years I am very surprised that a reasoned and balanced person such as yourself has what appears to be such a narrow-minded view on this particular subject .


Kev, I am actually quite surprised at your above comment, because reading your comments you obviously have narrowed your opinion down.

For the record, I broadly agree with a lot of what you wrote, that the Police are only doing their job and the troublemakers are the root cause. Like Clive I was quite horrified to see the clip on the TV this morning, however we don't get to see any events prior to the "shove" and maybe or maybe not this guy was antagonising the police to illicit a response for the camera?

Still no doubt we can waste millions have enquiries upon enquiries in which everything but the truth is established....


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> > surely the right thing to do is arrest him, not beat him?
> ...


Kev, whilst I'll happily agree that technically "beating" may not have been the best choice of word, in the video I watched he was clearly struck twice - unless you don't count using a part of your body to hit someone so hard they fall over - do only baton attacks count?

You've obviously found it easier to comment on my word choice than to address my concern regarding the unprovoked attack and your apparently laissez-faire attitude towards it.

I don't have a left-wing view on this, or anything else. Maybe my position only feels left-wing from the somewhat right-wing position that it's ok for an agent of the state to attack someone because they might do something you won't like.

I guess this all boils down to our different interpretations of the video and witness testimony. I perceive a bloke trying to get home, not really sure what to do and a bit bewildered by the whole thing. You seem to percieve someone who deserved to be hit with a baton and pushed over, due to some percieved threat to the riot-gear laden officer. Obviously neither of us were there, so I guess we'll just have to agree to differ.


----------



## nilanth (Mar 30, 2007)

mighTy Tee said:


> For the record, I broadly agree with a lot of what you wrote, that the Police are only doing their job and the troublemakers are the root cause. Like Clive I was quite horrified to see the clip on the TV this morning, however we don't get to see any events prior to the "shove" and maybe or maybe not this guy was antagonising the police to illicit a response for the camera?


Surely the police are trained not be antogonised and react in ways shown in the video. It was a coward thing to do..pushing someone in the back when they are not looking.


----------



## W7 PMC (May 6, 2002)

Having only just watched the video clip, it does seem fairly clear cut & i agree with Clive's initial comments.

Naturally without footage of the prevailing few minutes, it's hard to base a concrete opinion on whether this guy was a threat, however he does look a little out of place, appears to be behaving in a strange manner & defo looks pissed/stoned, however that gives no-one the right to carry out what appears to be an unprovoked attack & especially from behind in such a cowardly fashion.

I doubt the truth will ever fully surface, but it does not hold the police in a great light & does appear very one sided, based on all the information i can see/read.


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

clived said:


> You seem to percieve someone who deserved to be hit with a baton and pushed over, due to some percieved threat to the riot-gear laden officer. Obviously neither of us were there


I certainly never said that. I simply point out that the clear left-wing Guardian approach on the story has taken things out of context from the true reality of what _might_ have happened, and that cause&effect was the reason for the man's death thus the blame shouldn't fall directly at the feet of the police.



clived said:


> Obviously neither of us were there, so I guess we'll just have to agree to differ.


Indeed we will



Just to show there are two sides to every story - a small selection of pictures from the protests that the Guardian (and other left wing publications) have not published. In many places it was out & out riots, where the Police were clearly under orders to control ALL potential problems.


























































What if the Police Officer in the second picture from the end had died from his head wounds, would we have the same outcry from the likes of the Guardian? I very much doubt it. Would the death of the supposed passer-by have happened if the riots were not taking place? Of course not.

The violent activists want a public inquiry into death - see above, cause and effect.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Of those people who have made critical comments, hands up anyone who has actually policed a riot?

No, thought not.

Now I have. You may remember the news footage of a police van in flames at Oldham - I was in that van when it was set alight. No, we don't 'get a buzz' out of dealing with these 'protests'. They are very dangerous situations - quite terrifying in fact - and the sort of thing that most reasonably-minded people would keep well clear of. Unlike you, we don't have that choice. While you are running away from trouble we are expected to run into it and deal with it. I assure you, it's not something I would choose to do with my weekend. I have been fortunate so far in the large disturbances I have been involved in and not picked up any serious injuries, but several of my colleagues certainly have with some having their careers ended as a result, left permanently disabled.

It seems Kev has witnessed the violence of these protests first hand and that leads to what is a far more balanced approach to this debate. The idea that this man was simply doing nothing more than walking home is surely not right. Walking home . . . through a riot? Who in their right mind would choose to do that, I ask you? There are only two sets of people in these situations - protestors/rioters who choose to be there for that reason and the police, bound by duty to deal with whatever is going on. Early on people can be unwittingly caught up in something but if they have any sense they soon get out of it. What you do get though are those who are so stubbornly foolish that they remain simply because the police have asked them to leave (for their own safety) and they refuse to go just to annoy the cops. Well, more fool them.

I suspect this man was one of the latter - the 'It's a free world and I'll stay here if I like' brigade. They fail to appreciate that they are being given instructions for the sake of their own safety and set out to make the police's job as difficult as they possibly can - just for the sake of being awkward. They turn up in every public order situation and are a bloody nuisance. It appears this man had repeatedly been told to clear the area. When there's a riot going on it's hardly an unreasonable request, is it? Or do we think the police should just stand by and allow people to smash up our capital city? So did this man do as he was asked? No, he stood with his hands in his pockets and then started ambling aimlessly across the front of the police line, clearly intent on doing anything other than what was being asked of him.

When you need someone to move away and have repeatedly asked him nicely to do so, and he refuses, and then you have repeatedly and forcibly ordered him to do so and he still refuses, then what have you got left to do? You have little option but to physically move them on.

In many aspects of policing I'm constantly amazed how people will push and push the boundaries. You clearly set them a line not to cross and tell them what the consequences of doing so will be, but they insist on stepping over that line. Then, when they suffer the consequences that you warned them of, they are suddenly amazed and incensed about it! But whose fault is it?

All people need to do is what they are told. Sure, if you think the cops are stepping beyong their authority and asking you to do something unreasonable that's a different matter, but simply being asked to move 20 yards down a street while there is a bloody riot going on is hardly unreasonable by any stretch of the imagination. This man left the police no option but to use some sort of force to get him to comply with what would have been perfectly reasonable requests. To that point I have no issue - nor really should anybody with any sense or reason.

He was shoved quite hard though - enough to knock him over. Too much? Quite possibly. However you do have to understand that the officer involved has probably by that stage had bricks and bottles hurled at him all day, and I note without the protection of full protective kit and shields. This man was just the latest of dozens of awkward sods who simply wouldn't comply with the most reasonable of instructions given. In such circumstances the patience of any human being wears thin. And police officers are human, after all. You can bleat on about 'standards of professionalism' if you like, but you spend a terrifying couple of hours in the middle of a riot with danger and the threat of serious injury all around you and let's see just how well you keep your head. He didn't beat him, thrash him to the ground and give him a kicking - as the left wing press would like you to think. He gave him a push in the back to encourage him to move on as he'd been told to do - it was just that little bit hard, that's all. And because the man was already unsteady on his feet it was enough to cause him to fall over.

That's all. Nothing more than that. As someone has already said, this isn't even remotely 'Rodney King'. It's very questionable whether it is even an assault rather than just the lawful use of force. You must understand, someone does not have to be a threat for force to be lawful - in these circumstances it is lawful to use force simply to get someone to move from an area if they won't leave on request.

Was that fall even contributory to the man's death? Well, we've no idea. It's quite possible the man's death was inevitable by that stage anyway. certainly a simple fall to the ground wouldn't cause a heart attack in a perfectly healthy man, would it? Was there some ongoing medical occurance that was the cause of him being so unsteady on his feet already? Maybe that's why this man was behaving in the manner he was rather than complying with the police requests? We don't know.

What we do know is that the left wing activists don't actually care what the cause was. Someone died so it's in the interest of their cause to blame it on the police - because that conveniently deflects all attention from the absolutely disgraceful criminal behaviour of their 'protest'. And of course the media are always happy to oblige, aren't they? And of course the great British public are always _so_ keen to jump on the band-wagon for a good bit of bobby-bashing, whether it's really justified or not.

No question, this was a tragedy. But there's no doubts, if there wasn't a riot going on then it's unlikely this man would have died. Perhaps he was already in the early stages of his heart attack long before he even encountered the police, brought on by the stress of the violent protest going on all around him. That to me seems just as likely, if not more so. Perhaps he'd already been knocked to the floor a dozen times by rioters charging all over the place smashing windows. But we don't bother to think about that possibility, do we?

No, not when we can blame the police instead. That's what they're there for, isn't it - to take the blame for all of society's ills, so we don't have to feel guilty ourselves?


----------



## jdn (Aug 26, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> Of those people who have made critical comments, hands up anyone who has actually policed a riot?
> 
> No, thought not.
> 
> ...


Very well said - the voice of reason and of experience.

It wouldn't increase readership of the Guardian though, and thati is surely one of the main issues?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

Mark Davies said:


> And of course the great British public are always _so_ keen to jump on the band-wagon for a good bit of bobby-bashing, whether it's really justified or not.


It wasn't always the case was it? I was brought up to respect the police and respect I did. Perhaps you should ask yourself why it has waned rather than berate the very people you are paid to serve.

I think that's the crux of the matter here. The police ARE public servants, but like politicians you seem to forget that sometimes and become a law unto yourselves. Not in all cases I'm sure, but the bad apples are always going to attract more exposure than the good ones.

Sadly that seems to be the way of the world.

Cheers

rich


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

So Mark, you simply don't beleive that this chap just trying to get home after his day of work? ("'It's a free world and I'll stay here if I like' brigade"). NONE of the reports I've read suggest at all he was trying to stay there - everyone agrees he was trying to leave and prevented from doing so. The guy worked in the city. The protest and police presence was on his route home. Is it possible you're jumping to a conclusion here? You wouldn't be the first police office to do so it seems.

All that not-withstanding, if someone doesn't do what you ask them to do as a police officer, do you typically decide to take them down in the manner shown in the footage? Is this an approved restraint method? Would you have done what we see in the video? I realise my tone is rhetorical....

You also seem quite happy to acknowledge that the chap may well have been in the early stages of his heart attack before, and therefore during, his encounter with the police. If you believe that to be a possibility, does that not throw your whole "he's just a troublemaker" theory into doubt?

There seems to be some "well, if the protest hadn't been going on be probably wouldn't have died" / "you can't prove that the incident with the police led to his death" sentiment here, being offered as some sort of mitigation. I absolutely agree that it is impossible to know if either the protests or the incident led to the ultimate death. However, that's isn't my issue - my issue is simply the attack itself - whatever the consequences. In a way I'd love to discover that there was some recent history here we yet don't know that completely changes the complexion of the events and justifes the level of force used / the decision not to simply arrest - my faith would be restored. I just don' think that's going to be the case however...


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

clived said:


> You say Kev has witnessed the violence first hand - are you refering to the photographs?


I think he means Kev has witnessed a riot first hand... :wink:

Cheers

Rich


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

clived said:


> You say Kev has witnessed the violence first hand


No, he said it seems I have witnessed the violence that these sort of 'protests' bring. I suspect he got that impression from me writing the following in my first post:


kmpowell said:


> Just look at the May Day riots for example - I have witnessed these first hand and they are not a pretty sight when things get out of control in a matter of seconds!




When I used to work in the financial sector I was unlucky enough to get caught up in the May day riots. After needing (and it was a 100% necessary need) to work in the City on the weekend I was trying to make my way back across to Paddington. What I witnessed was both horrific and genuinely scary. It takes literally seconds for things to escalate into a major riot, and the majority of people who go to these events are there for one thing and one thing only, to goad and bait the police into violence. I don't envy the police one bit having to deal with it, it literally is split second decision making while having objects pelted at them which could kill.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

kmpowell said:


>


Is it just me or do these two images look staged? The whole area is surrounded by press photographers, what were the police doing then?

cheers

Rich


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> When I used to work in the financial sector I was unlucky enough to get caught up in the May-Day riots. After needing (and it was a 100% necessary need) to work in the City on the weekend I was trying to make my way back across to Paddington. What I witnessed was both horrific and genuinely scary. It takes literally seconds for things to escalate into a major riot, and the majority of people who go to these events are there for one thing and one thing only, to goad and bait the police into violence. I don't envy the police one bit having to deal with it.


I don't envy the police either - and to be clear, I'm sure the vast majority do an excellent job. But I still don't see or hear anything that justifies this attack by this officer. In fact if avoiding escalating violence is the goal, I'd have just letting the guy go home would have been just the ticket - it would have avoided anyone having to twat him (I know that technically twat isn't right either Kev ;-) ).


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

SHOCK HORROR !!!!!!!
if the leaders and other representatives of the right wing capitalst scum who are exploiting the population and destroying the environment of this world which we all live in were not having one of their little seminars at our expence then these people ( refered to by our police member as protest / rioters, what does that tell you about impartiality ??? !!! ) would not feel the need to be there. i am sure that we on here do not all come from privelaged elitist backgrounds, just cast your minds back or ask some of your parents about the behavour of the police during the miners strikes etc etc. !!!!! and BTW most of " our " media is owned and edidited by this right wing capitalist scum !!!!!!!!!!


----------



## sporTTyminx (Mar 5, 2009)

> So Mark, you simply don't beleive that this chap just trying to get home after his day of work? ("'It's a free world and I'll stay here if I like' brigade"). NONE of the reports I've read suggest at all he was trying to stay there - everyone agrees he was trying to leave and prevented from doing so.
> 
> 
> > *Are you kidding? that guy was no way looking like he was trying to get home. He looked like he was deliberatly loitering around. Watch the clip again....*
> ...


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

I'm sorry but I really do not see anything wrong with the video clip , and if he hadn't of died we wouldn't be having this debate :?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jonah said:


> I'm sorry but I really do not see anything wrong with the video clip , and if he hadn't of died we wouldn't be having this debate :?


But he did.

I'm glad you're not in the police too... :lol:


----------



## zedman (Jan 31, 2005)

jonah said:


> I'm sorry but I really do not see anything wrong with the video clip , and if he hadn't of died we wouldn't be having this debate :?


i get the whole shoving him out the way for his own good etc but using a baton? surely thats like way too far?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

sporTTyminx said:


> > So Mark, you simply don't beleive that this chap just trying to get home after his day of work? ("'It's a free world and I'll stay here if I like' brigade"). NONE of the reports I've read suggest at all he was trying to stay there - everyone agrees he was trying to leave and prevented from doing so.
> >
> >
> > > *Are you kidding? that guy was no way looking like he was trying to get home. He looked like he was deliberatly loitering around. Watch the clip again....*


Using your own argument, how can *you* tell that with any certainty from the clip?



> All that not-withstanding, if someone doesn't do what you ask them to do as a police officer, do you typically decide to take them down in the manner shown in the footage? Is this an approved restraint method? Would you have done what we see in the video? I realise my tone is rhetorical....
> 
> 
> > *How do you know what had happened just before this footage was shown. How do you know that this man hadnt antagonised the police just before?*


How do *you* know what happened just before this footage was filmed (just before it was _shown_, to me anyway, I was having my tea, of that I'm fairly certain ;-)). Your implication is that he had antogonised the police just before - evidence?



> You also seem quite happy to acknowledge that the chap may well have been in the early stages of his heart attack before, and therefore during, his encounter with the police.
> 
> 
> > *He didnt say that at all. he said who knows what might have happened if the riot hadnt been on, which is exactly what i said earlier.*
> ...


how is that him not acknowledging that he may have been in the early stages of his heart attack? :? If we can't even agree on the meaning of some fairly plainly worded statements written on the forum, it's unlikely we're going to agree on the rights and wrongs of the officer's actions. I'm off to enjoy Easter - at least the officer involved has now finally indentified himself so the investigation can get going properly - and hear his side of the situation, which I think we'll all benefit from hearing.


----------



## jammyd (Oct 11, 2008)

So I have sat read all this, and I can see that people have really strong feelings about this and both have valid points, but I can not help but feel that it all will end up somewhere in the middle...

1. What happened before the video, amazingly we have not seen this, and I am sure it will have been video'd
2. Was there a need to push, or could they have grabbed him and pulled him behind the police line.
3.Was he really "with it"? looks like he was totally out of it?
4. Was there not a slightly easier route home? He really does not look like someone walking home from work does he?

The outcome will be...

A scapegoat is made to feed the press, and that persons life will be wrecked...

I personally think...

1. The Guardian is stirring trouble.
2. The act's of the protestors were not peaceful, and as mentioned by others the police were prevoked all day...
3. The Police can be heavy handed, 
4. We live in a world where respect of authority and also the right to protest seems to be lost... People no longer know what is right or wrong, and it is reflect on our children ( see the post sort of related to this ). People in this country are becoming animals, and the media revolution has fuelled it.

As for the comment about the Miners strike, my Uncle ( a young police officer at the time) got dragged from Coventry up to Yorkshire to support the police, and then spent the best part of a month in hospital after being kicked to within a few minutes of his life... so it was not "just the brutality" of the police which was called in to question.


----------



## lofty (Apr 3, 2007)

I remembered this Guardian ad from a few years ago



I think it proves it is very hard to see the whole story from a small video clip,obviously the Guardian have forgotten about their campaign about showing the whole picture.


----------



## Matt B (Apr 8, 2007)

So everyone saw the 10 second video clip on the news last night of that thug throwing a beer bottle into a crowded pub. That hit some girl in the throat and she is dead. That is what happened isnt it .....or was that just a media trick to get us to hate pissed up kids? I think every one of us who saw that clip was shocked and made up our minds on the little swine who did it and is now serving a pathetic 4 years.
But this video, yeah this video well its deliberately trying to mislead us into thinking the coppers are bad. No, this video is the same, this is what happened and some people will go to great length to hypothesise or argue why this sort of action is ok, why it was really this fella fault. But I dont believe that one little bit.

That guy was someones dad, brother, mate etc. Now he is dead and thats ok because he was winding up some coppers in riot gear - which I am pretty sure I can't say was happening from the video. No
He looked like he had had a few scoops after work, may not have realised the significance of what was going on around him.

Yes Mark, you deal with riots but isnt that what you signed up for? Join the army expect to be shot....Join the police, expect to deal with shit. Walk home from work, dont really expect to be shoved to the floor while your hands are in your pockets.


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

To me it looks like he was pushed a little hard. An innocent mistake, and one that probably happened a number of times and will continue to happen in future disturbances. The cause was probably entirely justifiable by the police.

It's essentially the heat of battle, adrenaline will be flowing, and more basic fight of flight instincts become prominent. Alas, the Police do not have the luxury of flight.

If the guy hadn't of had his hands in his pocket, he would have cushioned his fall. If he had a heart-attack from shock, where was the shock? Didn't he not see the Police line in front of him?

In a democratic society, there is no reason to riot. If you do not like the government, vote for somebody else. If you don't like any of their policies, run for government yourself.

The police should be allowed to do what it takes to squash violence as swiftly as possible with minimum disruption to the law-abiding.

This is the problem with protests, as people who genuinely have a passion for the subject will organise these peaceful protests - which are politically very important. It is the large number of people who turn up just for a fight which is the issue.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Dash said:


> To me it looks like he was pushed a little hard. An innocent mistake...


How is hitting somone with your baton an innocent mistake?


----------



## Dash (Oct 5, 2008)

clived said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > To me it looks like he was pushed a little hard. An innocent mistake...
> ...


I'm referring to the two handed push from behind. As far as I can see, there is no baton involved. Just somebody pushing another person away - albeit too hard so the guy falls instead of moves away.


----------



## HighTT (Feb 14, 2004)

Mark Davies said:


> All people need to do is what they are told.


Says the policeman.


----------



## taylormade-tt (May 14, 2007)

I agree with Mark.

The only part i am uncomfortable with is the officer's baton strikes to the back of the Legs, :? 
The policeman didn't need to use that much force, the shove part was enough on its own to gee him up.

The baton strike's to the back of the legs imo deadened his legs and put him off balance, so the follow up shove Knocked him over.
It is Sad He passed away,but i am doubtfull of the push and subsequent fall, being the ultimate cause,i personally believe that was just a piece of the jigsaw.

Tom.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

clived said:


> Dash said:
> 
> 
> > To me it looks like he was pushed a little hard. An innocent mistake...
> ...


Clive, I know I've responded to your PM in like vein, but this comment needs to be addressed.

Do you actually see a police officer hitting him with a baton or is that what you're told to see by a biased press? You first see the officer reaching towards Tomlinson with the end of his baton. Does he strike him with it? Well, if he does is it not absolutely extraordianry that there's no reaction from Tomlinson whatsoever? I'm not sure quite what the officer was intending but from the actual evidence (rather than the rhetoric) I'm quite convinced he made no contact with Tomlinson whatsoever in that instance. The officer then pushed Tomlinson, and there you can clearly see the baton vertical and over Tomlinson's left shoulder, just exactly where you'd expect it to be when it is in the officer's left hand and he's using that hand to push the man against his shoulder. And that's just exactly all this 'attack' amounts to - a push. Just looking at the video with an objective and open mind and you'll see he was *never* hit with a baton at all. That's just what the press have wanted you to believe and you've been taken in.

So what does all this amount to? In the middle of a riot a police line is trying to clear a street. A man ambles up to them and is asked to move on. He appears to completely ignore them. Instead of clearing out of the way he just aimlessly strolls around in front of the officers, with his hands in his pockets. Most everything in his body language is saying, "You can't tell me what to do - I'll stay here if I want to". There are a load of police dogs there and trust me, when they're in these situations you really don't want to be too close to them. The officers need him to move away and he appears to be deliberately defiant. To meet their objective and as much as anything else clear some space in front of the dogs to avoid any accidents an officer gives the man a push, and nothing more.

At worst the officer uses 15lbs of force when 10lbs would have done. The man, who quite possibly was already suffering some kind of impairment from a medical condition, falls over. After which we see him sitting up and conversing with the officers - hardly in obvious and immediate distress.

Those are the facts - rather than the rhetoric. So is this really what you'd describe as 'an attack'? I think that's just the language of the sensationalist press - and that's what they want you to think. A police officer used fairly limited and probably lawful force to get a man to comply with necessary and lawful instructions, but it just so happened that being already a little unstable on his feet he fell over. I dare say this scene repeated itself literally dozens of times throughout the day and has happened in every single instance of public disorder there has ever been. Never been this fuss before though. However, later in the day the man dies and that changes everything.

Again, it's a tragedy that this man died, but I have yet to see any evidence at all that this incident with the police in any way contributed to his death whatsoever. People get pushed and fall over every single day yet virtually none of them go on to die of a heart attack. All the evidence and even basic common sense says this man's death was not - indeed couldn't be - directly attributable to what in any other circumstances would be viewed as a rather minor incident.

But that's not going to stop people bringing their prejudice to the debate and trying to make something of it in order to further their own agenda, is it?


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> > Dash said:
> ...


Watch the C4 news video in full. Come back to me and tell me the officer did not take a forceful swing with his / her baton.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

clived said:


> Watch the C4 news video in full. Come back to me and tell me the officer did not take a forceful swing with his / her baton.


Clive, I'm trying to be dispassionate about it and analysing the evidence objectively as I would do in any other investigation. I have looked at this footage again and again and again and simply cannot see any point at which Mr Tomlinson was struck with a baton. Without us sitting together in front of a screen so that you can point out to me exactly where you think the baton strike is then we're really not going to resolve this issue with any satisfaction.

CCTV can be very misleading - it rerely shows things as clearly as you'd hope for and is often open to interpretation. For me the most telling bit of evidence is that Mr Tomlinson reacts exactly as you would expect from a hard push to the back and nothing like you'd expect from being struck with a baton. Hitting someone with a baton does not throw them forward like that - all the force is concentrated in too small an area. And then you'd be expecting Mr Tomlinson to be attending to whatever injury he had sustained - rubbing at his shoulder at the very least, though a baton blow sufficient to knock him over like that would have certainly broken his shoulder blade. But he doesn't, does he? He sits on the floor, holds both arms out and seems to say something lie, "What was that for?" - just like someone without any serious injury who's simply been pushed over and not at all like someone who has just been hit with a baton.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

Mark Davies said:


> clived said:
> 
> 
> > Watch the C4 news video in full. Come back to me and tell me the officer did not take a forceful swing with his / her baton.
> ...


its not just the clip now, as shown on the tv last night the chap was a workie hedinn home being diverted by police corraling " protestors " in certain areas and as is clearly obvious there was no riot at the spot where the man was attacked from behind by some thug in the uniform of the protector of the capitalist state in which we live.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

Mark,

If I were to push someone over and ultimately cause their death by doing so (let's say they had a brittle skull which I couldn't know about) then I would still be guilty of causing their death.

If the policeman simply believed he was being 'defiant', and pushed him... that has consequences of its own. What if he was either suffering from a disability, or (as has already been suggested) was already suffering some early symptoms of his eventual death. Not being properly aware of your surroundings, either through mental disability, or physical illness, is NOT 'defiance', however way you pitch it.

The simple fact is, WE DON'T KNOW. And you know what that means? The policeman couldn't have known either! There is a chance that he struck and pushed over a person who APPEARED to be defiant, but wasn't. A couple of years ago, some police officers basically emptied their chambers into the head of someone they THOUGHT might be a terrorist, but wasn't. I pay my taxes towards a British justice system which has several tiers, including Judges and juries, and a prosecution service. Ultimately it is up to them to apply the law and to hand out a punishment. It is not, never has been, and never will be the role of the police force to take it upon themselves to perform all of these roles.

Ongoing riots or not, the police have to be whiter than white. If they choose to use unreasonable force (I question whether he posed any immediate danger to the officers, the general public, or to himself, at the point he was shoved) then they need to be prepared to deal with the consequences - just like driving at 94mph in a residental area, at night, without any lights or sirens - just like throwing a bottle into a crowded pub.

As I said earlier - if the force displayed in the clip was a contributory factor in the man's death, then the police officer should be treated no differently to any normal person who causes the death of another. I'm not going to be swayed by the "he shouldn't have been there" argument, or "it was the protesters' fault" because, quite simply, 2 wrongs don't make a right. The officer should be accountable for his actions, and the law requires him to act in the same way as anyone else.

Finally, I do not believe FOR ONE SECOND that there aren't members of every police force who are perfectly happy to deal with riot situations - just as there are members of the public who are perfectly happy to be drawn into them. Not every policeman, I'll grant you - but if you join the army, the navy, the TA, the police force etc., you have a fair idea that your job will involve situations like this. I do not believe that every single policeman is a 'desk' man at heart, who isn't motivated to act when out in the field, facing situations like this. To try and suggest that all of your colleagues are shy and retiring, peaceful, law-abiding, wouldn't say "boo" to a goose upstanding pillars of the community is just ever so slightly naiive, in my opinion.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

Firstly, I never said I wasn't prepared to police a riot, so we can stop all this bollox about, "You knew what you signed up for" which is just trying to distort my argument. The point I was making was to counter the erroneous view that police officers enjoy this kind of work and get a buzz out of it. That's just utter rubbish and perhaps comes from people who are judging us by their own standards. We don't enjoy it - whatever you do you are going to get criticised and you're in an absolute no-win situation. It's not a 'buzz' - it's a bloody pain in the arse! That's all I was saying so can we put that one to bed?

Second *IF* - and it's bloody whopping, unrealistic, great big *IF* - this man being pushed over was in any way a contribution to his death then is the officer guilty of an offence?

Perhaps someone would like to tell me just how you quell a riot without the use of any kind of physical force? Are the people who are busy throwing televisions through windows and steel barriers at the police officers going to go away simply because you ask them to nicely - pretty please with a cherry on top? No, they are not. Some force needs to be used at some point and doing so can be perfectly lawful. As long as the force used is reasonable then it's not an assault.

No, Mr Tomlinson was not presenting a direct threat to the officer - but that's not the point. The situation cannot be taken out of its context which was that there was a major riot going on. In such situations there are strategic issues to be dealt with which will include clearing sterile areas. Looking at the deployments of these officers with several dogs and just a smattering of small shields it seems certain that is what these officers were engaged in (you see, it does help to have some understanding of what is happening). Now when you need to clear an area you first ask people to move. The dogs are there to try and encourage them on. You have an objective and larger issues rely on you doing your part of the plan efficiently and in good time. You haven't got all day to stand around and debate with people - lives may very well be at risk! However there are always those who simply refuse to comply with even the most basic and undemanding of requests. So what else can you do but physically remove them? The law provides for it and it is not only legal - it's perfectly necessary, reasonable and an acceptable aspect of policing public disorder.

Mr Tomlinson was asked to move but instead very slowly bimbled along in front of the officers with his hands in his pockets. Yes, that may because he wasn't completely aware of his surroundings - indeed in hindsight quite probably so - but do you seriously expect the officers to understand that. They are cops policing a riot and under pressure - not bloody doctors somehow able to make an instant medical diagnosis! You take things as you find them and he would have appeared to have been simply someone being deliberately awkward, his body language saying, "Fuck you - I'm not moving for you".

When a street needs to be cleared - and a street needs to be cleared NOW! - you just don't have time to enter into discussion. Nor do you have time be be touchy-feely and all pink and fluffy. You ask once, you then ask a second time more forcibly - then you use force.

Mr Tomlinson was pushed and for that reason. That makes the force used lawful. Was it a reasonable amount of force? It was a hard push - perhaps more than absolutely necessary and perhaps a steady and more even force applied would have encouraged him on more smoothly and safely, but it was still just a push. From the reaction you'd think several officers had stood over him repeatedly thrashing him with a baton until he was lying dying in a pool of his own blood. For pity's sake, let's get some perspective! He was pushed, he fell over. That is it.

If he'd not died you honestly wouldn't have thought twice about this or given a toss. Nobody would have been questioning what the officer had done at all. Every single bit of footage I've ever seen of public disorder situations shows police officers pushing people, some of whom fall over, so why never an outcry before now? We have all this fuss simply because Mr Tomlinson later died. There is absolutely no evidence to suggest him being pushed over caused his death nor does it make the least bit of sense to assume so, yet just because a group of people (exactly the same people who were throwing TVs through windows and steel barriers at police officers) decide to corrupt a personal tragedy for their own political agenda we all just swallow the propoganda and jump onto a bandwagon of 'disgust'.

No objectivity whatsoever.


----------



## sporTTyminx (Mar 5, 2009)

Not all of us jump on the band wagon of disgust.

I agree almost completely with everything you have said. Any law abiding citizen would have just moved out the way when requested to do so.

Providing of course that you really are a law abiding citizen just meandering on your way home, in the middle of a riot, right in front of the riot police not moving when asked to do so. Hypocrisy at its best.


----------



## redsi72 (Nov 13, 2006)

Well argued Mark.
I havent followed the story closely and have only scanned through this thread.
As said, if the guy had not sadly passed away, then this wouldn be news. Far worse goes unreported EVERY weekend! 
Having been to many LFC and engerlund matches I have seen many "tasty" situations :roll: . Why people choose to antagonize the police, or even put themselves in harms way beggers belief.


----------



## clived (May 6, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> Clive, I'm trying to be dispassionate about it and analysing the evidence objectively as I would do in any other investigation. I have looked at this footage again and again and again and simply cannot see any point at which Mr Tomlinson was struck with a baton. Without us sitting together in front of a screen so that you can point out to me exactly where you think the baton strike is then we're really not going to resolve this issue with any satisfaction.


Do you see the point - particularly clearly on the C4 footage - where the office very clearly swings his baton? Let's assume for a moment you can at least see that. If so, would I be right in thinking that to carry the baton in public, the office would be trained in its use? Whilst I can imagine a scenario where a baton may be swung without intent to make contact to legitimately "intimidate" someone into moving away (and therefore avoid any actual physical contact), this obviously cannot be the case if the "batonee" is facing away from the officer. So, we rule out that the officer was swinging the baton as a warning. Would you now argue that the officer was "just swinging it for fun", with no intent to hit his target? So, we have a trained officer, swinging his baton at close quarters to the target. You expect him to miss?



Mark Davies said:


> CCTV can be very misleading - it rerely shows things as clearly as you'd hope for and is often open to interpretation.


What closed circuit TV are you talking about - I haven't seen that footage. I'm talking about the camcorder footage from the American banker and the Channel 4 TV camera footage.



Mark Davies said:


> For me the most telling bit of evidence is that Mr Tomlinson reacts exactly as you would expect from a hard push to the back and nothing like you'd expect from being struck with a baton. Hitting someone with a baton does not throw them forward like that - all the force is concentrated in too small an area. And then you'd be expecting Mr Tomlinson to be attending to whatever injury he had sustained - rubbing at his shoulder at the very least, though a baton blow sufficient to knock him over like that would have certainly broken his shoulder blade. But he doesn't, does he? He sits on the floor, holds both arms out and seems to say something lie, "What was that for?" - just like someone without any serious injury who's simply been pushed over and not at all like someone who has just been hit with a baton.


Your logic here seems to be that he was _either_ hit by a baton or pushed. Obviously if he was pushed just after being hit by the baton he's going to "react" (in a laws of physics way) to the push - being hit by the baton just before isn't going to prevent Newton's finest coming in to play. Given your statement that you're approaching this in the same way as you'd approach any investigation, I'm intereted to know where you got the idea that he was hit in the shoulder - the footage and witness accounts indicate a swing at leg level. Was that just an assumption or based on your viewing of the evidence? I have to ask again if you're really watched both videos in full, including the slow motion elements?

I see there is lots of discussion in this thread in general about the possibility of the officer being subject to a manslaughter charge. For me, this is secondary. What made me cross was the attack itself, which to me, looks unjustified. I think it calls into question the police and media hype prior to the summit which may have led some officer to be "pumped" (or "up for it" as one report mentions), the strategy used in these situations and of course the actions of the individual officer - but all are interlinked to me. The police reaction afterwards - certainly the change of official story from "we didn't interact prior to assising him" to having to admit that they very much had interacted when the video evidence also frustrates me - be this the result of deception at a low or high level in the force.

Off to a wedding now, so that's it from me for today


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

> Firstly, I never said I wasn't prepared to police a riot, so we can stop all this bollox about, "You knew what you signed up for" which is just trying to distort my argument. The point I was making was to counter the erroneous view that police officers enjoy this kind of work and get a buzz out of it. That's just utter rubbish and perhaps comes from people who are judging us by their own standards. We don't enjoy it - whatever you do you are going to get criticised and you're in an absolute no-win situation. It's not a 'buzz' - it's a bloody pain in the arse! That's all I was saying so can we put that one to bed?


We'll have to disagree on that. As clived pointed out, the media hype surrounding the potential for trouble will have caused SOME of your colleagues to be 'pumped up'. Show me 100 individuals, and I will show you a percentage who are happy to be physically and mentally challenged, and who are happy to be in a situation which gets the adrenalin going a little. Some of your colleagues will enjoy this sort of situation. If you cannot understand this, then I'm not sure you are being rational.



> Second IF - and it's bloody whopping, unrealistic, great big IF - this man being pushed over was in any way a contribution to his death then is the officer guilty of an offence?


Absolutely. Just like the traffic officer was convicted this week for killing a girl, driving 94mph in his police Volvo. Yes, he was driving fast "in the line of duty", but you cannot simply use being a "police officer" as an excuse to justify actions which have such severe consequences. I agree that force can be lawful (either from a police officer, or a member of the public) but force which results in serious uinjury or death... I fail to see how that can be reasonable. There is a clear difference between physically moving someone on, and striking them / shoving them from behind, so that they fall over. There could never have been any other outcome of that officer's actions.



> Mr Tomlinson was asked to move but instead very slowly bimbled along in front of the officers with his hands in his pockets. Yes, that may because he wasn't completely aware of his surroundings - indeed in hindsight quite probably so - but do you seriously expect the officers to understand that.


I expect that there are Police guidelines that cover that off... but then there have been any number of news stories where someone has appeared to be "drunk", so has been locked up (and roughly treated) by the police, only to later discover that they were seriously ill. It really would be quite a serious gaffe, for example, to mistake someone who is perhaps a little "slow" and not quite all there, from someone deliberately being defiant. I think you'll find outrage and lawsuits would follow, quite quickly, from disabled rights campaigners if an officer couldn't judge the difference. Or do the guidelines allow you to shove anyone who isn't behaving exactly as you tell them to?



> Mr Tomlinson was pushed and for that reason. That makes the force used lawful. Was it a reasonable amount of force? It was a hard push - perhaps more than absolutely necessary and perhaps a steady and more even force applied would have encouraged him on more smoothly and safely, but it was still just a push. From the reaction you'd think several officers had stood over him repeatedly thrashing him with a baton until he was lying dying in a pool of his own blood. For pity's sake, let's get some perspective! He was pushed, he fell over. That is it.


All falls are totally harmless. Tell that to Liam Neeson. If the fall caused his death, then it caused his death. Game over.

It was me that said that this is no "Rodney King". I totally agree, if the guy hadn't died, then this wouldn't be a big thing to anyone ecept Mr Tomlinson. If there is absolutely no link, then there is no real problem, as no harm was done. If there was a direct link between the shove and his death, then the officer has no hiding place. If I shoved you over and killed you, regardless of what the context was, I would be in court before you could say "Audi TT", and rightly so.

If the fall was responsible (even in part) for his death, it would be interesting to know what your opinion is then.


----------



## zedman (Jan 31, 2005)

for me its not the fact that he's died, it's more the scene of the policeman batoning someone who appears to harmless that shocked me, if the policeman here is saying that this is justified then thats something I really don't understand. There's an article in the times today with quite a few people talking about police and their baton happy antics, surely anyone policeman or not can see the need for an investigation here? If this is ok then where does it end? Is it ok for any policeman to attack anyone as long as there's a riot situation going on and they feel like it? Wearing a uniform is not a justification in itself and to be honest if this investigation weeds out bad apples then it can only be a good thing for the police. Strange thing is i've been pulled over about 3 times in the last year, had to deal with the police regarding a knife wielding tenant and had them in at work recently and in all these situations i've found them to be be courteous, professional and decent people, I can therefore only assume that the riot situation brings out a different side to the job and this particular policeman is the exception rather than the rule...


----------



## HighTT (Feb 14, 2004)

Mark Davies said:


> Firstly, I never said I wasn't prepared to police a riot, so we can stop all this bollox about, "You knew what you signed up for" which is just trying to distort my argument. The point I was making was to counter the erroneous view that police officers enjoy this kind of work and get a buzz out of it. That's just utter rubbish and perhaps comes from people who are judging us by their own standards. We don't enjoy it - whatever you do you are going to get criticised and you're in an absolute no-win situation. It's not a 'buzz' - ........
> 
> .......
> 
> No objectivity whatsoever.


A member of my wife's family has been in the Police for many years ( a nice but hardened guy whom I like and respect ).

He joined for the 'buzz' and the more 'exciting' the job the more he enjoyed it , he has until recently because of age and injury (he accepts it's part of the job) managed to stay as un-promoted as possible in order that he could stay away from any kind of safe desk job in the force, to be able to continue playing with a dangerous dog and then firearms, to name but two areas he worked in.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

HighTT said:


> Mark Davies said:
> 
> 
> > Firstly, I never said I wasn't prepared to police a riot, so we can stop all this bollox about, "You knew what you signed up for" which is just trying to distort my argument. The point I was making was to counter the erroneous view that police officers enjoy this kind of work and get a buzz out of it. That's just utter rubbish and perhaps comes from people who are judging us by their own standards. We don't enjoy it - whatever you do you are going to get criticised and you're in an absolute no-win situation. It's not a 'buzz' - ........
> ...


Not possible!


----------



## qooqiiu (Oct 12, 2007)

HighTT said:


> Mark Davies said:
> 
> 
> > All people need to do is what they are told.
> ...


Yes that sticks in my throat too!
..................................................................................

As for Mark saying they don't do it for the buzz. :?

I think whenever ive heard a copper being asked why they do the job i think thats usually the 1st thing that comes out of their mouths!

Oh and by the way Clive your not a citizen, your a subject. <the queen> [smiley=rifle.gif] would solve so much of this country's problems.


----------



## Mark Davies (Apr 10, 2007)

clived said:


> Do you see the point - particularly clearly on the C4 footage - where the office very clearly swings his baton?


Yes I've seen it but I do have an advantage over you in knowing something about the use of and training for batons, which for me puts a different perspective on what you think you are seeing in that particular footage.

The officer is carrying his baton in his left hand and it is brought back to rest on the outside of his left bicep. That is the proper carriage of the baton - held there so that if you do strike then it will be in a sideways arc to strike someone in the body, rather than say a downward arc that would be more likely if you were carrying the baton in the more natural position over your shoulder. That would obviously present the risk of striking the head, which is best avoided. Now entertain me for a minute and consider that the officer has not first struck Mr Tomlinson with the baton and then pushed him, but has in fact only pushed him.

Picture yourself with a baton in the position I described then go through the action of pushing forward with both hands as if you were going to shove somebody. See what happens to the baton in your hand? It swings around just as though you were going to strike someone with it. What the Channel 4 footage shows is the police officer lunging forward, and you can see he does that with both arms reaching out. Of course, and frustratingly, someone then walks right accros the shot so you cannot see exactly how he makes contact with Mr Tomlinson, but you do see (and timed exactly to coincide with that one movement of the officer) Mr Tomlinson then thrown forward and to the floor.

One single movement from the officer before Mr Tomlinson falls. You don't see the officer swing out and then draw back before moving forward again as you'd expect if he'd first hit Mr Tomlinson with a baton and then shoved him.

Now, back to the original footage and again it's quite clear that the baton is held vertically and above Mr Tomlinson's shoulder at the time that the officer pushed him in the back. From the reaction of Mr Tomlinson - the simple mechanics of how he is pushed forward - it is clear that force was around the level of his shoulder blades and not around his legs. It is clear that the actual baton does not come into contact with him.

As I said before there is not the slightest bit of reaction from Mr Tomlinson prior to what is obviously the push, so all that together says very clearly to me that these reports of him first being struck with a baton and _then_ pushed are simply not correct - the video evidence when examined properly disproves that.

The Channel 4 footage shows just one single movement from the officer and while it looks like he is swinging his baton I think that's just the natural movement that would result from the mov into the pushing action, and then the Guardian footage goes on to clearly show that in that single movement of the officer (the push) the baton doesn't strike Mr Tomlinson at all.

That's the way I see the video evidence and I'd say that discredits and brings into question any of the 'witness' evidence that suggests the officer hit him with the baton. Now really, I can't go into any more detail or explain how I see it any clearer than that. People are obviously going to make their own minds up but I hope I've at least managed to bring a more objective and analytical approach to it. Perhaps you can take my arguments on board and take a closer look at it yourself.

But what I won't argue is that the officer did push him bloody hard with a real lunge forward into his back. Whether there was justification for that or not is hard to decide from a couple of video clips a few seconds long. The clip shows no history, no context and nothing that lead up to that snippet of time. Making judgements on the basis of such limited evidence is very questionable. I'm not making judgements nor even particularly defending the officer's actions - all I'm doing is trying to introduce a bit of context into the debate and correcting what I can see to be clear misinterpretations and gross and deliberate exagerations of the video evidence. I don't know enough about it to judge, and quite frankly, neither do any of you either.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

i didnt even read the rant in support of this thug from mark ( red TT ) serving policeman i believe, it has gone from someone who " why was he there if he was not a protester / rioter " ,( cant tell the difference !! ), " two handed push in the back ", " cant see any batton strike " !!! , every thing you have said has subsequently been discredited, we want impartiality not biased arrogant support of this uniformed thug ..... your cohort has since been suspended !!!! ( temporarilly with full pay no doubt )


----------



## Colinthecop (Jan 2, 2008)

I see some more pics have appeared of this man 'trying to get home' when he walked into a riot. :roll:

Allegedly refusing to get out of the way of a carrier as the driver shouts at him,










and 3mins later another encounter with Police, 1hour and 20mins before the video'd one.










As someone apparently living in a homeless hostel in central London, you'd think he'd know some better ways home when this was going on.


----------



## garvin (May 7, 2002)

Mark Davies said:


> ......... What the Channel 4 footage shows is the police officer lunging forward, and you can see he does that with both arms reaching out. Of course, and frustratingly, someone then walks right accros the shot so you cannot see exactly how he makes contact with Mr Tomlinson, but you do see (and timed exactly to coincide with that one movement of the officer) Mr Tomlinson then thrown forward and to the floor.
> 
> One single movement from the officer before Mr Tomlinson falls. You don't see the officer swing out and then draw back before moving forward again as you'd expect if he'd first hit Mr Tomlinson with a baton and then shoved him......


Well, I wouldn't want you as a witness in court! Your description is clearly a load of old tosh to put it mildly ........... and from someone who is, perhaps, supposedly trained to be a bit more observant and objective than the next man. I suggest you watch the C4 video again but a bit more carefully. The officer clearly puts his right foot forward and then, almost crouching, aims a side swinging baton blow forward - his left arm extending, his body rotating left to right and his right arm coming backwards, just as you would expect of such a blow. Granted you can't see if it makes contact but you can just see him then begin to move forward where he manages to shove Tomlinson - two clear movements with Tomlinson falling forward in time with the second movement. No way does the officer lunge forward with both arms extended in a single movement - this is just pure fabrication and not in line with the evidence of the video clip.

There is also a lot of speculation about what Tomlinson may or may not have said to the police and also about his actions prior to the incident - but it is all just speculation with no particular hard evidence to support such assertions. However, even if Tomlinson was moving too slowly for the likes of the police and may have had a verbal interchange with some officers it, to me, in no way justifies what I see as an unnecessary and cowardly assault on a non-threatening member of the public who was clearly not a protester.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

and now a WOMAN !!!!!!!!!!!! what next ?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Colinthecop (Jan 2, 2008)

My money is on a small child.... or maybe someone in a wheelchair.

That'd be newsworthy.... :roll:

So what if it's a woman....? I tell you, i'd rather fight a bloke any day of the week than fight a woman. Don't let their size kid you. Women just don't play fair... and have really sharp nails. When they're wound up, they need to be avoided at all costs.

:lol:


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

roddy said:


> and now a WOMAN !!!!!!!!!!!!


Have you actually watched the video? The sex of the person is completely irrelevant - she's wielding what looks like an aerosol and is constantly going towards him shouting 'scum', even after being warned several times to go away. The video shows he is getting it from all angles, and I don't blame him 1 bit for taking the actions he did. That woman was there with one objective in mind, to cause problems with the police!

No doubt though the officer will be made a scapegoat by the left wing fraternity, resulting in an innocent man losing his job.

The woman I despise most in left wing politics has now gotten involved, Shami Chakrabarti. Her views alone is tantamount to what is wrong with this country's political correctness. The left wing media coverage/promotion of these so called incidents have sickened me. It's no wonder this country is in such a mess.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Colinthecop said:


> My money is on a small child.... or maybe someone in a wheelchair.
> 
> That'd be newsworthy.... :roll:
> 
> ...


Make it a black muslim child with learning difficulties.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> Colinthecop said:
> 
> 
> > My money is on a small child.... or maybe someone in a wheelchair.
> ...


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jampott said:


> Make it a gingerhaired, black, homosexual, muslim child with learning difficulties.


That'll be the policeman covered. What about the victim?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

rustyintegrale said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > Make it a gingerhaired, black, homosexual, muslim child with learning difficulties.
> ...


An aspergic vegetarian with multiple food allergies and attention deficit disorder?


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

garyc said:


> rustyintegrale said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


That'll do it... :lol:


----------



## Colinthecop (Jan 2, 2008)

roddy said:


> and now a WOMAN !!!!!!!!!!!! what next ?????????!!!!!!!!!!!!


Not just a woman, but a woman with a plan....

*The woman struck by a policeman at the G20 protests demanded compensation last night - saying she had been left 'black and blue'

Dramatic photographs show Miss Fisher shouting and swearing at the sergeant.

Yesterday Miss Fisher, who has faced shoplifting allegations in the past , said: 'I had gone to protest about climate change. That's my main thing. I really love animals and that's what I'm worried about.

The policeman pushed me and I pushed him back.

Last night Miss Fisher was negotiating a lucrative newspaper deal through her agent Max Clifford. She wanted £50,000 for her story after a video of her being hit was posted on YouTube. *


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

and i hope she gets every penny to tell the true story of the behaviour of these uniformed thugs at these demonstrations


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

roddy said:


> and i hope she gets every penny to tell the true story of the behaviour of these uniformed thugs at these demonstrations


I have to ask - do you honestly & genuinely believe what you just wrote in that sentence?

You clearly have a very deep hatred for our Police force (and British morality as a whole) - have you had a bad experience in the past that goes some way in explaining your oh so irrational view that blanks out the _complete _story? A view that now goes as far to say; a left-wing violence inciting person who was at the protests with one aim in mind (to cause trouble) is entitled to use the media scum that is "Max Clifford" to exploit and make money from a story that will be based on nothing but lies and propaganda?!?

I'm staggered that you can be so naive, but also very saddened that somebody can think like that when the video & pictures (with sound) clearly show her _true _actions and reasoning for being there in the first place.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

kmpowell said:


> roddy said:
> 
> 
> > and i hope she gets every penny to tell the true story of the behaviour of these uniformed thugs at these demonstrations
> ...


I took Roddy's post to be one of sarcasm?


----------



## kmpowell (May 6, 2002)

garyc said:


> kmpowell said:
> 
> 
> > roddy said:
> ...


Take a look at his previous posts in this thread - I think he actually means/believes it. :?


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

....Oh :?


----------



## Colinthecop (Jan 2, 2008)

I have a similar view on Plumbers...


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

So... back to the original subject.

A second post-mortem seems to suggest death was caused by an abdominal bleed, rather than a heart attack. Which raises the question, "is anyone going to haul the original coronor / pathologist out, and have him explain his original findings?".

But it also puts the circumstances in a completely different light, as Mr T now appears to have died from INJURIES SUSTAINED rather than a predisposed CONDITION.

I understand the officer concerned has been spoken to under caution for manslaughter. If the facts show that he caused the death of Mr T, regardless of anything else, he should have the book thrown at him.

I still fear, however, that despite having more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world, nobody will ever truly know how Mr T sustained his fatal injuries, and there will always be reasonable doubt that the blows struck on camera were actually responsible.

What a fucking mess.


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

jampott said:


> despite having more CCTV cameras than anywhere else in the world, nobody will ever truly know how Mr T sustained his fatal injuries


How odd.

It only takes one of them to convict me for speeding and it's an automatic offence. If I wish to contest it I have to risk a lot to do so...

F*ck the police. F*ck the government. They're all control freaks. They were probably beaten at school. :roll:

Cheers

rich


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

language Timothy


----------



## rustyintegrale (Oct 1, 2006)

wallsendmag said:


> language Timothy


Oh for god's sake. Why don't you get your priorities right instead of sitting there treating us like children?


----------



## mighTy Tee (Jul 10, 2002)

Just seen this bloody woman saying "If she had been asked politely......" just like she is miss fuckin innocent

The Beeb show her giving it large and waving her arms provocatively, there was no way she was going to going to turn round and say "certainly officer".

IMO she got what she deserved and should think herself lucky she lives in a democracy where she has a right to peaceful demonstration. However she does not have the right to riot. I know people who were working in the city that day and were terrorised (some of their colleagues were pelted with eggs and flour when they left their office) by the mob. These were not peaceful demonstrators but rioters who would happily have looted and probably burnt city offices incinerating the workers alive.


----------



## TT_Broonster (Jan 28, 2007)

mighTy Tee said:


> *Just seen this bloody woman saying "If she had been asked politely......" just like she is miss fuckin innocent*
> 
> The Beeb show her giving it large and waving her arms provocatively, there was no way she was going to going to turn round and say "certainly officer".
> 
> IMO she got what she deserved and should think herself lucky she lives in a democracy where she has a right to peaceful demonstration. However she does not have the right to riot. I know people who were working in the city that day and were terrorised (some of their colleagues were pelted with eggs and flour when they left their office) by the mob. These were not peaceful demonstrators but rioters who would happily have looted and probably burnt city offices incinerating the workers alive.


Beat me to it! Any kind of sympathy I may have had for her - even though it was a very small amount - completely disappeared when she uttered those words when being interviewed.


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

rustyintegrale said:


> wallsendmag said:
> 
> 
> > language Timothy
> ...


Maybe if you didn't act likr children :roll:


----------



## fut1a (Dec 28, 2006)

It only takes one of them to convict me for speeding and it's an automatic offence. If I wish to contest it I have to risk a lot to do so...

F*ck the police. F*ck the government. They're all control freaks. They were probably beaten at school. :roll:

Cheers

rich [/quote]

Couldn't agree more.

I don't agree with protesters baiting the police, and I don't agree that the police can do what they like. There are always bad apples in any society, workforce or whatever. The problem is they give the majority a bad name. My experience with the police is most are descent normal human beings, some think...i have a uniform on now and the rest of the force behind me...so i'm hard, and some think they are god almighty. We should not make the mistake of judging things without all of the facts, and we should not make the mistake of judging everyone by the minorities actions, police and protesters alike.


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

jampott said:


> So... back to the original subject.
> 
> A second post-mortem seems to suggest death was caused by an abdominal bleed, rather than a heart attack. Which raises the question, "is anyone going to haul the original coronor / pathologist out, and have him explain his original findings?".
> 
> ...


SUSTAINED INUURIES? Did they actually establish that his stomach was not bleeding prior to this incident? 
He looked drank or stoned before being hit. He looked weird and perhaps already ill.

It is strange that someone gets hit in the back of his legs and a simple fall makes his stomach to bleed..don't you think?

Having said all this the police in this country is the very inmidating at times.


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

vlastan said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > So... back to the original subject.
> ...


Says a Greek :roll:


----------



## TTCool (Feb 7, 2005)

kmpowell said:


> The woman I despise most in left wing politics has now gotten involved, Shami Chakrabarti. Her views alone is tantamount to what is wrong with this country's political correctness.


Wholeheartedly agree.

Joe


----------



## Wallsendmag (Feb 12, 2004)

To see realy scary policing try going to a football match in France or Italy , really frightening.


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

wallsendmag said:


> To see realy scary policing try going to a football match in France or Italy , really frightening.


Or Poland Now that is scary


----------



## vlastan (May 6, 2002)

jonah said:


> vlastan said:
> 
> 
> > jampott said:
> ...


???
I can have a well rounded view as I lived in at least two countries and travelled to so many more


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

" says a greek " !!!! WTF kind of a comment is that !!!!!!!!! [smiley=bomb.gif]


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

vlastan said:


> jampott said:
> 
> 
> > So... back to the original subject.
> ...


You may like to note that I purposely didn't make any claims as to where or how his injuries were sustained. Simply that he died from an injury, rather than a heart condition.


----------



## jonah (Aug 17, 2002)

roddy said:


> " says a greek " !!!! WTF kind of a comment is that !!!!!!!!! [smiley=bomb.gif]


Vlastan is Greek :roll: and don't try and turn it into something it's not :?

I've seen Greek Police first hand dealing with similar situation and I know which force I'd rather be hit with a batton by.


----------



## roddy (Dec 25, 2008)

to "Jonah " ;;;; apolg. for missunderstanding,,,, " Vlastan " may very well be Greek, i am not to know that, this is an open forum and your comment was taken as read, i am certainlly not trying to turn anything into something that it is not,,,, i leave that to others....


----------

