He died just afterwards, there must have been something wrong with him surely?
sickening police violence
- Thread starter newbiejim
- Start date
He died just afterwards, there must have been something wrong with him surely?
He had a heart condition. A delayed reaction is not unusual.
Well if he was asked to move on (we can't hear the audio where they are..And he just down right ignored them for whatever reason, then I don't see why they can't move you along in other ways.
Depends if they where instructed to form a line on that 'corner' I guess...
Why would they want people behind them during quite possibly, what could have turned into a threatening riot.
It's completely irrelevant. He was free to walk there, free to protest there, free to walk slowly with his hands in his pocket. And free to expect NOT to be assaulted by an officer of the law.
Are you dense?.
Firstly, his heart attack can quite logically be linked to the trauma of being attacked in the middle of the street by a police officer (amidst the relative chaos of a group of officers quelling protestors).
Secondly, he's free to walk there, as slowly as he pleases. If in fact he was part of the protest then surely his peaceful demonstration is to be commended, not scorned.
Go back to bed.
Last edited:
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,769
- Location
- Staffordshire
He didn't need to be there for sure, and they definately didn't need to be so heavy on him. 50/50
Although it does look like the man was being obstructive ir doesn't look malicious. By the way the officers are acting it doesn't look like there was much provocation before this clip.
Why did one officer take it upon himself to lunge at him and the others didn't? Clearly he lost the plot. Surely a better way to remove him is have two or three officers aside and behind him to move him on more swiftly, which wouldn't have taken up much of their time. Aren't they trained to deal with crowd situations and this kind of behaviour from the public? This is a clear case of manslaughter and will be dealt with as such. Also, the 'police' didn't cause his death, one 'police officer' did.
Why did one officer take it upon himself to lunge at him and the others didn't? Clearly he lost the plot. Surely a better way to remove him is have two or three officers aside and behind him to move him on more swiftly, which wouldn't have taken up much of their time. Aren't they trained to deal with crowd situations and this kind of behaviour from the public? This is a clear case of manslaughter and will be dealt with as such. Also, the 'police' didn't cause his death, one 'police officer' did.
We'll, i'm going to go out now to deliberately get in the way of some police officers. If they tell me to stop i'll tell them I have a right to stop them doing their job and that they have no power to do anything to people causing trouble, no matter how small and insignificant that trouble may be.
What do you mean "he didn't need to be there"? He was trying to get home from work, the other ways he'd tried had been blocked by police and so he was going that way.
It's not 50/50 at all, it's 100% police brutality!
OcUK exclusive. Shock and horror, AJUK and Evangelion agree!
whether he needed to be there or not he had a right to be there and the right not to be assaulted
Associate
- Joined
- 8 Dec 2006
- Posts
- 1,299
- Location
- Bromley
Use some common sense the police are obviously trying to herd poeple away from the area.
I'm not interested in "If" statements. The fact of the matter is that he was just a harmless bloke walking home from work, and they chose to attack him. He was not obstructing them in any way at all.
It's always been my understanding that the police are not permitted to brutalise members of the public without legitimate cause. Did this change and nobody told me?
But they weren't forming a line on that corner. They were just walking in a straggled line. They didn't even form a police line when they stopped to admire their handiwork.
One guy who was clearly not taking part in the riot? One guy who was walking in the opposite direction? They could easily have stopped and asked the guy about his intentions; they could even have detained him if they'd had genuine concerns. But they didn't bother. Perhaps it didn't enter their tiny little brains.
I can't believe that you're even trying to justify the attack. It's just bizarre. Do you come from a 3rd world nation where this sort of thing is normal, perhaps?
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,769
- Location
- Staffordshire
No I don't think so. The street is wide, padestrianised and unless he was deaf and blind he knew there was trouble around him. Sense of self preservation should have suggested taking another route. It was at the very least in part his own responsibility.
I have no qualms with the over zealous police work though. That was bang out of order.
Associate
- Joined
- 5 Jul 2007
- Posts
- 1,293
In the article below, it says that witnesses saw the guy getting beat on by the officers just before the footage.
I am using common sense. And common sense tells me that there was no justification for this attack.
I appreciate that the concept of "unjustified violence" is completely alien to a Millwall fan, but please try to understand what it means. This is important.
Associate
- Joined
- 17 Jan 2004
- Posts
- 1,769
- Location
- Staffordshire
whether he needed to be there or not he had a right to be there and the right not to be assaulted
He had every right to be there. I'm addressing his own sense of self preservation which SHOULD have suggested he go elsewhere or take another route.
Do you mean the other routes that were being blocked by the police?