http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
In this video you can clearly see the man deliberately walking slowly to obstruct the police.
sickening police violence
- Thread starter newbiejim
- Start date
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault
In this video you can clearly see the man deliberately walking slowly to obstruct the police.
He is where he is because a thug assaulted him, furthermore the thug showed no common sense eh?
No. In the video, you can clearly see him walking slowly. Whether he is obstructing the police is conjecture. If he was, then whether he was doing it deliberately is conjecture. If he was doing it deliberately, you've yet to show that the policeman was right to push him over from behind.
That is your opinion. Of course this can be argued.
I see a man walking slowly away from the police in the direction they appeared to want him to go. I dont know what was said to him before this, i dont know the "feeling" of the situation at the time. Neither do you.
All the police appeared calm and normal, they were certainly not acting as if this man was a threat or indeed that they were under any real and immediate other threat.
If the man was calm and non violent, knowing he was not a troublemaker would he feel the need to run away? he maybe felt that the police knew he was harmless and so did not feel the need to leg it.
In my opinion if he was trying to deliberately provoke the police then he went about it in a very odd manner.
Is walking away with your back to the riot squad with your hands in your pockets really the work of a nasty protester trying to annoy the police? i suspect not.
And in any case, even if he was deliberately doing it to annoy the police, the blow with a baton was not justified. He should have been taken to one side and cautioned or arrested... NOT hit hard with a baton and pushed to the ground.
Last edited:
![[DOD]Asprilla](/styles/overclockers/avatars/8.png){kind=avatar}
Soldato
- Joined
- 10 Nov 2003
- Posts
- 14,033
- Location
- Surrey, by the river
In terms of violent protest, you know what happened in London that day but you don't know what was happening at that time in that street.
Again, you say obstructing, I equally say that he could be trying to get out of their way. A large number of innocent people were caught up in the protests because they were told to dress down for work and got sheparded by the police into the protest areas. Witness statements say that he had already been turned away from several routes by the police. Maybe he didn't want to head towards the process and was hoping that the police would just over take him if he walked slowly.
It's conjecture, but it's just as valid as your assumption.
Finally, I think you'll find that the police presence was very visible on that day; the police were not hiding round corners, because in general London was remarkably quiet and the protests weren't actually that violent something supported by the fact there there were very few arrests and very few people treated for any injuries.
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK..._Seeing_Video_Of_Police_Push_Father_To_Ground
So now we have evidence that the dead guy might have been drinking.
So now we have evidence that the dead guy might have been drinking.
yes that oft used tactic that strikes fear into opponents 'deliberately walking slowly', jeez how mental do u need to be?
No I can't.
I can see a man (who turns out has health problems) standing by some bikes looking down the street towards police. When the police approach he starts to walk away calmly. He is nudged a couple of times and then one policeman uses excessive force to push him to the ground whilst he had his hands in his pockets.
If you see any different then you are either a)stupid, or b)the policeman who pushed him.
Possibly, yes. We'll have to wait for the coroner to confirm that. Even then, it only mitigates a manslaughter charge, not any charges for assault or battery.
Last edited:
dammit, thats it then case closed, he deserved to be assaulted and subsequently die
Thug? Assaulted?
Maybe I should jump on the 'Millwall' fan bandwagon.
The police officer in not a thug...nor did he assault the guy.
The bloke failed to follow instructions, was hit on the legs with a baton and then was shoved out the way. Which is what the officer would have been trained and instructed to do.
If the officer had hit him in the face or continued to hit him whilst he was on the ground then, yes you would be looking at police brutality and assault.
The bloke had his hands in his pockets and so he failed to arrest his fall. Hence the reason his fall looks heavy and yes he would have been sore from it.
HE is not blind, nor is he stupid enough not to relise the situation he is in. FFS he has a line of riot police with dogs advancing towards him and he still doesn't make an effort to get out the way.......
[DOD]Asprilla;13843919 said:
No it's not valid because your conjecture isn't a reasonable account of his actions and is not based on any evidence. The evidence is as presented in that video, there is no other reasonable conclusion other than he was deliberately obstructing police. This is based on the following:
1) He was walking slowly in the middle of the street despite a large group of police officers with dogs and riot gear marching up behind him.
2) He continued walking slowly even after he'd been "tickled" by one of the police dogs
3) At no point did he stop and attempt to reason with the police. At no point did he appear distressed which would be the normal behaviour for someone unexpectedly caught in that situation. It is inconceivable that he would have continued to walk slowly down the middle of the street in the path of police unless his actions were deliberate.
Unless someone can come up with a reasonable account of the man's actions then it is beyond reasonable doubt that he was deliberately obstructing police. This will be accepted by the courts if necessary.
Again all in your opinion. To say that your reasonable conclusion is the only correct one is rather arrogant.
If we decide to exclude all other facts that have come to light and view this ONLY from the video we can actually see... i see a man who was calm and non threatening, walking in the direction that would appear to be the one the police would like him to. He is then lashed out at by a riot officer for no apparant reason and falls to the floor. The other officers do not seem unduely concerned with the action of the man.
That is what the video shows, nothing else can be concluded without using other facts that are not shown on the video.
And again i will say that even IF he was acting in the way you describe, that does not justify the actions of the officer. He should have taken the man by the arm and arrested him. If the man had fought back THEN he could use the force he showed, but not just because he felt like it.
You ask for a reasonable account and i have given one previously. He could have been a man who saw himself as no threat, who had already walked near the police and had shown himself to be no threat. He then thinks the police are happy at his presence and is following instructions. If they wanted him to move much faster he thinks they will tell him so, so from his point of view there is no danger or urgency as there is no violence happening in the vicinity. That is a perfectly reasonable version also.
Last edited:
watch the beginning of the video, you see him standing next to the bikes. sees the policemen moving to the street, and moves away probably expecting them to move past, as i would expect, he's not demonstrating he's minding his own business watching whats going one. One of the dog handlers pokes him, may be saying move along.
The policeman that pushes him, actually jogs up to him and goes AROUND the dog and gives him a two handed shove.
If he hadn't take his hands out of his pockets to cushion his fall, he would have smacked his head on the pavement, causing cuts etc, It would Then be a very different story if he was bleeding after the push..
Soldato
- Joined
- 22 Oct 2004
- Posts
- 9,087
- Location
- Berkland
Im amazed that the video exists as it clearly has police officers in it. Surely they would have confiscated it along with arresting the person filming!! Stupid laws.
In my experience being drunk makes it more likely that people will become obstinate and experience a false sense of bravado.
We don't know how much he had to drink (if anything), only that someone who claims to have treated him after he collapsed said he smelt of alcohol. At no point in the video do I see a man staggering down the road under the effects of excessive alcohol intake (watch Street Wars on Sky if you need to see examples of this).
Thug? Assaulted?
The police officer in not a thug...nor did he assault the guy.
You are wrong, the shove was violent and inappropriate. Again, the police have also lied, FACT.
Soldato
- Joined
- 13 Mar 2006
- Posts
- 6,713
I guess that depends upon whether protestors did, or whether those claims by the police are just to deflect blame from themselves for the man's death. Let's hope there is ample CCTV evidence.