sickening police violence

richb_83 said:
Its a riot officer you cannot compare joe public with a trained riot officer.

I that situation the officer is there to contain a riot/protest. As I've said before instructions weren't follow and so force was used.
Click to expand...

Actually you can compare them because they are both subject to exactly the same laws (with some noteable exceptions. Also, as the only policeman posting in this thread has noted, this isn't what a policeman would have been trained to do.

It's not a criminal offence to not follow the instructions of an officer, as far as I'm aware.
 
I'm also more inclined to believe the non police witnesses when it comes to the treatment the guy received:

Taken from the previous link:

Another demonstrator had already called 999 and was getting medical advice from the ambulance dispatcher. "Four police with two police medics came. They told her [the first aider] to 'move along'.", said Peter Apps. "Then they pushed her forcibly away from him. They refused to listen to her [the first aider] when she tried to explain his condition."

"The police surrounded the collapsed man. I was standing with the person who'd called 999. The ambulance dispatcher wanted to talk to the police, the phone was being held out to them, but the police refused."

Another witness, Elias Stoakes, added "we didn't see them [the police] perform CPR."

All of the witnesses deny the allegation that many missiles were thrown.



So not only do they assault the guy and fail to help him at the time, they fail to help him after his collapse too and then concoct stories to that were it not for the video, would probably be believed by all.
 
Bald-Eagle22 said:
On his way home my arse , As I understand it Mr Tomlinson lives in South London , WHAT THE HELL WAS HE DOING IN CORNHILL / BANK IF HE WAS ON HIS WAY HOME , MONUMENT STATION IS NEAR ENOUGH ON LONDON BRIDGE AND CORNHILL/BANK OF ENGLAND IS NORTH OF THAT ?
Click to expand...

If you'd read the articles I linked to, you'd see that he had taken an alternate route home because his usual route was blocked by police. This was confirmed by the IPCC:


The IPCC said on Monday that Mr Tomlinson was blocked from passing through a police cordon as he attempted to walk home from work helping a newspaper vendor at Monument station.

He was captured on several CCTV cameras walking up King William Street where he was confronted by uniformed officers shortly before 7.30pm last Wednesday.
​

Source.


Unfortunately Mr Tomlinson's normal route home took him up King William Street and straight past the Bank of England, where last Wednesday night thousands of anti-capitalist protesters were demonstrating against the next day's G20 summit.

It appears that Mr Tomlinson was diverted by police, who had "corralled" hundreds of protesters into a pen around the Bank, and found himself a block further north on Cornhill, caught up in another part of the demonstration. A video obtained by The Guardian shows the moment when he was struck by a baton-wielding officer in a nearby alley.
​

Source.

So it was the police who diverted him towards Cornhill.

On my way home my arse , he was looking for trouble or wanted to be inlvoled in the demonstration .
Click to expand...

What a load of cobblers. If he'd been looking for trouble, he wouldn't have accepted the alternate route; he would have stuck to his usual route and had a scrap with the cops there. But he didn't.

I still satnd by what I have said from the video evidence , the first digg from the officer with the dog was 100% justified to claer the sreet , the second officer with the riot gear who hit him with the batton was not and he needs to answer for his actions .
Click to expand...

A single man cannot block an entire street, so there was no need to "clear" it in the first place. The actions of both officers were unjustified.
 
Last edited:
newbiejim said:
And WHY has the thug not come forward?, surely as a police officer he should know he is obliged to do this?, hmm maybe we will cut them some more slack eh?
Click to expand...

Because the incident is under investigation by the IPCC? Or would you prefer all trials and investigations to be done by media instead?
 
singist said:
So not only do they assault the guy and fail to help him at the time, they fail to help him after his collapse too and then concoct stories to that were it not for the video, would probably be believed by all.
Click to expand...

So why should we automatically believe the couple of demonstrators there who apparently witnessed this over the Police? Both sides have an agenda here.
 
scorza said:
I'm just going off the evidence presented to me - the video. The emphasis is on you to prove that he was assaulted beforehand (and a few witness statements from a bunch of anti-capitalist rioters isn't proof) and that this somehow caused him to obstruct police.

A bit of thought is required here people, not just mindlessly jumping on the OMG Daily Mail police brutality bandwagon!
Click to expand...

It's not just a few anti-capitalist rioters though is it? There numerous witness with date and time stamped photos prior to the video we have seen including this one:

One witness, Anna Branthwaite, a photographer, described how, in the minutes before the video was shot, she saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street.

"A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him," she said.

"It wasn't just pushing him – he'd rushed him. He went to the floor and he did actually roll. That was quite noticeable.

"It was the force of the impact. He bounced on the floor. It was a very forceful knocking down from behind. The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor.

"So it wasn't just that the officer had pushed him – it became an assault.

"And then the officer picked him up from the back, continued to walk or charge with him, and threw him.

"He was running and stumbling. He didn't turn and confront the officer or anything like that."

The witness accounts contradict the official version of events given by police.
Click to expand...

Also the police claimed at first they never touched him which has now shown to be lie.
 
I'm sympathetic to the police, but their habit of regularly lying and hoping that evidence to the contrary doesn't emerge is quite a disgusting attitude for public servants to have.

'Honest, we didn't touch him.'

'Oh, does slamming someone into the ground count as touching? I didn't realise, honest'
 
Wicksta said:
So why should we automatically believe the couple of demonstrators there who apparently witnessed this over the Police? Both sides have an agenda here.
Click to expand...

You are at liberty to believe whatever you like pal but as I said, I know who I'd believe first and it wouldn't be an honourable officer of the law.
 
RDM said:
Because the incident is under investigation by the IPCC? Or would you prefer all trials and investigations to be done by media instead?
Click to expand...

I think the point being made is that the IPCC is still trying to identify the officer responsible. He could make this a lot easier for everyone concerned by identifying himself.
 
Greebo said:
It's not just a few anti-capitalist rioters though is it? There numerous witness with date and time stamped photos prior to the video we have seen including this one:
Click to expand...

Did you watch the video because if you did you can see that some of those quotes are lies.

It was the force of the impact. He bounced on the floor. It was a very forceful knocking down from behind. The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor
Click to expand...

Which is a complete fabrication looking at the video.

Evangelion said:
I think the point being made is that the IPCC is still trying to identify the officer responsible. He could make this a lot easier for everyone concerned by identifying himself.
Click to expand...

It is possible that he has by now, but he probably wouldn't do it by going to the Guardian...
 
latercomer2 said:
OH (medical) took one look at the video and said the guy is almost certainly having medical issues at that point.
Click to expand...

Medical as in? How can she/he tell the difference between having medical issues to being drunk or just being a pain in the arse? He doesn't seem to be showing any symptoms of heart attack by that point unless I'm missing something.
 
scorza said:
So now we have evidence that the dead guy might have been drinking.
Click to expand...

Even if true what difference does that make? the last time I checked police weren't given the power to physically assault anyone found to be walking the street whilst under the influence. Although with the amount of acceptance shown in this thread it probably won't be long until they are given the power.

I would hope that most other police would condemn the actions of this policeman, if not then we're employing the wrong people to "uphold the law".
 
Medical as in doctor.

I think given the context that the guy died shortly afterwards from a heart attack and the other info like he was on his way home etc. According to OH the guy is unresponsive and appears confused/dazed which are classic symptoms of someone who has serious heart issues. Or something like that.

To be honest I dont think the policeman should have hit him from the back regardless but have no problem with them dealing with the scum protestors in general. They have to put up with a lot of **** and then get scrutinised on their response.
 
Rroff said:
.
the policeman was bang out of order and should be up on murder charges, if not then its a failure of justice he acted without due care of the public.
Click to expand...

apart from he died of natural causes. I think people are putting 2+2 together and getting 6. Bit overhanded, they should have just arrested him and put him in a cell for a few hours and given him a fine. But it had nothing to do with his death.

It certainly isn't brutality.
 
AcidHell2 said:
apart from he died of natural causes. I think people are putting 2+2 together and getting 6. Bit overhanded, they should have just arrested him and put him in a cell for a few hours and given him a fine. But it had nothing to do with his death.

It certainly isn't brutality.
Click to expand...

Conjecture. You're not the coroner, so it's not your job to say whether it contributed to his death.
 
What would they be arresting him for? What would they be fining him for? I don't see him breaking any laws. :confused:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom