sickening police violence

mattyj1085 · 19 Apr 2009 at 00:11

It didnt exactly look like the police were chilling out having their lunch break when he walked in front of them though. There may have been a clear area but they would have still been on high alert from bricks, fists and whatever else flying their way.

I wouldnt want some plonker dawdling in front of me when there was some violent protesting going on accross the street. He was simply out to try and provoke them / things

JBuk · 19 Apr 2009 at 00:32

mattyj1085 said:
It didnt exactly look like the police were chilling out having their lunch break when he walked in front of them though. There may have been a clear area but they would have still been on high alert from bricks, fists and whatever else flying their way.

I wouldnt want some plonker dawdling in front of me when there was some violent protesting going on accross the street. He was simply out to try and provoke them / things

I'm not sure what point you are making

Are you saying that if an innocent person walks infront of officers who are on alert hes a fool because they may beat him up? This is exactly why the officer is in the ****

nero120 · 19 Apr 2009 at 01:24

JBuk said:
I'm not sure what point you are making

Are you saying that if an innocent person walks infront of officers who are on alert hes a fool because they may beat him up? This is exactly why the officer is in the ****

He obstructed police during a time of heightened alert. He got push and wrapped round the legs, hardly 'beaten up'. Was he bleeding? Was he unconcious? Nope, he was moaning at them after the fact.

The crap some people are spouting in this thread is hilarious. One thing the police are NOT guilty of is brutality against these anti-capitalist fools. The irony is most of the people moaning about the police now were nowhere to be seen when Ian Blair was running the show, or when Cressida Dick pressided over the murder of an innocent man.

Get your priorities right.

SexyGreyFox · 19 Apr 2009 at 01:33

mattyj1085 said:
Tomlinson was blatently not just walking home, what sort of fool slowly walks home in front of a load of police with dogs when there is a heated protest / riot?

What if he was walking slowly because he'd already got an abdominal haemorrhage?

lunarwolf · 19 Apr 2009 at 02:06

unfortunate the guy died. But I wouldnt blame the cops for his death; however that cop was out of order for striking, pushing him in the back. Wether he was there to protest or not is not the point. He posed no threat to the police quite clearly (in fact the other officers were fairly calm except for that one), they weren't being attacked by him (or anyone else in the crowd that were far enough), and you can't justify pushing some1 from behind if he is just walking (even slowly). That cop should get a warning on his record so he doesnt do it again. (no need to jail the cop or fire him - but a stern warning esp. if he wants to be a riot police he needs to learn to be a bit more lucid in what constitutes a threat - have seen calmer police when they get stuff thrown at them.)

newbiejim · 19 Apr 2009 at 10:17

mattyj1085 said:
It didnt exactly look like the police were chilling out having their lunch break when he walked in front of them though. There may have been a clear area but they would have still been on high alert from bricks, fists and whatever else flying their way.

I wouldnt want some plonker dawdling in front of me when there was some violent protesting going on accross the street. He was simply out to try and provoke them / things

Great post, pile conjecture upon biased opinion, great contribution.

newbiejim · 19 Apr 2009 at 10:19

SlyReaper said:
I do find it difficult to believe that a policeman would just randomly attack a passer-by who was minding his own business.

Are you really so naive?, they simply assume by the fact that you are in the vicinity that you are fair game to be unreasonably treated.

newbiejim · 19 Apr 2009 at 10:21

lunarwolf said:
That cop should get a warning on his record so he doesnt do it again. (no need to jail the cop or fire him - but a stern warning esp. if he wants to be a riot police he needs to learn to be a bit more lucid in what constitutes a threat - have seen calmer police when they get stuff thrown at them.)

Yes a stern warning should do it :rolleyes:

JBuk · 19 Apr 2009 at 10:33

nero120 said:
He obstructed police during a time of heightened alert. He got push and wrapped round the legs, hardly 'beaten up'. Was he bleeding? Was he unconcious? Nope, he was moaning at them after the fact.

The crap some people are spouting in this thread is hilarious. One thing the police are NOT guilty of is brutality against these anti-capitalist fools. The irony is most of the people moaning about the police now were nowhere to be seen when Ian Blair was running the show, or when Cressida Dick pressided over the murder of an innocent man.

Get your priorities right.

Why don't you read what I actually wrote and understand it before getting on your high horse.

Seems to me you are the one spouting the crap.

singist · 19 Apr 2009 at 11:55

Tute said:
So let me understand this.

- Leaders of the world in a building. (something like 5 miles away as the crow flies and the day after Mr. Tomlinson dies.)
- People show up and start protesting/rioting about nothing in particular, just general issues. No riots took place; not seen any reports of riots.
- Police move in. Kettling peaceful protesters.
- People start rioting and generally being plonkers. NO rioting; especially where Mr Tomlinson was when pushed.
- Force gets used. Disproportionate force.
- People complain about force getting used. Innocent people complain about excessive and disproportionate force.
- Cops get in deep poo-poo. We'll see, but given what I've seen, they should.

And apparantly some bloke who "just happened" to be "just walking" nearby (walking home) gets knocked over (violently pushed over) and dies, and some other woman gets a slap for being lippy and sells the story to the rags for £££? Wow! you actually got something correct.

Seriously the general public should be ashamed of themselves. (so should people who post the sort of creative fiction like you have.) At least protest over something with a point. Like tax. Or the excessive sleaze present at government level. No no. Instead we get this.

I can't find a facepalm picture big enough to represent how I feel towards the protestors.

You don't say!

PikeyPriest · 19 Apr 2009 at 12:22

dmpoole said:
What if he was walking slowly because he'd already got an abdominal haemorrhage?

I don't think walking slowly with your hands in your pocket is a classic symptom of abdominal haemorrhage

Nice unfounded speculation for a pre-existing injury though! To cause his fast death (minutes from the video), the haemorrhage would have to be massive, which unfortunately for the officer makes his actions potentially fatal in the mans death.

This would never have been even known about if the man hadn't died, but pre-existing risk factors or not if the fall *did* cause the haemorrhage the officer will have a lot to answer for.

Personally I feel the officer got highly unlucky, but then again if someone had poor judgement while driving or at work resulting in someone unintentional death, they could be charged with manslaughter aswell. We just have to wait until the trails happen later this year to learn more.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/17/ian-tomlinson-haemorrhage-doctor - Apologise if already posted

Glaucus · 19 Apr 2009 at 12:26

singist said:
You don't say!

like the rioting of smashing into the bank.

Have you thought that the injury could have come before this incident and is why he is walking slow and appears to be drunk.

There should be two parts to this case.

1) did the police officer follow guidelines
2) can they prove that the police officers actions caused that haemorrhage, I can see him getting stung on this one, although I can't see how they could prove it. Especially if claims about him being pushed and kicked by police earlier on are true.

int · 19 Apr 2009 at 12:26

singist said:
You don't say!

No riot?

ri·ot (rt)
n.
1. A wild or turbulent disturbance created by a large number of people.
2. Law A violent disturbance of the public peace by three or more persons assembled for a common purpose.

I realise this is the only incident photographed, however if Police don't act on these people, or show protesters that force will be used, how is a crowd supposed to be controlled?

People have said that the force being used is excessive, however only a police officer could tell you what it's like in there trying to keep control of a protesting group who are there for a fight, not a protest. The majority of "protesters" seen at this event spent most of their time facing off with the police, not protesting

If the police have cordoned them off into pre-designated areas, what is the fuss? Turn up, voice your opinions then go home.

SexyGreyFox · 19 Apr 2009 at 12:41

newbiejim said:
Yes a stern warning should do it

You seem to be the only person in the country that actually knows what happened.
Can I please have your version of the incident because you've already made your mind up on page 1.

newbiejim · 19 Apr 2009 at 17:20

dmpoole said:
You seem to be the only person in the country that actually knows what happened.

Pointless erroneous accusation.

dmpoole said:
Can I please have your version of the incident because you've already made your mind up on page 1.

I cant for the life of me grasp the logic/meaning of that sentence. It kinda nearly makes sense then just loses coherence.

SexyGreyFox · 19 Apr 2009 at 18:02

newbiejim said:
I cant for the life of me grasp the logic/meaning of that sentence. It kinda nearly makes sense then just loses coherence.

Apologies for my bad English, we can't all be perfect.

Can I have your expert opinion on the incident and the timeline because it looks like you've already made your mind up since page 1?

newbiejim · 19 Apr 2009 at 18:21

dmpoole said:
Apologies for my bad English, we can't all be perfect.

Can I have your expert opinion on the incident and the timeline because it looks like you've already made your mind up since page 1?

I`m not an expert, my opinion as you must be aware is clearly documented in this thread. As is yours :rolleyes:

SexyGreyFox · 19 Apr 2009 at 19:02

They've just shown another 3 clips on the News of police behaviour at the G20 'riots' that are dubious

Von Smallhausen · 19 Apr 2009 at 19:06

dmpoole said:
They've just shown another 3 clips on the News of police behaviour at the G20 'riots' that are dubious

Unedited I assume ?

Oh, wait .....

JBuk · 19 Apr 2009 at 20:06

An article I saw on the news last night showed that some of the officers on duty at the protests had their id numbers hidden and also wore balaclavas, I can't think of any legitimate reasons for that, if anyone cares to enlighten me?.