Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed by Pc

Skunkworks · 25 May 2011 at 10:59

Tefal said:
Does anyone else think it would be incredibly interesting to see in these kinds of stories what the effect on the public reaction would be if you changed the victim.

Ie;

black man
white woman
young attractive woman
old ugly woman
big muscley bloke
Muslim guy
old ww2 war veteran
chav
rapist
convicted paedophile

etc.

Indeed, or if a cop had got pushed and died by a member of public.

No1newts · 25 May 2011 at 11:05

Redman said:
I know I often go for a stroll in the middle of a riot.

Don't take the **** with riot police, do what you're told, and then they're not able to push you now are they.

This.

If he didn't want any bother he shouldn't have been in the middle of a riot. Poor decision in my opinion, will further hamstring the police and make them unwilling/unable to act. Then the next whine will be "WHY DIDZ THA POLIZ NOT HELP MMEEEEEE." Well hopefully they won't, hopefully they'll let the next riot you idiots start turn into a bloodbath with the lot of you "exercising you political rights" to kill hurt and destory things, hopefully hurting and destroying your own lives.

/rant off.

Burnsy2023 · 25 May 2011 at 11:08

Robbo said:
Yes, I agree. The police officer was stupid and heavy handed, but he isn't evil.

This is the camp I'm currently sat in. His actions had very profound consequences I'm sure he never expected. Consequences he will undoubtedly regret having to face.

Cupra · 25 May 2011 at 11:09

MrMoonX said:
if he gets convicted hes going to have a fun time in prison!

should make him show some remorse for the fact he acted like a thug, im sure many others in the met TSG and similar "riot squads" will now hopefully think twice before beating civilians and acting outside use of force law

if he gets convicted the uk will be short of police officers

i wouldnt want to be one knowing that someone who was putting me at risk by not letting me get to a croud quick enough cant even be shoved out the way or i could go to prison

collateral damage imo, riot police tell you to move then move dont dordel(sp) get a move on

at the worst the officer should lose there job nothing more tho

Participant · 25 May 2011 at 11:11

You can't reasonably forsee that you would kill someone by pushing them. The copper no doubt thought the guy was taking the mickey. Imo the copper should be let off, we can't have our 5-0 scared to use force.

Pate · 25 May 2011 at 11:34

Robbie G said:
You can't reasonably forsee that you would kill someone by pushing them. The copper no doubt thought the guy was taking the mickey. Imo the copper should be let off, we can't have our 5-0 scared to use force.

So that's your justification for the policeman using unwarranted and excessive force which DID lead to the man's death?

And in law, you take your victim as you find them, a pertinant case being R v Ruby IIRC.

Participant · 25 May 2011 at 11:45

kenmare said:
So that's your justification for the policeman using unwarranted and excessive force which DID lead to the man's death?

And in law, you take your victim as you find them, a pertinant case being R v Ruby IIRC.

But I don't think the force was unwarranted or particularly excessive. He found the victim dragging his feet to remove himself from the situation so pushed him hard to GTFO. The drunken bum then fell over and hurt himself fatally, nobody could have foreseen that.

Pate · 25 May 2011 at 11:50

Robbie G said:
But I don't think the force was unwarranted or particularly excessive. He found the victim dragging his feet to remove himself from the situation so pushed him hard to GTFO. The drunken bum then fell over and hurt himself fatally, nobody could have foreseen that.

Wow....

You describe him first as a "victim" then call him a "drunken bum", say he was "pushed hard to GTFO", then say he hurt himself fatally.

The ****? You don't think that's contradictory, and hard to justify?

He was a middle aged man who had committed no crime and you think it's acceptable for someone in an elevated position of power and responsibility to use what has been confirmed as excessive force for no real reason? Especially pertinant considering the individual policeman has been caught in aggressive and unwarranted attacks before?

Isthisreallife.jpg

majestyk · 25 May 2011 at 12:09

Robbo said:
Ridiculous. The poor guy might go to jail because he pushed someone deliberately obstructing a riot line.

Awesome.

The guy was walking AWAY from the officer when he was assaulted.

He even had his hands in his pockets. He posed no threat whatsoever to the police.

The Running Man · 25 May 2011 at 12:20

majestyk said:
The guy was walking AWAY from the officer when he was assaulted.

He even had his hands in his pockets. He posed no threat whatsoever to the police.

Agreed, that the police even said that they had no contact with him in the initial investigation means that head sshould surely roll.

Then they claimed they hadnt done anything to him, and the other policement deliberately obstructed the investigation by not stating that they had seen the assault. Now correct me if i am wrong, but shouldnt these men be put on trial for perversion of justice and also for being accomplices as they didnt actually try to stop the offending officer? (i was always told, if you are even watching a street fight, if you dont stop it you could be implicated?, was this not the case here?)

If it wasnt for the amateur footage that has presented such utterly damning evidence of the police heavyhandedness and overzealous abuse of power, would this case even have continued? They turn a blind eye, they look after their own, they will break the law to avoid

UK police service 'transparent', says Sir Hugh Orde
Britain's police service is "one of the most transparent" in the world, a senior officer has said.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13290195

You're Fired?

"We get it wrong now and again, and this case, as the commissioner has already said… was a matter of great regret to him that anybody had died in an operation in which he was responsible."

Well, of course it is a regret, but does he regret that someone needlessly lost their lives, or that the TV footage came out? I hope only the former and as i say, heads should be rolling about the entire circumstances of how this has been dealt with.

That is why you can never, ever, trust the police.

Burnsy2023 · 25 May 2011 at 12:24

The Running Man said:
That is why you can never, ever, trust the police.

Yes of course. So I take it the next time you're burgled or mugged you won't be calling the Police then?

The Running Man · 25 May 2011 at 12:25

The next time? There hasn't been a first time.

Participant · 25 May 2011 at 12:25

kenmare said:
Wow....

You describe him first as a "victim" then call him a "drunken bum", say he was "pushed hard to GTFO", then say he hurt himself fatally.

The ****? You don't think that's contradictory, and hard to justify?

He was a middle aged man who had committed no crime and you think it's acceptable for someone in an elevated position of power and responsibility to use what has been confirmed as excessive force for no real reason? Especially pertinant considering the individual policeman has been caught in aggressive and unwarranted attacks before?

Isthisreallife.jpg

No, this is not contradictory, as a victim can also mean the victim of an accident as you surely know??

From the video, I too would have thought he was doing a go-slow and fooling around. Turns out he was just drunk, but who could have told? And who could have reasonably foreseen that he'd die from a shove in the back?

And you say it has been confirmed as excessive force as though that means I should automatically agree with the decision?

Burnsy2023 · 25 May 2011 at 12:28

The Running Man said:
The next time? There hasn't been a first time.

My point stands.

The Running Man · 25 May 2011 at 12:29

The fact that he was unlawfully killed is only part of the problem. The other part is the denial by the police that they were even involved, yet they clearly were.

From the video, I too would have thought he was doing a go-slow and fooling around. Turns out he was just drunk, but who could have told? And who could have reasonably foreseen that he'd die from a shove in the back?

I never saw a policeman go over to him and say, 'listen mate, were clearing this area, can you get a groove on'... one just whacked him with his authority stick and then proceed to push him over face first onto a solid concrete style floor.

What did they think would happen?

The Running Man · 25 May 2011 at 12:30

Burnsy2023 said:
Yes of course. So I take it the next time you're burgled or mugged you won't be calling the Police then?

Then yes, because this would be due process for raising an insurance claim or whatever. Not because i am sure that the police would find the man and bring him to justice.

Participant · 25 May 2011 at 12:36

The Running Man said:
I never saw a policeman go over to him and say, 'listen mate, were clearing this area, can you get a groove on'... one just whacked him with his authority stick and then proceed to push him over face first onto a solid concrete style floor.

What did they think would happen?

Well we have a fundamental disagreement there, as I don't think a policeman really needed to say that to him in that situation. It was a tense environment and blindingly obvious that dawdlers were not welcome.

It was bad luck imo. People fall over without dying all the time. There was something inherently wrong with the guy.

LeJosh · 25 May 2011 at 12:38

This one police officer's action isn't a reflection on the force and I wish people would realise that.

The police officer in question handled the situation atrociously. No matter how frustrated you get, you don't get physical with someone that isn't doing anything illegal. Immoral or wrong in opinion it may be but you can't act on those.

The Running Man · 25 May 2011 at 12:41

LeJosh said:
This one police officer's action isn't a reflection on the force and I wish people would realise that.

The police officer in question handled the situation atrociously. No matter how frustrated you get, you don't get physical with someone that isn't doing anything illegal. Immoral or wrong in opinion it may be but you can't act on those.

His mates look at the video there are about 6 of them, yet none of them volunteered this information despite all being material witnesses. They are walking right next to each other. How can they NOT have seen him strike or push the guy over?!

Therefore out of 6 policemen we have 6 crooks who wouldnt tell the truth until they were literally forced into it by amateur footage. What does that say about the force?

LeJosh · 25 May 2011 at 12:43

The Running Man said:
His mates look at the video there are about 6 of them, yet none of them volunteered this information despite all being material witnesses. They are walking right next to each other. How can they NOT have seen him strike or push the guy over?!

Therefore out of 6 policemen we have 6 crooks who wouldnt tell the truth until they were literally forced into it by amateur footage. What does that say about the force?

It still isn't a reflection on the 'force' as a whole.

I'm sure you would defend your mate if his career and livelyhood was going to be in tatters. Even if you didn't agree with what he did.