G20 attack cop, "comes forward"
Discussion
triggersbroom said:
Ah not seen the second clip, so i can't comment on that. If that is the case quite possibly too forceful. From what ive seen though he didnt look too ill immediately after as he appears to be mouthing off at the cops...who dont do anything- maybe they realised theyve gone too far already?
k did you hit me?" too. Mouthing off? Depends on you definition.
. The attitude test is important-look at SPL topics- and to judge by appearances this guy was failing it...though id still agree that based on the video he doesnt appear what he got.Tony*T3 said:
chunkymonkey71 said:
Still, no protesters would mean no riot plice and no dicking about would mean no heavy handed crowd control tactics.
Once again the workshy get in the way of the great british taxpayer...
You fool. Would you really prefer to live in a state where no one had the guts to stand up and protest? Your freedoms were bought buy people with the backbone to stand up against the state. Go andf re-read your politcal history from this country. Perhaps you'd be happier in North Korea? You dont have to agree with their methods or their views, but once you stop people protesting then you hand over control to the few, the priveledged and the corrupt. And the Police turns into the states' enforcers.Once again the workshy get in the way of the great british taxpayer...
Can any of us honestly say we would not react in this coppers given position after we had been phsyched up to act on a possible flash point front line ?
The Black Flash said:
Dupont666 said:
How do we know he didnt provoke or even do something like spit at the officer... they dont usually do that kind of thing unless provoked badly.
If that had been the case, and the officer had pushed him away at the time, then fair play. I wouldn't expect police to just stand there and take it. But for the officer to wait until he turned his back, then hit him and push him, would mean that it was just done in spite. I'm struggling to see what the officer was trying to achieve by his actions here to be honest. None of the possibilities seem to paint him in a very good light. Revenge? Making an example? Loss of control? Because he could? If he was really trying to move the chap on then he made a serious error of judgement.
There may be specific instances where a certain amount of violence is warranted, such as defending against attack or enforcing a "stay behind the line" direction. But we don't see that here.
Or are you both saying that police meting out casual violence is OK, in a sort of "fixed penalty" sort of way?
mcdjl said:
Ah not seen the second clip, so i can't comment on that. If that is the case quite possibly too forceful. From what ive seen though he didnt look too ill immediately after as he appears to be mouthing off at the cops...who dont do anything- maybe they realised theyve gone too far already?
triggersbroom said:
Well, if that had happened to me I would indeed be saying "why the fk did you hit me?" too. Mouthing off? Depends on you definition.
Without being able to hear what was said we won't know. Granted I may well be tempted to ask exactly the same in that position but I'd hope that my common sense would prevail and suggest that i ask it at a later date with full internet warrior bravery k did you hit me?" too. Mouthing off? Depends on you definition.. The attitude test is important-look at SPL topics- and to judge by appearances this guy was failing it...though id still agree that based on the video he doesnt appear what he got. 
Edited by triggersbroom on Friday 10th April 09:20
triggersbroom said:
Without being able to hear what was said we won't know. Granted I may well be tempted to ask exactly the same in that position but I'd hope that my common sense would prevail and suggest that i ask it at a later date with full internet warrior bravery . The attitude test is important-look at SPL topics- and to judge by appearances this guy was failing it...though id still agree that based on the video he doesnt appear what he got.
The "attitude test" doesn't excuse attacking people. Sure, arrest him for obstruction if you can make it stick, but don't assault him from behind. If you don't like the law, don't join the police!. The attitude test is important-look at SPL topics- and to judge by appearances this guy was failing it...though id still agree that based on the video he doesnt appear what he got.Also see this piece on the Guardian website casting further doubt on the police version of events, and documenting - amongst other things - the police having obscured or removed their numbers so as not to be identifiable.
skwdenyer said:
The Black Flash said:
If that had been the case, and the officer had pushed him away at the time, then fair play. I wouldn't expect police to just stand there and take it. But for the officer to wait until he turned his back, then hit him and push him, would mean that it was just done in spite.
I'm struggling to see what the officer was trying to achieve by his actions here to be honest. None of the possibilities seem to paint him in a very good light. Revenge? Making an example? Loss of control? Because he could? If he was really trying to move the chap on then he made a serious error of judgement.
With respect, if you "provok" a police officer by spitting at him, he can arrest you, threaten to arrest you, or ignore you. It is not ok for him to assault you. If I assault you outside the pub because you provoked me by spitting at me, I get charged with assault.I'm struggling to see what the officer was trying to achieve by his actions here to be honest. None of the possibilities seem to paint him in a very good light. Revenge? Making an example? Loss of control? Because he could? If he was really trying to move the chap on then he made a serious error of judgement.
There may be specific instances where a certain amount of violence is warranted, such as defending against attack or enforcing a "stay behind the line" direction. But we don't see that here.
Or are you both saying that police meting out casual violence is OK, in a sort of "fixed penalty" sort of way?
If someone goes up to a line of riot cops and, for example, spits at one, and gets firmly pushed back, then I'm not too bothered.
If he does the same, then turns and walks away, and a copper chases him and clouts him with a stick, then pushes him over from behind, well that is out of order in my book - because it is just about revenge.
I've read the comments on this thread, we all know the guy was just walking home from work. Did the cops know that at the time? I think not. They didn't know why he was there.
I've seen plenty of Police Camera Road Traffic Cops Wars programs to know that when arresting/dealing with an unruly individual, one of the first things that is done is that the individuals hands are to be shown.
We can't hear what is being said by the cops, but, if by chance it is to "show your hands" and the individual doesn't, do the police have right to act to protect themselves and the public? They don't know what he could be concealing in his pockets?
Thinking back to De Menezes, the Police weren't in a position to ask the guy if his rucksack contained a bomb, they had to act on information given to them. Just like in this case, someone being awkward in a potential riot zone(?), they had to act, rightly or wrongly.
I've seen plenty of Police Camera Road Traffic Cops Wars programs to know that when arresting/dealing with an unruly individual, one of the first things that is done is that the individuals hands are to be shown.
We can't hear what is being said by the cops, but, if by chance it is to "show your hands" and the individual doesn't, do the police have right to act to protect themselves and the public? They don't know what he could be concealing in his pockets?
Thinking back to De Menezes, the Police weren't in a position to ask the guy if his rucksack contained a bomb, they had to act on information given to them. Just like in this case, someone being awkward in a potential riot zone(?), they had to act, rightly or wrongly.
zetec said:
I've read the comments on this thread, we all know the guy was just walking home from work. Did the cops know that at the time? I think not. They didn't know why he was there.
I've seen plenty of Police Camera Road Traffic Cops Wars programs to know that when arresting/dealing with an unruly individual, one of the first things that is done is that the individuals hands are to be shown.
We can't hear what is being said by the cops, but, if by chance it is to "show your hands" and the individual doesn't, do the police have right to act to protect themselves and the public? They don't know what he could be concealing in his pockets?
Thinking back to De Menezes, the Police weren't in a position to ask the guy if his rucksack contained a bomb, they had to act on information given to them. Just like in this case, someone being awkward in a potential riot zone(?), they had to act, rightly or wrongly.
Surely in that case the last thing you'd want to do is to push the guy away from you, giving him the opportunity to draw a weapon and aim it at you? The body language of the BiB concerned reinforces the fact that your hypothesis, whilst interesting, is unlikely to be true.I've seen plenty of Police Camera Road Traffic Cops Wars programs to know that when arresting/dealing with an unruly individual, one of the first things that is done is that the individuals hands are to be shown.
We can't hear what is being said by the cops, but, if by chance it is to "show your hands" and the individual doesn't, do the police have right to act to protect themselves and the public? They don't know what he could be concealing in his pockets?
Thinking back to De Menezes, the Police weren't in a position to ask the guy if his rucksack contained a bomb, they had to act on information given to them. Just like in this case, someone being awkward in a potential riot zone(?), they had to act, rightly or wrongly.
I firmly believe something happened just before the video clip. This is why there is a clip at all. Something happened and then the persons with cameras then started recording the incident resulting in capturing the copper pushing the victim to the ground, and yes he was a victim as it is clear no matter what he had done previous he was of no threat at the time he was pushed.
You can fight fire with fire in a situation but once the person backs off and/or is subdued then it must stop. I would say the copper did not intend for the guy to fall over and would put the charge as excessive force. The man died of a heart attack. What they need to establish is did the push and fall contribute or cause him to have the attack. That's when the charge gets really serious.
It's a messy one alright and I hope it is properly investigated.
V8A*ndy said:
I firmly believe something happened just before the video clip. This is why there is a clip at all. Something happened and then the persons with cameras then started recording the incident resulting in capturing the copper pushing the victim to the ground, and yes he was a victim as it is clear no matter what he had done previous he was of no threat at the time he was pushed.
You can fight fire with fire in a situation but once the person backs off and/or is subdued then it must stop. I would say the copper did not intend for the guy to fall over and would put the charge as excessive force. The man died of a heart attack. What they need to establish is did the push and fall contribute or cause him to have the attack. That's when the charge gets really serious.
It's a messy one alright and I hope it is properly investigated.
Whilst I can see merit in your theory, surely "excessive force" is a little weak, isn't it? "Excessive" would imply that there was a requirement for force. Where is that requirement? If there is no requirement for force, any force is automatically assault.You can fight fire with fire in a situation but once the person backs off and/or is subdued then it must stop. I would say the copper did not intend for the guy to fall over and would put the charge as excessive force. The man died of a heart attack. What they need to establish is did the push and fall contribute or cause him to have the attack. That's when the charge gets really serious.
It's a messy one alright and I hope it is properly investigated.
skwdenyer said:
V8A*ndy said:
I firmly believe something happened just before the video clip. This is why there is a clip at all. Something happened and then the persons with cameras then started recording the incident resulting in capturing the copper pushing the victim to the ground, and yes he was a victim as it is clear no matter what he had done previous he was of no threat at the time he was pushed.
You can fight fire with fire in a situation but once the person backs off and/or is subdued then it must stop. I would say the copper did not intend for the guy to fall over and would put the charge as excessive force. The man died of a heart attack. What they need to establish is did the push and fall contribute or cause him to have the attack. That's when the charge gets really serious.
It's a messy one alright and I hope it is properly investigated.
Whilst I can see merit in your theory, surely "excessive force" is a little weak, isn't it? "Excessive" would imply that there was a requirement for force. Where is that requirement? If there is no requirement for force, any force is automatically assault.You can fight fire with fire in a situation but once the person backs off and/or is subdued then it must stop. I would say the copper did not intend for the guy to fall over and would put the charge as excessive force. The man died of a heart attack. What they need to establish is did the push and fall contribute or cause him to have the attack. That's when the charge gets really serious.
It's a messy one alright and I hope it is properly investigated.
Watch the video http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7992296.... the cops moved in and he was pushed firstly by another officer. They moved in right to him. So the question, did this first officer then assault the victim? I'd say no. Did the other copper assault him? I'd say yes but he could also have been moving in and was therefore comitted to his action to help and protect other officers just as the victim was retreating and that it was a confusing situation leading to excessive force being used. Or he just decided to throw his weight around and show the guy "who's boss".
This guy clearly did something or was about to. That's why the cops moved in, so there was always going to be "contact" in this situation.
I still say Mr Tomlinson was clearly assaulted.
I would be cautious about what to believe from the media. At first this chap was described simply as a worker on his way home.
But one interview I read with the newspaper vendor he was 'working for' said. "he liked to sit nearby and have a drink and a chat"
Now I am not leaping to conclusions one way or the other. But this was a homeless guy with a clear history of alcoholism. How a probably drunk man reacted to being caught up in the protests and confined by the police is not known at this point.
I would also like to add that all those condemning the police out of hand should think how they would feel if asked to confront a mob lobbing missiles and wielding weapons.
But one interview I read with the newspaper vendor he was 'working for' said. "he liked to sit nearby and have a drink and a chat"
Now I am not leaping to conclusions one way or the other. But this was a homeless guy with a clear history of alcoholism. How a probably drunk man reacted to being caught up in the protests and confined by the police is not known at this point.
I would also like to add that all those condemning the police out of hand should think how they would feel if asked to confront a mob lobbing missiles and wielding weapons.
skwdenyer said:
triggersbroom said:
Without being able to hear what was said we won't know. Granted I may well be tempted to ask exactly the same in that position but I'd hope that my common sense would prevail and suggest that i ask it at a later date with full internet warrior bravery . The attitude test is important-look at SPL topics- and to judge by appearances this guy was failing it...though id still agree that based on the video he doesnt appear what he got.
The "attitude test" doesn't excuse attacking people. Sure, arrest him for obstruction if you can make it stick, but don't assault him from behind. If you don't like the law, don't join the police!. The attitude test is important-look at SPL topics- and to judge by appearances this guy was failing it...though id still agree that based on the video he doesnt appear what he got.Also see this piece on the Guardian website casting further doubt on the police version of events, and documenting - amongst other things - the police having obscured or removed their numbers so as not to be identifiable.
Something wrong with the site, 'cause I can't edit them to read correcty ??
Edited by triggersbroom on Friday 10th April 09:14
Edited by triggersbroom on Friday 10th April 09:25
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff