What was he doing wrong???

[fizzwheel]

Originally Posted by Ed

There is a clear push, but I can't see that that is intent to cause GBH. But there might be enough for involuntary manslaughter.

Well it looked to me that the police officer in question also smacked him across the back of his legs with his baton before he pushed him to the ground. I dont think "push" describes the move either.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Why should he?

As said by others, the Police should be BETTER than the man on the street.

The consequences of not meeting those standards should be loss of all priviledges earned/gained by service.

I also hold that members of the Police force SHOULD be treated better by both the public AND their bosses, the Government.

Also he CHOSE to attack the guy, his choice, his consequences.

Its soft "think of his children and future" thinking that is partly whats wrong, why should we think of them when he didn't...........

Personal Responsibility and Consequences are whats lacking, people SHOULD be able to wreck their entire lives, even at the age of 17.....

[yorkie_chris]

So we've got a government ignoring the people, the police being used as a tool of oppression against protestors. When's the civil war kicking off then?

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by Wideboy

but don't people with generally an ounce of intelligence avoid that sort of situation and keep well away, or tend to leg it if they are found in that situation

Well, if you have to walk out of your place of work and get home by crossing the street in front of you, stying close to the police would seem the intelligent thing to do, not the thing to avoid. The riots were not kicking off at that time and those police were not containing anybody, they were present and on standby and some look quite relaxed, just doing their job and keeping vigilant. Then this man has to go home from work......the safest place to be would surely be close to the police, not the protestors and he was a victim of what was probably a miss judged amount of force by a policeman under pressure. This does not excuse the officers actions.

All I am saying is you can't question this mans intelligence. Usually, when you "leg it" from the police, you've done something to run from and not the best idea when you are in innocent civilian.

Glad to suprise I figure the hallmark of a liberal society is a populace which is policed fairly and in which the police are held to very high standards of conduct. As I've said, I believe the vast majority of them meet and exceed that standard, but when the few bad apples arise they should be dealt with as the law prescribes for the civilian population.

The police are not above the law, from the limited facts available to us we are hard pressed to see anything other than not only a breaking of Police rules procedures and guidelines but a breaking of the law. A clear criminal act is witnessed. Whether that be assault, manslaughter or murder is up for debate and is a case for the CPS and the courts not me; but there is a clear criminal act and a clear criminal charge should (in my opinion, based on limited facts available) follow.

SK really nailed it. The Law allows for the Police to excercise appropriate force in prescribed situations. The Law prescribes very clearly what those situations are - principally to effect an arrest and to preserve real or perceived threats to life and limb. An arrest was not affected or attempted. It's hard to see a case that a real or perceived threat to life or limb was iminent. Therefore it's hard to see anything other than a criminal act.

Pensions, I'm inclined to agree with you, if only out of respect for the process of law rather than respect for the individual - Fred Goodwin is legally entitled to his pension and he'd argue he worked for it. Both leave a bitter taste in my mouth but the law works best when applied equally even though that may result in individual injustices. I only hope that the law is applied equally in this case.

EDIT: To further clarify Ed's suprise I'm only stating that I think a case can be made for the CPS to bring a murder charge, I'm not saying what a jury should then decide - I'd fully expect in situations like this the CPS to press the murder charge and the option be left to the court/jury to go for involuntary manslaughter. I'm not in the business of dictating what hypothetical juries should decide. Well, until I'm ruler of all I survey of course, then the power will doubtless go to my head and I shall dispense summary justice from my lofty throne.

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by fizzwheel

Well it looked to me that the police officer in question also smacked him across the back of his legs with his baton before he pushed him to the ground. I dont think "push" describes the move either.

Yeah he did. One thing I only touched on before as well that I a struggling to understand is this.

Apparently (according to the BBC so not yet proven), the officers last week stated that the first contact they had with Ian Tomlinson was when they attended him upon his collapse and called for backup and and ambulance.

An american (i think) businessman took the footage on his mobile to show that he'd been in the area at the time of the protests and happened to catch the incident we are discussing.

He was quoted as saying that when he heard that the police had said their first contact with Mr. Tomlinson was when they assisted him after his collapse, he wanted to make the video public in order that Mr. Tomlinsons family be able to get the truth about the facts surrounding his death.

That is something I find disturbing and should be investigated as heavily as the attack itself.

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

So we've got a government ignoring the people, the police being used as a tool of oppression against protestors. When's the civil war kicking off then?

Well, Im free on Tuesday....

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

That is something I find disturbing and should be investigated as heavily as the attack itself.

You didn't ever think that all the other officers there would tell the truth under oath (or any other time except in the pub) about what they saw or when Mr. Tomlinson first came into contact with them did you? Police is a bit like the mafia in that respect, you don't talk about business except with those 'in the gang'.

[dizzyblonde]

I thought this was deplorable when I saw it on the news at lunch time.
I said to Im Indoors something about the 'strong arm of the law' to which he replied something about 'the heavy ham fisted arm of the law'

Its an absolute disgrace in my eyes. Even if its found the actual event here didn't have an impact on the poor guys heart attack(which I think would be very slim) i think the police force should be seriously looking into who they are employing.

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by Luckypants

You didn't ever think that all the other officers there would tell the truth under oath (or any other time except in the pub) about what they saw or when Mr. Tomlinson first came into contact with them did you? Police is a bit like the mafia in that respect, you don't talk about business except with those 'in the gang'.

Yes, well, they may well face charges themselves now as a result of being found out to have lied!