guy that died during G20 protests. video

[drew]

Hardly the best person to criticise other peoples interpretations now are you ?

The footage of the stand-off outside the bank of England was a continuous live feed on most of the news channels so I was merely contradicting his statement there was only one incident!

May I remind everyone of the police press statement prior to the G20.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/mar/27/g20-protest

The police certainly were 'up for it'

I felt rather uncomfortable when I read this quote. It now leaves a very bad taste. I always think statements like this become self-fulfilling as they attract the wrong attention and people and scare off the genuine peaceful demonstrators. It really do not understand how anyone charged with crowd control can use such inflamatory language.

Followed the link and it is merely a report. Is there an a link to the actual press statement or are you referring to the 'police are understood to have said' comment?

 

[drew]

Nail on the head mate ....the thing to ask yourselves is that if the boot were on the other foot and it was the policeman who had been hit and subsequently died the said newspaper vendor would now be in a cell awaiting trial and probably a long prison sentence.

the points about whether he was swiped across the legs would only be relevant if it had been the only strike but the fact that he was struck by a policeman wielding shield that put him on the ground was enough to give him shock and consequently die from a heart attack.....it was not the severity of the blow or how many blows it is the fact that it was enough to shock him and if you watch the first video you can see him looking at the officers with a somewhat questioning look.
the officer has been suspended ......but if that had been you or me we would have been immediately arrested,in the time I was a prison officer my thoughts about the police were never very good nor were they before I joined up as a prison officer and as time has gone on things have worsened the police have little opinion of anyone who questions them or their actions ...but when push comes to shove(please excuse the pun) and things get a bit hairy they are found wanting or look the other way.
things have got to change............very soon.

Hello Dr Glasfryn, expert witness for the prosecution. We understand on the basis of a video you have been able to come to the conclusion that the deceased's heart attack was solely caused by the assault from behind by officer X. Would be grateful if you could just confirm your medical education and why you are not prepared to take into account any other factors outside the scope of the video. If we had more armchair pathologists like you the state would not need to waste money employing real ones.

 

[TonyW]

Its tragic that he died, but he was a f***ing prick.
He asked for what he got by deliberately antagonising the police.

In some countries he wouldn't have been given the chance to die from a heart attack, they would have shot the nob head.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Its tragic that he died, but he was a f***ing prick.
He asked for what he got by deliberately antagonising the police.

In some countries he wouldn't have been given the chance to die from a heart attack, they would have shot the nob head.

It's times like these I wish someone would shoot me dead.

If you want to sit at the table at least have a modicum of wit and a half decent case. Whilst I dont agree with a lot of what people say on here at least my usual sparring partners can put up a half decent arguement with a bit of logic thrown into the mix. At least they make me think about my next move.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Its tragic that he died, but he was a f***ing prick.
He asked for what he got by deliberately antagonising the police.

In some countries he wouldn't have been given the chance to die from a heart attack, they would have shot the nob head.

...and what does the W stand for?

 

[NMH]

Its tragic that he died, but he was a f***ing prick.
He asked for what he got by deliberately antagonising the police.

In some countries he wouldn't have been given the chance to die from a heart attack, they would have shot the nob head.

He was a prick and a nob-head? Okay, great - so he deserved it and the old bill are vindicated, that's a relief. Call the press, they can run a good smear campaign so we can get this done and dusted before you can sing "Gudbye 't Jade".

 

[drew]

He was a prick and a nob-head? Okay, great - so he deserved it and the old bill are vindicated, that's a relief. Call the press, they can run a good smear campaign so we can get this done and dusted before you can sing "Gudbye 't Jade".

Wasn't that the crux of the thread debate in the first place, that this was a done and dusted case against the officer who had 'killed' Tomlinson. Funny how things turn around if you ignore due process.

By the way,for the record, I think the nobhead on here is Tonyw.

 

[Acker79]

I've waited too long to catch up on this thread, and now it's too long for me to be bothered to read everyone's points and opinions, so rather than using them as a start point I'll just post my own. Sorry if any of these points have been raised already.

First some points:

- While he is moving away, he is doing so what looks to me to be deliberately slowly (albeit in the way a drunk thinks he's being funny/clever), and he walks across the line of police instead of directly away.

- The definition of "reasonable force" changes in a riot situation. There were hundreds of people, some of whom were destroying property, acting in a violent manner (I've seen video of people smashing windows, swinging at police). With het up emotions, and the risk of things kicking off, the idea of "reasonable force" quickly changes.

- The risk of things kicking off made it a stupid thing for the police to do. If the man didn't sit up, I could see things turning very ugly for that handful of police officers.

-Police officers can't take chances in these situations. He could have simply been a drunk or mildly retarded man who wasn't aware of the seriousness of the situation. He could also have been part of an anarchy group intent on violence, deliberately attempting to slow up the police or distract them somehow (such as enticing them into pushing him so he can "fall over and require help") so as to allow another group to hijack the protest and turn it into something much more dangerous. This quandary existed before governments used the crutch of terrorism to get their own way, so it isn't about using terrorism to scare people.

-Police officers receive a lot of criticism and it seems from some of what I read before getting bored, some people don't really care about the incident and are simply using it as an excuse to attack police officers. In my experience, most police officers are decent human beings. They have human frailties, but their biggest problems are politics and the bureaucracy it brings, the policies developed by government which often leads to paper work, cracking down on minor crimes, while ignoring bigger ones, protecting the human rights of criminals, etc. which leads to a lack of respect for law and order.


Opinion:

These are extreme circumstances. The officers can't take chances, it was an unfortunate occurrence that nobody would have seen coming. The man got up and walked away ok, so the hit to the legs and the fall to the ground wouldn't have hurt a regular person so I struggle to see it as "unreasonable force".

If the man was my father, I would be angry, and upset, I would perhaps blame the police officer, but if he came to me, explained the above and apologised to me because he was genuinely sorry I think I would be able to accept his apology. I don't know if forgive would be the right word, and I'm sure the anger wouldn't go away, but I would probably understand his situation.

 

[Acker79]

the points about whether he was swiped across the legs would only be relevant if it had been the only strike but the fact that he was struck by a policeman wielding shield that put him on the ground was enough to give him shock and consequently die from a heart attack.

My uncle died from his second heart attack. The doctors failed to diagnose a clot in his leg after the first heart attack, which led to the fatal second one.

The whack to the back of the leg could have caused a clot in his leg, and that could have caused the heart attack.

the officer has been suspended ......but if that had been you or me we would have been immediately arrested,

If in a highly emotional moment you hit someone, they got up and walked away you would likely not be arrested. Any number of "night cops" episode shows these sorts of incidents with drunken revellers etc.

If the man, after getting up and walking away later died, they would establish the cause of death, or at least get a preliminary one, before coming to arrest you. If you are open and admit it, like this officer did (eventually) you would likely be released on bail until your trial, since the events took place in an extreme situation that is not likely to be a regular occurrence.

 

[clapham_gull]

Its tragic that he died, but he was a f***ing prick.
He asked for what he got by deliberately antagonising the police.

In some countries he wouldn't have been given the chance to die from a heart attack, they would have shot the nob head.

As we sleep walk into a society where it's ok to whack a man for being a bit of a nuisance. I'm ashamed of that and being like you are partly to blame with your couldn't care less attitude.

 

[drew]

I've waited too long to catch up on this thread, and now it's too long for me to be bothered to read everyone's points and opinions, so rather than using them as a start point I'll just post my own. Sorry if any of these points have been raised already.

First some points:

- While he is moving away, he is doing so what looks to me to be deliberately slowly (albeit in the way a drunk thinks he's being funny/clever), and he walks across the line of police instead of directly away.

- The definition of "reasonable force" changes in a riot situation. There were hundreds of people, some of whom were destroying property, acting in a violent manner (I've seen video of people smashing windows, swinging at police). With het up emotions, and the risk of things kicking off, the idea of "reasonable force" quickly changes.

- The risk of things kicking off made it a stupid thing for the police to do. If the man didn't sit up, I could see things turning very ugly for that handful of police officers.

-Police officers can't take chances in these situations. He could have simply been a drunk or mildly retarded man who wasn't aware of the seriousness of the situation. He could also have been part of an anarchy group intent on violence, deliberately attempting to slow up the police or distract them somehow (such as enticing them into pushing him so he can "fall over and require help") so as to allow another group to hijack the protest and turn it into something much more dangerous. This quandary existed before governments used the crutch of terrorism to get their own way, so it isn't about using terrorism to scare people.

-Police officers receive a lot of criticism and it seems from some of what I read before getting bored, some people don't really care about the incident and are simply using it as an excuse to attack police officers. In my experience, most police officers are decent human beings. They have human frailties, but their biggest problems are politics and the bureaucracy it brings, the policies developed by government which often leads to paper work, cracking down on minor crimes, while ignoring bigger ones, protecting the human rights of criminals, etc. which leads to a lack of respect for law and order.


Opinion:

These are extreme circumstances. The officers can't take chances, it was an unfortunate occurrence that nobody would have seen coming. The man got up and walked away ok, so the hit to the legs and the fall to the ground wouldn't have hurt a regular person so I struggle to see it as "unreasonable force".

If the man was my father, I would be angry, and upset, I would perhaps blame the police officer, but if he came to me, explained the above and apologised to me because he was genuinely sorry I think I would be able to accept his apology. I don't know if forgive would be the right word, and I'm sure the anger wouldn't go away, but I would probably understand his situation.

My uncle died from his second heart attack. The doctors failed to diagnose a clot in his leg after the first heart attack, which led to the fatal second one.

The whack to the back of the leg could have caused a clot in his leg, and that could have caused the heart attack.




If in a highly emotional moment you hit someone, they got up and walked away you would likely not be arrested. Any number of "night cops" episode shows these sorts of incidents with drunken revellers etc.

If the man, after getting up and walking away later died, they would establish the cause of death, or at least get a preliminary one, before coming to arrest you. If you are open and admit it, like this officer did (eventually) you would likely be released on bail until your trial, since the events took place in an extreme situation that is not likely to be a regular occurrence.

Very reasoned arguments although I would suggest the officer probably did use more force than was necessary. A welcome relief from the baying mob of NSC.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

"The definition of "reasonable force" changes in a riot situation. "

Maybe, but the scenario in the video hardly constitutes a riot.

 

[Acker79]

"The definition of "reasonable force" changes in a riot situation. "

Maybe, but the scenario in the video hardly constitutes a riot.

Aggressive, violent and potentially explosive protests also, in my opinion change the rules.

It may not be a riot from the angle we have. But like I pointed out, there were other shots of people smashing windows and attacking the police. The protestors weren't handing out flowers they were angry, they were shouting, they were getting in the faces of people, surrounding at least one man in a suit, and in some pockets getting violent.

When I say I struggle to see it as unreasonable force, I mean that I can see why some would consider it that way, but I also can see the other side so struggle to say it was unreasonable. I'm nor saying it was completely reasonable either.

 

[clapham_gull]

Followed the link and it is merely a report. Is there an a link to the actual press statement or are you referring to the 'police are understood to have said' comment?

Well seeing as the comments are going to have to be answered for at a meeting of the Metropolitan Police Authority and were reported by many news sources (including CNN) I would imagine they happened wouldn't you ?

Of course I've never seen the Statue of Liberty, but I'd imagine it does exist.

 

[clapham_gull]

Aggressive, violent and potentially explosive protests also, in my opinion change the rules.

It may not be a riot from the angle we have. But like I pointed out, there were other shots of people smashing windows and attacking the police. The protestors weren't handing out flowers they were angry, they were shouting, they were getting in the faces of people, surrounding at least one man in a suit, and in some pockets getting violent.

When I say I struggle to see it as unreasonable force, I mean that I can see why some would consider it that way, but I also can see the other side so struggle to say it was unreasonable. I'm nor saying it was completely reasonable either.

He's another "angle" then

Metropolitan police chiefs ordered to justify tactics at G20 protests - Times Online

Protesters held their hands in the air and chanted “this is not a riot” as riot-helemted officers pushed into the crowd with shields and batons.

Sarah Horne, who attended the camp, said: “Everything was fine until, without warning, riot police suddenly started attacking people at the edge of the camp.

“It was such a shock after such a peaceful day, but we just held our hands in the air or sat down on the road. After this initial charge, they shut us all in and didn't let anyone leave until 11.30pm – even people who were just passing through. Then, after midnight, they charged again, and violently removed us all from the road.”

There are a number of videos on-line, presumably shot by workers in office blocks of "protesters" holding their hands up while being rammed by the riot police.

 

[Acker79]

He's another "angle" then

Metropolitan police chiefs ordered to justify tactics at G20 protests - Times Online

There are a number of videos on-line, presumably shot by workers in office blocks of "protesters" holding their hands up while being rammed by the riot police.

Indeed.

But they are not alternate angles of the incident involving this man.

My points are solely intended for this incident. There are others for which I don't doubt I wouldn't have a problem saying they used too much force.

But you also have to remember the evidence presented will be biased by what people are trying to say. There are videos that show the police's side, showing the violence, the bedlam, the anarchic environment in which force is necessary.

Those in support of the protest will show the peaceful parts of the protest.

Both sides will try to suggest each of their videos represents the overwhelming majority.

The G20 protests were spread out, in different locations and had different motivations. Some of them were probably mostly peaceful, and some of them were probably mostly verging on riots. But the press seem to b presenting it as if the whole thing was about protesting the evil bankers who ruined our economy. Who wouldn't feel sympathetic to the protesters?

 

[clapham_gull]

But you also have to remember the evidence presented will be biased by what people are trying to say. There are videos that show the police's side, showing the violence, the bedlam, the anarchic environment in which force is necessary.

As I said sleep walking....

I've read enough accounts from freelance journalists and photographers to take the view that something is up.

I also witnessed a few things as an observer at this demos to make my own mind up that sometimes a few police act in a way that it totally out of order.

What's interesting this time is the press seem to have taken a unified voice, which is unusual.

There isn't really a lot of talk about why the protests took place, more about the goings on towards the end where a seemingly peaceful protest was dealt with a way that North Korea would be proud.

I'd suggest there is a general feeling from the journalists on the ground that the Police were over the top.

 

[drew]

As we sleep walk into a society where it's ok to whack a man for being a bit of a nuisance. I'm ashamed of that and being like you are partly to blame with your couldn't care less attitude.

1. Never have condoned what the officer did and the amount of force used to do it so, personally, I do not think it's ok to whack someone for being a bit of nuisance. Having said that, you don't know what tomlinson was doing or saying either before, during or after the incident but hey, don't let that stop you.

As I said sleep walking....

I've read enough accounts from freelance journalists and photographers to take the view that something is up.

I also witnessed a few things as an observer at this demos to make my own mind up that sometimes a few police act in a way that it totally out of order.

What's interesting this time is the press seem to have taken a unified voice, which is unusual.

There isn't really a lot of talk about why the protests took place, more about the goings on towards the end where a seemingly peaceful protest was dealt with a way that North Korea would be proud.

I'd suggest there is a general feeling from the journalists on the ground that the Police were over the top.

I suppose you're going to suggest that the Police, under government instructions killed a protestor to divert attention away from the issues. If that's not what you are implying then perhaps you could actually add something to the debate rather than 'something's up'. Maybe you could be a little specific. All these freelance jounos and photographers, are they the ones writing blogs on obsure websites to save the three toed blue tree frog!!!

Also, isn't it funny how you condemn the actions of the Police, where the only real incident is pushing Tomlinson over and crowd control (kettling) but totally ignore any confrontational behaviour and vandalism by a minority of th protestors.

 

[drew]

What's interesting this time is the press seem to have taken a unified voice, which is unusual.

Again, could you be a bit more specific. A unified voice about what. Condemning the actions of one officer? Condemning the attack on RBS branch and staff. A conspiracy theory about inducing a heart attack.

Your vagueness is quite disturbing, reminiscent of Nick Robinson, now of the BBC but then of ITV, reporting outside the Houses of Parliament that, he believed something was up, he had not heard a rumour, had not spoken to any MPs but there was something in the air. Turned out to be f*** all!

 

[IronSeagull]

a pretty revealing piece against the police from the guardian...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/07/video-g20-police-assault

video footage of the guy walking away from police and being attacked from behind while he has his hands in his pockets...

What twats.