guy that died during G20 protests. video

[drew]

I agree that in certain circumstances the police cannot just stand back as you say BUT if they wanted him out the way then bloody march him out the way. I've seen the police frog-march many a person out of a football ground over the years. Why didnt they do this? It would have been a lot more prererable and it is relatively harmless.

Next time you're in a football ground and you see supporters being asked to sit down ......... imagine that the police then wade in with battons pushing people to the floor.....then remember this thread.

They couldn't frog march him away unless they were going to arrrest him. As I have said previously, they could quite easily keep ushering him forward. What we don't know is whether this was what they had been doing before the video and one officer lost his rag and used far more force than was necessary. However, I would not go as far as some to describe it as brutal or violent. It was a hefty push in the back, not a blow or repeated blows to the head.

Like everyone who died at Hillsborough.....

Cheap and moronic. Those that died at Hillsborough were at the front and therefore more than likely had been in the ground for some time. I am not privvy to all the autopsy reports but would hazard a guess they were not drunk. I can't even recall any party ever suggesting they were! The drunk ones were probably those at the back forcing their way in and creating the crush. Although of course it was not their fault but the Police!!!

Look closer. He was not pushed. He was struck hard on the back of the legs by a baton.

Not sure what you're looking at but it looks to me like the officer dipped his shoulder and barged him. Not sure you would fall forward like that if you were hit with a baton!!

 

[clapham_gull]

It was a hefty push in the back, not a blow or repeated blows to the head.

Have you actually seen the video from the other angle or are you having a laugh ?

He was wacked on the leg with a lot of force, not a tap -THEN he was pushed over.

If you are going to have a point of view at least get your facts right.

 

[itszamora]

Who'd be a policeman in the Met?

If I was in a protest zone with 10 police in riot gear walking straight towards me telling me to get out of the area I'd move pretty sharpish, doubly so if I had a medical condition.

What the hell was the guy doing dawdling along like that, hands in pockets looking the worse for wear? What the policeman did was wrong, but the newspaper seller put himself in a dangerous position.

You only have to look at footage of the miner's strike or football hooliganism in the 80s to see how the police really used to go for it. By those standards today's police are tame.

And in any other European country - where the police are armed - the bloke would have got a worse shoeing than he got.

That said, it's sad that he lost his life.

My apologies, I didn't realise there was a specific way you were supposed to walk in order to prevent unprovoked assault by the arm of the law.

 

[drew]

Have you actually seen the video from the other angle or are you having a laugh ?

He was wacked on the leg with a lot of force, not a tap -THEN he was pushed over.

If you are going to have a point of view at least get your facts right.

I have seen the video on the Guardian website. If he was hit with a baton before the push, it couldn't have been a heavy blow. You get hit on the back of the legs hard then you react. If it was about knee height then your knees would buckle or if it was higher then you would see some sort of reaction. He does neither. I'm looking at about 1min 28 seconds when it is showed in slow motion. Just before that he gets caught a bit by the black dog although there is no suggestion that it bit him. Still, you see what you want to see.

 

[NMH]

I have seen the video on the Guardian website. If he was hit with a baton before the push, it couldn't have been a heavy blow. You get hit on the back of the legs hard then you react. If it was about knee height then your knees would buckle or if it was higher then you would see some sort of reaction. He does neither. I'm looking at about 1min 28 seconds when it is showed in slow motion. Just before that he gets caught a bit by the black dog although there is no suggestion that it bit him. Still, you see what you want to see.

You what?
A man has a right to walk on the pavement without ANY form of assault upon his person - that means NO contact with ANY club, bottle or riot stick.
He has also the freedom to make his way without being thrust to the ground in a VIOLENT manner as was obvious to anyone with eyes!

What's your agendas then mate? I can't see how you can really wave away the facts as clearly seen - you must be trying to stick up for the person seen assaulting a defenceless and unprepared man who was not physically threatening anyone, for some reason I cannot fathom.

 

[The Spanish]

Still, you see what you want to see.

Yes I see a cowardly attack by a thug in uniform on a man probably twice his age. Everyone does, even the scumbag sitting at home now with his head in his hands wondering what his first day in jail will be like.

 

[drew]

You what?
A man has a right to walk on the pavement without ANY form of assault upon his person - that means NO contact with ANY club, bottle or riot stick.
He has also the freedom to make his way without being thrust to the ground in a VIOLENT manner as was obvious to anyone with eyes!

What's your agendas then mate? I can't see how you can really wave away the facts as clearly seen - you must be trying to stick up for the person seen assaulting a defenceless and unprepared man who was not physically threatening anyone, for some reason I cannot fathom.

No agenda mate other than trying to see the facts. Having watched it numerous times, I cannot see a violent whack with the baton before the officer pushed him to the ground. The officer may have a baton in his hand but it looks to me more than anything that it is more like a forearm smash into the guys back (with the officer's weight behind it). Where in the video is he struck on the back of the legs with a baton?

 

[csider]

f***ing coppers. any enq' will let him off with a slapped wrist.

 

[drew]

Yes I see a cowardly attack by a thug in uniform on a man probably twice his age. Everyone does, even the scumbag sitting at home now with his head in his hands wondering what his first day in jail will be like.

I agree, from the video footage it was totally unwarranted. but what I don't see is this separate strike with a baton.

 

[The Spanish]

I agree, from the video footage it was totally unwarranted. but what I don't see is this separate strike with a baton.

i am imagining you mate poring over loads of screens and replaying videos in a darkened room at home, making notes, like some detective kicked off the case for his renegade behaviour but hell bent on cracking it.

next step is a scale model and a eureka moment.

The Chief will see sense at some point and grudgingly accept that your unorthodox methods are what this case needs, just before its too late.

 

[m20gull]

Have you actually seen the video from the other angle or are you having a laugh ?

He was wacked on the leg with a lot of force, not a tap -THEN he was pushed over.

If you are going to have a point of view at least get your facts right.

I've watched it lots of times and still don't see it that way.

 

[drew]

i am imagining you mate poring over loads of screens and replaying videos in a darkened room at home, making notes, like some detective kicked off the case for his renegade behaviour but hell bent on cracking it.

next step is a scale model and a eureka moment.

The Chief will see sense at some point and grudgingly accept that your unorthodox methods are what this case needs, just before its too late.

You have a sad little imagination, which might be the reason you see things that aren't there! I watched the video and when you claimed he was struck with a baton, I watched it again to see it you were right. But you weren't. Perhaps you should watch it just a couple of more times then you wouldn't come out with so much garbage.

I've watched it lots of times and still don't see it that way.

Agreed. Also, I bet that although you don't see a baton being used, like me, you still think what the officer did was out of order. Still, you'll be slated on this thread for that.

 

[The Spanish]

Perhaps you should watch it just a couple of more times then you wouldn't come out with so much garbage.

and I would suggest you stop watching it for a bit mate.

 

[jonny.rainbow]

You have a sad little imagination, which might be the reason you see things that aren't there! I watched the video and when you claimed he was struck with a baton, I watched it again to see it you were right. But you weren't. Perhaps you should watch it just a couple of more times then you wouldn't come out with so much garbage.



Agreed. Also, I bet that although you don't see a baton being used, like me, you still think what the officer did was out of order. Still, you'll be slated on this thread for that.

Watch the video on this link and tell me that he didn't use that baton.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6062489.ece

 

[drew]

Well, I have just seen the other footage on the Guardian website for the first time. Clearly shows the officer swinging his baton so apologies for that but you don't see any connection because of the crowd moving across the view. If, taking into account the arc of the swing, he had connected, there would be some physical reaction from Tomlinson (which you would see from the other angle) but there isn't until he is charged to the ground by the officers forearm or shoulder.

 

[drew]

Watch the video on this link and tell me that he didn't use that baton.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article6062489.ece

Thats the one I referred to in my last post and stand by those comments. If that officer really caught him with the baton like that then Tomlinson must have been a real tough cookie (apart from the dodgy heart) because you can see from the first video that he doesn't even flinch!

 

[Twinkle Toes]

That uniformed thug has been suspended now according to the Beeb. (et al). Hopefully it'll be from his thumbs.

 

[csider]

I've watched it lots of times and still don't see it that way.

your user name should be stevie wonder

 

[jonny.rainbow]

Well, I have just seen the other footage on the Guardian website for the first time. Clearly shows the officer swinging his baton so apologies for that but you don't see any connection because of the crowd moving across the view. If, taking into account the arc of the swing, he had connected, there would be some physical reaction from Tomlinson (which you would see from the other angle) but there isn't until he is charged to the ground by the officers forearm or shoulder.

So what you are saying is a police officer swung a baton but didn't reach and missed a man who was supposedly obstructing him and his colleagues by not moving out of their way.

Think about it. How is that possible?

 

[Billy the Fish]

Thats the one I referred to in my last post and stand by those comments. If that officer really caught him with the baton like that then Tomlinson must have been a real tough cookie (apart from the dodgy heart) because you can see from the first video that he doesn't even flinch!

Speaking from experience after a nice foreign policeman did the same thing to me a few times, when you get a rap on the back of the legs like that it stings more than anything but it's not really powerful enough to take you down. You get a nasty bruise the next day, although mr Tomlinson wasn't that lucky.