Ian Tomlinson,unlawful killing.

[Easy 10]

I wouldn't expect a Police Office to act like an angel is such a situation and I accept that these days protesters are far more savvy and know exactly which pressure points to push. I can imagine in certain situations it can be difficult to distinguish between peaceful and aggressive protesting.

However, if you can't distinguish between an aggressive protester and a drunk newspaper salesman or an aggressive protester and a BBC cameraman, than frankly you aren't up to job.

If you are susceptible to violent behaviour (that cannot be excused as self defence or the last resort in controlling a crowd) then you are a liability to the credibility of the Police Force and a danger to the general public.

No excuse, he did it, he was out of order and he's been caught out. The Police themselves have assisted towards that conclusion.

There is absolutely no other credible interpretation of the events.

Perfect summising, not much more to add to that.
From the footage, the guy was pumped up, out of control, and indiscriminately twatting anything in his path. Always remember:

Serve the public trust
Protect the innocent
Uphold the law

That officer would have been kicked out of OCP, no question. Now he should be on trial for manslaughter.

 

[tezz79]

I don't even know why I'm debating this, it's plain for us all to see it as it is but a very small minority seem intent on making ridiculous excuses for some reason

 

[tezz79]

ah at least we are narrowing the field slightly from the previous sweeping global dismissal of all foreign coppers, albeit to a fairer and more reasonable list only featuring nototrously repressive states, a country that until recently practiced apartheid, a global drugs producer or two, a war ravaged country in the throes of a civil war, etc.

Hahaha yeah he chose some great examples to compare our police forces to there didn't he lol

 

[Pavilionaire]

I don't see it as being a big problem. There is a distinct difference between the pushing in this incidence and the threat of a lairy pissed up chav.

A policeman should not push someone to the floor, if they are offering no apparent threat and walking away from them. Threatening and in your face, push them or restrain them. Someone walking away from you, with their back turned, don't push them. It is not rocket science. I don't see it as opening avenues for future prosecutions, if the law makes it clear.

You make it sound so black and white, so straightforward, but in reality it's not always like that. Ok, you're a policeman, there's a group of 8 lary, pissed up chavs and one of them gets in your face and pushes you, you push him back, he falls over, he cracks his head on the pavement, doesn't move and starts bleeding. Earlier that same day the Tomlinson officer's up for manslaughter, it's day one of the trial and it's all over the news. How many of us could keep calm and stick to the law in that scenario?

 

[clapham_gull]

You make it sound so black and white, so straightforward, but in reality it's not always like that.

But it was in this case, quite clearly.

 

[The Spanish]

How many of us could keep calm and stick to the law in that scenario?

we only need the ones who are selected trained and paid for it to though

 

[tezz79]

You make it sound so black and white, so straightforward, but in reality it's not always like that. Ok, you're a policeman, there's a group of 8 lary, pissed up chavs and one of them gets in your face and pushes you, you push him back, he falls over, he cracks his head on the pavement, doesn't move and starts bleeding. Earlier that same day the Tomlinson officer's up for manslaughter, it's day one of the trial and it's all over the news. How many of us could keep calm and stick to the law in that scenario?

What the f*** mate ?
What have 8 pissed up mouthy chavs got to do with it ?
The bloke done f*** ALL are you simple ?

 

[Pavilionaire]

So what !!! This thread isn't about Wich nation has the worst police force it's about one officer !!! For crying out loud

So you think that if this one officer - who is clearly in the wrong - is up for manslaughter that case won't have a huge impact for policing in this country? There's no argument the officer is in the wrong, the debate is what punishment fits.

 

[The Spanish]

So you think that if this one officer - who is clearly in the wrong - is up for manslaughter that case won't have a huge impact for policing in this country? .

yes it means they might not be allowed to bully and kill people so much and act like swaggering arseholes when they are mobbed up. just like the rest of us.

 

[Pavilionaire]

What the f*** mate ?
What have 8 pissed up mouthy chavs got to do with it ?
The bloke done f*** ALL are you simple ?

Yes I know the bloke did f*** all and I know the officer was in the wrong. Any primary school kid could see that. Is that the extent of this thread then, or are we allowed to talk about the wider implications of this case?

 

[tezz79]

So you think that if this one officer - who is clearly in the wrong - is up for manslaughter that case won't have a huge impact for policing in this country? There's no argument the officer is in the wrong, the debate is what punishment fits.

Oh yeah they would all have to stop & think "oh I better not whack that geezer in the leg and shove him to the floor for f*** all" mate he wasn't even facing the police

 

[Easy 10]

So you think that if this one officer - who is clearly in the wrong - is up for manslaughter that case won't have a huge impact for policing in this country? There's no argument the officer is in the wrong, the debate is what punishment fits.

The punishment that fits is whatever punishment a member of the public would have faced having, without threat or provocation, clubbed someone and pushed them to the ground, directly resulting in the victims death.

He should be up on a manslaughter charge. And the evidence is damning.

 

[tezz79]

Yes I know the bloke did f*** all and I know the officer was in the wrong. Any primary school kid could see that. Is that the extent of this thread then, or are we allowed to talk about the wider implications of this case?

In some cases the police have to make split second decisions to protect themselves and others & these can SOMETIMES go wrong and SOMETIMES you could argue that it may be understandable... Howether here there was no decision to be made it was 1 officer taking it upon himself to run up to a innocent man and assault him leading to the man's death & there is no excuse for it

 

[Acker79]

The punishment that fits is whatever punishment a member of the public would have faced having, without threat or provocation, clubbed someone and pushed them to the ground, directly resulting in the victims death.

He should be up on a manslaughter charge. And the evidence is damning.

Should it?

Or should it be more severe as the police should be held to a higher standard because of their position in society, and the responsibility they hold?

Or should it be less severe because of the implications this could have on future demos? (And before someone with replies "yeah, police won't beat up and push drunkards until they die", I mean if he is sent to prison for this, next time there is a protest that turns violent and a police office is in a position where he has a legitimate reason to use his truncheon (or whatever), he doesn't for fear of these repurcussions, and then the person he doesn't use it on breaks through a police line, and it turns into a full blown riot that leaves innocent people dead, property damage in the 10s of £millions etc. - I know worst case and all, but it's an outcome that has to be considered
or perhaps protestors try to use it to cause trouble one deliberately throwing themselves to the ground while his mate starts going on about police brutality, citing this case, causing unrest in the crowd, and possibly being the spark that turns a protest violent, or to unsettle the police and undermine their crowd control.)

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Should it?

Or should it be more severe as the police should be held to a higher standard because of their position in society, and the responsibility they hold?

Or should it be less severe because of the implications this could have on future demos? (And before someone with replies "yeah, police won't beat up and push drunkards until they die", I mean if he is sent to prison for this, next time there is a protest that turns violent and a police office is in a position where he has a legitimate reason to use his truncheon (or whatever), he doesn't for fear of these repurcussions, and then the person he doesn't use it on breaks through a police line, and it turns into a full blown riot that leaves innocent people dead, property damage in the 10s of £millions etc. - I know worst case and all, but it's an outcome that has to be considered
or perhaps protestors try to use it to cause trouble one deliberately throwing themselves to the ground while his mate starts going on about police brutality, citing this case, causing unrest in the crowd, and possibly being the spark that turns a protest violent, or to unsettle the police and undermine their crowd control.)

\

You and your sophistry begone.

 

[Acker79]

What's false about it?

 

[tezz79]

Should it?

Or should it be more severe as the police should be held to a higher standard because of their position in society, and the responsibility they hold?

Or should it be less severe because of the implications this could have on future demos? (And before someone with replies "yeah, police won't beat up and push drunkards until they die", I mean if he is sent to prison for this, next time there is a protest that turns violent and a police office is in a position where he has a legitimate reason to use his truncheon (or whatever), he doesn't for fear of these repurcussions, and then the person he doesn't use it on breaks through a police line, and it turns into a full blown riot that leaves innocent people dead, property damage in the 10s of £millions etc. - I know worst case and all, but it's an outcome that has to be considered
or perhaps protestors try to use it to cause trouble one deliberately throwing themselves to the ground while his mate starts going on about police brutality, citing this case, causing unrest in the crowd, and possibly being the spark that turns a protest violent, or to unsettle the police and undermine their crowd control.)

Someone in that position of power should able to recognise the difference between a threat & someone walking away from a situation with his hands in his pockets, if not they shouldn't be doing the f***ing job in the 1st place.
Like i said sometimes decisions have to be made but there is no way you can argue this guy was perceived as a threat as the officer himself has even addmitted so why the f*** should he get away with approaching him from behind hitting him then throwing him to the ground ?
If someones in a coppers face or acting aggressively toward people it's different but in this case the officer knew Ian thomlinson wasn't but decided to attack him anyway

 

[tezz79]

Should it?

Or should it be more severe as the police should be held to a higher standard because of their position in society, and the responsibility they hold?

Or should it be less severe because of the implications this could have on future demos? (And before someone with replies "yeah, police won't beat up and push drunkards until they die", I mean if he is sent to prison for this, next time there is a protest that turns violent and a police office is in a position where he has a legitimate reason to use his truncheon (or whatever), he doesn't for fear of these repurcussions, and then the person he doesn't use it on breaks through a police line, and it turns into a full blown riot that leaves innocent people dead, property damage in the 10s of £millions etc. - I know worst case and all, but it's an outcome that has to be considered
or perhaps protestors try to use it to cause trouble one deliberately throwing themselves to the ground while his mate starts going on about police brutality, citing this case, causing unrest in the crowd, and possibly being the spark that turns a protest violent, or to unsettle the police and undermine their crowd control.)

So this copper also thought the guy with the giant f***ing video camera on his shoulder was a violent protester trying to break though police lines right ?
Fact is he was running around acting it up in front of his copper mates thinking he could get away with it & ended up killing an innocent bloke trying to get home from work & to you this fine

 

[NMH]

For anyone wanting that the cop be brought to face the severest charges, that will be more likely to see his act absolved as pale in comparison to the charge.
'Overzealousness' is what he's guilty of, in the eyes of his employers - and they are likely to defend that by strong statements about the situation they faced and the victim's 'refusal' to respond to some previous request. Courts are filled with perspectives, and the better lawyers can manipulate perspective.

A judge will probably be taking care not to undermine or inhibit future police operation policy by a comprehensive decision against the rozzers (as usual), and will no doubt take a very understanding stance on their side and in their favour.
'Public furor' won't mean much to the court I doubt, and like previous things it will be considered that a very frail person on the brink of death got unlucky when entering into a police situation, by accident, and the cop instrumental shared his misfortune

 

[tezz79]

For anyone wanting that the cop be brought to face the severest charges, that will be more likely to see his act absolved as pale in comparison to the charge.
'Overzealousness' is what he's guilty of, in the eyes of his employers - and they are likely to defend that by strong statements about the situation they faced and the victim's 'refusal' to respond to some previous request. Courts are filled with perspectives, and the better lawyers can manipulate perspective.

A judge will probably be taking care not to undermine or inhibit future police operation policy by a comprehensive decision against the rozzers (as usual), and will no doubt take a very understanding stance on their side and in their favour.
'Public furor' won't mean much to the court I doubt, and like previous things it will be considered that a very frail person on the brink of death got unlucky when entering into a police situation, by accident, and the cop instrumental shared his misfortune

Oh That's handy for the police ain't it ... He was already "on the brink of death"