guy that died during G20 protests. video

[Dandyman]

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...

Please explain the following to us:

1. Why had the Police Officer removed his ID and covered his face?
2. Under what law are Police Officers allowed to baton/assault someone who presents no physical danger to them or others?

 

[coventrygull]

Please explain the following to us:

1. Why had the Police Officer removed his ID and covered his face?
2. Under what law are Police Officers allowed to baton/assault someone who presents no physical danger to them or others?

Take away the word Police officer. Insert AFA and would you then complain dandyman?

 

[drew]

Please explain the following to us:

1. Why had the Police Officer removed his ID and covered his face?
2. Under what law are Police Officers allowed to baton/assault someone who presents no physical danger to them or others?

All the anarchists hell bent on causing trouble cover up completely. Anyway, it is a bit irrelevent as he has come forward (probably also identified by colleagues aswell). Not sure if any of those morons who attacked the RBS branch have volunteered themselves or I do I presume that you believe their actions to be justified.
Nobody has said there is a law allowing baton assault as you describe.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

Anyway, it is a bit irrelevent as he has come forward (probably also identified by colleagues aswell).

Only because he got caught on camera

 

[Acker79]

Please explain the following to us:

1. Why had the Police Officer removed his ID and covered his face?
2. Under what law are Police Officers allowed to baton/assault someone who presents no physical danger to them or others?

I don't know where this info is from, so apologise in advance if my explanations are not accurate:

1) Did they not all have covered faces as part of their crowd control gear? Is it perhaps practice to remove ids (in case angry protesters/rioters decide to get retribution on you after the event)? As others have pointed out, How is this different to the protesters who hid their identities?

2) Obstruction. A man stopping police doing their job, perhaps in the event of stopping a police officer from getting to the scene of a crime in progress. This person presents no physical danger to anyone, but his non-moving is preventing the police stopping the physical harm of someone else.

But this goes back to my point about the extreme circumstances changing the rules, and the risk that this man not following orders could possibly be a set up, or him simply being in the way could be an obstruction.

 

[Norman Baker suck my lozenge]

just proves that the filth are no longer here to protect and serve us anymore,they exist to enforce the wishes of the elected dictatorship we live in,I hope that thug goes to jail for a long time,He?she? looked like the sort of shyster that would have enjoyed clearing the ghettos in Warsaw during the holocaust.

 

[glasfryn]

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.

"WAS ENOUGH TO"

you don't need to be a genius to see from his face he was shocked and on the basis that he died some 5 minutes after being hit ......well its not rocket science is it and if the whole line of police had battoned him would that have made any difference....I doubt it and I also doubt whether he had any previous heart problem it would make any difference either otherwise all those with heart complaints would never leave the house.

manslaughter at the least

 

[drew]

"WAS ENOUGH TO"

you don't need to be a genius to see from his face he was shocked and on the basis that he died some 5 minutes after being hit ......well its not rocket science is it and if the whole line of police had battoned him would that have made any difference....I doubt it and I also doubt whether he had any previous heart problem it would make any difference either otherwise all those with heart complaints would never leave the house.

manslaughter at the least

So, a look of shock on your face is enough to bring on a heart attack. Quick, close the cinemas and don't show any horror films any more. I would also close down Withdean judging by the look of shock on the face of most of us today. I am also amazed that you can tell from a grainy piece of video that he has no previous heart condition. Your medical skills seem to go from strength to strength!!!!

 

[NMH]

So, a look of shock on your face is enough to bring on a heart attack. Quick, close the cinemas and don't show any horror films any more. I would also close down Withdean judging by the look of shock on the face of most of us today. I am also amazed that you can tell from a grainy piece of video that he has no previous heart condition. Your medical skills seem to go from strength to strength!!!!

I don't think that was what glasfryn was getting at, and without reading between any lines I thought he was pretty coherent in that post.

The look of shock would indicate the bloke did nothing to 'ask for' violent attack. It actually doesn't matter whether he had a condition or not - he was hardly about to keel without being attacked - and even if he only had one day left to live with a condition - the violent attack he endured still makes it manslaughter.
If a parent smothers a sick child, who will otherwise imminently die in pain - it is murder. So, since that is the law, you have to be saying that the police are representing a wrong legal system if that attack isn't manslaughter.
You can't have it both ways.

Oh, and indications are that our legal system and some higher police figures are interested in taking the side of the victim.
You might otherwise have heard the ob trying to defend their officer more vehemently - but they are not. So it looks like almost everyone, including the constabulary, are not siding with your argument.
Just looks that way, mind.

 

[drew]

I don't think that was what glasfryn was getting at, and without reading between any lines I thought he was pretty coherent in that post.

The look of shock would indicate the bloke did nothing to 'ask for' violent attack. It actually doesn't matter whether he had a condition or not - he was hardly about to keel without being attacked - and even if he only had one day left to live with a condition - the violent attack he endured still makes it manslaughter.
If a parent smothers a sick child, who will otherwise imminently die in pain - it is murder. So, since that is the law, you have to be saying that the police are representing a wrong legal system if that attack isn't manslaughter.
You can't have it both ways. Seems you to are ahead of the pathologist in that you have identified for certain the link between the heart attack and the officer's actions. Incredible. It would be a totally different story if he had never got up and had died where he was pushed over but he didn't. He didn't just stagger to his feet and stumble a few yards later. He got up and walk away not looking any the worse for wear. Your sick child analagy is totally wide of the mark. The mother is intent on putting an end to the child's life. The Officer was not trying to kill tomlinson, either premeditated or on the spur of the moment. Also, how do you know he wasn't about to keel over irrespective of the push.

Oh, and indications are that our legal system and some higher police figures are interested in taking the side of the victim.
You might otherwise have heard the ob trying to defend their officer more vehemently - but they are not. So it looks like almost everyone, including the constabulary, are not siding with your argument.
Just looks that way, mind.

Christ knows what you are on about now. Are you saying the legal system and the police figures are accusing the officer of manslaughter or are you saying they are just condemning the 'assault'. If the latter, then they are siding with my argument, ie it was unnecessary force. I have never argued anything different. What I have always stated is that there is, at present, no medical link that the 'assault' was the cause of he heart attack. Please keep up and read the posts properly.

 

[NMH]

Christ knows what you are on about now. Are you saying the legal system and the police figures are accusing the officer of manslaughter or are you saying they are just condemning the 'assault'. If the latter, then they are siding with my argument, ie it was unnecessary force. I have never argued anything different. What I have always stated is that there is, at present, no medical link that the 'assault' was the cause of he heart attack. Please keep up and read the posts properly.

What "medical link" would be required to even suggest other than what the video showed, ffs?
You would have to be a mentalist with a mind from the hall of distorted mirrors to think there needs to be "a medical link"


oh.

 

[drew]

What "medical link" would be required to even suggest other than what the video showed, ffs?
You would have to be a mentalist with a mind from the hall of distorted mirrors to think there needs to be "a medical link"


oh.

Are you really that dumb? You don't die just because you get pushed to the ground! The officer will be done for what he did but only for manslaughter if it can be shown that the heart attack was as a result of the push and the fact that he got up and walked away gives the element of doubt hence the reason they will need to be able to show a link between the two events.

 

[The Spanish]

Are you really that dumb? You don't die just because you get pushed to the ground! The officer will be done for what he did but only for manslaughter if it can be shown that the heart attack was as a result of the push and the fact that he got up and walked away gives the element of doubt hence the reason they will need to be able to show a link between the two events.

lets hope manslaughter can be proved then. This boy is no Lee Clegg.

Why, on a football forum, to people who are well versed in this sort of indiscriminate untouchable thuggery, you are hell bent on defending the actions of a supposedly trained professional who f***ed up massively, is beyond me.

 

[Acker79]

It actually doesn't matter whether he had a condition or not - he was hardly about to keel without being attacked - and even if he only had one day left to live with a condition - the violent attack he endured still makes it manslaughter.
If a parent smothers a sick child, who will otherwise imminently die in pain - it is murder.

Are you saying hitting someone in the legs and pushing them to the ground, then watching them stand up and walk away and suffer what could very well be an unrelated heart attack is the same as smothering a terminally ill child?


Of course there has to be a provable link between his actions and the death.

If someone was to hit me in the back of the legs and push me to the ground I wouldn't suffer a heart attack. Most people would not suffer a heart attack. I obviously can't say for sure, but I strongly suspect the police officer did not expect the man to die as a result of his actions.

As the man did not die instantly, directly from the hit to the back of the legs, or the fall to the ground, there has to be a link proven. If there was an underlying heart problem will likely be ruled accidental, or perhaps a minor form of manslaughter, if the hit cause a blood clot that resulted in a hart attack, then probably manslaughter.

No fair jury can possibly simply look at that video and rule the police officer guilty of murder/manslaughter.

 

[drew]

Are you saying hitting someone in the legs and pushing them to the ground, then watching them stand up and walk away and suffer what could very well be an unrelated heart attack is the same as smothering a terminally ill child?


Of course there has to be a provable link between his actions and the death.

If someone was to hit me in the back of the legs and push me to the ground I wouldn't suffer a heart attack. Most people would not suffer a heart attack. I obviously can't say for sure, but I strongly suspect the police officer did not expect the man to die as a result of his actions.

As the man did not die instantly, directly from the hit to the back of the legs, or the fall to the ground, there has to be a link proven. If there was an underlying heart problem will likely be ruled accidental, or perhaps a minor form of manslaughter, if the hit cause a blood clot that resulted in a hart attack, then probably manslaughter.

No fair jury can possibly simply look at that video and rule the police officer guilty of murder/manslaughter.

Sorry, but you're wasting your time. Dumb and Dumber (aka The Spanish and NMH) can't read. They can't accept that there will have to be a proven link between the actions of the officer, which I have never condoned but hey they can ignore that all they as it doesn't suit their argument, and the fatal heart attack.

 

[Barrel of Fun]

BBC NEWS | England | London | Police to probe 'woman assault'

The Police are going to have their work cut out for them...

 

[The Large One]

This one was a sergeant in the TSG, and has now been suspended.

BBC NEWS | England | London | Met suspends G20 footage officer

 

[glasfryn]

Sorry, but you're wasting your time. Dumb and Dumber (aka The Spanish and NMH) can't read. They can't accept that there will have to be a proven link between the actions of the officer, which I have never condoned but hey they can ignore that all they as it doesn't suit their argument, and the fatal heart attack.

delayed shock

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Sounds like the guy was roughed up (i.e. pushed/slammed against a wall) then battoned and shoved to the ground. By public servants. On a bloke that was not protesting - but making his lawful way home. Did they ask about any health considerations before getting the batons out ? There was a reckless disregard for the public they are meant to serve.

 

[Pavilionaire]

Nice backhanded swipe by that police officer on that woman, I bet he's a bit tasty at ping pong.