guy that died during G20 protests. video

[readingstockport]

Hang on...it's clear that the bloke was shoved and fell over. No question.

It is not clear what killed him (other than the already reported news that he suffered a heart attack). I doubt they'll ever be able to prove a causal link between him being pushed over and him suffering a heart attack, though I imagine the officer in question will still have to answer a few questions.

If you punch someone and they die within a year and a day as a result of that then you are guilty of murder. Would he have had a heart attack if he hadn't been assaulted by the thug in uniform? We don't know. Was it a causal factor? I would suspect so.

No doubt the thug in uniform will get off scott free but he will know to the day he dies that he murdered that bloke.

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

Did he deserve to die, no of course not, but he did deserve the treatment he got. If he'd been bit on the arse by one of the dogs and had a jammer would you have been calling for the dog to be put down??

£20 says that whatever court in the land tries this disagrees with you on whether he deserved that treatment. Of course he didn't. There's nothing in the police handbook to give the copper the right to scythe him with his shield and then shove the bloke from behind with his hands in his pockets onto the floor.

As for the dogs....if the dog had killed him then yes, I'd call for the dog to be put down.

The bloke posed no threat to the police. None whatsoever and the fact that lots of other people were milling in the immediate vicinity strikes me as more the police being bored and picking fights rather than trying to clear areas.

As I say, £20 says you're wrong.

 

[skr80]

the police response to having a chap walk in front of them seems wildly disproportionate to what the copper did by way of whacking him. Excessive and in the context of that clip - totally wrong - shame on that man.

 

[fatbadger]

Hang on...it's clear that the bloke was shoved and fell over. No question.

It is not clear what killed him (other than the already reported news that he suffered a heart attack). I doubt they'll ever be able to prove a causal link between him being pushed over and him suffering a heart attack, though I imagine the officer in question will still have to answer a few questions.

Well, of course no-one will be charged over this. Even though, for instance, some thug (unluckily for him, not in uniform) was recently jailed for (accidentally) killing someone after punching him and knocking him over, no police officer will ever face a charge over this. In fact, if the current unwritten rules are applied to the case, he'll get a promotion.

We have reached a stage where any police officer can kill any member of the public and, as long as he says "I was worried about terrorism / potential danger to the public / my cat was a little scared", he or she will get away with it, every time.

If a member of the public can be shot repeatedly in the head after a catalogue of police errors and the responsible officers not even be charged, then this officer is very, very safe.

 

[Billy the Fish]

How brave of mr plod to shove him from behind like that.

 

[seagulls4ever]

If you punch someone and they die within a year and a day as a result of that then you are guilty of murder. Would he have had a heart attack if he hadn't been assaulted by the thug in uniform? We don't know. Was it a causal factor? I would suspect so.

No doubt the thug in uniform will get off scott free but he will know to the day he dies that he murdered that bloke.

Manslaughter, not murder.

 

[Arthur]

£20 says that whatever court in the land tries this disagrees with you on whether he deserved that treatment. Of course he didn't. There's nothing in the police handbook to give the copper the right to scythe him with his shield and then shove the bloke from behind with his hands in his pockets onto the floor. .

Think you'll find the old bill are allowed to use appropriate force. The bloke was told to move, he didn't therefore the force was justified.

As for the dogs....if the dog had killed him then yes, I'd call for the dog to be put down.

Hang on a sec, the bloke had a jammer, he didn't die because he got shoved over or whacked round the back of the legs or because he was bitten by a dog.

The bloke posed no threat to the police. None whatsoever and the fact that lots of other people were milling in the immediate vicinity strikes me as more the police being bored and picking fights rather than trying to clear areas.

Can you blame them? If you'd spent all day having two bob wankers calling you every name under the sun and attacking you at every moment possible wouldn't you be a touch wound up? They are human after all.

If a copper had had a jammer and died following the days events would you be calling for the protesters to be done for his manslaughter?

As I say, £20 says you're wrong.

You're on. £20 to REMF. Just so we're clear, what has to happen for either of us to win said bet?

 

[Pot noodles for everyone]

umm....good point.

How about policeman cleared of using excessive force then I lose. Otherwise you lose.

Is that okay for you?


(by the way. I'm not up on my slang. What's a jammer?)

 

[Barrel of Fun]

....but he's obviously a bit simple.


....but he did deserve the treatment he got.

So he deserves to be thrown to the ground for being a bit simple? Surely best to judge each case on its merits and he did not look as though he was antagonising and the situation called for him to be taken to one side and warned, as opposed to being thrown to the ground.

 

[Hotchilidog]

Whether it had anything to do with his death or not, it was a plain unprovoked assault with a weapon, a f**king disgrace. Indefensible behaviour...

 

[Barrel of Fun]

Think you'll find the old bill are allowed to use appropriate force. The bloke was told to move, he didn't therefore the force was justified.

Was he given a reasonable chance to move? That video is in slow motion. Seemingly the first order to move was given, he made a change in direction and then was thrown to the floor.

That force was never justified. There were plenty of police there to be able to cope with one slow moving gentleman without having to 'thwow him to the floor'. Did they even begin to think that perhaps he was slow moving for medical reasons?

 

[cjd]

Whether it had anything to do with his death or not, it was a plain unprovoked assault with a weapon, a f**king disgrace. Indefensible behaviour...

Totally agree with you.............but not unusual behaviour from the police when dealing with any groups (particularly football supporters).

Thuggish behaviour by the officer concerned...........and appears completely acceptable to his colleagues on the film..........no surprise there either.

 

[Arthur]

umm....good point.

How about policeman cleared of using excessive force then I lose. Otherwise you lose.

Is that okay for you?

Terrific.

(by the way. I'm not up on my slang. What's a jammer?)

Heart attack.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Shows why I never trust the police. Wankers.

.

 

[eastlondonseagull]

Well, of course no-one will be charged over this. Even though, for instance, some thug (unluckily for him, not in uniform) was recently jailed for (accidentally) killing someone after punching him and knocking him over, no police officer will ever face a charge over this. In fact, if the current unwritten rules are applied to the case, he'll get a promotion.

We have reached a stage where any police officer can kill any member of the public and, as long as he says "I was worried about terrorism / potential danger to the public / my cat was a little scared", he or she will get away with it, every time.

If a member of the public can be shot repeatedly in the head after a catalogue of police errors and the responsible officers not even be charged, then this officer is very, very safe.

.

 

[Superseagull]

I'm surprised the plod didn't whack the person filming this as well as you are no longer allowed to film the police or take photos. The police have got too cocky with there crowd control tactics and one day this increasingly aggressive approach will backfire on them when they push it too far and the crowd will fight back.

Even when we did our Falmer marches a few years back the plod felt it necessary to constantly film people and take photos of us all like we were a bunch of criminals - why?

 

[The Merry Prankster]

Well, of course no-one will be charged over this. Even though, for instance, some thug (unluckily for him, not in uniform) was recently jailed for (accidentally) killing someone after punching him and knocking him over, no police officer will ever face a charge over this. In fact, if the current unwritten rules are applied to the case, he'll get a promotion.

We have reached a stage where any police officer can kill any member of the public and, as long as he says "I was worried about terrorism / potential danger to the public / my cat was a little scared", he or she will get away with it, every time.

If a member of the public can be shot repeatedly in the head after a catalogue of police errors and the responsible officers not even be charged, then this officer is very, very safe.

Spot on. The police are instruments of a very nasty State these days. A State that doesn't believe in civil liberties, freedom of the individual, the right to protest or the right of free assembly. They are increasingly used as tools of oppression. Not wholely their fault - they are just obeying their masters.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

that along with the false statments of the crowd impeding the police when the guy collapsed, saying they tried to help him but were bottled back, which has now shown to be false.

The plod have a habit of giving totally false versions of events in the aftermath of incidents of this nature. Remember the Brazilian electrician with the padded jacket with wires sticking out vaulting the ticket barriers of Stockwell tube whilst the plod shouted at him. Dont the police realise that most events in London have numerous cameras and people's eyes trained on them?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Was the bloke deaf?

Can clearly hear the coppers shouting at him to get moving. Very sad that he died but he was clearly trying to be obstuctive.

He seemed to be moving to me. Maybe not at the speed the plod wanted but he was moving away as instructed.

 

[Superseagull]

Dont the police realise that most events in London have numerous cameras and people's eyes trained on them?

Yes, thats why its now illeagal to film or photograph them!