London SE1 community website

Anti-capitalism demo

Join in these discussions today! Log in or register.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 6 of 15
Tuesday 7 April 2009 8.28pm
No, the incident is disgraceful: there was no reason to hit this man with a baton.

Nevertheless, it would be crass to use this one appalling and tragic episode to damn the entire police effort. The police are people, and as such they are fallible, but one officer's significant error does not equate to wholesale brutality.
Tuesday 7 April 2009 8.34pm
The reference to police brutality wasn't mine, I merely included it in the quote, however I'd question this 'fairly anodyne' act. This man was in no way that I can see obstructing the police in their duty and is plainly not looking to case any trouble, he has his hands in his pockets for pities sake, hardly an aggressive stance, therefore did not deserve this response for which he paid with his life.

I can't defend this action in any form.
Tuesday 7 April 2009 9.32pm
longlaner wrote:
No, the incident is disgraceful: there was no reason to hit this man with a baton.
He was struck on the back of the leg with a baton and did not seem to lose his Balance from that. You can't be sure from the video, but the appearance is consistent with a relatively light strike with the tip. You leave the impression that he might have been brutally assaulted with a baton.
Again we can't know, but the appearance of the video at the beginning is consistent with an officer giving him instructions which the other officer may have judged weren't being followed. It's easy for we armchair pundits to slant things against the police. This video alone is far from determinative. I have no dog in this fight, but the convenient assumption of police brutality just grates.
Tuesday 7 April 2009 9.54pm
The angle from which the clip is shot means it's hard to tell where Tomlinson is struck. But it looks to me as though he was struck on the lower back rather than the leg.

In any case, why did he need to be struck at all? At the moment of the incident there are between six and eight police officers within about ten feet of him, and he's walking on his own and - whatever he's saying, no matter how offensive (or not) - is not behaving in a physically aggressive manner.

If he didn't fall as a result of being struck, why did he fall?
Tuesday 7 April 2009 11.13pm
longlaner wrote:
The angle from which the clip is shot means it's hard to tell where Tomlinson is struck. But it looks to me as though he was struck on the lower back rather than the leg.
In any case, why did he need to be struck at all? At the moment of the incident there are between six and eight police officers within about ten feet of him, and he's walking on his own and - whatever he's saying, no matter how offensive (or not) - is not behaving in a physically aggressive manner.

If he didn't fall as a result of being struck, why did he fall?

Because he was pushed. For the rest you're putting your interpretation on something neither of us have a grip on. Nothing we can see is consistent with triggering a heart-attack in a person in normal health, but it sure would be convenient to imply that to support an anti-police narrative. Hence the prominence on the BBC/Guardian. Would that the police applied the same assertiveness against mobs inciting the murder of British soldiers.
Zoe
Wednesday 8 April 2009 6.42am
markadams99 wrote:
Would that the police applied the same assertiveness against mobs inciting the murder of British soldiers.

What nonsense are you talking about?
Wednesday 8 April 2009 7.06am
Well, the story seems to be escalating

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7989027.stm

I am not convinced that the BBC is in the business of pushing "anti-police narrative".
Wednesday 8 April 2009 7.09am
Quote:
Nothing we can see is consistent with triggering a heart-attack in a person in normal health, but it sure would be convenient to imply that to support an anti-police narrative.

Actually on the basis of the "Egg-shell skull rule " it's irrelevant whether or not he was in normal health. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull for details.

However, there still must be a causal link between the police officer's action and the heart attack. A defence might argue that other stress factors were the trigger.
Wednesday 8 April 2009 8.09am
Ian Tomlinson death: G20 witnesses tell of dogs, batons and an attack by police
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/g20-ian-tomlinson-death-witnesses
ADT
Wednesday 8 April 2009 8.14am
James Johnston wrote:
there still must be a causal link between the police officer's action and the heart attack

must? Really? You may as well blame the protestors for getting in the way of the poor man's walk home from work.
Pages:  Previous1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ...LastNext
Current: 6 of 15

To post a message, please log in or register..
We are part of
Independent Community News Network
Email newsletter

For the latest local news and events direct to your inbox every Monday, you need our weekly email newsletter SE1 Direct.

7,000+ locals read it every week. Can you afford to miss out?

Read the latest issue before signing up

Also on the forum
Views expressed in this discussion forum are those of the contributors and may not reflect the editorial policy of this website. Please read our terms and conditions