Ian Tomlinson Police video

[Sp!ke]

Have you seen the video footage?

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

If so, what do you make of it?

 

[Chattonmill]

Considering he was nothing to do with the protest he wasnt being very helpful was he?
Ambling along almost trying to be obstructive.

 

[flango]

Video shot is too narrow and there is no audio, you can't see the bigger picture and if anything else led up to this. Although from first impressions it looks as though the baton strike and the push were totally unecesscary and unprovoked, but is that how they want it to look?

Also its a good example as why you never walk with both hands in your pockets, nothing to break your fall

 

[Sp!ke]

Regardless of the events that lead up to this, It would have to be a very good lawyer that could argue that this use of force was reasonable surely?

I think this officer ought to face manslaughter charges.

 

[Rory]

I'm not sure that comment is worthwhile. We can see what we can see.

Interesting how the "video everything" society that we live in turned this apparent chance heart attack into a wholly different story.

 

[flango]

Regardless of the events that lead up to this, It would have to be a very good lawyer that could argue that this use of force was reasonable surely?

I think this officer ought to face manslaughter charges.

There is no way from that video any lawyer could argue unreasonable force, there is not enough evidence, we have seen videos like this time and time again that show what people think is a clear case of police brutality and then low and behold cctv footage or footage from another angle comes out and puts a whole new perspective on it.

Not condoning what I've seen on the video clip but just do not believe it paints the whole picture.

 

[Satch]

The incident captured on video was the second of two alleged assaults by Police on Mr Tomlinson. The first was a few minutes earlier where witnesses claim he was charged by an officer, thrown to the ground and struck twice with a baton.

Current wind blowing up skirts of senior plod and Home Secretary circulate around some claims that the same officer was involved in both incidents. Since the officer involved had either removed or forgotten his PC number slide and covered his face (yes, you may be needing tin foil hats soon but that is of itself a very significant issue) it can be no more than that at present.

Take a look at this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson

 

[Chattonmill]

The incident captured on video was the second of two alleged assaults by Police on Mr Tomlinson. The first was a few minutes earlier where witnesses claim he was charged by an officer, thrown to the ground and struck twice with a baton.

Current wind blowing up skirts of senior plod and Home Secretary circulate around some claims that the same officer was involved in both incidents. Since the officer involved had either removed or forgotten his PC number slide and covered his face (yes, you may be needing tin foil hats soon but that is of itself a very significant issue) it can be no more than that at present.

Take a look at this:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/interactive/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson

That puts a different slant on it, perhaps he was dazed from the first encounter with the police.

 

[ackee911]

IMHO, sling the policeman in jail. Its obvious he thought he's on top of the law.

This is what enforces the hate most people have for met.


Just to clarify, I'm not anti-met. Most are very approachable and helpful. But there are some..........

 

[Sp!ke]

There is no way from that video any lawyer could argue unreasonable force, there is not enough evidence,

Really?

So if its so easy, how do you justify the force used against a man who was plainly walking calmly away from the officer with both hands in his pockets.

I'm intrigued to know what possible circumstance these actions can be condoned.

 

[Howard]

Well , there was a line of advancing police officers , in riot gear ...

Just my opinion , but i would suspect he has been shouted at to move , has got the hump and is ambling away with his hands in his pockets being as obstructive as possible while still obeying the command ( much like a small child would do ) ...

An officer has taken umbrage to this and helped him on his way ( unfortunately it turned out to be literally )

 

[RoseTattoo]

Well , there was a line of advancing police officers , in riot gear ...

Just my opinion , but i would suspect he has been shouted at to move , has got the hump and is ambling away with his hands in his pockets being as obstructive as possible while still obeying the command ( much like a small child would do ) ...

An officer has taken umbrage to this and helped him on his way ( unfortunately it turned out to be literally )

And nor do we know what happened in the previous incident.
It was reported to be two to three minutes before he fell to the ground with a heart attack and so could something else have happened in the interim? Assuming that there is a post mortem we will find out the start of his heart and his health in other areas.
My first view was that this was an unprovoked attack but some of the comments here have caused me to think more about it.

 

[flango]

Really?

So if its so easy, how do you justify the force used against a man who was plainly walking calmly away from the officer with both hands in his pockets.

I'm intrigued to know what possible circumstance these actions can be condoned.

In my post I actually said I do not condone this type of action, but you cannot see enough of the surrounding view or the events leading up to this, you dont know what was said on either side, If there had been a previous altracation, then why would you walk past another line of riot police? you'd avoid them surely? How many people do you see walking about with both hands in their pockets? Was this an act of defiance to an instruction given by the police.

I'm not condoning this merely playing devils advocate, and based on the OP video clip there is not enough evidence for anything.

 

[grober]

Wrong place at the wrong time?

Ian Tomlinson was in the wrong place at the wrong time. At an earlier stage he may have antagonised officers by being argumentative and insisting on walking home by his normal route ( which under normal circumstances he would be perfectly entitled to do of course) You would have thought that if he had been assaulted previously his instinct would have been to stay well out of "range" of any policemen or dogs. Looking at the film it would appear his "casual gait with hands in pockets" was essentially meant to be provocative or defiant. At one point a dog handler lets his black alsation very close to Mr Tomlinsons legs but he barely reacts. He was then assaulted from behind by an officer in riot gear who probably wanted to show him "who was boss" in this situation.
I'm sure the officer didn't intend his attack to be fatal otherwise he would have laid about his head with his baton and continued to attack him on the ground if he had completely lost control. The officer in question may of course been inhibited once he or his colleagues had spotted the incident was being videoed who knows?
There is no doubt he was assaulted from behind without warning by a policeman who was in no personal danger himself and that officer should be held responsible for his actions. Whether Mr Tomlinson by his own actions put himself "in harms way" remains to be determined. Crucial to this might be his post mortem which might give an indication of why he behaved as he did. If he had received a prior head injury or was otherwise mentally incapacitated by drink or drugs or a prior medical condition such as diabetes it might explain a lot.

 

[Sp!ke]

It is irrelevant what happened in the surrounding area or what happened earlier.

The question is what was the justification for that level of force? Was the police officer acting in self defence?

it looks very much like this was a deliberate act of violence by this police officer.

Interesting to see this office had his face covered and his lapel badges removed or hidden. If the officer had removed his identifying marks immediately prior to this attack to deliberately hide his identity... then it would seem to be a premeditated act which is a different ball game altogether.

I suppose its possible that the officer in question may not even have been a police officer at all but someone masquerading as one.

 

[glojo]

Really?

So if its so easy, how do you justify the force used against a man who was plainly walking calmly away from the officer with both hands in his pockets.

I'm intrigued to know what possible circumstance these actions can be condoned.

I don't know what video you were watching but every video clip I have seen INCLUDING YOURS ... quite clearly show this so called innocent person ambling from right to left, across the path of the advancing police. Yes he had his hands in his pockets but could that be, because ne did not want them bitten by those police dogs?

What upright, law abiding citizen is goiing to slowly amble across the line of advancing police that are using police dogs to clear demonstrators?

What innocent citizen that is minding their own business is going to place themselves right at the front of advanceing riot police?

I fully accept that everyone has the right to demonstrate and the right to walk along the footpath, but come on guys, lets use a little common sense here, that person was not 'walking away' from the advancing police, he was perhaps goading them and trying to get a reaction.

I have just been reading posts where we praise forum members that want to use violence when someone dares to stop a car in front of them, or other minor incident, but when it comes to something like this where we do not know any of the facts then game on!!

If someone is perfectly innocent then steer clear of demonstrations that we all knew would get violent.

From what I have read some of these demonstrators were throwing polythene bags full of urine or excrement, others were throwing glass bottles or other missiles at the police, but these are not filmed... The instant an officer reacts then there is national coverage.

 

[flango]

It is irrelevant what happened in the surrounding area or what happened earlier.

No it's not it might have had bearing on the Heart attack

The question is what was the justification for that level of force? Was the police officer acting in self defence?

That level of force is no more than you would get at a football match on crowd control

it looks very much like this was a deliberate act of violence by this police officer.

Agreed from the clip but you can't hear the audio or see the bigger picture so you cant be sure.

Interesting to see this office had his face covered and his lapel badges removed or hidden. If the officer had removed his identifying marks immediately prior to this attack to deliberately hide his identity... then it would seem to be a premeditated act which is a different ball game altogether.

All the officers in riot gear had their faces covered, also don't assume these are all policemen it is a well known fact, that members of special branch, special forces etc regularly take part in policing such events as these and do not were lapel badges or identifying insignia for obvious reasons.

I suppose its possible that the officer in question may not even have been a police officer at all but someone masquerading as one.

See above

Just my views on your comments above

 

[Sp!ke]

Am I to infer from your post John that you think it would have been ok if this man was in fact a protestor?

Even if he was deliberately getting in the way of the police, the police are simply not allowed to assault someone in this way - this was excessive force, not reasonable and you of all people should know this.


Lets just assume that there is some merrit in the above alleged actions of excrement throwing from the protestors (that none of the police or press cameras managed to film). You seem to be trying to use this allegation in order to justify the retaliatory actions of an officer that killed a man.

I struggle to see this side of the story - sorry.

 

[Meldrew2]

Robert Peel laid down some very clear principles for Policing:

1. The basic mission for which the police exist is to prevent crime and disorder.
2. The ability of the police to perform their duties is dependent upon the public approval of police actions.
3. Police must secure the willing co-operation of the public in voluntary observation of the law to be able to secure and maintain the respect of the public.
4. The degree of co-operation of the public that can be secured diminishes proportionately to the necessity of the use of physical force.
5. Police seek and preserve public favour not by catering to public opinion, but by constantly demonstrating absolute impartial service to the law.
6. Police use physical force to the extent necessary to secure observance of the law or to restore order only when the exercise of persuasion, advice, and warning is found to be insufficient.
7. Police, at all times, should maintain a relationship with the public that gives reality to the historic tradition that the police are the public and the public are the police; the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen in the interests of community welfare and existence.
8. Police should always direct their action strictly towards their functions, and never appear to usurp the powers of the judiciary.
9. The test of police efficiency is the absence of crime and disorder, not the visible evidence of police action in dealing with it.

It's clear that these points have not been observed in this case.

The Police lost the respect of the public during the Miners' Strike when they were percieved by many to be the Prime Minister's private army. This tragic incident will do nothing to regain respect.

There must be a clear, transparent enquiry. Not that an enquiry will bring Mr Tomlinson back to life.

 

[robert.saunders]

... You seem to be trying to justify the retaliatory actions of an officer that killed a man.

Powerful (& dangerous) statement Sp!ke, clearly you're in the knowledge as to what has happened more than anybody else