Wildcat Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Please stop twisting the evidence. A policeman giving a gentle shove to a drunken man making a public nuisance of himself is not an assault. I'll remember that next time I meet the police shall I? A 'gentle shove' in the back knocking them to the floor would not be assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magilla Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 So is the officer then. Depends what he's innocent of. He's clearly not innocent in regards to assaulting Mr.Tomlinson. The video clearly shows he did assault him. Whether that was a justifiable assault is another matter. I don't believe it was, but that is just my opinion and those of all the eye witness reports I've read. I can't off hand think of a single justification for assaulting someone from behind, who is walking calmly with his hands in his pocket. Perhaps you can? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Note also that Tomlinson was stood opposite the protesters at the start of the video, wonder what he was doing, He appeared to be walking home. Certainly he wasn't doing anything illegal. wonder why the cameraman focused on him, The camera was just panning around, and Tomlinosn is not centre of frame when the assault starts. Obviously as the policeman attacks him the camera operator filmed it. wonder why he was stood there if he was supposed to be on his way home, He is walking the whole time in the video, until he is assaulted. He is never 'standing' anywhere. wonder if he was there to make a point, wonder why he didnt explain to the police that he was on his way home and then walk away with a little more speed like most other people would do in that situation. Because he doesn't need to explain these things to the police? Because he didn't want to waste their time as it was perfectly obvious he posed no thread? Because he didn't feel the need to hurry as, presumably he didn't feel threatened by the police - because they're the good guys - or the protesters because there were so many police around? Are you suggesting that the force used by the police - which may or may not have been enough to kill him - was justified because 'he was in the area and walking a little bit slower than most people'? The police were wearing uniform issued to them, nothing sinister about that, They were wearing their uniforms minus their ID badges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 You did state that it showed an innocent man being attacked How do you know he was innocent ? There is no crime for which 'being hit by a truncheon and pushed violently to the ground' is the punishment. And if there was it would need to go to trial first. The police can only use reasonable force. Are you seriously suggesting that a truncheon, a dog and forcefully shoving a man with his hands in his pockets and his back to you is reasonable force? I might follow you out of the pub sometime if I can borrow next door's Akita. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I set the dog on you, hit you with a snooker cue and shoved you to the floor. Of course if you could prove you were innocent rather beforehand I might reconsider. It doesn't matter whether he was 'innocent' or not. The police officer used excessive and unjustified force. Tomlinson was no threat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 The police officer was doing his job. Hi job is to protect and serve the public. Not assault them. I have never said that Mr.Tomlinson was guilty of anything, I have said that from the footage we dont know whether he is innocent or guilty of anything, as with all these video's they only seem to start filming when the police are showing a heavy hand, they never seem to show the police when they control matters without being heavy handed, I wonder why that is? You have implied that he might have done something and that therefore the response was justified, without explaining what he might have done, or why and how that justified the response. I guess videos of people doing their job properly are not as newsworthy. Seems a silly question to ask really. I can't imagine the story 'Most Policemen at G20 Protests Did A Good Job' getting many readers, can you? Whereas 'Policeman Assaults Man Who Was Posing No Threat And He Dies Soon After' is rather more newsworthy, don't you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alien Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 There is no crime for which 'being hit by a truncheon and pushed violently to the ground' is the punishment. And if there was it would need to go to trial first. The police can only use reasonable force. Are you seriously suggesting that a truncheon, a dog and forcefully shoving a man with his hands in his pockets and his back to you is reasonable force? I might follow you out of the pub sometime if I can borrow next door's Akita. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I set the dog on you, hit you with a snooker cue and shoved you to the floor. Of course if you could prove you were innocent rather beforehand I might reconsider. It doesn't matter whether he was 'innocent' or not. The police officer used excessive and unjustified force. Tomlinson was no threat. Tut! Don't forget the face covering and helmet and make sure you get him from behind. You can always justify it by claiming your citizens rights. Jongo claimed he was only doing his job:hihi: Notice the other police weren't doing their job by not joining in. Police with riot gear = no ID Police with face showing = ID on show. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 He appeared to be walking home. Certainly he wasn't doing anything illegal. The camera was just panning around, and Tomlinosn is not centre of frame when the assault starts. Obviously as the policeman attacks him the camera operator filmed it. He is walking the whole time in the video, until he is assaulted. He is never 'standing' anywhere. Because he doesn't need to explain these things to the police? Because he didn't want to waste their time as it was perfectly obvious he posed no thread? Because he didn't feel the need to hurry as, presumably he didn't feel threatened by the police - because they're the good guys - or the protesters because there were so many police around? Are you suggesting that the force used by the police - which may or may not have been enough to kill him - was justified because 'he was in the area and walking a little bit slower than most people'? They were wearing their uniforms minus their ID badges. I suggest you watch the video a little bit more closely He is stood still at the time the police move in. Therefore he doesnt "appear" to be walking anywhere. If the police have repeatedly asked him to move on (previous to this incident) then I would say that he should explain his actions as to why he wont leave the area. I havnt suggested anything about the force used being justified Again, what has the police wearing no ID to do with it, where does it state that they had to wear ID ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 There is no crime for which 'being hit by a truncheon and pushed violently to the ground' is the punishment. And if there was it would need to go to trial first. The police can only use reasonable force. Are you seriously suggesting that a truncheon, a dog and forcefully shoving a man with his hands in his pockets and his back to you is reasonable force? I might follow you out of the pub sometime if I can borrow next door's Akita. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I set the dog on you, hit you with a snooker cue and shoved you to the floor. Of course if you could prove you were innocent rather beforehand I might reconsider. It doesn't matter whether he was 'innocent' or not. The police officer used excessive and unjustified force. Tomlinson was no threat. My my Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Hi job is to protect and serve the public. Not assault them. I have never said that Mr.Tomlinson was guilty of anything, I have said that You have implied that he might have done something and that therefore the response was justified, without explaining what he might have done, or why and how that justified the response. I guess videos of people doing their job properly are not as newsworthy. Seems a silly question to ask really. I can't imagine the story 'Most Policemen at G20 Protests Did A Good Job' getting many readers, can you? Whereas 'Policeman Assaults Man Who Was Posing No Threat And He Dies Soon After' is rather more newsworthy, don't you think? Did I imply he might have done something ? What was that then? Or Have I implied that there are a lot of sheep bleating on about something they know nothing about because they wasnt there and are relying on clips of video's of the events or eye witness statements (most if not all from protesters ) about how brutal the police are and how everyone there was just being peaceful and out for a quiet peaceful protest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mh01 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I might follow you out of the pub sometime if I can borrow next door's Akita. I'm sure you wouldn't mind if I set the dog on you, hit you with a snooker cue and shoved you to the floor. Of course if you could prove you were innocent rather beforehand I might reconsider. i can assure you, you'll need more than your next door neighbours akita & a snooker cue to get anywhere near owd jongo;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.