jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 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. Imagine the uproar Alien if 10 police officers jumped on him It only took the one to remove the offender. 1 PO = Reasonable force Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 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. Sadly he can't explain. The police assaulted him and he died. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 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. There is a prime face case for prosecution. It's for a jury to decide guilt. I just want a trial. However, it seems that 'there is evidence for the defence and evidence for the prosecution' seems to be being used as a reason not to have one, which is a new legal development to me. I thought there was usually evidence presented by both sides, but in this case it seems that means there can be no trial. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Sadly he can't explain. The police assaulted him and he died. He could have tried explaining himself at the time, and then maybe, just maybe the incident would never have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 There is a prime face case for prosecution. It's for a jury to decide guilt. I just want a trial. However, it seems that 'there is evidence for the defence and evidence for the prosecution' seems to be being used as a reason not to have one, which is a new legal development to me. I thought there was usually evidence presented by both sides, but in this case it seems that means there can be no trial. I want a Ferrari Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alex C. Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 Sadly there’s been a lot of misinformation spread about this case by the usual lefties, and their bible The Guardian, a paper with a pathological hatred of the police. Ian Tomlinson has been portrayed as some kind of saint when in reality he was a homeless alcoholic who fathered 9 children and could have chosen to avoid the rioting protestors on his way home, but deliberately chose to walk right into it and refused to comply with police police requests to move on. Also he did not die as a result of being pushed, he died as a result of a heart attack. As he was a heavy smoker and alcoholic, it’s likely his lifestyle that killed him. The most shocking aspect is that this poor police officer has been put through hell for the last 18 months, not knowing if he was going to be prosecuted for simply doing his job, protecting the rest of us from these violent protestors. It’s him we should have sympathy for, not Tomlinson. The heart attack ("natural causes") was put forward by the first pathologist - one who is currently facing 26 charges of misconduct in an investigation by the GMC. The 2nd and 3rd pathologists (working on behalf of the IPCC, and the Met Police respectively) agreed that the death was caused by internal bleeding, caused by blunt force trauma. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 He could have tried explaining himself at the time, and then maybe, just maybe the incident would never have happened. I don't think he had chance - he had his back to the person who assaulted him. Did you see the video? Do you suggest I explain to every policeman I see that I am no threat, just in case they want to hit me with a truncheon? How would the police tell who was just saying it and who meant it, do you think? And would the time spent talking to people who were no threat be better spent looking after those that are? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number Six Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I want a Ferrari A Ferrari is a luxury you may buy. Justice isn't supposed to be a commodity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
harvey19 Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I have noticed several mentions of eye witness accounts of this incident, does this include the other police officers eye witness accounts ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jongo Posted July 23, 2010 Share Posted July 23, 2010 I don't think he had chance - he had his back to the person who assaulted him. Did you see the video? Do you suggest I explain to every policeman I see that I am no threat, just in case they want to hit me with a truncheon? How would the police tell who was just saying it and who meant it, do you think? And would the time spent talking to people who were no threat be better spent looking after those that are? Was he asked to move on previous to this incident ? I think if I was in his position and a group of police in riot gear, batons and dogs were heading towards me, I would take the time to explain that I was on my way home and moved out of there a lot quicker than he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.