Happ Hazzard Posted July 26, 2012 Share Posted July 26, 2012 It wasn't an attack. It was a shove. It wouldn't have killed a man that hadn't destroyed his body through abuse of alcohol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 It wasn't an attack. It was a shove. It wouldn't have killed a man that hadn't destroyed his body through abuse of alcohol. The rationalization of the immature, come back when your 15 young-un. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happ Hazzard Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I'm 35. I just think people want to use this as an excuse to attack the police. They really can't win, and I think all the backbiting puts a lot of good people off from joining the force. So we end up with police that are too meek to stop rioting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Darth Vader Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 what a load of cods wallop:roll: he was cleared by a jury that saw all the evidence presented by defence and prosecution. you have no proof anyone lied clearly? as you are a barrack room lawyer type it seems the police have a very difficult job in difficult circumstances and sometimes a few eggs need to be broken to make an omellette. looking at the footage of tomlinson it is quite obvious he was deliberatly hindering the police ... so he got a shove....his death was caused by underlying causes of alcalhol and heart trouble....there easy eh? Thank you. I always find a brief summary of your post in the opening sentence, so useful. He was cleared of manslaughter, NOT of wrong doing, NOT of unprovoked assault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirmisher Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Thank you. I always find a brief summary of your post in the opening sentence, so useful. He was cleared of manslaughter, NOT of wrong doing, NOT of unprovoked assault. Was he charged and tried for unprovoked assault? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 "That one" is the same incident taken from a different angle, it wasn't a different incident. If you look at the Sky footage Tomlinson was the only individual within striking range. Are you now saying that there were two Ian Tomlinson's wearing the same clothing struck by two officers? Why are you denying what's already been proven? Being acquitted of Manslaughter is one thing but denying proof of the attack can only suggest you're an apologist. Why? Try this, it may answer a few questions about who you are. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial "The theory of denial was first researched seriously by Anna Freud. She classified denial as a mechanism of the immature mind, because it conflicts with the ability to learn from and cope with reality". You are making an assumption that when the baton was swung it made contact with Ian, the two videos being used as evidence that he was hit by a baton don’t show him being hit by a baton, they just show a baton being swung and an officer holding a baton pushing him. There’s no denial, I’m just looking at the videos and saying what I see, you are adding an impact into what you see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I'm 35. I just think people want to use this as an excuse to attack the police. They really can't win, and I think all the backbiting puts a lot of good people off from joining the force. So we end up with police that are too meek to stop rioting. Again your excusing the conduct of a police officer and rationalizing it with blaming others for his action. Loving or hating the police has no bearing on the evidence. Was he charged and tried for unprovoked assault? No, that wasn't in question. What was in question was, did he die because of it. You are making an assumption that when the baton was swung it made contact with Ian, the two videos being used as evidence that he was hit by a baton don’t show him being hit by a baton, they just show a baton being swung and an officer holding a baton pushing him. There’s no denial, I’m just looking at the videos and saying what I see, you are adding an impact into what you see. Which gets us back to your earlier incorrect comment that he wasn't attacked by a baton. The first video shows he does, regardless of how much you wish to deny, the second reinforces the first even though it wasn't needed for those not in denial. A term I very rarely use is 'troll', in your case an exception is made because in all sincerity your vision is most likely not in question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirmisher Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 Again your excusing the conduct of a police officer and rationalizing it with blaming others for his action. Loving or hating the police has no bearing on the evidence. No, that wasn't in question. What was in question was, did he die because of it. . The evidence was clear enough to find the accused, NOT GUILTY What did the coroner say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 The evidence was clear enough to find the accused, NOT GUILTY What did the coroner say? The inquest said "unlawfully killed".. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 I'm 35. I just think people want to use this as an excuse to attack the police. They really can't win, and I think all the backbiting puts a lot of good people off from joining the force. So we end up with police that are too meek to stop rioting. Use an example of possible involuntary manslaughter as an example to "get at" the ploice? Please?!?!? If this happened on the street or outside a pub, the person who did the shoving and hitting on the legs with a batton, would be behind bars.....end of! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.