RootsBooster Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 It wasn't an attack. It was a shove. Oxymoron, anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Oxymoron, anyone? Only if I can wear surgical gloves.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 he quite obviously was and i did:roll: your agenda reads into the footage differently:roll: Asking to leave the scene on numerous occasions is obstructing? ............................................................................................. It's amazing that the thug lovers interpret not guilty and innocent as the same. Being not guilty of something doesn't automatically prove innocence of something else. He was found 'Not guilty' of manslaughter because the baton attack and shove wasn't conclusive evidence that that's what killed him. His innocence has never been in question regarding him attacking..even the police acknowledge it...why? because the footage is unquestionable. Unless you're a moron, which I suppose is excusable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 There was a baton swing, the point of impact wasn’t caught on film, but there was no indication from Ian that he had been hit by it, he didn’t flinch or move until he was shoved, clearly in hindsight he should have been arrested instead of pushed, but we weren’t there and the film doesn’t give us the full story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mecky Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 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. So if the videos don't show contact was made does that mean it wasn't? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 So if the videos don't show contact was made does that mean it wasn't? No it means it doesn't show contact and at the time of the apparent contact Ian didn't flinch, he didn't appear to have been hit, he only moved once shoved. I would expect to see someone being hit by a baton on the legs to flinch/ drop slightly has they are hit, he didn’t. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirmisher Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 So if the videos don't show contact was made does that mean it wasn't? The baton swings, no contact seems to have been made, Ian gave no indication that he felt a blow from the baton. Anyone, other than the complete idiots that are just out for a policemans blood, would therefore accept that the baton DID NOT HIT TOMLINSON. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Asking to leave the scene on numerous occasions is obstructing? ............................................................................................. It's amazing that the thug lovers interpret not guilty and innocent as the same. Being not guilty of something doesn't automatically prove innocence of something else. He was found 'Not guilty' of manslaughter because the baton attack and shove wasn't conclusive evidence that that's what killed him. His innocence has never been in question regarding him attacking..even the police acknowledge it...why? because the footage is unquestionable. Unless you're a moron, which I suppose is excusable. Its amazing that police haters interpret scenes on video to suit their own agenda....being a policeman doesnt automatically prove brutality agaisnt the public especially when that particular person is obstructing the police in their duty! unless you are a total imbicile........which i suppose is excusable as you cant help it:hihi: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinz Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 Its amazing that police haters interpret scenes on video to suit their own agenda....being a policeman doesnt automatically prove brutality agaisnt the public especially when that particular person is obstructing the police in their duty! unless you are a total imbicile........which i suppose is excusable as you cant help it:hihi: I agree, but he isn't a policeman in the true sense of the word, a concept truly beyond your mental capacity... but.... ....the 12 times 'red mist' thug you're defending is no longer in a position to attack anyone as an officer. One more piece of trash who'll soon be sucking from the state. He's an embarrassment to the uniform and now acknowledged by the police as so, and even apologised for not getting rid of the thug earlier. I doubt we haven't heard the last of this creep..he just likes violence to much, violence you and the apologists will continue to support. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted July 29, 2012 Share Posted July 29, 2012 The baton swings, no contact seems to have been made, Ian gave no indication that he felt a blow from the baton. Anyone, other than the complete idiots that are just out for a policemans blood, would therefore accept that the baton DID NOT HIT TOMLINSON. I don't know what video you've been watching, but it certainly looks like he hit Tomlinson to me. He hardly had time to flinch, he was pushed over straight after. You've got to admit, the police officer shouldn't of acted in that way. Tomlinson was walking away, hands in pockets. No need for the shove. The police officer in question should lose his job. He's not cut out for it. What a prat! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.