Mr Prime Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Riot police should be allowed to use reasonable force to protect life and property. In this case they were protecting neither and using unreasonable force. in your opinion and not that of the experienced officer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 You realise of course much of the country agrees with me? Really? Have you asked them all? You seem to be very much in a minority on this thread which would imply that you are likely to be very much in a minority in the rest of the world... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
0114owl1867 Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 A charge of "walking with hands in pockets"? quite correct how daft am i ? ha ha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 So what was "not ordinary" about him and his actions? Don't ask stupid questions, it doesn't help your case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Really? Have you asked them all? You seem to be very much in a minority on this thread which would imply that you are likely to be very much in a minority in the rest of the world... You take this thread to be a representation of the nation! You realise most people don't fart about on forums all day like us? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 in your opinion and not that of the experienced officer. Which is why when asked in court he admitted that he didn't see Tomlinson as a threat? PC Harwood was asked if he thought Mr Tomlinson had posed a threat upon their encounter. "Not to me, no," he replied. He added that he did not believe Mr Tomlinson posed a threat to anyone else. source: http://www.channel4.com/news/tomlinson-inquest-pc-harwood-gives-second-day-of-evidence Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Prime Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Yes. He even admitted he saw him as no threat. He was damned by his own evidence and the six additional pathologists. Interesting though like I said the cop was OTT and deserves to be disciplined. I don't think he was responsible for the death of an already very sick man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 You take this thread to be a representation of the nation! You realise most people don't fart about on forums all day like us? And why wouldn't it be. Most people may not "fart about on forums" but that doesn't mean those who do are unrepresentative of the population does it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Riche Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 I am not a troll, I've been on here for years. I would have been banned in 2006 had I come on here just to troll. You disagree with me so I am a troll. A very egotistical view of the world. You realise of course much of the country agrees with me? No they do not fool. Troll? your remarks have no reason or foundation. You feel it is correct for coppers to assult the public. You don't understand what is reasonable force or the circumstances a coppa can use reasonable force. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
evildrneil Posted May 4, 2011 Share Posted May 4, 2011 Don't ask stupid questions, it doesn't help your case. Why is that question stupid. You have stated that he and his actions didn't appear normal. I'm asking what you thought appeared out of the ordinary about them. He appeared to be a very ordinary middle aged bloke to me - what am I missing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.