Bassman62 Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 What do you believe? You must have seen the video. What was he doing that presented a threat to the officer that struck him? So are you telling us that you'd be daft enought to enter a riot area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 You must have thought I was asking a different question - I was asking what threat he posed to the officer that struck him? As you'll know, having seen the pictures, the officer was behind him and mr Tomlinson had his hands in his pockets. What was the threat he posed to the officer? Oh, you are tedious. Ok, for the THIRD time now, he was deliberately obstructing the Police, blocking their path and not getting out of the way. Shoving him out of the way was entirely called for. The matter of him falling over because he had his hands in his pockets / was rat-arsed, is his own fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 I believe that anyone who is stupid enough to enter an area where ongoing riots were taking place seriously contributes to what may befall them. Prince Charles included? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bassman62 Posted November 12, 2011 Share Posted November 12, 2011 Prince Charles included?Classic example. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Oh, you are tedious. Ok, for the THIRD time now, he was deliberately obstructing the Police, blocking their path and not getting out of the way. Shoving him out of the way was entirely called for. The matter of him falling over because he had his hands in his pockets / was rat-arsed, is his own fault. Hard to believe I'm reading this. You seem to be saying that Tomlinson's death was his own fault? Seriously how can you know that? There is a criminal trial of the officer involved in 2012. There is also an incomplete internal Met investigation. As I mentioned earlier in the thread maybe it is best to wait for those. At the end of day somebody has died in very public and tragic circumstances. Would you post this bile on his local forum or write to his local newspaper and expect to get away with what you are saying? Or say it to the face of one of his family or close friends? Have a little respect for human life and respect the due process of law. Same for other posters attempting to score threads over the death of that poor man. I don't think there's anything controversial or offensive in what I have just posted. If you think there is don't bother asking for an apology - you won't get one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erebus Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Demonstrating, striking should be illegal, and will not be tolerated by authority. If the animals do not get the message to mind their own business, accept lower living standards, the gradual erosion of all their savings then they had better wake up. The police are the strong arm of the state, and bashing thick skulls is what they enjoy doing and are well paid for. If you find life too difficult then suicide is a good option. Get on with your pathetic lives and moan if you wish, but make sure it is not heard, you have all had a reasonably good life, as your family crawled out of the serfdom a few hundred years ago. You have had your freedom and now its time to return you all to the filth you all emerged from. You have no rights, except choosing a candidate on TV or a product in the supermarket. You education has been slowly dumbed down over the last few decades, so you know little of what is going on. The unions are destroyed, and their death will soon be legislated on. You are nothing but confused individuals, many of whom will loose their jobs, families, homes and life. most of you have no value at all, and keeping you alive is a drain on the economy, thus for years the old have been culled at around 30,000 every winter, and people die in the hospitals built for keeping workers get back to work. There is no work, so the unemployed, ill, aged and the rest of the parasites will be reduced through the process of neglect. So no charges against any individual just against the system, and it does not care. The reintroduction of the master slave relationship, where you the peasants will work to pay the debts and the interest to the banks, and those that fail to will have their money reduced through inflation till they no longer qualify to be part of society. You just don't get it, but just wait, and see, what is in store for you all, the good times are over for YOU and everyone in the developed world, and your pathetic ideas of freedom will inspire some to put up with the slowly enveloping economic situation, like animals to the slaughter you are being led into. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Halibut Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 Oh, you are tedious. Ok, for the THIRD time now, he was deliberately obstructing the Police, blocking their path and not getting out of the way. Shoving him out of the way was entirely called for. The matter of him falling over because he had his hands in his pockets / was rat-arsed, is his own fault. It would have been easier to just concede the point - Mr Tomlinson wasn't posing any threat to the office that struck/pushed him from behind. Can I also infer from your respeonse that you're comfortable with the notion that he was attacked from behind? One might have hoped that someone with your doubtless exemplary service history would have a little more honour and fair play than to support hitting someone when they can't see it coming - what with him being unarmed and defenceless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
donkey Posted November 13, 2011 Share Posted November 13, 2011 he was deliberately obstructing the Police, blocking their path and not getting out of the way. . That's is what you have chosen to believe. Legal experts - far more informed about all the facts than you, and not prejudiced by your authoritarian agenda - were of a completely different opinion. But even without their judgement, it seems clear from the film that Tomlinson was stumbling around in an uncontrolled way, either through drunkeness or some medical emergency, or a bit of both. I don't know how you can possibly interpret his obviously unco-ordinated and random lurching as planned and deliberate obstruction. He wasn't even facing or looking at the police lines. He clearly didn't know what was going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Conrod Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Rather than address any of the hand-wringing do-gooders directly, here's a response for several of you. When the Police are dealing with public disorder or rioting, they have an unpleasant job to do. Anybody who walks into the path of Policemen who are telling him to get out of the way, and either deliberately obstructs them or just ignores them for whatever reason, is somebody who shouldn't be there and has created the situation and the problem for himself. You can't blame the Police for doing a difficult, stressful and often dangerous job just because some drunkard gets himself hurt. He chose to drink himself to a stupor. He chose to walk into a riot area and in front of police who were clearly needing to move down that road and didn't need obstructing. He chose not to get out of the way. I await the outcome of the quite unnecessary trial with interest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rickiethecat Posted November 14, 2011 Share Posted November 14, 2011 Rather than address any of the hand-wringing do-gooders directly, here's a response for several of you. When the Police are dealing with public disorder or rioting, they have an unpleasant job to do. Anybody who walks into the path of Policemen who are telling him to get out of the way, and either deliberately obstructs them or just ignores them for whatever reason, is somebody who shouldn't be there and has created the situation and the problem for himself. You can't blame the Police for doing a difficult, stressful and often dangerous job just because some drunkard gets himself hurt. He chose to drink himself to a stupor. He chose to walk into a riot area and in front of police who were clearly needing to move down that road and didn't need obstructing. He chose not to get out of the way. I await the outcome of the quite unnecessary trial with interest. Very true. The left wing keyboard warriors who take every opportunity to bash the police wouldn't have the balls to do a job that involves protecting the public from thousands of lowlife thugs hell bent on causing a riot. Remember what happened to PC Keith Blakelock and you might understand why this copper reacted to Tomlinson's aggressive behaviour the way 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.