Cop who hit Tomlinson has a suspected heart attack

[JHE]

Unless the film has been so cleverly and misleadingly edited that we've all got the wrong end of the stick, the plod who batoned and shoved Tomlinson was bang out of order.

Plod, of course, did not expect that the man would die shortly afterwards. After all, people do not usually die after plod batons and shoves them.

The plod in question is likely to be sacked for his nasty misbehaviour.

I don't know whether he will be prosecuted for manslaughter, but if he is, the problem for the prosecution will be to show that Tomlinson's death was a result of mistreatment by plod.

There will, however, always remain the suspicion that his mistreatment did indeed cause Tomlinson's death. The suspicion will be in the mind of the (ex-)plod in question as well as everyone else's.

 

[detective-boy]

what does this mean? it simply doesn't make any sense, no matter how many times, or how many different ways, you approach it.

What it means is that before reaching a conclusion I like to have seen or heard ALL the available evidence (or, at least, sufficient to cover the immediate context of the incident).

And here, as someone else has pointed out, the officer involved in the assault "was clearly riled" (or words to that effect). I would add that Ian Tomlinson also gave the impression of having had previous contact prior to the assault and to be deliberately "dawdling". Both of which scream out for further information as to what happened in the preceding 30secs and 100yds (or whatever) ... information which, so far as I am aware, we do not have at present.

(Remember that poster of the white uniformed copper chasing the black guy wearing denims!! A picture / video is great ... but only as far as it goes - it doesn't show what happened a second earlier or a second later, nor what is happening six inches out of frame.)

 

[ViolentPanda]

The donkeys?

And the wives!

 

[Blagsta]

Try "All of it (including their account / explanation)".

Just like that is I need to see before I conclude that it is a lawful use of force (which I have never said).

If you twats were willing to engage in rational debate (which you all gave up fucking years ago) as opposed to knee-jerk ranting, based entirely on your prejudices (which you are all addicted to), you would find that I have significant concerns over what I have seen and heard (on both the organisational and individual levels). But you aren't. So you won't.

Your loss. (And, sadly, a loss to the effectiveness of your arguments).

woo woo! gibber snarl

 

[Blagsta]

I'm beginning to think that you lot post from behind the walls of a high-security hospital for the criminally insane.

Which bit of "He fucked off, quite openly, ages ago, and hasn't been seen since except occasionally to pop up and wind up a couple of the biggest tossers" have you not noticed?


See, I did ... I really did ...

whir whir

 

[In Bloom]

What it means is that before reaching a conclusion I like to have seen or heard ALL the available evidence (or, at least, sufficient to cover the immediate context of the incident).

And here, as someone else has pointed out, the officer involved in the assault "was clearly riled" (or words to that effect). I would add that Ian Tomlinson also gave the impression of having had previous contact prior to the assault and to be deliberately "dawdling". Both of which scream out for further information as to what happened in the preceding 30secs and 100yds (or whatever) ... information which, so far as I am aware, we do not have at present.

So what do you think could have happened immediately before the clip we have seen that would justify the use of force? "Dawdling" is not a sufficient reason to push someone to the ground, if it were, my path through the supermarket would be strewn with toppled pensioners.

 

[Blagsta]

What it means is that before reaching a conclusion I like to have seen or heard ALL the available evidence (or, at least, sufficient to cover the immediate context of the incident).

And here, as someone else has pointed out, the officer involved in the assault "was clearly riled" (or words to that effect). I would add that Ian Tomlinson also gave the impression of having had previous contact prior to the assault and to be deliberately "dawdling". Both of which scream out for further information as to what happened in the preceding 30secs and 100yds (or whatever) ... information which, so far as I am aware, we do not have at present.

(Remember that poster of the white uniformed copper chasing the black guy wearing denims!! A picture / video is great ... but only as far as it goes - it doesn't show what happened a second earlier or a second later, nor what is happening six inches out of frame.)

wibble

 

[xes]

So what do you think could have happened immediately before the clip we have seen that would justify the use of force? "Dawdling" is not a sufficient reason to push someone to the ground, if it were, my path through the supermarket would be strewn with toppled pensioners.

sorry, InBloom, with the greatest of respect, you shouldn't underestimate a dawdle, or a dawdler. It's been proven that 9/10 rapists, dawdled at some point in their life!! KILL ALL DAWDLERS.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

What it means is that before reaching a conclusion I like to have seen or heard ALL the available evidence (or, at least, sufficient to cover the immediate context of the incident).

And here, as someone else has pointed out, the officer involved in the assault "was clearly riled" (or words to that effect). I would add that Ian Tomlinson also gave the impression of having had previous contact prior to the assault and to be deliberately "dawdling". Both of which scream out for further information as to what happened in the preceding 30secs and 100yds (or whatever) ... information which, so far as I am aware, we do not have at present.

(Remember that poster of the white uniformed copper chasing the black guy wearing denims!! A picture / video is great ... but only as far as it goes - it doesn't show what happened a second earlier or a second later, nor what is happening six inches out of frame.)

Um, it was apparent that the Met, at the very least, hoped that their blatantly misleading accounts of what occurred would stop further inquiry, as well as hoping that no further evidence would emerge. Your attempts at equilibrium or open-mindedness are as shallow as your pm's trying to persuade people around to your biased and distorted view points.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Perhaps not justice, but it wouldn't be surprising if they hung the cop who pushed him out to dry, easier to make it look like the problem's been dealt with that way ("one bad apple" etc.)

I strongly suspect that this is exactly what will happen, when justice would dictate that the entire edifice on which the behaviour of the police officer was constructed should be examined.

What really disturbs me is that cop who came on the news excusing the police's assault on Tomlinson on the grounds that they couldn't have known that he wasn't part of the protest, as if that would be an excuse for shoving somebody to the ground while their back was turned and their hands were in their pockets.

A shame the police have blinkers when it comes to investigating assault on civilians, but are hot to trot when it's a case of assault on their own.

 

[editor]

I'm beginning to think that you lot post from behind the walls of a high-security hospital for the criminally insane..

Could you two just put each other on ignore instead of disrupting this thread with pointless, off topic insults? This is an important topic and it deserves better than being trashed by childish point scoring.

I
Why are those not attacked as they are no different from the N word that is seen to be so sensitive I can't even use it to show an attitude.

That's really no justification for your gratuitous use of the 'n' word - and I think you know that. I strongly suggest you don't use it again.

 

[tarannau]

What it means is that before reaching a conclusion I like to have seen or heard ALL the available evidence (or, at least, sufficient to cover the immediate context of the incident).

And here, as someone else has pointed out, the officer involved in the assault "was clearly riled" (or words to that effect). I would add that Ian Tomlinson also gave the impression of having had previous contact prior to the assault and to be deliberately "dawdling". Both of which scream out for further information as to what happened in the preceding 30secs and 100yds (or whatever) ... information which, so far as I am aware, we do not have at present.

(Remember that poster of the white uniformed copper chasing the black guy wearing denims!! A picture / video is great ... but only as far as it goes - it doesn't show what happened a second earlier or a second later, nor what is happening six inches out of frame.)

So all that time and the multiple 'explanation' basically comes down to 'he provoked me guv?' We'll be into 'he deserved it' territory next.

Do you really need all the available evidence to conclude that shoving someone from behind unexpectedly is wrong, particularly when your target is effectively prone with hands in pockets? Why defend the indefensible other than blind loyalty?

I stick by my original 'fuck him and his colleagues' .If you can't control your temper with bystanders then you have no business being in the police.Same goes if you can't show simple human compassion and care, not bothering to check that someone you've just levelled is actually ok.

 

[winjer]

Or perhaps a TSG medic (U3 2) is wearing a Hackney borough officer's (Sergeant GD 44?) epaulettes? After all, TSG serials have two medics per serial, there were definitely TSG in the area, and so forth.

No, I recognize the medics (both GD), the whole serial around Tomlinson at that point is GD, and two medics per serial is the MAST requirement for all PSUs, not just TSG.

(NB: in case anyone suggests it, none of the GD serial appear in the videos of IT at Royal Exchange Buildings)

 

[Thora]

No, I recognize the medics (both GD), the whole serial around Tomlinson at that point is GD, and two medics per serial is the MAST requirement for all PSUs, not just TSG.

What's MAST?

 

[ymu]

What it means is that before reaching a conclusion I like to have seen or heard ALL the available evidence (or, at least, sufficient to cover the immediate context of the incident).

Give us one hypothetical set of circumstances that could justify the assault we see on the video. Just one. Doesn't have to be true. Just one story which would satisfy you that it was justified.

And here, as someone else has pointed out, the officer involved in the assault "was clearly riled" (or words to that effect).

He's a highly trained professional. Getting "riled" isn't an excuse. A teacher who gets "riled" and hits a kid will be prosecuted and may never work in the profession again. There is no reason the police should be held to lesser standards of professionalism.

I would add that Ian Tomlinson also gave the impression of having had previous contact prior to the assault and to be deliberately "dawdling". Both of which scream out for further information as to what happened in the preceding 30secs and 100yds (or whatever) ... information which, so far as I am aware, we do not have at present.

The eye-witness testimony says that is what happened just before the video sequence:

The dog handlers began to sweep through the pedestrian street to start forming a police line. A dog barked and I saw one protester was on the floor who managed to get up. That's what drew my attention to that spot. It was then that I noticed Ian Tomlinson, who was walking from Threadneadle Street direction, walking towards Cornhill Street. A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him.

It wasn't just pushing him - he'd rushed him. He went to the floor and he did actually roll. That was quite noticeable. It was the force of the impact. He bounced on the floor. It was a very forceful knocking-down from behind. The officer hit him twice with a baton when he was lying on the floor.

So it wasn't just that the officer had pushed him - it became an assault. And then the officer picked him up from the back, continued to walk or charge with him, and threw him. He was running and stumbling. He didn't turn and confront the officer or anything like that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/08/g20-ian-tomlinson-death-witnesses

Just one reasonable explanation for this behaviour, however hypothetical. Just one. Ta.

 

[DaveCinzano]

No, I recognize the medics (both GD), the whole serial around Tomlinson at that point is GD, and two medics per serial is the MAST requirement for all PSUs, not just TSG.

(NB: in case anyone suggests it, none of the GD serial appear in the videos of IT at Royal Exchange Buildings)

Cheers for the clarification

 

[tbaldwin]

As assaults go this was hardly a Rodney King type one. Looked to me as though cop was angry by the way tomlinson walked away.....Overeacted... And since the video has come out lots of other people have overeacted....Feel sorry for both the cop and tomlinson and family.
Anybody who has been to a football game or demo that has turned a bit violent will have probably seen far worse from the OB over the years.
Looks like this cop may be a convenient scapegoat to make up for a lot of over the top behaviour by the OB over the years...

 

[derf]

Would you care to point towards anybody actually saying either of those things?

And if you can't tell the difference between a profession and an ethnic group, you really are fucking stupid.

Yes I would thanks.
Plenty of murder + cops posts.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=8861733&highlight=knuckle#post8861733

Aye. Sadistic knuckle-dragging wankstains.

The quote was taken from a thread about Muslims (Extreme ones and the quote was posted in response to Editor's comments).

And if you can't tell the difference between a religion and an ethnic group, you really are fucking stupid.

 

[editor]

Anybody who has been to a football game or demo that has turned a bit violent will have probably seen far worse from the OB over the years.
Looks like this cop may be a convenient scapegoat to make up for a lot of over the top behaviour by the OB over the years...

Sure. And that's why it's important that this event is thoroughly investigated and the cop charged.

That will send out an important message to police forces around the UK that such illegal and violent behaviour is not acceptable.

 

[butchersapron]

Yes I would thanks.
Plenty of murder + cops posts.

http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=8861733&highlight=knuckle#post8861733


The quote was taken from a thread about Muslims (Extreme ones and the quote was posted in response to Editor's comments).

And if you can't tell the difference between a religion and an ethnic group, you really are fucking stupid.

Utter dishonesty.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=8858703

 

[tbaldwin]

Sure. And that's why it's important that this event is thoroughly investigated and the cop charged.

That will send out an important message to police forces around the UK that such illegal and violent behaviour is not acceptable.

Yeah. I do feel a bit sorry for him in that i have seem far far worse many times over the years. But i do think it should be properly investigated and he should be charged. Really as you say on the basis of the message it will send out to other OB.

 

[derf]

That's really no justification for your gratuitous use of the 'n' word - and I think you know that. I strongly suggest you don't use it again.

Just noticed this post.
OK, no problem. I think I've made it clear it's not a word I either use in normal conversation or like to hear.
More so given that the word may well be used by some to describe both my wife and baby.
As can "Sadistic knuckle-dragging wankstains".
Is that an acceptable thing to post about a social, ethnic or religious group?

 

[DotCommunist]

keep banging your drum of outrage derf, I recall that thread well. Dr Jon made a comments describing all religious extremists as knuckle dragging wankstains and you decided it was aimed directly as muslims. You have held this torch of outrage for a while. Despite repeated clarification

 

[derf]

Utter dishonesty.
http://www.urban75.net/vbulletin/showthread.php?p=8858703

Your link goes to the same place as mine with the same bigoted quote.

Anyway, back to the topic in question.
I do believe the cop in question should be charged and in smart order.
It's pretty clear he is guilty of common assault and maybe more.

It needs sorting out both for justice and the need to keep the cops clean of people like him.

 

[derf]

keep banging your drum of outrage derf, I recall that thread well. Dr Jon made a comments describing all religious extremists as knuckle dragging wankstains and you decided it was aimed directly as muslims. You have held this torch of outrage for a while. Despite repeated clarification

I think it's clear I accept his bigotry is aimed at all religions. Does that make it any better?

 

[butchersapron]

Your link goes to the same place as mine with the same bigoted quote.

Anyway, back to the topic in question.
I do believe the cop in question should be charged and in smart order.
It's pretty clear he is guilty of common assault and maybe more.

It needs sorting out both for justice and the need to keep the cops clean of people like him.

Except mine goes to the whole thread, providing the necessary context, whereas your goes only to your original idiotic misunderstanding. Please thae this shit away from this thread - you've been banging on about it for weeks, starting threads, disruptuing threads and so on and it turns out you're actually being totally dishonest.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I'm beginning to think that you lot post from behind the walls of a high-security hospital for the criminally insane.

Which bit of "He fucked off, quite openly, ages ago, and hasn't been seen since except occasionally to pop up and wind up a couple of the biggest tossers" have you not noticed?


See, I did ... I really did ...

fuck off withthis bluster trying to vault face over your attempts to justify the actions of the police on this...

really, it's quite one thing to say well not all cops are bastards thourhg to haveing some kid of mind failure where you automatically rush in to defend the indefenseable from a group you are no longer in...

so all you've done is say to the entire place once again didn't get laid at the weekend will go and lay in to you as my personal punch bag and if I wind up some lefties ...

which is precisely your MO.

go get a blow job or summit and don't come back when they spit it in your face afterwards eh?

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

What it means is that before reaching a conclusion I like to have seen or heard ALL the available evidence (or, at least, sufficient to cover the immediate context of the incident).

This is just bullshit isn't it arrests aren't made on people until all the evidence is complied against them or until they have resonable suspiscion?

Did you man who lashed out with seemingly impunity obtain all the available evidence before striking out?

no of course not.

so why hold others to a standard that you yourself are incapable of reaching let alone maintaining and one which hasn't entered the mind of those gee'ed up and toting semis at the though to knocking heads...

And here, as someone else has pointed out, the officer involved in the assault "was clearly riled" (or words to that effect). I would add that Ian Tomlinson also gave the impression of having had previous contact prior to the assault and to be deliberately "dawdling". Both of which scream out for further information as to what happened in the preceding 30secs and 100yds (or whatever) ... information which, so far as I am aware, we do not have at present.

yeah.
and.
so.
what.


really the officer being riled would ahve cause enough for a senior officer to say back in the van til you've cooled off lad but they didn't inferring that the action of a riled up officer was entirely what senior officers were expecting and they clearly (their overwhelming lack of help displays) also sanctioned the letting off of steam of riled colleguges by not stopping them...

someone moving at a pace not considered speedy enough for a police officer should either be moved on or arrested you cannot say it's a ligtimate tactic to beat people into moving on espcially when to move on would require the assulating officer moving out of the way to allow clear passage...

what kind of blame the victim bullshit game are you playing??

there is nothing he could have done which will justify the actions taken against him or indeed any of the protestors who were going about their legally entitle course of action by protesting.

nothing which will justify this.

nothing.

not one thing.

how much clearer can we make it.

nothing.

you might be able to find explainations as to why the action was taken even why the officer involved felt it was justified but cold light of day koshing anyone repeatdly on two seperate occasions, which undoubtly lead to his heart attack (possibly as a result of a weakended heart due to booze) isn't and can never be under civilised society.

you really need to check your the boys never dun bad attitude at the door...

cos they did bad, very bad.

(Remember that poster of the white uniformed copper chasing the black guy wearing denims!! A picture / video is great ... but only as far as it goes - it doesn't show what happened a second earlier or a second later, nor what is happening six inches out of frame.)

and so these unseen possibles mean you can find a justification for this case in point for beating a man to the point he loses his life?

can you ...

lets hear you mealy mouthed nonsense then...

 

[gabi]

lets hear you mealy mouthed nonsense then...

 

[jayeola]

Hope he gets well soon, then faces the full brunt of the law. Uh, he's a policeman..... have a nice day.