Cop who hit Tomlinson has a suspected heart attack

[Paulie Tandoori]

WHICH "shallow apologist bollocks"?

(I have merely (as usual) pointed out that there are some things that we do not know, that there are some explanations which could be given and may be justifiable and that it is only a fool (like you) who rushes in on the basis of an initial impression and comes to a solid conclusion about what happened). I do not know what happened and I am not willing to make a judgment about whether it was justifiable until I do.

FACT 1: You are prejudiced.
FACT 2: You apply that prejudice to every situation which confronts you.
FACT 3: You reach an instant and immovable conclusion based on your prejudices.
FACT 4: You refuse to even consider anything which does not accord with your prejudices.
FACT 5: You are a prick.

that really is a rubbish post. really poor man. i've argued with tarannau, violently disagreed with him verbally but your post really is quite laughable i'm afraid.

 

[Paulie Tandoori]

. good night....

 

[tarannau]

Are we still waiting for any of DB's 'justifiable' explanations as to why it's acceptable for a police officer to level a man from behind and then walk off uncaring then?

Or has the snide coward fucked off again after all that guff, leaving one shallow explanation - that Tomlinson somehow brought it on himself and 'deserved' it somehow.

 

[Azrael]

No he doesn't.

Ditto. I've disagreed with DB on many issues, sometimes heatedly, but that's by the by. He has extensive police experience, debates all sorts of legal matters clearly and succinctly, and I welcome his contributions. It's a real shame if he feels unable to post here.

However much you disagree with him, any debate is enhanced by experienced opinions from the other side of the line

 

[tarannau]

Yes, but he used to be productive. Now he just comes on, calls everyone cunts and talks of mysterious 'explanations' for the police's actions without having the nuts to describe any of those reasons. Nobody's stopping him giving those 'justifiable' explanations, although you might surmise from his evasiveness that his insulting bluster is an attempt to cover up the fact that he hasn't any plausible explanations.

It's a load of toss frankly. The old DB had some good points, but this version's a dismissive goon with no added insight - it's blindly defend the indefensible as default.

 

[Azrael]

To be fair, he's received a lot of abuse in turn. Even, I'm ashamed to say, from me in one heated thread on anti-terrorism powers. I offer him a belated and unreserved apology for that, for whatever little it's worth.

Why not cease any personal abuse in DB's direction? If he's interested in debate, he'll debate; if he's not, then so be it. It's the best way I can see of getting the "old" DB back.

 

[tarannau]

I've stuck up for DB in the past, but you can only make so many exceptions for someone based on their past contributions. On this thread he comes out swinging, talks of explanations that he can't back up (the big porky pier), insults others and gives his reason for coming back as "occasionally to pop up and wind up a couple of the biggest tossers"

What's the fucking point of engaging with such a trolling, duplicitous tosser with anger management issues. You can only cut someone so much slack. He gets treated with the contempt his recent posts, reasoning and attitude deserve.

 

[chainsaw cat]

He doesn't call everyone cunts, just those who pour abuse on him and wind him up, thus getting in the way of his expanding the themes in the way you nostalgicise.

If that isn't a word, I hereby copyright it btw and it's 7p per use, £6 for a hundred.

This is generally a very anti cop site (perhaps because quite a lot of the posters have direct personal experience of the police ).

I go on a couple of other sites where I defend the military in similar terms to DB against er, um, violently pacifist posters on one and ardent 80s reminiscing Irish Republicans on another and get similarly slagged. The slagging really does get in the way. I'm sure it feels nice to do it but there are online counselling services for people with profound personal issues, the rest of us trying to have a conversation don't need the wailing and yowling.

DB brings out an unpleasant streak in some generally sane, humourous, intelligent posters which does them no credit.

There. I feel better now.




Pops out to knack a copper with a brick.

 

[tarannau]

He doesn't call everyone cunts, just those who pour abuse on him and wind him up, thus getting in the way of his expanding the themes in the way you nostalgicise.

Pops out to knack a copper with a brick.

That's nonsense. He comes in with the cunts way before anyone even mentions him by name these days. He was ranting at Badger Kitten and other renown firebrands iirc not so long ago

He's lost it, the silly sausage.

 

[chainsaw cat]

Must have missed that.


Eeeh that badger kitten can be aggressive though, eh??

 

[Azrael]

I've stuck up for DB in the past, but you can only make so many exceptions for someone based on their past contributions.

Well it's not for me to speak for other posters, who will of course do what they feel is right. But the very least, why not drop the insults in DB's direction? That's not cutting him slack; it's a courtesy any poster should receive. If he then throws unprovoked abuse at people, you've been proved right.

 

[tarannau]

Why should any poster receive a free ride when they march into a thread with insults, calling other posters prejudiced with laughable reasoning and making claims that they can't and suspiciously won't back up. The thread's progressed a little now, albeit after hefty provocation and strikingly cowardly evasiveness on his part.

At the end of the day I'll try and treat posters fairly based on their contributions to a thread. And he's acted like a right aggressive, pointless twat on this one, ex plod or not.

 

[Azrael]

I don't give people a free ride if I hold off from insulting them. Far from it: if I make reasoned points, and get insults in return, it reflects on them, not me.

 

[Urbanblues]

How long has DB been out of the force?

 

[tarannau]

I don't give people a free ride if I hold off from insulting them. Far from it: if I make reasoned points, and get insults in return, it reflects on them, not me.

Aye, but if someone takes the moral high ground you at least expect a certain level of courtesy before you can return the favour politely. And in that courtesy should be a certain level of honesty - if you confidently claim that there are several reasons why an unarmed man posing no danger can be shoved to the floor unexpectedly, causing his death then folks shouldn't have to spend 8 off pages trying to squeeze any one of those (fictional) explanations out of you. That kind of sacrifices the high ground and expected courtesy, especially when the same poster sees fits to continually lecture others on their supposed bias and habit of leaping to conclusions.

I try and treat DB as I would other posters. And if anyone else played such a pompous, mendacious role I'd give them the same treatment.

 

[Azrael]

I try and treat DB as I would other posters. And if anyone else played such a pompous, mendacious role I'd give them the same treatment.

Like I said, I can only speak for myself. I see where you're coming from, I do, but it's not for me. I'm not claiming the high ground, moral or otherwise; I'm sure I've no right to it. I find trading insults tiring, and pragmatically, it rarely gets anywhere useful.

 

[tarannau]

Like I said, I can only speak for myself. I see where you're coming from, I do, but it's not for me. I'm not claiming the high ground, moral or otherwise; I'm sure I've no right to it. I find trading insults tiring, and pragmatically, it rarely gets anywhere useful.

It was never going to go anywhere useful when one poster is intent on insulting others, confessing to winding others up and posting absolutely nothing of note and insight, hell even repeatedly avoiding direct questions on a point he's made. How much more evidence does someone need before concluding that the officer's actions were unnecessary and disproportionate to a largely defenceless man?

Fuck it, he deserves no better. DB's turned into little more than an abusive troll with pottymouth

 

[ymu]

As he won't post on the thread, and I'm not allowed to post his PM, I'll just respond as if he had posted it on the thread and you'll have to imagine what his PM said.
---------------------

What possible "interaction" in the few seconds/minutes leading up to the assault could possibly have justified that reaction, detective-boy? This appears to be the only possibility you envisage as forming a defence for the officer so what, exactly, could he say about those few minutes that would exonerate him from criminal assault?

It can't possibly have been an arrestable offence, or they would have arrested him. Or perhaps it was an offence not serious enough for arrest. Are the coppers supposed to administer beatings instead of cautions these days? (Officially I mean). Even had Tomlinson been aggressive previously - as you hypothesise without any evidence whatsoever - there is nothing in the clip to indicate that he would be difficult for a dozen armoured riot cops to control safely without any need to push him to the ground. Even you would have to admit that.

And even you would have to agree that they show no signs of trying to stop him as he wanders off after the assault. So whatever "justification" you believe might exonerate the officer concerned has to account for the fact that he was problem-enough to have to push him to the ground, but not problem-enough to detain or caution afterwards.

Anna Branthwaite is very clear about what happened in the minutes leading up to that video - a much more serious assault on Ian Tomlinson during which he was pushed over twice and hit twice with a baton whilst on the ground. If you think this is acceptable behaviour for a police officer - under some circumstances - then it comes as no surprise. You used to be one. You lost sight of what is acceptable behaviour for the police a long time ago.

There is no possible justification for this assault. None.

 

[tarannau]

FWIW DB's PM'ed with his explanations now and I'm still far from convinced, either by his reasoning or his lack of faith in posting them up here. He's given me permission to try and summarise his PM, as long as I don't misrepresent him, which seems an unnecessarily poisoned chalice given his fruity way of blowing up at all and sundry. I've urged him to post his reasons himself.

Let's put it this way - the world's probably divided between people who believe that, regardless of any other evidence, the existing footage is damning enough to criticise the officer. And people who believe that it was somehow justified because Tomlinson was hesitant or disobedient before - ie policemen and people who believe that we should all be super-servile to authority, regardless of the inconvenience, rudeness and incompetency of the operation and officers.

I remain in the camp that believes that such a heavy push on an unsuspecting man could never be proportionate, helpful or constructive. He's isolated and walking away with hands in his pockets, posing no threat whatsoever to police lines.

 

[Das Uberdog]

Absolutely.

Errrrr -

wtf guyz?

t3h p16$ R t3h |<1!!1/V R p33p$ N U 1$ |2 U |3!4I)$!!!!?!?!!!???!!?!11111

 

[Blagsta]

He doesn't call everyone cunts, just those who pour abuse on him and wind him up.[/SIZE][/I]

This just isn't true. He may have started off doing that, but he ended up going off the deep end at anyone who dared question his authority on anything.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

I read post #160. It appears to be incorrect. "Malice aforethought" is the name of the mens rea (guilty mind) necessary for a murder conviction. From Smith & Keenan's English law: "Murder is a crime which requires a specific intent … Moloney [R v Moloney, 1985]… decides that intent to kill and intention to cause grievous bodily harm are the only forms of mens rea for murder."

mens rea is the motive for the action. malice aforethought the action which was predicated by the motive...

Are you a solicitor or a barrister, or do you hold a law degree? If not, then we're both laypeople. It appears that the law book backs my post. If you have a source that contradicts Smith & Keenan's, by all means post it up. There's no need for name calling.

nope but i understand the concept as most commonly do; motive equates to action...

If not, then I'd say it's unlikely that the officer in question intended to cause GBH to Mr Tomlinson, so manslaughter would be the correct charge, if any charge is to be made.

what would a reasonable person expect the outcome of hitting someone with a baton to be?

this is how the court will look at, or for that matter shoulder barging into another human being...

The act and the culprit are different things. The window was clearly broken; this isn't in dispute. Until someone is convicted, they're an alleged rioter. Strictly speaking, it should be alleged criminal damage, as theoretically a lawful excuse could be offered at trial. I imagine most people and news outlets don't apply the law that strictly.

Unless there's evidence that the police deliberately and systematically acted to suppress peaceful protest, alternative explanations, such as over-reaction, are available. I don't know if the Terrorism Act would apply. You'd have to ask a lawyer, but of course, chances of a prosecution under it would be remote, to say the least.

what consistutes as evidence is countless videos showing the actions directly not evidence then what would be perhaps a corpse of a person killed having an independant autopsy with extreme public oversite...

what is ecvidence as defined in the wacky world of layabout then...

 

[Groucho]

Errrrr -

wtf guyz?

t3h p16$ R t3h |<1!!1/V R p33p$ N U 1$ |2 U |3!4I)$!!!!?!?!!!???!!?!11111

I think a fair point was made as regards the way in which you choose to articulate your viewpoint.

 

[Azrael]

mens rea is the motive for the action. malice aforethought the action which was predicated by the motive...

On the page previously linked, Smith & Keenan's says, "The mens rea for murder is defined as malice aforethought", which seems clear enough. Hitting someone with a baton may well be reckless in the circumstances, but "Recklessness is not enough." The lawbook is clear that specific intent is needed, either for GBH or to kill.

Unless you've got a legal source that contradicts this one (Smith & Keenan's is a standard and respected introductory text) the law seems clear on this point. If this comes to trial, it is of course for the court to decide if the officer had the necessary mens rea.

I'm sorry, but I didn't understand your last point. What is this talk of "laybout" supposed to mean?

 

[Grandma Death]

that there are some explanations which could be given and may be justifiable .

Do you want to point me in the direction of the protocols/procedures or a police manual that says hitting a man walking away with his hands in his pockets is justifiable?

 

[Azrael]

I suppose there could exist some fantastical circumstance to justify it, such as the officer having reason to believe Mr Tomlinson was about to draw a knife and attack him. If the officer had contact with Mr Tomlinson minutes before, and let him walk away, I can't think of any circumstance that would justify it.

And I'm stretching a way to come up with the above. At first sight, it looks very bad for the officer. But however unlikely his innocence, it's for a court to decide.

 

[ymu]

But however unlikely his innocence, it's for a court to decide.

Exactly. Not for the Met to regard as justified regardless and therefore no charges to answer. If the guy has an explanation, let him make it in court. The evidence is too clear for anyone to argue that he might not have to answer in court, as d-b has been suggesting.

Of course, he's talking from experience (bitter, in our case); the police are rarely held accountable and in the normal course of events this would have little hope of ending up in court. Let's hope it's different this time.

 

[DexterTCN]

Well...talk about the shit hitting the fan now.

BBC link

Cop interviewed under caution for manslaughter, 'natural causes' verdict is being over-ruled.

Let's hope that all involved in this cover-up are dragged over the coals. Who watches the watchers?

Everybody.

 

[Urbanblues]

The second post mortem on Ian Tomlinson has found he died of abdominal bleeding, not the heart attack as reported in the first PM.

 

[gabi]

The second post mortem on Ian Tomlinson has found he died of abdominal bleeding, not the heart attack as reported in the first PM.

You should be running this inquiry with investigative skills like that!