Artful Dodger: AT LAST.......somebody who agrees with me...............DISHONEST, a prevaricator of the truth, or a blatant liar.....which is it or is it all 3........

Artful Dodger: So in your area, the police can hit or assault anyone?

Glad I live in the UK then.

Artful Dodger: Art... look up Hungerford and Dunblane.. you are looking like you don't know what you are talking about TOTALLY!!!

Artful Dodger:

Witnesses said that, prior to the moment captured on video, he had already been hit with batons and thrown to the floor by police who blocked his route home.

One witness, Anna Branthwaite, a photographer, described how, in the minutes before the video was shot, she saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street.

"A riot police officer had already grabbed him and was pushing him," she said.

"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/07/video-g20-police-assault

............ quite frankly I don't think you or Czuch have researched the incident properly, and before hand you did say the police were wrong.. why the change of heart?

Artful Dodger: You didn't see him being hit.... not very observant are you!!

Artful Dodger: No we cannot own guns in the UK. Only those who use them as a tool of the trade such as farmers and game keepers... you did know that didn't you?

... and it's a bit hard to hide a shotgun or rifle in your trouser pocket.

Artful Dodger: No he doesn't, but at the same time the justification for police violence has to be justified.

I hear no justification from you, just excuses. Is it in the USA that the police can get away with anything... I know the answer is no to that.

Artful Dodger: This is the UK.. not the USA, as a rule.. arms are a rarity.

Artful Dodger: If he is being violent.. ok. But otherwise.. as you say. Rubbish.

Starsky: "as bad as the cops in the US"

THAT'S messed up. A couple bad eggs does not define the group. What do YOU do for a living?. I'm sure we can make silly generalizations about that, as well.

(V): I read on the net that this guy was only going home to his family? sounds like the cops in the UK are getting as bad as the cops in the US that's messed up man *52*

Bernice:

(V): has the whole scene was very heated AND I SAY AGAIN WITHOUT ANY SOUND
WE DONT KNOW WHAT WAS SAID!!!!

in these trouble times they could well of thought he was a sudice bomber for all we know
so in that context they should take him out in whatever way possible

Czuch: ..... Doesn't excuse hitting and knocking the man down from behind. Even if they were arresting him.

.. if they were KGB or SS or part of some other dictator based militia, then fine. But we don't... do you? Your police still have rules don't they....Do you remember Rodney King?

Czuch: for gods sake.....don't encourage him, puhleese.

(V): How do you know from the video that the police didnt tell him that they were arresting him for obstructing justice, and then he still ignored them, and they were trying to subdue him for arrest?

Snoopy: Now no singing "I've got a combine harvester" now!!

(V): whatever
i dont have time to go back to each post that you posted
ive got a life to get on with and a farm that needs the crops harvesting

Snoopy: !!!!! I'm not twisting, I'm using metaphorical language (with humour) to state that I don't understand. I could go back through April but that was April.

If you want to twist that (serious) go on.. but it'd be much easier if you just either said "oh well.. it was April" .. or ... list what you are going on about back then rather than expect me to play 20 questions.

... saves alot of time!!

Snoopy: and has i said on many occasions and i say it again
you twist things round to suit yourself

and aint that the truth ROFL

(V): and has i said on many occasions and i say it again
you twist things round to suit yourself

Snoopy: That was 8 months ago.. I'm not a politician!!

Czuch: Czuch... the guy had his hands in his pockets and was hit and pushed from behind. Plenty of police around to just arrest him without that kind of attack.

As such, the whole of the handling of the G20 protests by the SPG is under review.

(V): because it shows where your contridicting yourself now

Snoopy: Why go back to April?

(V): Not to misuse violence. Not to hit someone then push them to the floor if the person is not causing or in the way of a greater harm.


That is all true.... BUT, the video tape does not tell you anything about that, the video does not tell you if the police thought he was concealing a weapon, or if he was a known suspect, or if he was told to take his hands out of his pockets and move away,.. my instincts tell me that with all the other stuff the police needed to tend to that day, he was obstructing justice, he was the negligent one, who caused his own death because he neglected to follow the direct orders of the police, and if he was still alive, he should be charged with manslaughter for his own death

(V): no it isnt
but you only have to go back and read all your posts in April on this subject to see
simple really

Artful Dodger: Really?

Snoopy: Is every time I come up with a point now twisting to you?

Czuch: Not to misuse violence. Not to hit someone then push them to the floor if the person is not causing or in the way of a greater harm.

And it's manslaughter they policeman is possibly facing, not murder, just as I said in the posts I posted when the story first hit the news.

Czuch: whats the point in arguing with Jules
cause whatever one says he twists it round to suit himself has per normal

(V): And the video did show a man with his hands in his pockets being hit and pushed from behind.... since when has that been legal?

Its legal if during a riot, the police command you to show your hands, and to move out of the way.... as far as i know, it is ilegal to disobay any command from a police officer, and they always have a right to force you to comply.

Now if, during this procedure, you have a heart attack, or you bang your head and end up dead, then that is not murder, and it is your own fault you are dead, or it is a coincidence, and you would have died of a heart attack anyway.

I am NOT saying this is what happened, but it is possible that a video doesnt tell the whole story, and like Snoopy said, if it was all as clear, cut and dry, as it appears n the video, then this investigation would have ended long ago, so the length of time it is taking tells me that your first assumption, that it was clearly murder, is WRONG

Snoopy: And here we are several years down the line on Iraq and Afghanistan.. yet most people have an opinion about that.. even though the inquiry has just started officially.

And the IPCC have to do a full inestigation.. you want any crimes to go unpunished because procedure wasn't followed?
People have opinions... it's not a crime.

(V): and here we are nearly 9 months down the line and
still nothing new to report
but i will say if it was has straight forward has you claimed on that day
surely the policeman invovled would of been charged by now
instead we have nothing so has i said in the start lets wait until the enquiry has finished

Snoopy: I did not know disagreeing with someone was putting someone down. And the video did show a man with his hands in his pockets being hit and pushed from behind.... since when has that been legal?

Artful Dodger: thats exactly what i was trying to tell V that day
wait and see we dont know all the facts
but if i remember correctly he kept putting me down saying the video evidence is fact enough

Artful Dodger: And if they correct? Many police detectives have strong hunches on 'who dunnit' on a crime... They just have to gather enough evidence to get it to court.

And instincts can be very useful.. I mean it use to earn me a free pint and a few quid just knowing which fruit machine was in the mood to pay out in a pub.

Czuch: Not just my opinion, many others in the UK have the same opinion..

... based on what has been seen in video recordings of the event, and based on other info released of the event..

"you didnt say that you would like to see an investigation into the incident, "

Why should I need to? It's the law over here that it will be investigated and I stated as such.

"If you Brits were so into investigations, you would have called for an investigation,"

There is one. Like there is regarding MJ and his doctor.. has that finished yet?

Universal Eyes: well in our country, if the jury says guilty then you are guilty , but you can appeal.

Artful Dodger: How about if his gut instincts are innocent and the jury says guilty.

Artful Dodger: it would be serious as you state...but judges have been known to be crooked in the past...

Czuch: you have hit the nail on the head............

you must remember that most of his ramblings seem to be his personal opinion, so it is wise to take it with a grain of salt until he can prove what he ways.

(V): Gut feeling... instinct. Knowing that something ain't right, or that the police were not telling the truth.

You never said that it was only your opinion that it was murder, you said that it was the police who murdered this poor bloke.... you didnt say that you would like to see an investigation into the incident, because it seemed like a murder to you.... you said it was a clear cut murder,

If you Brits were so into investigations, you would have called for an investigation, but instead, you called it a murder the day it happened

Übergeek 바둑이: Politicians like to be squeaky clean (or claim to be) while the other side is dirty so and so's .... they are human. One French minister once commentated that in France they would be sacked for not having a mistress at the time of a big scandal in the UK.

or ... "I smoked weed but didn't inhale" .... but the person is alcohol dependent...

.. "It was within the rules" ... but not moral though...


.... I'd rather have a genuine politician then a squeaky clean one any day of the week.

(V):

> If the Conservative element in the USA want to have the next president.. better they learn to tell the truth

People have a very short memory. If previous wrongdoings had any bearing, Ronald Regan would not have been elected on account of Richard's Nixon's Watergate scandal. Then George H.W. Bush and George W. Bush would not have been elected on account of not only Nixon's mistakes but also the Iran-Contra Scandal. Bill Clinton would never have been re-elected on account of his womanizing. Arnold Schwarzenegger would never have been elected governor on account of having sexually harassed several women. Politics is a dirty business. The winners are not the best people, but rather those who lie the best with a straight face and those who can get the most money from the rich and powerful corporate elites.

Artful Dodger: Like Saddam and his WMD's.... a year before the invasion it was already decided there was to be a war.

In retrospect.. it sounds like the right wing conservative element in the USA had lost the plot. As some of those in the UK inquiry have said.. It'd been easy and much better to just let Saddam die of old age and just contain him.

If the Conservative element in the USA want to have the next president.. better they learn to tell the truth

Czuch: Gut feeling... instinct. Knowing that something ain't right, or that the police were not telling the truth.

You've heard of such feelings over events haven't you?

It's like when Miss Rice was trying to make out Saddam was the Big Bad Wolf, when your generals at the UN were trying to say he had WMD's.. you could see he was not comfortable with what he was saying...... Or do you just believe anything the anyone says in authority without questioning??

I know you don't.. or you'd be supporting your current President and what he's trying to achieve.

Artful Dodger:

> His number keep going down, down, down.

As I recall, George W. Bush had the same problem, and so did Bill Clinton before him, and George H.W. Bush before Clinton. History repeats itself!

> It will take a few years but the Democratic reign in the US is dismantling fast.

It will take about as long as the Republican reign of the Bush administration took to dismantle. That is about 8 years!

Czuch: didn't you know??? (Z) has an uncanny insight into these things

(V): Well, how could you call it murder the day happened, if you are so interested in investigations?