(V): and where did you see where that this policeman is going to be charged i havnt heard that yet
they still questioning him according to the report ive just read on the BBC

Snoopy: I give up!! I've explained the law. Read it, look up sites on it.

I'm having my dinner

(V): this is taken from todays Times

The Independent Police Complaints Commission, which is investigating his death, said: “Following the initial result of the second post-mortem a Metropolitan Police officer has been interviewed under caution for the offence of manslaughter.” The officer, a constable in the Territorial Support Group who has been suspended from duty, attended the interview voluntarily and has not been arrested.

(V): Admittedly I don't know much about the case nor am I familiar with the law. Your descriptions rather remind me of the SS and some of their early antics of abuse. Given too much power, people can abuse others. So if this is the case, the officer should be prosecuted.

Czuch does make a good point on the personal responsibility front. If I were to walk into a biker bar, and call all the bikers a bunch of nanny fags, and they beat me to a pulp and then beat me some more, who would be at fault for my injuries? The bikers broke the law, but would I have no guilt in my own injuries? After all, had I simply stayed home or just gone to walmart, I'd be ok. Or say I walk into a biker bar and hand each biker a 100 dollar bill and tell them to have a good day, they might buy me a beer. Or they might beat me to a pulp and see if I had anymore money. Either way, whether I call them fags and get beat, or give them 100 dollars and get beat, I'm still beat up. Maybe dead. And to think I'd be just fine had I simply gone to the zoo instead.

Snoopy: Yes.. and? The film shows that no matter what he committed a crime, the only question is the magnitude of the crime.

Artful Dodger: The IPCC chief said that the police are our SERVANTS, not our masters.

It would be at least manslaughter under British law, depending on the circumstances.. maybe murder. I mean.. Bikers are supposed to be able to take insults.. if not.. why are they Bikers? Priesthood might be a better calling for them.

(V): i never said he wouldnt be arrested and charged
what ive been saying all afternoon YOU are jumping the gun saying the officer is guilty even before it has gone to trial

if it was so straight forward has your making out they have had the video for over a week they are questioning the officer they havnt charged him YET

so IM saying there must be more to it still and isnt it better to wait and hear all the facts before JUDGING anyone

Snoopy: So.. even if it was not manslaughter, you are saying it's ok for a policeman to shove a man from behind to the ground and that is a perfectly ok thing for a policeman to do?

A yes or no answer is all I need.

(V): Well I can agree with that.

Artful Dodger: I knew you would.

(V): I feel the same way as an educator. I work for the people.

(V): your jumping to a lot of assumptions ove this
and repeating myself for the 5th time i will wait until all the evidence comes to light before passing judgement

and ive never said the policeman was in the right your twisting my words on here
has ive been SAYING all afternoon from a 30 sec video clip you have said this police officer must be guilty because of the video isnt that for a jury to decide upon not YOU

(V): im like you i dont do simple yes or no answers

Snoopy: Well, shoving the guy was unnecessary no matter the outcome. So that's one point. Police here are trained to show more restraint. Certainly the officer didn't mean to bring upon the man's death. But shoving the man served no useful purpose. With that I agree.

I also see Czuch's point. I know that whenever I've been pulled over, the man in the uniform represents the authority of the state. He is called, "sir' by me. Or "officer." I show respect and talk decent to the man/woman. I know they have a hard job to do. If I am near the G20 summit, I choose a route that doesn't complicate the job of the police. They have been dealing with rioters etc. So being smart, I know to keep away from the front lines. This man apparently didn't get that message. He bears some responsibility here. It doesn't excuse away the officer's over-reaction (IMO it was an over reaction), but it does put some blame upon the man that died.

Snoopy: I'll take that as a no, it is not acceptable to shove a man like that from behind.

And at the mo, it's upto the IPCC and the CPS.

And we are all entitled to an opinion.. just like the Family is...

.....Paul King, Mr Tomlinson's step-son, said "First we were told that there had been no contact with the police, then we were told that he died of a heart attack.

"Now we know that he was violently assaulted by a police officer and died from internal bleeding. As time goes on we hope that the full truth about how Ian died will be made known."

Jules Carey of Tuckers, the family's solicitor, said the family had known about the results of the second post-mortem for the past week - but had reluctantly agreed to remain silent while the IPCC continued its investigations.

"The findings of Dr Nat Cary significantly increase the likelihood that the officer will now face the more serious charge of manslaughter," said Mr Carey.

"The IPCC opposed the disclosure of Dr Cary's findings until they satisfied themselves that it would not prejudice their investigation of the officer.

"It is of some comfort to the family that the record is now being put straight, but they hope that the IPCC investigation will be expedited and thorough, and that there will be a prompt referral to the CPS for charge," he added.

Artful Dodger: ive never disagreed that the officer was at fault what he did was so wrong

i just think people should wait until ALL the facts come out before passing judgement

i mean who are we to be judge jury and executioner

(V): yes i read that couple of days ago

(V)in your own words...take your own advice. As Snoopy is also saying and wait to see results

Artful Dodger: His route home took him past the Bank of England, I guess the guy thought not being a protester that he was in no danger from the police.

Snoopy: Oh I know that. But even if the officer was found innocent of the man's death, don't you think that the shove was a bit excessive?

Bernice: I'm not hyping, there is an obvious case of the policeman attacking the guy from behind. THAT IS BEYOND DISPUTE. The only matter now is what he gets charged with.

(V): ""Now we know that he was violently assaulted by a police officer and died from internal bleeding. As time goes on we hope that the full truth about how Ian died will be made known.""


The choice of the words "violently assaulted" seems a bit much to me. The man was shoved to the ground. And assault perhaps but no a violent one. Seems to me that if the shove caused the man's death, it was a freak accident more than anything else. Which is likely why they are talking about manslaughter and not murder.

Artful Dodger: one of the news reports say he was hit with a baton before he was shoved....if that was the case what did the damage?
I agree he shouldnt have been shoved.

as Jules said there was ONLY 122 arrests LOL....rather minor really

Artful Dodger: Exactly why the man has been interviewed under caution of suspicion of manslaughter.

The words of that of a family member.. you would expect him to be peeved.

Artful Dodger: i actually think the whole police operation from the very top down was really badly organised
there is more and more protesters comming forward each day with claims of over reaction from the police
and if i remember correctly that guy went to go his normal way home and found it blocked by police so had to go a different way which led to his death

Bernice: 122 arrests out of an estimated (by the police) 35,000 people considering the tensions is damn good.

No way near a Brixton riot.

Snoopy: it appears he was hit on the leg with a baton and then was pushed by the same officer....Ian Tomlinson tried to talk to police and then got up and walked away only to collapse further down the street where he subsequently died.

Bernice: and there is a report somewhere which i look out tomorrow that an ITV camera crew tried to give him first aid but where moved on by police
anyway got to get some sleep lots to do tomorrow

(V): you are saying it's ok for a policeman to shove a man from behind to the ground and that is a perfectly ok thing for a policeman to do?

A yes or no answer is all I need.

Yes

(V): there is an obvious case of the policeman attacking the guy from behind



are you kidding me?? really???

You use the word "attack' but that word implies something that has yet to be proven... the police could push a guy from behind for many reasons that would not be considered an attack

Czuch: I would say yes but depending on the circumstances. I've seen videos where officers took a man down by the neck in a choke hold. The man was just sitting on his motorcycle and had just lost control of the bike and was stopped, sitting on his bike that he was holding up, trying to keep from falling. The officer lunged at the man, grabbing him around the neck, and slammed him to the ground.

Of course the biker dude had just led the officer on a high speed chase and only stopped because he had lost control of the bike.

In this case, the officer acted properly. But if someone had just seen the video, and didn't know the full circumstances, they might say the officer over reacted. The guy was warned first to get off his bike but he sat there like a dork.

In the case Jules is talking about, it's hard to tell. The man is moving away, but he appears to be taunting the police (asking for trouble) in a very stressful situation. And he's moving sideways, and clearly very slowly (defiantly).

Maybe the officer over reacted but as I've said, the man should have promptly complied with the cop's demands. He looked to be playing them and seemed to be asking for a confrontation with the police. He got more than he barganed for.....

Bernice: as Jules said there was ONLY 122 arrests LOL....rather minor really


thanks for that reminder....

Artful Dodger: we seem to agree...


This cop will never be charged with anything close to murder, he will likely get a suspension, and then back to beating poor innocent people again

(V): What facts are there that you think justify shoving a person over from behind who has both his hands in his pockets?


Really? Are you kidding me???

He has a gun in his pocket maybe???

You really cant think of any reasons??? Really??? I can give you two hand fulls if you need them

Czuch: The thing though that has come to light is that if the police had been more professional about the protests (as the whole police activity during the G20 protests is being looked into) .. there would have been less arrests. I'm not saying there would have been no arrests, but some of the troubles seem to be (according to the reports and the gist of what the IPCC are saying) would have been avoided, hence less arrests.

And Czuch... guns are a rarity in this country, this is not the USA.

And that you approve of police brutality rather goes against your call for less government.. looks like you are a closet more government person. And by the looks of it, you like the idea of dictatorships aka BIG BROTHER.

But one thing you don't consider, is the need for the police to be respected by Joe Public.. without Joe Public's support a lot of crimes in the UK would never be solved. And the death of Mr Tomlinson as well as all the other reported crimes by the police during the protests have eroded the trust that is essential for the police to work efficiently.

Czuch: I find your support for police brutality very strange.

(V): But one thing you don't consider, is the need for the police to be respected by Joe Public.


Well, I have too, that is exactly one of my points.... this guy had no respect for the police. Had he respected them and what they were up against in that area with all the violence and protests etc, he would have done everything in his abilities to not be in the way of them doing their duties against real problems that might exist.

(V): I am not an anarchist , I believe the government has its place in our lives.... protecting us is one of those places, and the police do a very hard job for very little pay, and they deserve our respect, not disdain...

You have a volatile area, the public needs to do what they can to stay out of the way of police trying to do their job...

This guy was trying to do his part to be more in the way than out of the way, he was making himself a distraction, and making it more likely that someone doing something wrong would no be dealt with properly because the police are too busy waiting for this guy to walk home from work.

It might seem like nothing to you, but lets say that 1000 people decided to act like this guy did, and basically be in the way, and a distraction to the police doing their real jobs???

Bottom line again.... this guy was an idiot who paid the ultimate price for his stupidity, he is dead, and this police officer will be suspended, and not charged with murder of any kind

Czuch: I have to disagree with you there. He looked liked an innocent bystander who just happend to be in the wrong place at the same time. He had his back to the police and there was certainly no need for him to be pushed to the ground like that. I fear the police are getting away with far too much in this country.
As V said, guns are very rare here. There are one or two shootings and one or two armed robberies but our police dont carry guns, only special forces and they have to be called out. But in general it is not needed too and thank goodness as the police would be shooting everyone will nilly.

Czuch: And your evidence of this is......?????

and we are not talking about a thousand people, ie a hypothetical situation.. we are talking about one man getting home to watch football.

He was just a member of Joe Public, not an idiot. And the policeman I doubt will get back to duty. Assault over here is still a crime, and regardless of duty a policeman is expected to uphold the law and not break it.

Another item that has come up today is regarding the Hillsborough disaster where many football people died. The Home Secretary is releasing the files on the matter 10 years early due to the families of 96 dead people wanting to know what happened 20 years ago.

..... developments in the past indicate that there was much the police did not reveal their role in the disaster, and have been hiding stuff.

The families want justice and to know what happened to cause the deaths.

You can understand that can't you?

(V): Well, you have no evidence yet either that this was an assault?

Its not an assault if he had in any way disobeyed a police order....

Yes, he is just one man.... so you are saying it would not be okay for hundreds of people to act against the police like he did, but because it was just one person doing the disobedience, it is okay? (if it was in fact disobedient?)

Mousetrap: He looked liked an innocent bystander who just happend to be in the wrong place at the same time. He had his back to the police and there was certainly no need for him to be pushed to the ground like that.



How can you know what happened before the video shoot? It is possible that he was facing the police and being belligerent to their presence, and after this, he then turned his back and put his hands in his pockets.... like "I dare you to do anything to me now", for all we know, he knew there was a video camera taping and was hoping for some kind of confrontation.....


I mean, why would someone be there to make a recording of some bloke trying to walk home to watch a game on TV???? Its obvious that he was not alone on this street, there had to be some good reason the police were even there in the first place.... if this guy represents average joe public, then that says a sad tale for the common sense of the average person, IMO.


If you are just an average joe walking home it should be quite easy to avoid contact with riot police, unless the average joe in the UK is an idiot?

Czuch: Like he did??????? It is assault... I don't think you know the law very well if you don't think it is. Police still have to follow a code of conduct and rules regarding the force they can use in situations.

EG.. In the USA if a Cop shoots a man doesn't he have to justify the shooting?

Czuch: Czuch.... everyone who had a camera was recording the police and their interaction with the crowds. Whether it was a proper cam, or a mobile phone.

Also there were plenty of CCTV camera's catching the action, as well as news teams. It's called modern technology Czuch and the right of people to record events.

The bloke had to go a different route to his norm because of the protests. That has been explained Czuch... Don't you remember??

(V): everyone who had a camera was recording the police and their interaction with the crowds.


Okay, so it wasnt just this one guy trying to walk down the street all by himself, just trying to go home?

And you said he had already altered his normal route, and he still could not avoid an area with riot police?

Its just strange to me that this is the only guy in the video
especially since there are supposedly large crowds of people all around, and people making videos of all the action etc.....but all the other people managed to not be in any harm or somehow in the way of the police... how was this poor slob so unlucky to be the only person who just could not get out of the way?

Czuch: Czuch, perhaps you ought to keep up with the events. He altered his route as his normal route was blocked by police and protesters. The guy is supposed to walk a great extra distance to avoid it all with his known health problems!!

And the footage was taken (or so reported) "....shot by a fund manager from New York who was in London on business.
He told the Guardian: "The primary reason for me coming forward is that it was clear the family were not getting any answers."

"The newspaper said the video would be handed to the police complaints watchdog as part of a "dossier of evidence" which also includes a collection of witness statements and photographs in the aftermath of the alleged attack."

Photographer Anna Branthwaite, who saw Tomlinson walking towards Cornhill Street, said: "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."


Sir Paul Stephenson this week ordered a top-level review of riot policing and admitted his concerns over the "clearly disturbing" images to have emerged.

... All from British newspapers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1168315/Hundreds-protesters-march-silence-man-died-G20-protests.html

go nearly to the bottom of the page and watch this video....
it doesnt appear to me that he "rolled" except he rolled over to speak to the police.

he eventually got up and walked away under his own steam.....

in the video above this one it appears he is the only one going in that direction....all others appear to be going straight ahead....

were all these protestors for real or were they part of the usual "Rent a Crowd" the POMS (english) are known for. Who will ever know.....

I must also say that it did look like an unprovoked attack, although why did the cameraman take his filming from the main crowd and pan around onto this poor fellow.....was there some indication of an impending skuffle?

(V): can I ask how did you know he was going home to watch the football? I havn't seen that written anywhere or is it just supposition?

He was living in a homeless shelter and was a chronic alcoholic so that would account for the staggering walk wouldn't it...I mean it was after work and he probably had a couple...again supposition.

Bernice: Rent a crowd..... We are not known for that, the only time that sort of thing happened was during the old days of secondary picketing. That was made illegal years ago.

If you don't know he was on his way home, then you can't have been following the story very well, as it was stated from day one that the news broke he was on his way home.

Yes, since he split with his wife, he did drink... big deal.. The guy but the man who he worked with that day stated he was sober, happy and looking forward to the next day of work. He was improving himself. He is described as a man "...He was a gentleman and he never hurt anyone," said one colleague. "He was a really nice fella who just minded his own business."
"He was King of the Hill – King of Fish Street Hill." That is my tribute to him," another added.
Barry Smith, 55, an Evening Standard vendor who had known Mr Tomlinson for 26 years, said he helped out on the stall every day, starting at 7am.

Ok?