Discussion in 'News - Discussion' started by CSBC, Apr 6, 2009.
....so yet again they want togs help.....
Surely not a Machiavellian ploy to make all photographers who were so naughty to photograph the police to come forward and identify themselves?
(Tongue in cheek comment not to diminish wrongness of this incident.)
There's a video on the Guardian website showing a policeman assaulting the guy who died.
It's here .
I hope they get the guy who did it.
I've just seen this on the BBC News and the attack was totally unwarranted. I too hope that the PC involved is severley disciplined and charged with culpable homicide at the very least.
must admit from the footage it does look unprovoked, but was there some sort of verbal contact going on ? who knows hopefully an enquiry will establish the facts
Looks pretty unequivocal to me - he was assaulted from behind by a police officer.
I wonder what Shahid Malik's take on it would be - was this one of those "Police officers have the discretion to ask people not to take photographs for public safety or security reasons" situations?
Clearly, the officer who struck Ian Tomlinson has his own ideas on "public safety". They're safe when he's not around ...
Perhaps he'll have the cajones to step forward and explain himself, although I doubt it somehow. I hope there aren't many more like him in the police.
Im sure there are plenty!
Just watched the vid myself, shocked....
even if there was some verbel between the two of them,
the man had his hands in his pockets for god sake, hardly a threatening posture!
I doublt very much that the police officer will come forward.
If I did that on a Saturday night I'd be charged with murder and would probably be convicted of manslaughter...which is what it probably is.
Reasonable force...ask Tony Martin
Yeah, but it's a pity the guy who shot the footage seemed more interested in filming the line of cops than keeping his lens on Mr Tomlinson throughout the sequence. Really it was pure chance that the moment the officer shoved him from behind was caught and nothing more. What went on during the intervening period can't be told from that.
It certainly doesn't excuse the disgraceful behaviour of this policeman though in any way.
He was taunting them and refusing to get out of the way. Given that he was pushed from behind and easily got his hands up as he fell, it seems a tiny incident in a very threatening environment.
If you can blow Brazilian electricians' brains out for no reason at all, I can't see it is worth trying to prosecute the plod here.
You're probably right - in practice, but not morally. The policeman responsible should be prosecuted and convicted of assault. A manslaughter charge should probably be answered as the victim died, but I'd fully understand if only assault could be proved.
Police will probably want him charged with as small a crime as possible and get it heard in a magistrates, if this gets to Crown Court and a Jury trial the copper will almost certainly be found guilty.
A friend of mine *was* training to be a lawyer/barrister and had to spend time attending Crown Court proceedings and said that the he felt public view of the police is so bad at the moment it actually causes problems in securing convictions in some cases.
His theory was that Joe Public feels so bitter about the police being there ready to hand out speeding tickets but never being there when their house is broken into. So when it's a policeman's word against the defendants some jurors will doubt the police testimony (no matter how strong the case against the defendant is). The defendant may not be accquitted rather the Jury won't be able to reach a verdict and CPS will drop the trial. I think this could be partly why the government want to errode the right to Jury trials.
Actually, there was a reason, albeit mistaken.
A 'no reason' event would have the filth walking down the street and popping a cap into a total strangers skull as they did a bit of window shopping, for no reason...
No reason, means there was no reason. If someone imagined there was a reason, when there wasn't, there was still no reason. Like WMD, there were either some or none. Imagining there was some does not amount to there being in fact any at all. A state of non-ness cannot be varied by what people imagine.
Absolootly. I was on a trial jury a year or so ago and there were enough members who flatly refused to convict on police evidence that a clearly and obviously guilty drug dealer was not convicted.
One very nice Asian guy refused to convict because the police wrongly hassled him years ago. Another just said all police evidence is planted.
Wrong. Even if the "target" was correctly identified as a suspected terrorist, in a country which has neither summary justice nor the death penalty, shooting the man dead without giving him an opportunity to surrender peacefully was without reason.
The inquest clearly came to the conclusion that Mr Menezes did nothing which could be construed as a threat to the police or any of the bystanders. Shooting him dead was therefore, in my opinion and that of many other people, murder, pure and simple.
That's your opinion. Personally, I and many other people think it's complete cobblers.
I've not heard or seen that reported anywhere - do you have a source?
Doesn't excuse the assault if true IMO.
Does rubbing out a deaf man carrying a wrapped up table leg count?
Separate names with a comma.