Where you say "seeking confrontations" I say "trying to get home". No matter what route he took home it took him through a police line. If he had not made attempts to go home, instead complying with police fully, he would have been trapped inside the kettle and deemed to be a protestor. As for your anecdote about rape in a dark alley - All I can say is that its a moot point if she walked down the dark alley because she had no other choice - it was her one and only route home. What else do you expect her to do? Stay in Broad Street all night and risk danger for hours, or atleast make an attempt to get home to safety?
I was just giving an example of the "could" thing, and St Andrews Street is actually a very nice street, it's well lit, but the attacker didn't care, if it's in broad daylight, or nighttime, he will still attack, it makes no difference... And the last thing someone expects is to be pushed to the floor from behind, and within a matter of minutes, dead. I'm sure many wealthy people in the 80's "could" have bought hundreds of houses, and now be absolutely minted, my Dad is one of them, but they didn't, because at the time, it seemed normal, and they didn't know the outcome of the future. See what I'm getting too?
And what if he had be deemed to be a protestor? Seriously, what is the worst that could have happened if he'd remained calm and complied with the Police's instructions? Instead he decided, admittedly in a drunken state, that he wasn't happy and wasn't going to be make sure the Police knew about it. Hence the need to remove him from the path of a Police Van and his prior encounter with the business end of a baton. And, while none of this excuses or mitigates what the Police Officer did, the fact remains that Tomlinson took certain easily avoidable actions that led him into a situation where his personal safety was put at risk and may have caused his death. No but I would expect her to take sensible precautions. For example if she knew that was the only route home and that it was potentially dangerous then I would expect her to have attempted to find someone to accompany her or drive her home instead. I would also expect her to have remained sober enough to be aware of her surroundings and any potential dangers, and to carry a deterrent such as a rape alarm. As Nexxo says it's about taking personal responsibility to try and stay as safe as possible. This doesn't mean you won't ever get hurt, injured, attacked etc and that if you do it's your fault but where people place themselves in dangerous situations which they could have avoided or minimised the risk from you have to question if there was something they could/should have done differently. Yes I see you're getting to the "pulling out ridiculous examples that have no relation to the subject matter in hand" point. We can wax lyrical all day about potential could haves but very few of them have got anything to do with the issue of personal responsibility. The reason both Nexxo and I responded to the point about St Andrews Street was because it was the only example you provided that had any link to the actual matter in hand and demonstrated quite well the point that someone who chose to walk through a dangerous area rather than take a safer route home could be considered responsible for having put themselves in a situation where their personal safety could be put at risk. And yes you're right, if an attacker is going to attack you then it's going to happen but that doesn't alter the fact that you can take some personal responsibility for your own safety. Taking personal responsibility doesn't make you immune from danger, it's all about minimising the risk and having several confrontations with riot police and then sauntering yards in front of them after having already been hit by a baton doesn't demonstrate any attempt to minimise the potential risk to your personal safety.
Oh my... You could go out tomorrow in the sun, walk for 1 minute, and get stabbed. Stop saying "I would" or "He should have" or "Stupid idea to go that way", bloody hell. If the world was like that, there wouldn't be any murders, stabbings, rape, nothing. Bloody Minority Report?
Yes that could happen, but at the same time i'd be much more likely to get stabbed if I went wandering around the dodgier areas of manchester alone at night which is why I don't do it. I fail to see what you find so difficult to comprehend about the concept of taking some responsibility for your own safety. As I said before, it's not going to necessarily prevent anything bad happening but it'll make it much less likely. And I really can't see how you've gone from people taking sensible precautions to a world without crime or the Minority Report. Are you just hoping if you chuck in a few sensationalised comments then your arguments will hold more weight?
Meh... The guy was pissed, and the last thing anyone expects is to be pushed over "physical contact" by a copper while walking away, he didn't attack the police, he was just doing petty things, the maximum thing the police could have done to him for it to be normal was to be arrested and spending a night in jail. And to be quite honest, if I was "sober" and the police stated I couldn't get out of the zone because there was a protest, I'd go bloody nuts. Minority Report comment was for seeing the future i.e. I should of done this instead of this etc. Use your brain instead of trying to look clever.
No, people don''t expect to be pushed over when they have their back to someone but we all know it does happen. He'd already had previous confrontations with the Police, including already being hit with a baton, yet decided to remain in close proximity to them. Does that sound like the most sensible place to be?? Or does it sound like somewhere where further confrontations could occur? Ironic you should talk about using your brain because that's what personal responsibility is about. It's not about the seeing the future or about hindsight, it's simply about considering your actions and how they will impact on your safety. As I said before, it's why I don't go wandering through dangerous areas late at night, or go upto large blokes and start insulting them. I might get through it fine but those actions would greatly increase the risk to my personal safety.
The protest could have easily turned in to a riot. It happens, and often. Perhaps that was his main concern, frenzied citizens, and not supposed law-enforcers. Perhaps his rationale was "Well, if they're hitting me, and I'm not even a protestor, then they're going to hit others and the **** is going to hit the fan...I have to get out of here before it does...and in so doing, take personal responsibility for my safety because the police dont seem to care" Now that's just conjecture, but you did ask...Just like it's conjecture to assume that he wasn't concerned with his personal safety, because that scenario is highly plausible - crowds are volatile - and the safest place for him was the place he was trying to get to, home, not in the middle of a protest.
Doesn't make it acceptable. I know what you are saying, and I agree, but in circumstances, who knows what thoughts go through our brain, and you keep on missing out he was drunk, and I know what happens when people get drunk, a lot of different responses for many people i.e. Me: When I get a bit tipsy, I care less about the world, and more about what is currently happening, I have a massive laugh, crack jokes, basically an excellent time, you could say I lose "reality". Mate (Lets name him John, dont want to give his real name out): He has a few drinks, and he turns into a total arsehole, he'll start fights, mouth it off, think he is Godlike, then when all hell breaks lose, he'll run off and leave us in the ****. Mate2: (Ashley, Again, different name): When he starts drinking, he doesn't change at all, he'll stay exactly the same, the only difference is that like most drunks, he'll walk like a drunk etc. See how everyone is different? Maybe he lost all reality? He didn't see the police as a threat, he had a few beers, having a great time, decided to go home to see his family, maybe he didn't even know there was a protest, so off he went, and got refused entry to a street, who knows what went through is mind. Then he stops a van and gets in their way, little does he know that what he is doing is wrong, so he just carries on like normal, then as he is walking normally down the road, he doesn't see the coppers or hear them behind him, then bam, smacked to the floor, and little later on, dead. That's one example written in 1 minute, there are 100's out there. But that's not what I'm getting at, it doesn't bloody matter what he did, what the copper did was wrong, and anything else is ****ing irrelevant. He didn't punch a copper, he didn't assault them, he was trying to get home, he didn't deserve the knock down, he didn't deserve death, end of.
Correct me if i'm wrong but wasn't he actually outside the "kettle" and had been turned around on it's outskirts?? And his actual confrontations were about him not being allowed to take his route home, which by this point had turned into an area of the protest? It certainly looks from the maps of the incident that between him getting hit and his collapse he's actually moved away from the protests which would indicate he wasn't being kettled. I never said that the Police Officer's actions were acceptable, they clearly weren't and if it is the case that he caused Tomlinson's death then he should be tried for manslaughter, same as anyone else. Being drunk doesn't absolve you of personal responsibility. Nor does it give you an excuse to act like an idiot. Maybe he did lose all reality but I can't believe he had no idea there were protests happening in London or what they likely repercussions of that would be when travelling. He was a newspaper vendor, I can't believe he didn't notice anything on any of the papers about the G20 summit or the proposed protests and police action. As for his interactions with the Police I'm not sure how he wouldn't have known standing in front of a Police Van isn't doing something wrong, especially after he'd been dragged out of the way by Officers and no doubt told he was doing something wrong. And if you watch the video of him getting hit he's very aware that there's Police Officers behind him and how close they are to him. In terms of what action is taken against the Police Officer no it doesn't matter what Tomlinson did, the Officer's actions were wrong and he should be held accountable for that. However, in terms of whether or not Tomlinson was the perfectly innocent party he's been made out to be then I think it matters it a lot.
I fully agree with Krazeh. The fact that others keep going back to the same argument over and over again just goes to show that people have run out of arguments. I don't get it. Many a time this forum is full of rants about morbidly obese people, bad parents, or just plain stupid people who are condemned for not taking personal responsiblity for their lives, their health, the kids they put into this world. But all of a sudden people get spasms of apoplexy at the notion that Ian Tomlinson could perhaps have tried a little harder to keep himself safe. Sure, he might have done everything he could to avoid trouble and got killed anyway, in which case I'd be the first to say that he was a truly innocent victim of manslaughter. But let's face it: he had been doing his bit to stoke the conflict. I'm sure he was just feeling frustrated, and did not set out to get himself killed any more than the police officer set out to kill him. But as so often with manslaughter cases, a moment of inconsidered rage or miscalculated force on both sides ends in unexpected tragedy.
Let me explain then You see, you're assuming that his actions were not motivated by an interest in his personal safety. You claim that he obviously wasn't acting out a concern for personal safety by virtue of the fatal assault happening, and that he should have seen it coming. But no one could have accurately predcted what would happen that day. I'm sure tha if he had a moment of clairvoyance and predicted that he would be fatally assaulted by police that he wouldn't have gone near them, don't you? Unfortunately he didn't and his decision to confront the police did undoubtedly lead to an untimely demise. However, that does not intrinsically mean that he was disregarding his personal safety. Put yourself in his shoes for a moment. He was trapped in a potentially volatile situation. In front of him, between him and his house, were riled-up police officers, Behind him were screaming, missile-throwing protestors. This was obviously not a completely safe place to be even at the time, never mind what could potentially happen as the two side closed in on each other (with him still stuck in the middle). So what to do? Well, his course of action was to try to break through the police lines and go home by convincing the police that he wasn't part of the protest and just wanted to go home - Yes, he may have been drunk and not in the best form for rational debate, but what's done is done. Those attempts resulted in him being hit, and you say that he should have backed off from the police. But consider what police compliance that meant - This is someone who had no association with the protestors. He didn't understand them - what they were shouting about or why they were throwing bottles. He did, however understand the objectives of the police, and even if they did hit him, I believe the saying is "Better the devil you know than the devil you don't" It's fine to sit on your high-horse in hindsight and say that he wasn't acting in his own self interest - just look what happened. But Tomlinson didn't have the luxury of hindsight, he could only anticipate what might happen. There's no doubt that any clash between protestors and police has the potential to get very, very ugly...So consider for one moment that it had all kicked off and resulted in hours of riotous violence, casualties, and a few deaths (its not unheard of) - Could you still claim that Tomlinson, in trying to distance himself from it, wasn't acting in the interests of his personal safety? No, you couldn't. It's only with the luxury of hindsight that you can, which is something that Tomlinson didn't have.
The problem with the above is it assumes that he was being kettled by the Police and therefore pushed towards the protestors. However, having looked at the news resports again it appears he was turned around by the Police cordon at the edge of the area they were kettling, i.e. he was sent away from the protestors. The problem arose because the area the Police had cordoned off, and were not letting him through, was his usual route home and he wasn't happy about having his way home blocked. If this was indeed the case then he could have quite easily gone to find an alternative route home, instead he decided to make sure the Police knew how annoyed he was about not being able to take his normal route home.
No. I claim that he obviously wasn't acting out a concern for personal safety because he deliberately continued to stroll in such close proximity to a police cordon after having had physical altercations with them twice. If a police officer has hit me once already, it doesn't take much clearvoyance to assume that it would be good to stay more than one yard away from them. I believe Krazeh already pointed out that this is not true. He worked at a newspaper stand on Fish Street Hill outside Monument tube station. He tried to get home to the Lindsey Hotel, Smithfield. He was outside the kettling perimeter when the police first blocked his path home, which would have gone through the protest area. He could have taken a detour. Inconvenient, but safe. That is what I am saying. I think that sounds even more contrived than anything you accused me of contriving. First: he was a newspaper seller. I think he had a rough idea of what was going on that day. Second, the video clip shows no protest chaos: no bottles being thrown, no running and shouting. Third, look at the video: at 0.20 seconds it shows a policeman poking the sauntering Tomlinson's shoulder (right edge of frame) to attract his attention and make him move on. At 0.23 seconds it shows him nearly getting tangled up with a police dog which is right behind him --he is that close to the cordon. But he does not speed up --he halts, and then continues to saunter slowly onwards. It is then that 0.27 that another police officer pushes him hard and he falls to the ground. Because he has his hands in his pockets his saving reaction is hampered and he falls hard. Now keep in mind that he had been hit by a policeman in an altercation not five minutes earlier. Was he simply not paying attention? Was he afraid of being pushed into a rioting crowd? Or was he being a bit belligerent because he was upset about being pushed around? You can hypothetically shift the facts and events and possibilities all over the place, but that does not change that based on his experience and knowledge of that moment, like, oh, I don't know, having been hit by a policeman five minutes earlier, I would expect him to try and keep some distance from them. Just speed up a little bit, put one more yard of distance between him and them more would have been enough. He was entitled to feel angry, frustrated, uncooperative. But he could have just done all that from one yard further away.
