Wait, he was just parked in front of your house? If he pays road tax he has as much right to park there as you do
Yeah of course but if you read what happened it wasnt about that - This guy had the entire street to park his car where ever he wanted on numerous occasions but he went out his way to park in front of our house because he knew it caused us difficulty. Theres an unspoken rule about parking outside peoples houses in our street and most people are probably aware of this in their area, no one puts anyone out and causes them trouble, he had a driveway to park his car in where his girlfriend lived but he couldnt be bothered and instead probably saw it as a bit of fun to have us park down the bottom of ours and watch us walk from there every time "I did that to them haha" I can imagine him saying. It was quite clear it was done on purpose to cause us problems, Why flash his badge at us to prove hes a policeman over that? We did ask him nicely and told him its causing us difficulty, especially when he can park just fine outside his own house or on his own driveway?! Its about him causing aggrivation delibrately just to be a pain to our family, which at the time was the only asian family on the street . Im not one to pull the race card over things because I look for every possible reason but when you can find yourself doing nothing wrong, when someone who should be a model citizen especially within a public role like a policeman yet acts completely unbecoming of one - I think questions need to be asked about his motivation behind being a total ass for no reason? The threat of launching an official complaint had his tail behind his legs though (his two buddys too, because we werent moving until he apologised or we got arrested, we made that clear) His two buddys knew if we started asking questions at the station on their credibility showing up "so fast", it would probably make them look bad to their superiors (and we did ask them why they responded so fast to this callout and whether they knew him, which they denied I think out of panic and we threatened to take it further to confirm that too which clearly unnerved them further, They couldnt even provide a callout number as each callout is logged and they couldnt provide that either) He basically tried to scare us into moving our cars "throw a couple of policemen in uniform to scare the two young kids" is probably what he thought no doubt. this isnt an attack on nexxo, I just have a differing of opinion on the matter as he defends police officers, probably because he has had good experiences with them, family member is one or simply has respect for them which hasnt been tainted through bad experiences like this. Perhaps you can argue its an isolated experience but the statistics in our town say a black or asian person is 3 times more likely to stopped and be convicted with a harsher sentence than a normal white male at court. There is bias out there whether people sugar coat it or not and im watching the sentences people get at court, I work with people on probation and its generally proven to be true. The Police dont always act the way they should, they are like any organisation and they will try and protect themselves if they can. Anyone see that panorama episode of what policemen do in their spare time? They play "snooker". Stop a red car (regardless of what they are doing) and then find another coloured car to get points (preferrably black for 8 points) Not all are like this no doubt, one of the nicest men in my department is a retired police officer and hes incredibly cool, but even by his own admission, allot of funny business does go on and hes seen some questionable things in his 32 years being a policeman.
Not really, you expect the police to know about every contact they have with someone in central London? tbh I'd call the police as well after he decided to park 2 cars 1cm away from mine as he was in the wrong and no offence but when you get someones back up there gonna go out of their way to be a pain in the ass, I would.
I don't envy the police of their job, they mostly do it without thanks and it's a hard job. But we all know that there are bad apples within the police, the same as in any other organisation. I think the copper who assaulted the man who died isn't necessarily a bad apple, he probably had a bit too much adrenaline flowing and over reacted to the situation in hand. Having said that though, a policeman must work within clearly defined rules, the same as a soldier, or a nurse, or any other public service professional. If they overstep the mark once, and react badly to pressure, then there is every chance they will do it again. So I honestly think that he should be brought to task for his actions, and he should be forced to consider his career within the police force at the very least. The fact that the Met. tried to keep a tight lid on this event shows that the police still try to deal with discipline problems in-house and under the carpet. An officer is supposed to uphold the law, and not bend it to suit their needs. Someone brought up the fact that the officer hasn't been named, this I disagree with. If I was to go out and maybe cause someones death by my actions, then I would not be given the privilege of the shield the Met. police have put around this officer. Other people are saying that he would never get a fair trail if he was named, but that's rubbish. Most high profile suspects are named in the press nowadays, and for much worse offenses than this officer may be charged with, so have they all received an unfair trail? As for the suggestion that the man may have brought in upon himself by daring to be drunk in a public area, well that is just typical of the snobbish attitudes shown on this forum! If the man was drunk, so what? All he wanted to do was get home, and the police were stopping him. I am willing to bet a penny to a thousand pounds that the police didn't even stop to listen to him before getting heavy with him. I would probably end up getting irate too if I was caught in that situation and I couldn't get out of it. To try and attribute blame on the man for being drunk or an alcoholic is low and sleazy!
Did you read his post?... If someone parks outside YOUR house for MONTHS when there are spaces outside his OWN house, that's going to piss you off hugely, I'm suprised Solidus didn't get someone to slash the twats tires. He played it well, good on him.
As D3s3rt_F0x says, do you think that the police has a detailed record of every contact that every police officer had with the protest crowd? Of every confrontation and every blow exchanged in the heat of a big protest that went a bit volatile? And did all the officers present witness the event? Or were they perchance distracted by their own activities? And how do the police officers who did witness the push know that it was this particular man that died? You know, the one that got up and walked off apparently unharmed? Neither always have mine. I even have had a few bad experiences with a few Asians, would you believe. But I know not to generalise. People are complicated. Dream on. I don't think anyone said that. What I did suggest is that he started by deliberately confronting the police. He deliberately stepped in front of a moving police van. He then ignored requests to step aside. He then resisted being pulled aside. All this has been photographed and witnessed too. Jumping to conclusions based on assumptions rather than evidence is prejudice too. Accusing others of being low and sleazy because you don't agree with their informed opinion is a bit low and sleazy.
He did own you in that post, honest. If you haven't seen this already. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK...rom_Abdominal_Bleeding_And_Not_A_Heart_Attack Not a hear attack after all, internal bleeding. Edit: Oops, didn't see above poster!
And what you just described was passive resistance...Therefore the police responded illegally with unreasonable force. Reasonable force would have been escorting him from the scene, not beating him to the ground with a baton. Why? Because of the "eggshell skull principle" i mentioned previously - Egg-shell skull principle says a defendant must take his victim as he finds him. So if a person negligently injures someone by running them over, for example, they cannot complain if the injuries they have caused turn out to be more serious than expected because the victim suffered from a pre-existing weakness such as an unusually thin skull or a weak heart.
The great know it all strikes again. You clearly did imply that the man was at fault because he was drunk. I will let your posts bear testament to that. So I wasn't jumping to conclusions, I was merely passing judgements on your comments. BTW, seeing as I never named you in my OP, don't you think you were being a bit presumptious and jumping to conclusions yourself? What made you think I was referring to you personally? When it comes down to it, the man should not have been beaten when he was and how he was. There can be no excuse for this. The laws of common assault also apply to our serving police officers. If one of them has over-reacted to the situation (which he clearly did), then he deserves to face the consequences of his actions. Even if the officer faced verbal provocation from the man, it still doesn't give him the right to do what he did. I also find it very interesting that no attempt was made to arrest the man who died. If he was genuinely a threat then they would have arrested him immediately. That's probably the most damning piece of evidence there is!
Well done but you were calling for him to be hung out to dry for murder when at the time, there was no evidence, if its proven he had an effect on the mans death then he should be questioned and prosecuted for Manslughter but lets see what happens during the investigation shall we as I've said all the way through. Next you'll be bringing up the woman who got a back hand.
Not on that occasion --they did not hit him then, just drag him out of the way. The fatal beating was unreasonable force. But him standing less than three feet away from a marching police cordon after just having repeated altercations with them (including one in which he was hit) was still rather like stepping out in front of that moving police van: the brakes should work, but one way or the other he was still putting himself at risk of getting hurt. Let me direct you to a particular post then: Weren't you? I stand corrected. All agreed, but I refer you to my above quoted post on responsibility. You heard it here first folks: play chicken with the riot police; be prepared to get smacked.
Death or not, the officer was out of line, peice of **** imo. And the woman who got hit, Did she die? No, did she fall over? No, Hands in pockets? No, Facing oppisite direction? No, Old? No. Hit in the back? No.
Heres the thing, if people actually protested now adays I'd agree with you, if this was the poll tax protest fair enough but protesters actually apply to protest. It is astonishing to me that this happens but they do and the worst that happened here is some kids smashed some windows thinking they were being "Che Guevara". The police's job is to attempt to drop the hostilities, not escalate them which seems to have been generally what they were doing. The entire van incident is completely unrelated to both the assaults on him regardless, he was not a protester looking for a fight, just a drunk dude a bit miffed that police were not letting him go his normal route home because this kettling ********. Beyond the incident the police stated they had not been involved with any incident with him, why would they do this before actually knowing they had or not? The police's initial autopsy has been proven wrong, wrong in a way that would have suited the police. Jesus christ we can all have different views on a situation but the Met. commited manslaughter here, plain and simple
You heard it here first folks: Behave in accordance with the freedoms afforded to you by The Human Rights Act 1998; be prepared to be posthumously told "you had it coming" by someone on the internet
This man's confrontation with the police started before the kettling ********. I agree that the police was out of order, and that the officer involved should be charged with manslaughter if the evidence shows that he delivered the fatal blow. 100% culpable, your honour. But again: just because the copper is 100% responsible does not mean that the victim bears no responsiblity whatsoever. Not a zero-sum game, remember? I mean, there are plenty of other clear-cut incidents at the G20 of assault by the police on citizens (blows to the head and all) who had done nothing whatsoever to invite it. But just because Tomlinson had the misfortune to be killed by his assault, he is elevated to a martyr. I'm not buying it. People have some personal responsibility to at least try and keep themselves safe. Recklessness or lack of impulse control are not mitigated by drunkeness. Please tell me where in the Human Rights Act 1998 it says that you can step in the way of a moving police van, refuse to move and resist being moved.
I agree with this to an extent, but can someone use your reasoning as a defense? Not in this country they can't. ............. Example: I know that the town centre gets rowdy at the weekends, and however small the chance, I could end up getting snotted for no particular reason other than the offender took a dislike to my ugly mug. Now if this offender was charged, could he use the excuse that I knew there was the potential there for me to get smacked and yet I still went out anyway, so it was partly my fault too? Of course not, and he would be laughed out of court. ............. The same principles apply here too. Someone who chooses to break the law does so by their own choice. You are so keen on UK citizens accepting responsibility for their lives, but wish to proportion responsibility to offenders and the victims? Two differing opinions as far as I can see. I am not saying this just to get into another vast and pointless argument, but I do see these opinions as conflicting. I personally would avoid areas where I know there is something kicking off, but some people invariably do end up getting caught up in sticky situations. When something happens though, blame should lie squarely at the offenders feet.
