Of course not, because he (as we all rightly should) believe that the police should hold themselves to a higher standard than that of thuggery. Thier job was to protect him, and it should be inconcievable in a civilised society that his actions, no matter how belligerent, would lead to law-enforcer breaking the law.
I would never expect the police officer to get off manslaughter (if borne out by the evidence) or to have a mitigated sentence just because his victim was a belligerent drunk. But the victim was not exactly protecting himself. He was drunk (according to the coroner's report, to the extent that his health had already been sevely affected), he put himself in the path of moving vehicles, he actively sought confrontation with the riot police. Which raises the interesting question: should the police protect ourselves from our own stupidity? Friday and Saturday nights overstretched A&E's are full of drunks who NHS staff are struggling to protect from themselves. Police cells are full of drunks taken in accordance with section 136 (police act to remover to a place of safety). Section 136 was designed for those who are psychotic, or severely distressed or confused. Someone has to look after their safety. But people who knowingly and willingly incapacitate tehmselves by getting drunk and then put themselves and others at risk? Let me reiterate: should the police protect us from our own stupidity? Think carefully about the answer. People complain about police-state tactics, but nanny states are just the patronisingly benign face of such totalitarianism. Even Big Brother had an avuncular smile. If we, the citizens do not behave like responsible adults, someone else will take that responsibility away from us --and the power and autonomy that goes with it.
It is, I will admit an interesting question, which I will ponder throughout the day, but I also think the question is an absolute non sequitur. It was not through Tomlinson's stupidity that he completely disregarded the possibility that his actions would lead to an illegal assault from law enforcement. It is a necessary and fundamental assumption that law enforcement officers enforce the law...even on themselves through disciplined restraint.
Would you seek out a confrontation with riot police during a protest? Would you step in front of a police van, or shout at them, or when illegally hit once already, walk within arm's reach of a police cordon again? I think we both know the answer. Because the world is full of "shoulds", but we also know it doesn't work like that. People should not steal, but I still lock my doors. I should be able to walk anywhere unmolested, but I still avoid the dodgy neighbourhoods at night. I should be able to trust the police, but when they are tooled up with shields and batons because they expect confrontation with a rioting crowd that they are tasked to contain, I make sure to stay clear of any confrontation with them.
I wouldn't now, but I have made a similar mistake before - why? Naievety. I was naieve and believed that assumption I mentioned earlier. My opinion has changed, through experience, luckily I didn't die Perhaps Tomlinson just didn't have the experience to come to a similar conclusion... You can't justify police wrongdoing by saying a member of the public should have known better - Two shoulds don't cancel each other out. I've recently been made aware of an old woman who found herself being urinated on during a plane journey. Can you honestly say to me "She should have been aware that the act of getting on a plane may lead to getting pissed on, and she should have known better"? Of course not, because without prior experience of deviations from the normative "should", finding yourself on a plane, drenched in a stranger's piss is absolutely...
Pfft I would have done the same thing if I was the policeman in that situation, having a crowd of people swarming and shouting, otherwise known as a riot...Yeah id probably hit someone too.
Call it natural selection at work then, because it seems bloody obvious to me that when you seek a confrontation with an agitated, tooled-up riot police during an agitated protest that things will come to blows. I don't think I ever said that they do. But responsibility is not a zero-sum game. People seem to struggle with that concept. Comparative fallacy. Being pissed on during a plane journey is not in any way comparable to being hit by riot police after you've repeatedly sought a confrontation with them.
I could buy in to that if it weren't for two facts. Namely his hands were in his pockets and his back was turned. The police officer has an extremely high motivating factor to not behave in such a way - possible unemployment. It's also obvious that a beligerrent drunk isn't worth your livelyhood
I'm sorry, you expected rational behaviour? Officer's possible point of view: this drunk has been a pain. He had to be dragged out of the way of a police van that he deliberately blocked. Later he comes back with more of his attitude and gets a whack with the baton. Because we really don't need some drunken twats making our lives even harder, what with a protest going south at the RBS, people possibly gearing up for a fight (and in the background the never abating terrorist threat and the Real IRA recently saying that they were going to start up their shenanigans on the mainland UK again. And they killed a copper, didn't they?). But that does not seem to have discouraged him: here he is in our way again, casually sauntering in front of a moving police cordon. Why doesn't he get the message and just **** off?! A hard push is the explosive result of a building irritation. Context: it matters.
Yup, in the sour experience I mentioned earlier the police officer involved did have the rationality to wait until there were no witnesses before breaking my jaw. And we're back to prior experience informing opinion. Let's call it a draw before we go round in circles for another 2 pages
Yeah thats why you're not a police officer and also why police who act like this should be liable for their actions Lmao, you know your arguments losing ground when you have to lean on THE TERRORIST THREAT as some ******** reasoning for assaulting someone who has committed no aggressive action on you. edit: actually you know what good point, 9/11 killed ian tomlinson not some manchild with a hardon for power and the ability to abuse the trust put in him.
I'm just pointing out the policeman's possible perspective. Rightly on wrongly, they believe in the terrorist threat. And a real cop really got killed in N.I. This is the riot police. This is not about protecting and serving the public or your friendly bobby giving directions to lost tourists. They're not tooled up with shields and batons for nothing. It's tribal dynamics; riot police vs. rioting protesters, them vs the baying crowd. That's how they see it. Anyone with half a brain would see it would be a bad idea to start picking an argument with them, but this man did.
I would put a fair bet that Nexxo has been drunk more times than you. It is also fair to say that he is far wiser than some of the other posters in this thread, who seem to want to make it an argument for the sake of it. Nexxo brings an exceptionally valid point when he takes the views of the Police officers. How many thousand's of protesters where there, compared to Police units, i bet there was a huge amount more. When i go to work (a supermarket) i not only have to think about my personal safety, but the safety of those around me, the security of the building, other people's security. I also have to think about terrorism, and I do this day in day out, and it makes me very aware, sometimes you have to make choices, and sometimes they are split second choices. Now, please stop this arguing because it's getting boring, let's have a friendly discussion. Sam
Lets get personal time! I used to get pissed weekly for years, like most people in the UK, I've also been alchohol free for about a year, so I know the best of both worlds. Makes no difference to this discussion what so ever, so what's the point in this jibbajabba? We, like Nexxo, are human, we have opinions and views, Nexxo is being pro Police, we are being Pro Deadguy, that's the discussion right there. Police are professionally trained for these protests, and if they can't do the job, then go work in a supermarket, because if you can't adapt, being in the riot police isn't for you. No one cares except a few people that this guy stopped a police van or done anything else, if he was being an arsehole, he should be been arrested and spent a night in a prison like most people who are in a similar situation, yet, they ignored him, and ignored him, then smacked him down, and he's now dead, it was uncalled for, period, regardless of what he was bloody doing. And? So does every single person in the world, when I went out today, I'm taking care of my family and myself, and if someone around me or near me gets in trouble, I'll make a decision if I want to help them or not i.e. if they are being attacked, how many people are attacking, what's being used etc. It's called human instinct, but some people have advanced forms of it through experience i.e. me. And if you think you need to think about terrorism daily, I'm afraid you've been brainwashed by the media, sorry about that. Aisle 11 might have a nuclear bomb in it tomorrow, better watch out! Lets cut to the point if this eh, enough of this quanity over quality stuff, if this wasn't a bloody problem, then why the hell is Nexxo outnumbered here? Why is it that nearly every single person I have heard on this subject is against it? If the guy deserved it, this thread wouldn't exist. If the guy was punching the riot poilce, pushing them constantly, throwing projectiles, maybe shouting in their face for 30 minutes while being aggresive, then I would be ok with all this, he would of deserved it, but he wasn't. I won't add any more to this thread, this isn't a thread to be wise in or excuses, it's a thread for common sense and "if I was in that situation and I was a riot officer" thread, no need for complicated crap, my view is he didn't deserve it and the officer who pushed him was out of line regardless of what he previous did that day, and nothing anyone writes or does is going to change my opinion.
cops and excessive force? nooo.. maybe if that guy wasn't so naive he might still be alive- I make sure to steer clear of inmates with badges- kinda have to expect that sort of thing to happen..
Utter crap!! He used excessive force! And as I mentioned earlier, the police had the option to arrest him if he was proving to be that much of a threat. Stop and ask yourself why he WASN'T arrested? Simply because he had broken NO laws!!! And as for context matters, NO IT DOESN'T. There is such a defense as provocation, but that is not an EXCUSE!! As for the policeman becoming frustrated with the man who died, well what about that man, the one who was trying to leave the area so he could go HOME? Do you not think that any SOBER and RATIONAL person would not become agitated at this? You say you are a psychologist, then surely you should know that people react very badly to feeling caged in. Add alcohol to the equation and I think that the man showed a hell of a lot of self restraint towards the police! While you are on your quest to exonerate the policeman, perhaps you should try to see it from the other man's view too. It really does NOT matter that the man was drunk, because the evidence clearly shows that the policman involved cowardly attacked the man from behind. The man was trying to walk away when attacked. As for bringing terrorism into the equation, that is absolutely pathetic. You are grasping at straws now! Edited: Point taken from below.
Actually I think that I have said several times that the officer should be charged with manslaughter. I am not "pro police"; I'm just not "pro dead guy "either. You appear to struggle with this non-dichotomous thinking. You also seem to struggle with the notion that the number of people in agreement with an opinion has nothing to do with its validity or logic. Actually, he had: he blocked a police van and resisted removal. It would indeed have been best for all involved if the police had just arrested him for that. But possibly they were a bit busy with other matters at the time. I'm not offering an excuse for the policeman's behaviour. I'm just saying that the victim had some part to play in this tragedy. Yet again: drunkeness is not a mitigating factor for misbehaviour. Not in law, not in logic. Or should we just let all those drunk driving offences slide because hey, under the circumstances the person's driving was quite controlled? In your quest for righteous indignation you should read this thread so that you are actually up to speed with the events surrounding this tragedy. The man had already initiated two confrontations with the police by this time. Pathetic to you, but not to the colleagues and family of the policeman recently killed by the Real IRA in N. Ireland. You know, the same guys who have been publicly declaring that they are going to start terrorist actions on the UK mainland again. To the police the terrorist threat feels kind of real at the moment. Whether we agree or not, I am explaining their perspective.
