I agree.I'm not arguing for their actions in that situation at all.
But they are people, the policeman, under stress, perhaps lost his temper and did something stupid, something illegal. He should be punished. However, it shouldn't be a sky-falling-down-catastrophe, it's an unfortunate event, in which one man is guilty of assault. It's shit and it's wrong that the policeman did what he did, but I don't think it needed to coverage it got especially in implying that the police are all thugs out to harm as many people as they can.
(But they are people, the policeman, under stress, perhaps lost his temper and did something stupid, something illegal. He should be punished. However, it shouldn't be a sky-falling-down-catastrophe, it's an unfortunate event, in which one man is guilty of assault. It's shit and it's wrong that the policeman did what he did, but I don't think it needed to coverage it got especially in implying that the police are all thugs out to harm as many people as they can.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 17:58,
archived)
Assault?Surely you mean manslaughter?
(
Cassius Kray floats like a butterfly, stings like a trout,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 18:01,
archived)
depends on the causal link between the injuries suffered and the death.If he died of a heart attack as a result of him being pushed the chain of causality is a bit weak as it is not a reasonable outcome that pushing someone will cause them to die/ have a heart attack.
I think though, if the injuries suffered (possible head/abdomen wounds) directly brought about the heart attack, then a charge of manslaughter could be more strongly argued. Otherwise, precedent would dictate that a charge of manslaughter would be difficult to argue.
(I think though, if the injuries suffered (possible head/abdomen wounds) directly brought about the heart attack, then a charge of manslaughter could be more strongly argued. Otherwise, precedent would dictate that a charge of manslaughter would be difficult to argue.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 18:05,
archived)
According to the most recent autopsyHe died from internal bleeding.
At the moment it's not clear how he died/what the copper's guilt is, I just wanted to point out that the guy's dead, which makes it much more important than had assault been the only issue.
(At the moment it's not clear how he died/what the copper's guilt is, I just wanted to point out that the guy's dead, which makes it much more important than had assault been the only issue.
Cassius Kray floats like a butterfly, stings like a trout,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 18:08,
archived)
oksee the rest of my message... I added some at the end. Hadn't heard about the most recent autopsy. Strengthens the case for a charge of manslaughter then.
Edit: and my point is that one incident seems much more important than the largely good job they did in preventing such a big crowd of people from getting out of control, or indeed that incident seems more important than the actual point of the protest.
(Edit: and my point is that one incident seems much more important than the largely good job they did in preventing such a big crowd of people from getting out of control, or indeed that incident seems more important than the actual point of the protest.
drbroon abloooobloobloo,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 18:10,
archived)
My 2pBut surely the fact that the Police force as a whole denied it, or the fact that there is any footage from CCTV, press or public. And infact the guy that died, hadn't been in contact with the riot police.
Shame they got caught out this time... Bunch of lying Met Twunts.
If it was the other way round where the man had retaliated and killed the copper it would have been reported at a totally different angle and the evidence would have been immediately available for the rushed trial.
(Shame they got caught out this time... Bunch of lying Met Twunts.
If it was the other way round where the man had retaliated and killed the copper it would have been reported at a totally different angle and the evidence would have been immediately available for the rushed trial.
mattyremf,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 18:30,
archived)
I thought this for a while.But the policeman who assaulted the chap probably isn't the bloke who found him. He probably had no idea the bloke he hit had died at first, and probably didn't for a few days.
It'd be completely impossible for the police to keep track of every single protestor, what contact they'd had with who, and where they'd been.
They probably shouldn't have come out so certain that they were innocent, but I doubt if the Police as a whole knew what had happened before the video footage linked it all together.
(It'd be completely impossible for the police to keep track of every single protestor, what contact they'd had with who, and where they'd been.
They probably shouldn't have come out so certain that they were innocent, but I doubt if the Police as a whole knew what had happened before the video footage linked it all together.
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 18:36,
archived)
Presumably it got more coverage because as a policeman he's expected to be able to keep his cool.It probably doesn't deserve so much coverage, but so long as the officer is dealt with properly, continued coverage will probably help the Police's reputation.
I'm hoping he'll be dealt with in the same way as anyone else caught on camera committing assault.
(this would have been posted about 20 minutes ago if my wireless hadn't died)
(I'm hoping he'll be dealt with in the same way as anyone else caught on camera committing assault.
(this would have been posted about 20 minutes ago if my wireless hadn't died)
my other username is a porsche , posting shit pictures so you don't have to,
Mon 27 Apr 2009, 18:20,
archived)