Ian Tomlinson death

[patiirc]

Wont the pathologist have to be disproved in this specific case despite other areas where he has been incorrect? Although there are different views aired of cause of death, as the CPS wont prosecute, can the family bring a civil case?

[David]

No, they came to separate conclusions. That's the whole point of the case. Now-proven-dodgy pathologist says "Just a heart attack, nothing amiss", second pathologist says "Internal bleeding", CPS says "Oh well, if two pathologists disagree, even if one is dodgy, we can't go to court with it".

Which is ridiculous really.

[David]

It would appear that this situation is far from being resolved;

 

Ian Tomlinson was "not confrontational at all" when he was "violently shoved" by a police officer at the London G20 protests, the man who filmed the incident told an inquest.

 

Christopher La Jaunie, from New York, on Thursday said he was in the City for a conference and decided to take a colleague to watch the protests. Once the police brought dogs out on the streets he took out a compact digital camera and commenced filming.

 

La Jaunie later passed his film to The Guardian, casting doubt on earlier police claims that Tomlinson, a 47-year-old newspaper vendor, who died within an hour of being struck by a police baton and pushed to the ground, had suffered a heart attack unrelated to his treatment.

 

La Jaunie told Alison Hewitt, counsel to the inquest, that he was about 10ft from the police "frontline" when tension began rising shortly after 6.30pm on 1 April 2009.

 

"There was a bit of a frontline with the police and protestors. One protester had obviously had some kind of altercation, he was bleeding from the head and so I went to see what was going on."

 

He said that police started kettling the protesters towards the Royal Exchange building in Cornhill after bottles were thrown.

 

"Once the police had brought the dogs out there was certainly more an air of fear and people started to back away from that line. A few people dared to go close and I saw Mr Tomlinson just sort of wandering very close to that line. He was obviously trying to get through. That's what caught my attention.

 

"It looked to me as if he was trying to get through. They let a few people through but once they cut the line off no one could get through.

 

"My impression of him was that he certainly was not involved in what was going on, he was not a protester. He was caught in the crowd and just wanted to get somewhere."

 

Asked about his impression of Tomlinson, he said: "He was moving slowly but nothing more than that.

 

"I am not sure he was really engaged with the protests itself. I think he was more determined to just be on his way. Anyone who got too close to the line I think risked some type of action by the police.

 

"Mr Tomlinson piqued my interest because he was getting very close to the police and they did not look accommodating to someone approaching them.

 

"He was facing the police and basically trying to negotiate, like he was just trying to get there and being turned away. Just by hand gestures it looked like he was trying to explain to them, 'I need to get over here' and then was obviously refused."

 

Asked again about Tomlinson's demeanour by Hewitt, La Jaune replied: "So you are asking me if I thought he was intoxicated? No, not particularly.

 

"He was not confrontational at all, he had his hands in his pockets, it was clear now he wasn't going to get through so he turned his back to walk away.

 

"Once his back was turned, I mean a push is a very polite term. He was rather violently shoved. His hands were in his pockets so when he flew forward he was unable to break his fall."

 

Describing the film he was shooting he said: "His head goes out of the frame but I saw it. He hit the ground, his head hit the ground."

 

La Jaune said he saw the police officer responsible "with no badge and a balaclava and riot gear. I saw who it was, I couldn't see his face".

 

He added that he saw the officer pull out a baton, which he used to strike Tomlinson before shoving him. Although the officer had his baton out, from where he was standing he "mostly saw the shove".

 

And he admitted that he was afraid to draw attention to himself by focussing on the officer with his camera in case "he would come after me".

 

La Jaune said Tomlinson "eventually sat up and someone came to his aid and from what I could tell

[Jonny Vegas]

A tragic accident and nothing more in my opinion, I've watched the video time and time again...you cannot tell me that Tomlinson has no intent whatsoever to cause an obstruction, nuisance or hold up the police that are trying to drive everybody down the opposite end of the street mainly for the safety of the general public.

 

In all seriousness did he suffer from learning difficulties or deafness or have some form of medical impairment meaning that when the police are clearly telling him to move away...and EVERYONE else is backing away he is walking slowly with his back turned to them, hands in pockets. If he did and then there is a legitimate reason for why he didn't then yeah that makes it worse but again it wasn't something that any of the police there could have had prior knowledge of.

 

By the looks of the video he is asked time and time again to move back and doesn't do so, which eventually results in him being pushed back in the direction he was asked to go.

 

Also I don't think that by the looks of that video the force used on him would cause internal bleeding, does anyone genuinely think that looks like a ''violent and vicious attack'' as it's being labelled by some sections of the media?

 

Of course the guy didn't deserve to die, not in any way whatsoever but all I don't understand is at what point do the actions of the individual himself come in to play?

 

He hasn't been viciously beaten to death by a police officer, he has been repeatedly asked to move along the road, which he has repeatedly resisted from doing meaning he is eventually pushed in the direction by an officer, fallen and then subsequently died of either a heart attack or internal bleeding which which doesn't appear to be an injury sustainable by that level of impace.

 

Regardless of the post mortem then a report with a doctor's professional opinion would need to be released saying that beyond reasonable doubt the force used by that police officer was substantial enough to cause the injury which directly led to his death for me to lay the blame solely on that copper.

 

If he had have done what he was told to...which in light of the surrounding goings on really wasn't an unreasonable request and what everyone else on the video there was doing, then there wouldn't be any of this argument.

[The King Of Swing]

I have seen the footage and the officer who shoved him to the ground from behind was out of order and I would be saying that even if he had not died, if the man had been in the officers face then fair enough and I highly doubt that you would see the level of anger that this tragic incident created.

[Loki]

I absolutely believe that a man with his back to you and his hands in his pockets poses no threat and isn't causing an obstruction. And I absolutely believe that shoving someone to the ground who has his hands in his pockets could cause internal bleeding.

 

This is an absolute travesty of justice, and hopefully will lead to a change in the law so that is could at least be brought to trial.

[Happ Hazzard]

So if someone is facing riot police, all they have to do is put in their hands in their pockets and turn their backs, and they are officially untouchable?

 

Ian Tomlinson was the kind of man who the average Guardian reader would have looked at as scum while he was alive, yet now he's dead, they've turned him into a martyr and used him as an excuse to demonise the police.

 

What exactly do you want from the police? A crime fighting force, or nursemaids? What do you think the vast majority of British people would like to see?

 

"An absolute travesty of justice"? Give me a break. There are travesties of justice happening on a daily basis in this country. This was not one of them.

[The King Of Swing]

There are travesties of justice happening on a daily basis in this country.

 

Mongs like you being able to vote is one of them.

[Bashar]

So if someone is facing riot police, all they have to do is put in their hands in their pockets and turn their backs, and they are officially untouchable?

 

Ian Tomlinson was the kind of man who the average Guardian reader would have looked at as scum while he was alive, yet now he's dead, they've turned him into a martyr and used him as an excuse to demonise the police.

 

What exactly do you want from the police? A crime fighting force, or nursemaids? What do you think the vast majority of British people would like to see?

 

"An absolute travesty of justice"? Give me a break. There are travesties of justice happening on a daily basis in this country. This was not one of them.

 

Please Note: the above poster had his Guardian Comment Is Free posting rights permanently suspended.

 

I still remember all the bullshit about Jean Charles de Menezes years ago, half the UKFF bought into the idea that he deserved to be shot repeatedly in the head because he was running and wearing a big coat an' stuff - including........hahahaha ;-)

[David]

So if someone is facing riot police, all they have to do is put in their hands in their pockets and turn their backs, and they are officially untouchable?

Yes, that's exactly what we all think should happen.

 

Ian Tomlinson was the kind of man who the average Guardian reader would have looked at as scum while he was alive, yet now he's dead, they've turned him into a martyr and used him as an excuse to demonise the police.

And you know this for a fact, do you? Anyway, what brings you to this conclusion? What qualities did Tomlinson have that would have qualified him as "scum" in anyones eyes?

[Devon Malcolm]

And you know this for a fact, do you? Anyway, what brings you to this conclusion? What qualities did Tomlinson have that would have qualified him as "scum" in anyones eyes?

 

He was protesting. And a lefty. I think that's enough to be going along with, clearly.

[Happ Hazzard]

He was an alcoholic newspaper seller, whose drinking problem had alienated him from his family for many years (until they suddenly remembered how much they loved him once he was dead and they thought their might be a few quid in it for them). I've no idea what his political views were, and I don't believe he was protesting, he just happened to be walking where the protests were and decided to be a dick.

 

The policeman was guilty of pushing him to the floor. Tomlinson was guilty of abusing his body to the point where a push to the floor was sufficient to kill him.

[David]

He was an alcoholic newspaper seller, whose drinking problem had alienated him from his family for many years (until they suddenly remembered how much they loved him once he was dead and they thought their might be a few quid in it for them).

You really are an odious little person, aren't you? Statements like the one above typify the abhorrent opinions people like you hold.

[Devon Malcolm]

I think I actually hate him. I know people throw around calling each other cunts and whatnot all the time round here, but Happ Hazard is a cunt. Horrible little man.

[martyngnr]

He was an alcoholic newspaper seller, whose drinking problem had alienated him from his family for many years (until they suddenly remembered how much they loved him once he was dead and they thought their might be a few quid in it for them).

You really are an odious little person, aren't you? Statements like the one above typify the abhorrent opinions people like you hold.

The bolded part is allegedly true if we are to believe media reports. That doesn't excuse Happ for being a horrible cunt though.