Ian Tomlinson death

[Jonny Vegas]

Why do you think we have got to the point where the police feel the need to lie to try and save their jobs?

 

Feeling the need to, and actually doing it are quite different things. There is never any justifiable excuse, ever, to falsify evidence.

 

Menezes death was a tragic accident. If anyone is to blame, it is the 7/7 bombers two weeks earlier and the failed bombers the day before.

Erm...no. The half arsed intelligence fed to the armed, plain clothes officers is largely to blame. I do also hold the opinion that a policeman who doesn't follow procedure in such situations - be it through panic or disobedience - shouldn't be given a gun.

How would the marksman know that the information they were being fed was "half arsed"?

 

Can you imagine the furore that they would have faced had they had the shot, not taken it, and a bomb had been detonated on the tube, killing hundreds?

 

Exactamundo.

 

It is very easy to criticise the actions of someone that acted in a split second when you have had hours, days, weeks, months, years to think about the same decision.

 

If the officer that shot him was fed information which meant that shooting him was a lawful act (which it was, else he WOULD have been charged with murder) then he was fully justified in doing so.

 

If he hadn't have shot him and he went on to take the lives of hundreds of innocent people then can you imagine the public furore then?

 

It's ridiculously easy for you or I to say what we would do in that situation but the truth is, none of us were there. All the people that go on about the Police in such a hugely critical light amuse me...if you know so much better how they should be doing their job, then quit yours and show them how it's done.

[Surf Digby]

Why do you think we have got to the point where the police feel the need to lie to try and save their jobs?

 

Feeling the need to, and actually doing it are quite different things. There is never any justifiable excuse, ever, to falsify evidence.

 

Menezes death was a tragic accident. If anyone is to blame, it is the 7/7 bombers two weeks earlier and the failed bombers the day before.

Erm...no. The half arsed intelligence fed to the armed, plain clothes officers is largely to blame. I do also hold the opinion that a policeman who doesn't follow procedure in such situations - be it through panic or disobedience - shouldn't be given a gun.

How would the marksman know that the information they were being fed was "half arsed"?

He wouldn't, which is why the blame should fall on those that fed him that information. They knew who they were looking for, and instead sent the marksman after someone who wasn't even the same race.

Can you imagine the furore that they would have faced had they had the shot, not taken it, and a bomb had been detonated on the tube, killing hundreds?

But it didn't. What happened was an armed officer was fed incorrect intelligence, didn't follow proper procedure, and then lied to imply that De Menezes had acted in a way that meant they had no other choice but to fire.

 

What would happen if it were a member of your family? And the Police told you that they brought in upon themselves by jumping a turnstyle and running onto a train when they identified themselves? And then you found out that none of that actually happened, and it was a lie to cover poor Policework?

 

The fact of the matter is that things weren't done properly, and someone died needlessly as a result. To add further insult, the Police were then dishonest about what happened. Maybe I'm old fashioned, but of dishonest Policemen filing false reports to hide their unprofessionalism is something I think should not be tollerated, regardless of circumstance.

 

Just to clear up, I am in no way anti-Police. I just feel that when they lie instead of holding their hands up to assist in the investigation, then they do a disservice to the force as a whole.

[Dead Mike]

My point wasn't about the botched information leading to the shooting. It was about the police blatantly lying, feeding us all garbage, misdirection's, a smear campaign about the victim & trying to cover up their massive fuck-up. I can appreciate the fact that these people are under a lot of stress & have incredibly difficult jobs, I'm sure most reasonable people would feel the same. However, lying to cover up mistakes & having no recourse for misleading the public is inexcusable. Would anyone honestly defend these actions? They should've owned up to their mistake immediately, made reparations & moved on. Public perception & trust for the police is paramount, how can you be expected to believe anything they say when it's proven they can lie about the harshest of mistakes & nothing come of it?

[Happ Hazzard]

Sometimes police have to break the procedure in order to get the job done. The public outcry if rigid adherence to police procedure had got in the way of preventing a Tube bombing would be at least as damaging to the police as the outcry over De Menezes shooting.

 

If a member of my family was shot by the police as a suspected terrorist I'd be pissed off beyond belief. But no less pissed off than I would be were they to be killed in a terrorist attack. Many more people have been killed in terrorist attacks in Britain over the past decade than have been shot mistakenly by the police.

[Surf Digby]

Either you're deliberately ignoring the key points myself and Mike are making, or you're just unfeasably stupid.

 

This was not a breaking of procedure in order to protect lives. This was a deliberate, dishonest act to cover up how the breaking of procedure caused the fuck up said procedure is there to prevent.

 

If a member of my family was shot by the police as a suspected terrorist I'd be pissed off beyond belief. But no less pissed off than I would be were they to be killed in a terrorist attack.

Keep going. You forgot to answer the bit about them giving you a bunch of false information over why and how they were killed.

[Dead Mike]

Erm OK but that's got absolutely no relevance to my post or question?

 

After they got the 'job done' (the job in question being executing an electrician) they lied to us about the circumstances that led to said electrician being wrongly killed. How is this in any way linked to 'rigid police procedure'? This isn't a case of paperwork not being done, it was a blatant cover-up attempt by the police.

[Happ Hazzard]

It isn't right that the police lied about the circumstances, but when there's a culture of witch hunts whenever the police make mistakes, and people just waiting to pounce on any mistakes, or even trying to provoke the police into making mistakes, it's no surprise that a culture develops within the police of people backing their own colleagues up, rightly or wrongly. The police are put under ridiculous amounts of pressure, and the government are all too keen to throw them under the bus when things go wrong.

 

You can't just say "the police were wrong" and ignore the factors that lead them to feel them have to lie and cover things up in order to save their own jobs and possibly prevent murder charges because of a mistake in a ridiculously high pressure situation. It's no different to friendly fire deaths in a war. You can't fight a war and completely prevent them. You can't fight terrorism with zero risk to innocent civilians. It's just not possible.

[Dead Mike]

Your use of the term 'witch hunt' implies that there was no real mistake though, that people were looking for the slightest possible error to have a dig at the old bill. The reality of the situation was that as soon as they realised they'd made a colossal mistake & killed an innocent man they held a press conference & offered up a load of lies to make their error seem justifiable. If for example, their fictional version of events were true (he was wearing a bulky jacket, ran when confronted, jumped the turnstyle etc were true I think most people would put it down to a high pressure situation & it being a tragic mistake. However, this wasn't the case, far from it & even if the officers in question weren't taken to task for such a monumental fuck up there's absolutely no excuse for the public to be mislead in such a blatant manner by the people we empower to enforce our laws.

 

You can't just say "the police were wrong" and ignore the factors that lead them to feel them have to lie and cover things up in order to save their own jobs and possibly prevent murder charges because of a mistake in a ridiculously high pressure situation

 

There you go

[Happ Hazzard]

I think the problem is that a culture has been allowed to develop over years and it's hard to get rid of it without sacking all the police and hiring a whole new force. There's certainly a feeling within the police that the government doesn't give a shit about them, and a significant amount of the public outright despises them. I don't know what the answer is.

[The King Of Swing]

Either you're deliberately ignoring the key points myself and Mike are making, or you're just unfeasably stupid.

 

Just go read the politics thread and make your mind up.

[Happ Hazzard]

People don't seem to be able to deal with the fact that other people simply disagree with them. People just see the world in different ways. It's not a matter of them not understanding things.

 

Or do you really believe that everyone, given the same information, will come to see things in the same way eventually? Because that's the impression I get from many on the left/liberal/"progressive" side. A simple lack of respect for anyone with opposing views, a real air of "we are better than you", coupled with snide remarks and bullying tacticcs.

[jimufctna24]

People don't seem to be able to deal with the fact that other people simply disagree with them. People just see the world in different ways. It's not a matter of them not understanding things.

 

Or do you really believe that everyone, given the same information, will come to see things in the same way eventually? Because that's the impression I get from many on the left/liberal/"progressive" side. A simple lack of respect for anyone with opposing views, a real air of "we are better than you", coupled with snide remarks and bullying tacticcs.

Its funny you say that as someone who swings more to the left I have had many a conversation with people coming from a right standpoint that have that exact attitude, but again im not going to say that everyone with a right postion on views is like that because not only that be bullshit but also that would be a sweeping generalisation wouldnt it?

 

I dont have a problem with you expressing your views or that they differ from mine, my problem with your posts are that you generalise things and paint a picture of a very simplified black and white, right or wrong world. Im not jumping on some forum bandwagon ,im just pointing out why I disagree with your posts.

[Surf Digby]

It isn't right that the police lied about the circumstances, but when there's a culture of witch hunts whenever the police make mistakes, and people just waiting to pounce on any mistakes, or even trying to provoke the police into making mistakes, it's no surprise that a culture develops within the police of people backing their own colleagues up, rightly or wrongly.

I can't speak for everyone, but I suspect that an open and honest "we fucked up, and we will find out why we fucked up, and if need be take the appropriate action against anyone culpable" would have gone down better than "we fucked up, but we'll try and bullshit our way out of accepting any blame for our fuck up".

 

Guy that half-arsed the intelligence and sent them after the wrong guy = Negligent of duty. It's his job to make sure the wrong person isn't targetted.

Guy pulling the trigger based on intelligence given = acceptable (if unfortunate) error. As said before, how was he to know?

Guy pulling trigger not following procedure = Should not remain on firearms team. There is no room for maverick cops that don't follow the rules outside of Hollywood.

Guy who gave false information to investigation team to hide their fuck up = in my eyes, this should be treated as the criminal matter that it would be were you or I to falsify evidence.

 

As in the Ian Tomlinson case (remember that one?), when an officer fucks up, and then falsifies his report to try and hide his fuck up, it benefits the Police to take an impartial stance.

 

You can't just say "the police were wrong" and ignore the factors that lead them to feel them have to lie and cover things up in order to save their own jobs and possibly prevent murder charges because of a mistake in a ridiculously high pressure situation.

If they'd been open and honest from the start, there would not have been a murder charge anyway. If an officer considers his job as more important than human life, then he's not suitable to work in the Police.

 

It's no different to friendly fire deaths in a war. You can't fight a war and completely prevent them. You can't fight terrorism with zero risk to innocent civilians. It's just not possible.

Here's an interesting bit of trivia. "Friendly fire" is an American term. The British military term is "Blue on blue". The reason why this is not as well known is because the number of BOB incidents from the British military is miniscule compared to the Americans. Many believe that this is due to the British having more stringent procedures than the Americans regarding identifying targets before blowing them up.

[JNLister]

Verdict is in.

The court was caught unaware by the jury's quick decision. They returned to the room and answered four short questions, known as the inquisition.

 

What was the name of the deceased?

Ian Tomlinson.

 

What was the cause of his death? Injury or disease?

Abdominal haemorrhage due to blunt force trauma to the abdomen in association with cirrhosis of the liver.

 

If the person died of injury, what were the circumstances?

Mr Tomlinson was on his way home from work on the 1st of April 2009 during the G20 demonstration. He was fatally injured at around 19.20pm on Royal Exchange Buildings ... This was the result of a baton strike from behind and a push by the officer which caused Ian Tomlinson to fall heavily.

 

The jury said both the baton strike and the push were "unreasonable".

 

"As a result, Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding which led to his collapse within a few minutes and his subsequent death." The jury decided that at the time of the strike and push Tomlinson was was walking away from the officer and "posed no threat".

 

What is the jury's conclusion as to the death?

Unlawful killing.

[David]

Yeah, I've just been reading about it on the Guardians website;

 

A jury in the inquest into the death of Ian Tomlinson has concluded he was unlawfully killed by a police officer at the G20 protests.

 

The inquest did not apportion blame for Tomlinson's death and did not refer to PC Simon Harwood