Video reveals G20 police assault on man who died

[Zac Naloen]

You can interpret the guy wandering around various streets however you want - either he's trying to get home and keeps finding his route blocked by the police and protesters or he's wandering around looking for trouble. Regardless of why he's wandering around, he is shoved by that policeman while acting in a completely unthreatening manner. Whatever he did before that video if it was serious enough to justify being shoved like that he should have been arrested before or immediately afterwards. That he wasn't heavily implies he'd done nothing wrong.

Watch the video again, he's petulantly ambling along and being very passive aggressive whilst clearly being instructed (even in the handily edited video you can see officers shouting at him, as well as the use of the dogs). The police will move you on at their pace. Not yours.

In crowd control situations it's not an arrest/do not arrest dichotomy. You clear the area and arrest those who are actually rioting.

First time I saw that video I reacted with disgust that the police would do that, but having watched it more closely it's very clear to me there is more going on than what we can see in the 30 seconds available.

Doesn't mean the police weren't heavy handed, that's not in dispute, but when the police tell you to clear the area you clear off sharpish. You don't behave like a teenager.

[Darth Onasi]

Even if he was being uncooperative, that's no justification for beating him down.
Yeah the police are on riot duty and might be on edge, but shouldn't they have training to control themselves in situations like these?
At worst the guy deserved being grabbed, hurried along or perhaps arrested. But what happened was murder, plain and simple.

[Ryan Thunder]

Actually, it's common practice to deploy riot police for major protests. Their visibility helps deter actually rioting..at least until someone does something stupid like the officer in the video.

Ah. For some reason I was under the impression that they were deployed as a last resort. So I retract that previous bit of inanity.

[Darth Tanner]

Not to backtrack on myself but I feel the need to make clear that I in no way support the police action here and indeed hope that heads role, the MET has a terrible reputation for cover ups after all. However these police were acting on orders to move the protesters on, they were presumably following standard operating procedure in using their batons to physically force those nearest to them back, this is evident practice at almost all large riots/protests I have witnessed.

The cop that shoves him over does go too far, and I concede that he should be discipline/prosecuted but depending on what their orders were he may have been acting to simply move the crowd on, other videos of the protest show officers using far more force on people during the act of moving the crowd or denying them access to some streets. Mr Tomlinson can hardly be argued to have cooperated with that by purposefully moving so slowly. I doubt the police were willing to allow protesters to get behind their lines.

I still maintain that regardless of what actions the individual police took it is their officers that should bear the brunt of the legal responsibility.

What distinguishing marks can you see on the man assaulting Mr Tomlinson?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t244-zEENSs

Shows riot police in dark navy uniforms with numbers on their helmets and jackets.

but there is no way this guy wasn't there for a reason.

It may be a result of a pre existing heart condition but he is very slow to move away from the police, and was loitering. He wasn't as slow walking away when he gets up off the floor and leaves the camera though and as such I'm unclear about the eye witnesses claims that he collapsed while still surrounded by the police.

[Kamakazie Sith]

Even if he was being uncooperative, that's no justification for beating him down.
Yeah the police are on riot duty and might be on edge, but shouldn't they have training to control themselves in situations like these?
At worst the guy deserved being grabbed, hurried along or perhaps arrested. But what happened was murder, plain and simple.

It's a nitpick but what happened was not murder. It was involuntary manslaughter...unless you believe the officer intended on killing Mr. Tomlinson by pushing him down.

[Zac Naloen]

Even if he was being uncooperative, that's no justification for beating him down.
Yeah the police are on riot duty and might be on edge, but shouldn't they have training to control themselves in situations like these?
At worst the guy deserved being grabbed, hurried along or perhaps arrested. But what happened was murder, plain and simple.

I don't dispute that police tactics leave much to be desired, and have done since the 70's. But Murder?
He was knocked to the ground whilst, from what can be determined by the video, being uncooperative and then had a heart attack. He was hit once on the back of the leg and then pushed down (in the video). That's not murder. It's manslaughter at worst.

[Zac Naloen]

It may be a result of a pre existing heart condition but he is very slow to move away from the police, and was loitering. He wasn't as slow walking away when he gets up off the floor and leaves the camera though and as such I'm unclear about the eye witnesses claims that he collapsed while still surrounded by the police.

If he knew he had a prexisting heart condition, it would probably have been a better idea for him to plan an alternate route to begin with rather than risk being involved in riots. London is hardly short of diversions.

[Darth Onasi]

True enough it should legally be manslaughter. Used the wrong word there, perhaps letting my anger at this officer who so branzenly assaulted this man when there were other options get through.

[Covenant]

Other people from the area said they'd been being pursued by police dogs for as long as 30 minutes, and from the look of the man, he was red-faced. If he had a heart condition, and had indeed gotten caught behind a police line, it is possible that the reason he was originally uncooperative was that he simply wanted to get home and the police kept pushing him along in a state of distress, faster than he wanted to go, and that this long exertion is what made him red-faced. Then letting the dogs nip as his heels, for no reason, while also striking him, for no reason, and then shoving him to the pavement (not a real good way of clearing a street, mind you, or dealing with a hostile crowd) while his hands were in his pockets, causing a red mark on his face... maybe all that's what gave him a heart attack.

The police had no need to strike him, they had already progressed as far as they had needed to, as they held that line for some time afterwards, and he was the only straggler. Singling him out for an aggressive act of unprofessional emotion is tuggery, not police work, and there's a lot to suggest that this old fellow had a heart problem that may have made it extremely difficult to keep a good pace up. Walking slowly is not a cause for the police to assault you, the street was under control.

Why defend the actions of this officer when it was clearly unnecessary? It's not like it makes you an anarchist to admit that some dumbass went out of his way to attack a defenseless old man from behind, and that it wasn't entirely justified, to put it lightly. Why read into it, saying "He must have had some devious plan--look how slow he walks! He's protesting! He should have planned ahead for the insane police actions, even though his job is a newspaper seller guy and he was probably stuck selling at his stand no matter what."

[Oni Koneko Damien]

It may be a result of a pre existing heart condition but he is very slow to move away from the police, and was loitering. He wasn't as slow walking away when he gets up off the floor and leaves the camera though and as such I'm unclear about the eye witnesses claims that he collapsed while still surrounded by the police.

If he knew he had a prexisting heart condition, it would probably have been a better idea for him to plan an alternate route to begin with rather than risk being involved in riots. London is hardly short of diversions.

1) They were (at least initially) non-violent demonstrations, not riots.
2) He may not have even known the protests were taking place initially, or where they were taking place, and only found out by surprise when he walked into the protest and/or the police.

Unless the police had clearly marked and cordoned off the area, any argument about this guy being stupid for walking into a riot/police line doesn't hold a lot of water. People have a reasonable expectation to be warned away from potentially dangerous areas if police are already on the scene. On top of that, I don't know the details, but what if where he worked was already in the same area at the protests, and he didn't have a choice?

Of course, if he deliberately found his way past the police cordone just to cause trouble, that pokes a rather large hole in my argument.

[Zac Naloen]

Other people from the area said they'd been being pursued by police dogs for as long as 30 minutes, and from the look of the man, he was red-faced. If he had a heart condition, and had indeed gotten caught behind a police line, it is possible that the reason he was originally uncooperative was that he simply wanted to get home and the police kept pushing him along in a state of distress, faster than he wanted to go, and that this long exertion is what made him red-faced. Then letting the dogs nip as his heels, for no reason, while also striking him, for no reason, and then shoving him to the pavement (not a real good way of clearing a street, mind you, or dealing with a hostile crowd) while his hands were in his pockets, causing a red mark on his face... maybe all that's what gave him a heart attack.

He put himself behind the police line. He was there by his own volition. He could have avoided the area. He chose not to, or was too stupid not too.. He put himself in a position to seem uncooperative. Not the police who were trying to clear the area.

The police had no need to strike him, they had already progressed as far as they had needed to, as they held that line for some time afterwards, and he was the only straggler. Singling him out for an aggressive act of unprofessional emotion is tuggery, not police work, and there's a lot to suggest that this old fellow had a heart problem that may have made it extremely difficult to keep a good pace up. Walking slowly is not a cause for the police to assault you, the street was under control.

That's a strangely complete account of his behaviour. I wasn't aware you were a London resident or involved in protests around the Bank of England?

Why defend the actions of this officer when it was clearly unnecessary? It's not like it makes you an anarchist to admit that some dumbass went out of his way to attack a defenseless old man from behind, and that it wasn't entirely justified, to put it lightly. Why read into it, saying "He must have had some devious plan--look how slow he walks! He's protesting! He should have planned ahead for the insane police actions, even though his job is a newspaper seller guy and he was probably stuck selling at his stand no matter what."

Either this guy is completely thick and didn't think to avoid the protests everyone in London had been told to avoid or he was there for a peek at the action. (Notice how being there for a peek of the action is a reason, I wasn't emplying he was there to cause trouble fuck wit).

His destination was the smithfield market, he worked at monument station. He died of a heart attack at the Bank of England. Easiest way would have been to go down Cannon Street by St Paul's.


Take a look at it on google maps if you don't believe me.

You may notice no one has actually disputed the overreaction of the police so get the fuck off that high horse as well. I just thought it worth mentioning that this man could have completely avoided all trouble very easily. That it may have been his usual route is completey irrelevent when it was well known on that day that if you don't want to be involved you DON'T GO THERE.

IF he was aware of his heart condition it's even worse.

1) They were (at least initially) non-violent demonstrations, not riots.
2) He may not have even known the protests were taking place initially, or where they were taking place, and only found out by surprise when he walked into the protest and/or the police.

Unless the police had clearly marked and cordoned off the area, any argument about this guy being stupid for walking into a riot/police line doesn't hold a lot of water. People have a reasonable expectation to be warned away from potentially dangerous areas if police are already on the scene. On top of that, I don't know the details, but what if where he worked was already in the same area at the protests, and he didn't have a choice?

Of course, if he deliberately found his way past the police cordone just to cause trouble, that pokes a rather large hole in my argument.

If he didn't know the protests were taking place, then frankly, he definitely is an idiot. Everyone knew where and when days in advance, and it would have been pretty obvious that he was approaching a police cordon. We know the incident took place on the Corner of Cornhill and Threadneedle, that's at the North end of King William Street, that's about a 200m walk where he would have had ample time to determine a heavy police presence. The monument end of King William St was not cordoned and passage was completely free, as that was pretty much the only escape route available for workers on King William Street (the company I work for actually has an office there, they didn't close down for the day).

It's not about deliberately finding his way past a police cordon, I never meant to imply that. It's that he didn't take the obvious detour, that should be well known to everyone who lives and works in the City of London area. Especially as it would have been the route the majority of people would be taking.

[Big Phil]

Why is it that every time somebody dies as a result of the police, they're always described by the anti-police faction as "innocent bystanders" or "fully cooperative?" It is possible that the guy was being a passive aggressive asshole AND the police committed a crime.

Watching that video, it's pretty bloody obvious that Ian Tomlinson was being a pain in the ass on purpose - he was standing right by the bicycles at the start of the video as if he were waiting for the police - but wasn't expecting the shove by the police, which strikes me as being excessive. I don't know, legally, whether the police are even at fault for the man's death, unless you can prove that the shove and being struck with the police baton contributed to his heart attack.

In the US this would probably be a civil, rather than a criminal, case, with the man's family suing the police for his death. Unless the man were black, in which case Al Sharpton and Co. would be all up in arms and there would be a civil rights investigation...

[Covenant]

It's hardly an anti-police faction, this is just an absurd use of force. If you look at what the police were trying to accomplish, all they did was advance just past that bike rack he was standing. They stop at that second line of concrete pillars, which is the point at which he was shoved--if they had verbally instructed him to move back past that, he had. He was as cooperative as they needed, if they had waited another second or two they would have had the room they wanted and he would have tottered off. This reminds me of the "pick up that can" moment from the beginning of Half-Life 2, for lack of a better example. Just because the police decide to give you a command doesn't mean the command is reasonable, nor does compliance that is less than exact excuse use of force. What's this 'passive aggressive' claim based on? He was moving, what else do they want?

He put himself behind the police line. He was there by his own volition. He could have avoided the area. He chose not to, or was too stupid not too.. He put himself in a position to seem uncooperative. Not the police who were trying to clear the area.

Even if he was too stupid to successfully extricate himself from a bad situation, that doesn't justify police using extreme force in a situation where no force was required. "Seeming" to be uncooperative doesn't make you a threat. Even if he had been there to protest, you have a right to, and the only difference between him and the actual protestors was about 10 feet of distance. This was an out-of-line officer.

That's a strangely complete account of his behaviour. I wasn't aware you were a London resident or involved in protests around the Bank of England?

Of course, I'm the goddamned tooth fairy, I make it a point to attend all protests. The 'strangely complete account' you quoted actually contains no account of his behavior at all, it just made the assumption that he had a heart problem based on the fact that he had a heart attack.

Furthermore, a heart attack is not the same as a complete cardiac arrest, and it can take several minutes from having a heart attack before cardiac arrest occurs, and then death after that. Early signs and the beginning stages of a heart attack would make it difficult to walk, could make it very hard to comply with a confusing police situation, and could be confused for panic on the victim's part and "uncooperative" behavior by the police. If they hadn't moved to the most aggressive use of force first, instead of following the progression of force to accomplish their street clearing, they may have noticed he wasn't doing well and saved a life rather than helped to end one.

Either this guy is completely thick and didn't think to avoid the protests everyone in London had been told to avoid or he was there for a peek at the action. (Notice how being there for a peek of the action is a reason, I wasn't emplying he was there to cause trouble fuck wit).
---
Watch the video again, he's petulantly ambling along and being very passive aggressive whilst clearly being instructed (even in the handily edited video you can see officers shouting at him, as well as the use of the dogs)

In your earlier statment, shown here second, you do try to color his actions as 'passive aggressive' and 'ambling' along like a teenager, and blame him for not moving off along faster, so you are implying that he was causing trouble, even if you're not implying (nor did I say you were) that he had planned ahead to cause trouble. Furthermore, a peaceful protestor isn't causing trouble, and an innocent passerby or observer isn't causing trouble either. If you have video that shows him giving them cause, a different piece of video from what we've seen, feel free to post a link.

You may notice no one has actually disputed the overreaction of the police so get the fuck off that high horse as well. I just thought it worth mentioning that this man could have completely avoided all trouble very easily.
---
Doesn't mean the police weren't heavy handed, that's not in dispute, but when the police tell you to clear the area you clear off sharpish. You don't behave like a teenager.

Again, in the earlier statement, you have and continue to try to mitigate their actions and explain why they did what they did. The guy was moving, the street was under control, and he wasn't resisting or being aggressive. His only issue was he was moving a little bit slower than they'd like, but it isn't as if this gives you a reason to whomp on him and shove him over. If you don't want people to think you're defending their actions, then don't defend their actions. What you're describing is unreasonable behavior, no matter how common it is, so it's no excuse. It's not like saying "Well, when they tell you to hop, you hop" puts it into a new and enlightening context.

[Ekiqa]

To those who suggest that Ian Tomlinson could have taken another way, it was impossible. The police had the entire area contained, what they call "kettling", not letting anyone out of an area for hours.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... t-kettling for some information. kettling, while legal, violates Article 5 of the Human Rights Act, being a deprivation of liberty.

Also, this was the second assault on Ian Tomlinson.

And it is apparently illegal to film police in the UK.

Regarding the cause of death, the Met claimed death was a heart attack very quickly, within a few hours.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... -tomlinson

It is also sickening that the only news source in the UK covering this fairly and entirely, is the Guardian.

[White Haven]

In crowd control situations it's not an arrest/do not arrest dichotomy. You clear the area and arrest those who are actually rioting.

So...what riot are you referring to again? Because it's pretty clear that there wasn't a riot going on at the time of the incident, and the riot police were just deployed to that area as a precaution. In other words, they weren't clearing a riot due to the rather notable lack OF a riot, so that entire point, however correct it may be, is full of shit.

[Big Phil]

Also, this was the second assault on Ian Tomlinson.

Where do you get this from?

And it is apparently illegal to film police in the UK.

And this - is this law, or was it reported somewhere? This seems strange...[/quote]

[Covenant]

And it is apparently illegal to film police in the UK.

And this - is this law, or was it reported somewhere? This seems strange...

Well, it is strange. The Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, section 76 includes a proviso making it illegal to capture and publish information about armed forces and constables, which includes the police, among other things. A more detailed discussion about it, as well as examples of practice, is available here at the British Journal of Photography.

As an American, my first reaction is to say "Yeah, well, but how often would they ever bother to exercise that strange interpertation?" It makes it clear it can be exercised, though you would imagine there would generally be an understanding that photographing an event that includes police is not the same as attempting to document the police themselves. But I'm also not an expert on the way the police operate over there and there is the odd story they have in the article which seems to be exactly what the tinfoil hats are afraid of.

In December, freelance press photographer Jess Hurd was detained for more than 45 minutes after she was stopped while covering the wedding of a couple married in Docklands.
...
'Any officer who suspects an offence has been committed has the right to detain you,' a Metropolitan press officer told BJP at the time. 'Because you are a press photographer does not preclude you from being stopped under section 44 of the Terrorism Act. If the officer thought the photographer acted suspiciously, and especially if it was in a sensitive place, he had a right to detain and question the photographer.'

And more specifically with regards to protests, there was an incident in Iceland back around January, mentioned in there, where police pepper-sprayed journalists who were covering a protest. However, I personally think that covering a protest should make it obvious that you're just covering a protest. I certainly don't buy the conspiracy-theorist slant on it.

[PainRack]

Does it really matter whether said person was uncooperative or had an ulterior motive? Riot police are afterall supposed to be trained enough and disciplined enough to have alternative tactics other than outright force.

[White Haven]

...That law /should/ engage tinfoil parameters, for that matter. I can't even begin to think of a rationale for that beyond retributive whitewashing, a 'Publish that story and we'll charge you with bullshit' scenario. Total non-sequitor, but that's downright disturbing.

[Ender]

And it is apparently illegal to film police in the UK.

And this - is this law, or was it reported somewhere? This seems strange...

[/quote]
I've been following this - basically there is a law (Cov linked to it) that is poorly worded. In response, some police have been treating it as criminal to film them. However, when it goes forward, it keeps getting crushed both by higher ups in the police and everyone else that while it could say that, that isn't what it means.

[CJvR]

I think riot police should be required by law to have large serial numbers printed on their riot gear with the suit issued to each officer recorded before each deployment to ensure that any officers assaulting and even murdering people can be identified from any footage captured of the event.

We tried that after some poor rioters was roughly handled and went crying to their media cheerleaders. It worked for about half a riot. The rioters were delighted at being able to single out individual officers for concentrated barrages that significantly improved their chances of doing serious damage. Needless to say any officer with an ounce of common sence taped over their numbers in a hurry.

[Oni Koneko Damien]

We tried that after some poor rioters was roughly handled and went crying to their media cheerleaders. It worked for about half a riot. The rioters were delighted at being able to single out individual officers for concentrated barrages that significantly improved their chances of doing serious damage. Needless to say any officer with an ounce of common sence taped over their numbers in a hurry.

Great, so did you actually have anything to offer other than a useless personal anecdote... such as actual evidence that visible serial numbers statistically lead to higher injury rates among riot cops?

[Dartzap]

Beeb

Just so people know, several officers came forward:

G20 death officer to be quizzed

A police officer thought to be shown on video pushing a man at the G20 protests in London who later died is to be questioned by the police watchdog.

An independent criminal probe has begun into the death of Ian Tomlinson, 47, who had a heart attack minutes after the incident on 1 April.

More video aired on Channel 4 appears to show him being hit with a baton.

Scotland Yard said the officer was one of four who had come forward to give information.

The IPCC has ordered a second post-mortem test as part of its inquiry.

Mr Tomlinson's stepson Paul King said the footage has "deeply touched" the family and said "we cannot lay our father to rest" until the relatives get justice.

The IPCC began its investigation before footage surfaced of Mr Tomlinson being shoved.

The watchdog said it would examine the footage and discuss it with the Crown Prosecution Service.

Following the Mr Tomlinson's death, the IPCC had initially said it would oversee an investigation into the incident to be carried out by the City of London police.

Deborah Glass, of the IPCC, explained the decision to take over the inquiry: "People are rightly concerned about this tragic death and this footage is clearly disturbing.

"In light of new information which we became aware of yesterday [Tuesday]evening, we have now taken the decision to independently investigate."

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said no officers had been suspended.

He added: "A total of four officers, inclusive of this officer, have now come forward with potentially relevant information in relation to the investigation into the death of Mr Tomlinson."

The video, shot at 1929 BST at the Royal Exchange Passage, appears to show newspaper vendor Mr Tomlinson, who was going home from work and not protesting, walking away from a group of police officers.

The footage, recorded by a New York fund manager, appears to show Mr Tomlinson landing heavily after being pushed by an officer.

Minutes later, Mr Tomlinson collapsed and died of a heart attack, after walking about 50 yards to nearby Cornhill where he received first aid from police.

The Guardian newspaper obtained the video and has handed it to the IPCC.

And new footage, taken by a Channel 4 News cameraman, shows an officer apparently hitting him left-handed with a baton, then shoving him to the ground.

The Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said the images raised "obvious concerns" and pledged full support from the force.

So something is happening. I imagine the IPCC investigation is going to take some time though, they always do.

[CJvR]

Great, so did you actually have anything to offer other than a useless personal anecdote... such as actual evidence that visible serial numbers statistically lead to higher injury rates among riot cops?

I doubt you would be able to show that just yet, we don't have enough riots for a statistic analysis but targeting individual officers became a tactic as soon as the rioters were given the means to do so.

If you habla Swedish there are still a few links on the subject around.

http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/artic ... vice=print

http://www.riksutstallningar.se/WebStat ... tory23.pdf.

http://www.sr.se/Ekot/artikel.asp?artikel=751031

http://www.riksdagen.se/Webbnav/index.a ... &bet=Ju346

[Ryan Thunder]

Great, so did you actually have anything to offer other than a useless personal anecdote... such as actual evidence that visible serial numbers statistically lead to higher injury rates among riot cops?

It makes sense, dimwit. For the numbers to be useful they have to be unique, memorizable, and highly visible. This means that
1. Rioters will be able to single out a specific riot cop.
2. They will be able to coordinate their efforts against a specific riot cop.

But I suppose rioters are just saints and would never take advantage of that...