The English police have beens struggling to explain a video by an American businessman showing a police officer attacking 47-year-old newspaper vendor, Ian Tomlinson, after denying that they had no contact with him. Now, a second autopsy has shown that Tomlinson did not die from a heart attack but internal bleeding. The officer is now under investigation for manslaughter.
It is hard to tell if Tomlinson was struck or shoved. From the angle of the video, it looks like the officer was ticked that Tomlinson was walking slowing and shoved him from behind. Yet, one can see his baton out after Tomlinson falls and witnesses say that he was both struck and shoved. The video would make for a challenging manslaughter case — though the denial of any contact will obviously work against the officer.
The officer has been suspended and is under investigation.
The second postmortem was conducted by Dr Nat Cary and the office released the statement that “Dr Cary’s opinion is that the cause of death was abdominal haemorrhage. The cause of the haemorrhage remains to be ascertained.”
For the full story and video, click here.
The chief of the IPCC (the ‘Independent’ police complaints commission) is saying that they have received more than 185 complaints from the G20 protests, including 90 of excessive police force, and it’s requiring 1/3 of his investigators for this one day.
There are now at least 8 difference incidents on video (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/15/g20-protest-police-videos-catalogue), but most disturbing to me is the Police using powers designed to break up potentially violent meetings to order the press to leave an area for 30 minutes or be arrested.
I once had a job at the Civil Rights Department. I was entrusted to write a paper justifying the Departments Policy in Tennessee vs Garner. After, learning that most Law Enforcement Agencies did not have a policy for accuracy with a Fire-Arm. I changed the Focus to a Human Rights Violation.
My tenure in that Department was short lived. I got it from the Police Agencies and the Department.
I think that more than a High School education and an Uncle that is the Chief should be enough to get you a job where you shoot people for a living. I remember one case a Mexican national was drunk had a BBGun and the officers took it for a real one. So in their defense they shot at him 212 times only hitting him twice. One sufficient to cause death.
For those that have worked in this area know that you can’t make this stuff up.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/18/opinion/18herbert.html
Jack,
You’re not alone in distrusting law enforcement. Incompetence knows no geographic, national, linguistic, racial or ethnic boundary. And that’s not to mention outright abusive villainy.
I have written about this on my blog too – jacknicholasrich.wordpress.com.
I do wonder whether people around the world have the same discontent for their own police forces as we seem to have in this country. But then, I can’t imagine other forces being quite so incompetent.
“It is our intention to assure those who
carried out their duties relying in good faith upon legal advice from
the {Ministry} of Justice that they will not be subject to prosecution.
The men and women of our {police force} serve courageously on
the front lines of a dangerous world. Their accomplishments are unsung
and their names unknown, but because of their sacrifices, every single
{Briton} is safer. We must protect their identities as vigilantly as
they protect our security, and we must provide them with the confidence
that they can do their jobs.
Going forward, it is my strong belief that the {UK} has a
solemn duty to vigorously maintain the classified nature of certain
activities and information related to national security. This is an
extraordinarily important responsibility of the {prime minister}, and it is
one that I will carry out assertively irrespective of any political
concern.
This is a time for reflection, not retribution. I respect the strong
views and emotions that these issues evoke. We have been through a dark
and painful chapter in our history. But at a time of great challenges
and disturbing disunity, nothing will be gained by spending our time and
energy laying blame for the past. Our national greatness is embedded in
{the UK’s} ability to right its course in concert with our core values,
and to move forward with confidence. That is why we must resist the
forces that divide us, and instead come together on behalf of our common
future.”
P.S.
Matthew, very well said in your post.
First, I am not familiar with this particular instance so please do not apply my comments solely to this case, but more in general. The amount of police violence being used on the citizenry in the recent past is very disturbing. One of the most basic tenets of riot control revolves around the ‘continuum of force’. The continuum of force is the idea that there is a whole scope of responses to a situation, from non violence to deadly force. When presented with non violence, one reacts with non violence. When presented with deadly force, one responds with deadly force. The overarching principle of the continuum is that it is the goal of the establishment (law enforcement or riot control) to respond with an equal and proportional amount of force, but never to escalate the level of force, i.e. it is appropriate and just to respond to deadly force with deadly force, but inappropriate to respond to fist fights with gunshots, except in extreme circumstances obviously. The way that police throughout the US and the UK have been responding to disturbances recently leave me very scared for the future of law enforcement. Starting with the “don’t taze me, bro” guy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6bVa6jn4rpE), who was greeted with disproportionate force (establishment escalates the continuum of force), continuing with police violence against Code Pink protesters at the Democratic National Convention in Denver (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KfISlq1gzK8), where an officer hits a woman with a non-lethal baton for being too close to him (establishment responds with deadly force to nonviolence), and now with this, it is a dangerous path on which we are heading. I must say that I am surprised the UK will actually prosecute its law enforcement, although I doubt he will receive more than a slap on the wrist. As far as I know, no action was taken in the other two cases I mentioned.
I would like to say that in the military, we were taught that the non-lethal baton is, in fact, deadly force. Hitting someone anywhere besides the meaty portion of the thigh is considered to be capable of killing a person. I go to a college that also has a police academy, so I guess I can understand how police officers can fail to use the lessons of their training. I wouldn’t trust the majority of them with the campus security vehicle they drive during some of their training, let alone weapons and responsibility for the protection of the citizenry.
With respect, it is not “hard to tell if Tomlinson was struck or shoved”.
The ‘American tourist’ video shows the baton strike to the legs from behind, then a two-handed shove to the ground. The Guardian newspaper’s video shows the sequence slowed down, and both are clear to the naked eye.
ITN’s Channel 4 News ‘broken camera’ footage shows the baton strike very clearly from a different angle but further away.
Eyewitnesses clearly state that Ian Tomlinson was struck with a baton before being pushed to the ground.
There are also eyewitnesses who state that Ian Tomlinson was assaulted with batons in another incident shortly before the one caught on camera.
So far the police have claimed:
* That Mr Tomlinson had had no contact with the police;
* That Mr Tomlinson had had a heart attack;
* That police medics had bravely tried to treat Mr Tomlinson but come under a hail of missiles;
* That protesters blocked an ambulance coming to attend to Mr Tomlinson;
* That there were no CCTV cameras in operation in that part of London;
And so forth.
Then it transpires that:
* Mr Tomlinson had come into contact with police on at least three occasions between leaving the newspaper stand where he had spent the day and his death;
* Mr Tomlinson suffered internal bleeding;
* Police medics (who had until that moment been seen beating protesters with batons) pushed away civilian first aiders already attending to Mr Tomlinson, refused to speak to the emergency service dispatcher on a mobile phone, and had not come under a ‘hail of missiles’ (one empty plastic bottle is seen, protesters then call out that there is an injured man and that no one should throw anything, a command which is adhered to judging by video evidence);
* Protesters instantly cleared the way for the ambulance, whereas a police cordon stood firm for vital moments, preventing its progress to Mr Tomlinson;
* There were CCTV cameras in the area, but the local police (City of London) – which was charged with the investigation into Mr Tomlinson’s death by the IPCC, and which coincidentally owns and operates many of the cameras in the Square Mile area – told the IPCC that there were no working cameras there. The IPCC reportedly did not check for itself until after the standard period of time that CCTV footage is kept.
Currently there is an engaged citizens’ initiative to publicly identify – by name, shoulder number or clear facial photograph – the 18+ police officers who were present at the assault of Ian Tomlinson. Only four are reported to have come forward so far. If they do not come forward of their own volition, then we the people must act to ensure that they are made to come forward.
See here for more:
http://bristle.wordpress.com/category/%c2%bb-complexes/%c2%bb-serious-shizzle/politik/g20-police-witnesses-ided/
http://fitwatch.blogsapot.com/