I was assaulted by a copper in 1978 at a football match and in response to my complaint I was threatened with various charges including assaulting a police officer and they had another police officer who would be prepared to be a witness (i.e. happily perjure himself in a court), but if I dropped the complaint they’d drop the charges. Since then my distrust of coppers (I’d previously been lied to by one) turned to intense dislike. My sister (a nurse) reported a suspected case of child abuse, that night she had a police inspector on her doorstep asking her to drop the compmlaint, appears the father was a senior copper. I could go on and on. One thing I have found out is that standing up for your rights or questioning the right of a police officer to do what they are doing is provocation in their eyes, you are expected to “respect their authority”.

I could very easily find myself in Ian Tomlinson’s situation because I do not concede that the government or the police have the right to tell me where I should or cannot walk on a public highway if I’m minding my own business and not breaking “proper” laws. Repealing the powers that Labour has given to the police and others in authority should be one of the major issues exercising the Tory party but I doubt if much will change when they take power.

You get off your high horse. You are the one who makes up things, not me. And no one cares about what you consider is a normal word or not. It is not what is used when discussing charges. In fact, it is highly prejudicial and would not be allowed in a court of law. Another indication of your bias and inability to think straight.

So, the question comes down to, was an illegal level of violence used?

Uh, no. You try to figure out on your own where you screwed up.

And who cares about what most people think? Most people don’t know their butt from their head. I continually hear the most ridiculous and erroneous comments from “most people” so call me unimpressed by the opinions of “most people.”

So what it comes down to is that most normal people expect a police force that acts with restraint instead of lashing out like lager louts, as we saw on the video.

What it comes down to is that you don’t determine who is normal or not or what is normal police behavior. You’re simply not qualified and are too biased and have an overactive imagination.

So, the question comes down to, was an illegal level of violence used? Well, I don’t know. I know that I would not expect that level of violence (hitting somebody from behind with a baton and shoving them forcibly to the ground) to be legal if I used it against somebody else. Most people watching the video immediately think that, whatever their bias (and as I said, I’m very much biased against these protestors and the Left in general; what a pity Dave “Green” Cameron isn’t, eh?).

So what it comes down to is that most normal people expect a police force that acts with restraint instead of lashing out like lager louts, as we saw on the video.

And no, I’m not asserting that there is a criminal offence called “lashing out like a lager lout” either, you berk.

Of course, you don’t. You and the other hysterics lost the argument. And it’s disingenuous of you to now claim it entirely misses the point when all I’ve heard is people yapping that this man was murdered by the police officer. So, get off it.

What is beyond doubt is that the policeman assaulted him. It’s on video. That is the point.

Beyond doubt? Guess again. At most, it’s a simple battery, not an assault. And that does not mean it was illegal, in that not all non-consensual touchings, which is the definition of battery, are illegal. I have yet to read a coherent and legally based argument that has established that unlawful force was applied. You have made no point.

Anyone who thinks that that is okay is saying they’re happy for the police to just randomly assault people they don’t like if they are in a bad mood. That is not acceptable in Britain. It’s not how our police are supposed to operate.

Anyone who thinks it is okay to make up their own facts and laws, like you and others have repeatedly done, because they hate police officers, are out of touch. This is not acceptable in Britain and it is not how the law and courts operate.

The heart attack is besides the point. Arguing that the policeman is innocent if he didn’t cause the heart attack is beside the point.

As previously stated, it is very much the point. People have been arguing, falsely, that the officer has committed murder because of it.

The man committed an act of common thuggery, and needs to face the consequences of his thuggery, just as any other citizen would have to.

There is no statutory or common law offense of “common thuggery.” Let me guess: you made it up.

Anyone who thinks that that is okay is saying they’re happy for the police to just randomly assault people they don’t like if they are in a bad mood. That is not acceptable in Britain. It’s not how our police are supposed to operate.

The heart attack is besides the point. Arguing that the policeman is innocent if he didn’t cause the heart attack is beside the point. The man committed an act of common thuggery, and needs to face the consequences of his thuggery, just as any other citizen would have to.

From yours and others comments, I suspect we are dealing with people who hate the police and whose politics have eaten their brains. I love how you nutters make up your own definitions.
The death has to be the direct, natural, and probable consequence of the act [push]and would not have happened without the act. A natural and probable consequence is one that a reasonable person would know is likely to happen if nothing unusual intervenes. The act must be a substantial factor in causing the death. A substantial factor is more than a trivial or remote factor.
If Mr. Tomlinson died as a result of myocardial infarction, his death was imminent and would have happened without anyone laying a hand on him.

Thank you for having the sense, unlike some, that the man’s death due to a heart attack was anything but natural and that to prejudge the issue is the wrong thing to do.
I’ve heard so many different times after the push, that he died, from immediately on the floor after the push, to 7 minutes and then 20 mines later, but now I’ve hear that it was an hour later!
The left and others are very happy to prejudge the issue and have already tried, convicted and want this Policeman and the Police force punished for doing………….nothing.

Ian: Grow up. There is nothing civil about your comments. Talking to you is like talking to a brick wall that talks back. Don’t go off on tangents. Don’t argue nonexistent facts. Try to focus: The issue is whether the push was the proximate cause of the death of Mr. Tomilson. It wasn’t. Again, you and others don’t get to make up laws, make up facts, and make up medical science because you hate cops.