Police possibly caused G20 death

[munchingfoo]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7989027.stm

The Liberal Democrats are demanding a criminal inquiry after video footage of the G20 protest showed a police officer pushing over a man who later died.

Newspaper vendor Ian Tomlinson, 47, suffered a heart attack shortly after the incident, outside the Bank of England in central London last week.

Lib Dem justice spokesman David Howarth said the footage showed a "sickening and unprovoked attack" by police.

Mr Tomlinson, who was not protesting, had been making his way home from work.

The pictures, shot at 1929 BST (1829 GMT) at Royal Exchange Passage, initially show him walking away from a group of police officers.

He then receives a two-handed push from an officer, landing heavily before remonstrating with the police.

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

Whether or not they can prove the police officer actually caused his death, I think this will be the end of the policeman's career.

[M_A_T_T_H_E_W]

and quite probably they 20 or so other officers with him because they failed to report their collige

[LonelyPilgrim]

The stress of the incident was no doubt the proximate cause of the heart attack. That said, had his day been completely peaceful, it's likely that the next stressful event (or difficult bowel movement) would have done for. Proximate events don't 'cause' heart attacks... they trigger them. The cause is always an underlying condition.*

*exceptions for poisonings, electrocutions, and other such non-arterial-blockage events.

[munchingfoo]

I guess that depends on whether we can trust the BBCs reporting that it was indeed a heart attack (myocardial infarction) and not a cardiac arrest.

[Power Metal Dom]

Sometimes it isn't clear, as a police officer, who is a protester and who is not

Oh I'd say the bloke NOT PROTESTING with his hands in his pockets walking peacefully away from the police isn't a candidate for who to shove to the ground. Whether the shove caused him to die or not the thug in the uniform who pushed him should lose his job. It was a cowardly, unprovoked and unjustifiable display of authority.

[Frank]

Sometimes it isn't clear, as a police officer, who is a protester and who is not

Oh I'd say the bloke NOT PROTESTING with his hands in his pockets walking peacefully away from the police isn't a candidate for who to shove to the ground. Whether the shove caused him to die or not the thug in the uniform who pushed him should lose his job. It was a cowardly, unprovoked and unjustifiable display of authority.

I'd go so far as to say that this attitude is exactly the issue with the country these days!

To be clear: Why on earth should he lose his job? He's trained, he's presumably competent in other areas which aren't "don't push the wrong people" and likely useful in numerous other places. We'd really want to waste time, money, training and skill by simply firing him because of a, albeit serious, mistake?

A severe black mark on his record, perhaps intense retraining before being allowed on that sort of assignment again (if at all), but let's face it: A handful of mistakes were made. I don't think that's quite enough to immediately move for the "LOSE HIS JOB!" attitude that seems to be the solution to every major or public mistake these days.

If you were to ask me, I'd say scapegoating the obvious person isn't a terribly productive solution.

[Jono]

"Sometimes it isn't clear, as a police officer, who is a protester and who is not.

"I know it's a generalisation but anybody in that part of the town at that time, the assumption would be that they are part of the protest.

"I accept that's perhaps not a clever assumption but it's a natural one."

Of course, what's more natural than assuming that absolutely everyone in the vicinity of something is involved in that something? I'm in the library. The only conceivable explaination is that I'm studying.

Even if he was a protester, so what? "He's exercising his legally protected right to peaceful protest. Quick! Throw him to the ground lads! Put the boot in!"

I'm not suprised. After viewing the footage from the climate camp protest, I've lost all respect for the MET. As if the Damien Green scandal and their ineptitude at public Race-Relations wasn't enough, it seems that the police; sworn to protect the heart of our democracy, are incapable of dealing with peaceful protest without charging in with billy-clubs swinging. I hope that whatever criminal charges or inquiry is set up will force some kind of shakeup within that increasinly dysfunctional police force!

[Power Metal Dom]

@Frank

Assuming that his death is related to the officer's disproportionate violence - fire him and pursue further legal action. If his death isn't directly linked then at least some severe disciplinary action. An officer who is going to react that badly in a situation that he (presumably) 1. was trained for, and 2. wasn't particularly hostile, simply isn't fit to do his job. Either give him retraining or give the job to someone who's competent.

[theshadowhost]

he didnt look like he was protesting, but he wasnt exactly co-operating with police. Not an excuse for pushing him over, he' not really going to move faster face down on the ground.

[JoeyJoeJoe]

Sometimes it isn't clear, as a police officer, who is a protester and who is not

Why on earth should he lose his job?

Because he's clearly a complete arse who's unfit for the job. Your argument is akin to saying a bus driver who, for example, spat in a passenger's face for no apparent reason, shouldn't risk losing his job.

Of course job loss isn't the only option, but it is one of them. The man's an arse.

[Andy Monkey B]

@Frank

Assuming that his death is related to the officer's disproportionate violence - fire him and pursue further legal action. If his death isn't directly linked then at least some severe disciplinary action. An officer who is going to react that badly in a situation that he (presumably) 1. was trained for, and 2. wasn't particularly hostile, simply isn't fit to do his job. Either give him retraining or give the job to someone who's competent.

It seems a bit strange to fire him if the death is related, having been primarily caused by an underlying problem, but not to fire him if the death isn't related. The intention was the same in both cases, and from the point of view of the disproportionate violence and poor conduct of the police officer, the disciplinary action should be the same in each case (legal action aside). Otherwise the message becomes "only push people without underlying heart conditions", or "don't push people in case they have underlying heart conditions".

That aside, for what the officer is guilty of, I don't think disciplinary action should necessarily lead to sacking, as the above arguments about scapegoating say.

[RandomMusings]

If he didn't have his hands in his pockets, it's much more likely that he wouldn't have fallen over in the first place.

Balance is a wonderful thing - in every meaning of the word.

[theshadowhost]

I'm beggining to wonder if this thread was started as some kind of elaborate troll knowing the nature of where the argument would go!

[munchingfoo]

To much time on your hands?

[Power Metal Dom]

Oh noes I can feel myself being sucked in by this thread...urgh to not post...failing...nggghhhh...

It seems a bit strange to fire him if the death is related, having been primarily caused by an underlying problem, but not to fire him if the death isn't related. The intention was the same in both cases, and from the point of view of the disproportionate violence and poor conduct of the police officer, the disciplinary action should be the same in each case (legal action aside). Otherwise the message becomes "only push people without underlying heart conditions", or "don't push people in case they have underlying heart conditions".

Hm, interesting. Fair points, the officer didn't mean to kill anyone and in both cases the officer can't be blamed for a pre-existent condition. Nevertheless, I think my initial outrage was because of the cowardly act of exerting such undeserved violence to an innocuous bystander. The fact that the man died shortly after this just exasperates the situation. It seems that in the first instance the officer is just a terrible policeman while in the second he's also a risk to public safety, yknow? I'm not entirely sure...this is a tricky issue.

he didnt look like he was protesting, but he wasnt exactly co-operating with police.

It's hard to tell from the video what instructions he may or may not have been ignoring, but it looked like the man was just walking away, I don't see how that's uncooperative.

If he didn't have his hands in his pockets, it's much more likely that he wouldn't have fallen over in the first place.

Balance is a wonderful thing - in every meaning of the word.

Did you see the shove? It was quite hard and from behind, the bloke couldn't have known it was coming. Anyone with their hands out of their pockets and with the best of balance would have fallen over.

[Frank]

It seems that in the first instance the officer is just a terrible policeman while in the second he's also a risk to public safety, yknow? I'm not entirely sure...this is a tricky issue.

I do see where you're coming from, but I'd still agree with Andy's outlining of the reasoning. He might be a bad policeman, but how likely, prior to this incident, is one to think that a hard shove would have killed someone?

Which is to say: I imagine plenty of folks at the protest might have had their hands in compromising positions (e.g. in pockets) with backs to the officers. I'd imagine there's harded shoves in most protests too. Ought all of those be prosecuted and persecuted as the unforunate (if violent) officer in this case?

For my part I see it as tragic, but it's not as if this was an example of extreme police brutality. It was a tough shove to a guy who seemingly hadn't done anything wrong and, even, had his back turned. It's not as if he was bundled to the ground then shot in the head for getting on a train, for instance. What ever happend regarding de Menezes(sp?)?.

With all that in mind arbitrarily cutting off his career because he was unlucky enought to shove the guy with a heart condition and be caught on film...

I dunno. Perhaps it is warranted to demand the old 'off with their job'. The whole thing is essentially majority rule; if sufficiently many folks are outraged and demanding one thing etc.

Still, we're on the outside and fairly distant from it all. I imagine I'd have a distinctly different opinion if I were a police officer, or a protester. Or someone with a heart condition. (Though, in fairness, I may well have...)

[RandomMusings]

he didnt look like he was protesting, but he wasnt exactly co-operating with police.

I didn't say that.......

If he didn't have his hands in his pockets, it's much more likely that he wouldn't have fallen over in the first place.

Balance is a wonderful thing - in every meaning of the word.

I did say that....

Did you see the shove? It was quite hard and from behind, the bloke couldn't have known it was coming. Anyone with their hands out of their pockets and with the best of balance would have fallen over.

I did see the shove, yeah - but I've seen people shoved harder in very similar circumstances who had their hands out as normal, and they may have staggered, may even have gone down on their knees, but they have tended not to fall. Having your arms available to you for balance generally means your whole body is free flex in a situation such as this. Of course I'm not defending the actions of the policeman - stupid, reckless, dangerous - and I'm also not necessarily saying that the guy would not have hit the ground, but his hands and arms could have offered a lot of added protection.

[bdw]

Hm, interesting. Fair points, the officer didn't mean to kill anyone and in both cases the officer can't be blamed for a pre-existent condition.

The eggshell skull principle in English tort and criminal law provides that the party committing the tortious or criminal act must take his victim as he finds him, irrespective of whether the victim is suffering a pre-existing condition. As a matter of natural justice, a party committing a wrong should not be able to escape liability just because the consequences of his action are worse than those that one would have ordinarily expected. However, while the actus reus (see below) of a more serious criminal charge than had been anticipated may be present here, as manifested in the victim's eventual death, the mens rea of the commissioner of the act may not be sufficient for such a charge to be brought (ie the actus reus of manslaughter/murder may be present but the mens rea may be only sufficient for a minor public order offence).

As has been correctly identified elsewhere, the principal issue here is proving a causal link between the contact and the eventual death of the victim. The initial test is whether, but for the contact between the policeman and the victim, the victim's death would not have occurred. Without having a medical background, I would presume that this may be difficult to prove. The Guardian video should not be viewed as the alpha and omega of the evidence in this case - with the amount of CCTV coverage around that area and input from medical experts, it should hopefully be possible to construct a more comprehensive narrative of the events prior to the victim's death, which may determine whether a causal link exists or, if such a link were to exist, whether an intervening cause broke such chain of causation.

Even if the causal link were to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the two legal components for the commission of a crime must have been present: the actus reus (an act, omission or state of affairs) for a manslaughter/murder charge would be demonstrated by the death of the victim but finding a sufficient standard of mens rea (the mental state of the commissioner of the act) for such a charge is more uncertain. Manslaughter in England and Wales requires that recklessness or criminal negligence of the commissioner be proved. If a causal link were to shown, it is possible that the charge would have to be scaled back to an ABH/GBH charge instead. While that may be a complicating factor in this case, the central difficulty in bringing a successful claim is likely to be the causation issue.

[Freaker]

For my part I see it as tragic, but it's not as if this was an example of extreme police brutality. It was a tough shove to a guy who seemingly hadn't done anything wrong and, even, had his back turned. It's not as if he was bundled to the ground then shot in the head for getting on a train, for instance. What ever happend regarding de Menezes(sp?)?.

It may not be an example of extreme police brutality, but if what you describe cannot be considered police brutality and objectionable (not that you're saying it isn't), then oh dear. I don't know the details of the Menezes case too well - but in that case the officers (mistakenly) thought they were acting as a last resort to prevent a terrorist attack. In this case, I have troubles finding any rationalisations whatsoever for the actions of the officer.

With all that in mind arbitrarily cutting off his career because he was unlucky enought to shove the guy with a heart condition and be caught on film...

The fact that it was caught on video may have been arbitrary, and that the guy had a heart condition may have been - both of these should have no part in the assessment of the officer's action. Yet the shoving was, for all I know, intentional (and non-arbitrary), and this action is what should be investigated, with consequences to be drawn from it. The investigation should be the same to those of any other case of a police officer using their baton and then shoving an uninvolved person.

The unfortunate thing is that the latter happens rather often (eg at the Climate Camp during G20) - but it is only when those two arbitrary extra conditions are involved that this is properly brought to light and there is a full scale investigation.

[Power Metal Dom]

I didn't say that.......

Whoops, sorry