British Police F--- Yeah!Follow

Hey, I'm just going by the video clip that was posted. I'm sure that the extenuating circumstances justify the police brutalizing a bystander.

There are people who show up at protests and whatnot specifically to provoke the police to action. This guy looks to have been doing that. As stated, he ignored warnings and instructions and entered an active riot zone while police were assembling to handle the riot. He placed himself right where the police were going. Note, early in the video. Everyone is standing in the crowd and just one person is like 40 feet away standing right in the area the police will assemble in. All by himself. He's asked to move and slooooooooowly shuffles along. He's got his hands in his pockets and is walking with one leg kept stiff (he's just walking "odd" in the video).

He did everything in his power to make himself noticed by the police and make it appear as though he was going to cause trouble. He got in their way. Heck. Just before he was hit, he deliberately slowed down such that one of the dogs was practically running into him. He didn't need to do that, he just kinda wobbled and weaved slowly in front of the dogs path until the police officer had to stop and pull it back. At the same time, he seems to exaggerate his odd left leg even more. I watched the slow motion bit several times, and the combination of the way he's walking and this movement of his left hand in his pocket like he's got a weapon slid down his pant leg and is getting ready to pull it out.


Does that justify a shove from the officer? Dunno. I wasn't there. I don't know what happened just before, around, and off camera to that video. It's just that in my opinion, if you go out of your way to provoke the police, don't complain when they respond.

I find videos like this funny, as they are explicitly made to make the police look as brutal as possible. They only show a very short clip that consists entirely of police action, but nothing of what provokes those actions. I'm not saying that the police are always in the right, but they aren't always in the wrong either. In my experience, when you actually examine a video and it's where's and when's the real story unfolds about the police just doing their job. I can't say whether the push itself was really necessary, but the whole "this was the last time he was seen alive" thing definately wasn't. It implies that this guy's death was directly caused by the police, which isn't so, if he did die from a heart attack (I haven't looked into it that far myself, just going by what other posters have said.)

Of course it is. Depending on the circumstances. Are you saying it is *never* ok? What if he had a nuclear device with his hand an inch from the button? Is it ok then? I assume that pretty much everyone would say yes. Heck. Most people would be ok with intentional lethal force in that case, right?

You didn't specify any conditions in your question, so my answer is yes. Is it "always" ok? Of course not. But it's not "never" ok either.

The relevant question was whether it was justified in this particular situation. Again. I wasn't there. You can't judge just by watching a video what the situation was at the time. There are subtleties of body language, verbiage, mood, etc that are completely lost on a video camera.

I know it's easy to just assume that the police officer just arbitrarily decided to whack that guy in the back for no reason at all. But that is pretty darn unlikely. Even the most obnoxious police officer isn't going to do that when he's standing 20 feet away from a large crowd with many cameras pointed at him. He clearly saw "something" that made him believe he needed to hit that guy. We can speculate what that was, but it's reasonable to assume that at that moment, that officer felt that whatever that guy was doing justified his actions.


He may certainly have made a mistake. He may have misinterpreted what he saw or heard. But I think it's a bit presumptuous for us to just assume that he had absolutely no reason at all...

If the protestors were mostly violent then the police would be picking their ears out of their ******** - you know, because they're massively outnumbered. The complete lack of arms should be another clue. Judging an entire group due to the actions of a few (0.4% tops) is pretty ******* stupid even for you, tarv. But sure, shame on these people for peacefully expressing their discontent. Shame.

Unless the Queen was dethroned and we became a Republic (I think I'd have noticed) - none are citizens - we're subjects you *****

Unless the Queen was dethroned and we became a Republic (I think I'd have noticed) - none are citizens - we're subjects you *************

Not to knock your sense of traditionalism, but that hasn't been true since 1983, and in many cases longer than that.

You should really keep up on the legal changes in the country you live in...

The police can't be blamed. The officer had no way of knowing that shove would cause a heart attack. If it was caused by stress, which is likely, you may as well blame everyone present at the protest for contributing to the stressful situation.

That said, cops shouldn't hit people just because they're in their way. Police shouldn't cause violence, they should prevent it. It may seem perfectly sensible to smack someone who's causing trouble, but police, of all people, should know that knocking someone to the ground is always dangerous. People have died from being punched in the jaw before, simply because their head hit the ground at the wrong angle. They're bloody lucky he died of a heart attack and not a head injury.

By the way, can anyone tell me exactly what the G20 protests were about? What were people protesting?

Because it's cold.

If you think a man with his hands in his pockets is suspicious, then it'd be pretty easy to check him out without shoving him to the floor in a way which could have killed or seriously injured him. Grabbing his wrists, for example. There was an entire group of policemen, you know.

Perhaps they felt a bit outnumbered?

He was quite a scary old fart, what, with his hands in his pockets and eerrr...stuff.

It's safer for both groups to push people down and away.

To be fair to the protesters, it was barely a riot. Most of the people on this march were completely peaceful. And Tarv, you're a bit of a **** on this issue. Protesting is a good thing. That people are sufficiently engaged in the political process to actually get off their ***** and demonstrate for or against something can only be positive for society. For fuck's sake, we're in the middle of the biggest financial crisis in a century, brought about because some super rich people wanted to get even more super rich, and you criticize those that protest about it?? Would the world really be a better place if all those people had stayed at home and watched Jeremy Kile instead??

As for the police brutality, this wasn't brutal. The police is highly scrutinised in England, and every move they make is analysed. Riot police in France are 10 times more brutal. I don't think the police were entirely unjustified in what they did to this guy.

Having said that, these were *protests*. Not "riots". If you want riots, check out what happened in the suburbs of Paris 2 years ago. 2 weeks of chaos and anarchy, hundreds of cars burnt every night, shops loots and burnt, that's a *riot*. Walking on Oxford Street shouting "Down with bankers" is not a freaking riot. It's a ridiculously peaceful demonstration considering the **** we're into.

It's ok to risk injury and possible death solely because there was a group of police officers around?

"This guy right here claims that he could easily blow up police headquarters over there. We could easily just take him down and out without risk of harm to police headquarters."
"Wait. NO. We can't do that. That's brutal. There's a whole group of us here. We need to think of some peaceful manner to protect ourselves. Maybe if we just call him every five minutes and nicely ask him to stop it, he'll get so annoyed he'll give up!"



This is an embarrassing attempt at trying to avoid what you know full well the question was getting it. You don't stick your hands in your pockets and waddle around in front of a group of police officers trying to prevent a riot. This is just common sense, unless you're trying to start trouble and be a little "fight the power!" *****.



Again, why were his hands in his pockets? There's multiple answers here, don't try responding with only "well it was cold!" again.

Why did he not move when the police surely asked him to?

If he was having a heart attack before the shove, why didn't he say anything?

If he was gimp and that's why he was walking so slowly and oddly, why didn't he say anything?

The police were giving him far more gentle shoves beforehand, why did he not get the hint?

As lolgaxe pointed out, did the dogs react to him for some reason?

Why was he standing so far away from everyone else in a situation where the police would be worried about their safety and the safety of the public?

This isn't black and white. You can ***** and moan about police brutality all you want, but the man should not have been standing where he was, how he was. It's common sense given the situation. No one ever deserves to die or be injured, but if you're going to clearly ask for it don't be surprised when you get it.