As widely reported elsewhere, the Guardian’s published a video that shows Ian Tomlinson, with his hands in his pockets and back to police officers being shoved to the ground. It raises serious questions about the policing of the protests.
It looks like manslaughter, although I’ll be stunned if there’s a provable link between the shove and the man’s heart attack, and more so if anyone faces prosecution. We also do not see much of what happened before the shove. What’s clear is that particular unit was trying to block access to the street, and Ian looked like he was hoping the police would pass him by so that he could continue on his way. They didn’t. They hit him with a baton and shoved him out of the way, and he fell flat on his face.
(Update: Of course the wide range of interpretations of this video from the blogs shows how little is unarguably true, and therefore how open to interpretation the police action is.)
That’s what the video shows. This is not the same as the Rodney King video. This is not evidence of institutional police brutality. It does, however, support the eye-witness accounts of heavy-handed policing and force being used as a means of indiscriminate crowd control.
It remains to be seen whether or not this latest abuse of state power has a real impact. The Public, in their wisdom, have largely accepted the shooting of Jean Charles De Menenzes – a complete innocent who absolutely was murdered by police.
I fear this will be accepted too – just one more senseless tragedy and unfortunate mistake to add to the list.
When something this bad happens, it’s far more comfortable and easy to pretend it was a terrible accident and a mistake “in stressful circumstances, with police officers under a lot of pressure and strain” rather than believe the alternative.
Stu said...
8 Apr 09 at 8:48 am
YES! Somebody got it right. Finally.
Thank you.
Stu said...
8 Apr 09 at 8:57 am
…Although, I’m not sure on your description of Tomlinson’s demeanour. It could also be interpreted as deliberately slowing the police down and antagonising them. If this hits courts expect professional body language experts to come out of the woodwork and reliably inform us of his guilt. And his innocence.
Charlotte Gore said...
8 Apr 09 at 9:11 am
Me neither. I read LFAT’s interpretation and was amazed. Very different, but it technically fits. I think the point is that we’d need to know a lot more and see further into the past. I don’t even think you can presume the police intended to put him on the floor. If the man hadn’t died, would this video ever have seen the light?
Roger Thornhill said...
8 Apr 09 at 10:43 am
Mr Tomlinson was not presenting clear and present danger, so I see no reason why he was whacked on the leg and then immediately shoved. I wonder if anyone knows if the Riot training suggests such actions to bring down people? The whack means the leg is either lifted or “deaded”, then the shove pushes the CG beyond the other leg, leaving no option but a fall.
It appears unnecessary. If it were a yob doing this I would want to see Manslaughter charges. Technically Mr Tomlinson was the one being obstructed, AFAICT.
Charlotte Gore said...
8 Apr 09 at 10:53 am
I think the ‘clear and present’ danger argument is a strong one here. The level of force seemed unnecessary – unless the objective is intimidation.
Henry North London said...
8 Apr 09 at 11:09 am
The objective was to make an example of someone Some hotheaded young thug in the police was aching for some action and instigated it out of sheer boredom
Bunny Smedley said...
9 Apr 09 at 9:24 am
To the extent that police action caused Ian Tomlinson’s death, this is appalling. The individual(s) responsible should be held to account and action should be taken to ensure that all UK forces learn whatever lessons there are to be gleaned from this wretched event.
On the other hand, when we’re assigning blame – and Charlotte, you’re surely right to stress the ambiguity of the video – isn’t it worth giving a bit of thought to the troublemakers who have spent weeks contextualising the G20 protests as a locus for violent confrontation, who provoked multiple confrontations with police at the protests, and who did so much to create the conditions in which one confused, possibly mentally disturbed long-time alcoholic ended up behaving in a way that may have appeared pointedly obstructive, rather than just a bit sad and silly?
This isn’t, to repeat, about letting the police off the hook. Assault is assault, and we rightly expect those who enforce the law to behave with more patience, forebearance and self-restraint than the rest of the general public.
Personally, I didn’t go anywhere near the G20 protests, because it seemed clear that they would be violent. (Obviously there were some peaceful protesters there, too, but it doesn’t take many violent thugs to make a nice decent protest go very badly wrong.) The police, responding to the tone of the troublemakers’ organisational efforts, came prepared for violence. And indeed, the protests WERE violent – there was plenty of television footage showing rioters armed with scaffolding poles, hammers and so forth, taking swings at the police line, as well as that odd business about protesters carrying police uniforms – obviously ready to generate bit of ‘police brutality’ themselves.
The police, as usually happens, were trying to do their job – protecting life and property – although it seems possible, in the Tomlinson case, that a few of them failed to uphold the standards we expect of them. What were the more violent ‘protesters’ trying to do, though? Nothing positive, that’s for sure. Actually, I am pretty sure that the worst of them would have been absolutely delighted that Tomlinson died, because it gave them another rhetorical means by which to pursue their ‘anarchist’ goals, such as these are. (The fact that most of them wouldn’t last ten minutes in conditions of real anarchy is neither here nor there.)
Ultimately, then, if Ian Tomlinson’s death was anyone’s fault – rather than just the tragic conclusion of a life curtailed by addiction, homelessness and mental illness – we should perhaps remember why there were 5,000 police drafted into London in the first place, at enormous expense and considerable inconvenience, expected to deal not only with counter-terrorism, protection of visiting dignitaries and the usual police workload, but also this wholly unnecessary, wholly pointless troublemaking from some of the most useless, morally vacant people out there. Please, let’s not play these morons’ game by launching into the ‘police brutality’ refrain too soon, as the useful idiots at the Guardian & Co were so quick to do – for all their various and several faults, the police simply were not the worst enemies of life and liberty out on the streets that day.