Friday, 17 April 2009

Murdered: Ian Tomlinson Died of Abdominal Injuries

It has been confirmed that Ian Tomlinson, the man at first accused of being a G20 anarchist who recklessly taunted police, who was attacked from behind by a member of the riot squad who covered up his identifying badge before beating this passer-by whose hands were in his pockets, died not of a heart attack but of abdominal injuries.

This means clearly and unequivocally that he was beaten with such severity that he died of his wounds.

Ian Tomlinson was murdered by a member of the police. That individual, who is being questioned on suspicion of manslaughter, should be charged with murder. The evidence is unambiguous.

If Ian Tomlinson is treated with the same level of disrespect and lack of concern that Jean Charles de Menezes and his grieving family have been, another innocent man will have died at the hands of the police, on the orders of their superiors to use all 'due force' when dealing with so-called 'national security' incidents. It is a matter of absolute urgency that the usage of such corrupt tactics cannot, under any circumstances, be allowed to continue.

10 comments:

  1. Good point but you fail to see that "they" tacitly ordered Tomlinsons death.Not specifically but in the general "get one,teach the hippies a lesson".As Seneca said "The man who is unafraid of death will always be your master".

    ReplyDelete
  2. Mara, as far as I've seen, he received one baton strike to the legs and was then pushed over. According to the pathologist and a doctor, he died of internal bleeding...neither of them attributed the death to his injuries.

    I'm not excusing the assault in any way but I feel that you're slightly over the top there. Murder means that there is an intention to kill. Are you saying the this copper meant to kill Tomlinson?

    ReplyDelete
  3. I believe there was at the very least a real intent to cause grievous harm. The comments released in the weeks leading up to the G20 summit - that the Met was up for some violence, that a summer of rage was anticipated - all testify to the fact that the commanders certainly laid the grounds for considerable force to be used against a protesting public. I feel also that the fact that the policeman who struck Tomlinson deliberately attempted to conceal his identity points to the fact that he wished to cause the man considerable harm. The task of the inquiry judges now is to decide whether manslaughter or murder occurred; manslaughter of course refers to involuntary or accidental killing. The lines between that and murder are often quite finely drawn. But in an instance when a defenceless man dies after being attacked without provocation, it is not absurd to demand that a charge of murder be brought.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Ok Mara, let's take this point by point.
    You say that the fact that the officer attempted to conceal his identity points to the fact...etc.
    How do you arrive at that conclusion? That is an assumption and not evidence.

    I must say that since you posted I've watched two videos of the incident, one from ITN and one from the Beeb. Both are indistinct and I can't honestly say whether I could see the officer's numbers or not.

    As to the defenceless man dying...I would wholeheartedly agree with you that there was not one iota of provocation and at the very least the officer is guilty of a S20 GBH and possibly a S18 GBH. One might possibly take it to manslaughter but murder with its attendant premeditation...I think not.

    With regard to the other incident of the sergeant backhanding a woman and then striking her with a baton...I would agree entirely that his numbers were concealed. Now what the current instructions are regarding this I have no idea but many years ago when I was in uniform, it was a disciplinary offence to cover them up. Perhaps times have changed and, not I would say, for the better.

    ReplyDelete
  5. According to an eyewitness of the first assault, Anna Branthwaite in the Times:

    "He [the officer] grabbed his back and charged him and threw him forward. Ian landed on his left side and bounced because of the force of the impact. He looked absolutely petrified. Clearly had no idea what was happening..."Ian was scrambling to get up and was half up when the same police officer grabbed him again and threw him forward. He took a couple of steps forward, stumbling, and started trying to run away. He was in total shock."

    At the time of the second assault, Tomlinson was overheard saying repeatedly that he just 'wanted to get home'. As he was walking away the officer in question, from the heavily armed 'tough guys and gals' Territorial Support Group approached him from behind and, raising the baton to head height, brought it down heavily upon his legs whereupon he fell equally heavily.
    Those who sought to give him medical aid - including a medical student - were all forced away, despite the fact that Tomlinson was clearly and dangerously ill.
    The officers concerned in both assaults only came forward after the footage was released. It is only surprising that they have not confiscated all video evidence or prosecuted those in possession of said evidence. And it is a reasonable conjecture that hiding one's identifying marks prior to an assault suggests malign intent of sufficient severity that being identified would open the aggressor up to assault charges.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Mara, google G20 and find the video.
    You will see that the officer did not raise the baton above his head...he brought it around as though wielding a cricket bat. In the videos I watched, the officer did not throw Tomlinson twice.
    You've said that the officer was hiding his numerals...well, I can't see that in either video I watched because they're too indistinct.

    I'm not defending the officer here, he was bang out of order but let's deal with facts rather than assumptions.

    ReplyDelete
  7. There are a number of videos out there: the one on the Guardian's website differs quite significantly from that shot by the Channel 4 cameraman, which shows the officer's attack from a different angle. The first video, taken by a man who wished to remain anonymous, is the one shown on the Guardian website. The man himself states that Ian Tomlinson was thrown down forcibly when his back was to the police and his hands in his pockets. The police have also backtracked about CCTV footage. Initially, they claimed that there were no CCTV cameras in the area. The IPC has now dismissed that claim, as there are 6; the footage on those cameras has not been released and it may be safe to say that it never shall be.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Cato, I.T had the shit kicked out of him round the corner.The spy camera/cctv film has now "disappeared".How very unlike the home life of our own dear Queen.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Cato, you are grasping at hairs, which you seek to split. You say you can't tell whether he concealed his badge number because the video is indistinct. Can you see that he covered his face with a balaclava? Was it so bitterly cold? Last time I checked, balaclavas were illegal, because they indicated an intention to do something illegal and get away with it. Killing somebody while committing another crime, such as armed robbery or (as in this instance) unprovoked assault, is not at all the same as manslaughter, which usually implies carelessness but not intent to do serious bodily harm. The balaclavaed police officer clearly intended to do (unprovoked) serious bodily harm, and he did.

    ReplyDelete
  10. @anonymous...I'm not grasping at hairs, I'm trying to explain how the law works. You may not like it, I might not like it but it is the law. Can you tell whether the numerals were concealed, because I honestly can't?

    All cops using the riot gear that those were using..helmets etc, use balaclavas. Check your facts.

    With regard to your last point, if I've understood you correctly, the prosecution has to prove that the person committing the offence meant to do so, in this case that the officer MEANT to kill Tomlinson. Intending to do grievious bodily harm and intending to kill are two completely different things.

    Unless one can prove 'intent' no jury anywhere would convict said officer of murder.

    ReplyDelete

Life is to be lived, not controlled, and humanity is won by continuing to play in face of certain defeat -Ralph Ellison