It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Ian Tomlinson : the posible non sequitur of his death ?

page: 1
3

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:13 AM
link   
i feel compeled to open this thread with a message of condolance to mr Tomlinsons family , any sudden death is tragic - all the more so when there are such monumental ` what ifs ` as surround this case .

but , it astounds me that so many have already concuded that police action was 100% culpable in this case

well just stop ranting for a sec and just CONSIDER that his ` police assault ` ` and subsequent coronary arrest COULD be almost entirely unrelated

it is a classic non sequitur to ASSUME that as his ` police assault ` proceeded his fatal corronary arrest , then the ` assault ` was the cause

but was it ? it COULD have been - but then again evidence ?

each year - millions die from sometimes sudden heart attacks - with no prior medical warning [ and as stated we do not even know what mr tomlinsons medical history was ] and WITHOUT any precipitatring attack

also thousands suffer physical trauma - assault etc WITHOUT suffering post attack corranaries

yet the popular opinion is already welding the 2 events together inexorably- when it is entirely possible the 2 events have no link ?

but as far as i can tell so far on ATS - no one has , well done
, as my mate zaphod58 notes ` logic is dead , long live BS `

yeah - dont wait for the autopsy result - dont bother investigating his medical history [ as yet undisclosed ] - just leap straight to the conclusion ` it was murder `

BRAVO !




posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 02:47 AM
link   
I prefer to look at it this way: If Mr Tomlinson's heart attack was NOT caused by the police actions moments before, then it is the mother of all coincidences.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:03 AM
link   
If I assaulted someone in the street, for no reason, and that person subsequently died from a heart attack, I would be charged with manslaughter, at the very least.

Why should it be any different for a police officer?



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:19 AM
link   
reply to post by budski
 


You would be charged with suspected manslaughter. But as Ape rightly points out one cannot just assume the cause and affect. It's very likely that his assault did result in a heart attack - it would be interesting to know if he already suffered coronary problems.

But it is not impossible that he would have had the heart attack anyway.

If he suffered the heart attack whilst being assaulted it would be a different matter. But the time delay means that to state that the one definitely caused the other is a non sequitur. I think it'll be difficult to prove it didn't though and the balance of probablity is that it did. However, thats for the jury to decide when present with all the evidence - not us based on media reports (which we all know are likely to be biased and inaccurate)



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by Essan
reply to post by budski
 

But it is not impossible that he would have had the heart attack anyway.

I think it'll be difficult to prove it didn't though and the balance of probablity is that it did.



Nevertheless, it was an unprovoked assault - and as I said, I would be charged with manslaughter.

The charge would only be reduced if it could be clearly proven that my actions did not contribute in any way, which is next to impossible.

Unless of course I was a police officer, in which case, they would close ranks and "find" me innocent.

Funny how they don't seem to pull out all the stops for members of the public, only when it comes to their own.



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 05:41 AM
link   
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 

What utter rubbish! The cops could have beaten this poor man to death on camera, with a group of Nuns as witnesses, but not one police officer will do a minute of time in prison.

The police in the UK are above the law.

The concept of protection of the public, protect and serve, is long dead and buried. The UK Police are purely the enforcement wing of Government. I use the word Government lightly, perhaps I mean they are the enforcement arm of the State. How long before they come for people in the night?

They have an accident in a car, it was someone elses fault or mechanical failure.

They track an unarmed man across south London, a man casually walking along without a care in the world, follow him onto a train and put seven bullets in his brain. They are found culpable by a coroner, but no resignations, no prosecutions, just a poor dead Brazilian lad shot for no other reason than walking along looking nothing like the suspect they want.

The police shot a man on Humberside, ok he was armed with a samurai type sword, but nobody attempted to taser him, or leave him until he calmed down a bit. No he was blocking th A63 road, so they shot him dead. No prosecution, he was coming towards me claimed the officer. There's a South park episode like that about hunting.

Then there was the man they shot for carrying a table leg in a carrier bag. They got away with that, it looked like a shotgun.

Police Officers, unlike the rest of the public, are allowed to collude and compare evidence for a court case or coroners court. Try that as a member of the public and it's conspiracy to pervert the course of justice.

When did the Police move from being servants of the public to being lackeys of the State, and why did it happen without a murmur of complaint.

Perhaps there is a Common Purpose behind all of this?



posted on Apr, 10 2009 @ 12:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Rob37n
reply to post by ignorant_ape
 

What utter rubbish! The cops could have beaten this poor man to death on camera, with a group of Nuns as witnesses, but not one police officer will do a minute of time in prison.

The police in the UK are above the law.



If the police are shown to have reason to act - such as when someone is pretending to have a gun, even when it's shown later to be a fake (or a chair leg - ever wonder why?) then it may be deemed justifiable given the possible risk to the public.

In this case the officer concerned is going to have a lot of sleepless nights and may struggle to live with himself, whatever excuse he may have for his actions (have we not all been angry and taken that anger out on innocent people? or are we all perfect gods?).

Whether he goes to prison is a different matter. I would say not. He almost certainly did not expect the consequences.

The real criminals are those who showed no consideration to property or person and provoked the police response. I do wonder if something like this is what they were hoping for? Evil b*stards.

There are bad policemen. There are also bad ice-cream sellers, farmers, train drivers and furniture salesman. But don't jump to conclusions just because you want to believe all furniture salesmen are evil.

Imagine what his family must be going through? There are more victims here than some would like to think.


(on the other hand, he may be the 1 in a hundred policemen who are evil b*stards and deserves all he gets. But I cannot say)



new topics

top topics



 
3

log in

join