G20 protest videos: Growing catalogue of evidence against police

[Panther]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2009/apr/15/g...ideos-catalogue

[dunnright00]

Serves 'em right! Bloody Hippies!!

 

 

 

 

 

 

*removes tongue from cheek...

[caliber66]

I watched the first four of these. The only one which is clearly misconduct by the police is the one with Ian Tomlinson. There is no context to the first three.

[Panther]

I watched the first four of these. The only one which is clearly misconduct by the police is the one with Ian Tomlinson. There is no context to the first three.

 

 

I dunno thats a hard thing to say ........... there were acouple examples that I can remember one where an officer allowed his dog to attack a man who was no physical threat.... a women who was violently dragged to the ground possing know threats and the genral operations. Its a tuff situation, what would have happened if there were no police that day... for a goood majority possing no threat the demonstrations would have been far more powerful and far more people would have showed up the second day but of course the violent few drunk or anarchist would have gone wild.

[caliber66]

How do you know the woman posed no threat? How do you know it's a woman, even? How is it clear that the officer intentionally allowed the dog to bite the man in the white pullover? It appeared to me the officer was attempting to restrain the dog. These are all horribly shaky videos that appear to have been shot on someone's camera phone, and I'm supposed to take them as irrefutable evidence of police brutality? Again, where's the context? You see forty seconds of video - what happened before the video began and what happened after it ended? The videos, as they often are, appear to have been edited by someone who is not exactly impartial.

 

There appears to be some clear acts of police misconduct, but there's a lot there that seems to be grasping to me by someone with an ax to grind.

[Panther]

How do you know the woman posed no threat? How do you know it's a woman, even? How is it clear that the officer intentionally allowed the dog to bite the man in the white pullover? It appeared to me the officer was attempting to restrain the dog. These are all horribly shaky videos that appear to have been shot on someone's camera phone, and I'm supposed to take them as irrefutable evidence of police brutality? Again, where's the context? You see forty seconds of video - what happened before the video began and what happened after it ended? The videos, as they often are, appear to have been edited by someone who is not exactly impartial.

 

There appears to be some clear acts of police misconduct, but there's a lot there that seems to be grasping to me by someone with an ax to grind.

 

 

Take them however you want lol I didnt write the article and its not irefuatble evidence its just a "growing catalouge of evidence"

You really think The Guardian has an axe to grind, i duno they are pretty mainstream. You raise a very good point what happened before the videos begin.

Maybe Im just a fool for assuming based on past protests that there was some unjust brutality to scare the crowds and calm things down.

 

As far as the examples I provided if you think that "person" was a threat to those ROBOCOPS then well .... c'mon

maybe she was saying things to pump people up. maybe she had it coming. It appeared to me that the mn was taunting the police and he allowed the dog to grab onto his arm an be taken down, very dangerous stuff indeed.