Those members of the Court of Public Opinion who are so willing to convict on a few fragmentary moments of video footage alone may find this and this instructive reading.
Hmm...I am tempted to post this on the cycling forum that I belong to, as they have been so rabidly anti-police since G20.
That girl who was allegedly assaulted by the policeman, was she throwing some kind of stuff into his face? That's what it appeared like to me, but this is your point, the camera evidence can generate differing theories as to what has happened.
'There are two lanes in each direction and there’s a cyclist in the middle of the lane ahead of you. Now legally*, he shouldn’t be there, he should be next to the sidewalk, so you honk your horn, hoping the cyclist will move into the correct lane and allow you to pass in safety.'
No, no, no, no, no. When you are in an ASL (Advanced Stop Line) it is perfectly legal to wait there. In fact they encourage it, as so many cyclists are getting killed by lorries who are left-hooking.
In fact, the "advance stop lane" is irrelevant: it could be a filter lane for turning. I dread to think that any country actually legislates that turning bicycles actually have to lurk by the kerb, and then cut all the way across their side as well as the oncoming traffic. However, I can also understand the page author withholding judgement on the legality of that position, given that it's an incident in a foreign country. However, it actually turns out (in the comments below the post), that in Canada this *is* legal (even if the car drivers find it annoying). So, frankly, that sentence is misleading.
In the UK they're not known as The Spice Girls for nothing, or perhaps at time Thick Stupid Gits or indeed the Territorial Support Group. On the whole though patently (lack of large numbers of serious injuries) all the plod aren't and weren't violent sadistic thugs hell bent on getting off on beating the crap out the people, for that you really need the Italians or similar - Genoa now that is what I call a Police State.
That said the occasional knuckle dragger always turns up. Rumour hath it m'lord that some of our more slope browed friends were a bit naughty at Bishopsgate and some piquant footage will be sloping out in the near future, probably around May 1st to rally the Black Bloc and the rest of the dystopian diaspora.
With respect, this looked to me like a totally contrived scenario invented solely to try and prove a spurious point. I'm assuming this is in relation to the Tomlinson case.
The court of opinion may very well be unjustifedly calling for a lynching (though if it is, I haven't heard it), but it would certainly be justified in calling for a proper investigation including penalties for the individuals involved if they are found to have committed assault. The video provides a prima facie case for investigating further and taking action if appropriate. This is especially the case for the police, who must be held to a high standard of behaviour, both because they are in a position of power, and because this is necessary in order to keep the public's support and trust.
a totally contrived scenario invented solely to try and prove a spurious point
The scenario is just as it is presented. I know nothing more about it than any other person viewing the video.
I do, however, trust that what Copperfield describes in his second post as being the true course of events is the true course of events. Well subject to what he may say in his third posting on the subject, anyhow.
The point it was seeking to highlight (I wouldn't go so far as prove), however, is anything but spurious. The point is that fragments of imperfect video are insufficient alone to reach a conclusion as to the true course of events.
Unfortunately "new video (which we're not going to show you because it's sub judice) shows an officer appearing to strike the face of a woman before appearing to deliver a baton-strike to her legs in an ACPO-approved fashion. She alleges that she had done nothing to precipitate this and that the use of force was unwarranted and excessive. The IPCC are investigating." doesn't sell newspapers.
The point is that fragments of imperfect video are insufficient alone to reach a conclusion as to the true course of events.Insufficient to reach a complete account of events. If one accepts that blocking the highway is a provocation which entitles J. Random motorist to use this degree of force, then of course the events prior to the video are relevant. But the punch is observable, and it would require a pretty impressive account in the third post to conclude that it did not take place
( ... )
Well subject to what he may say in his third posting on the subject, anyhow.
Well, quite - from what I understand from reading comments, he is at least as likely to dramatically reverse the previous picture as to confirm it.
The point it was seeking to highlight (I wouldn't go so far as prove), however, is anything but spurious. The point is that fragments of imperfect video are insufficient alone to reach a conclusion as to the true course of events.A perfectly reasonable point, but it seems to me that it actually seeks to do a good deal more than that. It seeks to say to the reader: "See? Those videos you've been hearing about, of Ian Tomlinson getting knocked down by police officers, and a woman getting hit in the face with a truncheon, could very well be like this. We should assume it is just a trick of presentation that makes it seem like the officers were being needlessly violent." Well, I think that's a spurious point. It's entirely legitimate to take these videos as showing unnecessary violence, because like the cyclist
( ... )
Comments 16
That girl who was allegedly assaulted by the policeman, was she throwing some kind of stuff into his face? That's what it appeared like to me, but this is your point, the camera evidence can generate differing theories as to what has happened.
Reply
No, no, no, no, no. When you are in an ASL (Advanced Stop Line) it is perfectly legal to wait there. In fact they encourage it, as so many cyclists are getting killed by lorries who are left-hooking.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Absolutely - we should be encouraging cyclists not to lurk by the kerb, or you are simply fodder for any lorry or HGV.
There's so much of it thats misleading. It's really badly written too.
Reply
Reply
That said the occasional knuckle dragger always turns up. Rumour hath it m'lord that some of our more slope browed friends were a bit naughty at Bishopsgate and some piquant footage will be sloping out in the near future, probably around May 1st to rally the Black Bloc and the rest of the dystopian diaspora.
Reply
The court of opinion may very well be unjustifedly calling for a lynching (though if it is, I haven't heard it), but it would certainly be justified in calling for a proper investigation including penalties for the individuals involved if they are found to have committed assault. The video provides a prima facie case for investigating further and taking action if appropriate. This is especially the case for the police, who must be held to a high standard of behaviour, both because they are in a position of power, and because this is necessary in order to keep the public's support and trust.
Reply
The scenario is just as it is presented. I know nothing more about it than any other person viewing the video.
I do, however, trust that what Copperfield describes in his second post as being the true course of events is the true course of events. Well subject to what he may say in his third posting on the subject, anyhow.
The point it was seeking to highlight (I wouldn't go so far as prove), however, is anything but spurious. The point is that fragments of imperfect video are insufficient alone to reach a conclusion as to the true course of events.
Unfortunately "new video (which we're not going to show you because it's sub judice) shows an officer appearing to strike the face of a woman before appearing to deliver a baton-strike to her legs in an ACPO-approved fashion. She alleges that she had done nothing to precipitate this and that the use of force was unwarranted and excessive. The IPCC are investigating." doesn't sell newspapers.
Reply
Reply
Well, quite - from what I understand from reading comments, he is at least as likely to dramatically reverse the previous picture as to confirm it.
The point it was seeking to highlight (I wouldn't go so far as prove), however, is anything but spurious. The point is that fragments of imperfect video are insufficient alone to reach a conclusion as to the true course of events.A perfectly reasonable point, but it seems to me that it actually seeks to do a good deal more than that. It seeks to say to the reader: "See? Those videos you've been hearing about, of Ian Tomlinson getting knocked down by police officers, and a woman getting hit in the face with a truncheon, could very well be like this. We should assume it is just a trick of presentation that makes it seem like the officers were being needlessly violent." Well, I think that's a spurious point. It's entirely legitimate to take these videos as showing unnecessary violence, because like the cyclist ( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment