Post by MEADOWBURY on Dec 16, 2010 21:13:34 GMT 1
Again, another bizarre statement from you. Are you not concerned that 64 people were injured? Yes if they're police, no if they're protesters it would seem.
How you can equate the footage of the Jody McIntyre incident with what happened to Keith Blakelock beggars belief. You might just as well say the police can be a law unto themselves because otherwise what happened to Blakelock might happen to them.
The McIntyre incident has a closer parallel to the Tomlinson case, about which you remain silent.
Your life experiences haven't so much hardened you as made you incapable of seeing a different perspective. That's blinkered, not hardened.
Vence, your first paragraph makes no sense. I can't recall where I said I was not concerned with the injuries to the protesters. I was pointing out that all of this, and people are upset because a disabled lad who was apparently obstructive, was picked up and moved out of the way.
You're missing my point so badly here...read my posts again and read the messages they are in response to.
The Blakelock incident AND the incident in Manchester was made to underline why I believe the officers in this incident extracted themsleves in the manner they did from the crowd which approached them. This was in response to NickO's post stating one had to be dragged away. Did I say I thought young Jody or the crowd were attempting to take their heads of with a machete? No. Do you know much about crowd dynamics and crowd control? I doubt it.
Did I say at any time the police can act unilatrerally? No. If you read my posts again, you will note I stated the police must justify their actions.
Also you might like to re-read my posts in relation to the Tomlinson incident. Again at no point did I state that the officer involved was right to do what he did. However, I offered hypotheses as to why he did what he did; and under what circumstances he could act as he did. Again I recall stating that a use of force should be fully justified.
Your accusation of me not being able to see a different perspective is equally unfounded, given I have consistently reiterated that all actions by officers in both incidents have to be justified. In fact, blinkered is propbably a term better laid at your door, and that of others, where there seems to be an automatic negative reaction to these officers actions without being in posession of the facts or the wider picture.
All I have done is counter argued the conclusions which have been leapt to by many here; that the police actions in this particular incident were totally unacceptable. I have simply tried to debate why officers may have acted as they did.
Ironic you have completely ignored my last post, above, which seems to shed more light on why the officers may have acted in theis manner. Independant witnesses apparently stating young Jody was obstructive; abusive; violent; and inciting criminal damage and violence in others before, during and after the incidents recorded in the footage.
Please note my use here of the word apparent; note I am not jumping to conclusions, but keeping an open mind. Can you say the same about the way in which you judged the officers here?
Top quality post. Take a bow my friend you are indeed worthy of applause