instead of hitting him, "what about talking?" "I didn't have time for that option"

[TheMysteryCat]

AIBU to think that PC Harwood (who hit Ian Tomlinson at a protest and according to the Coroner's report probably caused his death) is not suitable to be a police officer?

I know this may not be a thread that MN can leave up (given that PC Harwood is on trial for manslaughter) but the more evidence I hear from this case (and from the previous investigation), the more I think that this individual should never have the opportunity to be an active police officer again.

I also think the Met's approach to policing protest is unecessarily violent and provokes violence in response and relating to the thread title... PC Harwood reeled off all sorts of violent possible approaches to mvoing Ian Tomlinson on, but not once did he consider talking to him. As much as these are the actions of one individual, I think it's also the training of officers in these roles.

It's shameful.

Yanbu, he had his hands in his pockets. Hardly a threat to 7 police men

Tell me what's wrong with the met training then?

katherine The training (according to PC Harwood) promoted violently attacking a member of the public with his hands in his pockets (as griphook rightly pointed out) over and above any other approach.

From the Guardian:

"Asked what tactics he could use, Harwood listed first a baton strike, then a push, kicks or punches, CS spray, handcuffs, or a voice command. Dennis said: "You have gone straight to violence, force." Harwood said: "No, I have gone for reasonable force."

Asked to cite more options, he named the use of a firearm ? at which Tomlinson's relatives left ? then use of a shield, or "life-threatening strikes".

Under persistent questioning from Dennis the policeman repeatedly insisted that given the short space of time and situation he had made the right decision on how to move Tomlinson, who he believed was blocking police efforts to clear the passageway."

do you agree katherine? or what's your view?

Met Police training is that first tactic is communication. Any other use of force has to be reasonable and proportionate to the situation.

snowpo it was not the first thought in PC Harwood's mind when he hit Tomlinson, nor was it reasonable or proportionate.

And communication was not the first response to Jean Charles de Menezes either.

Soemthing is going desperately wrong here.

Why was ANY force needed? The poor sod was nothing to do was the demonstration. He was just trying to get home and wherever he went he was pushed back. Yes he was drunk, but he was not aggressive and doing no harm to anyone.

Sorry, did not elaborate. From what I saw in the video PC Harwood was completely without any justification for the level of force he used.

However I wouldn't say its a training issue. You can give all the training in the world and some officers do not, can not or choose not to handle situations appropriately.

agree with the first point, but it returns to my first question... should this man ever be allowed to be a police officer?

and there are multiple other incidences of Met Police Officers using excessive force and violence in handling protests and demonstrations.

The student protest film clips show very aggressive behaviour by multiple officers charging down protestors, for example.

this is, unfortunately, why I think it's not an isolated incident and that there is something tragically wrong with the Met Officers are trained/the ethos of the force.