Tomlinson cop not guilty
- Thread starter cooky1257
- Start date
Mullardman
Moderately extreme...
All the information you need is on film and has been showed repeatedly.
The man had his hands in his pockets and was clearly offering no threat to anyone.
There was no justification whatever for the attack on him.
Let's just suppose the same thing had occurred during the riots. an innocent drunk with hands in pockets is pushed over for no reason by some thug and the drunk dies.
Almost certainly manslaughter, if not murder.
Why is this cop any different?
Another cover up.
Mull
The man had his hands in his pockets and was clearly offering no threat to anyone.
There was no justification whatever for the attack on him.
Let's just suppose the same thing had occurred during the riots. an innocent drunk with hands in pockets is pushed over for no reason by some thug and the drunk dies.
Almost certainly manslaughter, if not murder.
Why is this cop any different?
Another cover up.
Mull
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
There was no new evidence offered at the trial, and Harwood admitted at the trial itself that he pushed Tomlinson to the ground. It has also now been established beyond any reasonable doubt that the push and the death are connected, and the inquest in May 2011 concluded that Tomlinson's death was unlawful killing. The manslaughter trial was a direct consequence of that conclusion. Nothing that happened at the trial has challenged any of these facts. I think we all have all the information we need to form a conclusion.
Despite all this, a jury has managed to conclude it is not manslaughter if a policeman pushes a passerby over, even if that act leads to his death. "Unbelievable" is a reasonable comment in the circumstances.
Although, I can't say I'm surprised: not one police officer has been convicted for manslaughter for a crime committed whilst on duty since 1986.
Arkless Electronics
Trade: Amp design and repairs.
It never ceases to amaze me how often cops get away with murder (literally this time!). So many times I've heard things like "a vital piece of evidence in the prosecution was mislaid and the trial has now been dismissed"... yeh right.... I wonder how that happened!? or a variety of other lame excuses...
We have all seen the video footage and that is definitely manslaughter.
It turns out that this is not the first time this officer has been prosecuted for police brutality... and got away with it!
We have all seen the video footage and that is definitely manslaughter.
It turns out that this is not the first time this officer has been prosecuted for police brutality... and got away with it!
Mescalito
pfm Member
It's a jury verdict, Mull. Presumably all the films you refer to formed part of the evidence?
So how do you get a jury to take part in a cover up? Or is the jury system OK only if it reaches a conclusion you agree with?
I find it hard to understand how they camre to that verdict, but as I say, I have not heard or seen all the evidence they have. Neither has anybody else on this forum.
Chris
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
Once again: his direct responsibility for Tomlinson's death is not in question (if anything, the trial has confirmed it, there is really no doubt at all now that his push on Tomlinson was the primary cause of death), and the verdict does not exonerate him for the death. But apparently if an on-duty policeman pushes an innocent man over and causes his death this jury think this isn't manslaughter, despite an inquest determining the killing was unlawful. I think that's a stinky judgement. Juries get things wrong, this one clearly did.
Mescalito
pfm Member
Cooky,
I can't give you sources, but on a previous thread on the subject of Tomlinson someone posted links to reports about his previous piss poor behaviour, so it was in the public domain.
Why was it not part of the evidence?
Chris
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
Because it's completely bloody irrelevant. The trial was for manslaughter for his unlawful killing, not for the completely unrelated biographical detail of his life. Unless you think the fact that someone has a drink problem is fair grounds for killing him.
The issues here are really really clear.
Mescalito
pfm Member
Forgive me Bob, I had a rush of shit to the head. It was the cop's background I was refering to, not Tomlinsons.
Chris
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
Ah, OK, I see what you mean. Apparently not, the jury were not informed about Harwood's previous form, for reasons I do not understand.
Mescalito
pfm Member
Being aware of his previous form, I had confidently expected a guilty verdict. I find it astonishing if that info was not put before the jury.
Chris
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
Apparently the judge ruled that they should not be disclosed. Guardian article here, ignore it if you like given the source, but the sad fact is that this stuff is unlikely to be reported properly, if at all, outside a liberal broadsheet:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-disciplinary-proceedings
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-disciplinary-proceedings
Chaps
It was in all senses the best verdict.
I expect the police to protect me, my family and my property. They in turn must be given leeway to do their job. The man did not behave as a model citizen and a reasonable level of force was used to control a wild situation.
It is all very easy to sit in front of a pc delivering your own verdict, but when you are in situ trying to control a rabble, you have to make instant decisions and in this context the policemans actions were appropriate.
The outcome was inevitable.
Mick
It was in all senses the best verdict.
I expect the police to protect me, my family and my property. They in turn must be given leeway to do their job. The man did not behave as a model citizen and a reasonable level of force was used to control a wild situation.
It is all very easy to sit in front of a pc delivering your own verdict, but when you are in situ trying to control a rabble, you have to make instant decisions and in this context the policemans actions were appropriate.
The outcome was inevitable.
Mick
jackbarron
Chelsea, London
It isn't a shock. The evidence presented and the verdict is another example of the police state that the UK is turning into.
Not to worry, G4S are slowly taking over policing.
Jack
Not to worry, G4S are slowly taking over policing.
Jack
Mescalito
pfm Member
I have few problems with the Guardian's news reporting, Bob, merely it's editorial stance.
But back to the subject.
What earthly reason was there for not allowing evidence that was already in the public domain not to be admissable?
I'm no lawyer, but I have a daughter who is one, & I shall be quizzing her on the subject.
On the face of it, a particularly nasty piece of work is out there free to repeat the type of action he obviously enjoys.
I trust the Met have fired the bugger at least?
Chris
sideshowbob
Champagne fascia aficionado
Mick P said:
The inquest concluded that Tomlinson was unlawfully killed by Harwood. Pray explain in what universe it makes sense to describe a killing as "unlawful" yet call the force used to achieve that killing "reasonable"?