Tomlinson cop not guilty
- Thread starter cooky1257
- Start date
Pete the Feet
pfm Member
Mr Pig, are you a er Policeman by any chance?
Mr Pig has actually stated a very valid point.
I don't think the plod intended to cause serious injury, though it is quite obvious his temprement renders him quite unsuitable for the job.
sean99
pfm Member
I agree. It seems that this copper should be fired and permanently barred from police employment, but to stick a manslaughter charge on him with jail time seems like a bit of a stretch.
Tigerjones
Bagpuss
No pun intended.
cooky1257
pfm Member
Well we really do have some extremists on here. Mick and Pig's posts point to a South American dictatorship view of reasonable policing.
This guy has falsified records, lied, thumped, attacked an AA man and was selected for SPG duties.
'The question from Mark Dennis QC, the prosecution barrister, seemed innocuous enough: could he name the methods open to police during a hypothetical public order situation if they wanted to move someone, such as Ian Tomlinson, who was seen to be an obstruction?
Harwood, dressed as throughout the trial in a crisp, dark suit, paused briefly and leaned slightly forward in the witness box. You could use a baton strike to the arm or leg, he began, going on to list, in order, a push, a kick or punch, CS spray, or handcuffs. As Tomlinson's family bristled, he finally gave the option of a vocal request.
"You have gone straight to violence, force," noted a visibly surprised Dennis. "No, I have gone for reasonable force," Harwood responded.
Seemingly oblivious to the reaction in the courtroom, the policeman went on to cite other possible tactics a firearm, a shove from a riot shield, or a "life-threatening strike". By the time he finished the list several of Tomlinson's children had stormed out in horror.'
This guy has falsified records, lied, thumped, attacked an AA man and was selected for SPG duties.
'The question from Mark Dennis QC, the prosecution barrister, seemed innocuous enough: could he name the methods open to police during a hypothetical public order situation if they wanted to move someone, such as Ian Tomlinson, who was seen to be an obstruction?
Harwood, dressed as throughout the trial in a crisp, dark suit, paused briefly and leaned slightly forward in the witness box. You could use a baton strike to the arm or leg, he began, going on to list, in order, a push, a kick or punch, CS spray, or handcuffs. As Tomlinson's family bristled, he finally gave the option of a vocal request.
"You have gone straight to violence, force," noted a visibly surprised Dennis. "No, I have gone for reasonable force," Harwood responded.
Seemingly oblivious to the reaction in the courtroom, the policeman went on to cite other possible tactics a firearm, a shove from a riot shield, or a "life-threatening strike". By the time he finished the list several of Tomlinson's children had stormed out in horror.'
sean99
pfm Member
Arf.
Cav
pfm Member
There is no doubt that Tomlinson was hit once with a baton and pushed over. The problem with this case is that the charge against Harwood would never result in a conviction. Who would reasonably expect that pushing someone would inevitably lead to that person falling over and would lead to that person's death?
Similarly, the acquittal of the 8 people following the death of 3 men hit by a car during the Birmingham riots is hardly surprising - again the wrong charges brought. Not sure there is a thread about that here though?
Similarly, the acquittal of the 8 people following the death of 3 men hit by a car during the Birmingham riots is hardly surprising - again the wrong charges brought. Not sure there is a thread about that here though?
Pete the Feet
pfm Member
I don't think such a serious injury was intended. Manslaughter was never going to stick, so that was perhaps why it was brought.
A charge of GBH or ABH should have been used which would have knowingly had a better chance of conviction.
A charge of GBH or ABH should have been used which would have knowingly had a better chance of conviction.
Cav
pfm Member
In law that is at the heart of the matter.
dynodebs
/°\
Not quite. We have enough legal bods on PFM to clarify, but, criminal law is v similar to tort in this respect - the eggshell skull principle, or, you take your victim as you find him.
"In criminal law, the general maxim is that the defendant must "take their victims as they find them", a quotation from the judgment of Lord Justice Lawton in R v. Blaue (1975),"
quote from Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eggshell_skull
So, if you damage someone and they have an underlying 'weakness' which you could not have seen or foreseen, tough on you. And that is exactly as it ought to be. You wallop someone, you take all the consequences of that.
I am still puzzling why Harwood got that verdict, but maybe someone who has some legal knowledge and who followed the trial more assiduously could shed some light on this.
Cav
pfm Member
Not guilty of manslaughter - that is the verdict whatever his reasons.
paulfromcamden
Baffled
For me the point is also that the Met lied repeatedly to the public following Tomlinson's death.
Harwood clearly was/is unfit to serve as a policeman but rather than deal with that the police closed ranks to protect him. It's not 'one bad apple' that's rotten - the entire organisation believes itself to be above the law.
Cav
pfm Member
Still
he said his naim was ralph
Ian Tomlinson: what jury didn't know about Pc Simon Harwood: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukn...t-jury-didnt-know-about-Pc-Simon-Harwood.html
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
The P.C is a thug with previous form and that's only what he's been caught for. The Met are already publicly confessing to a screw up in employing him. The pay out is getting bigger by the minute.
TheDecameron
Unicorns fart glitter.
Have G4S approached him yet?