advertisement


Tomlinson cop not guilty

Mick P said:
You weren't in the court, the Jury were and you have to respect their verdict.
Click to expand...

Actually, I don't have to. It's a ****ing scandal, although I suspect the whole premise of the case is to blame rather than the jury.
 
That determines whether it was manslaughter or murder.
Click to expand...
No it doesn't. Intention to kill determines murder.

For Harwood to have committed manslaughter his push has to be both unlawful and likely to do harm. I'm guessing (perhaps there will be some reporting tomorrow?) that this case failed on the latter.

Paul
 
Say you pushed someone who was being verbally abusive, they fell over because they were pissed (you didnt know this) , they died because they had a medical condition that you would have no knowledge of. Would you think you deserve to go to prison for manslaughter.
 
Paul R said:
No it doesn't. Intention to kill determines murder.
Click to expand...

That's what I said.

For Harwood to have committed manslaughter his push has to be both unlawful and likely to do harm. I'm guessing (perhaps there will be some reporting tomorrow?) that this case failed on the latter.

Paul
Click to expand...

I fail to see how it wasn't unlawful, and it was clearly going to do harm.
 
Deserve or not, the legal principle is there - I quoted the case, from 1975. The Eggshell Skull principle in negligence was established by Smith v Leech Brain & Co in 1962
 
zener said:
Say you pushed someone who was being verbally abusive, they fell over because they were pissed (you didnt know this) , they died because they had a medical condition that you would have no knowledge of. Would you think you deserve to go to prison for manslaughter.
Click to expand...

Firstly, Ian Tomlinson wasn't being verbally abusive.

Secondly, this is about a cop pushing a civilian.

Thirdly, quite probably yes, like the guy who hit a student in Manchester a few years ago who hit his head on the pavement and died. The guy almost certainly didn't mean to kill him, but the kid died because some knob didn't think through the consequences of his actions. Seems pretty much the same thing to me, except worse because see point 2.
 
That's what I said.
Click to expand...
Of course, I misquoted you. Sorry.

I fail to see how it wasn't unlawful,
Click to expand...
'Reasonable force'. But to me it looks unlawful.

and it was clearly going to do harm.
Click to expand...
I'm older than Tomlinson was. If I'd been assaulted in the same way I wouldn't have fallen, wouldn't have been harmed and certainly wouldn't have died. I'd have been mad as hell, taking photos of the policeman who'd assaulted me and complaining down all available channels. But I wouldn't have been harmed.

To prove manslaughter the prosecution has to prove that the force was excessive, and hence unlawful, and also that it was likely to do harm.

Paul
 
Mick P said:
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
Click to expand...


My God Mick you have surpassed even your usual low standard of logic and argument.

I can't believe you haven't seen the video footage, though if you haven't you are in no position to comment.

1. The man was walking away from the Police Officers.
2. The man had his hands in his pockets.
3. He may or may not have been drunk, but he did not appear in any way disorderly.
4. He clearly presented no credible physical threat to anybody.
5. He was on his own and clearly not a 'rabble'.

So, as he is walking away, our 'hero' the copper decides to lunge at him from behind and beat him about the legs with a stick. That alone is a vicious and uncalled for assault.
Next, our hero pushes the non threatening man with his hands still in his pockets so hard that he is propelled forward and falls to the floor.

Not one of the Police Officers attempts to help him to his feet or to check if he is injured. A member of the public picks Tomlinson up and appears to be remonstrating with, or at least speaking to, the Police, who still stand like dummies.

So, Mick, force was not necessary, and the force used was neither necessary nor reasonable. And an elderly man, walking away, hands in pockets, does not in any sane person's book represent a 'wild situation'.

No wonder Les calls you Blimp. You bloody well ask for it sometimes.

Mull
 
Paul R said:
Of course, I misquoted you. Sorry.


'Reasonable force'. But to me it looks unlawful.


I'm older than Tomlinson was. If I'd been assaulted in the same way I wouldn't have fallen, wouldn't have been harmed and certainly wouldn't have died. I'd have been mad as hell, taking photos of the policeman who'd assaulted me and complaining down all available channels. But I wouldn't have been harmed.

To prove manslaughter the prosecution has to prove that the force was excessive, and hence unlawful, and also that it was likely to do harm.

Paul
Click to expand...

I just lifted this from Wikipedia, so bear that source in mind, but:

"Manslaughter by gross negligence
Under English law, where a person causes death through extreme carelessness or incompetence, gross negligence is required. While the specifics of negligence may vary from one jurisdiction to another, it is generally defined as failure to exercise a reasonable level of precaution given the circumstances and so may include both acts and omissions. The defendants in such cases are often people carrying out jobs that require special skills or care, such as doctors, teachers, police or prison officers, or electricians, who fail to meet the standard which could be expected from a reasonable person of the same profession and cause death. In R v Bateman[7] the Court of Criminal Appeal held that gross negligence manslaughter involved the following elements:
- the defendant owed a duty to the deceased to take care;
- the defendant breached this duty;
- the breach caused the death of the deceased; and
- the defendant's negligence was gross, that is, it showed such a disregard for the life and safety of others as to amount to a crime and deserve punishment.

I still don't see why the footage plus Harwood's own admission of pushing Tomlinson over don't amount to manslaughter. Help, anyone?

Debs
 
Mescalito said:
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
Click to expand...


I suspect that the judges summing up and direction may have had some influence on the jury, but I wasn't there, so I don't know. OTOH, I have seen the man being viciously attacked by a Police Officer in a totally uncalled for fashion and I find it sickening. Even if the man was being verbally abusive, and I believe there is no evidence to that effect, it would have been very simple to arrst him or escort him from the scene without the gratuitous violence inflicted on him.
Even if the cop can escape a manslaughter charge on some technicality, he is clearly guilty of assault and GBH and should never be allowed to serve in any Police Force or similar capacity again.


Mull
 
Mullardman said:
My God Mick you have surpassed even your usual low standard of logic and argument.

I can't believe you haven't seen the video footage, though if you haven't you are in no position to comment.

1. The man was walking away from the Police Officers.
2. The man had his hands in his pockets.
3. He may or may not have been drunk, but he did not appear in any way disorderly.
4. He clearly presented no credible physical threat to anybody.
5. He was on his own and clearly not a 'rabble'.

So, as he is walking away, our 'hero' the copper decides to lunge at him from behind and beat him about the legs with a stick. That alone is a vicious and uncalled for assault.
Next, our hero pushes the non threatening man with his hands still in his pockets so hard that he is propelled forward and falls to the floor.

Not one of the Police Officers attempts to help him to his feet or to check if he is injured. A member of the public picks Tomlinson up and appears to be remonstrating with, or at least speaking to, the Police, who still stand like dummies.

So, Mick, force was not necessary, and the force used was neither necessary nor reasonable. And an elderly man, walking away, hands in pockets, does not in any sane person's book represent a 'wild situation'.

No wonder Les calls you Blimp. You bloody well ask for it sometimes.

Mull
Click to expand...

Mull

You really do need to calm down. My views are in line with that of the Jury, who unlike you, sat through the trail.

Of course, you are so bloody clever that you know better than the Jury.

The circumstances relating to his actions were appropriate and hence the Jury let him off. If you don't like that, then tough.

Mick
 
Paul R said:
I'm older than Tomlinson was. If I'd been assaulted in the same way I wouldn't have fallen, wouldn't have been harmed and certainly wouldn't have died. I'd have been mad as hell, taking photos of the policeman who'd assaulted me and complaining down all available channels. But I wouldn't have been harmed.

To prove manslaughter the prosecution has to prove that the force was excessive, and hence unlawful, and also that it was likely to do harm.

Paul
Click to expand...

I don't know how you can be so sure of that:
[youtube]HECMVdl-9SQ[/youtube]

That looks like a pretty solid push to the lower back to me. Fair enough he doesn't look that steady on his feet, but it's not a 'keep moving' type shove which would have been to the shoulders. That combined with the fact he couldn't see it coming, and I'm not really surprised he fell over.

Besides that, istm that what defines 'reasonable force' ought to account for the fact that the person using the force in this type of situation doesn't actually know anything about the person they are using force on - people can be lighter or heavier than they look, they could already be injured or, as in this case, they could have an underlying medical condition.
 
Mr Pig said:
It isn't really. From a snippet of film like that, with zero context, it's easy to think you know something about what went on but you don't. You don't know anything about what has lead up to those moments, what the police have been dealing with for hours, even what was said between parties at the time.

If we want to repeatedly put police officers in highly stressful situations where they are in harm's way and have to make difficult decisions on the spot it is essential they are given the benefit of the doubt when things go wrong. If we start sending policemen to jail every time they make a mistake pretty soon you'll have big problems getting anyone with a brain to do the job. They're doing a hard job and you need to cut them a bit of slack.

Yes, a man died, yes, that is tragic but in bad situations sometimes bad things happen. The policeman is not a murderer. He had no intention of killing the guy. Under normal circumstances shoving someone would not result in their death. The police officer could not have known about Tomlinson's health issues and perhaps did not pick up on the fact he had his hands in his pockets. He made a split-second mistake in a highly-charged situation and to talk about him as if he were a murderer is disgusting.

It's easy to take the high ground and rain down condemnation on policemen or soldiers whenever they get it wrong but perhaps before you do you should ask yourself if you'd do their job? Would you take the risks they take, the abuse they take, walk the tightrope they walk? Because if you've never done it and are not prepared to I reckon you should shut the **** up about things you know nothing about.
Click to expand...

I am not anti Police.

You can try all you like to rationalise this issue and to excuse the Police Officer in question, but you will not succeed.
I am totally aware that in stressful situations and especially when directly threatened, Police Officers have to make snap decisions and can get them wrong on occasion.
However, there is no way that the situation on film can be interpreted as threatening to the officer who assaulted Tomlinson. Tomlinson was walking away and was attacked from behind. I don't care if he was chanting 'All Coppers Are Bastards' under his breath, there was no, repeat no excuse for the attack. And let's be clear here. It was an attack. There was nothing whatever that could be interpreted as reasonable, or defensive about it. It was a deliberate assault.

The Police are supposedly trained to react rationally under extreme provocation. Note that only one officer assaulted Tomlinson and he wasn't even the one closest to Tomlinson. If there was any provocation at all (and I don't believe there is any evidence of it) it was only verbal and therefore, again a violent assault was unnecessary and reprehensible.

You are defending the indefensible. The Police are not always right.

Mull
 
sean99 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Right. So because he is a Copper, he is not capable of manslaughter?

Mull
 
Mull

Nobody cares what you think. The only people who counted were the Jury.

All you are doing is sitting in front of your pc trying to put the world to rights which is dead easy to do.

Crime is not a clean thing and sometimes we have to let the police act less than clean.

Mick
 
Anex said:
The fact he didn't expect a person to die from being pushed is irrelevant. The point is he went straight in and pushed the guy, hard, whilst he was walking away without any legitimate reason for doing so.
Click to expand...

Spot on.

Mull
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top