Tomlinson cop not guilty

[dynodebs]

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

You may want to live in a totalitarian state where the enforcers of law can dish out their own form of rough justice with impunity, but most of us don't, Mick.

 

[Mick P]

You may want to live in a totalitarian state where the enforcers of law can dish out their own form of rough justice with impunity, but most of us don't, Mick.

Nobody cares what you think, they only care what the Jury think. All you are doing is spouting hot air.

 

[Tigerjones]

According to the Jury, none.

I was referring to your statement - Crime is not a clean thing and sometimes we have to let the police act less than clean. I wasn't talking about the copper.

 

[markb65]

It's the same everywhere. Luckily this guy lived.

 

[Paul R]

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

This isn't gross negligence. I think.

The big scandal here is why the MPS are re-employing policemen over whom there are reasonable concerns as to suitability.

Paul

 

[dynodebs]

Nobody cares what you think, they only care what the Jury think. All you are doing is spouting hot air.

Sez you!

PS: you talk such rot that it's almost a pleasure to be insulted by you

 

[Mick P]

I was referring to your statement - Crime is not a clean thing and sometimes we have to let the police act less than clean. I wasn't talking about the copper.

The only relevant crime was the alleged and unproven crime committed by the copper.

 

[Mullardman]

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

Mick, you really need to shut up on this one. You have zero understanding of it and you are embarrassing yourself.

Your views are not in line with the jury. They acquitted the cop of manslaughter. You approve of his actions. Two very different things.

'Let him off'? FFS Mick, this isn't a schoolyard spat. A man died.

I've already explained why the assault on Tomlinson was unwarranted. Most here agree with me. Also the PC involved was a known bully and general arsehole.

If you wish to align yourself with him, you can expect to gather opprobrium here.

Mull

 

[dynodebs]

This isn't gross negligence. I think.

The big scandal here is why the MPS are re-employing policemen over whom there are reasonable concerns as to suitability.

Paul

Why not? He clearly owes a duty of care, since he was acting in his capacity as a police officer. I can't see that recklessness or criminal negligence would apply.

And you're right about the re-employment. The really scary bit is that he's trained to carry a gun, and has admitted to 'red mist' moments in previous disciplinary matters.

 

[Mick P]

Mick, you really need to shut up on this one. You have zero understanding of it and you are embarrassing yourself.

Your views are not in line with the jury. They acquitted the cop of manslaughter. You approve of his actions. Two very different things.

'Let him off'? FFS Mick, this isn't a schoolyard spat. A man died.

I've already explained why the assault on Tomlinson was unwarranted. Most here agree with me. Also the PC involved was a known bully and general arsehole.

If you wish to align yourself with him, you can expect to gather opprobrium here.

Mull

Mull

You are just spouting hot air, the Jury excused the policeman and quite correctly let him off. You have to respect the Jurys decision.

Like I said, your views count for nothing. As it so happens, my view is also irrelevant as I was not on the Jury.

Mick

 

[pure sound]

Was he a mason?

 

[Paul R]

I don't know how you can be so sure of that:

It's a supposition from watching the video. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't have been harmed from that assault.

I think we should be happy that a jury looked at the evidence, thought very hard for several days and then took the controversial decision to acquit. It shows the jury system is working.

Paul

 

[Paul R]

He clearly owes a duty of care, since he was acting in his capacity as a police officer.

If he'd arrested the man, put him in a cell, and then let him asphyxiate, that would have been gross negligence. The duty of care would have been established by the arrest. Harwood's assault on Tomlinson wasn't negligent, it was an assault. If it was unlawful assault and likely to cause harm, then there's a case for manslaughter.

But IANAL.

Paul

 

[Greg]

Nobody cares what you think, they only care what the Jury think. All you are doing is spouting hot air.

not actually true, Mick.

 

[Mullardman]

Mull

You are just spouting hot air, the Jury excused the policeman and quite correctly let him off. You have to respect the Jurys decision.

Like I said, your views count for nothing. As it so happens, my view is also irrelevant as I was not on the Jury.

Mick

Mick,for the last time. They did not 'excuse' him. nor did they 'Let him off'

For some unfathomable reason, they decided that his clear and unwarranted assault on an innocent and non threatening man did not constitute Manslaughter. That does not mean he was right to act as he did, or is innocent. He's a twat and a bully and I would happily tell him so to his face.

Mull

 

[Mick P]

Mick,for the last time. They did not 'excuse' him. nor did they 'Let him off'

For some unfathomable reason, they decided that his clear and unwarranted assault on an innocent and non threatening man did not constitute Manslaughter. That does not mean he was right to act as he did, or is innocent. He's a twat and a bully and I would happily tell him so to his face.

Mull

Yes yes yes.

He is probably down the pub tonight celebrating.

 

[Tigerjones]

Yes yes yes.

He is probably down the pub tonight celebrating.

Regardless of anything else he has to spend the rest of his days knowing his actions caused a man to die. Not sure that's worth celebrating.

 

[Mr Pig]

I'm not really surprised he fell over.

Neither am I. I think that a lot of people would have fallen over. I was going to say that I think I would have but I remembered an incident where a guy jump-kicked me on the back and I didn't.

I think the police officer was too heavy-handed. He probably is a bit too short-tempered for the job. But, to repeat myself, we weren't there and some of you seem to be making no attempt to think through the situation from the officer's perspective.

Tomlinson, just an innocent man trying to get home from work. Did the police know that? They've spent hours dealing with hundreds of people who are there for very different reasons. If you are aware of how protesters often operate they are frequently belligerent, uncooperative and are happy to lie to the police in attempts to evade sanction. They also are not above deliberately provoking the police, by action or inaction in order to stop the police from exercising control over them or to gain a reaction that gives them fuel for accusations.

Is it not possible, in fact likely, that the officer in question assumed Tomlinsen was just another protester who was being deliberately uncooperative? He was being uncooperative, no doubt because he was fed up about not being able to walk home. The police had been dealing with uncooperative people for hours, how could they possibly know this one was different?

So he's frustrated, they're frustrated and the cop makes a bad call based on a misreading of the situation. You've never done anything like that?

Thankfully for most of us such situations are hopefully rare. If we think there is trouble brewing we'll try to avoid it. And this is why the rules for the police and the rules for us are not the same. They are just people like the rest of us. They're not supermen and women. Yes, they get training but they'll still make mistakes. Given how often they are put in highly charged and confrontational situations it is unfair to expect them to carry off every one perfectly. Will you forgive yourself for that time when you failed to defuse the conflict with your neighbour, that guy down the pub, that other motorist, yet condemn a police officer who deals with fifty similar situations every week when he gets one wrong?

I suggest the judge understands this and so did the jury.

You may want to live in a totalitarian state where the enforcers of law can dish out their own form of rough justice with impunity, but most of us don't

Who is saying that? You sound like a protester! ;0)

 

[Greg]

Well the protests were very peaceful with protestors being treated like shit, so not a huge mitigation.

On the other hand it seems Harwood has form for getting physical and the jury were not allowed to know this. So the jury let him off, but he probably is the c un t he appears to be; probably.

 

[Mullardman]

Neither am I. I think that a lot of people would have fallen over. I was going to say that I think I would have but I remembered an incident where a guy jump-kicked me on the back and I didn't.

I think the police officer was too heavy-handed. He probably is a bit too short-tempered for the job. But, to repeat myself, we weren't there and some of you seem to be making no attempt to think through the situation from the officer's perspective.

Tomlinson, just an innocent man trying to get home from work. Did the police know that? They've spent hours dealing with hundreds of people who are there for very different reasons. If you are aware of how protesters often operate they are frequently belligerent, uncooperative and are happy to lie to the police in attempts to evade sanction. They also are not above deliberately provoking the police, by action or inaction in order to stop the police from exercising control over them or to gain a reaction that gives them fuel for accusations.

Is it not possible, in fact likely, that the officer in question assumed Tomlinsen was just another protester who was being deliberately uncooperative? He was being uncooperative, no doubt because he was fed up about not being able to walk home. The police had been dealing with uncooperative people for hours, how could they possibly know this one was different?

So he's frustrated, they're frustrated and the cop makes a bad call based on a misreading of the situation. You've never done anything like that?

Thankfully for most of us such situations are hopefully rare. If we think there is trouble brewing we'll try to avoid it. And this is why the rules for the police and the rules for us are not the same. They are just people like the rest of us. They're not supermen and women. Yes, they get training but they'll still make mistakes. Given how often they are put in highly charged and confrontational situations it is unfair to expect them to carry off every one perfectly. Will you forgive yourself for that time when you failed to defuse the conflict with your neighbour, that guy down the pub, that other motorist, yet condemn a police officer who deals with fifty similar situations every week when he gets one wrong?

I suggest the judge understands this and so did the jury.

You are still missing the point.

Nobody, and that includes Police Officers, is entitled to use force against another unless that force is both 'reasonable' and 'necessary'.

No force was necessary against Tomlinson since he clearly did not constitute a threat. For the same reasons, no force was reasonable. If any of the officers thought he was a problem, he could have been arrested without force. None of the several officers surrounding sought to arrest Tomlinson. One officer, who was neither under attack or threat by Tomlinson, chose to attack him from behind. That was an unwarranted assault which resulted in Tomlinson's death.

How hard is that to understand?

Mull