advertisement


Tomlinson cop not guilty

Tony L said:
<moderating>

Abuse removed, Mick wins the week's holiday.
Click to expand...

Well, it's your website ..........but

.........having seen Mick's response to what was a really abusive post, I am astonished that its Mick who wins a week's holiday.

I suspect a jury might have come to a different conclusion.

Cheers

Don
 
Don Atkinson said:
Well, it's your website ..........but

.........having seen Mick's response to what was a really abusive post, I am astonished that its Mick who wins a week's holiday.

I suspect a jury might have come to a different conclusion.
Click to expand...


The correct response is to report the post / contact a moderator. Mick knows this, he's been told enough times. Hurling personal insult is against the AUP, hurling the same insult after a moderator warning can only really have one outcome. It's not too bright, that's for sure.

PS I'll prune this all back later to keep the thread on-topic.
 
Don Atkinson said:
I was merely trying to help you develop an open mind. I failed.

Cheers

Don
Click to expand...

You asked me to consider my feelings if someone related to me had been jailed for manslaughter/the actions we witnessed, that same fictional person I would assume would also have the same violent streak as displayed by the real one's previous record. Bad bastard, deserved to go down imho.
 
markb65 said:
Has the other poster been banned as well?
Click to expand...

None of your business, but no, he didn't repeat / escalate the incident. Not heeding moderation is an excellent exit strategy.

PS you (and your sparring partner) came *very* close today - I can read user-deleted posts!
 
Tony L said:
None of your business, but no, he didn't repeat / escalate the incident. Not heeding moderation is an excellent exit strategy.

PS you (and your sparring partner) came *very* close today - I can read user-deleted posts!
Click to expand...

Lol. Like Harwood he threw the first blow; I just didn't fall down.
 
I can read user-deleted posts!
Click to expand...
That's only the half of it. The mods can see what you were wearing when you posted!

Man, if we had a nickel every time someone posted in their pink pants we'd have $14.85 by now.

Joe
 
cooky1257 said:
You asked me to consider my feelings if someone related to me had been jailed for manslaughter/the actions we witnessed, that same fictional person I would assume would also have the same violent streak as displayed by the real one's previous record. Bad bastard, deserved to go down imho.
Click to expand...

No, I didn't.

I suggested that if a close relative of yours had been found innocent by a jury, but you considered that relative to be guilty, you would move heavan and earth to have that relative incarcerated. Obviously you would, was my preliminary conclusion.

Cheers

Don

C
 
The law is an ass as usual. On the one hand he is found to have been unlawfully killed, but the person who struck him is then not guilty. So who did the killing which was unlawful?
Click to expand...
The law isn't, in this case, an ass.

Both juries can be right, Harwood's assault was unlawful and Tomlinson died as a direct result. Unlawful killing. But does it amount to manslaughter? Which requires both an unlawful assault and an intent and expectation of harm.

Paul
 
Paul R said:
The law isn't, in this case, an ass.

Both juries can be right, Harwood's assault was unlawful and Tomlinson died as a direct result. Unlawful killing. But does it amount to manslaughter? Which requires both an unlawful assault and an intent and expectation of harm.

Paul
Click to expand...
I don't believe intent or expectation is required. Happy to be corrected, bu wouldn't intent fall into the classification of Murder?

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/h_to_k/homicide_murder_and_manslaughter/#manslaughter

"Unlawful Act Manslaughter

This is where the killing is the result of:

- the defendant's unlawful act (not omission);
- where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183;
- whether or not the defendant realised this.

The act need not be directed against a person (e.g. arson) - see R v Willoughby (2005) 1 WLR 1880.

The knowledge attributed to the sober and reasonable person is that which such a person would acquire as an observer of the whole course of the defendant's conduct throughout the unlawful act: R v Watson (1989) 2 All ER 865, R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, R v Carey and others (2006) EWCA Crim 17."
 
Joe P said:
That's only the half of it. The mods can see what you were wearing when you posted!

Man, if we had a nickel every time someone posted in their pink pants we'd have $14.85 by now.

Joe
Click to expand...
Works two ways, Joe. By the way, those Star Trek pyjamas are very fetching.
(pity they're Janeways):D
 
I should rephrase. I was thinking on the basis that Harwood would realise the likelihood of physical harm, being ostensibly sober and reasonable, and therefore would have intended it.

Paul
 
Greg said:
I don't believe intent or expectation is required. Happy to be corrected, bu wouldn't intent fall into the classification of Murder?

"Unlawful Act Manslaughter

This is where the killing is the result of:

- the defendant's unlawful act (not omission);
- where the unlawful act is one which all sober and reasonable people would realise would subject the victim to the risk of some physical harm resulting there from, albeit not serious harm R v Williams and Davis (1992) 2 All ER 183;
- whether or not the defendant realised this.

The knowledge attributed to the sober and reasonable person is that which such a person would acquire as an observer of the whole course of the defendant's conduct throughout the unlawful act: R v Watson (1989) 2 All ER 865, R v Dawson (1985) 81 Cr App R 150, R v Carey and others (2006) EWCA Crim 17."
Click to expand...

That might explain why CPS went with a manslaughter indictment, but clearly the jury did not buy it, and in my opinion in this case a jury never would.
 
Paul R said:
I should rephrase. I was thinking on the basis that Harwood would realise the likelihood of physical harm, being ostensibly sober and reasonable, and therefore would have intended it.

Paul
Click to expand...

If you push someone, do you assume he will fall over? If he does, do you assume that he will suffer some harm?
 
Tony L said:
The correct response is to report the post / contact a moderator. Mick knows this, he's been told enough times. Hurling personal insult is against the AUP, hurling the same insult after a moderator warning can only really have one outcome. It's not too bright, that's for sure.

PS I'll prune this all back later to keep the thread on-topic.
Click to expand...

Presumably someone pushed him. That person should therefore be charged with week'sholidayslaughter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.


advertisement


Back
Top