Forum menu
Why did the cps wait so long
I'm not 100% sure, but if the victim is already dead I don't think you can prosecute someone for a common assault immediately, and then later prosecute for manslaughter for the same incident. So if they'd gone for the assault charge they'd have got a conviction, but couldn't then have prosecuted for manslaughter even if the medical evidence had been in better shape. I'm not sure anyone would have welcomed that outcome particularly, although with hindsight it would have been an improvement.
Just like life there are all sorts of people in the Police force some good, some bad. What is different though is that in the Police your decisions will have outcomes way beyond those in most peoples jobs. What is also different is that their actions are routinely scrutinsied by independant external organisations. Generally I'm comfortable with that, especially when I don't want to do their job myself. Likewise I'm comfortable with those who abuse their position to face the penalties for theior actions just like everyone else has to. Thats does appear to be the case here.
Regarding Tomlinson, the investigation has taken a great deal of time and trouble to review all of the evidence, (not just that which suits a particular bias), and has come to a reasoned conclusion. Personally I'm on the side that says if something looks like its going to be trouble then its probably good sense to go the other way. Tomlinson didn't and to that extent, and perhaps due to his alcoholism put himself into harms way. Not right to die for that error of judgement, but definately didn't help himself.
Regarding Moat. There is no comparision. Mad, bad or sad, he has killed, maimed and brutalised viciously and without justification. Once more I don't want me or mine to have to deal with that, and I'm gald that there are people who are prepared to put themselves at risk to do so on my behalf. They will be fully investigated as a matter of course, which is also right and proper. Good luck to them, and I hope that they come away unscathed in every sense should they deserve to.
It isn't legal to hit people just because they're pissed.
that's what I figured, but the fact that he was pissed might have led to him being hit.
but I guess that would be discussed if the case had gone to court rather than using it as a decision to prosecute.
.
in my opinion, the main problem here is the 6 month rule, I wonder how this came about and what the basis for it is...
It is legal to use force to move someone willfully obstructing the police though...
I've watched for more than 20 yrs the police serving the community to serving their own ends.
I've watched the police body slam into the ground suspect who have surrendered and are standing with their hands raised,PC plod then slams into them because it seems a suspect standing up is a risk and the only way to reduce it is to have their suspect lying face down with their hands cuffed behind them[usually in a stress position]
I do blame the Government for some of these changes but the police tactics themselves must take most of the blame
Kettling.Against the European human rights ruling,but the police still do it and despite their denials has been proven by several highstanding HR lawyers and broadsheet journalists
So they break human rights and are aware they are doing so.This suggests that they would break other human rights laws if instructed to 😕
"Just following orders Guv"
Highly trained armed response teams that cant distinguish between a Glock and umbrella and a table leg,and believe a man with a knife is of such great danger to the armed officer to justify shooting him from 30yrds away,what is he going to do?? Throw it! 😯
Police tactic
Why bust a drug dealer?,that only gives you one arrest statistic
Sit just down the road and bust the customers as they come out gives you a whole raft of arrests and helps meet set targets without having to do that much[and every junkie busted still needs his fix so will probably commit another crime to pay for it
Dearer still operating and for every junkie with his stuff taken off him is an extra crime is commited.
Dont start me on them using WHATEVER legislation to justify their actions
Busting grannies on some terrorist laws,preventing journalists from reporting using the same laws
Give the beat cop guns and theyll only use it to kill first ask questions later,we see this with the tazer.suspect on the ground wont stop struggling,tazer the ****er,that will sort him out.
Report a crime and get involved
Not bloody likely
I am confirdent enough in my ability to avoid a situation like this. As i said, i would rather take my chances of this happening to me and a less restrained police force doing a good job.
the fact that he was pissed might have led to him being hit
It has literally no bearing on whether it was legitimate to hit him. Police officers can hit people for pretty much the same reasons you and I can. I'm sure the officer was annoyed by Mr Tomlinson, and no doubt the fact (if such it is) that Tomlinson was the worse for wear contributed to that. But the issue is whether the actions of PC "A" were legally justified. The CPS conclusion is that:
At the time of those acts, Mr Tomlinson did not pose a threat to PC 'A' or any other police officer. Whilst the officer was entitled to require Mr Tomlinson to move out of Royal Exchange, there is sufficient evidence to provide a realistic prospect of proving that his actions were disproportionate and unjustified.
As i said, i would rather take my chances of this happening to me and a less restrained police force doing a good job.
Well i can only hope an unrestrained copper beats some sense in to you or gets carried away and removes you from the gene pool.
Lets all have a round of applause for Hobo for his undoubted abilities.
And his charm
[applauds]
[claps slowly]
Ok, ready for a bit of a flaming but here goes...
First time today i have seen the footage of Mr Tomlinson and as far as I see it:
1. He was clearly not listening to the Police and walking around like a little school boy deliberately going slowly to provoke them.
2. Police officer pushes him to move him on and he falls over
3. Don't see any use of a baton or being smacked with this, was just a shuve.
Its a tragic event but if the fall was accountable for Mr Tomlinsons death then it looks very apparent that it was unintentional and a tragic accident.
Personally I'm on the side that says if something looks like its going to be trouble then its probably good sense to go the other way. Tomlinson didn't and to that extent, and perhaps due to his alcoholism put himself into harms way. Not right to die for that error of judgement, but definately didn't help himself.
Bloody hell, this was just a protest, they happen all the bloody time in London. It was a bunch of grumpy hippies, and a load of police. It was bang in the middle of London in the day. It wasn't like he wandered into a dodgy estate in Elephant & Castle at 3am in the morning and moaned that he got mugged. The very supposed professionals that were supposed to keep him safe actually decided to beat him up, and the evidence suggests there wasn't any provocation even (not that a police officer beating someone to death is justified even with provocation obviously).
Regarding Tomlinson, the investigation has taken a great deal of time and trouble to review all of the evidence, (not just that which suits a particular bias), and has come to a reasoned conclusion.
The reasoned conclusion it came to is that the police officer involved was blatantly guilty of assault, but that due to legal complications they couldn't get him on that, and was quite likely guilty of manslaughter, but they didn't have a chance of conviction, due to the medical experts disagreeing. That is hardly saying the police are squeaky clean.
Haha, i dont need your sympathy. And you wont get my sympathy when the police fail to turn up when you are getting bum raped by big bubba in some dark alley whilst your wife is getting a portion off 5 other gang mates. All because they are scared to respond in case someone is watching them on video and claims they were a little heavy handed when they acosted the rather horny fellows
Right, the point where you lost me, and I just thought what an unfeeling scumbag bastard you must be, was the point where you equated police brutality on innocent bystanders at a (not very violent otherwise) protest, to police handling of rapists in dark alleys. It is really depressing that anyone can really think that the job police are supposed to do at protests is in any way similar to the job police are supposed to do when responding to a violent crime.
Joe
Can anyone ever recall a high profile case of brutality/excessive force/ unlawful killing that has actually gone against the police ?
They usually just get away with it don't they ?
I'm a bit concerned about why The Littlest Hobo has imagined such a horrible scenario, actually. Do you fantasise about situations like that a lot?
Lunchtime over. Back to the grindstone.
so they didn't baton him eh?
[url] http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/video/2009/apr/08/g20-police-assault-ian-tomlinson-video [/url]
erm......
I was going on this video which shows no baton.
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274 ]BBC News[/url]
Interesting, they choose not to proceed because autopsy's 2 & 3 (which apparently agreed with each other) did not agree with the findings of the first autopsy.
Seems a genuine basis for not being able to secure a conviction, until you consider that autopsy number 1 was performed by a possibly-soon-to-be-discredited coroner...
You'd have at least thought they'd wait for the findings of the GMC hearing?
[i]I'm a bit concerned about why The Littlest Hobo has imagined such a horrible scenario, actually. Do you fantasise about situations like that a lot?[/i]
Actually because another person (Who i respect) used a similar example when discussing another topic with me on another site. It made me think again about my comments and discuss the matter without my blinkers on. It didnt work on this site but then i should have known that. If you can move on from the comment my point remains. The police are in a no win situation i dont believe all this over analysing of incidents is good for future policing.
How often do we get threads on here about the police using motoring convictions as easy policing and cash earners? Maybe its because actually getting there hands dirty brings with it a very high risk of being held accountable.
I would prefer everything to be honest and above board, but i dont live in a world like that. I live in a world where people are only out for themselves and if they can work the system to their own advantages then they will. The police need a little slack to be able to effectively police it.
If you just want to dwell on the comment i made, well there you go
[i]Right, the point where you lost me, and I just thought what an unfeeling scumbag bastard you must be, was the point where you equated police brutality on innocent bystanders at a (not very violent otherwise) protest, to police handling of rapists in dark alleys. It is really depressing that anyone can really think that the job police are supposed to do at protests is in any way similar to the job police are supposed to do when responding to a violent crime.
Joe
[/i]
If i was a fellow police officer i would be questioning my own actions in everything i did. If someone was in a rape situation i would therefore question my actions before jumping in. What i was getting at is that as a civilised citizen i want my police force to have an element of act first, think later.
Ok, better example. How many reports have we seen of police watching people drown because health and safety reasons wont allow them to jump in after the person. In the old days the policeman would be getting commendations for bravery. These days he would get a written warning.
We cant have it both ways.
[i]In the old days the policeman would be getting commendations for bravery[/i]
or going home in a box with a medal pinned to it anyway, which is what the rules are there to prevent.
If you can move on from the comment my point remains.
No, it doesn't. In your scenario, a crime is being committed, people are in danger. In Mr Tomlinson's case, no crime was being committed. Mr Tomlinson was not part of some "feral society" that needed Judge Dredd style summary justice meting out to it, he was just a bit annoying and in the way. Sophisticated policing ought to be able to discriminate between two such different situations. Stopping a violent rape taking place is always going to be a legitimate use of force, and there is considerable latitude to use quite a lot of force. Lashing out at someone who isn't committing a crime and poses no threat does not assist in any sane objective of policing.
What do you think a police force is [i]for[/i] that "over-analysis" of a blatant assault on a member of the public hinders it doing its job?
Interesting, they choose not to proceed because autopsy's 2 & 3 (which apparently agreed with each other) did not agree with the findings of the first autopsy.Seems a genuine basis for not being able to secure a conviction, until you consider that autopsy number 1 was performed by a possibly-soon-to-be-discredited coroner...
Have you read the report? Both the second and third autopsy based their findings on a mistake in the report of the first autopsy. There is no evidence of an abdominal haemorrhage.
There are other aspects of the whole police attitude to peaceful protests that are deeply worrying. This just highlights the extremes. It is law that the police have to display their numbers on their uniform so they can be individually identified. The police involved in protests have taken to removing them as a matter of course.
Now.... what legitmate reason can they have for doing this? Unless its to avoid being identified? And I'm sorry... but the Ian Tomlinson case is the inevitable result of all this. We have a poice force that now thinks its above the law and can opporate however it likes with complete impunity.
Todays decision just reinforces that impression to every serving officer. Zero accountability to the public they are allegedly there to 'serve'
How many reports have we seen of police watching people drown because health and safety reasons wont allow them to jump in after the person
Er... None that I recall though I'm sure that one could be dug up. H&S is generally used as an excuse not to do things rather than being the real reason. Eg quite understandably, a Policeman might choose not to do something really risky to save someone even though in a perfect world, they may be brave enough to do it irrespective.
[i]Sophisticated policing[/i]
pmsl.
And at what point do you think we are capable of this?
We are a near bankrupt country
We have a police force which will take a selection of our society which has already proven itself to be less than moral
We limit our police at every oppertunity
We prosecute our police at every oppertunity
We then expect them to be sophisticated.
Yeah right, ok then.
[i]In the old days the policeman would be getting commendations for bravery
or going home in a box with a medal pinned to it anyway, which is what the rules are there to prevent.[/i]
You roll your dice you take your chances. As someone pointed out earlier, if that was your child drowning, which way would you prefer the policeman to act.
Have you swallowed a copy of the Daily Mail or something? There is not some terrible "PC/Human Rights/Liberal/Elf'n'safety" agenda that must be taken as a whole or rejected entirely. It's a false dichotomy.
To my mind, there's no reason why the police should be shoving anyone over for dawdling along in front of them. If he's committing a crime, then they can nick him. If not, leave him alone. I think most people feel that way about the Police. They want people who aren't committing crimes to be left alone.
On the other hand, the police would be perfectly within their rights to use physical force in the event of a violent attack against a person, as would you or I. These eventualities are covered under our existing law.
It's not an either / or situation where we can have efficient policing or we can have human rights. There is a trade off, much as there is between surveillance and security. Anyone presenting the argument that we can only have one or the other is very wide of the mark.
[i]Er... None that I recall though I'm sure that one could be dug up[/i]
You have got to be kidding. I read about it all the time. Police/fireman refused to help due to risks to their own safety (ie health & safety)
On the other hand, binners, I think you're being quite hysterical about it all. If Tomlinson had been shown to have died as a result of the Policeman's actions (say, he'd fallen, broken a rib, punctured lung, etc - extreme but possible) by a coroner's report then the outcome would have been quite different. I suspect that the police will be quite aware of that. As BD explained, while it doesn't seem right, the legal processes we have in place meant that [b]in this case[/b] the policeman got away with it. In many others, he'd have been done for assault or potentially something more serious.
Links please Hobo. Otherwise it's just Daily Mail type hysteria over H&S.
Link doesn't work for me.
I searched myself and found two examples (oddly enough, both in the Mail...) that seemed to be the main ones (eg I found the same stories a few times)
http://www.****/news/article-1165634/Girl-5-loses-fight-life-house-killed-family-police-held-neighbours-desperate-help.html
http://www.****/news/article-1247048/Health-safety-stopped-police-saving-drunk-man-killed-motorway.html
I didn't find loads of them though, certainly not enough to read about them all the time unless you were endlessly repeating the same story to suit your own agenda.
Further searching found the article below which I reckon is about right.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/georgepitcher/100026591/its-not-health-safety-that-holds-back-todays-police-its-cowardice/
The whole g20/tomlinson issue goes to the heart of how we are policed in the 21st century.
As far back as 2004 the Met were in the shite for hiding their ID numbers at protests in London and the use of kettling to disrupt and fragment largely peaceful protests has been in use for a least a decade. I think that the underlying reason for the attack on IT was the orders from Whitehall to the police to ensure that the protest was actively and agressively managed to prevent negative publicity in the shadow of the summit taking place down the road.
The police on the ground will follow orders, the question that will now stay unanswered is who told them to do what on that day.
We then expect them to be sophisticated.Yeah right, ok then.
Sorry, I've now completely lost Hobo's point. As I now understand it, the police should be allowed to hit innocent people without being prosecuted, because if they can't there's no possible way they could be expected to stop gang rapes. It is impossible (despite the fact that 99% of them do all the time) to expect police officers to respond appropriately to different situations. This unpalatable situation is [i]caused[/i] by the recent financial crisis, and also by the fact that policemen are generally immoral.
I think the applause was premature, the encore is just getting better.
Sorry, I've now completely lost Hobo's point.
a comment made pricipally to insult based on a flawed argument now defended to the death seems to be a starter?
To be honest, I'm mostly upset that he's tainting my memory of a wonderful television programme.
[quote> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2512401.ece
So no story about [b]Police Officers[/b] not rescuing drowning people then. Talk about a misleading headline 🙄
This unpalatable situation is caused by the recent financial crisis, and also by the fact that policemen are generally immoral.
WTF? How do you come to that conclusion?
Why did the cps wait so longI'm not 100% sure, but if the victim is already dead I don't think you can prosecute someone for a common assault immediately, and then later prosecute for manslaughter for the same incident.
Apologies, a criminal barrister has now put me right on this. He tells me that the CPS could have justified a holding charge by stating that there was sufficient evidence to charge assault but that they continued to review the medical evidence.
WTF? How do you come to that conclusion?
I was attempting to summarise the ranting idiocy of Hobo's post above. I do not endorse his conclusions, as should have been obvious from a cursory reading of my post. 🙂
We limit our police at every oppertunity
We prosecute our police at every oppertunity
Are we not debating the NON prosecuting of the police on this thread ?
Andituk...
Have you read the report? Both the second and third autopsy based their findings on a mistake in the report of the first autopsy. There is no evidence of an abdominal haemorrhage
"Visible signs" no, but could something have remained undetected given they were looking for a "significant rupture"?
Unfortunately it's no longer possible to test the fluid for confirmation, as our good doctor failed to retain it or take a sample - so being "in the best position to have considered the nature of the fluid he had observed and removed" we just have to take him at his word - "staining".
Now given his track record, I sort of lose a little bit of confidence.
But yeah, I'm probably being very sceptical!
BD - sorry I was skimming after losing the will to live after reading Hobo's moronic rantings 😳
he was a millwall FC fan..say no more