PC Simon Harwood found not guilty of manslaughter of Ian Tomlinson at G20 protest
Blimey
Yup. Wow.
"i was wrong". No you weren't.
Good.
A non Daily Mail link for online activists who wish to deny them the advertising revenue:
[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-18900484 ]BBC[/url]
If that had been a pedestrian and not a cop, he'd be in prison now.
Reasonable force?
In what way?
Given that
During the trial, the police officer accepted he was "wrong" to have hit and pushed Mr Tomlinson.He said that, had he realised at the time that Mr Tomlinson was walking away from police lines, he "would not have gone near him".
Good.
Yup. Let it be a warning to all those who think they can walk around with their hands in their pockets minding their own business - you won't get away with it. And death is an acceptable punishment.
Well he's been cleared by a jury so what's the problem?
Well he's been cleared by a jury so what's the problem?
If only it were that simple.
[img] 
[/img]
Dunno why, but there's something about his face that would make me find him guilty if I were on a Jury.
theres a big surprise
its not like the police have a history of murdering innocent people and then being let off or anything.....
imagine if hed done something really bad like stolen a bottle of water
its not like the police have a history of murdering innocent people and then being let off or anything.....
Can't recall a single instance of a serving cop being convicted of murder. Remind me?
Doctors though. That Harold Shipman killed a few of his patients so I reckon doctors are all killers.
Jury weren't told about this
PC Simon Harwood has a disciplinary record littered with complaints of aggressive behaviour and misconduct and once admitted being sent into "red mist mode", it can be disclosed today.
Bloody hell.
its not like the police have a history of murdering innocent people and then being let off or anything.....Can't recall a single instance of a serving cop being convicted of murder. Remind me?
ermmm... er... that's the point
This.Bloody hell.
ermmm... er... that's the point
The point being they are innocent.
If only there was some way of assessing the applicable evidence by a number of independent observers and reaching a conclusion as to whether or not he was guilty of the crime with which he'd been charged.
We could call the process a 'trial', and those observers a 'jury'.
[i]Yup. Let it be a warning to all those who think they can walk around with their hands in their pockets minding their own business - you won't get away with it[/i]
Thanks, I'll be sure to keep away from police lines during any protests in the future.
Seems fair. Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you get out of the area ASAP and probably do what the police ask you to do. I would say just an accident and a bad situation for all involved
ernie_lynch - MemberGood.
Yup. Let it be a warning to all those who think they can walk around with their hands in their pockets minding their own business - you won't get away with it. And death is an acceptable punishment.
Well said.
ermmm... er... that's the pointThe point being they are innocent.
No, the point being that they were not convicted.
Blair Peach? fatally assaulted by a police officer. We know that, yet none were convicted of his murder. Does that mean they were all innocent?
Agree with Woody74.
I'll be sure to keep away from police lines during any protests in the future.
A much safer bet would be not to protest at all - stay at home and watch the telly instead.
Well this is clearly an outrage.
I think we should take a leaf out of the EU's book and try and re-try him until we get the result that we wanted in the first place based on whatever prejudice we happened to have about the police.
Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you get out of the area ASAP and probably do what the police ask you to do.
They do, but unfortunately there are plenty of not "sensible" people around such as homeless alcoholics who don't/can't respond quickly to police orders.
I cannot see how pushing a bloke on his face can be lawful.
Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you get out of the area ASAP and probably do what the police ask you to do
I decided not to bring an umbrella to work today, when most sensible people would have. Do I deserve to be pushed over by the police?
You do have to wonder what he was still doing in uniform though. There's enough of a pattern of behaviour there that I'm surprised Surrey Police picked him up after he left the Met.
PC Simon Harwood has a disciplinary record littered with complaints of aggressive behaviour and misconduct and once admitted being sent into "red mist mode",
You see, I knew he looked like a wrong un!
However, three weeks after the charging decision was ratified, in August 2001, PC Harwood was retired on medical grounds because of ongoing problems arising from a 1998 car accident. A note was added to his record to say that he would not be disciplined.
Three days later he was reemployed by the Met as a member of civilian staff.
In April 2003, PC Harwood applied for a job with Surrey Police as an officer. Despite his record, he got the job and in January 2004 another complaint was made about alleged aggressive behaviour, this time by one of his own colleagues.
This sucks.
I think we should take a leaf out of the EU's book and try and re-try him until we get the result that we wanted in the first place based on whatever prejudice we happened to have about the police.
It's not about prejudice though, is it? It's about seeing an assault that led to a man's death.
Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you .......
It didn't look like a "riot" to me.
No one seemed to be attacking the police. Or do you automatically describe any situation where the police attack demonstrators (and passerbyers) as a "riot" ?
Handy for the police that.
The assault didn't lead to his death. Hence the verdict!
[i]There's enough of a pattern of behaviour there that I'm surprised Surrey Police picked him up after he left the Met.[/i]
Yep, they should've asked a bunch of random mountain bikers for advice on their employment policy.
Bloody hell.
Bloody hell indeed.
What do you actually have to do to get fired from the police? One of those incidents would be enough to get me fired from my job!
Can't have been a riot if it didn't look like one to you? Ridiculous!
Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you get out of the area ASAP and probably do what the police ask you to do
Fair point, except that I don't think there was a riot going on and the guy in question was trying to leave the area.
However, the counter balance to that is that complaints against Police are a daily occurance in the job, and rather like Harwoods file appears to be, the vast majority are vexatious and either not pressed when the complainant sobers up/comes down whatever, or are simply un proven. If not employing an officer was on the basis of this sort of thing you will not have much of a Police force at all.
Overall, Harwood has gone through the mangle, he will in all probability lose his career over it, because the forces own investigation will have been suspended with the criminal case being brought. He may well have been heavy handed, but I don't think years of self abuse with alcohol can be blamed on him. So at the end of the day if he gets the boot from the force but not done for manslaughter I would say thats about right.
Shocking decision by the jury
The guy is a nut job
Yep, they should've asked a bunch of random mountain bikers for advice on their employment policy.
Or to use the more commonly applied term.........."the public".
You know, the people whom the police are there to serve, and who pay their wages of course.
[i]Shocking decision by the jury[/i]
Wrong decision by jury shocker!
Don't most sensible people know that if there is a riot going on you get out of the area ASAP and probably do what the police ask you to do
First big may-day riots in the centre of London about 10 years back I walked around taking photos. When the police advised me to leave an area I did and I avoided big crowds too. My assumption was that if I was doing no harm and followed instructions nothing bad would happen to me. That was true for me but not for Ian Tomlinson
Wouldn't argue with you on that esselg
andymc06 - Member
The assault didn't lead to his death. Hence the verdict!
Wrong:
April 2009: Further post-mortem tests find cause of death was abdominal bleeding, caused by blow
andymc06 - MemberCan't have been a riot if it didn't look like one to you? Ridiculous!
So what did you see ? ......the police being attacked ? missiles being thrown ? looting ? tell me.
I saw a demonstration. Demonstrations are not automatically riots. Even when they are opposed to government policies.
I cannot see how pushing a bloke on his face can be lawful.
It isn't. But unless it can be proved beyond reasonable doubt it caused death then it isn't manslaughter.
The baton strike and push on a man walking away was completely unjustifiable. It's assault though, not manslaughter if it didn't cause the death.
The issue of cause of death saw the testimony of the first pathologist, Dr Freddy Patel, who reasserted his belief that Tomlinson died from heart failure, placed against that of Dr Nat Cary, who told the court that even a relatively small amount of internal bleeding would have caused death.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-not-guilty-ian-tomlinson
I'm surprised he was still in the job after being found guilty of unlawful use of the police national computer. That is a sacking offence in many forces.
Shocking decision by the jury
Is it better to set a man who may be guilty free, or convict a man who may be innocent?
