Forum menu
Oh Z-11 has turned up and predictably wants to turn it into a political issue. Time to move on.
Don't get me wrong, that copper should never have been on the streets and Tomlinson was not posing a threat to my mind. But it's not my opinion that matters in court!
I don't disagree with any of that.
I've just watched the video again and I cannot even dream up a remotely believable (and legal) justification for hitting the bloke.
Don't get me wrong, that copper should never have been on the streets and Tomlinson was not posing a threat to my mind. But it's not my opinion that matters in court!
Yet a different jury has already decided (beyond reasonable doubt) that he was unlawfully killed. So where does that leave us?
120 plus arrests can not be a lawful protest can it?
So thousands of people turn up on a protest, 120 plus are arrested and you say its an unlawful protest?
It is not wholly lawful as was being made out.
Nah Ernie, Just sitting here more than happy to see that Justice has been done...
and that some of us 'loons' who said he had a pretty strong defence of reasonable force at the time he was charged, when the usuals already had him hung drawn and quartered.
Ransos - stuck with our wonderful legal system.
Anyway, if the jury says he's not guilty, then he's not guilty is he?
if the jury says he's not guilty, then he's not guilty is he?
Indeed, just like the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four 😉
Anyway, if the jury says he's not guilty, then he's not guilty is he?
what about the jury in the STW kangaroo court?
Indeed, just like the Birmingham Six and the Guildford Four
Spoilsport!
The verdict implies one of three things
1 the jury could not be sure that he had not used reasonable force . Ie a defense of use of reasonable force succeeded .
2 the jury could not be sure that Hardwoods actions were a causal factor in the death.
Or 3 both the above.
From what has been reported it appears that not even the defense team believed 1.
are you actually saying that the line of police in full riot gear, carrying weapons, possibly felt threatened by a man walking away from them, with his hands in his pockets?Police can use reasonable force in given circumstances based on their honestly held belief of the the threat posed or danger they are in.
No. I am actually saying what I actually wrote. It is an explanation of when police can use force and nothing else.
Are you actually saying you actually know what another person was feeling? In a situation that you were not in?
Silly when people put words in your mouth isn't it?
You're really boring.
I think Crankboy has it right, and the uncertainty over point (2) will prove to be the critical one. Yes, Harwood's a nasty piece of work, and yes, he's a disgrace to the uniform, but unless you can prove that his actions [i]directly[/i] led to Tomlinson's death, it would be impossible to prove manslaughter.
The CPS should have gone for an assault charge, which would have led to a conviction and imprisonment on the basis of the evidence presented. As it was, I couldn't ever see the manslaughter charge being one that stuck.
Oh lifer that hurts 😆
Why was Harwood's previous record not relevant?
Why was the fact the Police themselves had raised concerns over the conduct of the original pathologist (before the Tomlinson case) not relevant?
Why is there still debate over the postmortem when two pathologists have agreed that
?Tomlinson had fallen on his elbow, which he said "impacted in the area of his liver causing an internal bleed which led to his death a few minutes later.
Are you actually saying you actually know what another person was feeling? In a situation that you were not in?
That's the rub isn't it, theres a video for all to see where he hits a man who was walking away from him with his hands in his pockets. If this is a situation that left a trained riot officer honestly feeling that he was in danger or threatened then what was he doing there?
I'm not saying he definitely should have been sent down for manslaughter, I'm not in possession of all the facts but you might perhaps concede that this and all of the circumstances surrounding the case (unlawful killing, known dodgy pathologists selected, his shocking record omitted from court) leave somewhat of a bad smell around them.
Next thing he'll probably get a big pay off because he can't return to do his job effectively.
Is there anybody reading this thread who thinks he should not be held accountable in any way at all for his actions? Shouldn't even be tried for assault? Then again if pathologists have already said his death was definitely as a result of being hit in the back by the cop I suppose that's not an option. Not guilty must have been returned on the basis the jury thought it was a reasonable action to take.
I feel sorry for the good cop reading things like this. Bullies like this tool in uniform must make the job more difficult than the crims sometimes.
Either way, scary shit. A lot of us know someone who's in the police who definitely shouldn't be. Just a bit shocking when something so obvious like this happens and is caught on video then seemingly there's no consequences.
I'm not reading the last 3 pages of predictable punch and counter punch. I will say this though, it's not a surprise that the jury returned a not guilty verdict. Beyond reasonable doubt? No. A violent PC who'd got away with it for years. Yes. A reflection on police attitudes that day particularly the TSG. maybe. Justice for his family? Too late. The botched autopsy saw to that from the outset and gave the police the necessary room to manoeuvre this 'prosecution' to suit their public relations targets. Happy days.
Not a good outcome. Hands in pockets walking away. Lucky Tomlinson wasn't black or this would have taken on another dimension.
*squeeeek*
Opens door. Looks to see if anyone has attempted to answer earlier and rather pertinent question..... Sees its been oddly ignored...... Nods knowingly........ Exits quietly......
*click*
Ok, I'll have that one:
PeterPoddy - Member
[i]Shocking decision by the jury[/i]
Is it better to set a man who may be guilty free, or convict a man who may be innocent?
Yes it is better to let the guilty man free (the baduns always come again, as would a violent copper).
In my opinion, the answer to this is written into law, in that someone must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is a much higher test of evidence when compared to a civil court or Inquest, which merely seeks to prove that on the balance of probabilities something occurred.
This is all of our right, and if you're the one gripping the rail, you're glad of it.
mildred - Member
In my opinion, the answer to this is written into law, in that someone must be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt. It is a much higher test of evidence when compared to a civil court or Inquest, which merely seeks to prove that on the balance of probabilities something occurred.
Inquests have to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, hence open verdicts.
PeterPoddy - MemberOpens door. Looks to see if anyone has attempted to answer earlier and rather pertinent question..... Sees its been oddly ignored...... Nods knowingly........ Exits quietly......
Thought it was rhetorical tbh. Should never need to be answered.
In other news
Tbh whatever we think of his actions that day seriously WTF was he doing serving in the police force? i suspect most of us would be sacked for a fraction of what he had done - i certainly get the sack for illegal database access and it is massively less sensitive that the one he accessed presumably to do his own brand of restorative justice.
I feel sorry for huntley's family and I feel sorry for the decent plod who will be tainted with the same brush as this fella. There are bad apples in all walks of life but really get your house in order please as you serve us all.
I dont think justice is happy today and I wonder how the jury feel now they know all the facts.
Zulu-Eleven - MemberIn other news
It's hard to imagine anything more typical of you Zulu-Eleven than your need to change the subject by introducing something which is completely unrelated and not even vaguely connected.
Probably feeling the same as the Juries who, day in and day out, make judgements on peoples guilt or innocence without knowing the accused's 'form'.
Its one of the long standing legal protections given to the accused. nothing new, and very importantly, not a case of special treatment being given to this police officer.
I don't recall a huge outpouring of previous cries saying the system is not fair, in fact, there was a pretty strong objection across the board to the change in the law in 2000 that meant in certain circumstances 'bad character' could be revealed.
completely unrelated and not even vaguely connected
Really? another family & community left feeling that justice has not been done after the violent death of innocent men where the accused were found not guilty. The only difference seems to be that in this case, the accused was not a police man, so there's no uproar saying they should still be punished despite being found not guilty.
The only difference seems to be.......
The only difference seems to be that they are two completely unrelated cases.
[url] http://newsthump.com/2012/07/19/pc-simon-harwoods-house-falls-down-after-he-uses-reasonable-force-to-open-front-door/ [/url]
(hope that doesn't offend anyone)
I'm surprised he was found not guilty. Thought it would have gone the other way.
Thanks for that thegreatape.........genuinely made me lol 😀
Which was nice, as this case hasn't otherwise been what you could call a bundle of laughs.
No, it hasn't.
Ernie - are you just trying to pick holes to cover up the inconsistency in your own argument:
Today, you said this:
Whilst I am undeniably left-wing I have not expressed any anti-police prejudices whatsoever...
A year ago you were saying this:
"Tomlinson, 47, a father of nine" FFS !! (and an alchoholic)"
Makes you wonder why it took the police so long to kill him, eh ?
I think senior Met officers have a lot to answer for, specially as they are so ready to take the credit when things go right, as well as the very generous salaries.
I suspect that the feedback from the senior officers to the lower ranks was very likely to be "go get'em lads"
Today - you said this:
PC Simon Harwood has previously been found by a jury to have been responsible for the unlawful killing of Ian Tomlinson, the only issue remaining imo was whether it was murder or manslaughter, the fact that it was unlawful had already been established. For him to get away scot free doesn't seem like justice to many people, it has nothing at all to do with "anti-police prejudices".
A year ago you were saying this:
I don't think it's right for PC Harwood to be treated as a scapegoat.
[b]Ernie - you're a Lying Hypocrite![/b]
Jesus H christ you are a stalker and a desperate one at that 🙄
Might i recommend you get a life rather than embarrass yourself on here on a regular basis by your desperate arguments
I dont even think what you posted proves what you have concluded
Seriously get a life that is sad and actually quite pathetic
He was found not guilty - it seems strange/incongruous but the jury must have seen more evidence than we have.
I find it interesting though how quite a few people seem to be defending completely unprovoked baton strikes from behind, on a man walking away with his hands in his pockets. Interesting morals you've got there.
And Z-11 you really are a pathetic character, jesus wept.
Tongue in cheek comments, criticism of specific events/incidents and (as stated) speculation, which those quotes appear to be, aren't the same as being inherently anti-police.
Nor does there appear to be anything hypocritical there.
Seriously get a life that is sad and actually quite pathetic
Never a truer word, etc...
Ah, diddums - the usual suspect lefties see their argument shot down by inconvenient things like facts and get all abusive 🙄
Thank you for high lighting that my attitude to the tragic death of Ian Tomlinson is not motivated by a knee-jerk anti-police reaction Zulu-Eleven, I truly appreciate that. Although I do find it rather bizarre that you interpret my more balanced attitude as me being a liar and a hypocrite. Perhaps a less edited post of mine might give a fuller picture ?
ernie_lynch - MemberI think it would a mistake to automatically assume that PC Harwood, and him alone, is responsible for the assault on Tomlinson. We don't know what the Territorial Support Group were told in their brief on that morning and how psyched up they had been made. Certainly iirc senior Met officers had been making very bellicose comments before the G20 summit. And we know for a fact that senior officers at the very least, fully tolerated PCs on duty without their numbers on display.
I suspect that the feedback from the senior officers to the lower ranks was very likely to be "go get'em lads". I also suspect that PC Harwood did no more than what he believed was expected from him, sadly with tragic consequences. Blaming it all on PC Harwood and stopping there, without knowing the full facts is a cop out imo. I think senior Met officers have a lot to answer for, specially as they are so ready to take the credit when things go right, as well as the very generous salaries.
They could also explain why they were so readily feeding the media with false information until the first video was discovered.
Yes I think senior Met officers are often very quick to take the credit when things go right, as well as the very generous salaries. So I think they should also take responsibility when things go wrong. I have never been very happy that that all the attention concerning Ian Tomlinson death should have focused on PC Harwood's culpability. This does not however translate into me claiming that PC Harwood should not be punished. But of course in your twisted little mind Z-11 this makes me a "hypocrite" and a "liar".
Ah, diddums - the usual suspect lefties see their argument shot down by inconvenient things like facts
Where are these 'facts' which you speak of?
He is busy looking for them
[img] http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQEh1PFTu__Ren6qOw_-8FVboZcWpxDhNSU1oLeU51aMjUqFL23T_dkaufbPg [/img]
Am I included in the 'suspect lefties'?
This could get confusing.
probably easier than arguing you are anti police 😉
thegreatape ...... Z-11 sees "lefties" in the Tory Party.
I wouldn't worry about it.
Murder means intentionally killing someone. This isn't what happened by anyone's twisted, ideologically motivated, personally warped, conspiracy theorist, misinformed, or idiotic sense of reality. I would bet my dog he gets sacked though.
every single police officer
involved in the 1433 deaths in police custody/after police contact since 1990 has escaped manslaughter conviction
this verdict shouldn't come as a surprise
Murder means intentionally killing someone. This isn't what happened by anyone's twisted, ideologically motivated, personally warped, conspiracy theorist, misinformed, or idiotic sense of reality.
Which presumably was why he wasn't accused of murder ?
Murder means intentionally killing someone.
Doesn't it also include having the knowledge that your actions might lead to death?
I don't mind anyway. 'Suspect leftie' affords the air of mystery to which I aspire.
😀
Murder means intentionally killing someone.Doesn't it also include having the knowledge that your actions might lead to death
could I intentionally kill someone without realising that what I was doing would kill them?
just to clarify things and to save me reading the previous pages I take it that zulu 11 is a "serving" police officer?
From the first page ...
"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"
Deaths in police custody are investigated just as rigorously as any other suspicious death, if not more so. The fact police officers haven't been convicted might possibly mean they haven't comitted a criminal offence. They may have been professionally negligent in certain circumstances. But there is a significant difference there. It's easy to quote raw stats without fully understanding the process or circumstances behind them. But don't let that stop you chaps. The 'client groups' that come to police attention tend to be slightly more prone to early death than the general public.
could I intentionally kill someone without realising that what I was doing would kill them?
Only if you possess certain levels of AWESOME. Bizarre question.
I take it htis guy was not the judge then?
http://www.****/news/article-1236918/Top-judge-targets-punch-manslaughter-cases-crackdown-yob-violence.html
The fact police officers haven't been convicted might possibly mean they haven't comitted a criminal offence.
It might also mean some of them know how to cover their own backs.
They may have been professionally negligent in certain circumstances.
Manslaughter by gross negligence is a crime too.
It was a rhetorical question.
I was trying to point out that your comment was redundant. If you intended to kill someone with your actions it was de facto the case that you knew the actions could lead to death as that is what you intend to do.
I was trying to point out that your comment was redundant
Really?
I'm bored and I can't be bothered.... 🙁
Has anyone read that famous book by Joseph Heller?
as far as I can tell, that's a pissed bloke shuffling along with his hands in his pockets trying to get somewhere, trying to avoid shit. Doesn't really deserve a brutal smackdown eh? let alone death. That cop has the air of a bully boy **** high on power. But obviously I don't know the "facts". Mind you, I remember pushing a lad to the ground in a proper slamdown sort of way like that vid when I was aged 9 cos he slapped my sister in the arse with some sticks. He really smashed his head. I got told off by the headmaster.
Completely disgraceful on all counts.
I struggle with long sentences. But to summarise.... anyone who disagrees with a police officers apparently god given right to lash out indiscriminately, even if that results in death, with complete impunity, is a namby-pamby, bleeding heart lefty, pinko, commy marxist? And probably a threat to society?
I don't mind anyway. 'Suspect leftie' affords the air of mystery to which I aspire.
Truly, an enigma wrapped in a mystery.
But to summarise.... anyone who disagrees with a police officers apparently god given right to lash out indiscriminately, even if that results in death, with complete impunity, is a namby-pamby, bleeding heart lefty, pinko, commy marxist? And probably a threat to society?
No, not really a fair summary imo. I think probably only Zulu-eleven would try to claim that and turn this into a right v left issue.
Although TBF andymc06 at one stage did also try that stroke.
I think probably only Zulu-eleven would try to claim that and turn this into a right v left issue.
Which, of course, would be quite a silly thing to do.
Radio 4 summed this up very well this morning - and without descending into a "bleeding hearts" vs "hang em high" type debate...
1. "Character evidence" was reviewed by judge and not placed before jury, on risk of it being prejudicial. Apparently, because Harwood had admitted he knocked Tomlinson down. The implication was that if this hadn't been admitted, then the evidence of past complaints would have been admissable - as it showed a "propensity" towards that sort of behaviour.
2. UK has a very poor record of properly investigating and prosecuting Police Officers. Circa 1500 deaths in custody for one case where officers prosectued (in 1970...?) Prosecution only succeded because manslaughter was dropped for assualt. FFS
3. Legally, there is a connundrum. Harwood might have been found not guilty of manslaughter, but the inquest still decided on unlawfull killing
- so "not innocent" either...?
In the interest of devil's advocacy, wasn't he charged with something that would be more difficult to be found guilty of rather than a lesser charge that could have sullied the otherwise impeccable reputaion of the Police Force?
When I heard the verdict this song came right back...
So old, yet so true.
In the interest of devil's advocacy, wasn't he charged with something that would be more difficult to be found guilty of rather than a lesser charge that could have sullied the otherwise impeccable reputaion of the Police Force?
precisely, even harder to prove after the notched first autopsy.
still i'm sure the resident brown shirts will happily overlook that eh?
wow it all got going last night didn't it? the trouble is, by going on forums, we think we've dealt with it, spouted a few opinions, shot a few folk down, but nowts really changed, has it? the police have got away with it, status quo is upheld, lets all carry on, we've done our bit, till next time and we'll all get hot and bothered again.....
anyone who disagrees with a police officers apparently god given right to lash out indiscriminately, even if that results in death, with complete impunity, is a namby-pamby, bleeding heart lefty, pinko, commy marxist? And probably a threat to society?
not really - however anyone who thinks that a man who has been found [b]innocent[/b] of the charges by a jury of his peers, should still be punished, is applying the worst of double standards, because they want him to be afforded less protection from the law than any other citizen, on the basis that he is a police officer.
which is a pretty is a namby-pamby, bleeding heart lefty, pinko, commy marxist thing to do as it happens 😉
So:
1. Unlawful killing but no manslaughter
2. Scotland Yard restricted information
3. He should never have been re-employed by the Police
4. The poor victim was a "homeless acoholic" according to his reports and his family were doing what...
And who ends up carrying the can? What will be done to stop a repetition? Answers on the back of stamp...
Z-11
How do you get around the two contradictory verdicts though...?
Innocent of manslaughter, as you correctly state.
But, you choose to ignore this person's close involvement in an "unlawful killing". Both verdicts are correct in the eyes of the law.
RKK1
Doesn't it hinge on this?
On Thursday a friend of Harwood's claimed that evidence from a trauma specialist, Alastair Wilson, who raised the hypothesis that analysis of Tomlinson's blood indicated his internal bleeding could have started before the fall, had been crucial to the acquittal."It was a vital piece of evidence that wasn't heard at the inquest. He was never guilty of manslaughter. He may have been guilty of assault for the baton strike, but he didn't kill him."
Awful case whatever the "result".
You are simplifying here Z-11 as it has also been agreed the victim was unlawfully killed and we all know who unlawfully killed him so innocent is stretching it a bit and requires you to select your charge carefully.
As the death in custody and prosecution rates suggest some folk are suggesting his status as a police office affords him more protection and not less and what people wish for is equal treatment of all those charged including coppers. There seems to be near immunity.
Ps your human rights hat and unbridled humanitarianism really suits you
however anyone who thinks that a [s]man [/s] violent thug who has been found [s]innocent of the charges by a jury of his peers,[/s] to have unlawfully killed someone should still be punished, is [s]applying the worst of double standards,[/s] shocked at the blatant corruption because [s] they want him to be [/s] it was obvious he was afforded [s]less [/s] more protection from the law than any other citizen, on the basis that he is a police officer.which is a pretty is a[s] namby-pamby, bleeding heart lefty, pinko, commy marxist[/s]normal thing to do as it happens
thats better
teamhurtmore
As someone professionally engaged in the forensic scientific analysis of situations where all evidence is circumstantial (ie, rare to get absolutely positive proof one way or another), I have a number of problems with your quote... (the clues are highlighted below 🙄
On Thursday a [b]friend of[/b] Harwood's [b][u]claimed[/u][/b] that evidence from a trauma specialist, Alastair Wilson, who [b]raised the hypothesis[/b] that analysis of Tomlinson's blood [b]indicated[/b] his internal bleeding [b]could[/b] have started before the fall, had been crucial to the acquittal."It was a vital piece of evidence that wasn't heard at the inquest. He was never guilty of manslaughter. He may have been guilty of assault for the baton strike, but he didn't kill him."
Each of the words in bold (except friend 😉 ) are used by scientists where there is a lack of proof...
can he be tried for assault now or do you have to pick one at the start and stick with that?