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.
