[Closed] Tomlinson's killer to face trial

i want to know what a libairas is!

not really followed the case or understood the issues have you?

What makes you say that? Have a point you disagree with or just generally disagree?

I've read the CPS report that says there wasn't enough evidence to charge him the first time round as all the post mortems were flawed, meaning there's no solid evidence that it was the push that killed him.

every large workforce has it's bad eggs

That's clearly nonsense. What about the catholic church. That's a worldwide organisation of millions of priests. Are you telling me that a significant minority of them have been up to no good? And the people at the top would react by trying to cover it up? Are you? Seriously?

Oh... hang on a minute......

ah ok, I was going for a portuguese library, please continue to illuminate us

Should be able to get a prosecution for assault. Manslaughter? Not if he has a decent brief. IMO.

I would like to see incidents like this dealt with as corporate manslaughter - I want to see the senior officers in dock as well. someone recruited him, trained him, briefed him etc. They are culpable as well.

I would like to see incidents like this dealt with as corporate manslaughter - I want to see the senior officers in dock as well. someone recruited him, trained him, briefed him etc. They are culpable as well.

If you die from falling over then some thing must have already been wronge with him, he wouldnt have been pushed if he did what he was told, hence his problem.

You seem to be doing the 'unquestioning' thing rather well. Carry on. Any views on the holocaust? Personally, I never saw that happen. Therefore .....

[i]"Waste of time and money, they've given in to public pressure, but having read the previous CPS report, I think I could defend him, the evidence is so full of holes"[/i]
not really followed the case or understood the issues have you?

Crankboy, would be really interesting to hear a professional opinion here on the possible defences...

Seems to me that the eggshell skull rule would apply, meaning that he'd be liable for manslaughter, but only if:
i) the injury directly attributed to his death, and
ii) the original use of violence in pushing him over was in fact illegal

on i) I'm seems to me that "beyond reasonable doubt" is going to be difficult, given the initial post mortem results, and the likely evidence of the person who actually PM'd the body, who seemed fairly adamant that the volume of blood was not consistent with him bleeding out.

on ii) I think thats going to be a very complex argument over legality on whether his use of force (a single push) was reasonable, given his belief at the time, his duty on the day, as a police officer, to keep the peace, the reluctance of tomlinson to move on, the fact he was p*ssed (would a sober person have fallen over) and a myriad of arguments that the jury are likely to be out of the room for.

comments?

demJeremy - Member

Should be able to get a prosecution for assault. Manslaughter? Not if he has a decent brief. IMO

If you die from falling over then some thing must have already been wronge with him, he wouldnt have been pushed if he did what he was told, hence his problem.

Does that apply to the many cases where someone has been assaulted on the street and in being pushed over has cracked their skull open on the kerb and subsequently died.

Regardless of whether he had pre-existing conditions, if the the push caused his death then its manslaughter. The jury will be deciding whether that push was justified. If it was, so be it, if it was then he the PC committed manslaughter. As simple as.

If you watch the video he's moving away and pushed from behind. (28secs)

Im not sure what else you would want him to be doing other than moving away from the police?

binners - Member
You seem to be doing the 'unquestioning' thing rather well. Carry on. Any views on the holocaust? Personally, I never saw that happen. Therefore .....

Godwins law doesnt apply on stw, threads go on for ages. Are you looking for an excuse to leave?

So basicly as i dont agrea with ur views i must be a bad person.

That makes me lol it really does. I dont think any party should be band, but history has shown both left and right are just as evil so i was simply pointing out the ironly of so called libairas wanting to ban other partys they dont like. Meaning their fascists s not liberals as a true liberal wouldn't want to ban any thing. Sir you are a retard!

Edit: i want to live in a country were crime does not pay. I want to live in a country that uses gangsters for target practice, and were granny's can go down the street with out getting mugged, and if that means some little shit bags get beaten to death so be it.

Also there is a lot of anti china propaganda in western news papers such as the Guardian and dailmail. Most of it is shit!

I oppose you because you seem to think the solution to the problem is state sanctioned brutality and you use china as an a example of this ideal state. If you could perhaps better explain why this is a good thing we may be able to have a debate. ranting about things no one but you [ and the state you cite as an example]

just watched the video, he had his hands in his pocks, he could have moved a bit faster, he hardly touched him. He was a alcoholic that was near death any way, if he wasn't a alcoholic the fall wouldn't have killed him.

[img] [/img]

toys19 - Member

demJeremy - Member

Should be able to get a prosecution for assault. Manslaughter? Not if he has a decent brief. IMO

Funny Kier Starmer disagree's with you, I'd love to see you discuss it with him. WTF makes you think you know more about it than he does? He said there was a realistic prospect of a conviction? What immense legal knowledge do you have that trumps the DPP?

I don't know more about it than him. Just my opinion based on the fact that there is a clear avenue for the defence to attack - different PMs giving different cause of death = doubt. = no conviction. That was the original CPS position.

He was a alcoholic that was near death any way, if he wasn't a alcoholic the fall wouldn't have killed him.

If you accept the fall killed him then if someone pushed him on purpose thats manslughter.

If you accept that the fall killed him then if he hadn't been pushed he would still be here today. Therefore unlawful killing.

Your command of logic is poor. I don't think you are a troll, just an effing prick.

You're clearly not familiar with the ettiquette around here dear boy. Threads go on indefinitely and once you're onto the second page, Hitler has to be invoked. We're getting close to the point where the word racist has to be used. Do you want to do it? Or shall I?

Hey... I don't make the rules

so the strong view you have before has not been altered by voiewing the incident whata surprise
I think everyone knows he was an alcoholic and that this may have contributed to his death. However it seems clear that however slowly he moved and however much he drank had he not been pushed none of the subsequent events would have occured. It is like blaiming a mugging victim for being rich and running away too slowly.

different PMs giving different cause of death = doubt. = no conviction. That was the original CPS position.

You cannot have been following the inquest then, because a clear majority of the docs gave a clear cause of death.
That is why the DPP has changed his position.

It is like blaiming a mugging victim for being rich and running away too slowly.

Or a rape victim for they way they dressed.

Godwins law doesnt apply on stw, threads go on for ages. Are you looking for an excuse to leave?

Nope

Also im not a liberal or any other kind of political sheep, i believe a wide range of things from all aspects of political doctrine. Have you ever been to china and seen it for you're self just out of interest? It wasn't the place i expected it to be.

Its still an avenue to attack that throws doubt on the cause of death.

We are all second guessing the jury tho befoe they have heard any evidence

He was a alcoholic that was near death any way

So just because some one has a debilitating addiction his life doesnt matter? Ok his family life and back story were not a fairy tale, but he was employed and not just living on benefits / disability due to his addiction.

As for the shove the PC clearly drops a shoulder and steps in to it with his weight. From behind when not expecting it it's unsuprising that he went down.

if he wasn't a alcoholic the fall wouldn't have killed him

So if he'd merely had a congenital heart defect or a similar condition that can lead to death from a simple fall, would it still be his fault or would it suddenly become the PCs?

It wasn't the place i expected it to be.

maybe you actually landed in scotland?

Its still an avenue to attack that throws doubt on the cause of death.

No one is arguing that, but its a lot less certain than your first statement. I'll accept my win gratefully. 😆

Have you ever been to china and seen it for you're self just out of interest? It wasn't the place i expected it to be.

Did the members of the communist sing Carpenters songs on street corners, while stroking ickle fwuffy kittens?

He was a alcoholic that was near death any way, if he wasn't a alcoholic the fall wouldn't have killed him.
If you accept the fall killed him then if someone pushed him on purpose thats manslughter.

If you accept that the fall killed him then if he hadn't been pushed he would still be here today. Therefore unlawful killing.

Your command of logic is poor. I don't think you are a troll, just an effing prick.

To me he looked like he was going slow on deliberative, secondly go fall under a lorry! .

Have you ever been to china and seen it for you're self just out of interest? It wasn't the place i expected it to be.
Did the members of the communist sing Carpenters songs on street corners, while stroking ickle fwuffy kittens?

Nope in many ways it has become developed than this country, its the fastest developing country in human history, its amazing!

ilovemygears - he might have been however it makes no odds.

two main things to be considered:

Was the push legal, ie was it reasonable force?
Did the push led to his death?

If the answers are no and yes then its manslaughter

Oh ok. I stand corrected. If it looks ok, then it must be.

Just one question.... do you believe in Father Christmas?

ilovemygears - he might have been however it makes no odds.

two main things to be considered:

Was the push legal, ie was it reasonable force?
Did the push led to his death?

If the answers are no and yes then its manslaughter

In my view the answer the the first question in 'YES'

yes everyohne is a sheep except you who is free ....saddly for you it is free of coherent or logically sustainable positions.
China is many things and one of those is a repressive regime however impressed/blind you were when you visited.

Oh ok. I stand corrected. If it looks ok, then it must be.

Just one question.... do you believe in Father Christmas?

The tooth fairy?

two main things to be considered:

Was the push legal, ie was it reasonable force?
Did the push led to his death?

agreed TJ - as I've said above though, I don't think either of those arguments are going to be simple, the legality of the push will be very technical legal argument - and I'm inclined to think that it could very well have been permissible use of force.

China is many things and one of those is a repressive regime however impressed/blind you were when you visited.

Maybe it just is not as bad as you think it is, why not go and see for you self?

So if I ask if i can see the torture chambers where the imprisoned dissidents are detained for re-education, they'll say "hey, silly, you are a tease, we don't do any of that kind of thing any more, That's just, like SOOOOOOOOOOOOO last century"

But then, they'll, like, show me a, like, really awesome skyscraper, and I'll be, like... WOOOOOOOOOOOOW. Dudes who can, like, build really awesome stuff like that would never ruthlessly oppress their own population

So if I ask if i can see the torture chambers where the imprisoned dissidents are detained for re-education, they'll say "hey, silly, you are a tease, we don't do any of that kind of thing any more, That's just, like SOOOOOOOOOOOOO last century"

But then, they'll, like, show me a, like, really awesome skyscraper, and I'll be, like... WOOOOOOOOOOOOW. Dudes who can, like, build really awesome stuff like that would never ruthlessly oppress their own population

like i said go and see it then get back to me. Some of those disidents would bring china to its knees if they had there way, or do you think religions that devide people by race are a good idea, well nether do the Chines government, so they band the cult. I dont see the Chines bombing the crap out of other peoples countries! Like our wonderful western governments! o yea human rights, what about all those Iraqis.

z 11 sorry for the delay .

This would seem to fit a manslaughter by unlawful act prosecution

Death must be result of an unlawful act the accused must have the necessary criminal state of mind for that unlawful act.

The act must be one that all sober and reasonable people would inevitably realize must subject the victim to at least the risk of some physical harm albeit not serious harm

Up to this point is a paraphrase of Archbold , what follows is my opinion and .
From the video and the inquest evidence the issue is firstly was there an assault or was the officer using reasonable force to achieve a lawful end. I've had my own settled view on that from the first footage and that has been reinforced by the inquest in particular the officers own evidence.

If there was an assault did death flow from that assault or the injury caused by it or was there an intervening event which renders the injury no more than part of the background history. That is where the original post mortem and subsequent ones through up a cloud of doubt that led to the Original CPS decision not to prosecute. There has been a tendency since the parental killing miscarriages of justice to avoid prosecutions where there are clear conflicts between pathologists or other experts. The inquest as an inquisitorial process has clearly aired that confusion and seems to have clearly eliminated the natural causes possibility.
While egg shell skulls are more relevant to the law of negligence the principle is the same I cant tie up an old lady rob her and then get off a homicide charge (murder or manslaughter) be arguing it’s her own fault for having a dodgy heart.

do you think religions that devide people by race are a good idea

But aren't they all just "Chinese"? They all look the same to me, to be honest

do you think religions that devide people by race are a good idea
But aren't they all just "Chinese"? They all look the same to me, to be honest

sorry i didn't make it very clear the Chines government made the cult Falun Gong illegal it teaches people that the races should be kept separate and all other nasty shit, so they band it, then they get shit of western people for it. I just dont get it

do you think religions that devide people by race are a good idea
But aren't they all just "Chinese"? They all look the same to me, to be honest

well they dont and i think thats a bit racist to me! im not saying ur racist just that it could be seen as racist!

I'm sorry, but if I'm a racist then so is Prince Phillip. And that's just crazy talk!!

Anyway.... this cult? Like that Tom Cruise religion thing? With the spaceships n stuff?

Anyway.... this cult? Like that Tom Cruise religion thing? With the spaceships n stuff?

crankboy, from your professional perspective...

Putting aside all other considerations and circumstances of this case, and looking at it purely from the adversarial nature of the English criminal legal system, which case would you feel you had a better chance of winning, prosecution or defence? (And also accepting that you only have access to what evidence is publicly available).