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.

Police can use reasonable force in given circumstances based on their honestly held belief of the the threat posed or danger they are in.

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?

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 directly 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
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?

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 – Member

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……

Thought it was rhetorical tbh. Should never need to be answered.

In other news

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/crime/9412154/Birmingham-riots-judge-appeals-for-calm-as-eight-cleared-of-murder.html

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 – Member

In 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.

http://newsthump.com/2012/07/19/pc-simon-harwoods-house-falls-down-after-he-uses-reasonable-force-to-open-front-door/

(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.

Ernie – you’re a Lying Hypocrite!

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 🙄