PC Simon Harwood found not guilty

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 – Member

I 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

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.dailymail.co.uk/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 innocent 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 man violent thug who has been found innocent of the charges by a jury of his peers, to have unlawfully killed someone should still be punished, is applying the worst of double standards, shocked at the blatant corruption because they want him to be it was obvious he was afforded less more 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 marxistnormal 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 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.”

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?