Hardwood found not guilty

[Durzel]

Saddlebag said:

My personal view (that no doubt means nothing) is that he is a thug and should be locked up. If the copper had been pushed and later died, we all know what the outcome would be.

The only positive thing is that anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the copper was TOTALLY in the wrong and will have formed their own judgment that he is guilty.

The fact he has been found guily just makes the police look bad and that they are above the law, thereby gaining even less respect than they currently have.

Do you not think that manslaughter was the wrong charge though?

Assault or maybe GBH would, as said above, have stood a far greater chance of success for the prosecution. As it was they were basically trying to prove that the push was intended to kill.

I'm sure a lot of people, particularly those with natural anti-Police bias, retrospectively apply the logic that "anyone could die from being pushed", but the reality is that it is exceptional.

[Rick101]

Can't say I sympathise with the police, this continual stream of 'Not Guilty's' just make me have less respect for them than I already do.

If they actually led by example I think many more people would support them but they don't, they are simple a legal gang who clearly 'get away with murder'.

If it was an MOP that took a bat an whacked someone on camera, who subseqently died, do you really think they would get off as easy?

[Carnage]

Durzel said:

Do you not think that manslaughter was the wrong charge though?

Assault or maybe GBH would, as said above, have stood a far greater chance of success for the prosecution. As it was they were basically trying to prove that the push was intended to kill.

I'm sure a lot of people, particularly those with natural anti-Police bias, retrospectively apply the logic that "anyone could die from being pushed", but the reality is that it is exceptional.

They couldn't charge ABH/GBH, as the injuries caused by the push weren't serious enough. They could charge common assault, as it has a statute of limitation of six months. Manslaughter is an unlawful act leading to the death of another - you don't need to show any intent at all. My guess is that the jury probably accepted the unlawful act bit, but weren't sure of the cause of death, OR believed the force was lawful.

I'm suprised by the verdict, but Paddy Gibbs, the defence QC, is superb. Very good with medical evidence.

[Elroy Blue]

One rule for them and all that stuff. (Thought I'd save someone else from saying it)

Bloody Jurors. You'd think they'd have sense to base their deliberations on the Daily Mail rather than listen to all the facts and evidence. Very inconsiderate.

[SmoothCriminal]

Leadfoot said:

The whole thing was a joke, a down & out drunk has a heart attack after being shoved by a copper & it ends up in the dock. Regardless of who did what/why/previous character, people don't die from being pushed away.

Any other country & the copper would have whacked him properly with a baton for taking the pi55, & the PH hordes would be applauding the cops for taking a hard line.

This trial & the one of the Sergeant who slapped the woman who spat at him sum up all that's wrong with society IMHO.

Act like a tw4t & you should get what's coming to you, not go crying to the press/courts/U tube when it does.

Sorry but this is the view I also take was hardly the rosey newspaper seller he was made out to be at the start.

Too much liberalism when it comes to policing 'hardcore' events like this one and the riots that's why the riots were allowed to go on for so long.

As the post above says do anything like this anywhere else in the world and he wouldave got a good clubbing not just some poncy push
What would the ph hordes like the police to do go up and say 'excuse me old chap would you mind vacating the area'

[carinaman]

Regardless of what the jury or the Daily Mail say it doesn't cancel out the line that there wasn't any CCTV footage when there was or the dodgy doctor that did the autopsy.

1. The Dodgy Doctor doing the first autopsy.
2. 'There's no CCTV footage' - but there was.
3. The verdict.

You don't think anyone has a right to doubt the integrity of the whole process?

The first two aren't dissimilar from the some of the shadey practices used by those peddling used cars. 'I lost the service history when I moved', 'lowest mileage Corrado on eBay, but did have an odo change'......

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 19th July 16:03

[Leadfoot]

Saddlebag said:

bks.

Really. Have you seen TV coverage of riots in other countries? I don't think cops in Greece/Italy/France/Spain.... would hold back from dishing out a proper pasting.

I'm sure normal decent people routinely walk up to riot police & take the mick.

[Raify]

Durzel said:

Do you not think that manslaughter was the wrong charge though?

Assault or maybe GBH would, as said above, have stood a far greater chance of success for the prosecution. As it was they were basically trying to prove that the push was intended to kill.

I'm sure a lot of people, particularly those with natural anti-Police bias, retrospectively apply the logic that "anyone could die from being pushed", but the reality is that it is exceptional.

Intent would mean a murder charge would it not? I doubt this case were trying to prove that intent.

Manslaughter is assault that results in death (without intent) isn't it?

[Mr GrimNasty]

Well I think it is just, a person behaving reasonably/not drunk would not have placed themselves in that position. And you wouldn't expect a person of normal looking health/robustness to be seriously hurt, let alone killed, by such treatment. But the copper's attitudes and opinions that came out in some of his evidence are really quite disgusting.

[Derek Smith]

Saddlebag said:

My personal view (that no doubt means nothing) is that he is a thug and should be locked up. If the copper had been pushed and later died, we all know what the outcome would be.

The only positive thing is that anyone with an ounce of sense knows that the copper was TOTALLY in the wrong and will have formed their own judgment that he is guilty.

The fact he has been found guily just makes the police look bad and that they are above the law, thereby gaining even less respect than they currently have.

So the jury should have found him guilty against their beliefs because going by their consciences made the police look bad?

I was in a shield serial in the 70s, a time of demonstartions every other weekend and of football hooliganism every weekend. We carried a short shield, bigger and heavier than the much better one used nowadays, and our job was to go in and nick troublemakers or, more often, get PCs out of trouble. The MO was to bash the shield into any domonstrator who refused to get out of the way.

It would appear that people don't want the police to use force, or at least some types of force.

The government will issue baton rounds soon - as a pathetic attempt to shore up low number of police. If a baton round had hit this bloke, guess what the outcome would have been. So can any police officer fire a baton round merely to quell a riot? Going by this prosecution the answer is quite clearly 'No.'

It used to be that if you stayed in a group that was being violent then you were considered violent as well. Group purpose.

I don't know about Hardwood of course, but I can say, without any embarrassment, that I have been terrified on some demos. I was once chased by a mob of 20 youths and had to kick out at them when I got cornered. I was all on my own for some minutes. Still got the scars, and hopefully some of them have as well. When two colleagues came they got me out and we ran to a shield serial, leaving three of the group on the ground. They'd been hit by my mates with their truncheons.

A group of builders, all done up in their steel reinforced gear and hard hats, were on a demo and then would call out a PC's number, point to him and then make a move towards them. This is the reality of policing public order.

I bottled out in the end and opted for the shield serial. At least you had mates around you you could depend on. When all eight of us were in front of any mob, they didn't chant our numbers. We were only called in when it had all gone wrong but even then we were much better off than the poor plebs linking arms.

It's easy sitting at a keyboard giving your thoughts of the ins and outs but might I suggest standing in a line when the mob is armed with scaffold poles and thowing the clips at you? How about linking arms when a mob with a bit of steel barricade is deciding which police officer to maim? No matter how cool you are, or how fast you can type, your reactions to such stimuli will not be the same for some time after. I once worked a 14-hour day on three separate public order incidents and wanted to run at a mob of about 100 in Liverpool Street Station to sort them out. I had a sergeant with me at the time who was excellent. He sat me in the van and then stood me down.

Mostly demonstrations are enjoyable for both sides. The adrenaline boost is what most of those making up the mob go for and the police are only too willing to share in the high. But there are times when it all goes bent and then it is different.

We are looking at a PC who pushed a demonstrator. That is it in a nutshell. I've kicked demonstrators, I've hit them, lots of them, with a shield. I was once part of a shield serial when we went into a thousands strong demonstration at Trafalgar Sq to rescue two PCs who had been cut off and were being badly beaten. We must have gone in 150' or more into the tightly packed mob who'd formed to stop the relief arriving. All five of us with shields just bashed everyone who stood in our way. A number fell to the group and others fell over them. We got to the two PCs, the attackers running off before we got there, we picked them up and then ran with them on the way out, enthusiasm have wained somewhat, there were far fewer people to hit.

Can you imagine how frightening that was? We knew that if we stopped moving forward we were done for. We would have got beatings and there was no serial there to help us.

The PC may have over-reacted. He said he did. But totally wrong? Especially in capitals?

If you are there you ar a demonstrato. If you are in a mob that is violent, you are being violent.

[carinaman]

'duty of care'?

It's the role of the police to protect and safeguard the public?

Because he was a protester and/or alcoholic the above don't apply?

[Durzel]

Carnage said:

They couldn't charge ABH/GBH, as the injuries caused by the push weren't serious enough. They could charge common assault, as it has a statute of limitation of six months. Manslaughter is an unlawful act leading to the death of another - you don't need to show any intent at all. My guess is that the jury probably accepted the unlawful act bit, but weren't sure of the cause of death, OR believed the force was lawful.

I'm suprised by the verdict, but Paddy Gibbs, the defence QC, is superb. Very good with medical evidence.

Fair enough, I stand corrected

[Saddlebag]

Durzel said:

Do you not think that manslaughter was the wrong charge though?

Assault or maybe GBH would, as said above, have stood a far greater chance of success for the prosecution. As it was they were basically trying to prove that the push was intended to kill.

I'm sure a lot of people, particularly those with natural anti-Police bias, retrospectively apply the logic that "anyone could die from being pushed", but the reality is that it is exceptional.

I dont think he intended to kill him, no (that would be murder).

But his actions resulted in a mans death and as I understand it, that manslaughter.

And the fact he had a dodgy ticker does not make it OK to shorten a mans life.

[Saddlebag]

Derek Smith said:

So the jury should have found him guilty against their beliefs because going by their consciences made the police look bad?

I was in a shield serial in the 70s, a time of demonstartions every other weekend and of football hooliganism every weekend. We carried a short shield, bigger and heavier than the much better one used nowadays, and our job was to go in and nick troublemakers or, more often, get PCs out of trouble. The MO was to bash the shield into any domonstrator who refused to get out of the way.

It would appear that people don't want the police to use force, or at least some types of force.

The government will issue baton rounds soon - as a pathetic attempt to shore up low number of police. If a baton round had hit this bloke, guess what the outcome would have been. So can any police officer fire a baton round merely to quell a riot? Going by this prosecution the answer is quite clearly 'No.'

It used to be that if you stayed in a group that was being violent then you were considered violent as well. Group purpose.

I don't know about Hardwood of course, but I can say, without any embarrassment, that I have been terrified on some demos. I was once chased by a mob of 20 youths and had to kick out at them when I got cornered. I was all on my own for some minutes. Still got the scars, and hopefully some of them have as well. When two colleagues came they got me out and we ran to a shield serial, leaving three of the group on the ground. They'd been hit by my mates with their truncheons.

A group of builders, all done up in their steel reinforced gear and hard hats, were on a demo and then would call out a PC's number, point to him and then make a move towards them. This is the reality of policing public order.

I bottled out in the end and opted for the shield serial. At least you had mates around you you could depend on. When all eight of us were in front of any mob, they didn't chant our numbers. We were only called in when it had all gone wrong but even then we were much better off than the poor plebs linking arms.

It's easy sitting at a keyboard giving your thoughts of the ins and outs but might I suggest standing in a line when the mob is armed with scaffold poles and thowing the clips at you? How about linking arms when a mob with a bit of steel barricade is deciding which police officer to maim? No matter how cool you are, or how fast you can type, your reactions to such stimuli will not be the same for some time after. I once worked a 14-hour day on three separate public order incidents and wanted to run at a mob of about 100 in Liverpool Street Station to sort them out. I had a sergeant with me at the time who was excellent. He sat me in the van and then stood me down.

Mostly demonstrations are enjoyable for both sides. The adrenaline boost is what most of those making up the mob go for and the police are only too willing to share in the high. But there are times when it all goes bent and then it is different.

We are looking at a PC who pushed a demonstrator. That is it in a nutshell. I've kicked demonstrators, I've hit them, lots of them, with a shield. I was once part of a shield serial when we went into a thousands strong demonstration at Trafalgar Sq to rescue two PCs who had been cut off and were being badly beaten. We must have gone in 150' or more into the tightly packed mob who'd formed to stop the relief arriving. All five of us with shields just bashed everyone who stood in our way. A number fell to the group and others fell over them. We got to the two PCs, the attackers running off before we got there, we picked them up and then ran with them on the way out, enthusiasm have wained somewhat, there were far fewer people to hit.

Can you imagine how frightening that was? We knew that if we stopped moving forward we were done for. We would have got beatings and there was no serial there to help us.

The PC may have over-reacted. He said he did. But totally wrong? Especially in capitals?

If you are there you ar a demonstrato. If you are in a mob that is violent, you are being violent.

2 points. You were doing what you chose to do and what you got paid for. I understand that the police face horrific situations, but that does not mean you can do what you want.

And there is a whole world of difference between a rioting yob and a doddery old fker who is just in the way, regardless of him being a pain in the arse.

My ex father in law used to push and try to hit me when he got in a rage, but I didnt punch him back-it would have been wrong as he was old and frail, despite him thinking he was still a hard man.

Edited by Saddlebag on Thursday 19th July 16:23

[Leadfoot]

carinaman said:

'duty of care'?

The dreaded phrase, = "it's someone else's fault".

The dead chap is the one who got drunk, walked into a riot/demo, then took the pi55 when the old bill told him to move on, died when his lifestyle caught up with him. The copper may well/might not be a wrong 'un but in my opinion that's irrelevant.

PH: I'm sick of this antisocial behaviour, why can't the police give them a clip around the ear like the old days?

PH: That copper hit that lovely chap, lock him up!

[0000]

Derek Smith said:

We must have gone in 150' or more into the tightly packed mob who'd formed to stop the relief arriving. All five of us with shields just bashed everyone who stood in our way.

Bit of a difference between 5 of you against 150' or more of a tightly packed mob and one guy with his hands in his pockets walking away with his back to you. Not the best of British.

[Mr GrimNasty]

Saddlebag said:

But his actions resulted in a mans death and as I understand it, that manslaughter.

It has grossly negligent or an unlawful act as well. Neither of which were proven.

[Derek Smith]

Durzel said:

Do you not think that manslaughter was the wrong charge though?

Assault or maybe GBH would, as said above, have stood a far greater chance of success for the prosecution. As it was they were basically trying to prove that the push was intended to kill.

I'm sure a lot of people, particularly those with natural anti-Police bias, retrospectively apply the logic that "anyone could die from being pushed", but the reality is that it is exceptional.

For murder the mind must go with the act. In other words, and simplified, you have to perform an illegal act with the full knowledge that the person might die or not be bothered. There used to be a suggestion that you had to plan the act but this is not so. It's no good suggesting that you merely wanted to hurt him a bit by breaking his bones.

For maslaughter you have to perform an illegal act which results in a death. You have no need to know that your actions might have resulted in the death.

A brief overview but enough for the argument I think.

However, times have changed and many charges which would be considered murder are nowadays dropped to manslaughter.

There have been changes to the law with regards to dropping a charge of murder to manslaughter dimished responsibity and all that.

Given the circumstances of the charge: an illegal act, an assult which was ageed to be over-reacting, caused the death of the chap, then that is manslaughter. I'm not sure of the circs but it is the better charge than GBH as the harm is death. Apart from that, there was no other inury. I know it is a pretty big 'other than'. So if the act is such that the only sensible conclusion is that it is manslaughter then the CPS can't go for GBH because the jury might be more willing to convict.

I've put similar circs to a CPS lawyer, although considerably less serious, and earned myself a lot of head-shaking.

It's a bit different with a drop of a charge from GBH to ABH but you'll have to ask a CPS lawyer to explain the difference. It's beyond my feeble brain.

[Saddlebag]

It is what it is (the law).

But whatever you beeive, the public (alot of them) think YET AGAIN that the police have got away with something that a MOP would probably have gone down for.

[Derek Smith]

Mr GrimNasty said:

Saddlebag said:

But his actions resulted in a mans death and as I understand it, that manslaughter.

It has grossly negligent or an unlawful act as well. Neither of which were proven.

Can you be found guilty of manslaughter on the grounds of a duty not completed?

A friend of mine was going to be charged with manslaughter/murder for the shooting in Hastings. He was part of the command. The grounds were that he had failed in part of his duty. When it had gone a fair way along the CPS, I was told, pointed out that this could not be manslaughter as it has to e an act.

Mind you, it could all have changed. I'm years behind now.

Further, it was found that the act which he had, supposedly, failed to perform, he had performed, and faultlessly. Didn't stop the charge of malfeasance though. It had to be show that the police would posecute one of their own even when there was no evidence and many lawyers, including a judge, had pointed this out.