Hardwood found not guilty

[Jasandjules]

Saddlebag said:

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.

Indeed. The reputation of the police suffers ever further, rightly or wrongly.

[10 Pence Short]

To complete the offence the prosecution had to overcome several hurdles- simply showing a video of the victim being pushed over is not enough. Having considered all the evidence in front of them, the jury didn't feel safe in convicting, and the prosecution had faied to overcome all of those hurdles.

Juries should not pander to popular opinion in order to convict- that would be the real travesty of justice.

[rohrl]

I wonder what will happen to me if I shove a policeman in the back causing him to fall to the ground on the way home today.

[Derek Smith]

0000 said:

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.

Have you ever been in a football crowd where there have been 'problems'? The norm is that the police will push and harry. It's the only way to ensure there is little trouble.

The chap, hands in his pcket or not, was a demonstrator. He had been demonstrating earlier on.

And there were eight of us. Five with shields in a V, three behind, one with a first aid kit, and the other two with very short shields which could be abandoned whose job it was to go in for the arrest/rescue.

My point was, though, that the accpetance of force being used by police has changed somewhat. They are told by papers that they should have got stuck in with truncheons, rubber bullets and fists for the riots and then that they can't push one demonstrator. Whilst I accept that there are differences in the culpability, can you not see that to a bloke who's been on a demo for some time, being goaded, pushed and sworn at, the differences are somewhat blurred.

Some say that's what they are paid for, not to react. But that's normal human behaviour. It's the same as saying the police should not get upset when they see a dead baby, after all, what did they expect when they joined? We certainaly don't want, and probably cannot afford, officers without humanity.

I agee that this looks bad for the police but then they have to obey the law. Once an officer has presented the evidence, either on file or at court, whatever happens afterwards is of no concern. Sauce for the goose.

I note that the comments section on the online dailes have all been disabled. A further case?

[Jessicus]

I'm far more concerned that a guy who "retired" from the force on "health grounds" (i.e. was about to be kicked out due to inappropriate use of the police database) managed to get back via a civilian job.

What's the betting that he'll now quit on health grounds and return to beat up some more people in 5 years?

[rohrl]

Derek Smith said:

I note that the comments section on the online dailes have all been disabled. A further case?

This article is open on Comment Is Free.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/1...

Edited by rohrl on Thursday 19th July 17:03

[carinaman]

10 Pence Short said:

Juries should not pander to popular opinion in order to convict- that would be the real travesty of justice.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/5152948/Investigators-admit-they-were-wrong-over-CCTV-of-G20-victim-Ian-Tomlinson.html

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/25/ian-tomli...

I'm not sure where fact and popular opinion meet?

Travesty of justice? The above looks shoddy to say the least.

[Derek Smith]

rohrl said:

Derek Smith said:

I note that the comments section on the online dailes have all been disabled. A further case?

This article is open on Comment Is Free.

[url]
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jul/1...

Still not open for me. Perhps I've been banned.

[0000]

Derek Smith said:

The chap, hands in his pcket or not, was a demonstrator. He had been demonstrating earlier on.

So he was overdue being shoved because he'd been demonstrating earlier?

This wasn't crowd control.

[rohrl]

Derek Smith said:

Still not open for me. Perhps I've been banned.

Sorry, my mistake with the formatting. Should work now. You're not Berchmans are you Derek? Good cover that postman spiel.

[blindswelledrat]

0000 said:

Derek Smith said:

The chap, hands in his pcket or not, was a demonstrator. He had been demonstrating earlier on.

So he was overdue being shoved because he'd been demonstrating earlier?

This wasn't crowd control.

When having a discussion about these type of things, it achieves absolutely nothing to remove a sentence like this and quote it out of the context it was made and try to imply that the person was saying something they weren't.
Why do you/people do that?

[0000]

blindswelledrat said:

When having a discussion about these type of things, it achieves absolutely nothing to remove a sentence like this and quote it out of the context it was made and try to imply that the person was saying something they weren't.
Why do you/people do that?

To address a particular point, of course, rather than ever quoting an entire thread. The context is all still there for anyone who wishes to read it, I had no intention of implying anything in the absence of the surrounding post.

You even seem to be able to see the rest of the context, why do you people have to be offended for some imaginary person not able to read the context?

[heebeegeetee]

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.

They do if they're not well, which is why policemen (or anybody else) can't go knocking people down willy nilly.

[skeggysteve]

The Inquest last year gave a verdict of unlawful killing.
The man that admitted he was wrong to push Tomlinson has been found not guilty.

What happens now? Does the law have to find someone responsible for the unlawful killing?

[DSM2]

heebeegeetee said:

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.

They do if they're not well, which is why policemen (or anybody else) can't go knocking people down willy nilly.

Well they shouldn't but it seems that they can, sadly.

[rohrl]

DSM2 said:

heebeegeetee said:

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.

They do if they're not well, which is why policemen (or anybody else) can't go knocking people down willy nilly.

Well they shouldn't but it seems that they can, sadly.

Eggshell skull rule?

[carinaman]

He'll face a disciplinary hearing in September to be held in public anyway.

Warning for misuse of the PNC, tsk tsk.

[10 Pence Short]

carinaman said:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-ord...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/25/ian-tomli...

I'm not sure where fact and popular opinion meet?

Travesty of justice? The above looks shoddy to say the least.

Wasn't CCTV of the area found? In which case, it was an erroneous statement by an individual in the IPCC but not deathly to the prospects of the officer receiving a fair trial.

As for the medical evidence, the jury would be able to make their own judgements on the quality of evidence and use that in their deliberating.

Remember, the burden was not on the officer to prove he didn't do it.

[carinaman]

The point I was making was into an investigation into what happened a mistake was made into the existence or otherwise of CCTV footage, and the Doctor used by the Met. had already been removed off of the approved list of Doctors to be used for that role by another constabulary.

It's like taking your car to a garage that's known to be a bit lax on their MoT standards and the noisiness of exhausts.

It's just two mistakes into the investigation of a police officer.

The Dodgy Doctor impacted on the outcome of other cases too.

Edited by carinaman on Thursday 19th July 17:34

[joe_90]

Ripped from reddit:

More interesting, now that it can't be considered to prejudice the jury, the media can publish his record.
Neither jury heard details of Harwood's prior disciplinary record, which can only be reported now.

guardian said:

This includes how he quit the Met on health grounds in 2001 shortly before a planned disciplinary hearing into claims he illegally tried to arrest a driver after a road rage incident while off duty, altering his notes to retrospectively justify the actions. Harwood was nonetheless able to join another force, Surrey, before returning to serve with the Met in 2005.

He allegedly punched, throttled, kneed or threatened other suspects while in uniform in other alleged incidents.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-not-guilty-ian-tomlinson

well done... slow clap.

/edit more

guardian said:

Harwood was the subject of a number of unproven complaints after joining the TSG, including from a member of the public who said they saw him knee a suspect in the chest in Streatham High Road, south London.
The incident, in May 2005, was one of two prosecutors also sought to raise at the manslaughter trial. At a pre-trial hearing they said an independent witness reported seeing Harwood knee a man in the kidney as he lay on the ground in handcuffs.
~~~~~
A "road rage" incident in April 2000 in which Harwood, off duty at the time, had a minor car collision and then became involved in an argument with the man driving the other vehicle.
When senior officers investigated the case, Harwood told them the other driver was the aggressor. However, independent witnesses backed the other man, who said Harwood ran at him aggressively, knocking him over and forcing him over his car door. The witnesses said Harwood identified himself as a police officer and tried to arrest the other driver for common assault.
An officer who attended the scene later noticed how Harwood amended his notes to seek to justify the arrest, which was unlawful.
...
Weeks before the misconduct hearing was due to be heard, Harwood applied to be medically retired from the Met, citing injuries he had suffered in a motorbike accident more than three years earlier. His last day at the force was 14 September 2001. But his absence did not last long – just three days later, Harwood was taken on by the same force as a civilian employee.
Within 18 months he had successfully applied to become a uniformed officer with the neighbouring Surrey police force.
~~~~~
In January 2004, he was again accused of using excessive force, in a complaint lodged by a fellow officer in a raid on a flat. Two officers said they saw Harwood grab a suspect by the throat, punch him twice in the face and push him into a table, causing it to break.
The arrested suspect, referred to as BE in documents cited during legal argument before the Tomlinson inquest last year, injured another officer, named as PC Newman. But despite his own injuries, Newman was reported to have said he was so shocked at Harwood's behaviour he insisted on lodging a complaint, which prompted a disciplinary investigation.

Sounds a nice fellow..