Hardwood found not guilty
Discussion
Snowboy said:
If Harwood had just given a shove and not a baton strike, if Tomlinson had not died - then a lot of people would have accepted that a cop shoving a drunk on their way is fair enough.
It wasn't an especially brutal shove, but it was the shove that caused the death, not the baton strike.
I guess that one mans view on brutal is not the same for everybody.It wasn't an especially brutal shove, but it was the shove that caused the death, not the baton strike.
If that is how you want police Officer's to deal with a drunk who is no threat to them then so be it.
Snowboy said:
If Hardwood had been found guilty of assault for a moderate shove it would have set a precedent for police.
A precedent that unlawful & excessive force could be punished? How terrible. It wasn't exactly moderate, either, bearing in mind that he died because of it.Snowboy said:
Frankly, the police need to be able to get a bit physical without worrying about getting charged with assault.
Are you serious? Police should be allowed to attack unarmed people who pose no threat?Edited by Rovinghawk on Tuesday 6th August 13:59
Ianal.
The question in court was whether Hardwood killed Tomlinson beyond all reasonable doubt.
Now, I don't have the details in front of me but as far as I recall the jury decided the shove was a contributing factor, but not the cause of death.
This isn't a healthy man being beaten to death, it was a very ill man being shoved which triggered an existing condition.
We all know the 'glass jaw' laws. But this was found to be something different.
The question in court was whether Hardwood killed Tomlinson beyond all reasonable doubt.
Now, I don't have the details in front of me but as far as I recall the jury decided the shove was a contributing factor, but not the cause of death.
This isn't a healthy man being beaten to death, it was a very ill man being shoved which triggered an existing condition.
We all know the 'glass jaw' laws. But this was found to be something different.
Rovinghawk said:
Snowboy said:
If Hardwood had been found guilty of assault for a moderate shove it would have set a precedent for police.
A precedent that unlawful & excessive force could be punished? How terrible.Snowboy said:
Frankly, the police need to be able to get a bit physical without worrying about getting charged with assault.
Are you serious? Police should be allowed to attack unarmed people who pose no threat?Snowboy said:
The question in court was whether Hardwood killed Tomlinson beyond all reasonable doubt.
The Home Office (Harwood's employer, remember) caused reasonable doubt when they brought Patel in.Snowboy said:
the jury decided the shove was a contributing factor, but not the cause of death.
AIUI they accepted that it couldn't be proven as the cause.Snowboy said:
it was a very ill man being shoved which triggered an existing condition
Ill enough to drop down dead but healthy enough to get attacked.Snowboy said:
We all know the 'glass jaw' laws. But this was found to be something different.
This was found to be death through trauma injury (according to the two 'proper' pathologists) shortly after an attack with "excessive & unlawful force" (according to Met police).Snowboy said:
So you think that your opinion is more important that the findings of the jury?
My understanding is that the prosecution could not sufficiently convince the jury that Harwood caused the death.The CPS waited too long to act and so the opportunity to charge him with a lesser offence, that would very likely have resulted in conviction, timed out beyond the 6 month limitation.
Harwood was lucky, if that's the right word.
Zod said:
La Liga said:
Zod said:
They failed to get a conviction in a case where the coroner had delivered an unlawful killing verdict. It's a different burden of proff, but that's their job.
So you don't actually have any specific knowledge of prosecution case which justifies the CPS looking at the case again other than, "they should have got a conviction because it's there job" - well, with such a compelling, evidence-based argument how could I do anything else other than change my mind? The burdens of proof are drastically different. A > 5/10 vs a > 9.5 / 10.
La Liga said:
Zod said:
I've just had a quick look at your posting record, so I won't bother any further.
Yes, because it's not as easy to blag people with experience. La Liga said:
If you care to present something with substance as to why the CPS should look at the case again then feel free. I'm happy to listen. Some vague logic because two verdicts with significantly different burdens of proof don't match doesn't reach the mark I'm afraid.
"Some vague logic"? It's hardly some vague logic to suggest that an inquest unlawful killing verdict might suggest that acquittal of the man who pushed the victim and struck him with a baton might have been a surprising verdict. It was open to the CPS to seek to reopen the question of whether Harwood's disciplinary record should have been disclosed to the jury.There is a big gap between the civil burden and criminal burden. The scores out of 10 were to illustrate this, not speculate as to what 'score' this case has.
There are circumstances which sit between reaching the the civil burden of proof, but not the criminal one. These circumstances have appeared before and will again. We don't have more as few criminal matters get tried on both burdens (imagine how many NGs in court would be found guilty at a civil level).
Concluding, in itself, because these circumstances sat in that gap is not itself a reason to look at the case once again.
The flaw logical flaw is to accept circumstances exist which may sit in this gap as consequence of the width between the burdens, but then conclude that when they do it means the CPS are wrong.
La Liga said:
t is vague logic.
There is a big gap between the civil burden and criminal burden. The scores out of 10 were to illustrate this, not speculate as to what 'score' this case has.
There are circumstances which sit between reaching the the civil burden of proof, but not the criminal one. These circumstances have appeared before and will again. We don't have more as few criminal matters get tried on both burdens (imagine how many NGs in court would be found guilty at a civil level).
Concluding, in itself, because these circumstances sat in that gap is not itself a reason to look at the case once again.
The flaw logical flaw is to accept circumstances exist which may sit in this gap as consequence of the width between the burdens, but then conclude that when they do it means the CPS are wrong.
You've done nothing here, but repeat that the burden of proof is different, which I myself noted in the first post to which you replied.There is a big gap between the civil burden and criminal burden. The scores out of 10 were to illustrate this, not speculate as to what 'score' this case has.
There are circumstances which sit between reaching the the civil burden of proof, but not the criminal one. These circumstances have appeared before and will again. We don't have more as few criminal matters get tried on both burdens (imagine how many NGs in court would be found guilty at a civil level).
Concluding, in itself, because these circumstances sat in that gap is not itself a reason to look at the case once again.
The flaw logical flaw is to accept circumstances exist which may sit in this gap as consequence of the width between the burdens, but then conclude that when they do it means the CPS are wrong.
Zod said:
You've done nothing here, but repeat that the burden of proof is different, which I myself noted in the first post to which you replied.
What would the collective like to see then?Harwood was found not guilty of manslaughter, I think many of us can see why and may agree with that conclusion.
And those who disagree should at least recognise the findings of a jury trial.
But, what if he was guilty of assault.
Chances are he wouldn't get a custodial sentence. It would be a fine and/or community service and/or a suspended sentence.
He's already lost his job, probably won't get another.
Is it worth the cps pursuing it any further even if they could?
Snowboy said:
What would the collective like to see then?
How about personal liability for actions outwith what could reasonably (with generous leeway) be deemed to be proper police procedure?Snowboy said:
Chances are he wouldn't get a custodial sentence.
For killing someone?Snowboy said:
It would be a fine and/or community service and/or a suspended sentence.
Confuscious said it's better to light just one candle than to curse the darkness.Snowboy said:
He's already lost his job, probably won't get another.
You love him, you hire him.La Liga said:
Zod said:
You've done nothing here, but repeat that the burden of proof is different, which I myself noted in the first post to which you replied.
No I didn't. I showed why saying the CPS should re-examine the because of the coroner's result is flawed. La Liga said:
Zod said:
You've done nothing here, but repeat that the burden of proof is different, which I myself noted in the first post to which you replied.
No I didn't. I showed why saying the CPS should re-examine the because of the coroner's result is flawed. 
Forgive me for not trusting someone making a conclusion without having access to the necessary information and data to actually form such a conclusion.
Unless he has access to the prosecution file and was at the trial, then I'll add a little more weight to him saying the CPS should review the case again.
Unless he has access to the prosecution file and was at the trial, then I'll add a little more weight to him saying the CPS should review the case again.
It would have been better had Harwood made a grovelling apology for Ian Thomlinson's death at his hands, than Maxine de Brunner make an unreserved one.
It was more appropriate that the DAC should apologise for the incorrect information variously given by police officers after the event.
Streaky
It was more appropriate that the DAC should apologise for the incorrect information variously given by police officers after the event.
Streaky
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff