No Charges over G20 man's death

[ferrari spider]

High stress situations can induce hart attacks. Especially if a person is of weak health and is faced with violence that he or she may have never experienced before.
I am simply pointing out that a man/woman could die by such actions. Individual people act differently. For example. some people you can shout at and they take it on the chin. Were others will collapse in a heap gasping for breath hyperventilating.

[grumbledoak]

Hedders said:

That is the only footage i have ever seen. It was shown time and time again every time they talk about the story!

Isn't that basically the same footage as the link on Page 1? As far as I can tell he was told to 'clear' off, possibly hit on the legs, then shoved and told again to 'clear' off.

I'd support something like an Assault charge; it did look a bit excessive. But I've never seen anything to suggest Manslaughter.

[FishFace]

PH takes it to a new level, they are now more qualified than 3 Pathologists! I'm sure they totally didn't consider the footage

[AJS-]

Ian Thomlinson should count himself lucky he wasn't a Brazilian electrician or he'd be twice as dead now.

No vanhousen yet to say that pushing him over was the only reasonable course of action? mr_annie is doing a good job of denying the bleeding obvious in the mean time though.

To be fair there's no reason to think that such a push would kill him. Though as far as I can see there was no reason for the push at all.

Those who bleat on about how brave our police are might want to go and have a look at videos of the poll tax riots, a bunch of angry Muslims or any other situation where people actually fight back.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

AJS- said:

Ian Thomlinson should count himself lucky he wasn't a Brazilian electrician or he'd be twice as dead now.

No vanhousen yet to say that pushing him over was the only reasonable course of action? mr_annie is doing a good job of denying the bleeding obvious in the mean time though.

To be fair there's no reason to think that such a push would kill him. Though as far as I can see there was no reason for the push at all.

Those who bleat on about how brave our police are might want to go and have a look at videos of the poll tax riots, a bunch of angry Muslims or any other situation where people actually fight back.

Since you decide to highlight myself.

What exactly have I denied?

What I have stated is that it was never possible to show a causal link between the footage and the death. That they should have looked at the assault. That IMHO the reason they didn't was to satisfy those demanding blood and that once it inevitable bottomed out they'd then lost time.

The only thing I've denied is that speeding is a crime.

I've pointed out that the police and IPCC both recommended charging with manslaughter. I've pointed out that the Met would have no qualms in going after the officer.

I've stated I would on the video evidence alone not be able to justify the baton strike.

I've stated that the video alone is not enough to convict.

I've stated that you have to take into account all surrounding circumstances when deciding guilt.

There is no cover up. Linking the death beyond all reasonable doubt is not possible. I don't think it ever was due to the time lapse and the nature of injury.

As for your last little comments.

Would the poll tax riots be where heavily put numbered the officers with little protection still didn't back down?

The problem is when you are so intent on slating the police you lose it aspears any ability to understand the legal process or any ability to take part in reasoned debate.

The police as an organisation would rather this had gone to court.

[Hedders]

grumbledoak said:

Hedders said:

That is the only footage i have ever seen. It was shown time and time again every time they talk about the story!

Isn't that basically the same footage as the link on Page 1? As far as I can tell he was told to 'clear' off, possibly hit on the legs, then shoved and told again to 'clear' off.

I'd support something like an Assault charge; it did look a bit excessive. But I've never seen anything to suggest Manslaughter.

Are you siuggesting that if i go around shoving people from behind (with a massice club in my hand that appears to hit people on the back of their heads, and they fall onto concrete and die from the trauma or heart attack, it is not my fault at all as they really should survive such an attack, or does that only apply if i am wearing a uniform and i am a bit stressed?

How about if i stab someone, you can't prove it was the stabbing that killed them, hell he managed to take a few steps after the stabbing so his death must just be a freak coincidence.

And yes, i imagine it is the same footage you have seen before, you just see it differently it seems.

Edited by Hedders on Sunday 25th July 07:58

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Hedders said:

grumbledoak said:

Hedders said:

That is the only footage i have ever seen. It was shown time and time again every time they talk about the story!

Isn't that basically the same footage as the link on Page 1? As far as I can tell he was told to 'clear' off, possibly hit on the legs, then shoved and told again to 'clear' off.

I'd support something like an Assault charge; it did look a bit excessive. But I've never seen anything to suggest Manslaughter.

Are you siuggesting that if i go around shoving people from behind (with a massice club in my hand that appears to hit people on the back of their heads, and they fall onto concrete and die from the trauma or heart attack, it is not my fault at all as they really should survive such an attack, or does that only apply if i am wearing a uniform and i am a bit stressed?

How about if i stab someone, you can't prove it was the stabbing that killed them, hell he managed to take a few steps after the stabbing so his death must just be a freak coincidence.

And yes, i imagine it is the same footage you have seen before, you just see it differently it seems.

Edited by Hedders on Sunday 25th July 07:58

If you shoved someone and they fell. Then five minutes later collapsed and died having continued on their way and not been kept under constant observation, if the person had no injuries reported in a postmortem that were caused by a fall then you'd absolutely not be able to be linked to that death.

As for your emotive use of club. The baton is a legally held weapon, you carrying a club would not be. The officer is carrying out a legal instruction to clear a road, you would not be, the officer would have a right to use some force in doing so, you would not.

Oh you are now making stuff up.

Tomlinson had no head injuries, the officer never struck him in the head either.

He was struck once to the thigh and pushed.

I understand having no legal knowledge or understanding or any actual practical experience in the the application of the law or in dealing with mass disturbance can make some of the concepts difficult to understand.

If Tomlinson had been struck to the head, if he had died of a fractured skull from that singular injury then it would be far easier to link. He wasn't and he didn't.

[Hedders]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

If you shoved someone and they fell. Then five minutes later collapsed and died having continued on their way and not been kept under constant observation, if the person had no injuries reported in a postmortem that were caused by a fall then you'd absolutely not be able to be linked to that death.

As for your emotive use of club. The baton is a legally held weapon, you carrying a club would not be. The officer is carrying out a legal instruction to clear a road, you would not be, the officer would have a right to use some force in doing so, you would not.

Oh you are now making stuff up.

Tomlinson had no head injuries, the officer never struck him in the head either.

He was struck once to the thigh and pushed.

I understand having no legal knowledge or understanding or any actual practical experience in the the application of the law or in dealing with mass disturbance can make some of the concepts difficult to understand.

If Tomlinson had been struck to the head, if he had died of a fractured skull from that singular injury then it would be far easier to link. He wasn't and he didn't.

Club, baton, baseball bat, call it what ever you want to. If i had that item in my hand and i was caught on video doing what that policeman did , i think i would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder, or manslaughter.

I do not believe for one second that they would not be able to join the dots, and somehow to connect me to the death of the man i just assaulted and buy any stretch of anyones imagination, he WAS assaulted.

However, i am not in the least bit suprised by the outcome in this case, so perhaps i am not as stupid as you think. You do not have to be an exprienced riot cop to know what happened here. There was no riot, just police violence with an unexpected result.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Hedders said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

If you shoved someone and they fell. Then five minutes later collapsed and died having continued on their way and not been kept under constant observation, if the person had no injuries reported in a postmortem that were caused by a fall then you'd absolutely not be able to be linked to that death.

As for your emotive use of club. The baton is a legally held weapon, you carrying a club would not be. The officer is carrying out a legal instruction to clear a road, you would not be, the officer would have a right to use some force in doing so, you would not.

Oh you are now making stuff up.

Tomlinson had no head injuries, the officer never struck him in the head either.

He was struck once to the thigh and pushed.

I understand having no legal knowledge or understanding or any actual practical experience in the the application of the law or in dealing with mass disturbance can make some of the concepts difficult to understand.

If Tomlinson had been struck to the head, if he had died of a fractured skull from that singular injury then it would be far easier to link. He wasn't and he didn't.

Club, baton, baseball bat, call it what ever you want to. If i had that item in my hand and i was caught on video doing what that policeman did , i think i would be charged with assault with a deadly weapon, or murder, or manslaughter.

I do not believe for one second that they would not be able to join the dots, and somehow to connect me to the death of the man i just assaulted and buy any stretch of anyones imagination, he WAS assaulted.

However, i am not in the least bit suprised by the outcome in this case, so perhaps i am not as stupid as you think. You do not have to be an exprienced riot cop to know what happened here. There was no riot, just police violence with an unexpected result.

You really are failing to grasp the concepts. That huge lump of prejudice is quite obvious from your emotive language and editing of the facts to suit your points.

One more time.

No one said he was not assaulted.

Yes you would be charged with carrying an offensive weapon. You are not legally entitled to carry it.

The assault charge ran out of time as they wanted to pursue a more serious charge. A more serious charge that was never likely to come about due to the conflicts but more importantly the time lapse and the vagueness surrounding the injury.

IF he had been smacked in the head and died of a head injury it would have been more likely a charge would follow. He was not and he did not.

Its not about stretched of the imagination in court its about proving beyond all reasonable doubt.

As for your last comment.

I don't think your stupid I think you are so prejudiced against the police that you see what you want to see ( a club hitting Tomlinson in the head and claiming there was no riot that day when there clearly was a large disturbance and far more violence aimed at the police).

It was IMHO trying to apease people like yourself with deep seated prejudice towards the police that they went for a charge that would never stick when they should have dealt with the incident of pushing and baton striking. They tried to avoid claims of a whitewash and in doing so created the appearance of one.

You've still not explained how it is the police and IPCC both suggested manslaughter charges, which surely if it was a cover up they wouldn't have?

As stated time and again, on the video alone I cannot justify the baton strike.

[Hedders]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

You really are failing to grasp the concepts. That huge lump of prejudice is quite obvious from your emotive language and editing of the facts to suit your points.

One more time.

No one said he was not assaulted.

Please excuse my 'emotive' language, i am not a robot therefore i do have emotions. Would you prefer it if were only used officially accepted police terms in normal conversation?

I don't care if people acknowledge there was an assault. I care if justice is done and it plainly was not.

Mr_annie_vxr said:

As stated time and again, on the video alone I cannot justify the baton strike.

But you can justify the outcome of the baton strike, it seems you can have your cake AND eat it?

[FishFace]

Hedders said:

grumbledoak said:

Hedders said:

That is the only footage i have ever seen. It was shown time and time again every time they talk about the story!

Isn't that basically the same footage as the link on Page 1? As far as I can tell he was told to 'clear' off, possibly hit on the legs, then shoved and told again to 'clear' off.

I'd support something like an Assault charge; it did look a bit excessive. But I've never seen anything to suggest Manslaughter.

Are you siuggesting that if i go around shoving people from behind (with a massice club in my hand that appears to hit people on the back of their heads, and they fall onto concrete and die from the trauma or heart attack, it is not my fault at all as they really should survive such an attack, or does that only apply if i am wearing a uniform and i am a bit stressed?

How about if i stab someone, you can't prove it was the stabbing that killed them, hell he managed to take a few steps after the stabbing so his death must just be a freak coincidence.

And yes, i imagine it is the same footage you have seen before, you just see it differently it seems.

You're being deliberately obtuse. The link between the push and cause of death cannot be proven beyond all reasonable doubt in these circumstances. How hard is that to understand? Every set of circumstances are different.

Write to the DPP and tell him that he is in fact wrong and all the Jury do is watch a short video clip to prove everything beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm sure he'll see the light...

AJS- said:

Ian Thomlinson should count himself lucky he wasn't a Brazilian electrician or he'd be twice as dead now.

No vanhousen yet to say that pushing him over was the only reasonable course of action? mr_annie is doing a good job of denying the bleeding obvious in the mean time though.

To be fair there's no reason to think that such a push would kill him. Though as far as I can see there was no reason for the push at all.

Those who bleat on about how brave our police are might want to go and have a look at videos of the poll tax riots, a bunch of angry Muslims or any other situation where people actually fight back.

So you're judging bravery by the level of violence the police officer back? Perspective is an easy thing to lose. I'd love to do a cultural swap with the police from the US, most places in the EU and one from outside the EU. See how heavy-handed their strategies and tactics are when dealing with major public order incidents.

The fact the UK is the only country (New Zealand too?) not to have routinely armed police should trigger off some thought process to the half-intelligent insofar as the attitude and police culture to using force. That is to say, it's a lot lower than everywhere else.

Obviously things happen which are wrong - inevitable - but perversely, one poor innocent man being shot in the last decade and another being dubiously pushed and dying, prove the point we live in good times. The sheer amount of attention these stories gain and the lasting use as ammunition by those who know not what they are talking about show what rare and unusual police interactions these are. I wonder if they same can be said of anywhere else. I doubt it.

[Hedders]

FishFace said:

You're being deliberately obtuse. The link between the push and cause of death cannot be proven beyond all reasonable doubt in these circumstances. How hard is that to understand? Every set of circumstances are different.

Write to the DPP and tell him that he is in fact wrong and all the Jury do is watch a short video clip to prove everything beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm sure he'll see the light...

It is very interesting how this 'beyond all reasonable doubt' allways seems to work in favour of the 'authorities'.

How did the copper manage to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that his actions did not kill Mr Tomlinson?

Oh, that was not necessary was it. You have to prove a copper guilty beyond all reasonable doubt but a memmber of the public is expected to prove himself innocent beyond all reasonable doubt.

What a fair system, Are we expected to flee from the police whenever we see them, bnecause if they have the power over our life and death that will be the reaction.

Running from the police will become something that even law abiding people do, which of course will make them guilty of a crime anyway.

Nice.

[poo at Paul's]

ferrari spider said:

As is mine. So you can now delete your last please. I work with Euro Tactical on a professional level, i am not a company director. Another email sent

Edited by ferrari spider on Friday 23 July 09:41

Flipping heck, with you sending all these emails, it is easy to see how someone would mistake you for having a directorship, maybe even two!

This case stinks.

Edited by poo at Paul's on Sunday 25th July 10:55

[FishFace]

Hedders said:

FishFace said:

You're being deliberately obtuse. The link between the push and cause of death cannot be proven beyond all reasonable doubt in these circumstances. How hard is that to understand? Every set of circumstances are different.

Write to the DPP and tell him that he is in fact wrong and all the Jury do is watch a short video clip to prove everything beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm sure he'll see the light...

It is very interesting how this 'beyond all reasonable doubt' allways seems to work in favour of the 'authorities'.

So what you're saying is this is a corrupt decision? You're one of the people ignoring the experiences of most on here with experience in this environment, which is that when the public interest is so high the CPS will look to prosecute police officers for anything they can. I saw this when doing part-law study a few years ago.

If this is your default, cynical stance then how can you ever take an objective view of events?

Hedders said:

How did the copper manage to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that his actions did not kill Mr Tomlinson?

He doesn't need to to. It's for the prosecution to prove beyond all reasonable doubt. It helps for the dependent to raise reasonable doubt (sometimes not much) themselves, but not necessary.

Hedders said:

Oh, that was not necessary was it. You have to prove a copper guilty beyond all reasonable doubt but a memmber of the public is expected to prove himself innocent beyond all reasonable doubt.

You're quickly slipping from someone who seems to have a reasonable amount of intelligence to someone who doesn't.

Hedders said:

What a fair system, Are we expected to flee from the police whenever we see them, bnecause if they have the power over our life and death that will be the reaction.

Running from the police will become something that even law abiding people do, which of course will make them guilty of a crime anyway.

No it won't. Don't be daft. The only time people tend to need to move from the police are large scale protests and other public order incidents.

You need to be careful that you don't let your perception ride over careful and considered thinking, which it is doing. You're sighting your thoughts that the police 'get away with it' on the same level as actual facts.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Hedders said:

FishFace said:

You're being deliberately obtuse. The link between the push and cause of death cannot be proven beyond all reasonable doubt in these circumstances. How hard is that to understand? Every set of circumstances are different.

Write to the DPP and tell him that he is in fact wrong and all the Jury do is watch a short video clip to prove everything beyond all reasonable doubt. I'm sure he'll see the light...

It is very interesting how this 'beyond all reasonable doubt' allways seems to work in favour of the 'authorities'.

How did the copper manage to prove beyond all reasonable doubt, that his actions did not kill Mr Tomlinson?

Oh, that was not necessary was it. You have to prove a copper guilty beyond all reasonable doubt but a memmber of the public is expected to prove himself innocent beyond all reasonable doubt.

What a fair system, Are we expected to flee from the police whenever we see them, bnecause if they have the power over our life and death that will be the reaction.

Running from the police will become something that even law abiding people do, which of course will make them guilty of a crime anyway.

Nice.

You really are so prejudiced that you now have just stated you want the accused in any crime to have to prove beyond all reasonable doubt they are innocent. Your so hell bent on your view that you're losing the plot.

In this case the officer is the accused and like all accused people only has to introduce reasonable doubt to avoid conviction. The authorities prosecuting him and every other offender have to prove beyond readonable doubt to get convictions.

Your lack of legal understanding is making you undermine civil liberties in an attempt to argue your point.

You even contradict yourself in trying to do so.

By all means carry on but I fear you make yourself look foolish in unhinderimg efforts to argue your point ignoring basic legal facts. Whilst making up some others.

The alleged injury was to his liver not his thigh where the baton struck him. When he landed he did so arms outstretched.

The link although maybe likely or possible is not beyond all reasonable doubt which is the legal burden of proof required in criminal cases. You may well want to change that but it is a dangerous step to do so and rather authoritarian of you of you ask me.

I'm happy that accused people have to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

[Hedders]

Yes i am sceptical of the outcome of court cases involving those in authority. My perception is that they do not get treated in the same way as normal members of the public.

If that makes me an idiot, then so be it.

No matter how many times i see it happening, it is always justified because hey, thats the way the law works.

The expression 'one rule for them' did not invent itself, and peoples perceptions of how those in authority can get away with what 'we' would be locked up for are constantly being bolstered by what is ACTUALLY happening . Do you think we are imagining it?

I think your problem is that you just don't realise that a lot of 'us' now look at the police as just another bit of the government. You are no longer here for us, you are here for them.

None of this is meant as a personal attack, or even an attack on the police. As i say i have a hard time seperating the police from the government. My anger is with the entire set up, not the police themselves.

[ferrari spider]

poo at Paul's said:

ferrari spider said:

As is mine. So you can now delete your last please. I work with Euro Tactical on a professional level, i am not a company director. Another email sent

Edited by ferrari spider on Friday 23 July 09:41

Flipping heck, with you sending all these emails, it is easy to see how someone would mistake you for having a directorship, maybe even two!

You see i could send you one, but then i would have to........ah you know the rest

[Hedders]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

I'm happy that accused people have to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

it sounds like you are suggesting that a policemans statement should be treated as heresay, unless you are suggesting that a policemans statement is in fact proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt?

You could only hold that opinion if no policeman had ever lied and i am sure you don't believe that.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Hedders said:

Yes i am sceptical of the outcome of court cases involving those in authority. My perception is that they do not get treated in the same way as normal members of the public.

If that makes me an idiot, then so be it.

No matter how many times i see it happening, it is always justified because hey, thats the way the law works.

The expression 'one rule for them' did not invent itself, and peoples perceptions of how those in authority can get away with what 'we' would be locked up for are constantly being bolstered by what is ACTUALLY happening . Do you think we are imagining it?

I think your problem is that you just don't realise that a lot of 'us' now look at the police as just another bit of the government. You are no longer here for us, you are here for them.

None of this is meant as a personal attack, or even an attack on the police. As i say i have a hard time seperating the police from the government. My anger is with the entire set up, not the police themselves.

Perceptions. You summed it up.

Reality. Police officers accused will face far higher levels of investigation and money being spent to secure conviction. CPS will charge and prosecute when in the same circumstances a member of the public wouldn't be prosecuted.

No ip no prosecution. Sgt Smellie had an IP who refused to turn up. Any other case would have been dropped there and then.

Police officers are treated far more harshly when investigated and when prosecuted and held to a far higher standard.

I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with people not realising that or suggesting otherwise.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Hedders said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

I'm happy that accused people have to be guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

it sounds like you are suggesting that a policemans statement should be treated as heresay, unless you are suggesting that a policemans statement is in fact proof of guilt beyond all reasonable doubt?

You could only hold that opinion if no policeman had ever lied and i am sure you don't believe that.

I don't actually think you even know what you are saying now.

Police officers statements are not taken at face value. As a result often they go in the witness box.

Do you know what hearsay is?

Are you suggesting that the burden of proof in criminal cases is not beyond all reasonable doubt ( a fundemantal of our justice system) or that it should not be?!

Please don't continue you are really not helping your cause.