No Charges over G20 man's death
Discussion
What happened is tragic - no doubt...
However, a drunk protester (the majority of whom are scummy spongers in my experience) refused to co-operate quickly enough and got pushed.
That's it. Isn't it?
Am I missing something blatantly obvious here?
His death was a total fluke, and I can't help thinking that if said fluke had not happened, then no one would have thought anything of it; it was just a copper doing his job...
To remove it from the context slightly:
If I was trying to get out of a door and someone was unfairly blocking it I would ask them to move. If they didn't move, I would move them. Simple.
Now that's just a civilian to a civilian, surely the Police are due more respect/obedience?
However, a drunk protester (the majority of whom are scummy spongers in my experience) refused to co-operate quickly enough and got pushed.
That's it. Isn't it?
Am I missing something blatantly obvious here?
His death was a total fluke, and I can't help thinking that if said fluke had not happened, then no one would have thought anything of it; it was just a copper doing his job...
To remove it from the context slightly:
If I was trying to get out of a door and someone was unfairly blocking it I would ask them to move. If they didn't move, I would move them. Simple.
Now that's just a civilian to a civilian, surely the Police are due more respect/obedience?
Dagnir said:
What happened is tragic - no doubt...
However, a drunk protester (the majority of whom are scummy spongers in my experience) refused to co-operate quickly enough and got pushed.
That's it. Isn't it?
Am I missing something blatantly obvious here?
I think that you are missing a couple of things. However, a drunk protester (the majority of whom are scummy spongers in my experience) refused to co-operate quickly enough and got pushed.
That's it. Isn't it?
Am I missing something blatantly obvious here?
He wasn't a protester.
A jury has decided that he was unlawfully killed.
Don
--
Dagnir said:
What happened is tragic - no doubt...
However, a drunk protester (the majority of whom are scummy spongers in my experience) refused to co-operate quickly enough and got pushed.
That's it. Isn't it?
Am I missing something blatantly obvious here?
His death was a total fluke, and I can't help thinking that if said fluke had not happened, then no one would have thought anything of it; it was just a copper doing his job...
To remove it from the context slightly:
If I was trying to get out of a door and someone was unfairly blocking it I would ask them to move. If they didn't move, I would move them. Simple.
Now that's just a civilian to a civilian, surely the Police are due more respect/obedience?
In your subservient perspective, perhaps they are. However, obedience and respect and neither given freely nor automatically, they are earned through actions and behaviours that garner respect. The actions of the officer in this case would appear not to be that way. However, a drunk protester (the majority of whom are scummy spongers in my experience) refused to co-operate quickly enough and got pushed.
That's it. Isn't it?
Am I missing something blatantly obvious here?
His death was a total fluke, and I can't help thinking that if said fluke had not happened, then no one would have thought anything of it; it was just a copper doing his job...
To remove it from the context slightly:
If I was trying to get out of a door and someone was unfairly blocking it I would ask them to move. If they didn't move, I would move them. Simple.
Now that's just a civilian to a civilian, surely the Police are due more respect/obedience?
In your civilian example, you move someone in the same way that officer did and that person falls and later dies, quite possibly you to will have a criminal case to answer.
Whether he is a 'scummy sponger' or not is irrelevant to any debate surrounding his death. Simply put, he was hit from behind, he later died. His death was/is unlawful. His personal situation and circumstance has little to do with it. The day we start using personal circumstance and personal experience of XYZ group as a means of justifying police actions is the day the police should be disbanded and we all build towers and moats to defend ourselves.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13276336
"At the inquest six doctors said Mr Tomlinson died from internal bleeding and in the words of the coroner, they all found to a "greater or lesser degree" a "direct link" between the push and the newspaper seller's collapse. "
"At the inquest six doctors said Mr Tomlinson died from internal bleeding and in the words of the coroner, they all found to a "greater or lesser degree" a "direct link" between the push and the newspaper seller's collapse. "
Mojocvh said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13276336
"At the inquest six doctors said Mr Tomlinson died from internal bleeding and in the words of the coroner, they all found to a "greater or lesser degree" a "direct link" between the push and the newspaper seller's collapse. "
Have to say it bothers me that they use the terms to a greater or lesser degree the push caused his death. "At the inquest six doctors said Mr Tomlinson died from internal bleeding and in the words of the coroner, they all found to a "greater or lesser degree" a "direct link" between the push and the newspaper seller's collapse. "
How would they know this if as i understand it the coroner MR Patel was so inept that the notes and fluids and body parts etc were missing/ not all kept?
If this was the case how can they possibly conclude other than by speculation that his death was caused by a greater or lesser degree by the push.
I know that everyone on here thinks it abhorrent etc that i question everything and seem to side with the officer however its just my nature and the way i view this.The officer is by no means squeaky clean he did do wrong but its the extent of how wrong and how much blame he should be expected to take.
There are many things wrong here which i disagree with and which makes me feel there is still a bit of an overreaction and witchhunt situation going on.
It's not a fluke. People often die after one blow or impact causes them to hit the pavement:
http://www.lbc.co.uk/page-27609
People die after hitting the pavement when no other people are involved.
I'm not sure how we compare footage taken by 'citizen journalists' and official cameras like this:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2340398...
Head cams can help convict people, help reduce claims of police abuse at the custody desk and protect or incriminate police officers.
http://www.lbc.co.uk/page-27609
People die after hitting the pavement when no other people are involved.
I'm not sure how we compare footage taken by 'citizen journalists' and official cameras like this:
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-2340398...
Head cams can help convict people, help reduce claims of police abuse at the custody desk and protect or incriminate police officers.
Tallbut Buxomly said:
Mojocvh said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13276336
"At the inquest six doctors said Mr Tomlinson died from internal bleeding and in the words of the coroner, they all found to a "greater or lesser degree" a "direct link" between the push and the newspaper seller's collapse. "
Have to say it bothers me that they use the terms to a greater or lesser degree the push caused his death. "At the inquest six doctors said Mr Tomlinson died from internal bleeding and in the words of the coroner, they all found to a "greater or lesser degree" a "direct link" between the push and the newspaper seller's collapse. "
How would they know this if as i understand it the coroner MR Patel was so inept that the notes and fluids and body parts etc were missing/ not all kept?
If this was the case how can they possibly conclude other than by speculation that his death was caused by a greater or lesser degree by the push.
I know that everyone on here thinks it abhorrent etc that i question everything and seem to side with the officer however its just my nature and the way i view this.The officer is by no means squeaky clean he did do wrong but its the extent of how wrong and how much blame he should be expected to take.
There are many things wrong here which i disagree with and which makes me feel there is still a bit of an overreaction and witchhunt situation going on.
Benbay001 said:
People will continue to restrict the power police have to stop protesters until the country turns slightly anarchical, and then it is too late to do anything about it.
Would you prefer the police had the authority to use any means possible to stop a riot? Should we not just issue them with shotguns and let them get on with it LA style?jaf01uk said:
What is so hard for you to understand, he pushed him,correct
he fell over, he died, had he not been pushed over he would be alive,speculative it has not been enquired nor tested whether he had fallen prior to this and was therefore already in a medically dire state so far as i am aware had this line of query been followed and found to go nowhere i would be more happy.
Also pushing him was perfectly reasonable, what is unclear is whether the amount of force used was appropriate as i see it.
a jury have decided that he was illegally killed? Seems fairly straightforward to everyone else?
he fell over, he died, had he not been pushed over he would be alive,speculative it has not been enquired nor tested whether he had fallen prior to this and was therefore already in a medically dire state so far as i am aware had this line of query been followed and found to go nowhere i would be more happy.
Also pushing him was perfectly reasonable, what is unclear is whether the amount of force used was appropriate as i see it.
a jury have decided that he was illegally killed? Seems fairly straightforward to everyone else?
Witch hunt? Reducing police powers?
It's just like a Police Accident?
Would the accident have occured if the police vehicle wasn't there at that time?
It's the same for the push. If he hadn't been pushed would he have died?
It's a over reaction?
Doesn't Tomlinson deserve justice?
How many police personnel or their relatives have a drink problem and end up down on their luck? How many of those people living what we may deem chaotic, homeless lives are ex-servicemen? How many of those that have done the dirty work in Afghanistan and Iraq will end up alcohol using vagrants on our streets?
Thinking he doesn't deserve justice is the same as the police deciding who gets and who doesn't get justice based on their accent, post code or ethnicity?
How far is thinking some people shouldn't get justice from off duty police officers in Brazil taking their guns home with them to deal with those pesky street kids that are upsetting local business and shop owners?
It's the same as shiny suited car salesmen losing sales as they don't like the dress of that person that's just rocked up to their showroom looking for a test drive.
It's the job of the police to decide who is guilty and who isn't? That's in their job description?
It's just like a Police Accident?
Would the accident have occured if the police vehicle wasn't there at that time?
It's the same for the push. If he hadn't been pushed would he have died?
It's a over reaction?
Doesn't Tomlinson deserve justice?
How many police personnel or their relatives have a drink problem and end up down on their luck? How many of those people living what we may deem chaotic, homeless lives are ex-servicemen? How many of those that have done the dirty work in Afghanistan and Iraq will end up alcohol using vagrants on our streets?
Thinking he doesn't deserve justice is the same as the police deciding who gets and who doesn't get justice based on their accent, post code or ethnicity?
How far is thinking some people shouldn't get justice from off duty police officers in Brazil taking their guns home with them to deal with those pesky street kids that are upsetting local business and shop owners?
It's the same as shiny suited car salesmen losing sales as they don't like the dress of that person that's just rocked up to their showroom looking for a test drive.
It's the job of the police to decide who is guilty and who isn't? That's in their job description?
Tallbut Buxomly said:
jaf01uk said:
What is so hard for you to understand, he pushed him,correct
he fell over, he died, had he not been pushed over he would be alive,speculative it has not been enquired nor tested whether he had fallen prior to this and was therefore already in a medically dire state so far as i am aware had this line of query been followed and found to go nowhere i would be more happy.
Also pushing him was perfectly reasonable, what is unclear is whether the amount of force used was appropriate as i see it.
a jury have decided that he was illegally killed? Seems fairly straightforward to everyone else?
he fell over, he died, had he not been pushed over he would be alive,speculative it has not been enquired nor tested whether he had fallen prior to this and was therefore already in a medically dire state so far as i am aware had this line of query been followed and found to go nowhere i would be more happy.
Also pushing him was perfectly reasonable, what is unclear is whether the amount of force used was appropriate as i see it.
a jury have decided that he was illegally killed? Seems fairly straightforward to everyone else?
How far would you like to go back before you rule out every single scenario of "what if" so that you don't end up where you seem to want to be, which is that by some strange coincidence he keeled over and died of entirely natural causes a split second after a particularly over the top and unnecessary shove in the back by PC Harwood, and you end up where a jury who heard all the evidence available to the inquiry ended up - he was unlawfully killed.
mercGLowner said:
Who? The CPS or the MPS? It is scandalous that the Police appear to be above the law. If I, as a member of the public, had done what PC Harwood did, I would have been INSTANTLY arrested and subsequently charged with assault/ABH/Manslaughter/Murder.
Who failed in charging him appropriately? what did his colleagues around him think of his actions?
No you wouldn't. Who failed in charging him appropriately? what did his colleagues around him think of his actions?
The cps decided not to charge. I think it's very hard beyond all reasonable doubt to show causal link. If you'd pushed and he had landed and died there and then no issues. However his demeanour. His stumbling. How exactly can you prove beyond all reasonable doubt he didn't fall before or after.
As a result it would have been more sensible to go for what they had. They could easily have gone for misconduct in a public office.
It was the desire to apase and look transparent. Any decent barrister would be able to introduce reasonable doubt based on Tomlinsons history and other actions.
What would be harder to refute would it appear is the officers general conduct on that day.
Stigproducts said:
All the crap that the police came out with after this happened eg "police were bombarded with bricks, bottles and planks of wood" whilst trying to save his life, the dodgy postmortem. All a big smoke screen puffed away by video footage which seemed to suggest a much different story. Then, until now, a series of events which conveniently meant that "unfortunately" nothing could be done to hold the police to account.
Closing ranks, using the system, condoning criminal behaviour, trying to sweep it under the carpet. A police reaction with precedent.
Closing ranks to protect people doing a difficult job can be explained but this incident has really shown in the full public gaze just how arrogant, corrupt and unaccountable the UK Police force has become.
Pc Simon Harwood was out of control that day. The only thing that did stop him was his behavior in killing an innocent man.
His colleagues did nothing to stop it and then pathetically tried to cover it up. Not one of them stepped in to disapprove of Harwood pushing that man; one can therefore conclude they too felt it was OK.
I wonder if the change in government has anything to do with this? It seems that whilst Labour were in power this was tidily being filed under "unfortunate" and now the tide has turned??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson
You are having a fClosing ranks, using the system, condoning criminal behaviour, trying to sweep it under the carpet. A police reaction with precedent.
Closing ranks to protect people doing a difficult job can be explained but this incident has really shown in the full public gaze just how arrogant, corrupt and unaccountable the UK Police force has become.
Pc Simon Harwood was out of control that day. The only thing that did stop him was his behavior in killing an innocent man.
His colleagues did nothing to stop it and then pathetically tried to cover it up. Not one of them stepped in to disapprove of Harwood pushing that man; one can therefore conclude they too felt it was OK.
I wonder if the change in government has anything to do with this? It seems that whilst Labour were in power this was tidily being filed under "unfortunate" and now the tide has turned??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Ian_Tomlinson
king laugh aren't you? Have you actually seen what the police did to protestors in the past? They have done nothing to protect him. There is no cover up. They couldn't give a s
t about him. PSD and the police will sell officers down the river to maintain the reputation of a force. They have ZERO loyalty to him.
paddyhasneeds said:
Oh for christ's sakes now you're just being obtuse. Maybe he fell over an hour before, maybe he fell over a few weeks before.
How far would you like to go back before you rule out every single scenario of "what if" so that you don't end up where you seem to want to be, which is that by some strange coincidence he keeled over and died of entirely natural causes a split second after a particularly over the top and unnecessary shove in the back by PC Harwood, and you end up where a jury who heard all the evidence available to the inquiry ended up - he was unlawfully killed.
It was stated that due to cirrhosis iirc he had advanced liver disease and it was stated by someone at some point that a fall could have caused the rupture and internal bleeding. How far would you like to go back before you rule out every single scenario of "what if" so that you don't end up where you seem to want to be, which is that by some strange coincidence he keeled over and died of entirely natural causes a split second after a particularly over the top and unnecessary shove in the back by PC Harwood, and you end up where a jury who heard all the evidence available to the inquiry ended up - he was unlawfully killed.
All well and good so far but considering he was so far as i am aware very drunk it is possible is it not that in the prior 5-10 mins to the incident he tripped and took a fall which could have caused the rupture.
Have you never been drunk and found yourself being unstable and prone to tripping over a pavement or even just yourself for example?? Funnily enough its been known to happen. I dont expect them to go back 4 days as that would be unnecessary just the prior half hr would do to rule out that possibility as it sounds like he wouldnt have lasted more than half an hr with the bleed.
Otherwise the officer involved could be found guilty of killing him when in fact he may already have been dying and the officers actions would have been irrelevant to his survival. The officer would still be liable to any assault charge but not manslaughter.
Tallbut Buxomly said:
It was stated that due to cirrhosis iirc he had advanced liver disease and it was stated by someone at some point that a fall could have caused the rupture and internal bleeding.
All well and good so far but considering he was so far as i am aware very drunk it is possible is it not that in the prior 5-10 mins to the incident he tripped and took a fall which could have caused the rupture.
Have you never been drunk and found yourself being unstable and prone to tripping over a pavement or even just yourself for example?? Funnily enough its been known to happen. I dont expect them to go back 4 days as that would be unnecessary just the prior half hr would do to rule out that possibility as it sounds like he wouldnt have lasted more than half an hr with the bleed.
Otherwise the officer involved could be found guilty of killing him when in fact he may already have been dying and the officers actions would have been irrelevant to his survival. The officer would still be liable to any assault charge but not manslaughter.
Please!! Has it not crossed your mind that perhaps the multiple enquiries and inquest might have just maybe thought about that? Like I said before, you better phone them up and tell them they have all got it wrong All well and good so far but considering he was so far as i am aware very drunk it is possible is it not that in the prior 5-10 mins to the incident he tripped and took a fall which could have caused the rupture.
Have you never been drunk and found yourself being unstable and prone to tripping over a pavement or even just yourself for example?? Funnily enough its been known to happen. I dont expect them to go back 4 days as that would be unnecessary just the prior half hr would do to rule out that possibility as it sounds like he wouldnt have lasted more than half an hr with the bleed.
Otherwise the officer involved could be found guilty of killing him when in fact he may already have been dying and the officers actions would have been irrelevant to his survival. The officer would still be liable to any assault charge but not manslaughter.
Please give it a rest, it's getting tiresome and your doing yourself no favours, as the Von meister keeps saying "the court has decided"Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff