No Charges over G20 man's death
Discussion
carinaman said:
But people get convicted when drunken punchiness results in someone banging their head on the ground and dying so why not in this case?
Causal links are made in those cases.
In the cases I have seen it's normally head injury and there has been no 'gap' or time for intervening act. The problem with Tomlinson is that the blow wasn't a head. It wasn't in the site of the baton strike it was a blow you get from falling. Also it would be easy to argue from defence perspective around how long it took to kill him from injury. Causal links are made in those cases.
Was it ten. Twenty or thirty minutes.
I think it would take a decent barrister five minutes. Remember I don't think the officer had a barrister on 'his' side.
I think based ONLY on what I have seen and read that other offences were and could have been made out. Misconduct in public office is the most serious.
Zod said:
eggshell skull rule.
Absolutely. You are a decent lawyer though I bet you'd be able to introduce doubt on causal link based on environment. The vagueness of time passed and the ip's drunken state ( common for drunk people to fall over). Most eggshell stuff is quite clear cut with limited opportunity for intervening acts.
I'm still struggling to understand where all the hatred for this copper is coming from.
Don't get me wrong I don't generally like 'modern Police', (they stop me doing what I wanna do :P) as more often than not they come across as arrogant and quite often have a touch of 'Napoleon complex'.
However, it's his job to police people right? Some pisshead is being a nuisance, is somewhere he shouldn't be and gets pushed towards where he should be. As far as I am concerned that's the copper doing his job properly!
Had he done exactly as he was told, it is very likely that he would not have been pushed.
It isnt the Police's fault that he was a fragile man, part of the problem with this country (and world) is that we make far too many concessions for the weak (of body and mind). It is ruining our country, planet and race!
Don't get me wrong I don't generally like 'modern Police', (they stop me doing what I wanna do :P) as more often than not they come across as arrogant and quite often have a touch of 'Napoleon complex'.
However, it's his job to police people right? Some pisshead is being a nuisance, is somewhere he shouldn't be and gets pushed towards where he should be. As far as I am concerned that's the copper doing his job properly!
Had he done exactly as he was told, it is very likely that he would not have been pushed.
It isnt the Police's fault that he was a fragile man, part of the problem with this country (and world) is that we make far too many concessions for the weak (of body and mind). It is ruining our country, planet and race!
My attitude towards this guy comes from seeing the aggression of his lunges at people in the variosu video clips. His colleagues around him all behave properly, but he appears to go out of his way to attack people. His record is atrocious. The vast majority of the Police are decent people and it is in their interest to be rid of people like this.
Zod said:
My attitude towards this guy comes from seeing the aggression of his lunges at people in the variosu video clips. His colleagues around him all behave properly, but he appears to go out of his way to attack people. His record is atrocious. The vast majority of the Police are decent people and it is in their interest to be rid of people like this.
IMHO based on what appears to be coming out there is an issue with this officers overall behaviour. I find myself at odds with many things he dud and said. With the caveat being that I've only seen the reported comments and video. It's very difficult to pass a lot of comment as I am as subject to PSD as he is. I think however that they will be already have been looking at disciplinary action against him. They won't be involved in a cover up and will have been disappointed not to have seen a criminal prosecution. The officers best case scenario is job loss.
Dagnir said:
I'm still struggling to understand where all the hatred for this copper is coming from.
It's mainly coming from the fact that for no reason he pushed over a man who ultimately died from injuries sustained from the push.Dagnir said:
Don't get me wrong I don't generally like 'modern Police', (they stop me doing what I wanna do :P) as more often than not they come across as arrogant and quite often have a touch of 'Napoleon complex'.
I'm the opposite- I've found most of the police I've had dealings with are polite, helpful and friendly.Dagnir said:
However, it's his job to police people right? Some pisshead is being a nuisance, is somewhere he shouldn't be and gets pushed towards where he should be.
He wasn't being a nuisance, he was trying to get out of the cordoned area and get home. The video footage of him approaching two separate cordons show him in a non-confrontational stance and looking reasonably relaxed. He wasn't shouting or agressive towards the police even after he'd been struck. He wasn't a protestor, he was a newspaper seller who had spent his afternoon in the pub. If he deserved the push why was it that none of the other officers moved towards him at all?Dagnir said:
As far as I am concerned that's the copper doing his job properly!
By pulling over a cameraman and pushing over a drunk? I don't have a problem with his actions in arresting the protestor he saw vandalising the van, I'm not too upset about the baton hit he gave Tomlinson either, but the rest of the time he seems to be on a huge power trip.Dagnir said:
Had he done exactly as he was told, it is very likely that he would not have been pushed.
He did do exactly as he was told, as evidenced from the fact that he was walking away from the police line when he was pushed.I'll ignore your last point if you don't mind as I live in the 21st Century.
Dagnir said:
I'm still struggling to understand where all the hatred for this copper is coming from.
Don't get me wrong I don't generally like 'modern Police', (they stop me doing what I wanna do :P) as more often than not they come across as arrogant and quite often have a touch of 'Napoleon complex'.
However, it's his job to police people right? Some pisshead is being a nuisance, is somewhere he shouldn't be and gets pushed towards where he should be. As far as I am concerned that's the copper doing his job properly!
Had he done exactly as he was told, it is very likely that he would not have been pushed.
It isnt the Police's fault that he was a fragile man, part of the problem with this country (and world) is that we make far too many concessions for the weak (of body and mind). It is ruining our country, planet and race!
My opinion is that the primary role of a policeman is to protect the public.Don't get me wrong I don't generally like 'modern Police', (they stop me doing what I wanna do :P) as more often than not they come across as arrogant and quite often have a touch of 'Napoleon complex'.
However, it's his job to police people right? Some pisshead is being a nuisance, is somewhere he shouldn't be and gets pushed towards where he should be. As far as I am concerned that's the copper doing his job properly!
Had he done exactly as he was told, it is very likely that he would not have been pushed.
It isnt the Police's fault that he was a fragile man, part of the problem with this country (and world) is that we make far too many concessions for the weak (of body and mind). It is ruining our country, planet and race!
This officer was assaulting the public.
Ian Tomlinson was assaulted, from behind, with his hands in his pockets, at 7:20pm, while he was walking away from PC Harwood.
One minute earlier, PC Harwood had assaulted a BBC camerman, Tony Fallshaw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPY4snnrRh8
PC Harwood was supposed to be at the wheel of a police van when these incidents took place.
Don
--
I give up. The mentality on here is that the officers action in this individual case are absolute and clearcut that he intentionally set out to kill or maim Mr Tomlinson and none of you will hear otherwise.
The opinion appears to be that he should be at best hung drawn and quartered.
What a pity people are so close minded and irrational.
The opinion appears to be that he should be at best hung drawn and quartered.
What a pity people are so close minded and irrational.
Tallbut Buxomly said:
I give up. The mentality on here is that the officers action in this individual case are absolute and clearcut that he intentionally set out to kill or maim Mr Tomlinson and none of you will hear otherwise.
The opinion appears to be that he should be at best hung drawn and quartered.
What a pity people are so close minded and irrational.
Thanks. We'll continue without you.The opinion appears to be that he should be at best hung drawn and quartered.
What a pity people are so close minded and irrational.
don4l said:
One minute earlier, PC Harwood had assaulted a BBC camerman, Tony Fallshaw.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPY4snnrRh8
PC Harwood was supposed to be at the wheel of a police van when these incidents took place.
Some of the other videos linked from that one don't make comfortable viewing - is that really also PC Harwood bashing someone's head into a van door? Then it gets nasty as he's a bit isolated from his colleagues, while in the foreground some other copper is punching and kicking another protestor.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPY4snnrRh8
PC Harwood was supposed to be at the wheel of a police van when these incidents took place.
I'd say more on one side than the other, but it isn't helpful either way.Tallbut Buxomly said:
I give up. The mentality on here is that the officers action in this individual case are absolute and clearcut that he intentionally set out to kill or maim Mr Tomlinson and none of you will hear otherwise.
The opinion appears to be that he should be at best hung drawn and quartered.
What a pity people are so close minded and irrational.
I don't think that is the case at all - few here want him HD & Q'd - I can see little of that going on here. But if, as you suggest, his intentions are not clear cut, i.e. in some way there is ambiguity between him doing his duty and him using the events to satisfy some kind of personal issue, then isn't that even more reason for getting to the truth of the matter?The opinion appears to be that he should be at best hung drawn and quartered.
What a pity people are so close minded and irrational.
The events leading up to this mans death need investigation and analysis - to the nth degree if that is what it takes. There is little by way of a 'witch hunt' from the more balanced majority of people, just a desire to make sure that if this man's death is illegal, than the person(s) responsible are dealth with under law.
Also, what ever the outcome of any personal case against an officer, there is a far bigger picture here - and that is one of learning. What, if anything can be learned from the death of this man?
Is it not in the best interest of everyone that this question, if nothing else, be addressed?
The danger is that many public order officers, who already feel unsupported after SGT Smellie( who by the way got a puncture wound that was ignored by the press) feel even less so now.
The danger is that you run out of those willing to put themselves at extra risk of prosecution for a decision made in a split second that is analysed to the nth degree often out of context.
However. What is needed is a decent review of the reasons for conviction. At this time a lot of officers I know are struggling with the officers actions and then his statement. Also with some of his other activities that day.
Based ONLY on what's been published I think he needs reviewing.
The danger is that you run out of those willing to put themselves at extra risk of prosecution for a decision made in a split second that is analysed to the nth degree often out of context.
However. What is needed is a decent review of the reasons for conviction. At this time a lot of officers I know are struggling with the officers actions and then his statement. Also with some of his other activities that day.
Based ONLY on what's been published I think he needs reviewing.
Tallbut Buxomly said:
I give up. The mentality on here is that the officers action in this individual case are absolute and clearcut that he intentionally set out to kill or maim Mr Tomlinson and none of you will hear otherwise.
The opinion appears to be that he should be at best hung drawn and quartered.
What a pity people are so close minded and irrational.
No, the mentality really isn't that at all from what I make of the thread. It is from some people, just as some people i.e. you believe the officer acted appropriately and had Tomlinson not died, nothing should have come of his actions that day.The opinion appears to be that he should be at best hung drawn and quartered.
What a pity people are so close minded and irrational.
Coming from someone who has the view that because he was a drunk, a bit of a bum, and didn't comply with Harwood he basically got what he deserved, pot and kettle leaps to mind.
paddyhasneeds said:
No, the mentality really isn't that at all from what I make of the thread. It is from some people, just as some people i.e. you believe the officer acted appropriately and had Tomlinson not died, nothing should have come of his actions that day.
Coming from someone who has the view that because he was a drunk, a bit of a bum, and didn't comply with Harwood he basically got what he deserved, pot and kettle leaps to mind.
Have i ever said the officer acted appropriately? Coming from someone who has the view that because he was a drunk, a bit of a bum, and didn't comply with Harwood he basically got what he deserved, pot and kettle leaps to mind.
I dont think you will find i did, but at any point that i ask questions that could be perceived as defending the officer or contradicting the poor innocent Mr Tomlinson view everyone starts hopping up and down and having a hissy fit and name calling etc all very childish basically. Only 2/3 people who have commented in this thread have been willing to question the situation instead of simply condemning the officer.
Rather than simply discussing and reviewing which is the point of the thread i would have thought.
The overall view i get is that almost all on here have judged the officer on all his actions both on the day and other days and have found him guilty based on those actions as well as his actions reg Mr Tomlinson by making them one event.
That is no way to make a judgement of an individual situation such as this.
paddyhasneeds said:
No, the mentality really isn't that at all from what I make of the thread. It is from some people, just as some people i.e. you believe the officer acted appropriately and had Tomlinson not died, nothing should have come of his actions that day.
Coming from someone who has the view that because he was a drunk, a bit of a bum, and didn't comply with Harwood he basically got what he deserved, pot and kettle leaps to mind.
Your views are as blinkered and closed minded as those you appear to oppose.Coming from someone who has the view that because he was a drunk, a bit of a bum, and didn't comply with Harwood he basically got what he deserved, pot and kettle leaps to mind.
FFS. What a waste of a conversation.
Tallbut Buxomly said:
paddyhasneeds said:
No, the mentality really isn't that at all from what I make of the thread. It is from some people, just as some people i.e. you believe the officer acted appropriately and had Tomlinson not died, nothing should have come of his actions that day.
Coming from someone who has the view that because he was a drunk, a bit of a bum, and didn't comply with Harwood he basically got what he deserved, pot and kettle leaps to mind.
Have i ever said the officer acted appropriately? Coming from someone who has the view that because he was a drunk, a bit of a bum, and didn't comply with Harwood he basically got what he deserved, pot and kettle leaps to mind.
I dont think you will find i did, but at any point that i ask questions that could be perceived as defending the officer or contradicting the poor innocent Mr Tomlinson view everyone starts hopping up and down and having a hissy fit and name calling etc all very childish basically. Only 2/3 people who have commented in this thread have been willing to question the situation instead of simply condemning the officer.
Rather than simply discussing and reviewing which is the point of the thread i would have thought.
The overall view i get is that almost all on here have judged the officer on all his actions both on the day and other days and have found him guilty based on those actions as well as his actions reg Mr Tomlinson by making them one event.
That is no way to make a judgement of an individual situation such as this.
You also said "He was urged to get a move on and move forward and ignored the warning. He therefore got given a more stern approach and ended up taking a tumble. If he had done as asked he wouldnt have ended up taking a tumble. Ergo he was a drunken idiot who got what he deserved."
I've not tried to deliberately misquote you, and if that's what you believe then fair enough, I just have a different view, which is far from the hang, draw and quarter him mentality that you seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with you has.
Anyway, I'm not going to persuade you to come around to my position on this, and I wont't come around to yours so I guess the ultimate arbiter will be the jury at a trial, if it does go that far.
paddyhasneeds said:
You did say that you "have no issue with what pc harwood did. My only criticism is that he pushed the chap a little too hard which is easy enough for anyone to do by simply misjudging someones size and weight.." which to me reads that you believe he acted appropriately.
Granted a bit misleading however i tried to explain why i see it that way. He pushed him too hard certainly, the point was what was his intent in the push and did he intend to push him so hard he fell or merely stumbled forward??? To me that is a crucially important aspect to cover as it shows whether there was intent to harm or merely to move him along and it will be very hard to prove.
You also said "He was urged to get a move on and move forward and ignored the warning. He therefore got given a more stern approach and ended up taking a tumble. If he had done as asked he wouldnt have ended up taking a tumble. Ergo he was a drunken idiot who got what he deserved." To a certain extent yes. He was asked to move on from what we see two or three times both by another officer and then push/lunged at by mr harwood. If he had done as was asked/told he would not have given Mr Harwood the "excuse"
I've not tried to deliberately misquote you, and if that's what you believe then fair enough, I just have a different view, which is far from the hang, draw and quarter him mentality that you seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with you has.
Anyway, I'm not going to persuade you to come around to my position on this, and I wont't come around to yours so I guess the ultimate arbiter will be the jury at a trial, if it does go that far.
Certainly and i was by no means having a pop at you. We are also not going to agree but wouldnt life be a bit dull if we did. We see things differently thats life. I will highlight a few things though to see if i can clarify.Granted a bit misleading however i tried to explain why i see it that way. He pushed him too hard certainly, the point was what was his intent in the push and did he intend to push him so hard he fell or merely stumbled forward??? To me that is a crucially important aspect to cover as it shows whether there was intent to harm or merely to move him along and it will be very hard to prove.
You also said "He was urged to get a move on and move forward and ignored the warning. He therefore got given a more stern approach and ended up taking a tumble. If he had done as asked he wouldnt have ended up taking a tumble. Ergo he was a drunken idiot who got what he deserved." To a certain extent yes. He was asked to move on from what we see two or three times both by another officer and then push/lunged at by mr harwood. If he had done as was asked/told he would not have given Mr Harwood the "excuse"
I've not tried to deliberately misquote you, and if that's what you believe then fair enough, I just have a different view, which is far from the hang, draw and quarter him mentality that you seem to think anyone who doesn't agree with you has.
Anyway, I'm not going to persuade you to come around to my position on this, and I wont't come around to yours so I guess the ultimate arbiter will be the jury at a trial, if it does go that far.
Edited by Tallbut Buxomly on Thursday 5th May 20:18
Edited by Tallbut Buxomly on Thursday 5th May 20:19
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff