No Charges over G20 man's death

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Baby Huey said:

I'm looking forward to HUGE cuts in the policing budget.

I really am.

Yet again they have displayed breathtaking arrogance in the face of widespread public disgust at their actions.

You can't get one to come out if your house is being burgled, but they will happily whack you with their truncheon if you are legally going about your business.

Except the first is not true in most forces and the second is a generalisation of 140,000 officers based on the actions of one or two.

The police didn't discontinue this. The police recommended the officer be charged with manslaughter.

[Hedders]

FishFace said:

2) Yes, a small snippet of video is absolutely conclusive.

I know, it is ridiculous to think that some one could be prosecuted on the evidence of some video footage of them committing the crime they are being charged with!

It happens thousands of times a day, or have you not been watching?

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Hedders said:

FishFace said:

2) Yes, a small snippet of video is absolutely conclusive.

I know, it is ridiculous to think that some one could be prosecuted on the evidence of some video footage of them committing the crime they are being charged with!

It happens thousands of times a day, or have you not been watching?

Examples?

[Hedders]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Hedders said:

FishFace said:

2) Yes, a small snippet of video is absolutely conclusive.

I know, it is ridiculous to think that some one could be prosecuted on the evidence of some video footage of them committing the crime they are being charged with!

It happens thousands of times a day, or have you not been watching?

Examples?

I thought you were Bib?

You have not heard of the speed camera's or CCTV being used to record and prosecute crimes??


ETA: I have to go out soon so i will respond to your next post before you post it.

If the clip of the police offcier clubbing mr Tomlinson in the back of the head was taken out of context, could yopu please put it in the right context?

"I was justified in attacking that member of public from behind, with a truncheon because:"

A: i was defending myself.
B: i was defending the public
c: ???

Edited by Hedders on Saturday 24th July 08:56

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Hedders said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Hedders said:

FishFace said:

2) Yes, a small snippet of video is absolutely conclusive.

I know, it is ridiculous to think that some one could be prosecuted on the evidence of some video footage of them committing the crime they are being charged with!

It happens thousands of times a day, or have you not been watching?

Examples?

I thought you were Bib?

You have not heard of the speed camera's or CCTV being used to record and prosecute crimes??

They lead to the start of a prosecution but do not provide conclusive proof alone and indeed often not even enough to put the case to CPS.

Speeding is not a crime and as such I did not think you were referring to speed enforcement. The picture of you in the car is itself not enough to secure prosecution however. You still need to show proof of speed.

The officer was interviewed, the case was made, the police suggested manslaughter, the CPS based on the conflicts decided they could not prove the officer was guilty. I think based on what I have read that was correct.

They should have been looking at common assault from the off as that offence is the one 'made out' on the video. The irony is that it was efforts to not be seen to be whitewashing it and to be down grading the matter that lead to the assault charge being out of time.

[Hedders]

speeding is not a crime???

I give up talkign to BIB. i really do.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Hedders said:

speeding is not a crime???

I give up talkign to BIB. i really do.

I give up with you. No speeding is not a criminal offence. It's been repeated on here time and time again. Only some posters don't seem to be able to grasp the concept.

Speeding is not a crime. You are not a criminal if you are convicted of speeding. It does not show on the PNC criminal database if you have points.

On that note, using your mobile phone is not a criminal offence and neither is having a bald tyre.

Just because you want to be able to make cheap comments about the police out getting speeders to improve their crime figures does not make the statement correct.

SPEEDING IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

[Mr_annie_vxr]

Hedders said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

Hedders said:

FishFace said:

2) Yes, a small snippet of video is absolutely conclusive.

I know, it is ridiculous to think that some one could be prosecuted on the evidence of some video footage of them committing the crime they are being charged with!

It happens thousands of times a day, or have you not been watching?

Examples?

I thought you were Bib?

You have not heard of the speed camera's or CCTV being used to record and prosecute crimes??


ETA: I have to go out soon so i will respond to your next post before you post it.

If the clip of the police offcier clubbing mr Tomlinson in the back of the head was taken out of context, could yopu please put it in the right context?

"I was justified in attacking that member of public from behind, with a truncheon because:"

A: i was defending myself.
B: i was defending the public
c: ???

Edited by Hedders on Saturday 24th July 08:56

How can I? I was not there. I can make up some very quick examples of how it could be justified and could think of loads more.

How about just prior to the clip Tomlinson had punched three officers and spat at a third?

Tomlinson had been seen to brandish a handgun and point it at someone, then the video started.

The above is not true but the point is that a video clip alone can only ever be the starting point. Never enough for a prosecution or conviction.

On the video clip alone I could not justify a baton strike but I was not there at that time in the circumstances.

I've not been privvy to the officers justification or all the evidence. He may well have stated the strike with the baton was a mistake. I don't know.

[ferrari spider]

FishFace said:

1) Your what, you say? A Ferrari? Did you mention you have one of those? Perhaps even make your name your car. Just post "Ferrari, Ferrari,Ferrari, Ferrari" next time.

2) Yes, a small snippet of video is absolutely conclusive. I would hope someone in your occupation would have a greater idea of use of force and the bigger picture. Probably an ambitious expectation.

Is that the best you can come up with?!! LOL! You fking clown.

[OzzyR1]

I see your point that video is only a starting point but I can't get rid of the nagging feeling that if it was me caught on that same piece of film, whacking a copper with a metal stick who subsequently died a few minutes later I'd be facing manslaughter if not murder charges faster than they could fill in the paperwork.

In my suspicious opinion only of course.

[Mr_annie_vxr]

OzzyR1 said:

I see your point that video is only a starting point but I can't get rid of the nagging feeling that if it was me caught on that same piece of film, whacking a copper with a metal stick who subsequently died a few minutes later I'd be facing manslaughter if not murder charges faster than they could fill in the paperwork.

In my suspicious opinion only of course.

They would face the same problems proving the link.

If they hadn't been worried about trying to get the big charge through for what I suspect are political reasons then they could have looked at the assault charges.

[ExChrispy Porker]

OzzyR1 said:

I see your point that video is only a starting point but I can't get rid of the nagging feeling that if it was me caught on that same piece of film, whacking a copper with a metal stick who subsequently died a few minutes later I'd be facing manslaughter if not murder charges faster than they could fill in the paperwork.

In my suspicious opinion only of course.

I doubt the CPS would go all out to make a case against you. Assault police, at the very most if the situation were reversed.

[Hedders]

Mr_annie_vxr said:

SPEEDING IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

You can shout it as much as you like. If you think the average tax payer understands all these classifications of wrong doing, you are dreaming.

Do you really think that the average member of public thinks that the police will get the helicopters out to hunt for someone who has not commited a criminal offence?

I am sick of all the word play..

[Road Pest]

At best incompetent, at worst corrupt. Great times.

[Flintstone]

ferrari spider said:

FishFace said:

1) Your what, you say? A Ferrari? Did you mention you have one of those? Perhaps even make your name your car. Just post "Ferrari, Ferrari,Ferrari, Ferrari" next time.

2) Yes, a small snippet of video is absolutely conclusive. I would hope someone in your occupation would have a greater idea of use of force and the bigger picture. Probably an ambitious expectation.

Is that the best you can come up with?!! LOL! You fking clown.

He has a point though

[ExChrispy Porker]

Hedders said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

SPEEDING IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

You can shout it as much as you like. If you think the average tax payer understands all these classifications of wrong doing, you are dreaming.

Do you really think that the average member of public thinks that the police will get the helicopters out to hunt for someone who has not commited a criminal offence?

I am sick of all the word play..

Unfortunately wordplay is the basis of a great deal of law. At the end of the day, that is what this thread is about. Legal procedure.

[Tallbut Buxomly]

musclecarmad said:

I agree. I don't think the guy should have been sauntering along in the middle of a protest who knows what he could have been up to.

It's not as if the copper beat him over the head ten times.

I say good on the police for once - people should have more respect and he should have got out of the way.

+1

[ferrari spider]

Flintstone said:

ferrari spider said:

FishFace said:

1) Your what, you say? A Ferrari? Did you mention you have one of those? Perhaps even make your name your car. Just post "Ferrari, Ferrari,Ferrari, Ferrari" next time.

2) Yes, a small snippet of video is absolutely conclusive. I would hope someone in your occupation would have a greater idea of use of force and the bigger picture. Probably an ambitious expectation.

Is that the best you can come up with?!! LOL! You fking clown.

He has a point though

And i you cared to read ALL that we said between us, and understood the concept of what i was saying. Instead of just reading an extract of our conversation as per usual on PH , you will see i also have a point.
And i think my user name on the UK biggest car based forum, gives the bloody game away, dont you. "Dont hate the player hate the game", as the saying goes

And they guy knows nothing about whats involved in my occupational field what so ever. So why comment on it? Though to be fair, this is Piston Heads, were the average poster is more expert than the experts themselves

Edited by ferrari spider on Saturday 24th July 12:54

[Tommy Winchester]

According to the Times yesterday, Freddy Patel is being investigated on 26 separate matters involving his work.

Simon Horwood apparently took early retirement due to medical reasons in the late 90s, before facing a misconduct hearing over a road rage incident. Returning to work for Surrey police sometime later. Appearing to avoid the actual hearing going head.

Do remember the above came from a newspaper.

Why would you pick a pathologist like that for a high profile matter...

[FishFace]

Hedders said:

FishFace said:

2) Yes, a small snippet of video is absolutely conclusive.

I know, it is ridiculous to think that some one could be prosecuted on the evidence of some video footage of them committing the crime they are being charged with!

It happens thousands of times a day, or have you not been watching?

Do you know the difference between an absolute offence and one that requires Mens Rea? If so, I doubt you'd make such a comment.

ferrari spider said:

FishFace said:

1) Your what, you say? A Ferrari? Did you mention you have one of those? Perhaps even make your name your car. Just post "Ferrari, Ferrari,Ferrari, Ferrari" next time.

2) Yes, a small snippet of video is absolutely conclusive. I would hope someone in your occupation would have a greater idea of use of force and the bigger picture. Probably an ambitious expectation.

Is that the best you can come up with?!! LOL! You fking clown.

Mr Ferrari, it's a waste of my time trying to discuss this in more depth with you as you simply won't understand.

Hedders said:

Mr_annie_vxr said:

SPEEDING IS NOT A CRIMINAL OFFENCE

You can shout it as much as you like. If you think the average tax payer understands all these classifications of wrong doing, you are dreaming.

Do you really think that the average member of public thinks that the police will get the helicopters out to hunt for someone who has not commited a criminal offence?

I am sick of all the word play..

Word play AKA accuracy? An inconvenience in law?

ferrari spider said:

And they guy knows nothing about whats involved in my occupational field what so ever. So why comment on it? Though to be fair, this is Piston Heads, were the average poster is more expert than the experts themselves

Pot kettle? I have seen no demonstration of expertise form you about anything to do with this topic. You're the one making absolute judgments based on a short snippet of CCTV.

I need not know the specifics of your occupation but what I do know a lot of is a) use of force law, b) criminal law and trials (I say a lot, I am not exactly a QC). What I can also reasonable deduce is that your occupation requires you to abide by the law in relation to use of force, no? A secondly that you may find yourself in such circumstances in which knowledge of it is advantageous?

Point me out if I'm wrong so far.

So then, it's not unreasonable to expect someone with knowledge of self-defence, use of force etc to know that context matters and the law gives significant consideration to surrounding factors and circumstances, and thus a small snippet of video is therefore not conclusive. Anyone who says otherwise or makes their mind up over something that they have a superficial knowledge of (this incident) worries me as it shows a distinct lack of judgement and understanding.

Also, I don't object to your name being your nice car or showing it off on here, it was just a shade tasteless to drop it like a brick in the middle of a post with no relevance.

Tommy Winchester said:

Why would you pick a pathologist like that for a high profile matter...

An extremely important question. Especially if there was concern about his ability / conduct before this PM.

Road Pest said:

At best incompetent, at worst corrupt. Great times.

But far less corrupt than the past. Significantly so. Don't let that get between you and your melodrama though.