Justintime Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Is it just me but the vidio i saw he hit him with a batton on the back of the legs first the blow was so hard it felled the man, No excuse if you did this to a copper your trile would be murder hope he gets what he deserves no one should assault anyone else fact Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laird Lugton Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) Tomlinson was an alcoholic, sleeping rough and obviously not much use to himself or anyone else. I’ve seen a few people in my time go a similar course and quite frankly I think it’s such a waste of life made all the more pointless in that it’s self inflicted. I’m afraid I’ve little time to grieve for such people. As an aside I see his widow is suing the Met over the incident so maybe she’ll eventually get some benefit from being married to such a waster. I see the family are now rallying round and saying what a good man/dad/step dad he was but they had kicked him out of the family home and he’d not been back for 6 months apparently, mmmm. Well then to follow your reasoning we should get the Germans to re-open Dachau and Auschwitz for these people...... Doesn't matter whether the guy was a toff in society or an alcoholic sleeping rough he deserves the same rights of protection. I don't expect to be hit by any member of society, policeman or not. I expect the police to arrest me and cart me off, not beat me up. Edited May 24, 2011 by Laird Lugton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shaun4860 Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 I recon he shouldnt be on trial, he was doing his job, and its aout time people started respecting the police, and if he was 5x the dd limit he probz wouldnt of fallen over, he probz wouldnt of argued snd wouldnt of been a probkem, he was the one who got drunk and started the altercation and the fact he died after falling over was his own stupid fault for being at a protest drunk, and arguing with the police. In any other country the police would of had tear gas, water cannons, rubber bullets, our police get pads and a baton and are prosocuted for using it? People do respect the police, they do a hard and difficult job, however they also have to obey the law, So in your world, if someone goes on a bender and has a few words with the police they deserve to be knocked to the ground and assaulted? Also he wasnt at the protest, he was trying to find his way home and after being denied access to the way he wanted to go, decided to go that way. Still no excuse for the policeman to drop him like he did. Whilst im on, what difference how many times over the dd limit he was?....he wasnt driving or in charge of a vehicle. in reality that could have meant he had 7 or 8 pints depending on how his system coped with it. They dont get prosecuted for using batons and shields, they get prosecuted for abusing them. Wind your kneck in mate shaun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Trial by media again you do utter tripe at times KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) PC Harman is seen coming in from behind and pushing/hitting Tomlinson who falls to the ground rolls over and talks to some other officers before getting up (with help)and moving off. Later he has a heart attack and dies. I take it that you dont do facts I.E. he was hit then pushed to the ground and he did NOT have a heart attack he suffered a hemorage, understand, comprehend, take in? Edited May 24, 2011 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flashman Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 When ever the Met is mentioned I always have this vision of their mentality. Dave I love this: "In possession of an offensive wife..." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty J Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Anyone remember this?? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3661332.stm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 It might look clear based on the selective bits we have seen, but I guarantee it will not remain so simple. It will be a trial by Jury. Is the acquittal rate still 50%? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AVB Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 I love this: "In possession of an offensive wife..." or "in possession of dark curly hair and thick lips" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 It might look clear based on the selective bits we have seen, but I guarantee it will not remain so simple. It will be a trial by Jury. Is the acquittal rate still 50%? he will go down, he has already been tried by jury and on the same terms (beyond reasonable doubt) he has admitted lying under oath he has been seen knocking others including a bbc camera man to the ground, and he has been reported by colleagues ( most of which never came out straight away) a decent barrister will bury him and quite rightly so. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vole Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 I just hope the jury come to the correct verdict . I still cannot figure out why the hell he did it in the first place as he was clearly not a threat to anyone . Maybe he just got carried away . Dumb thing to do in the cctv capital of the world and all the anarchists with video cameras . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 What no one has mentioned yet is that the post mortem was seriously and maybe criminally flawed, and that is likely to provide sufficient doubt to ensure a 'Not Guilty' verdict from a jury of lay people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 kdubya - you may well be right. First problem might be the CPS hiring a decent Barrister, who is better than the Defence Barrister. I have seen a few too many acquittals, which looked dead certs, to be fully convinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 (edited) What no one has mentioned yet is that the post mortem was seriously and maybe criminally flawed, and that is likely to provide sufficient doubt to ensure a 'Not Guilty' verdict from a jury of lay people. no one mentioned it because the flawed post-mortem ( you know the one that said he had a heart attack) was from a since discredited pathologist six others stated he did not have a heart attack and died from a hemorrhage due to him being pushed over, so you're not guilty verdict will remain little more than a figment of a biased imagination. KW http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12733830 or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366225/Pathologist-Dr-Freddy-Patel-faces-struck-flaws-Camden-Ripper-case.html Edited May 24, 2011 by kdubya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thunderbird Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 It's very obvious what the worst thing in all this is, had there been no youtube video...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 It's very obvious what the worst thing in all this is, had there been no youtube video...... one of the benefits of modern mobile phones KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
death from below Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 he will go down, he has already been tried by jury and on the same terms (beyond reasonable doubt) he has admitted lying under oath he has been seen knocking others including a bbc camera man to the ground, and he has been reported by colleagues ( most of which never came out straight away) a decent barrister will bury him and quite rightly so. KW Nearly true - Coroner court hearings for of suicide and death by natural causes require proving beyond reasonable doubt. . Other jobs such as this are arrived at on the balance of probabilities. So on the balance of probabilities in a coroners court the jury found an unlawful killing was apt - this may be a very different case in the criminal court - many areas of evidence allowed in a coroners court will highly likely not be allowed in a criminal court once legal arguments have gone to and throu. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Nearly true - Coroner court hearings for of suicide and death by natural causes require proving beyond reasonable doubt. . Other jobs such as this are arrived at on the balance of probabilities. So on the balance of probabilities in a coroners court the jury found an unlawful killing was apt - this may be a very different case in the criminal court - many areas of evidence allowed in a coroners court will highly likely not be allowed in a criminal court once legal arguments have gone to and throu. totally true I am afraid for a coroner to record a verdict of unlawful killing the verdict must be based on the terms BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT as in a normal court of law. KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 no one mentioned it because the flawed post-mortem ( you know the one that said he had a heart attack) was from a since discredited pathologist six others stated he did not have a heart attack and died from a hemorrhage due to him being pushed over, so you're not guilty verdict will remain little more than a figment of a biased imagination. KW http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12733830 or http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1366225/Pathologist-Dr-Freddy-Patel-faces-struck-flaws-Camden-Ripper-case.html Not so! The subsequent post mortems indicated: "Further postmortem examinations, conducted by different pathologists, indicated that Tomlinson had died from internal bleeding caused by blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with cirrhosis of the liver." Note the last seven words. That, along with the initial PM will cloud the issue beyond the comprehension of 12 lay people. Remember the phrase: Beyond reasonable doubt. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Not so! The subsequent post mortems indicated: "Further postmortem examinations, conducted by different pathologists, indicated that Tomlinson had died from internal bleeding caused by blunt force trauma to the abdomen, in association with cirrhosis of the liver." Note the last seven words. That, along with the initial PM will cloud the issue beyond the comprehension of 12 lay people. Remember the phrase: Beyond reasonable doubt. which is why the verdict of the coroner was based on "beyond reasonable doubt" you do need to put the spade down? see below KW Unlike other verdicts, "unlawful killing" requires the same burden of proof as a criminal trial, meaning that jurors had to reach a verdict that was "beyond reasonable doubt". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 which is why the verdict of the coroner was based on "beyond reasonable doubt" you do need to put the spade down? see below KW Unlike other verdicts, "unlawful killing" requires the same burden of proof as a criminal trial, meaning that jurors had to reach a verdict that was "beyond reasonable doubt". But the proceeds in a Coroner's Court bears little resemblance to a Criminal Court. Have you ever been in either? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muggins. Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 its very interesting coming to that conclusion after 20 seconds of mobile phone footage from an officer acting in a riot situation. And thats what everyone on their computers is doing assuming the bloke is a thug in uniform and effectively sending him down and ruining his life based on that 20 second clip. Its why I'm not in the police because having asked someone a few times to get out of the way and back off in that situation I'd have done very similar. The crutz is that the chap wasn`t exactly being confrontational, ie. he had his hands in his pockets and was facing away from the offending officer. "From an officer in a riot situation" He wasn`t faced with a baying mob at the time and the chap was attacked from behind. If the chap was drunk and disorderly, inciting a riot etc etc why was he not arrested? Then it would have been job done. There have been a few cases in the past where police actions have been called into question so they don`t exactly help themselves. Having said that, would i want their job? probably not. In this case, do i think the officer should go on trial? Definately. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kdubya Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 But the proceeds in a Coroner's Court bears little resemblance to a Criminal Court. Have you ever been in either? but ? no buts about it he's going down and rightly so,oh it's exactly the same and yes I have been on jury service, and witnessed the shambling efforts of a police officer who could not be bothered to take notes bluster and fluster whilst an obviosly guilty party was acquitted on the judges orders :lol: keep digging KW Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gordon R Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 Never been in a Coroner's Court, but have been in Crown Court on more occasions than I care to recall. I have seen some verdicts which defied logic, so I still think there is a long way to go before people start convicting the Policeman. We are in danger of reaching a conclusion based on a short video and some reported "facts". I doubt that CPS think that it's in the bag. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
UKPoacher Posted May 24, 2011 Report Share Posted May 24, 2011 but ? no buts about it he's going down and rightly so,oh it's exactly the same and yes I have been on jury service, and witnessed the shambling efforts of a police officer who could not be bothered to take notes bluster and fluster whilst an obviosly guilty party was acquitted on the judges orders :lol: keep digging KW I assume then that you have never been in a Coroner's Court. Assuming that your experience of Crown Court is the norm then I wonder why they bother going to all that expense and don't just acquit people to save time and money? You mentioned the word 'biased' earlier Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.