G20 Policeman charged with manslaughter

[artschool]

lol what a great thread.

 

so what have i learnt today?

 

today i learnt that some pigeon watch members believe being drunk is punishable by death

 

pc harwood better practice his soap picking up technique :yp:

Edited May 25, 2011 by artschool

[bignoel]

:yp: simple realy be a naughty boy and your end up in court :yp:

[Harnser]

After all that all I know is I wouldn't want to face 12 PW jurors on any charge...thank the lord they've banned hanging in the UK!

 

highlander , I can assure you that it wouldnt be any different if you were facing a jury of your peers in a crown court. The truth will be stretched ,bent and thrown out the window as will the lies and the deciet . You would proberbly get a fairer trial from pigeon watch members than you would by a jury of your peers in a crown court . At least your pigeon watch jury would have the basics of an education and will be able to at least read and write the queens English . Not necessarily so your crown court jury . Incidently ,we should bring back capital punishment .

 

Harnser.

[Muggins.]

One says "Orf with his head"

[Mungler]

He wasn't driving, a man is entitled to go out and get drunk and walk home- I've done it Many times.

 

Me too

 

Well, round these parts we call it magic beer shoes or the magic beer scooter. You get home but you're not sure how.

[UKPoacher]

I stand by my original thought when i started this thread, sense has prevailed and he has been charged based on the evidence against him which they deem good enough to go to trial with, which is a choice they don`t take lightly, they like winning cases. I hope they find him guilty.

 

Whilst in most cases cases are only brought if there is an overwhelming liklihood of a conviction, the requirement for this is lessened where there is a public interest element.

[Gordon R]

UK Poacher - I think you have summed it up correctly. I honestly doubt that CPS see this as an 80% win case. Probably 50 / 50, but bowed to public and family pressure.

 

I have seen all the opinions on here - all seem sincere in their belief - guilty or not guilty, but I do not believe we are as unbiased as a jury might be. We seem to be looking at a video and reported facts. Some believe the video is enough.

 

I think it looks bad, but don't think it will be enough to convict on manslaughter. In court, a whole different slant will be put on what we have seen and heard. It will definitely be far less clear cut. If it was as clear cut as some believe, he would have been charged earlier.

 

If I am wrong - so be it. For the record, I think the Policeman was way over the top, but am not privvy to what happened earlier. For those who say they don't care what went on earlier, I think you may be disillusioned at the trial.

[Laird Lugton]

so the only one to get off was the police dog that bit him earlier when he had a scuffle with that

It was with some other thug officers, what surprises me is people can throw bricks, fire extinguishers etc etc at the police with impunity and make them stand and take it with no defence. Yet a police officer pushes a man out of their way and the PW massive would have him for murder

 

I'm not sure the "PW Massive" are saying that. I think they're saying that everybody has to work within the law. Step outside that and you open yourself to the PC's predicament.

 

Rioters can throw bricks at the Police if they want. I assume the Police have the right to use reasonable force to arrest the rioters and stop the riot. Reasonable force can be batons, water canon, tear gas but it has to be reasonable, peaceful protestors being ripped apart by a policeman wielding batons would, in my view, be disproportionate to the offence committed. Likewise Tomlinson was walking away and hit from the back. The Police don't have the right to put the "boot" in whether they want to or not. The "boot" is reserved for the judge to use.

[Fisherman Mike]

If I can add my tupennies worth.

 

The question is did the Policeman use excessive force...did the man die as a result of this or of a medical condition he already had exacerbated by his being stoned (apparently 90% of the time)

 

If he hadnt died we wouldnt even be considering a conviction, so if he is being tried as being the cause of death ie involuntary manslaughter the coroners report of the cause of death is crucial

 

If the jury accept that the cause of death was not as a direct result of the push then he has to be aquitted.

[Gordon R]

Mungler - straight legal opinion. Not whether the Policeman behaved badly or used excessive force. Is your money on a conviction - based on what we have seen and read?

[beerdeor]

Right chap,s I am NO EXPERT but my point is,if I bowled out of the pub only drinking coke all night.then proceded to shove some one drunk or not,then they should die later as a result of my actions then copper or not then if proved beyond doubt it was my fault,then yes I deserve to go down TBh though any one of us could have a heart attak tomorrow

atb pick the bones out of it

[kdubya]

 

 

If the jury accept that the cause of death was not as a direct result of the push then he has to be aquitted.

 

you seem to have missed the point, IE his death has been ruled as unlawful and that pc harwood was responsible, the only question now is if he is guilty of manslaughter.

 

 

kw

[debaser]

As this thread is asking for an opionion and nothing else, here is mine :

 

Ian Tomlinson was a drunk male who was deliberately bring obstructive.

 

PC Harwell used excessive force that resulted in a death.

 

He didn't help the majority of police officers that do a fine job and he's further tarnished the MPS.

 

However as someone's already mentioned the Magna Carta, I really hope he gets a fair trial.....and appropriate sentence should he be found guilty.

 

British criminal law is based on "beyond reasonable doubt" and so it should remain.

Of course if found not guilty the civil litigation will be interesting to follow, although I expect the MPS will be out of court to avoid the trial.

 

Finally, I feel the family are being slightly hypocritical over this, for all intents and purposes they had ex communicated Mr Tomlinson and were not a part of his life, saying that I'm sure they ate still after justice fir his death.

 

IMHO of course.

Edited May 25, 2011 by debaser

[Muggins.]

After all these pages of did he, didn`t he, it would be interesting to see this set up as a poll.

A basic guilty or not guilty.

[CharlieT]

Sadly, as in all walks of life there are good and bad folks in the police. Unfortunately my own personal view is that a job with the police does seem to attract it's fair share of people, how shall I put it, who rather like to throw their weight around. Conversely, the great majority of police officers I have come across, seem to be in the job because they care.

 

The trouble is that the rotten apples reflect badly on and tar every decent copper with the same brush.

 

I remember well the hunting demo we attended outside the Palace of Westminster on the day of the vote. I together with 100's of others stood outside blowing our whistles, hunting horns and waving our placards. I was standing at the barrier with the ordinary bobbies and riot police on the other side and had struck up a conversation with the bobby opposite me and had been chatting and laughing for a good five minutes. All of a sudden one of the shield carrying, stick wielding, helmeted ones decided to lean over and dap me on the head with his batten. The look of disbelief on the face of the bobby I had been talking to was priceless, he was as shocked as I was.

 

Before that experience I would never have believed such an unwarranted act could happen, now I know better and fully support any steps taken to bring these thugs to account.