No charges in G20 death of Ian Tomlinson - Pc Harwood found not guilty.

[Darth Vader]

Did I hear correctly, in the Commons debate today, that the copper who struck the woman's legs (also at G20, that was covered in the papers) ALSO was acquitted?

[pcspb1]

Did I hear correctly, in the Commons debate today, that the copper who struck the woman's legs (also at G20, that was covered in the papers) ALSO was acquitted?

G20 police officer Delroy Smellie cleared

 

Video Here

[BritPat]

I haven't bothered to read the thread, but here goes:

 

2 types of Manslaughter:

 

1. Gross Negligence Manslaughter. R v Adamako (Doesn't apply; don't even bother to look it up.

 

2. Criminal Act Manslaughter. Where the death occurs as a result (albeit perhaps as an unintended result of a 'CRIMINAL ACT' - I've written that in capitals and printed it in red just so I don't forget!

 

Let's examine the 'criminal act'. If I threw a stone at a window (vandalism, attempted criminal damage) and the stone bounced off the window and hit you on the head and killed you, then although I had no intention of killing you (and lacked the mens rea for murder) I would have caused your death through a criminal act (throwing the stone at the window) and would be liable to be prosecuted for 'wrongful act manslaughter.'

 

It could, of course, have been a very small stone that I threw.

 

But there is legal precedent - The 'eggshell skull' case whic established the legal precedent that 'the perpetrator shall take his victim as he finds him'.

 

In English (and the 'eggshell skull' case states exactly that) if you whack somebody on the head expecting merely to incapacitate him, but your victim has an 'eggshell skull' and you kill him, then you have to accept responsibility for what you have done.

 

In the past, that has been held to be reasonable.

 

It appears that Mr Tomlinson was in fragile health. Mr Tomlinson's poor health was in no way attributable to the police, but it also appears (and appears quite clearly in the video) that they hit him.

 

What did he do to deserve that blow? (The video I saw showed him shambling across the scene.) 'Going about his lawful occasion?'

Looked like that to me.

 

A policeman hit him with a stick. I saw no behaviour by Mr Thompson which might have been construed as 'good reason' for the policeman to hit him.

 

There's no enquiry, so is this a government cover-up?

 

Mr Thompson died. How sad. He might well have died fairly soon anyway.

 

Being whacked by a policeman may not have brought his death forward by many years, but it didn't prolong his life expectancy either.

 

I don't like the charge of 'wrongful act manslaughter' - In my opinion, it is open to abuse.

 

In this case, however, it may well be wholly inappropriate.

 

If it is not deemed to be inappropriate, then what protection is available to citizens who are bludgeoned (on camera) by the police?

 

The big problem seems to be linking the 'wrongful act' and the cause of death.

 

Unfortunately the first Pathologist was Dr Freddy Patel the genius that found the Camden Ripper's first victim died of natural causes and then destroyed/lost/failed to record his notes !!!

[melthebell]

The big problem seems to be linking the 'wrongful act' and the cause of death.

 

Unfortunately the first Pathologist was Dr Freddy Patel the genius that found the Camden Ripper's first victim died of natural causes and then destroyed/lost/failed to record his notes !!!

and hasnt he just been struck off or in court or someat for being incompetant?

[garrence]

and hasnt he just been struck off or in court or someat for being incompetant?

 

That's coming very soon. A suspicious person might think that was a factor in the CPS finally stopping dithering and releasing their decision. If he'd already been struck off then it would be hard for them to pretend his pathology report is so important that the man cannot be prosecuted.

 

Of course it would be intolerable to get a successful prosecution of the officer. It would make constables think twice before following orders to cover up their numbers and beat people up.

[EvilScotsman]

The police have no more right to use force than you or I, EXCEPT in the apprehension of a suspected criminal (i.e. their arrest). Otherwise, they are only entitled to use 'reasonable force' in self-defence, the same as any other member of the public.

 

The fact that Mr Tomlinson was allowed to (attempt to) walk away/go home/go to the pub/whatever he was going to do afterward suggests to me he was not a suspected criminal, as he was not arrested. Therefore, the officer's actions, as can clearly be seen in the video, WHETHER OR NOT HE USED A BATON, and WHETHER OR NOT MR TOMLINSON HAD BEEN 'BELLIGERENT' TOWARDS THE POLICE, are clearly beyond the boundaries of 'reasonable force'.

 

Welcome to logic folks.....

 

Of course it could be blamed on your legal system, and its dependence on precedent, but that's another argument.

 

Another argument still is about our obligation to disobey unfair or unjust laws, but I suspect the only people who would understand that argument would be the ones who would agree with me anyway.....

[EvilScotsman]

Also, I assume the people who are backing the police officer are aware that the police, as a matter of procedure, film any protests which take place. Why has the police video not been made public? Surely if, as has been suggested, the independent videos which are in the public domain have been edited to make the police look bad, the force's own video would clear it up?

 

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE

[Bassman62]

and hasnt he just been struck off or in court or someat for being incompetant?

Well look at the name:hihi::hihi:

[BritPat]

Also, I assume the people who are backing the police officer are aware that the police, as a matter of procedure, film any protests which take place. Why has the police video not been made public? Surely if, as has been suggested, the independent videos which are in the public domain have been edited to make the police look bad, the force's own video would clear it up?

 

NO JUSTICE, NO PEACE

 

I know I have featured if not starred in quite a few.

[hard2miss]

It's very sad to see so many left-wing extremists baying for the blood of a copper. They're not interested in the facts behind the story, they just want to see someone punished, and so long as they get a copper to blame, they don't care about the circumstances.

 

It seems to me like we have a new "enemy within" that we need the police to defend us ordinary decent people from.

I think its a dangerous game to play when your seen not to be going through due protest and justice even if its only perceived to be the case.

 

You do not do the police or the cps any favors by alienating them for not following the same procedures that the general public would get. It rings home of a us and them situation that should not be the case, I personally think and have said this has a lot to do with the job he was doing and who he was out to protect (the G2o) and I think that its a case of look after the lads that look after us from the foreign perspective. We have already seen on numerous occasions how we cow tail to the US in recent times and its not as if we are a state because a state would have more say than we have in our own affairs it would seem.