green Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 You can jump up and down and stamp your feet all you like but the fact is that a jury who - unlike the police haters on this thread - listened to all the evidence found that PC Harwood used reasonable force in restraining Tomlinson. Your being exceptionally misguided her Rickie. Read the Guardians link. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/simon-harwood-not-guilty-ian-tomlinson Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 You can jump up and down and stamp your feet all you like but the fact is that a jury who - unlike the police haters on this thread - listened to all the evidence found that PC Harwood used reasonable force in restraining Tomlinson. I don't think you've got a bunch of police haters m8, more people who seem totally bamboozled by the decision. Just as a side question, are you by chance a bobby? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 You can jump up and down and stamp your feet all you like but the fact is that a jury who - unlike the police haters on this thread - listened to all the evidence found that PC Harwood used reasonable force in restraining Tomlinson. No. That wasnt what was under consideration - if he had been charged with assualt then it would have been. If they considered the force to be disrpoportionate and excessive, they could only find him guilty of manslaughter if there was an unbroken chain of causation, and the chain was not excessivly remote, which led to his death. It's the chain of causation that was concentrated on - in particular the internal bleed doesnt seem to have been sufficiently large to have caused his death that quickly assuming it was Harwood that delivered it. He could have been assualted before by someone else, he could have tripped, there were many possibilities. Harwood was never really in any danger of being found for manslaughter due to this. He would in all likleyhood been found guilty of assualt had he been charged with that. You have to ask the question why the CPS dragged their feet unaccountably for so long until the time limit for charging with assualt had gone. Cui bono.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moabdul Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 PC Harwood walks away a free man even though he killed a member of the public. This disgrace is yet more proof of our bent system policed by bent coppers with little or no regard for the public unless they are screwing cash out of them or beating them to death. http://www.breakingnews.com/item/ahZzfmJyZWFraW5nbmV3cy13d3ctaHJkcg0LEgRTZWVkGPq-mQkM/2012/07/19/pc-simon-harwood-found-not-guilty-of-manslaughter-of-ian-tomlinson- Good! I am happy that he is free and the Jury saw sense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Convict Edd Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Good! I am happy that he is free and the Jury saw sense. You think nothing wrong with the fact that whilst being investigated for another misconduct case he was able to retire from the force then was rehired again like nothing had happened? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alteredgemed Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 The reason why there are copper 'haters' is down to instances like this, this scumbag should be behind bars where he may be on the receiving end of someone's (ahem) baton. Not all policy enforcers are scum, most are what Julia Middleton refers to as 'useful idiots' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Well the inquest concluded that Mr Tomlinson was unlawfully killed, there is little doubt that PC Harwood struck Mr Tomlinson so I would conclude that PC Harwood did indeed 'kill a member of the public'. He got away with murder, pure and simple. I don't think they could prove that the push caused the internal bleeding; there was some evidence that he must have been bleeding internally before the push. So it was still unlawful but t ere wasn’t enough evidence of the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeteMorris Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 It says in the reports I've read that the judge considered his 'previous' to be inadmissible in this particular trial, which IMHO quite right, as those on here who now know that he had (unproven) 'previous', they immediately jump to the conclusion that he's guilty as hell, as the jury would have too, had they known about 'previous'. The jury heard evidence about this particular incident, and only that evidence in this particular instance, and found him not guilty. However from what I have read about him retiring because of allegations, and then somehow weadling his way back into the force, one has to be suspect! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I understood he did kill someone,but the court had to assess whether or not his actions were intentional or otherwise.I dont think PC Harwood will wish to extend his time under the spotlight,do you? Ian appeared to be drunk and uncooperative on the video, but apparently he wasn’t drunk or on drugs, so was he already dying before he was pushed, in which case its possible he may have died even if he hadn’t been pushed by PC Harwood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shane39 Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 He abused his power. Acted the 'big shot' in front of his colleagues. He used excessive force. Anyone who uses force on someone who looked as weak as that guy,while he had his hands in his pocket,and from behind,is a coward. The jury made it's decision.At the least he should be shunned by everyone,and lose his job,and pension. That's just my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.