Resident Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Can I just remind everyone since you all seem to be arguing over this fact: Innocent & Not Guilty in a court of law setting are two different things. A verdict of Not guilty doesn't necessarily mean that a defendant is innocent, it merely means that the prosecution failed to convince 12 people using the evidence available. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Snook Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Can I just remind everyone since you all seem to be arguing over this fact: Innocent & Not Guilty in a court of law setting are two different things. A verdict of Not guilty doesn't necessarily mean that a defendant is innocent, it merely means that the prosecution failed to convince 12 people using the evidence available. Exactly. After watching all the footage of him that day he should have been charged with something. Murder or manslaughter were obviously not correct, but he should have been charged with something and should never have a position of power before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
walkertelecoms 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. Restraining him from walking away slowly with his hands in his pockets If the shoe had been on the other foot, he'd be be doing 5 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix 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. Then you would be in error of causation I'm afraid. If I punched someone in the nose, and he then walked away, over a pelican crossing and was hit by a car jumping the red light I wouldn't be liable for his manslaughter. That's analogous to what happened here - the proscution cannot establish that the assualt on Tomlinson by Harwood caused his death. It's certain that some trauma from assualt caused Tomlinson to die, and that such action was unlawful but it's far from clear if that trauma was caused by Harwood. As regards murder, you have to prove both acutus reus and mens rea for murder or grevious harm, and there certainly wasn't that from Harwood, so sticking murder on him would be even less likley to fly than manslaughter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willman Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 For the first time it can be revealed that Harwood has faced a series of allegations of violence and has admitted entering “red mist mode.” Details of his police disciplinary record were ruled inadmissible both at the trial and an inquest last year which found that Mr Tomlinson had been unlawfully killed. The jury was never told that the police officer who struck Ian Tomlinson had faced a series of allegations of violence and has admitted entering "red mist mode". In 12 years from 1997 until his suspension after Mr Tomlinson's death, PC Simon Harwood was subject to 10 complaints. Pity these things are kept back, I mean it is obvious what he did, but he's got off unbelievable. They're kept back for all criminals so why should it be different for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 They're kept back for all criminals so why should it be different for him. I am aware of that fact, and the majority are not shown on national TV, ACTUALLY assaulting someone. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agrajag Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Clearly the right decision, as anyone who's seen the footage knows, PC Harwood used reasonable force in protecting the public from a potentially violent man. It's a disgrace he was charged in the first place. I hope that was sarcasm. Looking at the PC Harwood's record, he was obviously a law unto himself who snaked his way out of disciplinary action prior to this incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bongo_fish Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 One rule for us another for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NorthernStar Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 I don't think justice has been done here, the video clearly shows an unprovoked attack. Here's another unproked attack from PC Harwood ....and here's the storey in pictures IMO, PC Harwood is one of those coppers who joined up to throw his weight around and get away with it - a common thug in a police uniform. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mister M Posted July 19, 2012 Share Posted July 19, 2012 Does anyone know if a policeman/woman has ever been convicted of murder manslaughter whilst on duty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.