Darth Vader Posted July 27, 2012 Share Posted July 27, 2012 What he should or should not have is, like it or not, irrelevant. Fact is he is innocent of any charge against him. End of! It's by no means irrelevant. He should have been prosecuted and wasn't due to an administrative "mistake". His actions were inexcusable for any human being, let alone one that was supposedly trained to deal with the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirmisher Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 It's by no means irrelevant. He should have been prosecuted and wasn't due to an administrative "mistake". His actions were inexcusable for any human being, let alone one that was supposedly trained to deal with the public. Was he charged and tried for any of those things? NO. Will he be? NO. Therefore, IT IS IRRELEVANT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonzo77 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Was he charged and tried for any of those things? NO. Will he be? NO. Therefore, IT IS IRRELEVANT. How is it irrelevant? I've seen the video footage. The officer clearly hits the man on the back of his legs, then pushes him to the ground. anyone with eyes can see this. We all know why he got away with it & it's not because he was innocent. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
monkey104 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 There was NO CASE because they "missed" their own deadlines. Wasn't that because the family wanted an independent autopsy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HbroChris Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 The police officer hit the man on his legs, then shoved him to the ground. The man wasn't doing ANYTHING! I think that the copper is guilty. I think the copper is a nob. I think that the copper would be behind bars if it wasn't for the fact that he was actually a police man. He's giving the rest of the forces a bad name. I think you've got terrible judgement if you think this man is innocent. Let's deal with this in order: 1. You have no idea what Tomlinson was doing immediately before he was hit. Unsurprisingly, neither the video nor the CCTV provides that information. This is because the CCTV coverage in the road was non-existent, and the video was filmed and edited and publicised by those with an agenda. As such, it's not a non-biassed source of fact. 2. It's not really relevant that you think he's guilty or a nob. The fact that you think those things without having sat in court and listened to the evidence means your opinion is not properly considered, not based on evidenced and therefore suspect. That's why we have trial by jury. 3. Actually, the Criminal Justice System shows a greater predisposition to stiffer sentences when police officers are on trial. The stated reasons are usually that they should be held to a higher standard. I'm not sure I agree with this, but your point here is incorrect, nevertheless. 4. Actually, my judgement is very good, generally. In this case, it's clearly right as well - as evidence by the result of the trial. It corresponds with the judgement of the jury, and given that the jury is representative of society and chosen at random then my judgement is also representative of that same group of people. Notice I refrain from the obvious ad hominem attack here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mort Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Final warning - any more name calling and insults and i will be issuing bans to all participants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Obelix Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 4. Actually, my judgement is very good, generally. In this case, it's clearly right as well - as evidence by the result of the trial. It corresponds with the judgement of the jury, and given that the jury is representative of society and chosen at random then my judgement is also representative of that same group of people. Notice I refrain from the obvious ad hominem attack here. The results of the jury are irrelevant in this case though - Bonzo is debating if Harwood is guilty of assualt. The jury was never asked to rule on that point - they were asked to rule on manslaughter. Harwood could be guilty of rodgering him with a frozen chicken whilst pulling his nails out and shoving broken glass up his nose and he'd still not be guilty of manslaughter. I'd be amazed if any jury didn't return a guilty verdict if faced with an assault charge, be that s18,20, 45 or whatever. The fact that the CPS failed to get their act in order for some odd reason meant that he never faced that charge. As for the CPS "delays" it falls to the old cui bono... it all seems very convenient... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ab6262 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 There was NO CASE because they "missed" their own deadlines. aint life a bitch? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skirmisher Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 How is it irrelevant? I've seen the video footage. The officer clearly hits the man on the back of his legs, then pushes him to the ground. anyone with eyes can see this. We all know why he got away with it & it's not because he was innocent. I think it's obvious how it's irrelevant, because it's not relevant. As for how he got away with it, that's even simpler, he was found NOT GUILTY. Pretty easy to comprehend, even for the dumbest of people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ANGELFIRE1 Posted July 28, 2012 Share Posted July 28, 2012 Let's deal with this in order: 1. You have no idea what Tomlinson was doing immediately before he was hit. Unsurprisingly, neither the video nor the CCTV provides that information. This is because the CCTV coverage in the road was non-existent, and the video was filmed and edited and publicised by those with an agenda. As such, it's not a non-biassed source of fact. 2. It's not really relevant that you think he's guilty or a nob. The fact that you think those things without having sat in court and listened to the evidence means your opinion is not properly considered, not based on evidenced and therefore suspect. That's why we have trial by jury. 3. Actually, the Criminal Justice System shows a greater predisposition to stiffer sentences when police officers are on trial. The stated reasons are usually that they should be held to a higher standard. I'm not sure I agree with this, but your point here is incorrect, nevertheless. 4. Actually, my judgement is very good, generally. In this case, it's clearly right as well - as evidence by the result of the trial. It corresponds with the judgement of the jury, and given that the jury is representative of society and chosen at random then my judgement is also representative of that same group of people. Notice I refrain from the obvious ad hominem attack here. I think we must have seen different acts of thuggery. Angel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.