Daggers Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Sorry, walking slowly away from the police justifies being hit with a baton? Not in my country. Whether hitting a guy with a baton constitues manslaughter I have no idea, but if you think the baton strike was justified based on that then I wonder about your motives. You and your mad left-winger ideals, Jon!
Ilkeston_Fox Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Have they been prosecuted each time? Or was it in the line of duty? The issue is not that a policeman knocked over and killed a man, it is that he has not been punished for it, despite the fact the man was doing nothing wrong. The worry is that if the police are not accountable for their actions they will start doing as they please not as they should. The police are accountable though aren't they? The police officer was taken to court, he pleaded his case, as did the prosecutors and was found not guilty. If the police 'got away' with anything and everything they wanted do you think they'd be in and out of court? The jury aren't hand picked to suit the prosecutor nor the defendant - they are impartial, simple as. I won't comment on the incident itself as I don't know the full story, and unless you were there I doubt anyone will.
Steven Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 I won't comment on the incident itself as I don't know the full story, and unless you were there I doubt anyone will. Video doesn't lie or what is the point in CCTV?
Ilkeston_Fox Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Don't get me wrong, I'm not defending the way the officer dealt with the incident. Tomlinson was pissing the police off by not moving quickly enough, if you've been shoved more than once then you've had sufficient warning to get out of their way - not that that condones the officers reaction. My point is, I've know idea what happened prior to the film starting, no idea if Tomlinson had said/done anything prior to the film starting, no idea what the situation was, no idea what the police were trying to do; where they were trying to direct people etc. It's all well and good watching it back now but at the time it's oh so different.
THEFATBASTARD Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 A thug in a uniform.. track record of it, if it had been any of us ,we would of gone down for it.
Guest MattP Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 A quite staggering decision in every way shape and form. He violently assaulted an-armed man minding his own business, that's a charge in itself, the man died from those actions, I can't find anything in the law that says that doesn't come under manslaughter. No doubt some lawyers/barristers will be all telling us there were some sorts of techinicalities we didn't see in court and therefore we can't make an informed decision despite watching some obvious video evidence. But I end the day with the same opinion I had at he start of it, the police force has quite of number of violent bullies in it and carries out the states orders without even thinking, the court system is a joke and most jurors are probably the sort of people who read the Sun or the Mirror.
1964FOX Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 A quite staggering decision in every way shape and form. He violently assaulted an-armed man minding his own business, that's a charge in itself, the man died from those actions, I can't find anything in the law that says that doesn't come under manslaughter. No doubt some lawyers/barristers will be all telling us there were some sorts of techinicalities we didn't see in court and therefore we can't make an informed decision despite watching some obvious video evidence. But I end the day with the same opinion I had at he start of it, the police force has quite of number of violent bullies in it and carries out the states orders without even thinking, the court system is a joke and most jurors are probably the sort of people who read the Sun or the Mirror. The problem is most jurors are normal people who have very little knowledge of the justice system and any reasonable defence QC can put enough doubt in their mind to make them think they can't find find someone guilty beyond reasonable doubt especially when the defendant is well versed in the justice system and knows what to say. However that's the way our justice system works so like it or not he is not guilty.
Voll Blau Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Quite. Can imagine the Met will have found money no object when hiring this particular defence team...
Captain... Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 A quite staggering decision in every way shape and form. He violently assaulted an-armed man minding his own business, that's a charge in itself, the man died from those actions, I can't find anything in the law that says that doesn't come under manslaughter. No doubt some lawyers/barristers will be all telling us there were some sorts of techinicalities we didn't see in court and therefore we can't make an informed decision despite watching some obvious video evidence. But I end the day with the same opinion I had at he start of it, the police force has quite of number of violent bullies in it and carries out the states orders without even thinking, the court system is a joke and most jurors are probably the sort of people who read the Sun or the Mirror. What it comes down to is, was his action lawful, if not it has to be manslaughter, if it is lawful, then why was a verdict of unlawful killing given at the inquest, one of them got it wrong.
Rincewind Posted 19 July 2012 Posted 19 July 2012 Manslaughter is a legal term for the killing of a human being, in a manner considered by law as less culpable than murder. The distinction between murder and manslaughter is said to have first been made by the Ancient Athenian lawmaker Draco in the 7th century BC.[1] The law generally differentiates between levels of criminal culpability based on the mens rea, or state of mind. This is particularly true within the law of homicide, where murder requires either the intent to kill – a state of mind called malice, or malice aforethought – or the knowledge that one's actions are likely to result in death; manslaughter, on the other hand, requires a lack of any prior intention to kill or create a deadly situation. Manslaughter is usually broken down into two distinct categories: voluntary manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter; however, this is not the case in all juridictions.[2] In English law unlawful killing is a verdict that can be returned by an inquest in England and Wales when someone has been killed by one or several unknown persons. The verdict means that the killing was done without lawful excuse and in breach of criminal law. This includes murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing death by dangerous driving. A verdict of unlawful killing generally leads to a police investigation, with the aim of gathering sufficient evidence to identify, charge and prosecute the culprit(s). It is important that the inquest does not name any individual person as responsible.[1] The appropriate standard of proof is that the unlawful killing must be beyond reasonable doubt. This is when the evidence was so overwhelmingly obvious that death would result, that no other thing is taken into account. If this standard is not met, a verdict of accidental death or death by misadventure should be considered on the balance of probabilities.[1]
z-layrex Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Cannot believe this c**t actually got away with this.
ozleicester Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 A Fvcking joke. I understand and support defence teams and their responsibility to their client. The axe now needs to be poised above the Police Dept, they should not support anyone who is a murderer and a threat to society. Those who have covered his indiscretions and employed him need to be brought to account. I feel terribly for the family of the INNOCENT victim of this crime.
MPH Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I think the above paints enough of a picture of the bloke. So you think, in a court of Law people should be judged on events that were not in any way related to the 'crime' that took place?
Guest Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 A jury of twelve people saw and heard several weeks of evidence. They then took four days to reach a verdict. FOUR DAYS. This wasn't a quick and easy decision for them, and the Defence must have done enough to ensure that there was sufficient doubt for them to return the verdict that they did. I've read a lot of comments in this thread saying, "if this was an ordinary member of the public, they'd have been found guilty". The system doesn't discriminate between jobs like that. The fact is, juries are more likely to acquit than convict. Think the CPS who would most probably have been in receipt of his past misdemeanours saw a chance to make a name for themselves here...........another fail! The CPS cannot just admit evidence to show "bad character". There are legal hurdles to overcome if they want to use it, the reason is to ensure a fair trial, and ensuring juries convict on the evidence in front of them, and not any prejudices they may have formed. If you want to vent your frustrations in this case, it's not the CPS but the trial judge you should be angry with!
Reynard Bleu Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I see no justification for using a baton or any physical force. Tomlinson presented no threat or danger to ay officer or member of the public, he may or may not have been playing silly buggers but that does not warrant the use of force. If that's acceptable police policy we need to change it.
Captain... Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 A jury of twelve people saw and heard several weeks of evidence. They then took four days to reach a verdict. FOUR DAYS. This wasn't a quick and easy decision for them, and the Defence must have done enough to ensure that there was sufficient doubt for them to return the verdict that they did. I've read a lot of comments in this thread saying, "if this was an ordinary member of the public, they'd have been found guilty". The system doesn't discriminate between jobs like that. The fact is, juries are more likely to acquit than convict. The CPS cannot just admit evidence to show "bad character". There are legal hurdles to overcome if they want to use it, the reason is to ensure a fair trial, and ensuring juries convict on the evidence in front of them, and not any prejudices they may have formed. If you want to vent your frustrations in this case, it's not the CPS but the trial judge you should be angry with! Can you explain how a jury at the inquest into his death decided it was unlawful killing, whereas the jury at his trial decided it wasn't manslaughter, does that not imply that one of them got it wrong? What defence could have been used? It seems pretty clear cut to me, there is no doubt that it was the actions of the policeman that caused his death, and the inquest had declared the death unlawful killing.
Guest Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Can you explain how a jury at the inquest into his death decided it was unlawful killing, whereas the jury at his trial decided it wasn't manslaughter, does that not imply that one of them got it wrong?What defence could have been used? It seems pretty clear cut to me, there is no doubt that it was the actions of the policeman that caused his death, and the inquest had declared the death unlawful killing. The Tomlinson family solicitor said that the same evidence was heard in both the inquest and the trial, although the standard of proof is lower in the former (balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt). That is the only explanation I can think of. Harwood's case was that his actions, and the force he used, were "proportionate" in the circumstances. It's not the end of the matter; he's got his disciplinary hearing to come, and the Tomlinson family are taking civil action against him. I'd just like to add that I'm just as surprised by the verdict as everyone else. I've seen enough jury trials to know that they do come out with some strange verdicts. As an aside, would FT members be prepared to remove jury trials, and change to judges deciding a Defendant's guilt? This is just a general question for discussion.
Reynard Bleu Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 The Tomlinson family solicitor said that the same evidence was heard in both the inquest and the trial, although the standard of proof is lower in the former (balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt). That is the only explanation I can think of. Harwood's case was that his actions, and the force he used, were "proportionate" in the circumstances. It's not the end of the matter; he's got his disciplinary hearing to come, and the Tomlinson family are taking civil action against him. I'd just like to add that I'm just as surprised by the verdict as everyone else. I've seen enough jury trials to know that they do come out with some strange verdicts. As an aside, would FT members be prepared to remove jury trials, and change to judges deciding a Defendant's guilt? This is just a general question for discussion. No I don't think so, trial by jury has its flaws but then so does a lot of the criminal justice process. I do worry about jury's having to listen to complex, complicated evidence such as that involving high finance crimes but the alternatives don't appeal much either. However, the 'ducking stool' seemed a resonable stab at impartial evaluation og evidence!
Captain... Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 The Tomlinson family solicitor said that the same evidence was heard in both the inquest and the trial, although the standard of proof is lower in the former (balance of probabilities rather than beyond reasonable doubt). That is the only explanation I can think of. Harwood's case was that his actions, and the force he used, were "proportionate" in the circumstances. It's not the end of the matter; he's got his disciplinary hearing to come, and the Tomlinson family are taking civil action against him. I'd just like to add that I'm just as surprised by the verdict as everyone else. I've seen enough jury trials to know that they do come out with some strange verdicts. As an aside, would FT members be prepared to remove jury trials, and change to judges deciding a Defendant's guilt? This is just a general question for discussion. So is what Nightguard quoted wrong? In English law unlawful killing is a verdict that can be returned by an inquest in England and Wales when someone has been killed by one or several unknown persons. The verdict means that the killing was done without lawful excuse and in breach of criminal law. This includes murder, manslaughter, infanticide and causing death by dangerous driving. A verdict of unlawful killing generally leads to a police investigation, with the aim of gathering sufficient evidence to identify, charge and prosecute the culprit(s). It is important that the inquest does not name any individual person as responsible.[1] The appropriate standard of proof is that the unlawful killing must be beyond reasonable doubt. This is when the evidence was so overwhelmingly obvious that death would result, that no other thing is taken into account. If this standard is not met, a verdict of accidental death or death by misadventure should be considered on the balance of probabilities.[1] As to whether we should have trial by jury, I think the system we have now is ok because there is room to appeal, and the appeals court does not have jury. I understand the appeals court is only really there for matters of law and not fact, I think that there should be scope for the judge to question the reasoning behind a decision, i.e. on what point of law they are basing it, and if he disagrees or thinks they didn't actually understand the law then he can raise it to the appeal courts. I don't think that is the case at the moment.
Rincewind Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I only quoted because someone was questioning the difference between manslaughter and unlawful killing. I did not know myself. There would have been people from all walks of life on the jury. Maybe even mail readers who heard that the victim was a trouble maker and deserved to be beaten up. I would not like to serve on a jury in a high profile case. I do not fancy the idea of having other jury members reaching a decision based on their predjudices. Some will already have made their mind up especially if it involves foreigners paedophiles and abitual crimminals before the trial. Did the verdict have to be a majority or unanimous?
Guest Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 So is what Nightguard quoted wrong? As to whether we should have trial by jury, I think the system we have now is ok because there is room to appeal, and the appeals court does not have jury. I understand the appeals court is only really there for matters of law and not fact, I think that there should be scope for the judge to question the reasoning behind a decision, i.e. on what point of law they are basing it, and if he disagrees or thinks they didn't actually understand the law then he can raise it to the appeal courts. I don't think that is the case at the moment. No, it is beyond reasonable doubt; I'm full of cold, which is dangerous! Civil standard for anything but, although parties have tried to argue otherwise, as there is a conflict with the ECHR. Juries don't have to give reasons for verdicts, and as far as I know, they cannot be asked for them.
breadandcheese Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Lisa, does the judge sum up the case in the same way as the John Terry case? I'd like to read it to get a better understanding as I can't believe the officer was found not guilty bearing in the mind the earlier unlawful killing verdict. It's unbelievable that this officer was employed by the met, looking at his previous disciplinary record.
Rincewind Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 I also can't understand how he was employed by them again. In a lot of jobs now there is a CRB check and I would expect the police to have one. He would have to put down if he had had any convictions which may prevent him getting the job. It looks like this was ignored in favour of his previous role in the force. I think they said this is being changed and a full check of records will be taken even if a PC is transferring from one section to another. It is they that were in the wrong.
Guest Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 Lisa, does the judge sum up the case in the same way as the John Terry case? I'd like to read it to get a better understanding as I can't believe the officer was found not guilty bearing in the mind the earlier unlawful killing verdict. It's unbelievable that this officer was employed by the met, looking at his previous disciplinary record. The judge will sum up for the jury, basically he goes over the evidence, and then directs the jury to the law. Do you mean, does the judge give a detailed judgment as to why he came to the decision he did? If you do, then no, he wouldn't. Once a jury has made a decision, that's it. Only the jury know why they reached a verdict, and as far as I am aware, they're not allowed to say why, as it's all meant to be private. It has been mooted over the years to make juries give their reasons, but I don't know if that would ever be effective, as they can always say "we weren't sure beyond reasonable doubt...", or "we felt the matter was proved beyond reasonable doubt...".
Rincewind Posted 20 July 2012 Posted 20 July 2012 If they selected a jury off FT he would have been found guilty. Would that still be the verdict if they turned up for the trial and jury service?
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.