Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

Policeman who Killed Innocent Man At G20 not to be Prosecuted

«1345

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    What do you think he should be charged with?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I'm coming round to Raul Moats line of thinking in relation to the officers of the law.

    Shoot as many in the face as possible?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    What do you think he should be charged with?

    Manslaughter.

    How could they not have the evidence to even charge the killer with assault - he did it on camera ffs.

    They aren't even trying to hide the cover up


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    mike65 wrote: »
    Shoot as many in the face as possible?

    If the legal and political system abjectly fails to protect innocents from the police, I can see why taking them on yourself can become an option


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    It's the Police ffs, they are above the law.
    The law is only for ordinary taxpayers and welfare louts.

    /sarcasm


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    Manslaughter.

    How could they not have the evidence to even charge the killer with assault - he did it on camera ffs.

    They aren't even trying to hide the cover up

    That's ridiculous. You want him to do 8years for pushing a guy over? I feel sorry for the guy but obviously there was a lot more wrong with him if he died from that push


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    Can you point to the cover up?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    That's ridiculous. You want him to do 8years for pushing a guy over? I feel sorry for the guy but obviously there was a lot more wrong with him if he died from that push

    He wasn't entitled to push him over, it was a crime, and he died as a result of the fall. Thats open and shut manslaughter.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    mike65 wrote: »
    Can you point to the cover up?

    Mule pushes innocent man from behind and he falls badly. 30 seconds later he dies of internal injuries. Despite the fact its on camera, the CPS can't find evidence of assault and a correlation between the fall and the injuries.

    If i blootered a copper, on camera, and he died 30 seconds later, I wonder would the burden of proof swing my way in the same manner?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,770 ✭✭✭Bottle_of_Smoke


    He wasn't entitled to push him over, it was a crime, and he died as a result of the fall. Thats open and shut manslaughter.

    He thought he was a protestor and there isn't agreement he died as a result of the fall. He had liver cirrhosis.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    Mule pushes innocent man from behind and he falls badly. 30 seconds later he dies of internal injuries. Despite the fact its on camera, the CPS can't find evidence of assault and a correlation between the fall and the injuries.

    It might be worth pointing out the possibility that you don't know the law as well as you think you do.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    He thought he was a protestor and there isn't agreement he died as a result of the fall. He had liver cirrhosis.

    He was not a protestor and was walking home from work.

    Him having a congenital condition is irrlevant if the injuries that killed him came from a cop hitting him from behind


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    IIRC he pushed this fella over, the man walks away, and later drops dead..

    Could you point out the bit where the police officer in question was found to have acted illegally?

    btw you undermined your own credibility when you brought Raoul Moat into this.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Dinner wrote: »
    It might be worth pointing out the possibility that you don't know the law as well as you think you do.

    What have I interpreted incorrectly then?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    prinz wrote: »
    he pushed this fella over

    ...


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,132 ✭✭✭Dinner


    What have I interpreted incorrectly then?

    I'm not saying that you have interpreted anything correctly or incorrectly. All I'm saying is you're interpretation of 'open and shut manslaughter' may be different to the CPS's interpretation when all factors are considered.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    He was not a protestor and was walking home from work.

    He also decided to stick his hands in his pockets and dawdle around the place while a line of coppers were trying to clear the street behind him. Also appears to me that he was ignoring lawful instructions.

    Don't know about you but walking home from work through a riot probably wasn't the best option.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    prinz wrote: »
    IIRC he pushed this fella over, the man walks away, and later drops dead..

    Could you point out the bit where the police officer in question was found to have acted illegally?

    btw you undermined your own credibility when you brought Raoul Moat into this.

    When he pushed the fella over.

    Its not difficult....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Fremen wrote: »
    ...

    ...and? Was his death directly linked to the push and fall?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    When he pushed the fella over.
    Its not difficult....

    So that's a no then, his actions haven't been found to be illegal or to have overstepped the boudaries. Goodo. Pushing someone over is not automatically a crime.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    prinz wrote: »
    He also decided to stick his hands in his pockets and dawdle around the place while a line of coppers were trying to clear the street behind him. Also appears to me that he was ignoring lawful instructions.

    Don't know about you but walking home from work through a riot probably wasn't the best option.

    He worked in the centre of London, he had no other choice than to walk past the police lines.

    It was a static line, there was no clearing of areas.

    Its fundamentally worrying that dawdling with your hands in your pockets is a capital offence in your head


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 88,968 ✭✭✭✭mike65


    I would not argue against a prosecution for assault and that CPS did not lay such a charge is on the face of it wrong.

    From Guardian
    Keir Starmer, the director of public prosecutions, said there was "no realistic prospect" of a conviction, because of a conflict between the postmortems carried out after the death of Ian Tomlinson last year.

    The newspaper seller died following the demonstrations on 1 April 2009 in central London. The official account that he died from a heart attack was undermined when the Guardian obtained video footage showing a riot officer striking the 47-year-old with a baton and shoving him to the ground shortly before he collapsed and died.

    In a written statement the CPS admitted that there was sufficient evidence to show the officer had assaulted Tomlinson, but claimed a host of technical reasons meant he could not be charged.....

    ....The CPS said it could not bring a manslaughter charge because the conflicting medical evidence meant prosecutors "would simply not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that there was a causal link between Mr Tomlinson's death and the alleged assault on him".

    It said it could not bring a charge for criminal assault because too much time had elapsed: a charge must be brought within six months.

    Clearly something to be looked into esp as clear evidence for an assualt remains.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    prinz wrote: »
    ...and? Was his death directly linked to the push and fall?

    Two out of three pathologists say it was, yes. The third is "currently under investigation for alleged misconduct over four unrelated post-mortem examinations".

    You would think this is at least enough for charges to be brought against the officer.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    It was a static line, there was no clearing of areas.

    If you watch the video of the incident it's quite clear it wasn't a static line.
    Its fundamentally worrying that dawdling with your hands in your pockets is a capital offence in your head

    :rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    prinz wrote: »
    So that's a no then, his actions haven't been found to be illegal or to have overstepped the boudaries. Goodo. Pushing someone over is not automatically a crime.

    Goodo? A man is dead you wierdo.

    The point here Prinz, and this may be to subtle for you, is that pushing someone over in that manner iss automatically a crime. The question being asked is why its not the case when a copper does it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    Fremen wrote: »
    Two out of three pathologists say it was, yes. The third is "currently under investigation for alleged misconduct over four unrelated post-mortem examinations".

    You would think this is at least enough for charges to be brought against the officer.

    ... hence the smell of rodent....


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    Fremen wrote: »
    Two out of three pathologists say it was, yes..

    Link?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,481 ✭✭✭Fremen


    So what exactly is it that you're arguing Prinz? That there shouldn't be an inquiry? That it's unreasonable to bring charges against the officer and let the courts decide if he's guilty or not?

    Edit:
    Link:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274

    This was the link in the original post, which you apparently haven't read.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,934 ✭✭✭OhNoYouDidn't


    prinz,

    are you seriously trying to tell me that the policeman acted appropriately here? That the video and 2/3 pathologists reports don't have grounds for him to be in front of a court and let a judge decide?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,598 ✭✭✭✭prinz


    The point here Prinz, and this may be to subtle for you, is that pushing someone over in that manner iss automatically a crime..

    It is? Link? Particularly relating to police powers in a riot/public order scenario would be best.


Advertisement