Policeman who Killed Innocent Man At G20 not to be Prosecuted

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 2:37pm #1

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

Sweep Sweep.... They had the assault on video and he still gets a pass. Unreal

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

Bottle_of_Smoke · 22-07-2010 2:47pm

What do you think he should be charged with?

mike65 · 22-07-2010 2:50pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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?

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 2:50pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

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

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 2:51pm

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

BluePlanet · 22-07-2010 2:53pm

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

/sarcasm

Bottle_of_Smoke · 22-07-2010 2:53pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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

mike65 · 22-07-2010 2:54pm

Can you point to the cover up?

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 2:55pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

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.

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 2:58pm

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?

Bottle_of_Smoke · 22-07-2010 3:01pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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.

Dinner · 22-07-2010 3:02pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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.

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:04pm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

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

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:04pm

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.

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:05pm

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?

Fremen · 22-07-2010 3:07pm

prinz wrote: »

he pushed this fella over

...

Dinner · 22-07-2010 3:07pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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.

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:08pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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.

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:09pm

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....

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:09pm

Fremen wrote: »

...

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

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:10pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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.

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:10pm

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

mike65 · 22-07-2010 3:11pm

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.

Fremen · 22-07-2010 3:11pm

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.

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:12pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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

:rolleyes:

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:12pm

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.

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:13pm

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....

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:14pm

Fremen wrote: »

Two out of three pathologists say it was, yes..

Link?

Fremen · 22-07-2010 3:16pm

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.

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:16pm

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?

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:18pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

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.

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:20pm

prinz wrote: »

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

You are not allowed under any circumstances push anyone who is walking away from the situation. Definitely not strongly enough to lift them off their feet

But thats semantics. What are you actually arguing here? That the copper behaved properly?

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:23pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Goodo? A man is dead you wierdo..

..and a police officer is more than likely blinded for life, not to mention the other dead man, and injured lady at the hands of Raoul Moat. You are coming round to that are you?

Fremen wrote: »

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-10723274
This was the link in the original post, which you apparently haven't read.

Yes. I saw that. I saw internal bleeding due to blunt force trauma and liver cirrhosis. What it doesn't say is which played a bigger part in causing the death. Personally I don't see the copper in question being up for manslaughter tbh.

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:24pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

You are not allowed under any circumstances push anyone who is walking away from the situation. Definitely not strongly enough to lift them off their feet

Link?

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:28pm

prinz wrote: »

Yes. I saw that. I saw internal bleeding due to blunt force trauma and liver cirrhosis. What it doesn't say is which played a bigger part in causing the death.

Are you suggesting he collapsed and died in the street of liver cirrhosis?

You have made a complete sap of yourself here.

One last time. Does the footage show a policeman behaving legally and if not, should the courts decide if his death was illegal?

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:35pm

the plod requested the third post mortem and have refused to release its findings, only saying it contradicts the first two. logical question then is if the met are in possession of information that exonerates them, why not release it?

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:35pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Are you suggesting he collapsed and died in the street of liver cirrhosis?

It contributed to his death apparently.

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

One last time. Does the footage show a policeman behaving legally and if not, should the courts decide if his death was illegal?

It might well do. Comes down to a question on the duty of care and use of force in crowd control situations.

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:38pm

5,000 complaints made against the TSG (unit that killed him) over 4 years, only 9 upheld

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:39pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

the plod requested the third post mortem and have refused to release its findings, only saying it contradicts the first two.

That's odd, according to your own linked BBC piece the third post mortem agreed with the findings of the second. Which is it?

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:40pm

prinz wrote: »

It contributed to his death apparently.

Link?

Anything else happen in the moments before he died that might also have contributed to his death?

prinz wrote: »

It might well do. Comes down to a question on the duty of care and use of force in crowd control situations.

And the CPS are the people to decide on whether they carried out their duties correctly?

Fremen · 22-07-2010 3:41pm

Prinz, could you please give some kind of outline of what you're trying to argue, and why you think it's reasonable?

Here are the facts as they have been reported:

1/ Video footage was released of a policeman pushing this guy to the ground. He died soon afterward.

2/ Two out of three pathologists ruled that internal bleeding due to trauma and cirrhosis killed the man. The third ruled that cirrhosis alone killed him.

3/ The subsequent inquiry ruled that due to uncertainty about the man's death, no charges would be brought against the officer.

I think it is reasonable to assume that if the third pathologist had ruled in line with the other two, it is certain that charges of assault and manslaughter would be brought against the officer.

It is my personal feeling that if the police officer were a layperson, charges would be brought against him. In any case, I find it disturbing that one man (the pathologist) can have such a large influence on the outcome of these events.

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:42pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

Link?
Anything else happen in the moments before he died that might also have contributed to his death?

The second pathologist, Dr Nat Cary, found he died of internal bleeding as a result of blunt force trauma, in combination with cirrhosis of the liver

You really should read the links you provide.

MagicMarker · 22-07-2010 3:44pm

Charging the guy with assault I can understand.

Charging him with manslaughter is retarded though.

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:47pm

Fremen wrote: »

It is my personal feeling that if the police officer were a layperson, charges would be brought against him..

I'd be extremely doubtful that manslaughter charges would be brought, and well common assault the reason that isn't being brought is analysed in the BBC report, makes no difference who the charges are brought against. There is a time limitation, along with the CPS's own guidelines on the probabilities of a conviction.

The inquest will shed more light on the matter IMO. This copper may well be sacked.

Fremen · 22-07-2010 3:48pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Charging the guy with assault I can understand.

Charging him with manslaughter is retarded though.

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems to me that under English law, involuntary manslaughter due to recklessness is at least conceivably an appropriate charge. Hardly retarded, anyway.

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:49pm

MagicMarker wrote: »

Charging the guy with assault I can understand.

Charging him with manslaughter is retarded though.

But it was manslaughter though.....

The man died as a result of a criminal act.

Regardless, its stinks to high heaven that the CPS have decided its too complicated a case for a courtroom

lugha · 22-07-2010 3:50pm

I think anyone who hasn’t an anti-cop agenda would see the assault as a nothing incident that just happened to result in a tragic outcome. Whatever the finer points of the law says, absolutely no good would be served by throwing such an “assailant” in jail, be they a cop or not.

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:50pm

Again comes down to what constitutes a reckless/an excessive use of force by police officers in a crowd control situation.

Fremen · 22-07-2010 3:53pm

OhNoYouDidn't wrote: »

The man died as a result of a criminal act.

You don't actually know it's a criminal act until the courts decide it is. What I want to know is why no-one is asking them.

OhNoYouDidn't · 22-07-2010 3:54pm

lugha wrote: »

I think anyone who hasn’t an anti-cop agenda would see the assault as a nothing incident that just happened to result in a tragic outcome. Whatever the finer points of the law says, absolutely no good would be served by throwing such an “assailant” in jail, be they a cop or not.

So if I pushed a copper over and he died of his injuries, would it be filed under 'nothing incident'?

prinz · 22-07-2010 3:55pm

Fremen wrote: »

You don't actually know it's a criminal act until the courts decide it is. What I want to know is why no-one is asking them.

The inquest will presumably look into this.

Policeman who Killed Innocent Man At G20 not to be Prosecuted

Comments