sickening police violence

dmpoole said:
I said MAYBE DRUNK which was the thought of quite a few people a 1000 posts back.
Click to expand...

While it is certainly true that you did say MAYBE DRUNK in this post, in post #822 you seemed more positive:
'Also he was 'pushed' and not 'pushed to the ground'.
It was his fault he was drunk and fell over.'

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read your OWN posts.

In answer to AcidHell2 - I am fully aware of the UK law due to the fact that I am married to a lawyer.
Her and all her colleagues that I have spoken to agree that there is PLENTY of evidence to take this to court, but hey what would they know eh?
 
if they took it to court for manslaughter they would lose and waste millions of pounds. I can't see how you can not get that. Taking something to court and winning is to different things.
 
AcidHell2 said:
if they took it to court for manslaughter they would lose and waste millions of pounds. I can't see how you can not get that. Taking something to court and winning is to different things.
Click to expand...

How can you POSSIBLY know this? This makes no sense.
Like I have said the lawyers that I have spoken to have stated that there is plenty of evidence to take to court. What happens once their is surely up to the jury the lawyers and a host of other things.
Am I to believe that you have some way of knowing the outcome of court cases BEFORE they are even called? This would make you truly a marvel. I wasn't aware that the only cases that call in court are ones we know will have a particular outcome - I better let the wife know.
 
soapboxstuart said:
Am I to believe that you have some way of knowing the outcome of court cases BEFORE they are even called? This would make you truly a marvel. I wasn't aware that the only cases that call in court are ones we know will have a particular outcome - I better let the wife know.
Click to expand...
Well you should already know that in somewhere near 90% of cases at crown court level the defendant pleads guilty. In addition, you'll already know that the CPS only take cases to trial if they think they have more than a 50% chance of winning. In most cases, the outcome of a *criminal* court case is thus obvious before it begins.
 
soapboxstuart said:
Also if they have pled guilty why would there be a court case?
Click to expand...
Various reasons - sentencing for one - here are some others.


It makes it obvious because 90% of the time the person will be pleading guilty. In the 10% of cases left there's an over 50% perceived chance that the evidence is strong enough to achieve a conviction. Look at how complex the case is and work back from there - juries hate finding guilt in complex cases. Most of the time, it really is obvious.
 
These reasons are not generally ascertaining guilt.
This would be required I would assume in any criminal trial over the Tomlinson death.
I'm not convinced that any trial brought for this matter would necessarily have an obvious outcome.
 
soapboxstuart said:
These reasons are not generally ascertaining guilt.
Click to expand...
The reasons at the top were in response to your question of why you'd need a court case where the person pleaded guilty.

soapboxstuart said:
I'm not convinced that any trial brought for this matter would necessarily have an obvious outcome.
Click to expand...
Well that all depends on the evidence of which we have a non-complete understanding of at the moment. What I would first want to know is whether the officer who assault Ian in the first attack is the same officer who attacked him in the (far more publicised) second attack.

You implied that there was no way to know the outcome of a case before it came to court. I'm stating that usually it's very easy to know the outcome before it goes to court if you have a cursory understanding of the facts, english legal system, and the prevailing wind on certain types of cases.
 
soapboxstuart said:
In answer to AcidHell2 - I am fully aware of the UK law due to the fact that I am married to a lawyer.
Her and all her colleagues that I have spoken to agree that there is PLENTY of evidence to take this to court, but hey what would they know eh?
Click to expand...

They would know one side of the story, nothing about Mr Tomlinson's medical history and little to nothing about the hours leading up to his death as in where he was, what he was doing, who with etc.

As lawyers, they could research that abdominal bleeding can be caused by injury, a medical complaint or certain medications.

In my humble opinion, this thread has run its course and it has spiralled out of control and into a never ending circus of personal insult, trial by internet and media and has become stale and lost its direction.

So many demand the right to a fair trial and and a fair investigation and rightly so. Such rights do extend to the officer questioned in relation to Mr Tomlinson's death and the CPS and the judicial system, if the case is substantiated, should decide the outcome based on the facts and not the speculation.
 
soapboxstuart said:
While it is certainly true that you did say MAYBE DRUNK in this post, in post #822 you seemed more positive:
'Also he was 'pushed' and not 'pushed to the ground'.
It was his fault he was drunk and fell over.'

Perhaps you should take your own advice and read your OWN posts.

In answer to AcidHell2 - I am fully aware of the UK law due to the fact that I am married to a lawyer.
Her and all her colleagues that I have spoken to agree that there is PLENTY of evidence to take this to court, but hey what would they know eh?
Click to expand...

Quality :) :)
 
soapboxstuart said:
How can you POSSIBLY know this? This makes no sense.
Like I have said the lawyers that I have spoken to have stated that there is plenty of evidence to take to court. What happens once their is surely up to the jury the lawyers and a host of other things.
Am I to believe that you have some way of knowing the outcome of court cases BEFORE they are even called? This would make you truly a marvel. I wasn't aware that the only cases that call in court are ones we know will have a particular outcome - I better let the wife know.
Click to expand...

at the moment with the current evidence, there is no way they could prove beyond reasonable doubt that injury was caused by the fall. At the end of the day that is what is important. Without being able to prove that they can not win. It probably will go to court, but there is no way they can win from the evidence at the moment.

fini said:
You seriously think it would cost 'millions of pounds'? Such a gross exaggeration just makes the rest of your posts look silly
Click to expand...
yes it was a random figure but I would expected a high profile manslaughter court case to cost loads. You got any figures. And it doesn't make the rest of the posts look silly, that just doesn't make any sense.
 
Last edited:
if mr tomlinson hadn't done anything to justify being arrested or it wasn't practical to arrest him due to the sitation then he shouldn't have been the subject of force, reasonable or not. The police aren't here to dish out physical punishment as and when they see fit. If anything all this has proven is that the police need more funding, they had the means to deal with the situation but not the manpower or equipment.

Whats next, sorry sir we'd like to give you a speeding ticket but filling in these forms would take up valuable time and resources and leave us spread kind of thin on the ground so you're getting a few whacks with the baton instead and if your wife has anything to say about it she'll get a slap.

as for what the officer is guilty of, we have to wait and see but its blatantly obvious he isn't innocent, wether it's assault, manslaughter or something else, those aren't the actions of someone who should be in the police force.
 
dmpoole said:
That's because at that point he was still thought to be drunk by most.
I'm possibly now thinking he sustained an injury before he was pushed.
Click to expand...

So we have established that on at least two occasions you have been shown to be less than correct.
Why would we now regard any of your subsequent pontifications as containing any relevant substance?

How sweet :)
 
soapboxstuart said:
So we have established that on at least two occasions you have been shown to be less than correct.
Why would we now regard any of your subsequent pontifications as containing any relevant substance?

How sweet :)
Click to expand...

Perhaps as new evidence comes available therorys and ideas change. Where as you are set in stone and as such it's pointless listening to you. I didn't realise someone could be so daft.
 
AcidHell2 said:
You got any figures.
Click to expand...
£60,000 as an example. The cost of a criminal case is not that different from a civil case for compensation due to injury/abuse/loss of life (incidentally even if this does not turn in to a criminal case I wouldn't be surprised if the police force are sued for compensation) and those costs rarely breach £120,000 even in compensation claims that takes years and years to put together.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom