Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed by Pc

The Running Man · 25 May 2011 at 12:44

Thats the problem isnt it, who oversees the oversee'ers? This guy was killed by manslaughter, its a pretty serious thing to cover up for a mate considering that you are meant to be sanctomonious with the law..?

Participant · 25 May 2011 at 12:46

I'm glad it's a closed shop with regards to telling tales. Worrying about your mates ratting you out along with everything else they have to worry about, would hamper your ability to do the job. Imagine thinking 'oh no, if I twist this guy's arm to make him stop, my assistant here might say I was being over-aggressive'. Next thing you've been stabbed and the perp is legging it.

The Running Man · 25 May 2011 at 12:48

Robbie G said:
I'm glad it's a closed shop with regards to telling tales. Worrying about your mates ratting you out along with everything else they have to worry about would hamper your ability to do the job.

What is their job? Its to uphold the law and serve the public. Not dish out punishment as they see fit knwoing that they can deck a guy and have their mates cover their back. That is a broken system, and NOT one which should ever be supported tbh.

Participant · 25 May 2011 at 12:52

But they've got to balance it against the weight of public opinion that thinks the UK police are already too restricted in what they can do as it is.

Robbo · 25 May 2011 at 13:02

majestyk said:
The guy was walking AWAY from the officer when he was assaulted.

He even had his hands in his pockets. He posed no threat whatsoever to the police.

He had his back to them and wasn't really moving.

Yes, he wasn't a threat and considering the ridiculous world we live in, the officer was stupid to touch him, but his intentions were CLEARLY not to injure (let alone kill) the man, so him possibly being sent to prison is obscene.

The Running Man said:
That is why you can never, ever, trust the police.

What an absolutely stupid thing to say. I actually feel sorry for you if you think that.

Get your head out of the clouds for god sake.

bam0 · 25 May 2011 at 13:11

Burnsy2023 said:
This is the camp I'm currently sat in. His actions had very profound consequences I'm sure he never expected. Consequences he will undoubtedly regret having to face.

Eggshell skull rule, you take the victim as you find them. The fact the outcome was unforeseen is irrelevant.

Vonhelmet · 25 May 2011 at 13:21

Robbie G said:
But they've got to balance it against the weight of public opinion that thinks the UK police are already too restricted in what they can do as it is.

That's a matter for their bosses, all the way up to Parliament, not for them on the ground.

Pate · 25 May 2011 at 13:25

LeJosh said:
It still isn't a reflection on the 'force' as a whole.

I'm sure you would defend your mate if his career and livelyhood was going to be in tatters. Even if you didn't agree with what he did.

No sorry, moral defunct as I may well be, in a situation where someone's heavy handedness has lead to a death, no I wouldn't say I would cover up.

Robbie G said:
Well we have a fundamental disagreement there, as I don't think a policeman really needed to say that to him in that situation. It was a tense environment and blindingly obvious that dawdlers were not welcome.

It was bad luck imo. People fall over without dying all the time. There was something inherently wrong with the guy.

Read below. The laws of this land, (you know the ones the police enforce with often mind numbing small mindedness) state that you take your victim as you find them.

The officer used unwarranted force on someone, and as it happened, the guy had a medical problem. NO excuse.

Cases in point:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R_v_Blaue

http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/cases_38_invol_uada.htm#Ruby, R v (1988) CA

bam0 said:
Eggshell skull rule, you take the victim as you find them. The fact the outcome was unforeseen is irrelevant.

The Running Man · 25 May 2011 at 13:42

Robbo said:
Yes, he wasn't a threat and considering the ridiculous world we live in, the officer was stupid to touch him, but his intentions were CLEARLY not to injure (let alone kill) the man, so him possibly being sent to prison is obscene

That is the most retarded thing ive read in this thread.

How do you %^&* someone with a baton and not intend to injure someone, let alone push them face first with a shove that had the power to make the policeman monetarily lose balance and NOT intend to injure someone?!

Robbo · 25 May 2011 at 13:46

The Running Man said:
That is the most retarded thing ive read in this thread.

No, your "dont ever trust the police" rubbish takes that crown.

The Running Man said:
How do you %^&* someone with a baton and not intend to injure someone, let alone push them face first with a shove that had the power to make the policeman monetarily lose balance and NOT intend to injure someone?!

He was heavy handed in the heat of the moment, it was a mistake. It was stupid, but I dont believe his intentions were to seriously harm, let alone kill the guy. He was encouraging him to move along, which the guy was failing to do.

The fact you have a "hate the police" attitude undermines any argument you try to make anyway, so I suggest you don't waste your time on it.

Burnsy2023 · 25 May 2011 at 14:04

The Running Man said:
That is the most retarded thing ive read in this thread.

How do you %^&* someone with a baton and not intend to injure someone, let alone push them face first with a shove that had the power to make the policeman monetarily lose balance and NOT intend to injure someone?!

How often have you seen someone get pushed or fall and get up without injury? Yes, ALL THE TIME.

Pate · 25 May 2011 at 14:04

Robbo said:
He was heavy handed in the heat of the moment, it was a mistake. It was stupid, but I dont believe his intentions were to seriously harm, let alone kill the guy. He was encouraging him to move along, which the guy was failing to do.

The fact you have a "hate the police" attitude undermines any argument you try to make anyway, so I suggest you don't waste your time on it.

What part of the Law do you not understand about the eggshell skull rule.

Also, what part of the law allows the police to commit the offense of battery?

What part of the officers actions were "encouraging"?

Pate · 25 May 2011 at 14:05

Burnsy2023 said:
How often have you seen someone get pushed or fall and get up without injury? Yes, ALL THE TIME.

I thought you worked as a PCSO.

You find any part of the officers actions justifable? What right did the officer have to touch the man?

Was he acting under his power of arrest? No, so what?

Robbo · 25 May 2011 at 14:10

kenmare said:
What part of the Law do you not understand about the eggshell skull rule.

Also, what part of the law allows the police to commit the offense of battery?

Did the stupid mistake part of my post not cover that well enough for you?

kenmare said:
What part of the officers actions were "encouraging"?

I think he pushed him to try and usher him along, the fact he pushed too hard is unfortunate.

You are talking as if he jumped on top of the guy and beat him half to death with a baton, he pushed him for goodness sake.

Skunkworks · 25 May 2011 at 14:10

Robbo said:
Yes, he wasn't a threat and considering the ridiculous world we live in, the officer was stupid to touch him, but his intentions were CLEARLY not to injure (let alone kill) the man, so him possibly being sent to prison is obscene.

How many drink drivers do you think get in their cars with the intention of killing or injuring? When you do something like that you roll a dice and better be ready to accept the consequences.

Robbo · 25 May 2011 at 14:12

Skunkworks said:
How many drink drivers do you think get in their cars with the intention of killing or injuring?

I'm not really sure that is a fair comparison.

Skunkworks said:
When you do something like that you roll a dice and better be ready to accept the consequences.

I agree with that, I can still hold my view that it is unfortunate though.

I don't think the guy deserves what he is going to get for what he did, end of story.

Burnsy2023 · 25 May 2011 at 14:13

kenmare said:
I thought you worked as a PCSO.

Nope.

kenmare said:
You find any part of the officers actions justifable? What right did the officer have to touch the man?

Was he acting under his power of arrest? No, so what?

I find his actions understandable, but not really justifiable. The officer can't move people back only using the power of his voice, they need to touch and more often than not, need to push. That's policing. It's the level of force that's the problem here.

Did he need to do it in this instance? No, not really. Did intend to injure or kill Mr Tomlinson? Very unlikely. Will his mistake mean that the consequences of his action will result in jail? Very possibly.

Like has been said, the eggshell skull doctrine means that he probably get a custodial sentence and that is the price he will need to pay for Mr Tomlinson's death. I just find it scary, as I know many officers that could have been in similar positions had their actions had these unforeseen consequences.

Participant · 25 May 2011 at 14:22

Eggshell skull only comes into play if the policeman's actions were tortious or criminal in the first place. Which I don't think they were.

Pate · 25 May 2011 at 14:24

Robbie G said:
Eggshell skull only comes into play if the policeman's actions were tortious or criminal in the first place. Which I don't think they were.

Robbo said:
I think he pushed him to try and usher him along, the fact he pushed too hard is unfortunate.

You are talking as if he jumped on top of the guy and beat him half to death with a baton, he pushed him for goodness sake.

Please cite where the officer is allowed to touch the victim, considering a mere touch is considered battery, in itself a criminal act.

Robbo · 25 May 2011 at 14:25

kenmare said:
Please cite where the officer is allowed to touch the victim, considering a mere touch is considered battery, in itself a criminal act.

If that is true, then that is absolutely crazy. No wonder this country is going to the dogs.