Ian Tomlinson unlawfully killed by Pc

Tute said:
Not as clear cut as that, and you both know it.

I think there's some severe trolling going on here, do you both really believe what you're posting? I'm skeptical.
Click to expand...

It's not as black and white or simplistic as that, no

But in this case an inquest has been held in front of a jury and they decided, after seeing and hearing all the evidence, that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed.

So then the case is passed to the CPS, who after deliberation have decided there is now enough evidence to bring a manslaughter case.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_statements/cps_statement_on_mr_ian_tomlinson_/

So, he still may not be convicted, that will be for another jury to decide.

But if he is, no matter how outraged people are on here that the policeman is being prosecuted at all, he is being given the full and fair process of the law.

imo - as it wasn't just a push, but a baton strike then a push to the back against a person with their hands in their pockets walking away from the line, then that action was unreasonable.

No matter how difficult the job of crowd control is/was that day, no matter how much abuse the policeman got off other troublemakers - he is trained to be a professional and act accordingly and within the law.

A jury may find he didn't
 
The Running Man said:
Next time i see your grandad, ill whack him with a 2by4 and then as he;s walking off ill charge at him and face plant him into a pavement. But i wont intend to injure him. He'll be fine right? Surely thats a normal thing that people do all the time whilst attempting to not injure someone right?
Click to expand...

What?! :confused:

You're embarrassing yourself now Nick.
 
Robbie G said:
Self defence
Defence of others
Playing rugby
Pushing them out of the way of oncoming traffic :D
Click to expand...

obviously i'm talking in the same context of the case , they are all justifiable reasons

If I or you were to walk down the street and intentionally push somebody for no justifiable reason, they then fell over and died as a result of that push then in what circumstances would we not be charged with their manslaughter (obviousloy depending on evidence, etc)

of course we would be charged if their was enough evidence to bring a case
 
SO when burnsey says that people get up from the floor all the time, how is that not completely out of context given that ian Tomlison was a 47 year old guy who looked pretty small.

Not exactly a fit gym going 25 year old was he? I am just trying to bring this home by personalising it. I thought, wow if someone did that to my dad or grandad, im sure they would get injured, either broken arm, whrist, nose whatever.

To push someone over like that on the road/pavement how can you say you expect him to not get injured~?
 
wannabedamned said:
When you're an officer of the law working under riot conditions. The officer didn't intentionally kill the guy. And he was working under conditions that were enforced to stop riots and escalation
Click to expand...

Do those conditions include striking and pushing innocent passers by for no justifiable reason? why weren't the majority of the other officers doing this too? they were under the same conditions

No he never intionally killed the guy but he intentionally used force with led to his death and for that he should be held accountable
 
The Running Man said:
SO when burnsey says that people get up from the floor all the time, how is that not completely out of context given that ian Tomlison was a 47 year old guy who looked pretty small.

Not exactly a fit gym going 25 year old was he? I am just trying to bring this home by personalising it. I thought, wow if someone did that to my dad or grandad, im sure they would get injured, either broken arm, whrist, nose whatever.

To push someone over like that on the road/pavement how can you say you expect him to not get injured~?
Click to expand...

He doesn't look small. He looks like a regular middle aged guy. If you pushed an average middle aged guy you shouldn't expect him to die. That said, you should always account for the possibility.
 
Freakbro said:
It's not as black and white or simplistic as that, no

But in this case an inquest has been held in front of a jury and they decided, after seeing and hearing all the evidence, that Ian Tomlinson was unlawfully killed.

So then the case is passed to the CPS, who after deliberation have decided there is now enough evidence to bring a manslaughter case.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/news/press_statements/cps_statement_on_mr_ian_tomlinson_/

So, he still may not be convicted, that will be for another jury to decide.

But if he is, no matter how outraged people are on here that the policeman is being prosecuted at all, he is being given the full and fair process of the law.

imo - as it wasn't just a push, but a baton strike then a push to the back against a person with their hands in their pockets walking away from the line, then that action was unreasonable.

No matter how difficult the job of crowd control is/was that day, no matter how much abuse the policeman got off other troublemakers - he is trained to be a professional and act accordingly and within the law.

A jury may find he didn't
Click to expand...

It still should not have got this far. The precedent set is very dangerous and will only serve to dilute the already weak powers the police have to uphold the law.

But then, I expect some in this thread are wanting that without even considering the consequences.
 
I CBA to multiquote everything Robbo and Robbie G have said, but I agree with them :).

Sometimes I despair at this country. We've got a police officer who was clearing a riot area being done for manslaughter for simply pushing a man who was deliberately obstructing the police to tell him to GTFO. Yet in Yemen/Syria/Libya we've got unelected governments firing live rounds and cluster bombs at civilians. Seriously whiners, get a ****ing grip. :rolleyes:
 
BunnyKillBot said:
Lol. So you think police brutality is acceptable so long as the people being brutalised 'deserve it'. And if a few innocents get in the way, whatever. Nice.
Click to expand...

Er, there were acts of serious affray, if not riot going on. To control it the police are perfectly entitled to use reasonable force.

I've no doubt other people were 'brutalized', but unluckily for them no officers will be charged.

If you read the rest of the post you will note I do not condone the officers action re Tomlinson, in fact I condemn it and hope the officer is prosucuted to the full extent of the law.
 
Tbh this comes under 2 issues:

1) The PC's behaviour
2) The police behaviour

Both are pretty suspect imo

1) The PC appears to me to be a bit of a d head, admittedly not based on any real info just his general demeanour and comments he has made which have been reported, also he has been subject to 2 previous complaints and resigned from the met years ago, also the same day he was subject to a complaint where he allegedly restrained someone by ramming their head into the side of a police van.

Overall i believe he is wrong for the job, too aggressive and that day he was looking for a fight, also i believe him to be dishonest and to have lied about events that day.

2) The police handling of the whole incident and investigation has been a complete farce and i believe they have been given a massive benefit of the doubt in the final analysis, overall concluding that they didn't intentionally lie and attempt a cover up.

Imo if it were a private individual or organisation that had acted in the same manor they would be strung up and clearly accused of attempting a cover up.

If i remember correctly the police:

Lied about police contact
Lied about the general situation
Lied about how medical assistance was given
Lied about cctv footage not being available
Lied to the family about police contact and the investigation (the media told the family)

Arranged a suspect Dr to perform the first post mortem which now appears to be the weak link in any case against the pc

Told the Dr false info about the circumstances which may have influenced his report

Also suggested that he fell over earlier and that caused the injuries sustained

Tbh cant remember any more atm but its a laundry list of either lies or gross incompetence.

EDIT: Just wanted to say i am not anti police as it may appear above but these sort of incidents are unacceptable and destroy public confidence in the police.

Also in general i believe police recruitment needs to be reformed as they appear to be employing the wrong type of people for the job and this is leading to a bad anti public culture within the police.

In general they appear to be moving to a "we police the public and have authority over the public" rather than a "we serve the public, and uphold the law for the public good" attitude
 
Last edited:
Tute said:
It still should not have got this far. The precedent set is very dangerous and will only serve to dilute the already weak powers the police have to uphold the law.

But then, I expect some in this thread are wanting that without even considering the consequences.
Click to expand...

If the alternative is that we say it's ok for the police to strike and push non-threatening individuals from behind, then I'll go with the dangerous precedent.

Besides, if he can defend his striking and pushing a non-threatening individual from behind so hard that he fell headlong as a reasonable action under the circumstances, then I'm sure he will have nothing to worry about.
 
vonhelmet said:
If the alternative is that we say it's ok for the police to strike and push non-threatening individuals from behind, then I'll go with the dangerous precedent.

Besides, if he can defend his striking and pushing a non-threatening individual from behind so hard that he fell headlong as a reasonable action under the circumstances, then I'm sure he will have nothing to worry about.
Click to expand...

But then most normal individuals would steer clear of possible conflict, not go wandering around aimlessly in front of it.

If IT had a working brain then this wouldn't have happened.
 
Tute said:
But then most normal individuals would steer clear of possible conflict, not go wandering around aimlessly in front of it.

If IT had a working brain then this wouldn't have happened.
Click to expand...

Given that his actions were non-threatening and non-riotous, he was merely in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is still not a good reason to be struck and pushed to the ground.
 
For those who missed it:
DaveF said:
PC Kerry Smith didn't seem to think so:

He said he wanted to get through and pointed to the line behind us," she told the inquest. "I told him no. I did point towards the south east corner so going up towards Bishopsgate, as an alternative direction."

Mr Tomlinson wasn't aggressive or swearing, PC Smith said. "He didn't seem rude, as such."

Asked if he appeared to be a demonstrator, she said no. "He didn't appear to be shouting or chanting, he didn't appear to be with anyone else, so I didn't think he was a demonstrator."

The inquest heard that a number of officers, including PC Smith, told him several times to get back from the police line. He was a "bit slow on the uptake," she said. "After a bit of a pause, he then did turn around."​

She also said: "I was shocked by the forcefulness of the push on Mr Tomlinson", and she had expected to see blood after seeing Tomlinson propelled to the ground a few feet in front of her.
Click to expand...
DaveF, can you supply a source for this?

EDIT:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/01/tomlinson-inquest-officer-shocked-push
 
The Running Man said:
I never saw a policeman go over to him and say, 'listen mate, were clearing this area, can you get a groove on'... one just whacked him with his authority stick and then proceed to push him over face first onto a solid concrete style floor.
Click to expand...

NAIL HEAD

why didnt the PC try to talk to him and use verbal skills to move him along, he had no need to use a baton as tomlinson was unarmed and presented no threat to the Police, he should have picked him up under the arms with another officer and moved him along, but no the muppet pc decided to stick him and shove him.

Consequentially he died, now he couldnt predict that would happen but it did, this is manslaughter as his actions caused his death without intent to kill.

Further to this he lied and the police tried to cover up the death with a dodgy pathologist, hopefully justice will be done and his fate will be decided by a jury.
 
vonhelmet said:
non-threatening
Click to expand...

merely in the wrong place at the wrong time
Click to expand...

See, IT doesn't strike me as either of those. He was wandering around in front of a police line being a ****end.

I have to admit, if I wanted to do some damage to a police line it's exactly the approach i'd take - wander up, pretend to be not doing anything, and strike when their guard is down.

As it was, he got a shove for being a ****. Fair enough, far too much force used and that's fine, the officer should be reprimanded. But sadly IT had a health problem that caused his death and now the officer is (probably) going to go to prison for it.

I mean by the same thinking, if someone jumps out in front of me on the motorway, it's my fault and I can be done for manslaughter? Or if I pop a balloon near someone with a weak heart and it kills them, i'm going to go to prison?

It's a very very dangerously slippery slope, but it was always going to happen with the police-hating public baying for blood.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom