What was he doing wrong???

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by yorkie_chris

That was not a riotous mele type scenario there, and even so it's not hard to distinguish between targets. It wasn't like he got an accidental backhand caught up in the middle of a brawl.

No, my only reason for saying that is that there was absolutely no need for the protests to get violent and where there is no violence, there can be a more relaxed, peaceful protest. Lets face it, no violence = relaxed police = less adrenaline or need for self defence and Ian Tomlinson would have maybe been allowed to walk by untouched.

I don't think the officer could be charged for murder as he would not have intended to kill, but definately agree with what Luckypants has said.

[SoulKiss]

Originally Posted by Ed

Disturbing. No cause for murder charges though IMHO.

But all those anarchists will now complain about police brutality and one incident - serious as it is - will tarnish the reputation of the police. Generally I think the police did an excellent job in containing ugly scenes.

Why not - he attacked the guy who then died.

Why do we have the grey-area of Manslaughter and Murder

Did he intend to kill him? Probably not, but thats what happened.

Cop needs to lose his job, his pension and his liberty for a few years.

[Luckypants]

Originally Posted by SoulKiss

Cop needs to lose his job, his pension and his liberty for a few years.

Based on that video, I agree.

I suspect there is room for a murder charge - murder is not defined only by the intent to kill but the intent to cause greivous bodily harm. If I shot someone in the foot in an argument, intending only to cause them grievous bodily harm but they then died through shock / blood loss / whatever, I would be charged with murder.

Death or serious injury is a natural consequence of shooting someone in the foot or pushing them hard, with their back turned, their hands in their pockets, onto a concrete floor. The policeman in question would undoubtedly have known that injury would be sustained by his actions and he carried out those actions in knowledge of that consequence.

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by MiniMatt

I suspect there is room for a murder charge - murder is not defined only by the intent to kill but the intent to cause greivous bodily harm. If I shot someone in the foot in an argument, intending only to cause them grievous bodily harm but they then died through shock / blood loss / whatever, I would be charged with murder.

Death or serious injury is a natural consequence of shooting someone in the foot or pushing them hard, with their back turned, their hands in their pockets, onto a concrete floor. The policeman in question would undoubtedly have known that injury would be sustained by his actions and he carried out those actions in knowledge of that consequence.

Good points well made. I do not know the law surrounding murder charges well, and I am sure that the officer in question had no intent to cause any serious harm. If he did, he should not be in the force. It's impossible to say what was going through his mind, but whatever.....what he did was clearly unjustified.

I feel that it's a shame that the ensuing media circus will detract from a brilliant job done by the other officers controlling the riot that day and all officers in normal duty. They have an extremely difficult and sometimes very dangerous job to do and I don't want this thread to be an attack on the police (which I don't feel it is), but just wanted to get the general consensus of the Org!

Thanks guys. Some very good points being made.

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

They have an extremely difficult and sometimes very dangerous job to do and I don't want this thread to be an attack on the police (which I don't feel it is), but just wanted to get the general consensus of the Org!

Thanks guys. Some very good points being made.

Definitely agree, I always feel a bit sorry for the Org's resident Hawaii 5-0 contingent when these threads come up; I just see it as every organisation of that size having a few bad apples and a few idiots. The Police, due to the nature of their task must be held not just to the same standard as the civilian population but to a higher standard. The vast majority do just that. Those that don't need to be dealt with by the law of the land in the same manner as the civilian population.

[fizzwheel]

He looked to me as though he was minding his own business making his way home. Didnt look threating or about to kick off at the police officers. Even IMHO his body language is quite passive.

Guilty of one thing, being in the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Wideboy]

but don't people with generally an ounce of intelligence avoid that sort of situation and keep well away, or tend to leg it if they are found in that situation

I deliberately didn't post after watching those videos. I couldn't believe the way people were rounded up, and then police ran at them with batons. It reminded me of the 1980s police brutality videos, and they police were certainly as aggressive. The police are obsessed with playing army, and it's terrifying. Of course nothing will come of this.

A protest with 50,000 people surely needs to be taken seriously. The Government need to recognise how angry the whole country is.

Originally Posted by Wideboy

but don't people with generally an ounce of intelligence avoid that sort of situation and keep well away, or tend to leg it if they are found in that situation

Is there a list of justifiable reasons for summary beating / assault / manslaughter / murder? Is low intelligence really on that list?

Cool! Where did I put that BNP member list! (JOKE)