What was he doing wrong???

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by jamesterror

I'm split between saying it is manslaughter and not, for the following reason however much I do disagree with the uncertainty in the law and the way the officer acted, see previous post.

Firstly you do not hear any commentary, the officer(s) could have asked the man to remove his hands from his pockets, he may have failed to comply, they could of thought he was posing a threat - if I remember right if there is "reasonable grounds" or "suspect" - possibly carrying something which would cause harm.

Effectively, the intent to get the citizen to the ground forces his hands out of his pockets to take some of the fall (although I would contradict myself now and said the officer wouldn't have been trained like that?)

Originally Posted by caz650s

+1 & how did the police know that he wasn't getting ready to pull a knife on them ?

I do feel sorry for the chap though ...

But none of us were there to see or hear what had happend beforehand ?

The only thing I will say in response is that if the policeman was indeed using the displayed force o push him to the ground to effect an arrest, why did he then ignore him? If Ian Tomlinson was making verbal threats, why did the officer not arrest him after pushing him to the floor and what immediate threat was there to warrant a baton to he back of his legs and such force in the push that the officer himself had to work to keep his balance?

If you watch the video closely, you cannot see any movement of Ian Tomlinsons mouth and he is not looking at, confronting or being physically threatning towards the officers. His back was completely turned from the officer that attacked him as he was walking home from work. Even if he had mouthed or shouted the most profane obscenities or threats at the officer, the law states that reasonable force only can be used to effect arrest. I'll say again as others have, the officer hit him, pushed him and took no further action. That is pure and simply a criminal act according to our laws and the officer will have to answer for his actions.

[skeetly]

Originally Posted by Sosha

Eh?

So what - lamp everyone just incase? Surely if they were worried he might pull an Knife/Uzi/Table leg from his pocket they might have actually SEARCHED him for one?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...eg-626597.html

Originally Posted by caz650s

+1 & how did the police know that he wasn't getting ready to pull a knife on them ?

I do feel sorry for the chap though ...

But none of us were there to see or hear what had happend beforehand ?

Because if he'd threatened to pull a knife I kind of think that at least the police officers involved would have reported that to their senior officers. Threatening a police officer with a real or implied knife tends to result (quite rightly) in arrest, pronto. Hell they might have even reported it when the autopsy was being carried out. I would not expect members of the police to hide for a god damn week before only coming forward when video evidence is presented that disputes the "we had no prior contact with the deceased" story if they were threatened. If he was threatening with a knife (real or implied) then arrest him - use all the appropriate force you like. No attempt was made to arrest him - that would involve all those inconviniences like THE FECKIN LAW OF THE FECKIN LAND - much better just to execute summary beatings?

The Police do a bloody hard job and this country would be a worse place without them. This does not mean we find excuses for stick wielding thugs. It's inevitable that any large organisation will have intellectually and morally impaired chimps amidst their ranks - making these very thugs above the rule of law when the rest of their colleagues strive hard to "protect and serve" does nothing for the image of the police and does nothing for society. The police should maintain a higher standard than the civilian population - the videos presented show considerably less than the standards required by law of regular civilians, let alone those tasked with upholding the law. The Police uphold the law - they don't make it up on the spot. The law states quite clearly when the police can use force on the civilian population - the police are the only group allowed to do so and these rights are very regulated in LAW. The LAW states that Police are allowed to use reasonable force (up to and including a bullet should it be reasonable) to effect an arrest or protect real or perceived life and limb. As SK has pointed out - NO attempt at arrest was made - so did he pose a threat (real or otherwise) to life or limb? The fact that no attempt at arrest was made before or after suggests that the police on the scene did not believe he posed any threat.

I support the Police, I really do, I support them in their job of upholding the LAW. I expect them, at the very least, to follow the LAW. The very tiny minority who choose to break the law should surely be made accountable by it?

[anna]

..and no doubt he will be made accountable for it, as has been said on this thread an independant enquiry has been launched and the officer in question has been taken off active duty.

Hopefully so. Independence was only annouced today mind, up until yesterday it was still the police investigating the police. And as for pre-existing conditions - "eggshell skull" is the phrase - if I were to break into an old ladies house and she, like many old people, had a fragile heart and died from a heart attack from the stress I would be charged with murder - I wouldn't even have needed to make any physical contact with the victim.

[anna]

I´m not sure that those two circumstances could be put side by side to draw a comparison, that would be anything other than biased.

The policeman to be charged with manslaughter would have to be prove to have caused death by malicious intent, or in the case of unintentional manslaughter a wilful disregard for life (If I have understood the law correctly!).

Now obviously this is now under investigation, initial response by the police was to initiate this investigation. Obviously under such media scrutiny, and to make sure that they were seen to be operating fairly, they have handed it over for independent review. I fail to see how they could have acted in a more responsible way to ensure a fair and judicial review of the sad events that have happened.

Originally Posted by gruntygiggles

Just so you know, this is already in the hands of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, not run by the police although I am sure they wil be running their own investigation.

IPCC and Profesional standards got involved with my case, ex coppers policing coppers...

Not the best way to stay impartial really.

I is not a lawyer, and the only lawyer I know of on this forum I think tends to disagree with me on this one, as such take my interpretation with a very hefty pinch/dollop of salt.

My understanding, with the above caveat in place:
1. I intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm = charge with murder (in practice possibly reduced to manslaughter at court). Whether the officer involved intended to cause GBH is up for debate but pushing someone from behind, who has their hands in their pockets likely unable to cushion their own fall, onto concrete - the officer undoubtedly intended to cause harm - whether that be grievous or not is open to debate (by a jury)

2. I intended to cause death or grievous bodily harm but I was provoked (eg. years of domestic abuse - not sure being called nasty names by the bad man is necessarily a defence for a highly trained armed and armoured police officer) or I is mental (God told me to kill him, diminished responsibility) = voluntary manslaughter.

3. I didn't intend to cause injury but I is such a dimwitted retard that I didn't expect injury to result (gross negligence, death by dangerous driving used to be this) = involuntary manslaughter

[gruntygiggles]

Originally Posted by speedplay

IPCC and Profesional standards got involved with my case, ex coppers policing coppers...

Not the best way to stay impartial really.

I agree that in a private case they may be able to be be bias and get away with it and it is dispicable that this happened to you.

Luckily, this case is being so heavily covered that there will have to be total transparency.

If there isn't, the family will go to the papers and it will be reopened.

Just a shame not all cases are made to be as transparent.

I doubt we will ever know the full story, none of us were there however....

Only going on what I have seen ect I can't see any reason for hitting and pushing that man on the floor, that wouldn't even be covered by common law, let alone PACE.

I can't see how that use of force can be "justifed" If it is proven that the officer involved is charged and convicted, hopefully for Manslaughter, I hope its the maxium sentence and loses his pension.