copper facing manslaughter charge over g20 death

[rikwakefield]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8006622.stm

I find it odd that this issue has suddenly become a public concern, the cops have been doing this for years, but at least it is being looked at now.

Also:

Probably due to the amount of video evidence. I bet certain officers despise camera phones.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

the cops have been doing this for years

Very common in the miners' strike

 

[rioted]

It was murder. End of. The officer didn't give a monkey's fuck whether Ian T died or not. You can argue the legal niceties till the cows come home but it doesn't alter the fact that had the roles been reversed Ian T would have been on a murder charge.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

It was murder. End of

No it wasn't.

 

[rioted]

No it wasn't.

Apologist! If the situation was reversed it would be!

 

[Donna Ferentes]

Apologist!

The law doesn't consist of loudmouth rhetoric.

 

[rikwakefield]

The law doesn't consist of loudmouth rhetoric.

nice

 

[rioted]

The law doesn't consist of loudmouth rhetoric.

And of course The Law is the be all and end all of morality, isn't it?

 

[Donna Ferentes]

For people who are capable of anything better than screaming at people don't don't agree with them, there's quite a lot of information on this very thread to explain why a murder charge is entirely inappropriate. There's also quite a lot of information to explain why a manslaughter charge is actually very much to the point (though in my opinion, regrettably unlikely to succeed).

 

[Donna Ferentes]

And of course The Law is the be all and end all of morality, isn't it?

No. But it is, in fact, the basis of charges in a court of law.

 

[rioted]

blah blah blah.

You entirely miss the point. You live by the law, I prefer morality. Next thing you'll be excusing those money-grabbing MPs who claim obscene expenses but haven't broken the law.

If Ian T had been the assailant he would have been on a murder charge!

 

[berniedicters]

It was murder. End of. The officer didn't give a monkey's fuck whether Ian T died or not. You can argue the legal niceties till the cows come home but it doesn't alter the fact that had the roles been reversed Ian T would have been on a murder charge.

I really, really don't think you can get done for murder for pushing someone over.

Classic case in point: road rage driver thumps someone who falls down and cracks his head on ground, leading to death: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8001838.stm

Manslaughter. Straightforward. There are specific criteria that have to be fulfilled for a death to be regarded as murder, and they wouldn't apply here. You're only shooting your own argument in the foot if you persist in trying to characterise what happened with Ian Tomlinson as murder,

 

[_angel_]

I really, really don't think you can get done for murder for pushing someone over.

Classic case in point: road rage driver thumps someone who falls down and cracks his head on ground, leading to death: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/beds/bucks/herts/8001838.stm

Manslaughter. Straightforward. There are specific criteria that have to be fulfilled for a death to be regarded as murder, and they wouldn't apply here. You're only shooting your own argument in the foot if you persist in trying to characterise what happened with Ian Tomlinson as murder,

A couple of weeks ago, someone was explaining on here how something that seemed like manslaughter could have been a murder charge (something to do with whether injury was expected, I can't remember where it was)

Also, didn't the guy get hit a couple of times before he was pushed over.

I would agree it would be most likely definitely a manslaughter charge if it had been the other way round, we'll have to see what happens though.

 

[ymu]

So a group of football hooligans, some of them with their dogs, go on a rampage in a town centre. One of the dog bites two people. During the next 4 minutes they assault Ian Tomlinson, first pushing him to the ground, hitting him twice with a baseball bat whilst he is down, pushing him over again when he gets up, then pushing him down the street, hitting his legs with a baseball bat and pushing him over a third time.

Tomlinson dies 5 minutes lates.

You think the CPS would bring a charge of murder or manslaughter?

 

[berniedicters]

So a group of football hooligans, some of them with their dogs, go on a rampage in a town centre. One of the dog bites two people. During the next 4 minutes they assault Ian Tomlinson, first pushing him to the ground, hitting him twice with a baseball bat whilst he is down, pushing him over again when he gets up, then pushing him down the street, hitting his legs with a baseball bat and pushing him over a third time.

Tomlinson dies 5 minutes lates.

You think the CPS would bring a charge of murder or manslaughter?

I don't think it serves anyone well to start flinging hypotheticals around. Nor does it really help to start trying to justify a - frankly hysterical - insistence on running around screaming "murder!". As I said on the other thread (or this one, I lose track), it's far more important that the fact this man died as a result of police activity is acknowledged and results in significant change than it is for us to be worrying about fine legal distinctions which, in any case, will probably never be put to the test.

 

[TAE]

You think the CPS would bring a charge of murder or manslaughter?

Do you think they SHOULD bring a murder charge in those circumstances?

You live by the law, I prefer morality.

I know what you mean, but that cuts both ways in all kinds of bad ways.

Some cop might think the moral thing to do is to teach 'those crusties' a lesson with his batton, no matter what the law says.

 

[Corax]

A charge against the 'officer', whether murder or manslaughter, will not change anything.

The broader picture is far more important imo. Mr Tomlinson's death is putting the entire force, their arrogant brutish culture, and their counter-productive and illegal tactics into the spotlight. I'm far more interested in that, personally.

 

[Donna Ferentes]

You live by the law

No, actually the law does. "Murder" isn't just a word, it's a legal concept, as is manslaughter.

 

[Corax]

Some cop might think the moral thing to do is to teach 'those crusties' a lesson with his batton, no matter what the law says.

Might think? No, that's exactly what they think:

we swear an oath to the Queen, not to the scum who were causing trouble that day.

Another beauty, which will be throughly enjoyed by all those that have witnessed the filth removing their numbers en masse before an assault:

and as for moaning about officers' shoulder numbers not being visible - is it beyond belief to think that in a riot, where officers are being hit, grabbed, pushed etc that the made-by-the-lowest-bidder little metal poppers that hold the epaulettes on may have given up the ghost when being yanked by a protestor?

On Nicola Fisher. Desparate...

She seems to be holding something in each hand. Offensive weapons?

All Police Oracle

 

[ymu]

Do you think they SHOULD bring a murder charge in those circumstances?

Yes, I do.

I know what you mean, but that cuts both ways in all kinds of bad ways.

How is it bad? If a gang goes on a violent rampage, I expect them to be held to account for the consequences.

I've already said that if it is shown that he died because of an enlarged liver/spleen causing the internal bleeding as a result of the fall(s), then manslaughter is the appropriate charge. But if the haemorrhage is shown to be a direct result of one of the baton strikes, then a murder charge should be brought and a jury allowed to decide on the issue of intent.

Some cop might think the moral thing to do is to teach 'those crusties' a lesson with his batton, no matter what the law says.

And you think we should pander to those views?

 

[rikwakefield]

A charge against the 'officer', whether murder or manslaughter, will not change anything.

The broader picture is far more important imo. Mr Tomlinson's death is putting the entire force, their arrogant brutish culture, and their counter-productive and illegal tactics into the spotlight. I'm far more interested in that, personally.

Definitely

 

[ymu]

I don't think it serves anyone well to start flinging hypotheticals around.

It's not hypothetical. That is exactly what the police did in the minutes leading up the videoed assault. If they were not police officers, would the CPS consider a murder charge?

The same officer, CP788 is present at two videoed dog attacks and the videoed assault on Ian Tomlinson (at clear shot of him at 52 seconds). The . The video of the second assault on Ian Tomlinson was timed at 7.20pm. The first assault on Ian Tomlinson took place in between the two videos.

Officer CP788:

Would the football hooligans be up on a murder charge if they had behaved like this?

 

[Azrael]

Yes, I do.

Since you appar to have stopped arguing that a murder charge against the officer(s) is justified in law, and have moved the goalposts to hypotheticals, how are you suggesting the murder law be re-worded? It's broad as it is, in allowing intent to commit GBH to support a murder conviction. Should any assault that leads to a death be murder? Or just ABH? If so, you're suggesting that people who get into a pub fight and go too far be convicted of the same crime as Harold Shipman. The law becomes close to meaningless at this point.

Or maybe we should copy the USA and have degrees of murder? If so, this officer is only going down for murder in the second degree. Would that be enough for you, or would you be calling for Murder One?

What should the officer's punishment be?

Is this about getting justice, or shouting "murder" because it carries more emotional weight than "manslaughter".

 

[ymu]

It's not moving the goalposts. You know perfectly well that a gang that did not happen to be police officers would be up on a murder charge after a rampage like that.

 

[Azrael]

As for the emotive football hooligan comparison, it's empty, because football hooligans have no lawful excuse to roam the streets tooled up. Police do. If they go to far, they can be punished, but the degree of wrongdoing isn't the same.

 

[Azrael]

You know perfectly well that a gang that did not happen to be police officers would be up on a murder charge after a rampage like that.

I don't. Some nasty thugs have gone down for manslaughter. Cases linked on threads like this. Whether a gang-member would go down for murder would depend on the specific circumstances.

How are you suggesting the murder law be re-worded?

 

[Spymaster]

How is it bad? If a gang goes on a violent rampage, I expect them to be held to account for the consequences.

I've already said that if it is shown that he died because of an enlarged liver/spleen causing the internal bleeding as a result of the fall(s), then manslaughter is the appropriate charge. But if the haemorrhage is shown to be a direct result of one of the baton strikes, then a murder charge should be brought and a jury allowed to decide on the issue of intent.

You're rantings on this thread have shown you to be utterly incapable of reason. You've been taken to the cleaners on your cod-legal analysis, misconceived analogies and mendacious misinterpretation of far better informed posters. Yet you persist.

You and idiots like you are as much an obstacle to justice and even handed policing as thug coppers. If you're not an agent provocateur for the far right, they've missed a trick.

 

[Corax]

As for the emotive football hooligan comparison, it's empty, because football hooligans have no lawful excuse to roam the streets tooled up. Police do. If they go to far, they can be punished, but the degree of wrongdoing isn't the same.

Speaking of footie, apparantly football fans are perfectly happy being bludgeoned by the filth:

And let me tell you something about large groups of people. The football fans who have all been demonised(by middle upper class journalists normally) may get off their faces drunk and fight with eachother have more of my respect than the typical G20 protestors as do The Tamil protestors. The football fans get drunk, do their bit, get nicked and are sorry about it afterwards, most are working men(youd have to be to afford the tickets). Funnily enough, most of them I was mingling with and talking to over the past week said they thought there was nothing wrong with Police action on the day of G20 and they didnt know what all the fuss was about.

Sorry, I'll try to stop quoting off that place now. It just fills me so full of anger and disbelief.

 

[berniedicters]

It's not moving the goalposts. You know perfectly well that a gang that did not happen to be police officers would be up on a murder charge after a rampage like that.

I don't think you can say that. There have been plenty of cases on here where people have roared around the place screaming about how someone or other should have been done for murder, not GBH/manslaughter/whatever - it's by no means a certainty that if the (jack)boot had been on the other foot, murder charges would have resulted.

What I will say is that, had the boot been on the other foot, you can be sure that the police would have gone after the suspects with far more alacrity than they have done in this case (to grace their actions so far with the word "alacrity" is rather more ridiculous than sublime). That is, in itself, despicable enough, along with the attempts at smear and coverup - why on earth are we wasting our time on a pointless red herring like whether or not a copper should be being charged with murder?

 

[Azrael]

[...] - why on earth are we wasting our time on a pointless red herring like whether or not a copper should be being charged with murder?

Exactly. Focussing on a legal a non-starter distracts attention from other, genuine issues.

As I've asked ymu several times now, why is it so important to you that the officer be charged with murder, not manslaughter?