egafd.com

Guilty in my book

The Metropolitan Police have explained the circumstances leading to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests.

Apparently, they had reason to believe he was a Brazilian electrician.

mrchapel wrote:

> The Metropolitan Police have explained the circumstances
> leading to the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests.
>
> Apparently, they had reason to believe he was a Brazilian
> electrician.


!laugh! !laugh!

- Eric

For the first time in many moons, the warring factions of BGAFD have laid down their bloodied axes and united in outraged condemnation of this travesty of justice!

This all stems from the inept post mortem conducted by a doctor who was unfit to practice. PC Harwood should have been charged with assault, and I think he would have been convicted, but because of the inept PM the six month window to charge him had passed. It was asking a lot to get a verdict of manslaughter, because we all saw exactly what happened to him, and it would not have killed a healthy man. Mr Tomlinson was clearly a very sick man who might have died at any time. He was assaulted by PC Harwood, but to say that PC Harwood killed him was clearly too much for the jury to agree on.

As to PC Harwood, the fact that he was allowed to resign from the Met, join another force, and then rejoin the Met beggars belief.

Robches wrote:


> As to PC Harwood, the fact that he was allowed to resign from
> the Met, join another force, and then rejoin the Met beggars
> belief.

Agreed. He should never have been in a position to assault anyone, had he been drummed out for his earlier offences. The entire service is responsible for this man still being in a uniform, and for the death of Tomlinson.

Then the law is an ass! It would follow that if a mugger brutally beats an OAP and she subsequently dies, the defence could argue that, "She could have died at any time, so it cannot be proved that the mugger actually caused her death!" Surely a prosecutor could argue back, "That if the OAP had been allowed to go about his or her business without being attacked, she or he would have continued to live beyond the time of attack for an indeterminate time. Therefore the actual attack shortened the OAP's life to an extent that wouldn't have occurred if he or she hadn't been attacked in the first place. So the attack itself precipitated and caused her ultimate death, I demand a verdict of murder one, your honour!!!"

*"The charge of " Murder One" is actually a charge made famous in the 1970's cop series, "Hawaii Five O". The star, Steve McGarret would love to end each show with the catchphrase, "Book him Danno, Murder One!"

It is not a valid charge under English Law!

"It was asking a lot to get a verdict of manslaughter,"

Only in the sense that he was a policeman and to get a conviction of a policeman for manslaughter or murder whilst on duty has proved nigh on impossible in Britain in the last 20 odd years even though there have been over 1400 deaths either in custody or after coming into contact with the police.

Any non-policeman would have been found guilty without question.

"because we all saw exactly what happened to him, and it would not have killed a healthy man."

This is wrong. A blow as severe as the one Tomlinson got can easily cause death through a fall. Death can and does come from a variety of reasons from such a blow and subsequent fall - ruptured spleen, damage to internal organs, haemorrhage, fractured skull and subsequent bleeds etc. etc.

jimslip wrote:

> Then the law is an ass! It would follow that if a mugger
> brutally beats an OAP and she subsequently dies, the defence
> could argue that, "She could have died at any time, so it
> cannot be proved that the mugger actually caused her death!"
> Surely a prosecutor could argue back, "That if the OAP had been
> allowed to go about his or her business without being attacked,
> she or he would have continued to live beyond the time of
> attack for an indeterminate time. Therefore the actual attack
> shortened the OAP's life to an extent that wouldn't have
> occurred if he or she hadn't been attacked in the first place.
> So the attack itself precipitated and caused her ultimate
> death, I demand a verdict of murder one, your honour!!!"
>

I think you have answered your own question. If a mugger "brutally beats" someone and they die, that would be murder, not manslaughter. We saw what PC Harwood did, he hit him once with a truncheon and then shoved him. I think an assault charge would have stuck, but clearly a manslaughter charge did not.

David Johnson wrote:


>
> This is wrong. A blow as severe as the one Tomlinson got can
> easily cause death through a fall. Death can and does come
> from a variety of reasons from such a blow and subsequent fall
> - ruptured spleen, damage to internal organs, haemorrhage,
> fractured skull and subsequent bleeds etc. etc.

The trouble is we do not know how hard the blow was, which comes down to the inept PM performed by a doctor who should not even have been carrying them out, What is not in doubt is that PC Harwood only used his truncheon once, followed by a shove. It was not a Rodney King type beating. I think that is why a manslaughter charge did not stick.