G20 Protests in London Page 35

  • Page

    of 37 First / Last

  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 23:14:40 5,495 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    effinjamie wrote:
    Well seeing as the inquest jury took three hours to decide that Tomlinson had been "unlawfully killed by a police officer" I don't think it was the wrong charge.
    Ok. It was the wrong jury. Or maybe the inquest jury were wrong. Or maybe they have different standards of proof. I don't know which of these are true.
  • Deleted user 19 July 2012 23:17:24
    @richardiox sigh, a perfectly hysterical response that only proves my point, and where did I say the family were not entitled to feel aggrieved and let down?
    I'm talking about the public like yourself and their pre determined judgements.
  • effinjamie 19 Jul 2012 23:18:24 888 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    maybe if a lot of the facts that are now coming to light, hadn't been withheld from the jury, we would have had a different verdict.
    I'm sure if I was up for assault, it would be totally relevant to the case if I also had a history of Assaulting people.

    PSN - effinjamie Xbox - effinjamie

  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 23:18:32 5,495 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    I'm curious to know why do you think you're right and the jury that sat through the entire trial are wrong?
  • Deleted user 19 July 2012 23:19:48
    EyeLand wrote:
    And if it was the wrong charge because it was minor people seem to be missing the point. Any forceful action can be deadly, just because 99 percent of the time such unlawful action wouldn't result in death is neither here nor there.
    Which is why the law requires more in such a charge.
  • TheSaint 19 Jul 2012 23:30:47 14,371 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    effinjamie wrote:
    maybe if a lot of the facts that are now coming to light, hadn't been withheld from the jury, we would have had a different verdict.
    I'm sure if I was up for assault, it would be totally relevant to the case if I also had a history of Assaulting people.
    The rules would be exactly the same if it was you.
  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 23:33:57 5,495 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    That'd be compelling.

    The fact is though the law has evolved as it has, partly to enrich lawyers, but also to prevent people putting two and two together, getting five and then indulging in mob justice. If you're going to convict someone of manslaughter you have to be sure. It may or may not be right, but it is justice.

    Edited by gang_of_bitches at 23:35:30 19-07-2012
  • Gradius 19 Jul 2012 23:34:24 2,305 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    Like Mowgli and I were saying on the previous page it was the wrong charge, or at least one that clearly in this case couldn't be proved.

    To say this will further run the police's reputation into the ground "and rightly so" is just wrong. It's not the police's fault. it may or may not be the fault of the CPS, juror's and barrister's.
    Oh, I don't only blame the police in this case but the way I see it, the police have once again murdered a completely innocent bloke for absolutely no reason and got away with it in a way that no other person would have. If anyone else had committed this killing, they would have been locked up for it. Attacking elderly frail people from behind with a weapon is not generally seen as an innocent act...Unless you're a police officer it seems..
  • Rusty_M 19 Jul 2012 23:36:22 4,679 posts
    Seen 30 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It certainly looks unprovoked and even more so, it looks disproportionate to any threat he appears to pose.

    I doubt the question was whether he was guilty of shoving him. It's whether that amounts to manslaughter. I honestly don't know.

    The world is going mad. Me? I'm doing fine.

  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 23:38:00 5,495 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Gradius wrote:
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    Like Mowgli and I were saying on the previous page it was the wrong charge, or at least one that clearly in this case couldn't be proved.

    To say this will further run the police's reputation into the ground "and rightly so" is just wrong. It's not the police's fault. it may or may not be the fault of the CPS, juror's and barrister's.
    Oh, I don't only blame the police in this case but the way I see it, the police have once again murdered a completely innocent bloke for absolutely no reason and got away with it in a way that no other person would have. If anyone else had committed this killing, they would have been locked up for it. Attacking elderly frail people from behind with a weapon is not generally seen as an innocent act...Unless you're a police officer it seems..
    Shit. I committed a crime of completely wrong apostrophe use.

    I'm pretty sure if you did some research you'd find that non-police officers have been acquitted under similar circumstances before.
  • Deleted user 19 July 2012 23:38:05
    Urgh, not true. Not like this is the first ever failed manslaughter charge ffs.
  • Deleted user 19 July 2012 23:39:30
    Rusty_M wrote:
    It certainly looks unprovoked and even more so, it looks disproportionate to any threat he appears to pose.

    I doubt the question was whether he was guilty of shoving him. It's whether that amounts to manslaughter. I honestly don't know.
    It was massively disproportionate, he deserves to lose his job in disgrace and be charged with assault etc.
  • effinjamie 19 Jul 2012 23:41:12 888 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    TheSaint wrote:
    effinjamie wrote:
    maybe if a lot of the facts that are now coming to light, hadn't been withheld from the jury, we would have had a different verdict.
    I'm sure if I was up for assault, it would be totally relevant to the case if I also had a history of Assaulting people.
    The rules would be exactly the same if it was you.
    Oh yes, I'd have vast organisation behind me who seemed intent on covering it up until evidence in the public domain became overwhelming.

    PSN - effinjamie Xbox - effinjamie

  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 23:43:09 5,495 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    effinjamie wrote:
    TheSaint wrote:
    effinjamie wrote:
    maybe if a lot of the facts that are now coming to light, hadn't been withheld from the jury, we would have had a different verdict.
    I'm sure if I was up for assault, it would be totally relevant to the case if I also had a history of Assaulting people.
    The rules would be exactly the same if it was you.
    Oh yes, I'd have vast organisation behind me who seemed intent on covering it up until evidence in the public domain became overwhelming.
    Apparently it wasn't overwhelming!
  • effinjamie 19 Jul 2012 23:43:29 888 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    Urgh, not true. Not like this is the first ever failed manslaughter charge ffs.
    No but the fact that this is a serving police officer, charged to "Protect and Serve" as they say, is what is important here.

    PSN - effinjamie Xbox - effinjamie

  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 23:45:29 5,495 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    effinjamie wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    Urgh, not true. Not like this is the first ever failed manslaughter charge ffs.
    No but the fact that this is a serving police officer, charged to "Protect and Serve" as they say, is what is important here.
    So now rather than being impartial you want the law to be biased????

    That may be relevant in sentencing, but not in reaching a verdict.
  • effinjamie 19 Jul 2012 23:49:00 888 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I think the behaviour of a serving Police Officer should be held to a higher standard.

    PSN - effinjamie Xbox - effinjamie

  • Gradius 19 Jul 2012 23:50:00 2,305 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    Shit. I committed a crime of completely wrong apostrophe use.

    I'm pretty sure if you did some research you'd find that non-police officers have been acquitted under similar circumstances before.
    Yep, it has happened, but it's a game of percentages, can you tell me how many times a police officer has been successfully prosecuted for manslaughter while on duty in the UK?

    I mean they've killed a lot of innocent people right, why do they NEVER seem to get charged with it? For normal people there's a very small chance of getting an innocent verdict in a case like this, yet if you're a police officer, it's basically a sure thing you'll get away with it.
  • effinjamie 19 Jul 2012 23:51:22 888 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    There have been 1,433 deaths in police custody or following contact with officers, documented by the monitoring group Inquest, since 1990, among them Jean Charles de Menezes and Mark Duggan. Not a single police officer during that period has been convicted of manslaughter.

    PSN - effinjamie Xbox - effinjamie

  • gang_of_bitches 19 Jul 2012 23:52:34 5,495 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    EyeLand wrote:
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    That'd be compelling.
    Much more than making someone fall on there head who dies minutes later? Really?
    So you don't believe that it's in the least bit possible that an alcoholic with chronic liver disease could even possibly have died independently of this incident?
  • MightyMouse 19 Jul 2012 23:56:31 1,133 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    As with any problem that is systemic, police never getting convicted is hard to show in any single case because there are so many details to take into account, but extremely clear when looking at the overall data:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2012/jul/19/deaths-police-custody-data

    Combine this with the way that the police (mainly the Met) have lied and tried to muddy the issue in so many high-profile cases (Jean-Charles de Menezes and Mark Duggans cases most clearly) and it's clear that police aren't held to account in the same way that members of the public are, and that this obstruction of justice is something that they actively collude with.
  • effinjamie 19 Jul 2012 23:57:43 888 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    I could have a stroke and drop dead right now! But I'm sure if I'd just had a policeman smash my head into the ground, people would start to associate the two things.

    PSN - effinjamie Xbox - effinjamie

  • disusedgenius 19 Jul 2012 23:59:58 5,314 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    So you don't believe that it's in the least bit possible that an alcoholic with chronic liver disease could even possibly have died independently of this incident?
    Didn't the coroner at the trial where we was found guilty of unlawful killing say otherwise?
  • gang_of_bitches 20 Jul 2012 00:00:58 5,495 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Gradius wrote:
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    Shit. I committed a crime of completely wrong apostrophe use.

    I'm pretty sure if you did some research you'd find that non-police officers have been acquitted under similar circumstances before.
    Yep, it has happened, but it's a game of percentages, can you tell me how many times a police officer has been successfully prosecuted for manslaughter while on duty in the UK?

    I mean they've killed a lot of innocent people right, why do they NEVER seem to get charged with it? For normal people there's a very small chance of getting an innocent verdict in a case like this, yet if you're a police officer, it's basically a sure thing you'll get away with it.
    He was charged!

    You can't convict people on percentages.
  • gang_of_bitches 20 Jul 2012 00:01:55 5,495 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    disusedgenius wrote:
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    So you don't believe that it's in the least bit possible that an alcoholic with chronic liver disease could even possibly have died independently of this incident?
    Didn't the coroner at the trial where we was found guilty of unlawful killing say otherwise?
    Coroners don't preside over trials.
  • Gradius 20 Jul 2012 00:05:30 2,305 posts
    Seen 2 days ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    @gang_of_bitches You know exactly what I meant, how about answering the question instead of dodging it? How many times has a police officer been successfully prosecuted for manslaughter while on duty in the UK?
  • gang_of_bitches 20 Jul 2012 00:05:41 5,495 posts
    Seen 18 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    effinjamie wrote:
    I could have a stroke and drop dead right now! But I'm sure if I'd just had a policeman smash my head into the ground, people would start to associate the two things.
    Well that is because people are inclined to see a cause and effect that is obvious, but not necessarily correct.

    We seem to be drifting away from the point here which is that while you and I are very confident that the blow was the cause of death it apparently couldn't be proved. As such we've got to accept the verdict.
  • MightyMouse 20 Jul 2012 00:06:53 1,133 posts
    Seen 10 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Well yes, in this case the obstruction of justice is very clear. But this is a fundamental problem with the police, the IPCC and the courts.

    Here's a piece by the journalist who pursued the story, that states the issue more clearly:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jul/19/ian-tomlinson-two-contradictory-verdicts?CMP=twt_gu
  • Page

    of 37 First / Last

Log in or register to reply