G20 Protests in London Page 36

  • Page

    of 37 First / Last

  • gang_of_bitches 20 Jul 2012 00:07:49 4,931 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Gradius wrote:
    @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?
    I have absolutely no idea. What I do know is that whether the answer is none or a million you can't try people in the context of the actions of other people who happen to share a profession.
  • MetalDog 20 Jul 2012 00:09:48 23,706 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    I'm going to quote myself from elsewhere, because it's late and it took me an hour to write the first time.

    Everything else aside... whenever police initial accounts have a serious mis-match with what is proven to have happened later on - that's hugely damaging.
    It doesn't happen as often as some would have us believe, but when it does, it tends to be with very serious cases and it shatters trust

    It's very hard to mend that sort of damage once it's done. It provokes a singular outrage that I think needs to be addressed institutionally. I used to be as suspicious of the police as some of the other commenter's because of that sort of thing and it took me a long time to work my way out of the mindset and compartmentalise the good and the bad for separate consideration.

    I hope that's fair. Is it fair?

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • gang_of_bitches 20 Jul 2012 00:12:06 4,931 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    MetalDog wrote:
    I'm going to quote myself from elsewhere, because it's late and it took me an hour to write the first time.

    Everything else aside... whenever police initial accounts have a serious mis-match with what is proven to have happened later on - that's hugely damaging.
    It doesn't happen as often as some would have us believe, but when it does, it tends to be with very serious cases and it shatters trust

    It's very hard to mend that sort of damage once it's done. It provokes a singular outrage that I think needs to be addressed institutionally. I used to be as suspicious of the police as some of the other commenter's because of that sort of thing and it took me a long time to work my way out of the mindset and compartmentalise the good and the bad for separate consideration.

    I hope that's fair. Is it fair?
    That's entirely fair.
  • Gradius 20 Jul 2012 00:22:51 2,305 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    Gradius wrote:
    @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?
    I have absolutely no idea. What I do know is that whether the answer is none or a million you can't try people in the context of the actions of other people who happen to share a profession.
    I'm not saying you should try a person because of what others with the same profession have done. The point I was making was that if you're a police officer and you kill someone, you're MUCH more likely to get away with it than a normal person, and when I say "much more likely" I mean that to my knowledge, for all the innocent people that on-duty officers have killed, there has been exactly zero prosecutions...I'd like to know why that is...
  • MetalDog 20 Jul 2012 00:27:20 23,706 posts
    Seen 2 weeks ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    The improvements made on the racism front have been vast and do give me hope that this can be rectified as well. Every institution has its problems and I have some faith, based on past changes, that the Police are an institution that are capable of facing up to their problems. It's a major reason I consider the force worth fighting for.

    I have to be up early tomorrow, why the fuck aren't I in bed? Goodnight!

    -- boobs do nothing for me, I want moustaches and chest hair.

  • gang_of_bitches 20 Jul 2012 00:36:18 4,931 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    Gradius wrote:
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    Gradius wrote:
    @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?
    I have absolutely no idea. What I do know is that whether the answer is none or a million you can't try people in the context of the actions of other people who happen to share a profession.
    I'm not saying you should try a person because of what others with the same profession have done. The point I was making was that if you're a police officer and you kill someone, you're MUCH more likely to get away with it than a normal person, and when I say "much more likely" I mean that to my knowledge, for all the innocent people that on-duty officers have killed, there has been exactly zero prosecutions...I'd like to know why that is...
    I take it you mean exactly zero successful prosecutions as this was quite clearly a prosecutions.

    Why do police officers "get away with it"? I guess the possible reasons are;

    a) Police know the law.
    b) The CPS go easy on them.
    c) Prosecution barristers go easy on them.
    d) Prosecutions lawyers are low quality.
    e) Jurors don't believe police officers could commit such crimes.
    f) No police officer has ever killed on duty.
    g) The Police Federation can pay for excellent defense council.
    h) These incidents often occur in highly charged circumstances where getting a clear view of accounts is hard.
    i) Fellow officers perjur themselves for the defence.

    Can't think of any others.

    Of those listed I can see all of them being factors except c), e) and f).
  • Gradius 20 Jul 2012 00:55:44 2,305 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    Gradius wrote:
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    Gradius wrote:
    @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?
    I have absolutely no idea. What I do know is that whether the answer is none or a million you can't try people in the context of the actions of other people who happen to share a profession.
    I'm not saying you should try a person because of what others with the same profession have done. The point I was making was that if you're a police officer and you kill someone, you're MUCH more likely to get away with it than a normal person, and when I say "much more likely" I mean that to my knowledge, for all the innocent people that on-duty officers have killed, there has been exactly zero prosecutions...I'd like to know why that is...
    I take it you mean exactly zero successful prosecutions as this was quite clearly a prosecutions.

    Why do police officers "get away with it"? I guess the possible reasons are;

    a) Police know the law.
    b) The CPS go easy on them.
    c) Prosecution barristers go easy on them.
    d) Prosecutions lawyers are low quality.
    e) Jurors don't believe police officers could commit such crimes.
    f) No police officer has ever killed on duty.
    g) The Police Federation can pay for excellent defense council.
    h) These incidents often occur in highly charged circumstances where getting a clear view of accounts is hard.
    i) Fellow officers perjur themselves for the defence.

    Can't think of any others.

    Of those listed I can see all of them being factors except c), e) and f).
    Yes I do mean 'successful prosecution', as stated in my original question to you, which you've just quoted, anyway it seems you're not denying that police officers get away with killing people in circumstances where the average Joe would have been locked up. So I'm not really sure why you were trying to downplay/deny this point earlier.

    Edited by Gradius at 00:56:50 20-07-2012
  • disusedgenius 20 Jul 2012 01:02:40 5,140 posts
    Seen 7 minutes ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    Coroners don't preside over trials.
    No, but they are there to answer questions like that. :/
  • gang_of_bitches 20 Jul 2012 01:08:56 4,931 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    @Gradius

    Pedantry time: You said "prosecutions". This case came about as the result of a prosecution, hence your assertion that there have been zero "prosecutions" is incorrect.

    I'm not saying what would happen to the average Joe at all. I'm talking about possible factors that may lead to an officer not being charged/found not guilty. I don't recall saying there was no difference in the likelihood of a policeman and member of the public being convicted, I'm tired though, feel free to quote and show me up if I did.
  • Gradius 20 Jul 2012 01:28:59 2,305 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    gang_of_bitches wrote:
    @Gradius

    Pedantry time: You said "prosecutions". This case came about as the result of a prosecution, hence your assertion that there have been zero "prosecutions" is incorrect.

    I'm not saying what would happen to the average Joe at all. I'm talking about possible factors that may lead to an officer not being charged/found not guilty. I don't recall saying there was no difference in the likelihood of a policeman and member of the public being convicted, I'm tired though, feel free to quote and show me up if I did.
    As I had already specified "successful" prosecutions, in the context of this conversation I didn't think I had to keep spelling it out, I thought (perhaps wrongly) that it was clear exactly what I was talking about.

    In regards to you downplaying my assertion that the police seem to be above the law when it comes to killing innocent people, you basically just brushed my comment off, saying "You can't convict people on percentages", which wasn't at all what I was implying was (or should be) the case, you seem very defensive on this subject and perhaps you have your reasons for that but you seem to dance around, dismiss or downplay certain aspects of this discussion. Anyway, no hard feelings, I'm also tired so I'm going to bed.
  • damagedinc 20 Jul 2012 07:35:52 626 posts
    Seen 42 minutes ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Those that are saying he should have been guilty. How many of those have said 'save randy' from lamb of god. Different but ultimatly the same situation.

    Also i wouldnt be so sure this guys as innocent as made out. Its like the other woman that got hit in g20. She is notorious for assault on police by spraying acid from spray bottles. Of cause that doesnt sell papers.
  • Deleted user 20 July 2012 07:50:10
    The circumstances where police officers are involved in incidents like this are not those joe public would be in, hence that argument is not valid. Fact is the videos shown on tv have no sound and only show seconds of what happened without context.
  • the_dudefather 20 Jul 2012 08:17:39 8,976 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 8 years ago
    damagedinc wrote:
    Also i wouldnt be so sure this guys as innocent as made out. Its like the other woman that got hit in g20. She is notorious for assault on police by spraying acid from spray bottles. Of cause that doesnt sell papers.
    Maybe he had tiny nuclear weapons in his pockets and the brave Police officer saved Britain by striking him down

    (ง ͠ ͟ʖ ͡)

  • AaronTurner 20 Jul 2012 08:26:58 7,521 posts
    Seen 46 minutes ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    Nope I don't get it, were the court told about Tomlinson's alcohol abuse and past life? If so then that may have affected the outcome, how is this fair if the court aren't told about the PC's previous history?
  • Rusty_M 20 Jul 2012 08:59:27 4,344 posts
    Seen 55 minutes ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    AaronTurner wrote:
    Nope I don't get it, were the court told about Tomlinson's alcohol abuse and past life? If so then that may have affected the outcome, how is this fair if the court aren't told about the PC's previous history?
    because apparently the PCs history was unsubstantiated.

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

  • Megapocalypse 20 Jul 2012 10:49:18 5,228 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Harwood's previous would not be deemed relevant to the question being asked. Bad character evidence can only be introduced under strict conditions as each case should be judged on its own merit.

    The question was not 'did Harwood push him?' as he admitted that. If he hadn't, then showing he had previous allegations of violence could be deemed relevant to assisting the jury. The questions were 'was the force excessive?' and 'did the push kill him?'. Knowledge of Harwood's previous allegations would not assist in answering those two questions.
  • RyanDS 20 Jul 2012 12:17:09 8,691 posts
    Seen 36 minutes ago
    Registered 5 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.
    Those rules exist for a very good reason, otherwise you can't get a fair trial.

    Just because someone has a bad reputation doesn't mean that he did this particular crime. It should be judged on the facts of this case only. Otherwise people with a criminal history get royally fucked over.
  • Tom_Servo 20 Jul 2012 12:27:32 15,485 posts
    Seen 53 seconds ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Yeah, what ryandsimmons said. It would prejudice the jury.

    Having said that, I'm surprised that the stuff about one of the pathologists wasn't disclosed to the jury. Surely that should be taken into account when the jury are verifying the medical evidence? Maybe one of the more legal-minded forumites can explain that one. Anyway, here's the stuff about the pathologist:

    He is no longer registered on the Home Office list of forensic pathologists, and has been suspended twice by the General Medical Council after being found guilty of conducting botched postmortems and falsifying his CV. In one case, Patel is suspected of having conducted an autopsy on the wrong body. (From this article on The Guardian)

    edit: Later in the article it says three other pathologists disagreed with Patel and concluded the cause of death came from internal bleeding. Another quote from the same article:

    But Patel who conducted the first and most important autopsy and discarded the bloody fluid found in Tomlinson's abdomen was the key witness. ... The small community of forensic pathologists privately expressed surprise when it first emerged that such a high-profile autopsy had been entrusted to Patel.

    Edited by Tom_Servo at 12:30:13 20-07-2012
  • effinjamie 20 Jul 2012 18:39:19 864 posts
    Seen 49 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @ryandsimmons well it wasn't any particular rule, it was just this Judges ruling in this case.

    PSN - effinjamie Xbox - Misanthropy TT

  • Megapocalypse 20 Jul 2012 18:57:08 5,228 posts
    Seen 12 minutes ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Actually, its part of the Criminal Justice Act 2003. See the chapter on Bad Character.
  • Gradius 20 Jul 2012 19:40:41 2,305 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    If I'd just murdered an innocent old man and got away with it, I'd seriously try REALLY hard not to look like this much of a smug cunt afterwards...Especially not while people are pointing cameras at me.



    Edited by Gradius at 19:44:07 20-07-2012

    Edited by Gradius at 19:46:24 20-07-2012
  • Gradius 20 Jul 2012 19:59:52 2,305 posts
    Seen 2 months ago
    Registered 6 years ago
    DisneyJon wrote:
    The circumstances where police officers are involved in incidents like this are not those joe public would be in, hence that argument is not valid. Fact is the videos shown on tv have no sound and only show seconds of what happened without context.
    The fact that a police officer may face stressful, dangerous, etc, situations more often than an average person doesn't make the comparison invalid at all in my opinion. What does make the comparison slightly invalid is that officers are trained and should theoretically be able to handle certain 'circumstances' much more competently than a normal person perhaps might, so really they should be treated in a harsher way when they mess up (murder innocent elderly people), but of course they get let off, while normal untrained people generally wouldn't be quite so "lucky"..

    Edited by Gradius at 20:01:21 20-07-2012
  • Tom_Servo 17 Sep 2012 15:04:43 15,485 posts
    Seen 53 seconds ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    Sacked for gross misconduct
  • dogbot 17 Sep 2012 18:16:52 2,272 posts
    Seen 6 months ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    But conveniently, still gets his pension, the cunt.
  • thelzdking 17 Sep 2012 18:20:30 3,953 posts
    Seen 9 hours ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    Disgraceful.
  • Page

    of 37 First / Last

Log in or register to reply