Simon Harwood

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9412232/Police-officer-Simon-Harwood-cleared-of-killing-Ian-Tomlinson.html

Anyone surprised?

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1

Jack93o

Oh dear, yet another example of the police being let off :facepalm2:

Reply 2

Mister Dead

Original post by n00

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9412232/Police-officer-Simon-Harwood-cleared-of-killing-Ian-Tomlinson.html

Anyone surprised?

course not. manslaughter is perfectly OK now, dincha' know?

approaching 1500 deaths in custody or following police intervention (since 1990). has there even been a manslaughter charge yet.....

probably not. probably just very weak or clumsy prisoners

Reply 3

monk_keys

Original post by Mister Dead

Not really relevant considering he was tried by a jury of his peers.

Reply 4

JamalAhmed

Original post by monk_keys

Not really relevant considering he was tried by a jury of his peers.

WTH??????

Reply 5

onda

I have full faith in our justice system.

Reply 6

monk_keys

Original post by JamalAhmed

WTH??????

Mister Dead is using statistics to imply he got off because he is a police officer. The facts are that he had a fair trial in which the verdict was decided on by laypeople.

Reply 7

Scumbaggio

Not at all surprised, the police are generally illiterate, dishonest, lazy scum anyway.

Reply 8

n00

Original post by monk_keys

The facts are that he had a fair trial in which the verdict was decided on by laypeople.

acab

Reply 9

crocker710

Some police are just thugs in uniform which use it as an excuse to do what they want with the cover of the law. These are the minority. The vast majority of policemen (and women) are honest decent people. Cases like this do the police no favours with their public image and the perception that the public has of them. That being said, whilst it's all well and good that people can sit here and say 'it's a travesty that he's been let off', we've got to respect the decision of the court and the findings of the 12 members of the jury. They were in full place of the facts and the two different arguments presented. We've got to maintain faith in the criminal justice system, regardless of how the media portrays the case.

Reply 10

Scumbaggio

I find it impossible to respect the decision to be honest.

Ian Craven - left his dogs to die in a car
Mark Andrews - assaulted a woman in custody
Ali Dizaei - corrupt

These are just examples that have been in the media spotlight in recent times.

Reply 11

Mister Dead

Original post by monk_keys

Mister Dead is using statistics to imply he got off because he is a police officer. The facts are that he had a fair trial in which the verdict was decided on by laypeople.

it's only the miracle of modern technology that prevented the police force from covering this up by claiming no assault took place and then 'bungling' the post mortem to suit their story.

Quelle surprise!

Original post by crocker710

we've got to respect the decision of the court and the findings of the 12 members of the jury.

Which one? :s-smilie:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13268633

Original post by crocker710

We've got to maintain faith in the criminal justice system

We have?

Reply 14

TheHistoryStudent

I honestly don't know how they reached that decision... just looking at the footage you can see the guy facing away from the police line, posing walking forwards posing no threat, and then Harwood hits/pushes him with his baton, he falls over, and then (although I'm not sure on this next part...will have to find a source) - he died as a result of that fall. Harwood was proved to be the policeman that hit him, the guy died as a result of it, I honestly don't see how "not guilty" was reached. Idiocy.

Reply 15

monk_keys

Original post by TheHistoryStudent

Because being the cause of someone's death isn't automatically a criminal offence.

Reply 16

TheHistoryStudent

Original post by monk_keys

Because being the cause of someone's death isn't automatically a criminal offence.

Hmm... I'll be honest about my ignorance when it comes to topics like law, but isn't manslaughter basically killing someone (or your actions resulting in someone being killed) without the element of malicious pre-meditation? If I'm wrong and it means something different then I might be inclined (slightly...) to agree with the jury, but at the moment, due to me thinking manslaughter is basically the above, I can't see how he was found innocent...

EDIT: Doing a quick look on Wikipedia (not the best source I know...) it sounds to me like what he would have been charged with was involuntary manslaughter... which requires 3 criteria to be met:-

. defendant must do an unlawful act (in this case presumably assault)

. act must be dangerous (assault is dangerous)

. act must result in death (again not sure here, but I think a while back after a couple of coroner's reports they said it did)

Even with that though... I'm still finding it difficult to see how he's innocent, what with the video evidence and all - perhaps someone could enlighten me?

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 17

crocker710

Original post by n00

Which one? :s-smilie:

The criminal court. That's the one whose rulings upon the law are upmost. The coroner's declaration of unlawful killing is his decision and opinion. It clarifies legalities such as insurance payouts. It doesn't stipulate who may have committed a crime.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13268633

We have?

... If you're trying to be pedantic it's not working. If your faith in the criminal justice system is waiving you're more than welcome to move away from its jurisdiction and to a country where the mob rules.

Reply 18

Tesphena

I think, having watched the video, its pretty clear unreasonable force was used. Mr. Tomlinson was clearly moving out of the way, albeit slowly. There was no need for the police to move any faster than they already were, and indeed they didn't speed up after Mr. Tomlinson was knocked to the ground. I find it hard to believe that Mr. Tomlinson was obstructing any of the officer's views either, and he had his hands in his pockets so he was hardly posing a threat. Therefore I can only conclude that he shouldn't have been knocked to the ground, and that Mr. Harwood was negligent in doing so. For this reason I think a guilty verdict ought to have been reached.

Reply 19

monk_keys

Original post by TheHistoryStudent

There's two kinds, voluntary and involuntary. Voluntary is basically murder but with mitigating circumstances (domestic abuse or something like that). Involuntary is where you don't intend to kill but because you do something wrong (leaving dangerous chemicals in the wrong place or in this case using excessive force) they die. If someone just dies and it's nobody's fault it's not manslaughter.

Imagine if you had a bad heart and I was of a nervous disposition. You touch me on the shoulder to get my attention and I scream out and you have a heart-attack and die. I've killed you but it's not manslaughter.

Obviously this is not like that because he did something aggressive but the question is was that aggressive action unacceptable? Rather than was it that aggression that killed him?